GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan wrote:

"He needs to have many of his naive positions crashed by world experience, he needs to feel the indifferent wraith of god’s causal punishments, and only then, will he benefit from GF, only then will he return to the forum with a deeper seriousness for life, and a passion to negate the causes of his own self-inflicted suffering."

I told you...

Now here is an interesting 'key' to the whole thing. You have to start at the end, and work your way back. Death will come, sooner or later, likely sooner, to each and every one of us. The 'causal wraith' (I assume wraith was intended: ghost, specter, and not 'wrath'?)('wraith is far more fascinating!) the causal wraith will come along and take each one of us away, and all out loved ones, one by one.

No matter what we do and say now, no matter if we wear white or black, dig ditches or build skyscrapers, read books or don't---all the roads we travel end in death. Our time is extremely limited.

It is true that this world has its wraiths; it is true that many things get 'crushed' out there. You could spend the rest of your days making lists upon lists of all the horrors that living entails, that it promises you, that it likely has in store for you. But no matter what, death is there waiting for you, and death will take you.

Now here is the crux: there are different ways to face this truth, and different ways to deal with it. All human skill and all human capabilities enter into the question. Here, we have Ryan 'barking' (if you will) his terrible truths at another being, trying to get him to...wake up...to see...the danger(?)...to grasp the problem(?)...but there is absolutely no guarantee that any part of what Ryan thinks or does can fundamentally change any part of the difficult equation of life. It is not at all impossible that he has only made a choice...to recoil from Life because he is not up to the task; it is too painful; or he just doesn't have the will (to live). You have to take that into consideration when you are doing your weighing, your considering, your deep thinking about what, then, really DOES have value in living, and in what way one can make the most of it. But honestly, with real integrity, and with the spirit there alongside one.

The fact that our local renunciants seem not to have a complete grasp of the question---the intensely difficult problem that life poses to a thinking, sensitive, living person who desires to live, to understand, and let us not forget, to grow.

Now, I say this very simple thing, please listen one and all and consider and tell me what you think:

I'll be goddammed if I am going to sit there and listen to a 'youthful fool' who supposes he understands the full depth of the problem, but may indeed not, get up in the pulpit to lecture me, to brow-beat me into acceptance of a grasp of life that may indeed be fundamentally flawed.

I will tell that little whippersnapper just how he might fold it so it has numerous sharp corners, and how and where he might place it where the sun don't shine (...visions of Victor, the wraith of Victor)...but all of that in the most good-natured Buddha-like way, and with a warm pat on the back. (I honestly have no idea what you are about Ryan, please do not be offended, but you seem excruciatingly shallow in your grasp of things, and very, very young...)

There are people---deep, wonderful and very alive people---who are very much aware of all the shadow-sides of life, and whose spirituality and practice of it...never take on these flavors. They see it all differently, and they act differently.

...and they die equally.

I think maestro makes the strongest argument for allowing Laird to stay - namely, that he represents a challenge from the conventional viewpoint. He brings to the table the very essence of worldliness, which is a force that we all have to face up to and deal with.

But then again, as maestro also says, it is a force that we are all intimately familiar with, and is already embodied to greater or lesser degree in many of the posters here. So to my mind, to retain Laird on that basis would be superfluous.

I disagree with all of you who have said that Laird is interested in enlightenment and philosophical development. Although he may engage in discusssions about these subjects, it is always done from the worldly, adolescent perspective and, at best, can never be anything more than a form of speculative entertainment for him.

The sort of thoughts that he brings to the table are the sort of thoughts that I used to have as a 14-year-old. I can remember times when I used to sit with my friends and stare at the stars and we would speculate about the larger questions of life, but all along we only had our minds on one thing - meeting girls and having fun. The philosophical speculations were just a way to pass the time before the real action could start. It was harmless amusement that had no chance of amounting to anything.

I said to Laird recently that he comes across as an inexperienced, sex-obsessed teenager, and while this is true, it is really a symptom of a deeper condition - namely, that there is a total lack of spiritual ambition inside him and a complete reluctance to develop beyond the embryonic consciousness in which he resides.

It would never occur to me to ban people like Alex Jacobs, Nat, Victor, etc, even though they are as much in opposition to the values and thinking on the forum as Laird is. They would have to do something radically different, such as engage in excessive trolling, before it would enter my mind that there was a problem. So I'm not in opposition to opposition as such, not when it comes from a definite perspective that has been well thought out, at least to some extent, by people who have actually made a few steps in their lives. I welcome the clash of their flames with mine. But with Laird it is entirely different. He is, in effect, a wet blanket which automatically smothers all flames.

It is this lack of spiritual ambition, this reluctance to develop beyond the embryonic stage of consciousnes, which affects his every contribution and acts as a drag on the forum, that I object to. He isn't just opposing my philosophy, he is opposing all philosophy, all spirituality, indeed everything that attempts to move beyond embryonic consciousness. Some of you will understand what I am talking about here and some of you won't - including Laird himself, I dare say. But this is the reality as I see it, and the perspective that I am operating from.

