Mental Universe

[Jason]

Yes, Truth “is everywhere”. And being ‘everywhere’, you cannot move away from, or closer, to it. But, you can move closer to an intellectual understanding of the Truth - as I wrote of above.

Ok, so we're in agreement. Maybe this seems pedantic, but I think it should be made clear when one is talking about understanding the nature of Truth(which is finite), as opposed to when one is talking about Truth itself(which is Infinite). I think it is an important point. I notice that a number of people here have a habit of being quite vague about which one they are referring to, and I've probably guilty of this too. I think it can give the appearance of contradiction, as if the finite and infinite are being mixed up willy nilly.

[Dan Rowden]

Oh, but they're the same thing! There can be no confusion!

Well, there can, but only if you're ignorant.

[Jason]

Oh, but they're the same thing! There can be no confusion!

Well, there can, but only if you're ignorant.

Come again?

[Dan Rowden]

No, I won't. We've been over this so many times. I am empty.

[Jason]

Why do I feel Like Jason has become to Genius Forum what "Lobster" was to Genius-L?

i.e. irritating for the sake of it.


Dan Rowden

You know, you're right, I admit it, I have been specifically crafting the majority of my posts to be irritating. But I irritate for goals other than just pure irritation, although I do find some amusement in the irritation itself too.

There are a few reasons why I have been doing this. Sometimes I think the forum has become a bit too enaged in a sort of guru/disciple dynamic. I suppose that's to be expected when people join here after reading through QSR sites. I don't think it's healthy, it's too unquestioning, it's lacking in vigour. So I suppose I'm trying to put thorns in the side of the gurus in front of the disciples. I've found that when I get too engaged, I tend to get bogged down and lose all impact, so I just try to whittle away bit by bit, just be this little constant irritant.

Another reason is I've been trying to orientate myself to be most effective in what I get out and put into this place. I've been very selective and tactical in what I post. I've been treating it like a war game, with objectives to be met. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that these are stupid ways to approach the forum. I'm glad you pointed it out Dan. I really do need to try a fresh approach, my current approach is killing my spirit.

[sue hindmarsh]

Beingof1,

Sue: If you are a scientist, your mind is focused on science; if you are a baker, your mind is focused on bread making; if you are a mechanic, your mind is focused on car engines; if you are a philosopher, your mind is focused on Truth, etc. "Titles" describe quite clearly what a persons mind is like.

Bof1: And if you are a mother your mind is focused on motherhood and if you are cooking dinner your mind is focused on cooking and if you are fishing your mind is focused on fishing ad redundant infinitum.

People focus their minds on the things they value. For example: if you value the idea of becoming a top golfer you will dedicate your time to improving your grip, swing, and stance. If you value Truth, you will dedicate you time to strengthening your thoughts by focusing on Truth alone.

"What do you do before enlightenment?" asked the sage.
"Chop wood carry water" answered the student.
"What do you do after enlightenment?" asked the student.
"Chop wood carry water" said the sage.

Are you suggesting that the student and the sage share the same world view?

Sue: If you are interested in understanding the Ultimate, then Bohm's ideas wouldn't even warrant a glance. If you want to fill your mind with more distractions to keep you safely away from understanding Reality, then he is definitely the best man for the job.

Bof1: Then why the need to appeal to any science or scientist whatsoever?
Its easy to pick and choose the science we like and then dismiss all others as "distractions" when one is engaged in preserving beliefs.

In David's first post on this thread, he points out that "the article doesn't really explore the philosophical ramifications of the truth that all things are mentally created". So, I’d say that David wasn't looking to science to 'back' his ideas, he was instead exposing the fact that even when scientists get close to some understanding of the Infinite, they can’t go any further because they are stuck within the confines of the scientific mindset. If they were philosophers first and scientists second, they would be able to take that next step.

I’m not denying that science is useful and beneficial, but I think it could be even more useful and beneficial if the people doing it first understood Nature completely.

