a few questions

[hades]

I'm new to this board, and have a few questions for you guys...


It seems to me some of you think men are superiour to women, mentally, why is that?


I see lots of talk about absolute Truth (capital T), Enlightenment...etc

How do you define Truth and Enlightenment? What are you referring to.

What is your opinion of people like buddha and jesus, were they 'enlightened'?

[Kevin Solway]

It seems to me some of you think men are superiour to women, mentally, why is that?

It seems that men (or at least, masculine people) are better thinkers than women. For example, there are no great female philosophical thinkers, or geniuses.

I see lots of talk about absolute Truth (capital T), Enlightenment...etc

How do you define Truth and Enlightenment? What are you referring to.

Truth is the manner in which all things exist - lacking inherent existence. Enlightenment involves having this knowledge, and living in accordance with it.

What is your opinion of people like buddha and jesus, were they 'enlightened'?

Very possibly.

[hades]

It seems that men (or at least, masculine people) are better thinkers than women. For example, there are no great female philosophical thinkers, or geniuses.

Ayn Rand was a great female philosophical thinker.
There are plenty of female geniuses, Marilyn Vos Savant, Maria Gaetana Agnesi, maybe Marie Curie...

Truth is the manner in which all things exist - lacking inherent existence. Enlightenment involves having this knowledge, and living in accordance with it.

What do you mean by 'lacking inherent existance'?

How can you say that men are superiour to women...yet everything lacks inherent existance?
It sounds as if you are saying women are inherently deficient when it comes to thinking. As if it is an absolute part of their nature, instead of a conditional result of their culture, environment and place in society.
Sounds suspicious.

What is your opinion of people like buddha and jesus, were they 'enlightened'?

Very possibly.

Why do you suppose Jesus was enlightened?

[Kevin Solway]

Ayn Rand was a great female philosophical thinker.

Not in my opinion.

What are some things she has said that you believe are extremely wise?

There are plenty of female geniuses, Marilyn Vos Savant

I don't consider having a high IQ enough to make a person a genius. The vast majority of people with extremely high IQ's or effectively morons, having almost no wisdom at all. Often we find that they are less intelligent than people who have lower IQs.

Marie Curie...

She was an empirical scientist, but not a genius.

Truth is the manner in which all things exist - lacking inherent existence. Enlightenment involves having this knowledge, and living in accordance with it.

What do you mean by 'lacking inherent existance'?

Things lack independent existence. Take a fountain, for example; without the constant flow of water channeling through it, or a power source of some kind for the flowing water, or generally things other than itself, it would not "exist".

How can you say that men are superiour to women...yet everything lacks inherent existance?

Fire is hotter than ice, even though both lack inherent existence.

It sounds as if you are saying women are inherently deficient when it comes to thinking.

Women are caused to be deficient by factors other than themselves, so they are not inherently deficient.

In the future it might be the case that women improve.

As if it is an absolute part of their nature, instead of a conditional result of their culture, environment and place in society.

The difference is largely genetic - which is of course dependent on culture, environment, etc.

What is your opinion of people like buddha and jesus, were they 'enlightened'?

Very possibly.

Why do you suppose Jesus was enlightened?

Many of the things Jesus is reported to have said are very wise.

For example: http://home.primus.com.au/davidquinn/Books/Jesus01.htm

also: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

[hades]

Ayn Rand was a great female philosophical thinker.

Not in my opinion.

What are some things she has said that you believe are extremely wise?

"A rational man is guided by his thinking – by a process of Reason – not by his feelings and desires."

Her opinion that philosophy and search for truth are necessary parts of life :

You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational convictions—or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.

Her view of reality :

Objectivism holds that there is one reality, the one in which we live. It is self-evident that reality exists and is what it is: our job is to discover it.

"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."

Her view of Reason :
Reason is the faculty which… identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason integrates man's perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man's knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.


"Rationality is the recognition of the fact that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it."