I can understand why Laird has become attached to this place. The firmness of Genius Forum allows him to borrow a measure of internal substance, to adopt a centre to his self by proxy, as it were. Most other sites are filled with people who are also still in the embryonic state, and thus there would be nothing for Laird to cling onto and bounce off from on these sites. I understand that, but I don't think it is a healthy situation to foster. Laird needs to go off elsewhere and strive to plant his own roots, to burrow down beneath the worldly, adolescent mindset which currently consumes him and find his own centre. He needs to find the courage to take the first step away from embryonic consciousness.

If he does that, then he is welcome to come back and participate on this forum on a deeper, more serious level. But he is no longer welcome here in his current incarnation, being a wet blacket and unwittingly dousing everything that flickers.

-

David Quinn wrote: But then again, as maestro also says, it is a force that we are all intimately familiar with, and is already embodied to greater or lesser degree in many of the posters here. So to my mind, to retain Laird on that basis would be superfluous.

Actually I would say that many of us may falsely believe that we have successfully tackled fallacious conventional thought while on the path. Somebody like Laird who reopens the wounds and challenges our worldview from the conventional position is very useful. Especially as his arguments find resonance in us and open the floodgates to contradiction, thus exposing the gaping flaws in our cosmology.

Alex,

(I honestly have no idea what you are about Ryan, please do not be offended, but you seem excruciatingly shallow in your grasp of things, and very, very young...)

You miss the point, the end result of enlightenment is that one is incapable of being offended by words. That is what I meant by death. The biggest reward of enlightenment is that one no longer experiences severe egotistical suffering caused by delusional thinking and behavior. Your concern for my feelings illustrates your own ego’s caution in trying not to hurt me with words because you still have a ego yourself that can be hurt by words. However, when one is enlightened, there is no longer an ego there to hurt.

A deep character is grounded in an unknowing emptiness that is invincible to personal attacks, criticism, insults and all the rest of it.

So words are symbols, and symbols convey a meaning, but what if the intelligence that is interpreting that meaning is registering the information in a totally different way, what if the information is being registered in a very vast space in the mind, rather than a narrow, rigid, emotional channel that have very little space to perceive.

When the brain is put in order, then the heart is put in order, and the two dualistic parts of being are dependent on each other. A feminine heart will sustain a feminine brain and verse versa, while a masculine heart will sustain a masculine brain, and what gives birth to this pair up is when the ego surrenders and dies into the void, thus losing its feminine baggage.

Dan Rowden wrote:

brokenhead wrote:This is too personal and demonstrates just what kind of person QRS reasoning turns one into.

Excuse me, but can you guys stop with the "what one QRS does indicates what all QRS are like" stuff? I object to it in the strongest possible terms. Among other things it's a Scotsman fallacy. I think it would be intellectually and ethically decent to judge me on the things that I actually do.

As for moving Laird on, I have stated I don't agree with it. However, I do believe that he ought be treated as the equivalent of a "hostile witness", his preference for reading seducer material over stuff about enlightenment having been stated by him explicitly. This makes him an antagonist to wisdom, one with impure motives that permeate his writings, but worse than that, inform and ultimately undermine his attempts at understanding what is said to him. That, of course, is what is typical of those who try to argue the virtues of conventional mindsets. But, that's the reality out there, folks, and I suppose that, however tedious it can get, it's something that has to be continually addressed.

I have to confess here, Father Dan. I cringe every time I type "QRS" because I only think I know what it means as an adjective. I did not coin it and it was only after seeing it time and again in these threads that I started to use it. You will note that elesewhere in the same post that you quoted, I specifically addressed Kevin and David.

I am perfectly aware that there are three independent minds behind the "QRS."

As for Laird "moving on"? He cannot help but do so. Being young and inquisitive are hardly faults.

David, I understand what you're saying but I strongly disagree. If anything, I'd say he needs more time here. He can make his own decisions as to whether to stay or go, or come back.

Meanwhile, with regard to forum disruption, that is a matter of personal choice. For me, the forum is and always has been chock full of all manner of disruptions. As such, you develop a tendency to pass over virtually all posts from people you've decided aren't worth it. The end result is that you don't engage them and they have little bearing on your experience of the forum. That process plays out and people either get engaged by people or they don't.

It's a natural selection.

David,

I will not argue your reasoning but I will ask you to reconsider your decision as an act of compassion. Whatever lessons there are to be learned, that no one cannot be asked to leave, that everyone is responsible for the quality of their posts, and that Laird himself is responsible for ensuring that his posts remain pertinent, are already available in your decision. Having made it, then as an act of compassion you are free to allow Laird to stay with these understandings and I urge you to do so.

RobertGreenSky wrote:David,

I will not argue your reasoning but I will ask you to reconsider your decision as an act of compassion. Whatever lessons there are to be learned, that no one cannot be asked to leave, that everyone is responsible for the quality of their posts, and that Laird himself is responsible for ensuring that his posts remain pertinent, are already available in your decision. Having made it, then as an act of compassion you are free to allow Laird to stay with these understandings and I urge you to do so.

I think it is a more compassionate act to force him out on his own at this stage. As Ryan says, he needs to go out and road-test his current beliefs and dreams and experience their consequences. At the moment, he is receiving a false sense of security from using the firmness of Genius Forum and reacting against it.

If over the next year or so, he has crashed and burned a bit, and become a little older and wiser, then he can come back and maybe benefit from what the forum has to offer. At the moment, he's still just a baby and far too young to appreciate what goes on here.