Sue: If you spend your life doing a job without knowing anything about Truth, you are living a wasted life. Each moment lived in ignorance is a wasted moment. The only person who is not wasting his life is the Philosopher: since he alone understands all there is to understand about life, and thereby lives his life according to that understanding.

Bof1: Does a beggar qualify without the title? How about ascetic? How about a former prince?

It is easy to attach meaning to a description and then idealize the word as a catalyst to some goal that is unattainable. If the description is an image in the mind then the goal post can always conveniently be moved. Meaning you can always retreat behind the title and thereby excluding anyone without the title you have chosen not to bestow upon.

When a man becomes a philosopher, he does so because he believes that this is the most important thing he can do with his life. In this way, the philosopher and other men are the same.

As time goes by, and the philosopher’s understanding of Truth deepens, he sees that his ‘life’ is but an illusion. He knows that an illusion cannot profit in any way, which means that he cannot gain any sense of self worth, celebrate progress, lament failure, or consider himself anything at all. Yet, knowing this, he continues on his way. This is where the philosopher and other men diverge.

For example; if I told you I was a sage and enlightened you would probably doubt that because it does not 'fit' the image in your mind.

A sage recognizes another sage because they both know the same Truth. So, if you were a sage, another sage would recognize you immediately.

While you are chopping wood, can you contemplate the infinite? Is this man a wood chopper or philosopher?

What wood? What wood chopper? What chopping? What philosopher?

A man is not a title and truth cannot be confined to preconceived ideas. A man defies all titles. Anyone trapped in delusion is defined by job description or hides behind a title.

Most men are nothing more than the title they have grown into.

Usually, when two men meet for the first time, they introduce themselves and then straight after say what job they do. For example, "Hello, I'm Bob, the builder". “Hi, I’m Sam, the fireman.” Even if a man is unemployed, he'll still tell the other chap about his past jobs, and then add a description of the job he is now looking for.

As boys develop into men they discover that, unlike women, who are given direct entry into society (because they are women), men have to work hard to become 'someone' so as to be deemed by everyone else in society (especially women) worthy of inclusion.

Men therefore must be 'someone', to have a life.

A sage, on the other hand, doesn't need to depend on being a 'someone', as he already knows he's a 'nobody'.

Sue: 'Having fun' is how foolish people describe their mindless, untruthful, ugly lives. If you value consciousness, you don't value 'fun'.

Bof1: And when asked "Lord, what is the purpose of enlightenment?"
The Buddha smiled.

Yes, the Buddha was a fun sort of guy alright! His 'fun' was that experienced by all enlightened folk: the fun of freely striding through the Infinite. Unlike most people's idea of fun, which depends on escaping from toil and boredom; the highly developed thinker’s fun arises out of his understanding that he and the Infinite are one. That's why when you read wise men's writings, or meet up with them, they are always at ease: having not a care in the world.

Can I chop wood and carry water while motivated by truth?

If you need wood, chop it. If you need water, carry it. If you wish to live truthfully, live according to Truth.

Fun, for the most part, is a stimulation of the senses designed to keep one from confronting truth. I think we agree here.

Yes, fun, along with all other emotions, keep most people very busy; so busy infact, they never have time to think about anything at all! Most folk are just struggling to keep their heads above water, their lives filled with chores, women, work, crying, children, sports, television, destruction, religion, wars, study, sex, exercise, health, fashion, fighting, decorating, gardening, parties, drugs, alcohol, eating, cooking, shopping, moving house, driving, catching public transport, marring, getting divorced, giving birth, sickness, dying, begging, teaching, raping, cleaning, waiting, inflicting violence, walking the dog, fishing, dancing... I think you get the idea. Yes, most people get home at the end of a busy day at work, or day at home with the kids, and just want to kick their shoes off, and relax. If they are under the age of forty, the end of the day often means the beginning of 'partying'. So yes, most people's lives are so very rich they will never be able to find the time to ask themselves whether or not the life they live has anything to do with the Truth.