"What philosophy requires is not an 'open mind,' but an active mind - a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them criticially."

To me, she was a great thinker.

Marilyn Vos Savant...

I don't consider having a high IQ enough to make a person a genius. The vast majority of people with extremely high IQ's or effectively morons, having almost no wisdom at all. Often we find that they are less intelligent than people who have lower IQs.

People who have High IQs, like Marilyn Savant are capable of reasoning and thinking critically extremely well, by definition a genius is someone with a high IQ, or is extremely talented in some field.

I hope you don't just limit the term Genius to sages who regurgitate proverbs and spiritual nonsense...do you?

Marie Curie...

She was an empirical scientist, but not a genius.

So they are mutually exclusive?

Things lack independent existence. Take a fountain, for example; without the constant flow of water channeling through it, or a power source of some kind for the flowing water, or generally things other than itself, it would not "exist".

thats it? This is your great truth?
This simple idea that 12 year olds stumble upon when thinking about cars and tornadoes?
That things exist in relation to the parts they consist of...

Women are caused to be deficient by factors other than themselves, so they are not inherently deficient.

In the future it might be the case that women improve.

But then men are caused to be intelligent by factors other than themselves. So why give them so much credit, why even mention the fact?
Why wave the flag of 'masculinity' and glorify it?
It would be like glorifying Fire because its hotter than ice, truly comical.

Many of the things Jesus is reported to have said are very wise.

For example: http://home.primus.com.au/davidquinn/Books/Jesus01.htm

Actually he sounds like a deranged megalomaniac to me.
And all he did was further seperate people from reality and make them look towards the heavens for refuge, thereby setting up the stage for more religious fundamentalism and irrational spiritual hogwash.
It sets people up to be submissive and mentally handicapped by making them dependant on something that has no connection to anything in reality. God, a completely incoherent primitive concept. Which is usually defined in some bizzare apophatic way that no one can truly understand and all it ends up being is a vague fuzzy feeling people hold in their stomachs rather than their minds.

[Kevin Solway]

Ayn Rand was a great female philosophical thinker.

Not in my opinion.

What are some things she has said that you believe are extremely wise?

"A rational man is guided by his thinking – by a process of Reason – not by his feelings and desires."

It's good that she at least seems to value rationality. I just hope she isn't doing that to make herself attractive.

"logic is the art of non-contradictory identification."

Not bad.

People who have High IQs, like Marilyn Savant are capable of reasoning and thinking critically extremely well, by definition a genius is someone with a high IQ, or is extremely talented in some field.

I don't agree with that definition of genius. What use is a person having a high IQ if they're not intelligent, not rational (in all aspects of life), not wise?

It is possible for a person to have a high IQ and yet be one of the greatest idiots on the planet. I don't think such a person deserves the title "genius".

Or, a person might be extremely talented at smoking cigarettes very quickly. I don't think that person is a "genius" either.

I hope you don't just limit the term Genius to sages who regurgitate proverbs and spiritual nonsense...do you?

A person needs to be intelligent and extremely wise to deserve the title "genius". They don't need to have an extremely high IQ, since a moderate IQ is sufficient to attain the greatest wisdom, provided it is put to good use.

Marie Curie...

She was an empirical scientist, but not a genius.

So they are mutually exclusive?

It's possible to be both an empirical scientist and a genius.

Things lack independent existence. Take a fountain, for example; without the constant flow of water channeling through it, or a power source of some kind for the flowing water, or generally things other than itself, it would not "exist".

thats it? This is your great truth?
This simple idea that 12 year olds stumble upon when thinking about cars and tornadoes?
That things exist in relation to the parts they consist of...

As I've said, enlightenment is the intellectual knowledge plus the ability to enact it. Merely having the knowledge that things lack inherent existence doesn't get you very far, if anywhere at all.

A person hasn't realized a truth just because they've read something in a book.