-

Dave Toast wrote:David, I understand what you're saying but I strongly disagree. If anything, I'd say he needs more time here. He can make his own decisions as to whether to stay or go, or come back.

He can always lurk if he wants, and he has Kevin next door if he wants to discuss a philosophical matter. But for both his sake and the forum's, I think it is important to close off that false source of security that he has been obtaining from the forum.

Meanwhile, with regard to forum disruption, that is a matter of personal choice. For me, the forum is and always has been chock full of all manner of disruptions. As such, you develop a tendency to pass over virtually all posts from people you've decided aren't worth it. The end result is that you don't engage them and they have little bearing on your experience of the forum. That process plays out and people either get engaged by people or they don't.

It's a natural selection.

I believe in the principle of pruning. There have been several occasions in the past where I have asked individuals to leave in the interests of regenerating the forum and bringing back into focus its stated ideals. It is something that has to be done occasionally, otherwise the forum starts to slide into a rut.

Of course, attracting new people is also important to the regenerating process, and it's been some time since we've had an influx of new blood. So that is an area I'll be focusing on in the coming weeks.

-

Ryan,

I don't myself go in for any sort of conversation about 'enlightenment', or have much interest in dealing with someone who comes into discussions of this sort with the stated assumption of their 'enlightenment'. To be truthful, I have seen 'enlightened' people---who I really could feel they had something authentic happening in them, with them---end up doing very destructive things. The whole notion of 'enlightenment', certainly in a Western context, seems to function like a dangerous and seductive drug, and with it or in the face of it, a great deal of discretion is tossed into the wind.

Yesterday, I was remembering a bit of Aristotle, who I think in physics brings up the idea that there is really no such thing as 'red', but there is only the red of red things'. There has to be a thing that has the red color. No red thing is going to be exactly alike, or every red thing is uniquely different. Red is a series of things that share characteristic or qualities. With that, there is no separate 'enlightenment', there is only something someone is giving a name to, but it is always a person. (Unless, of course, we might talk of 'enlightened dogs', and I knew a somewhat unstable Swedish woman who had a dog she swore was a being of a higher order! I never doubted her.)

Anyway, I rather think that you more or less completely missed the point of what I wrote and you only seemed to (narcissistically?) focus on this element of 'enlightenment', and to want to stress to me that you are 'enlightened'.

Yet, I do believe that we can do things to ourselves, or that things are done to ourselves, that modify or change our personalities, our selves. I also suppose that I 'believe' the stories of some 'enlightened people', like some of the Zen masters, or a few of the yogis with their experiences of cosmic consciousness. Everything seems to hinge on what a person does and doesn't do with his 'transformed personality'.

Which brings me back to the more limited point I wanted to make: different people, with their different internal experiences of Life, make different decisions about how they are going to act in the world, what they are going to do. Whitman's experience causes him to see the Divine in all things and to reject nothing. He participates, and yet his perspective is 'enlightened' (not a word I'd choose myself, but I use it in this context). You, on the other hand, in your 'enlightenment' have a different goal and purpose.

I just listen to the story that is told...

(One thin I do love about being on a forum of the Enlightened is that to be enlightened, or to assume one's enlightenment, renders one incapable of any offense through the medium of words. For me, this is simply marvellous! I can't express to you what joy this brings me! Because I get to say anything I want, and to constantly refine what it is I want to say without the slightest mincing of words. If I sought to mollify you in advance, it was more or less a social convention, a convention of communication, like punctuation).

Alex,

Yesterday, I was remembering a bit of Aristotle, who I think in physics brings up the idea that there is really no such thing as 'red', but there is only the red of red things'. There has to be a thing that has the red color. No red thing is going to be exactly alike, or every red thing is uniquely different. Red is a series of things that share characteristic or qualities. With that, there is no separate 'enlightenment', there is only something someone is giving a name to, but it is always a person. (Unless, of course, we might talk of 'enlightened dogs', and I knew a somewhat unstable Swedish woman who had a dog she swore was a being of a higher order! I never doubted her.)

Yes, there are different tones of red that you can imagine in your mind, and these different tones correspond to a thing you have observed, but this isn’t a good comparison to enlightenment. In enlightenment, there is a spectrum of consciousness and unconsciousness. At the lowest rung of unconsciousness, you have individuals such as Ted Bundy who plan and carry out vindictive murders, then there is a middle-group of unconsciousness, exhibited by those who are married, docile, not as immediately harmless as Bundy, but quite possible of violence due to their attachments. And They may have flashes of insight related to nutrition, corruption in government, but nothing deep enough to really shatter their ego. And then there is a spectrum of consciousness, these are individuals who have transcended the ego, gave up attachments, but they may still fall into states of unconsciousness by dreaming of women, or dreaming of something that will relieve their temporarily emotional rut, some sort of fantasy or escape. This activity is a step in the direction of unconsciousness, and then there are some individuals who reach a point where they are able to abide in a state of consciousness for almost all the time, but these individuals are rare. I don’t claim to have reached a permanent state of consciousness, as I too fall into unconsciousness at times, but after it is over, I’m able to reflect on the quality of cognition happening involuntarily, and I conclude how its worthless, and only the result of negative emotion seeking a quick short-term solution. When there is negative emotion, the mind comes with all all sorts of irrational short-term solutions, and this activity is part of unconsciousness. Some people don't have the character to understand that their irrational short-term solutions have manifested from negative emotion, and not from a state of rationality. So there is a wide spectrum, and so there are degrees of imperfection and perfection, degrees of inferiority and superiority.