My point was, if you make a sweeping statement about a certain group as all motivated by fun you miss reality and are trying to tie it up into a box.

As I've shown above, most people are driven by their egos to enjoy life by filling it up till it is near bursting. This is fine, if all you want from life is that it be 'filled up'. But what if you start to question this way of living? What if you say to yourself, "Hey, before I go on any further in my already chaotic life, I'd better work out what life is all about first"? By actually stopping everything you are doing right now, and asking yourself whether or not you really know anything about life, could be the beginning of a radically different life.

If you have an ego, you are motivated by 'fun'.

Yes. The ego loves fun of all sorts: hate and love, violence and peace, cruelty and kindness, weakness and strength. The ego even likes the type of fun the philosopher experiences: unravelling things to discover their true nature. When the philosopher knows that something isn't true and decides to discard it, the ego either adapts or puts up a big stink. If the philosopher is really attached to understanding the truth of all things he will experience any grumblings from the ego as gnat bites and continue thinking, but if the thinker feels that by giving his life to philosophy he may miss out on a lot of the good things the ego has to offer, he can forget about thinking, and return to a life he finds more satisfying. Either way, the thinker has tried to understand life. And, either way, he has made discoveries which could never have been made if he hadn't given ‘thinking’ a go.

I could say all philosophers are motivated by fun - that does not make it so at all.

As you said above, "If you have an ego, you are motivated by 'fun'". Therefore, it would be correct to say, all philosophers with an ego, are motivated by fun. Of course, the ‘fun’ philosopher's experience, isn't the normal run of the mill 'fun' - but philosophers get a kick out of it just the same. Another thing different about this type of fun, i.e. understanding Truth to live truthfully, is that this fun actually brings the philosopher to the stage where he also unravels the truth of this 'fun', and discards it the same way he discarded all the other types of 'fun' - so that all he is left with is the Truth.

He (Bohm) said alot about reality, just not the way you like it to be said.

Let's give Bohm the benefit of the doubt, and say that at sometime in his life he had a small insight into Reality. My point is: the insight he had, did not encourage him to make understanding Truth his main priority, it instead encouraged him to dedicate most of his life to science: which has very little, if anything, to do with understanding Truth.

Scientist are an interesting mob because they are more adept at using reason than a lot of other people. But to end up using reason to uncover more and more finite things seems a waste of time, especially when you can use reason to unlock the Infinite.

I am not likely to change your opinion on this, it really doesn`t matter as I am not trying to hold him up as an end all.

My “opinion” is based on my values. You may value different things than me?

If these guys have no truth - why bring up scientists or science at all to prove ones philosophy? Do we mix science with philosophy to have fun?

This forum is about exploring the truth of everything. Science, academic philosophy, women, love, fun, life and death - nothing is out of bounds.

Bof1: Consciousness is the basis of all life and the field of all possibilities. Its nature is to expand and unfold its full potential. The impulse to evolve is thus inherent in the very nature of life.

Sue: Consciousness does not exist.

Bof1: I could say truth does not exist.
I could say philosophers do not exist.
I could say this forum does not exist.
I could say ultimate reality does not exist.

Now what do you want to talk about?

Well, we've got a great "does not exist" list going here (and I do like lists). How about we come to some conclusions about all these things "not existing"? What do you reckon?

Sue: If you know the Ultimate, then that is what you are. If you do not know the Ultimate and instead believe in foolish things like love and the self - then you are nothing but a fool.

Bof1: I know, I hope you pause long enough to realize that.
Love is a word I use but I usually define it as agape/compassion.
Self is a word I use to begin the journey, it is certainly not the end.

Feeling compassion toward other people is a natural thing to do when you see them as being separate from you. If you and all other people are not separated in any way, because you and all other people are one; then feeling compassion for anyone or anything would be superfluous.

David Bohm said the same thing as the Buddha, but because all scientists just wanna have fun it would be rejected post haste.
When the Buddha says the same thing as a scientist it would be received as truth because he was a philosopher and was motivated by truth.