Through the knowledge of non-inherent existence a gifted person is able to completely rid themselves of their ego and become enlightened.

Women are caused to be deficient by factors other than themselves, so they are not inherently deficient.

In the future it might be the case that women improve.

But then men are caused to be intelligent by factors other than themselves. So why give them so much credit, why even mention the fact?

As you say, men's good fortune is of no doing of their own. So I don't give them any credit for it. Their superior condition (such as it is), is a result of blind chance, or the natural process of cause and effect.

I praise rationality and wisdom in order to encourage people to seek those things.

Why wave the flag of 'masculinity' and glorify it?
It would be like glorifying Fire because its hotter than ice, truly comical.

Fire is extremely valuable. Let's say there was a worldwide movement to outlaw all hot things - because of something written in, say, the Koran; then it would be necessary to stand up for fire, and highlight its many valuable uses.

That is the case with masculinity. People are abandoning it in droves and demonizing everything to do with it. One method people use to dispose of it is to deny that it even exists.

Many of the things Jesus is reported to have said are very wise.

For example: http://home.primus.com.au/davidquinn/Books/Jesus01.htm

Actually he sounds like a deranged megalomaniac to me.
And all he did was further seperate people from reality and make them look towards the heavens for refuge, thereby setting up the stage for more religious fundamentalism and irrational spiritual hogwash.

It depends how you interpret his words. I personally interpret "God" to mean simply "Reality" or "Truth" - the Truth I have spoken of.

It sets people up to be submissive and mentally handicapped by making them dependant on something that has no connection to anything in reality. God, a completely incoherent primitive concept. Which is usually defined in some bizzare apophatic way that no one can truly understand and it all ends up being a
vague fuzzy feeling people hold in their stomachs rather than their minds.

What you are describing is established Christianity. But I don't believe that has anything to do with Jesus.

[hades]

Thanks for the replies, I will have to give these topics more thought. Can you elaborate on this : "As I've said, enlightenment is the intellectual knowledge plus the ability to enact it. Merely having the knowledge that things lack inherent existence doesn't get you very far, if anywhere at all. "

How does one 'enact' and apply that sort of knowledge?

[Jamesh]

Actually he sounds like a deranged megalomaniac to me.
And all he did was further separate people from reality and make them look towards the heavens for refuge, thereby setting up the stage for more religious fundamentalism and irrational spiritual hogwash.

It sets people up to be submissive and mentally handicapped by making them dependant on something that has no connection to anything in reality. God, a completely incoherent primitive concept. Which is usually defined in some bizzare apophatic way that no one can truly understand and all it ends up being is a vague fuzzy feeling people hold in their stomachs rather than their minds.

No he didn’t, that was done afterwards, partly by his disciples as it seems that they mostly did not fully understand what he was on about, but mostly by people afterwards who wanted to use his words for their own agendas. If their was no Jesus, some other form of religion would have occurred in place of Christianity.

Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is here on earth, meaning one must find heaven by using the mind.

“Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

“His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
<Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

Jesus may have been forced to hide his true meaning in public presentations of his philosophies to avoid too much attention. Also his message would have been too distant for most people to feel any attraction to it, why is why he tended to concentrate on people who were having a hard time of life. People who are not content with their lot are sometimes more open to new ideas than those who are comfortable.

[Jamesh]

An old post I made - I never got around to completeing this.

"Here is a little sample of what one can do with the Gospel of Thomas. Some of what I've said needs to be massaged a bit to get the fully correct interpretation. So far I've just done the first three passages.

(1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death."

A reference to no-self. When a person becomes enlightened they no longer fear death, if you do not fear death then you do not experience death. Firstly the experience of death is only the experience of fear and dread and loss that ails you up until the time of death. Once dead however there is no consciousness to experience anything. Secondly the life of man is not so much his physical life but the mental life. The actions and words you speak to others live on even after one is physically dead. Jesus is a prime example of both of these ideas.

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."

Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds.