Which brings me back to the more limited point I wanted to make: different people, with their different internal experiences of Life, make different decisions about how they are going to act in the world, what they are going to do. Whitman's experience causes him to see the Divine in all things and to reject nothing. He participates, and yet his perspective is 'enlightened' (not a word I'd choose myself, but I use it in this context). You, on the other hand, in your 'enlightenment' have a different goal and purpose.

This seems far too relativist to me. Yes, there are differences and uniqueness between people, but some have more inner work to do than others. Some are wiser, more mature, and more grounded in reality than others. I maintain that it is indeed possible to measure degrees of enlightenment and unconsciousness in people, and it should be a goal to promote wisdom by speaking in absolutes. I’m not emotionally affected by the world of imperfect beings, and in that sense I accept it, but I don’t views all things as divine, and I believe that is a cope out. A decent philosopher needs to be critical, he needs to discriminate between behavior that he values and behavior that he doesn’t. He needs to have a bit of grit in his dealings with people.

Instead of merely accepting the present world as divine, he should have a long term vision for humanity to become more divine, more rational, and more masculine.

Ryan,
I notice you love to generalize and make pronouncements:

At the lowest rung of unconsciousness, you have individuals such as Ted Bundy who plan and carry out vindictive murders, then there is a middle-group of unconsciousness, exhibited by those who are married, docile, very harmless, but not all that reflective of deeper psychological truths.

Psychopaths and the 'married-dociles' are not necessarily in different consciousness groups. Some 'evil' people are more conscious than others. Some marrieds are quite harmful -- through ignorance or weakness -- to themselves, their loved ones, to others, and to the planet.

And then there is a spectrum of consciousness, these are individuals who have totally transcended the ego,

This is nonsensical. I take it you meant that at one end of the spectrum there are such individuals. I wonder if that's so.

and they may fall down into unconsciousness by dreaming of women, or dreaming of something that they believe will relieve their suffering, some sort of fantasy or escape. This activity is a step in the direction of unconsciousness,

How could this occur if they have totally transcended the ego? Probably you meant those further down the spectrum. Then I would agree, of course.

and then there are some individuals who reach a point where they are able to abide in a state of consciousness for almost all the time, but these individuals are rare.

Now we are back to those at the end of the spectrum? You tend to jump around in your writing -- or in your thinking -- and express yourself imprecisely.

I don’t claim to have reached a permanent state of consciousness, as I too fall into unconsciousness at times,

I'll wager it's the other way around: you are coming from unconsciousness, to which you return after flashes of consciousness. It is how we all begin.

but after it is over, I’m able to reflect on the quality of cognition happening involuntarily, and I conclude how its worthless, and only the result of negative emotion seeking a solution.

This is good.

Fundamentally, doctrinally, and experientially, I am in agreement with what you have written, or perhaps it is better to say that I understand it. Pretty much what you are describing is the essence of the Dharma as it comes out of India. It is a good idea to give it a locality, because that helps one to understand how it came into our world. If you think there is another point of origin, I'd like to know. I don't think there is. However, it is also a sensible idea to focus on the Indian system and to see that it has many elements within it, and some that outrightly contradict others. Also, that the whole concept of 'enlightenment' is one that evolved along with thinking itself, and especially along with the discovery and definition of a unique metaphysic. The base-concept in the metaphysic is the idea of God---what God is, the way God is, what is the nature of this place created by God (loka, sphere), who we are, why we are, why we are here, and what we are to do. You cannot, I assert, separate any of these concerns from the core question because they arose with it. Therefor, we are talking about a 'red thing', if you will. This enlightenment of which you speak does not and cannot separate itself from its context. So, the question is also: What is the context?

"I maintain that it is indeed possible to measure degrees of enlightenment and unconsciousness in people, and it should be a goal to promote wisdom by speaking in absolutes. (...) A decent philosopher needs to be critical, he needs to discriminate between behavior that he values and behavior that he doesn’t. He needs to have a bit of grit in his dealings with people."

You have very clearly expressed what you think and why you think it. I understand with no doubt or uncertainty what you are talking about, and also what is at stake.

Where I may differ from you is in the inclusiveness of the system, or in your case, its exclusiveness. Mainly this is the issue I have with the denizens of this forum. Though I do understand the value of starting from an absolute point---the Indian school certainly has asserted and defined that 'absolute'---I am not sure if the question, the whole definition, is absolutely cinched. Also, these doctrines of enlightenment which have their origins in India and (importantly) in history, are particular to that locality and that history. I.e. they are not 'ours'. Yet, they come to us (also through history) and we deal with them. It is likely that Indian doctrines influenced the early Greeks, and these ideas can be noted there. How we deal with these ideas, and how they dealt with them, are very different issues. Radically different. Extraordinarily different.