What packages are needed to free the mind from and how many, I am thinking they are countless and come in many shapes and images.

If you go to the doctor and tell him that you have a pain that will not go away; he will prescribe a course of treatment to help you.

If you then go to the grocer and tell him that you have a pain that will not go away, and he advises a course of treatment his Aunt Mary took for a similar complaint - who's advise on medical matters are you going to take? The doctors or the grocers. I'd say you'd take the doctors advice.

* * *

If you value understanding what life is all about, and need some encouragement, it would make sense to go to someone who understands life completely. If you have a question about some specific point in mathematics or astronomy, then seek help from someone skilled in those areas.

All images of what enlightenment is must perish.

People are always throwing things away, or giving things to their local charity, thinking that they have no further use for them. Then the day comes when you're looking for something that you really need and realize that you chucked it out ages ago.

I'm definitely not a hoarder, but I've learnt that it is wiser to hang onto something if you're not sure you're really finished with it yet. As far as enlightenment is concerned, I'd recommend keeping the idea until you're really sure that you're not interested in it or that you've done all you can do with it.

Sue

[Beingof1]

sue hindmarsh:

People focus their minds on the things they value. For example: if you value the idea of becoming a top golfer you will dedicate your time to improving your grip, swing, and stance. If you value Truth, you will dedicate you time to strengthening your thoughts by focusing on Truth alone.

Indeed: Until the experience where truth no longer needs to be focused to try to apprehend. Once the mind is expanded beyond a certain limitation, it can never regain its former shape. Truth is all that is ever contemplated as it has become your mind and focus.

Me: "What do you do before enlightenment?" asked the sage.
"Chop wood carry water" answered the student.
"What do you do after enlightenment?" asked the student.
"Chop wood carry water" said the sage.

Sue: Are you suggesting that the student and the sage share the same world view?

Yes: One is a filtered world view, the other sees with clarity. The view remains the same.

So, I’d say that David wasn't looking to science to 'back' his ideas, he was instead exposing the fact that even when scientists get close to some understanding of the Infinite, they can’t go any further because they are stuck within the confines of the scientific mindset.

No need to appeal to abiogenesis to understand the infinite then.
The reference to the infinite in general is a sufficient refuting of the assertion that the finite cannot be transcended.

If they were philosophers first and scientists second, they would be able to take that next step.

I’m not denying that science is useful and beneficial, but I think it could be even more useful and beneficial if the people doing it first understood Nature completely.

Well stated, and I agree.

As time goes by, and the philosopher’s understanding of Truth deepens, he sees that his ‘life’ is but an illusion. He knows that an illusion cannot profit in any way, which means that he cannot gain any sense of self worth, celebrate progress, lament failure, or consider himself anything at all. Yet, knowing this, he continues on his way. This is where the philosopher and other men diverge.

It is in comparisons where the lives diverge. Wherever there is desire for the identity or the "I", there is fear and a threatening universe.
The abhorent consequences of dividing consciousness into 'another' and 'I' has been seen for centuries.

A sage recognizes another sage because they both know the same Truth. So, if you were a sage, another sage would recognize you immediately.

Consciousness does indeed acknowledge itself. This does not need a 'title' but a definition.
One can be in blindness their entire life and have a moment of truth. At that moment they are a sage as the thought and state of experience is unencumbered. If we have prejudged this person as being incapable of knowing truth, we may very well miss an eye opening experience for ourselves.

It is important to realize that truth can manifest to our benefit at anytime, anywhere, and through anyone.

What wood? What wood chopper? What chopping? What philosopher?

Whats another word for thesaurus?

Sue:

For example: if you value the idea of becoming a top golfer you will dedicate your time to improving your grip, swing, and stance.
Are you suggesting that the student and the sage share the same world view?

What golfer? What student? What sage?

Most men are nothing more than the title they have grown into.

I agree.

A sage, on the other hand, doesn't need to depend on being a 'someone', as he already knows he's a 'nobody'.

