Society for ego validation.

[maestro]

Most human groupings form on the basis of ego validation.
For example consider friendship in this structure the friends tend to share common interests and vision, in their interaction they reinforce this and tend to see the outside world through their shared vision creating a us-vs-them dynamic. A person who does not share in their worldview is summarily discussed as a fool or even as a common enemy. Thus the ego finds strength through reinforcement.

A similar case can be made for the family. In a non-dysfunctional family every member tries to uphold the family's interest vs the rest of the world, children by being bought up in the environment imbibe values from their parents and thus reinforce the parent's ego.

Whenever ego gratification stops these groupings become dysfunctional. Friendship breaks down instantaneously (in fact enmity may result due to the sudden jolt to the ego), family drags on for a while due to legal,moral social bindings.

Such an argument can be made for any voluntary organized structure. Like the various clubs like Mensa etc.

Consider Genius Forum for example. The parents (i.e. the moderators) of this club hold opinions outside of the mainstream (social and intellectual). Consider excessive women bashing, living on welfare and believing in logic to reveal absolute truths.

Many young members have a need for a guru figure and they are influenced by the parents and then chant the standard line ad infinitum. They are the reinforcement the parents need.
Thus while their world view would be under attack from most people out there these followers have created a ego validation group for the parents and vice versa.


Then there are people with guru complexes who come here often, and believe that they would drop a few nuggets of wisdom and the people would see the truth.

There are others too whose ego thrives on conflict on the message board while others come here to be entertained.

The dynamics and setup of this place is just a means of supporting and propagating the ego all the talk of enlightenment notwithstanding.

[Cory Duchesne]

Good post. Yeah, that's pretty much how relationships work, generally. Without the members dwelling in the same mutual ego comfort, friendship, as we commonly know it, isn't really possible.

Friendship weakens when one of the members starts to feel uncomfortable with what was originally agreed upon as good, and desires to attain that which his former partner finds uncomfortable.

As for the value of this forum,

I've always seen this forum as a great place to expose and attack my vulnerabilities and fears. The whole concept of 'poison for the heart' is a great one in my view - after suffering the various tolls, you are that much less vulnerable to getting upset and troubled by views that attack your values, and thus can live with greater foresight, control and peace. I'd rather dismantle my fear and suffering manually, rather than unintentionally suffer the brunt of the generic events that involuntarily swamp your typical folk. This forum and the literature connected to it is a resource in that sense. It's like a gym. You use the gym to work out and become strong. In another sense, it is like a fire, and suffering is like warm water in the pot of your mind. This place, if you are serious about learning, will increase your suffering, much like a fire increases the temperature of water. If you let your suffering reach the boiling point then your suffering will be converted and gradually the very source of suffering will be removed from your mind, much like boiling water is removed out of a pot via conversion into steam.

[Imadrongo]

Groups = ego validation.
Alone = ego validation.

Whether your get your ego boost from being liked by others or from being "above that", you are getting it either way.

[Ryan Rudolph]

maestro,

For example consider friendship in this structure the friends tend to share common interests and vision, in their interaction they reinforce this and tend to see the outside world through their shared vision creating a us-vs-them dynamic. A person who does not share in their worldview is summarily discussed as a fool or even as a common enemy. Thus the ego finds strength through reinforcement.

I think this is a necessary stage for some, as Cory said, this place is like training wheels, and some need to feel they have support before they can drastically alter their behavior to coincide with wisdom.

Consider Genius Forum for example. The parents (i.e. the moderators) of this club hold opinions outside of the mainstream (social and intellectual). Consider excessive women bashing, living on welfare and believing in logic to reveal absolute truths.

I don’t think the moderators should be seen as some sort of collective mind, they are unique thinkers, with unique imperfections, although a common foundation of wisdom unites them. However, there is nothing ‘wrong’ with sharing a rational foundation.

There are others too whose ego thrives on conflict on the message board while others come here to be entertained.

Yes, and some come to humbly ask questions in topics that they are ignorant, start discussions to clear up their confusion, and harshly criticize others, and each has its place.

[divine focus]

All true, but no need for harshness.