In the fullest sense, the Indian system of social organization needs to be mentioned, I think. It was a stratified system, and allowed for different gradations of 'consciousness' to exist, and in existing, to 'progress'. For each social order, for each level, there was recommended practice. This 'enlightened system' of the 'ancient rishis' was very thoroughly thought-out. To assert exclusively just one pole---that of renunciation and 'enlightenment'---and not to understand the ways that an individual might benefit from a more 'limited practice', is folly in my view. In many senses, then, the occidental world has done a disservice by not understanding a more unified, 'holistic' model.

The West has been dealing with some of the 'pure ideas' that have come from the East, but not all of the influence of these pure ideas has been wholesome. As you know---and you don't appear to have me 'on ignore' ;-)---I am concerned about the extremism of this position, and I am throwing out some possible ways to modify that extremism, but not necessarily in a destructive spirit to the core idea, the core philosophy.

(And what you call 'relativism' has been a way that many, many people have been brought into what we might call 'divine vision', a way of seeing the world that is (still) essentially spiritual. You guys hardly seem aware of huge swaths of our own traditions since you are so busy 'rejecting' things left and right).
_______________________________________

"They danced down the streets like dingledodies, and I shambled after as I've been doing all my life after people who interest me, because the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones that never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!"

"Boys and girls in America have such a sad time together; sophistication demands that they submit to sex immediately without proper preliminary talk. Not courting talk — real straight talk about souls, for life is holy and every moment is precious."

"I woke up as the sun was reddening; and that was the one distinct time in my life, the strangest moment of all, when I didn't know who I was — I was far away from home, haunted and tired with travel, in a cheap hotel room I'd never seen, hearing the hiss of steam outside, and the creak of the old wood of the hotel, and footsteps upstairs, and all the sad sounds, and I looked at the cracked high ceiling and really didn't know who I was for about fifteen strange seconds. I wasn't scared; I was just somebody else, some stranger, and my whole life was a haunted life, the life of a ghost. I was halfway across America, at the dividing line between the East of my youth and the West of my future."

"Something, someone, some spirit was pursuing all of us across the desert of life and was bound to catch us before we reached heaven. Naturally, now that I look back on it, this is only death: death will overtake us before heaven. The one thing that we yearn for in our living days, that makes us sigh and groan and undergo sweet nauseas of all kinds, is the remembrance of some lost bliss that was probably experienced in the womb and can only be reproduced (though we hate to admit it) in death."

"And for just a moment I had reached the point of ecstasy that I always wanted to reach, which was the complete step across chronological time into timeless shadows, and wonderment in the bleakness of the mortal realm, and the sensation of death kicking at my heels to move on, with a phantom dogging its own heels, and myself hurrying to a plank where all the angels dove off and flew into the holy void of uncreated emptiness, the potent and inconceivable radiancies shining in bright Mind Essence, innumerable lotus-lands falling open in the magic mothswarm of heaven. I could hear an indescribable seething roar which wasn't in my ear but everywhere and had nothing to do with sounds. I realized that I had died and been reborn numberless times but just didn't remember because the transitions from life to death and back are so ghostly easy, a magical action for naught, like falling asleep and waking up again a million times, the utter casualness and deep ignorance of it. "

---Jack Kerouak, 'On the Road'

Ryan,

On the subject of absolutes:

and it should be a goal to promote wisdom by speaking in absolutes.

Here I see why you like to generalize and make pronouncements: you believe in speaking "in absolutes." I actually think that is fine in life -- and excellent on a philosophy forum -- if the absolutes are true. But, what some of you posting shows is the tendency to speak in generalizations instead. You often speak absolutely without really knowing. That's actually commendable in a way, it shows drive and courage, but practically it is like attempting to run before one can walk.

On divinity:

Alex wrote "Whitman's experience causes him to see the Divine in all things and to reject nothing. He participates, and yet his perspective is 'enlightened' (not a word I'd choose myself, but I use it in this context)."

I’m not emotionally affected by the world of imperfect beings, and in that sense I accept it, but I don’t views all things as divine, and I believe that is a cope out. A decent philosopher needs to be critical, he needs to discriminate between behavior that he values and behavior that he doesn’t. He needs to have a bit of grit in his dealings with people.

Seeing the Divine in all things can be understood two ways. One, it is another way of saying one recognizes that everything is of one cloth, one Totality. Two, it is a way of recognizing higher and lower orders of things. For example, philosophically it could be said that cause and effect is of a higher order, in that it is a basic principle of Creation.

In this context there is wisdom both in rejecting nothing and also in distinguishing between things.

Alex,

In the fullest sense, the Indian system of social organization needs to be mentioned, I think. It was a stratified system, and allowed for different gradations of 'consciousness' to exist, and in existing, to 'progress'. For each social order, for each level, there was recommended practice. This 'enlightened system' of the 'ancient rishis' was very thoroughly thought-out. To assert exclusively just one pole---that of renunciation and 'enlightenment'---and not to understand the ways that an individual might benefit from a more 'limited practice', is folly in my view. In many senses, then, the occidental world has done a disservice by not understanding a more unified, 'holistic' model.

You have to understand that the main goal of GF is to provide the right environment to create totally conscious individuals, and so being respectful, nice, and diplomatic with all walks of life is not necessary in this environment because no one’s survival is at stake. To get it on in the world, usually you need to overlook people’s shortcoming, and simply cooperate in a way to get everything done. However, on GF, the rules are totally different, we are catering to an elite group of potential spiritual seekers, we are providing a very invaluable service to the world. A forum that can give birth to totally enlightened individuals. There are very few resources on the Internet that achieve this end.