I agree on your definition; he also knows he is everything that was, is, and will be. My point was that if someone is a beggar can they be a sage at the same time like Gautama?

Its like the great controversy raging in the Western world right now over the historical Jesus. Because we have all met some ignorant or daft Christian, we assume what they believe is what Jesus must have taught. Nothing could be further from the truth, but unless we check for ourselves, we would simply make the 'wrong' assumption and discard his priceless wisdom.

Its like the Christians that discard the Buddha`s teaching because they already 'know' he is error without bothering to check for themselves. Again, more priceless wisdom discarded because of preconceived ideas.

Truth and wisdom must come from you, there is no other place it can be found.

Yes, the Buddha was a fun sort of guy alright! His 'fun' was that experienced by all enlightened folk: the fun of freely striding through the Infinite. Unlike most people's idea of fun, which depends on escaping from toil and boredom; the highly developed thinker’s fun arises out of his understanding that he and the Infinite are one. That's why when you read wise men's writings, or meet up with them, they are always at ease: having not a care in the world.

Thanks for the smile Sue

As I've shown above, most people are driven by their egos to enjoy life by filling it up till it is near bursting. This is fine, if all you want from life is that it be 'filled up'. But what if you start to question this way of living? What if you say to yourself, "Hey, before I go on any further in my already chaotic life, I'd better work out what life is all about first"? By actually stopping everything you are doing right now, and asking yourself whether or not you really know anything about life, could be the beginning of a radically different life.

Well said

As you said above, "If you have an ego, you are motivated by 'fun'".

I did not say that. You may have infered it by me saying that fun is designed to keep one from confronting truth.

The ego is motivated by self preservation.

Of course, the ‘fun’ philosopher's experience, isn't the normal run of the mill 'fun' - but philosophers get a kick out of it just the same. Another thing different about this type of fun, i.e. understanding Truth to live truthfully, is that this fun actually brings the philosopher to the stage where he also unravels the truth of this 'fun', and discards it the same way he discarded all the other types of 'fun' - so that all he is left with is the Truth.

I see what you are saying and I agree. If he finds truth, he is in for the biggest battle of his life and so it ceases to be fun.

Let's give Bohm the benefit of the doubt, and say that at sometime in his life he had a small insight into Reality. My point is: the insight he had, did not encourage him to make understanding Truth his main priority, it instead encouraged him to dedicate most of his life to science: which has very little, if anything, to do with understanding Truth.

Is it possible to be totaly partial?

You are applying great emphasis on the limitations of thought, reason, consciousness, and experience. You are implying that the limitations cannot be overcome. To make this assertion is to be unaware that the very fact that something is believed to be limited implies that the limitation is already transcended.

A limit can only be determined by its opposite, meaning there are no restrictions when it comes to consciousness and truth. If you have determined that there are limitations, the opposite must be true by default.

Scientist are an interesting mob because they are more adept at using reason than a lot of other people. But to end up using reason to uncover more and more finite things seems a waste of time, especially when you can use reason to unlock the Infinite.

This is exactly what Bohm was attempting, can you not see that?

This forum is about exploring the truth of everything. Science, academic philosophy, women, love, fun, life and death - nothing is out of bounds.

All I ask is a chance to prove that money can`t make me happy.

They told me I was gullible ... and I believed them.

Don`t let me catch you laughing or you will be tagged and excomunicated for giving up the Spartan Stoic way.

We should examine emotions and whether they are detrimental or an asset.

Well, we've got a great "does not exist" list going here (and I do like lists). How about we come to some conclusions about all these things "not existing"? What do you reckon?

:) - Logic requires comparisons in the finite and as such we must have a basis of communication.
To keep repeating this or that does not exist is like trying to page yourself. You already know where you are.

Feeling compassion toward other people is a natural thing to do when you see them as being separate from you. If you and all other people are not separated in any way, because you and all other people are one; then feeling compassion for anyone or anything would be superfluous.