[maestro]

Ryan

I don’t think the moderators should be seen as some sort of collective mind, they are unique thinkers, with unique imperfections, although a common foundation of wisdom unites them. However, there is nothing ‘wrong’ with sharing a rational foundation.

.
If the moderators are unique thinkers with unique imperfections they should challenge each other more often, on their philosophy. This would show that they are not your usual cronies who just nod in unison. Especially troublesome is the emotional level group-think in regards to women. If they believe empirically that women are incapable of enlightenment then so be it, why make a big deal of it. The trees are incapable of enlightenment too, does that matter. The only discord I saw was when Kevin went to America, and then it looked more like an emotional outburst against him based since he did not fit Dan's and David's image of what a sage should do and not do (again women played a big part).

[maestro]

Cory:

I've always seen this forum as a great place to expose and attack my vulnerabilities and fears. The whole concept of 'poison for the heart' is a great one in my view - after suffering the various tolls, you are that much less vulnerable to getting upset and troubled by views that attack your values, and thus can live with greater foresight, control and peace. I'd rather dismantle my fear and suffering manually, rather than unintentionally suffer the brunt of the generic events that involuntarily swamp your typical folk. This forum and the literature connected to it is a resource in that sense. It's like a gym. You use the gym to work out and become strong. In another sense, it is like a fire, and suffering is like warm water in the pot of your mind. This place, if you are serious about learning, will increase your suffering, much like a fire increases the temperature of water. If you let your suffering reach the boiling point then your suffering will be converted and gradually the very source of suffering will be removed from your mind, much like boiling water is removed out of a pot via conversion into steam.

Your intentions are noble, but I wish this were more of a "a great place to expose and attack vulnerabilities and fears", but it seems to suffer from Groupthink, see the reply I posted to Ryan.

[maestro]

Groups = ego validation.
Alone = ego validation.

Whether your get your ego boost from being liked by others or from being "above that", you are getting it either way.

You are correct, here Neil.

However : Does the self exist? and by the self I mean a central authority who is separate from the world and is controller of the body and the mind. Most people base their lives around existence of the self and also the language is structured around it (which dooms everybody from the beginning, since mind depends on language). Indeed society is structured around this belief and hence the competition and survival of the fittest and whatnot. However following any logical argument or even empiricism (like science) it is trivial to deduce that it is not so and your so called self is as imaginary as the Christian God, and the body mind is as much a part of nature (or cause and effect) as anything else. If the intellect aligns itself with this correct worldview the constant tension and struggle created by a separate existence ceases. This is what is called as dissolution of the ego by Buddhism.

[David Quinn]

Groups = ego validation.
Alone = ego validation.

Whether your get your ego boost from being liked by others or from being "above that", you are getting it either way.

That is undeniable, but has no bearing on those who are truly wise and alone.

-

[David Quinn]

maestro wrote:

If the moderators are unique thinkers with unique imperfections they should challenge each other more often, on their philosophy.

Not possible, as our philosophies are too watertight. It isn't possible to question A=A.

This would show that they are not your usual cronies who just nod in unison. Especially troublesome is the emotional level group-think in regards to women. If they believe empirically that women are incapable of enlightenment then so be it, why make a big deal of it. The trees are incapable of enlightenment too, does that matter.

The world doesn't revolve around trees. People aren't besotted with trees. Brains turning into wood isn't a major problem at the moment.

The only discord I saw was when Kevin went to America, and then it looked more like an emotional outburst against him based since he did not fit Dan's and David's image of what a sage should do and not do (again women played a big part).

I disagree that it was emotional, but my challenge was based on my understanding of how a sage should behave, yes. I make no apologies for that.

-

[maestro]

Not possible, as our philosophies are too watertight. It isn't possible to question A=A.

What do you mean by A=A. This means that something is what it is. Isn't this a tautology or a rule of logic.
Philosophy in my view should be
1) Observing the world
2) Forming hypothesis (or axioms)
3)Using logic/empiricism to test it.
Others can challenge the validity of the axioms and the soundness of logic, as well as bring contradictory empirical evidence.

The world doesn't revolve around trees. People aren't besotted with trees. Brains turning into wood isn't a major problem at the moment.