Carl,

if the absolutes are true. But, what some of you posting shows is the tendency to speak in generalizations instead. You often speak absolutely without really knowing. That's actually commendable in a way, it shows drive and courage, but practically it is like attempting to run before one can walk.

but some absolutes are also generalizations, like suggesting that humans who engage in sexual contact with each other are destined to feel emotionally attached to each other. Because of course, there will be some individuals who can have sex with women without feeling any sort of attachment, but what about the other side? What about the suffering caused to her because she has romantic long-term ideals?

If you constantly had to correct your ‘absolute’ assertion with all the exceptions, it would be a fairly tedious and unproductive way of communicating.

I thought absolute, in the context of QRS philosophy -- the philosophy of this forum -- is that which is true in all situations in all possible worlds, necessarily and by definition.

It is not the same as generalization.

Of course, attracting new people is also important to the regenerating process, and it's been some time since we've had an influx of new blood. So that is an area I'll be focusing on in the coming weeks.

I rather enjoy it when you fellows go to a forum and establish a debate. I think you may have abandoned the Richard Dawkins forum too quickly in disgust. The trouble with such endeavours seem to be that they are too time consuming.

I think I'd have a go at promoting your material to Philosophy students. ie create 100 copies of your Wisdom of the Infinite, with links and a summary of some of the other material on the web sites, and send it off to universities, asking for the lecturers to discuss it in their classes. I wouldn't do this with WOMAN or Poison for the Heart, as emotionally they find reasons to reject that material (we all know academics are pretty shallow), but Wisdom for the Infinite is the sort of non-offensive well written philosophy, that some might see as useful. Wisdom for the Infinite should be good for providing the important "postive first impression" effect, that could mean some folks become intrigued and investigate further.

I wouldn't dismiss someone elses You Tube idea either, providing adequate planning about how to present the information in in place. Maybe concentrate on something like the "Why God (or the idea of same) is not philosophically important"

Laird. I was going to say you should stay. I was going to say you're one of the few voices of reason around here. I was going to say your contributions are many times the worth of most other members, including the founders, in terms of intellectual honesty and objectivity. So I have said those things, but I'm going to take back the first. You should go. This place is waste of your time and a drain on your mental energy and possibly self-esteem.

Most of the people here are like drowning men holding on to your legs - you can't save them, you can only drown with them. I know this is harsh, but this is the way I see it. In most contexts, you could do some good, but not here. This is an exceptional case. This is the amalgam of the most virulent, self-destructive philosophy on the net. (There's hate speech that's worse, but I don't consider that philosophy.)

You're like Indiana Jones lowering himself into the snake pit, but in this case, there's no treasure to be found. You can't talk the snakes into seeing the error of their ways, and they will bite you. The best you can hope to do is shout up out of the pit and warn others away so they don't fall in. But the longer you stay here, the more snake venom you'll get in your blood. If you're willing to make that personal sacrifice, you're a better man than I.

Personally, I don't want to see you get sucked in. You can more effectively expand your mind, test your ideas, fight your inner demons, or whatever else you're doing, virtually anywhere besides here. As you may know, message boards can become an all-consuming addiction, and this is one place you really, really don't want to get sucked into. It may be a matter of pride for you - you're too intelligent to "admit defeat", you're too strong-willed to let anyone get in your head, etc. You may be. But this isn't about winning an intellectual battle, despite what others may try to convince you. This is about the emotional effect of the people with which you surround yourself. You're not a robot - you will feel such an effect, whether you identify it or not. And it will take its toll on you.

What I'm trying to say is, you're too good for this place. Don't waste yourself here. It's a dead end. Turn around and don't look back. That's what I'll be doing. Find something worthy of your mental energy.

Wow, Read! That was about as insightful a post as I've ever read at GF. Coincidentally, it demonstrates intelligence on par with what we've come to expect from Laird. I haven't "seen" you in maybe three years, but one of the last things I said to you was a compliment similar to the one above. It's nice to see you're still sharp as a tack.

Does anyone else wonder about Quinn's statement that Laird must go "for both his sake and the forum's" considering that virtually all who have commented ie. "the forum" on the situation have attested to Laird's value here. Of course, the fact it confuses me may simply indicate a weakness/failure in my thinking. I can conjure up one other possibility to explain it--that Quinn doesn't think of the membership as being this forum, but that the forum is primarily QRS...maybe even just Q.

Just to up my post count (ok, honestly this occurred to me right after hitting submit), there is yet another possible interpretation of David's statement. Contrary to what all those who spoke up in support of Laird think, he (Quinn) knows better what's good for them than they do. Actually, it matters little what he meant by it. He's right by default.

.
Well, Laird, so what have you decided?

In any case, even those that may support your justifications or propose their own justifications don’t really have a say in the matter, since rightly so the site belongs to the hosts and their decisions, and in this case their kind and compassionate recommendations. So it is quite meaningless to argue over it.

I think you should be kind enough to leave before the ideals of this site are doused into oblivion. It is obvious that you are a real danger to profound ideas and its propagation. You have infiltrated the minds of those who were about to achieve enlightenment and are now stuck in a limbo, because they are incapable of thinking on their own and can be easily influenced by you. You have disturbingly trolled the minds of the almost enlightened long enough.