Then why do you respond to my posts?

At some point we have to embrace reality instead of concepts.

I can explain it if you want.

If you then go to the grocer and tell him that you have a pain that will not go away, and he advises a course of treatment his Aunt Mary took for a similar complaint - who's advise on medical matters are you going to take? The doctors or the grocers. I'd say you'd take the doctors advice.

Neither doctors nor grocers exist - just kidding

I would say if the doctor and grocer give the same advice, take it.

If you value understanding what life is all about, and need some encouragement, it would make sense to go to someone who understands life completely. If you have a question about some specific point in mathematics or astronomy, then seek help from someone skilled in those areas.

People get attached to words and identities so easily. How do you know one who has risen above the levels of ignorance of the changing beliefs and ideas of the ego and its ever changing points of reference in the relative world?

Consciousness recognizes the consciousness above and beyond all labels because it knows the answer to every question that can be asked by one still in comparisons. It may not use the same verbage or parables and many will be confused by the words and images that lead back to the source because of attachment to appearances, concepts, and identities.

Every conceptual belief system is limited because it is based in changing perceptions of identity and comparison. If the experience begins to change and not meet the projected expectations of the mind seeking release, then the mind rejects what it has created and seeks to create something different. It is the hypnotic effect of being attached to some creation out from the mind.

Once one understands the heart of truth one does not stand in a personal belief system. True fulfillment is based in the stability of acceptance and surrender rather than the fleeting changes of the impermanent illusions created by the idea of a stable belief system no matter what it is.

The mind finds it difficult to give up its attachments to a sacred stimulation as it insulates itself from reality through the belief system. ie. Nothing exists so I do not have to actually care about you.

Consciousness is very willing to allow for these attachments as it knows only to create what the mind and heart desires. It is in a state of perpetual innocence and knows not wrong/right or good/bad.

The constant surrender to what is greater than the present belief system leaves the awareness open to experience less limitations and restrictions as we become void of anticipating a preset concept and begin to allow every possibilty for expansion of experience and understanding.

This is what I mean`t when I said

"All images of what enlightenment is must perish."

People are always throwing things away, or giving things to their local charity, thinking that they have no further use for them. Then the day comes when you're looking for something that you really need and realize that you chucked it out ages ago.

One is no fool who gives up what he cannot possibly keep to gain what cannot possibly be lost.

Because the stone does not think, does not feel, its limited state is not a limitation for it. If it is being acted on by an acid, then it can be oxidised. In oxidation it overcomes its limitation of existing only as a stone, it transcends itself.

Learning blocks, i.e. assumptions, prejudices, and repulsing mindsets in particular comprise most of the obstacles to comprehension and effective experience. The nature of reality cannot be taught nor can it be learned; but it must be realized. The operating paradigm actively displaces the temporary truth of attachment. All belief systems are time-bound in the mind and exist by comparisons, which reality is not.

Reality is the absence of separation.

[Russ]

Sue wrote:

"People focus their minds on the things they value. For example: if you value the idea of becoming a top golfer you will dedicate your time to improving your grip, swing, and stance. If you value Truth, you will dedicate you time to strengthening your thoughts by focusing on Truth alone."

Can I take it from this quote that you do not 'value Truth'?

I don't see how your obvious attachment to posting on this forum has anything to do with focussing on Truth alone.

Are you focussing on getting your point across on forums?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Beingof1 wrote:

Bohm to me, was still wrestling with the infinite and had tasted its fruit yet could not make the ultimate leap.

it is difficult to know for certain what Bohm's actual state of mind was.

his book "thought as a system" is sane, rational.

And his book "the Ending of Time" which expresses dialogues with himself and Jiddu Krishnamurti demonstrate a clear and concise rationality.

I agree with you, we shouldn't make sloppy divisons between the philosopher and the scientist. The philosopher is a scientist.

I have done this as well only as a means to be complacent and rot into a self-satisfied state of certainity.