Yes but philosophers do not care for women (or trees too much). Are you concerned with the asleep masses or the true seeker.

I disagree that it was emotional, but my challenge was based on my understanding of how a sage should behave, yes. I make no apologies for that.

Now consider these axioms

1) A Sage knows how a Sage should/would behave
2) Kevin is a Sage
3) David is a Sage

Evidence: David says Kevin did not behave like a sage.
The axioms are inconsistent with the evidence, so at least one of the axioms is false. Which one do you think it is?

[Rhett]

The only discord I saw was when Kevin went to America, . . .

Could someone please point me to where this is?

[David Quinn]

maestro,

DQ: Not possible, as our philosophies are too watertight. It isn't possible to question A=A.

M: What do you mean by A=A. This means that something is what it is. Isn't this a tautology or a rule of logic.

It is the basis of all logic and consciousness. When a person's thinking conforms perfectly with A=A, when there are no contradictions or assumptions contained therein, it cannot be rationally challenged.

Philosophy in my view should be
1) Observing the world
2) Forming hypothesis (or axioms)
3)Using logic/empiricism to test it.
Others can challenge the validity of the axioms and the soundness of logic, as well as bring contradictory empirical evidence.

That's true, but I find Kevin and Dan's thinking on the fundamentals to be faultless.

DQ: The world doesn't revolve around trees. People aren't besotted with trees. Brains turning into wood isn't a major problem at the moment.

M: Yes but philosophers do not care for women (or trees too much). Are you concerned with the asleep masses or the true seeker.

The latter, mainly. But even the true seeker has to find ways to break the spell of woman and femininity, which grips the mind of nearly everyone. It isn't easy and goes much deeper than most people imagine. I like to help such seekers as much as possible.

DQ: I disagree that it was emotional, but my challenge was based on my understanding of how a sage should behave, yes. I make no apologies for that.

M: Now consider these axioms

1) A Sage knows how a Sage should/would behave
2) Kevin is a Sage
3) David is a Sage

Evidence: David says Kevin did not behave like a sage.
The axioms are inconsistent with the evidence, so at least one of the axioms is false. Which one do you think it is?

2 and 3 are false. Neither of us are perfect sages, and thus we are still vulnerable to falling away from the path, even if only subtly.

-

[David Quinn]

The only discord I saw was when Kevin went to America, . . .

Could someone please point me to where this is?

Thanks to those I visited in the US and Canada.

Enjoy.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

This would show that they are not your usual cronies who just nod in unison.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. You think they are 'unusual' cronies, who nod in unison, and.............?

Especially troublesome is the emotional level group-think in regards to women. If they believe empirically that women are incapable of enlightenment then so be it, why make a big deal of it. The trees are incapable of enlightenment too, does that matter?

But trees are not significantly interfering with our ability to be rational beings. Femininity is interfering with such ability, so it's reasonable to point out it's shortcomings, especially given man's tendency to put femininity up on a pedestal as something noble and spiritual.

^ the validity of this is what you need to attack if you are going to get somewhere, IMO.

The only discord I saw was when Kevin went to America, and then it looked more like an emotional outburst against him based since he did not fit Dan's and David's image of what a sage should do and not do (again women played a big part).

In my view, too much concern with the character of the mods is just an indicator that you yourself want ego validation, that you don't want to think for yourself, that you actually want authority figures to follow. You're original post was insightful, and I think that insight was born out of self understanding. You know how your own mind works, to some degree, and thus you can see the dynamics of the forum. So are you going to be a hypocrite? Or are you going to just carry on and live to the best of your ability?

A particular poster comes to mind, I won't bother giving his name, but it seems like once a week we get a post from him about how bad the forum is, how unspiritual it is, how the mods and forum members suck, etc. He doesn't really contribute much more than that, and yet, he doesn't go away. He sticks around. Why? For the reasons you mentioned in you're original post.

He's not so different from a child complaining that his parents didn't push him enough, didn't buy him the present he wanted, etc. And that's not so different from the wife complaining about her husband's lack of initiative in doing what she wants him to do.

[maestro]

It is the basis of all logic and consciousness. When a person's thinking conforms perfectly with A=A, when there are no contradictions or assumptions contained therein, it cannot be rationally challenged.