I hope you don’t take it personally and think that you will be left all alone; there are billions of other deluded souls like yourself to keep you company. You have also compassionately been given the chance to return when you are a bit less deluded, or even considerably so, which you will have to find elsewhere on your own I’m afraid. None of us can really help you here unless you are ready to open up your mind to Reality and Truth in particular.

So all I can say is… Good luck, mate.


---------


|read|, you posted while I was typing, and would like to point out that I humbly do not agree to your point of view, unless you consider that all are equally prone to being influenced easily.

(and when I did add what I have written below and tried posting, I got this…

General Error
SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ]
User theabsol already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections [1203]
An sql error occurred while fetching this page. Please contact an administrator if this problem persists.

Kevin.. I get this quite often.)

Turn around and don't look back. That's what I'll be doing. Find something worthy of your mental energy.

That’s not what I would suggest; this place is as good as another if one is capable of emotional non-attachment in general and has a wider view and capability of diversifying ones mental energy. This place is but another point of Self-reference from an any and all Self-referential point of view. Hence there is no logical reason to get attached to this place or any other. There is nothing that is not worth thinking about, but ones personal declarations will always remain entrenched in ones own values, and there is no inherent reason to feel an attachment to even that, but I guess, most are, including the “enlightened” I'm afraid.

|read| wrote:This is the amalgam of the most virulent, self-destructive philosophy on the net.

Agreed, and I'd like to keep it that way.

-

A big thank you to those in this thread who have supported me: Ataraxia, Buns, maestro, Dan, Alex Jacob (at least I think he's supporting me...), samadhi, brokenhead, RobertGreenSky, |read|, Sapius and Lydiia Knightjoy, with a special thanks to Dave Toast for his multiple supportive posts.

I am disappointed with Kevin's response. I was hoping for more support from him. The primary aim of this forum might be to guide people towards enlightenment, but that's predicated on the notion that the brand of enlightenment promoted on this forum is actually meaningful. Don't you think that this notion (and indeed all notions) should be subject to constant scrutiny and critical engagement? Why do you think that a mere couple of paragraphs of critique is sufficient? Isn't it more the case that what's required is an ongoing process of dialectical engagement? Kevin, you write that I have no interest in truth. That is false. I just don't accept that your claims to "absolute" truth are legitimate, but I have been pursuing truth in my philosophy ever since I first started thinking. You also write that I should be disqualified from this forum because my main priority in life is not to become enlightened. To how many other posters on this forum does this apply? A great many. Why then should I be singled out?

|read| I will ponder your suggestion, but in many ways the philosophical discussion at GF suits me to a tee, disagreements with the hosts notwithstanding. In fact my disagreements with the hosts in many ways compel me to stay, as you seem to have guessed. I don't like to see their misogyny and pretentions to enlightenment go unchallenged. I'm not trying to imply that I'm the only one who challenges them, but I do accept that role and so I think that to leave would lack integrity.

I think that Elizabeth might be onto something with her suggestion that David does not tolerate insubordination. He represents himself as a spiritual master and it seems likely that he resents anyone who challenges that self-image. I challenged it in my satire and probably that is where the seeds of this decision were sown.

David, I don't appreciate your condescension one little bit. Each of your succeeding posts increasingly mischaracterises my philosophical maturity: from an adolescent I am regressed to a baby as you seek a justification for your decision. In reality my contribution to this forum has been anything but childish. I don't mind being represented as youthful from the perspective of having an innocent, playful and/or joyous attitude towards life, but I object to being represented as youthful from the perspective of philosophical immaturity and then to be further misrepresented as infantile.

Your idea that I get a sense of security from railing against the forum's firm philosophy is bogus. I enjoy the debates and discussions and I feel at home here - that's about the only sense in which I derive security from this place. By the way, have you ever thought of becoming a psychologist? You're not shy of diagnosing other people's mindsets, are you? As for road-testing my beliefs, I've been doing it all my life.

David, you wrote:

So I'm not in opposition to opposition as such, not when it comes from a definite perspective that has been well thought out, at least to some extent, by people who have actually made a few steps in their lives. I welcome the clash of their flames with mine. But with Laird it is entirely different. He is, in effect, a wet blanket which automatically smothers all flames.

It is this lack of spiritual ambition, this reluctance to develop beyond the embryonic stage of consciousnes, which affects his every contribution and acts as a drag on the forum, that I object to. He isn't just opposing my philosophy, he is opposing all philosophy, all spirituality, indeed everything that attempts to move beyond embryonic consciousness. Some of you will understand what I am talking about here and some of you won't - including Laird himself, I dare say.

I object to the implication that I have not made any steps in my life. With the exception of being dependent on government welfare for the past few years, and of a period of around a year where I lived with my parents, my adult life has been entirely independent and filled with experiences that have led to growth. I've worked in a corporate environment, I've worked as a labourer, I've worked in hospitality, I've driven around Australia twice, I've travelled to Europe, South Africa and the USA (with my family), and I've spent several years studying engineering at university. I've met many people in my life (I suppose that most of us can say the same thing) and have been influenced greatly by some of them. One of the biggest personal steps that I have taken in my philosophical growth has been my decision to become a vegetarian, which I made at the end of 1989 at the age of twelve, after someone (I forget who) pointed out to me that it perfectly matched my respect for life. I haven't looked back. This, too, is but one of the many "steps" that I have made in life in my growth from jealous, frightened child to caring, responsible adult. I won't bloat this post by detailing any of the others.