I have a fondness for Bohm, he had courage, if you look at his life, it resonates with many other wise thinkers of that time period.

He stood by Jiddu Krishnamurti despite his arrogance, and world teacher complex because nevertheless he perceived that Jiddu Krishnamurti had frequent moments of divine clarity.

Bohm invested an enormous amount of energy to understand the nature of reality.

His dialogues with Jiddu Krishnamurti are quite stimulating and refreshing.

Moreover, his work is not something to brush off...If you're brushing off Bohm, I think you have a few questions to ask yourself....

[Beingof1]

cosmic_prostitute,
Its not really about David Bohm or science it is about the source of understanding truth. I am not hanging in this forum forever. People are so slow to catch on at times. Catch up pokey crowd.


Here is one with understanding giving freely and because of attachment, it must be tested, rehashed, experimented with, taken credit for, made sure it does not usurp position, smuggled to safety and thousands of other mindless games. I do not have that much time to 'play' at truth.
My seriousness is as serious as one could be and if you had any discernment you would be thanking God for the blessing. And surely some will think this is another ego trip because they live in the world of comparisons.
Trapped in the merri go round of illusions and instead of gaining cure and asking questions while there is time, decide to ridicule instead.

Anyone who understands what I am saying has eternal life, he who does not understand me is lost in the illusions and phantom world.


Cory Patrick said something earlier in this thread that has relevence.

I guess people protect themselves from new discoveries to preserve their sense of self-esteem which is based on a conditoning that the new discoveries threaten. It feels good to come to conclusions. It makes one feel superior and orientated. Whereas good questions produce the contrary effect.

It's just like what we agreed on a few weeks ago David. People fear uncertainty more than certainty. To be enlightened fundamentally demands a risk, a gamble, a leap of faith. Because people fear this the most, they wallow in false certainty. True certainty is to be aware of the fact of ones uncertainty. You can't have one without the other. Was what I just said a conclusion, or a fact?

[sue hindmarsh]

Russ wrote:

Sue: "People focus their minds on the things they value. For example: if you value the idea of becoming a top golfer you will dedicate your time to improving your grip, swing, and stance. If you value Truth, you will dedicate you time to strengthening your thoughts by focusing on Truth alone."

Russ: Can I take it from this quote that you do not 'value Truth'?

Discussing philosophy on the Genius forum, which is “dedicated to the nature of Genius, Wisdom and Ultimate Reality and to the total annihilation of false values”* is to my mind, valuing Truth.

I don't see how your obvious attachment to posting on this forum has anything to do with focussing on Truth alone.

Writing, is thinking. Writing about the Truth, is focusing on Truth.

Are you focussing on getting your point across on forums?

I am only interested in the Truth, if you “get my point” or don’t get my point - either way, it's not my concern.

Sue

*From the Genius forum ‘welcome’ page.

[Russ]

Sue wrote:

Discussing philosophy on the Genius forum, which is “dedicated to the nature of Genius, Wisdom and Ultimate Reality and to the total annihilation of false values”* is to my mind, valuing Truth.

In your mind this is probably true....True....whatever.

Writing, is thinking. Writing about the Truth, is focusing on Truth.

Writing is writing. Thinking is thinking. Writing about your thoughts....is something esle. I question your motivation for writing that's all..... Some people on this forum claim to have rid themselves of all attachments ("essential to continue on the path to enlightment") and are reaching an ego free state.

Yet... on this forum I see mostly ego's competing to be 'most enlightened' or looking for favour from QRS.

I am only interested in the Truth, if you “get my point” or don’t get my point - either way, it's not my concern.

Oh but it is of great concern that 'someone' gets your point. Your ego must be fed which is why you come to this forum.

If you are interested in the Truth.....do you really think you'll find it by posting here?

[Dan Rowden]

Why do I feel Like Jason has become to Genius Forum what "Lobster" was to Genius-L?

i.e. irritating for the sake of it.