You are saying if philosophy is logically consistent, it cannot be challenged. But what if it is logically consistent but is not supported empirically. It can be challenged on those grounds. Thus the axioms of the philosophy (and deductions thereof) are the interesting bits, assuming it is logically consistent.
(I guess your axiom is cause and effect. Which satisfies consistency and empiricism. Though cause and effect could be tricky to define, where does the cause end and effect begin? )

2 and 3 are false. Neither of us are perfect sages, and thus we are still vulnerable to falling away from the path, even if only subtly.

What do you mean by perfect sage. Why should a sage be not subject to cause and effect but follow some arbitrary mental model of perfection? There is inconsistency here.

[maestro]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. You think they are 'unusual' cronies, who nod in unison,

and it would be better if one of sometimes them plays the Devil's advocate with full force to expose the finer points of their mutual philosophy and why it is consistent and stands to scrutiny, and is a good model of the universe.

Feminity: The validity of this is what you need to attack if you are going to get somewhere

Yes but others things can be attacked too for example the media, the competitiveness, the narrowing down of the life of intellect to science and maths only, the purpose of life reduced to making money etc. These are far more important issues, for me. Attacking feminine all the time reeks of emotional malice due to frustrated sexuality.

In my view, too much concern with the character of the mods is just an indicator that you yourself want ego validation, that you don't want to think for yourself, that you actually want authority figures to follow.

That is a valid hypothesis.

[Ryan Rudolph]

maestro,

Attacking feminine all the time reeks of emotional malice due to frustrated sexuality.

That is only one possibility. The ending of man’s attachment to women has a domino affect that quickly destroys all of his lesser feminine delusions related to materialism, competitiveness and so on. Why? Because men devote themselves to one specialization, and to the pursuit of material things for one major reason – to keep their women happy.

So if men learn that women are no longer worth pursuing by sacrificing ones entire life, then all the other lesser material pursuits are also not worth pursuing either because they are merely chased after for please women.

[Imadrongo]

Your logic: The only reason men do anything is for women. When men are free from the 'woman delusion' they won't do anything.

How about women. Do they do anything other than for men? "Status game!" And men -- don't men also do things for status, contrary to your idea that they only do things for women?

Wait... the status game is also a delusion, in fact we have redefined masculinity in such a way that it excludes the status game to women only. This reeks not only of frustrated sexuality, but of frustration with failing at the status game.

Rationalization:
Lack of power ==> condemnation of power. Isn't this the same thing the Christians do?

[maestro]

maestro,

Attacking feminine all the time reeks of emotional malice due to frustrated sexuality.

That is only one possibility. The ending of man’s attachment to women has a domino affect that quickly destroys all of his lesser feminine delusions related to materialism, competitiveness and so on. Why? Because men devote themselves to one specialization, and to the pursuit of material things for one major reason – to keep their women happy.

So if men learn that women are no longer worth pursuing by sacrificing ones entire life, then all the other lesser material pursuits are also not worth pursuing either because they are merely chased after for please women.

I have to agree with Neil here it is for ego fortification that man seeks status and specialization (which confers money and power), and not that he seeks these because woman is the prime factor.
If woman is the linchpin which holds this together, then a boy castrated before puberty would be automatically enlightened.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I still disagree with the both of you.

The status game is intimately connected to man’s desire for woman. Dave Chapelle said it best when he said, “if a man could fuck a woman inside a cardboard box, he wouldn’t buy a house”

Men would be naturally comfortable in modest living conditions, but it is their deep longing for women that causes them to strive to become. And once he secures her, then she is the driving force motivating him to work hard to keep what he has, and work harder to achieve more.

Because let us not forget that the ego is motivated by unresolved longings, so ego fortification as you say is merely the pursuit of outward things as a means to feebly attempt to satisfy a deep inward longing. And the deepest male longing is for women. So therefore, the decision of the moderators to focus on women seems highly appropriate given the current psychological predicament of the male psyche.

[Imadrongo]

I still disagree with the both of you.

The status game is intimately connected to man’s desire for woman. Dave Chapelle said it best when he said, “if a man could fuck a woman inside a cardboard box, he wouldn’t buy a house”

That is only true for a certain type of hedonistic men who just want to have sex with women and do nothing else with their lives. (Chapelles audience perhaps.)