As for being a "wet blanket": in a way this is gratifying to read. It's something of an admission that my criticism of your philosophy has affected you - that I am capable of "smothering your flames". As for "opposing all philosophy, all spirituality": that's just not true. My philosophy and sense of spirituality is different than yours, David, but nevertheless very much existent.

As for whether I understand what you're talking about, let me explain my reaction and you can judge whether I understand. Essentially you're saying that because I don't subscribe to the same philosophical understandings as you, and in particular because I claim very little "absolute" knowledge, and because I show little sign of coming around to your way of seeing things, that I am an undeveloped person. I put it to you however that there are many aspects to the growth of a conscious human being, and that I have simply focussed on different aspects of my growth than you. I place more value on my existence as a member of society; you place more value on your existence as an "independent" (not really, due to your belief in the non-inherency of the self, and your dependence on the public welfare system) man. Both are important. My perspective adds something to this forum.

Finally, I object to the implication that my philosophical approach to life is not "well thought out". I've been contemplating philosophical matters since I was young and I'm constantly reevaluating my position. David, it's not that I don't understand your philosophy, it's that I don't agree with it. If you can assert your authority, then why should I not be free to assert mine, or not at least be free to (reasonably) question you?

Just for the record, Laird, I agree with Dan and others that you were the wrong guy to jettison. But these fellows are trying to manage a system of thought, and a place where that style of thinking goes on, which they have worked very hard for. They are not about to let a sort of an internal putsch take place under their noses, and see the whole purpose of the forum redirected. This is a basic Machiavellian law of all human systems, and is a clear demonstration of how power functions. I think the power behind this decision is most likely Kevin, that is my intuitive sense. This is what gurus and in this case 'thought-gurus' do, you see, within absolutist thinking systems.

Absolutist thinking, in my opinion, is a disease, and such a common one that most people have it, to one degree or another. To recover from the disease is, also in my opinion, one of the purposes of 'spirituality', but that sort of spirituality is, as I see things, more a kind of shamanism. The notion of banishment enters in here---a vital aspect of shamanizing---and that means that you simply banish all the spirits (all, even the 'good' ones) that your energy has collected, and remain, if you will, blank. It enables you to stay within you power, and to re-engage all over again with 'ideas'. You are not possessed by spirits---and ideas are for we moderns spirits---and you demonstrate your will (male will in this sense) by remaining uncaptured.

Alex Jacob looks upon all that is happening here, and sees how 'story' functions, and just notices the way that people get captured by their ideas and by their story. He can really do no more except try to flit about, to dance sometimes seriously, sometimes lewdly like some gilded tinkerbell satyr with an erection the size of a boys arm. Alex Jacob listens too to all your reasonings, sees you too solidify a story about yourself, and he says 'bravo!' and 'cheerio!', because we all have to have some sort of guiding story, and martyrdom, in combination with a sense of injustice has served many people in the past and still does today.

I myself also expect the axe one of these days, and that is why the reference to 1984 (which certainly went over most everyone's head) was thrown in, but also the scene from Lord of the Flies, the spanking scene, the corporeal punishment (a boys bonny buns) and then the power-speech, the ruler telling you how its going to be. In the Japanese shorts you see a girl assert her power through anal-eroticism and you see another girl agree to her domination. This is just basic Freud.

You are being punished for your own good Laird! ;-)

Alex Jacob, a mere historical Wandering Jew, on a horizontal terrestrial trajectory toward Zion, sees all as he passes by and scribbles all into the notebook of his exile and his endless walking up and down your Earth! You see me hunched over and my shoulders seem to convulse in tears, but when you come closer and see under the hood that shrouds me you see clearly that I am laughing! Laughing and concealing my laughter!

To function in a psychotic world, we need fluid persona. Fluid persona is maintained through the art of banishment. What's on the page, that's one thing; what can be read between the lines, that's another. But most important of all is what never appears on any page. That is the position from which Alex Jacob speaks! (*sound of tambur on a gentle breeze, splashing golden water, laughter*)

Play, play my children, my darling babies! Know that I will never abandon you! Never become so fixed in identity that you...capture yourself. How dreary you make yourself! If you want to live, allow yourself...to die from time to time.

Alex Jacob wrote:To function in a psychotic world, we need fluid persona.

That is a very worldly truth; one that likely has crept into GF unbeknownst to the carriers of these personae. One of the goals of GF, as I understand, is to help cause people to see their true self. Yet, a true self such as Laird gets banished. I see a few personas here, rather than people presenting themselves as they truly are. They claim to shun the opinions of the herd only because they crave acceptance of the herd here - and maybe particularly of David, the most discriminating of the herders here.

There is something special about getting the approval of someone who hardly approves of anyone. Getting the approval of someone who is forgiving and loves everyone gets regarded as no big deal. It's the value associated with supply and demand. It is a different sort of person who values something based on benefit and quality alone.

Presenting a persona that David would find tolerable is far different than the kind of actual growth that reflects the idealistic purpose of leading a caravan to wisdom.