Dan Rowden

You know, you're right, I admit it, I have been specifically crafting the majority of my posts to be irritating. But I irritate for goals other than just pure irritation, although I do find some amusement in the irritation itself too.

There are a few reasons why I have been doing this. Sometimes I think the forum has become a bit too enaged in a sort of guru/disciple dynamic. I suppose that's to be expected when people join here after reading through QSR sites. I don't think it's healthy, it's too unquestioning, it's lacking in vigour. So I suppose I'm trying to put thorns in the side of the gurus in front of the disciples. I've found that when I get too engaged, I tend to get bogged down and lose all impact, so I just try to whittle away bit by bit, just be this little constant irritant.

Another reason is I've been trying to orientate myself to be most effective in what I get out and put into this place. I've been very selective and tactical in what I post. I've been treating it like a war game, with objectives to be met. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that these are stupid ways to approach the forum. I'm glad you pointed it out Dan. I really do need to try a fresh approach, my current approach is killing my spirit.

Thank you for your honesty, Jason. I do think your approach is bad for you. You are doing what Jimhaz is doing - trying to defy QSR almost for the sake of it. In my opinion you were always one of the most interesting and insightful contributors to "Genius" and I am glad to see you back. I think your confrontational mode is ok as long as its motivation is pure.

You know what I mean by that.

I should have welcomed you back. I did not. So, welcome back.


Dan Rowden

[Jason]

Thank you for your honesty, Jason. I do think your approach is bad for you. You are doing what Jimhaz is doing - trying to defy QSR almost for the sake of it.

Yep.

In my opinion you were always one of the most interesting and insightful contributors to "Genius" and I am glad to see you back.

Well thankyou. I thought I was one of the most interesting and insightful contributors too. You were good too.

I think your confrontational mode is ok as long as its motivation is pure.

You know what I mean by that.

Do I? I think I might, but I'm not sure, maybe I'm a little thick.

I should have welcomed you back. I did not. So, welcome back.

Oooohh Danny boooooy! The pipes, the pipes are calling! To be honest I'm not sure I'm glad to be back.

[Beingof1]

I could not leave without saying one more thing to you Sue. I could feel your heart tugging.

Rarely have I seen such true compassion - I am not talking touchy feely human - true caring beyond your control yes? No matter how much you try you could not stop up the flow. You always seem to give more than you should.

You have an infinte source of compassion that you will never be able to dam - no matter how hard you try.

That is your genuis, that is your logic, that is your gift and thank you. It will lead you to where you want to go.

Thank God for this forum - it is rare.

[sue hindmarsh]

Russ wrote:

Sue: Discussing philosophy on the Genius forum, which is “dedicated to the nature of Genius, Wisdom and Ultimate Reality and to the total annihilation of false values”* is
to my mind, valuing Truth.

Russ: In your mind this is probably true....True....whatever.

What about your mind? What do you value?

Sue: Writing, is thinking. Writing about the Truth, is focusing on Truth.

Russ: Writing is writing. Thinking is thinking. Writing about your thoughts....is something esle.

What is this “something else”?

I question your motivation for writing that's all..... Some people on this forum claim to have rid themselves of all attachments ("essential to continue on the path to enlightment") and are reaching an ego free state.

What is your motivation for writing?

Yet... on this forum I see mostly ego's competing to be 'most enlightened' or looking for favour from QRS.

Your observations may well be correct. What are your main objections to this type of behaviour?

Sue: I am only interested in the Truth, if you “get my point” or don’t get my point - either way, it's not my concern.

Russ: Oh but it is of great concern that 'someone' gets your point. Your ego must be fed which is why you come to this forum.

Yes my ego is “fed” here on the forum, but not by others ‘getting my point’ or not. It is more the case that the forum offers a civilized environment where the majority of the participants are serious about discovering, for themselves, a deeper understanding of life. So my ego receives its nourishment exploring life through discussion with these like-minded people.

If you are interested in the Truth.....do you really think you'll find it by posting here?

Where do you go to discuss philosophy?

Sue