GENIUS FORUMS

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:As far as I can tell philosophy (including any related to enlightenment) hasn't been spoken about in years.

Can you see any solutions to this?

Seeker:

Well, it's odd in a sense, I guess. But I was around (Tomas, too) in the Genius hey-day. I should have qualified it with the word "previously".

I guess the difference is that back then, many contributors actually had something substantial to say about human ideals, their valuing and, from there a path to wisdom and non-attachment. It was more than mere ad hominem. There was always something to take up and argue about, always a challenge, first to valuing then to wisdom; some particular full-bodied expression and/or insight. Meaning and definition were always part of it, but there were whole worlds built and turning in this constellation of ideas, not just random, whimsical thoughts fizzling out in the ether.

Modern man, being nihilistic, doesn't even bother with an allusion to ideals anymore. Everything's "narrative".

We're alright, Jack...

Tenver,mostly it requires participation. On top of that if all the insulting/argumentative conversation was left behind and replaced with people openly being able to find out what they agree on by sharing their view, then it is possible to find out exactly what they disagree on. Which should always come second. There needs to be a level ground before proper communication can happen, especially when there is more than a few people.

Yeah Leyla I wasn't there so I don't know, but discussion on values and ideals is important for people to realize where they actually want to be headed, the ideal path being non-attachment, being rid of delusion, and peace. I also wouldn't mind collaboration on the best ways to enlighten others and communicate liberation. Before that can happen there would need to be a certain measure of cooperation and communication that isn't established yet.

On phone

I remember field trips to other forums. I got banned from Dawkins' official atheist circle-jerk.

Seeker:

[...] discussion on values and ideals is important for people to realize where they actually want to be headed, the ideal path being non-attachment, being rid of delusion, and peace. I also wouldn't mind collaboration on the best ways to enlighten others and communicate liberation. Before that can happen there would need to be a certain measure of cooperation and communication that isn't established yet.

Is it possible to discern those who value truth from those who don’t? If yes, how is it done? If no, what is the purpose of valuing enlightenment/wisdom?

Anyone could appear to value truth but secretly value whores and drugs so I guess you couldn't tell conclusively. But generally if someone is trying to have a calm in depth discussion about truth, in which they take points made into consideration and attempt to understand them, then they are probably genuinely interested.

It's usually obvious when people are being egotistical, yet not always, it may not show itself if they are purposefully feigning some higher ground. Too often do you encounter others who are 'know-it-alls' talking about enlightenment, yet with a stick up their arse. Or worse, they've spoken to God and seen the light during an intense meditation, or while on drugs.

What's apparent to me in most is deep conceptual attachment, this may be a good way to discern who's who. The purpose I see in valuing enlightenment is the important freedom from all the clinging that brings unending *insert all the anxiety and attributes of suffering here*. It's a great thing to understand one's own existence as is, accept it, and rejoice in it.

SeekerofWisdom wrote:The purpose I see in valuing enlightenment is the important freedom from all the clinging that brings unending *insert all the anxiety and attributes of suffering here*.

Everything except suffering(whatever you define it to be) causes suffering. Freeing yourself from clinging won't free you from suffering.

It's a great thing to understand one's own existence as is, accept it, and rejoice in it.

And how is this not clinging?

All attachment is egoistic, including an attachment to truth.

So, how do you go about solving that problem?

Leyla Shen wrote:All attachment is egoistic, including an attachment to truth.

The truth doesn't exclude anything, so attaching to it won't hamper reasoning.

You mean it's universal.

That's not the same thing as attachment, which presumes its absence.

PS: I would like Seeker's reply, also.

Jup how is it clinging to accept existence as it is?

And Leyla truth resides and shows up via experience. Experiencing non-attachment doesn't include egotistical attachment, does it?

Let me give you the context for my previous post to you, which is this:

What's apparent to me in most is deep conceptual attachment, this may be a good way to discern who's who.

You might also consider the question in light of the paragraph preceding the quote above, which goes like this:

It's usually obvious when people are being egotistical, yet not always, [...]

Do you agree that attachment, even to truth, is egoistic?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: All that I see is me and Dennis continuously talking about nothing

Hold that thought! It's indeed all you are able to see. Don't you ever wonder if more than 99% of what's going on in any situation might fly right by you? Personally I think some the best material was posted the last years here by a handful of people. What has become less are the people able to dig into it.

I'm not agreeing with any idea of some "Genius hey-day" either. The main difference back then was the presence of a few more inquiring, open minds, people who sensed there was a perspective being discussed which they couldn't access that easily. But at times they questioned and pressed hard to get some of it or align it with their own view. What you see now is more people around who have dug themselves into a fixed perspective and others who have gone through the same discussions a few times too many. This is mostly caused by social changes in the last decade and the way people shop around on the Internet. As I said a few times before, philosophical forums thrived between 2000 and 2010 but that's when many people started to go on-line structurally and just discovered these types of lively exchanges. That social aspect is dying because of the rise of all the new social media, paradoxically. People value this form of discussion now differently, no matter if it's old members or new members: for different reasons they now care less about it altogether.

Thanks Diebert, I'll consider that I'm just too stupid in future.

Yeah social networking is a real killer of all possible interesting discussion. Now people can fret about their online appearance too.

Ok Leyla I guess so, all conceptual attachment is definitely conceptual attachment. But don't you think truth goes beyond that? It involves an awareness of how these things actually arise. Anyway, what are you getting at?

Leyla Shen wrote:You mean it(truth)'s universal.

That's not the same thing as attachment, which presumes its absence.

If that's how you define attachment then attachment to truth as I define it is impossible.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Jup how is it clinging to accept existence as it is?

If it's the existence of a finite thing then there's no reason why it must be "accepted". As for the infinite, what's there to accept or reject?

Nothing, but people still manage to live in denial and rejection.

Seeker:

The point is clarity of thought—discernment—which is a hallmark of truth.

But a deep, conceptual attachment to truth is clearly not the worst thing that can happen to someone even if it is necessarily ego-driven; i.e. it involves the dynamic of separation, and something to attach to, between self and other (the big other being “truth”). The attachment is necessarily “conceptual” since truth itself cannot allow emotional attachment; the ego alone invests and suffers that (the highs and lows of joy and disappointment).

It follows from this that the difference between, say, a deep, conceptual attachment to truth and enlightenment would be the “egoless” state of dwelling in truth; ideally speaking, the absolute freedom of movement of truth.

It also follows that people who value truth don’t necessarily express it.

So, there is the desire for truth (and from this I don’t think you have a problem with desire :) ) which comes with attachment to it, and then there is the connection to truth.

Hey what's that line and the smirk for, cheeky? You are referring to truth being experience based, in terms of non-attachment, which is why descriptions don't come close to revealing the actual experience, and it's why Alex is having a difficult time.

It's amazing how steeped in everyone's conscousness Alex is.

He puts every woman to shame!

You are referring to truth being experience based, in terms of non-attachment, which is why descriptions don't come close to revealing the actual experience, [...]

If you can't think, you cannot possibly begin to grasp the nature of truth.

"if you can't think" ?

Yes. You know, construct a coherent complex of ideas in your mind.

Smart ass, you made an overly obvious statement seeing as we can all think.

Save for Diebert.