I'm sure there are women who would agree with "if a woman could get fucked by a man without looking sexually attractive, she wouldn't do her hair, watch her weight, get dressed sexy, etc."

What is really at bottom here is having values or desires, period. You nearly lack them and you nearly lack will to power. You are weary of life and looking to not exist. Using women as a scapegoat for all "problems" shows where you failed. You negate the value of that which you are not, and protect that which you closely identify with.

Men would be naturally comfortable in modest living conditions, but it is their deep longing for women that causes them to strive to become. And once he secures her, then she is the driving force motivating him to work hard to keep what he has, and work harder to achieve more.

Okay so is this bad because man strives to become, or because woman is involved, or both? Becoming is bad, woman is bad, life is bad, la la la, if I was as moral as you wish I was I would pity you Ryan.

Because let us not forget that the ego is motivated by unresolved longings, so ego fortification as you say is merely the pursuit of outward things as a means to feebly attempt to satisfy a deep inward longing.

And what are you trying to satisfy? You also have unresolved longings. Perhaps you have unresolved longings for women, but since they don't work out you are busy fortifying your egotistic position that only inferior men have women. ;-)

[Cory Duchesne]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. You think they are 'unusual' cronies, who nod in unison,

and it would be better if one of them sometimes plays the Devil's advocate with full force to expose the finer points of their mutual philosophy and why it is consistent and stands to scrutiny, and is a good model of the universe.

Maestro, have you yourself made an effort to play the Devil's advocate against the QRS? Have you done it with mild force, moderate force or full force?

What finer points have been exposed because of your efforts?

What is missing?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Neil wrote:

What is really at bottom here is having values or desires, period. You nearly lack them and you nearly lack will to power. You are weary of life and looking to not exist. Using women as a scapegoat for all "problems" shows where you failed. You negate the value of that which you are not, and protect that which you closely identify with.

I’m not weary of life, just not interested in how many people live their lives. I enjoy learning about the progress of science, and higher forms of comprehension. I would say I have a curiosity about the way things are.

The will to power is fine if you were born into that role, but if you were born with very little money and no connections, then to go through all societies hoops with no guarantee of being where you want to be seems quite risky to me.

At the end of it all, you could end up with a lot of student debt, and stuck in a situation that you don’t want to be in.

Not to mention that most positions of power require that you remain in relationship to people of lesser intelligence, therefore to keep one’s position, it requires a certain amount of diplomacy and generic socializing, which would be difficult to keep up after awhile.

Also most people do not share a wise man’s values, so it would be very difficult to push your agenda. For an honest man, to keep a position of power would require a certain about of compromise, which isn’t worth the effort…

[Imadrongo]

The will to power is fine if you were born into that role, but if you were born with very little money and no connections, then to go through all societies hoops with no guarantee of being where you want to be seems quite risky to me.

Did I forget to mention that you don't like taking risks because risks cause suffering? You lack courage. Your motivation is to end suffering.

At the end of it all, you could end up with a lot of student debt, and stuck in a situation that you don’t want to be in.

"If I take risks I might fail and end up worse off than I started. Therefore since I am the voice of rationality I will not take risks!" Plus umm... don't only failures end up stuck in a situation they don't want to be in, playing the role of a victim? "You can't fail if you don't try!"

Not to mention that most positions of power require that you remain in relationship to people of lesser intelligence, therefore to keep one’s position, it requires a certain amount of diplomacy and generic socializing, which would be difficult to keep up after awhile.

"It would be difficult after awhile, therefore one must be discouraged from attempting it. It might break one." "Plus, one shouldn't socialize with people of lesser intelligence, which happens to be everyone who successful gets women or has goals, desires, or will to power in life."

Also most people do not share a wise man’s values, so it would be very difficult to push your agenda.

Your desires, I'm sure would be more difficult than others, and if something is difficult it is probably a bad choice, too risky, to attempt it. But are you really wise?

For an honest man, to keep a position of power would require a certain about of compromise, which isn’t worth the effort…

Perhaps you shouldn't be so honest.