One has to seek the truth to find it, and it is a gradual process (although for some it may happen relatively rapidly that is because they have sought truth by means other than by the teachings of Jesus and thus have a head start). Jesus was giving a bit of 'don't give up' type support. When he finds, he will become troubled. Truth is not easy to deal with. The ramifications are severe. It is not a 'gift until one becomes fully enlightened when all worries slip away. Many people who seek enlightenment become troubled people because of this. There is always a continual struggle between what society teaches is truth, one's selfishness and/or desire to have an easy life and the harshness of the knowledge one gradually acquires on the path to enlightenment.

When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.

This is a reference to the wonder of cause and effect and it's application to everything. By ruling over the all, this means:
a) to understand the workings of the universe in a symbolic sense which leads to a sense of astonishment in both truth and the stupidity of inanity of human lives and
b) only those external things that effect a person can place a power over them, when enlightened nothing has any power of the enlightened person. The person flows with the universe like a leaf in a stream and does not paddle to retain or acquire a certain illusory or temporary position.

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

The birds and fish allegories is a reference that you cannot be directly led to an understanding of the kingdom of god. It means that where some earnest devotee of a philosophy or a leader of some other type directs your attention to something conceptual the conception will not be of your own making and wherever you may go will be tainted or made lesser by the thoughts of others. What you will be shown are mere illusions or facades. The path to enlightenment is not a place and does not exist in a way in which can be told and shown by others. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. This statement is much like the Buddhists concept of nonduality. One must think about the whole, not just external things like gods or conduct acts of worship, but about one's relationship to all external things and how the external is related to the internal. It is about the interconnectedness of all things."

[Kevin Solway]

How does one 'enact' and apply that sort of knowledge?

Take the example of the child who thinks about the nature of a fountain and realizes that it has no real existence other than the water flowing through it, the water pump, the light glistening off it, the sound, a name, etc.

How deep does this realization go?

If the realization goes no further than the fountain, and in that very moment, then it doesn't go very far at all. As a realization, it is as good as nothing.

But what if it occurs to him that all things must be the same as the fountain, including cars, including people, and including himself. And what if he thinks about this truth for many months and never forgets it, and increasingly applies this knowledge to all things in life. Then it becomes a significant realization. It will affect the way he lives his life, and thus, he will be enacting the truth he has realized.

How does it affect the way he lives?

Well, he might wake up on Christmas morning to find that Santa Clause did not come at all, and yet Santa provided the children next door with an array of new bikes and gaming consoles and holidays to Disney World, etc.

Since he has reasoned that all things work in the manner of a fountain, which is to say, through cause and effect, and that things thus have no "real" existence, then he will not become upset by what has happened. He will be able to function optimally, with no stress, fear, envy, hate, etc. That would be a case of "enacting" a realized truth. If it is not enacted, it is not realized. A truth that is not enacted is not really known.

[hades]

But what if it occurs to him that all things must be the same as the fountain, including cars, including people, and including himself. And what if he thinks about this truth for many months and never forgets it, and increasingly applies this knowledge to all things in life. Then it becomes a significant realization. It will affect the way he lives his life, and thus, he will be enacting the truth he has realized.

How can it occur to him that it happens in all things? He would need universal knowledge of all things and their composition.

But what I don't understand is, why things lose their identity or value if they are contingent upon other things for their existance?
I mean, SO WHAT that something 'lacks inherent existance'.

Since he has reasoned that all things work in the manner of a fountain, which is to say, through cause and effect, and that things thus have no "real" existence, then he will not become upset by what has happened. He will be able to function optimally, with no stress, fear, envy, hate, etc. That would be a case of "enacting" a realized truth. If it is not enacted, it is not realized. A truth that is not enacted is not really known.

How does he jump from:
[if something is contingent upon other factors]
to
[it is not "real" anymore]

[DHodges]

Ayn Rand was a great female philosophical thinker.

Ayn Rand is perhaps better understood if you understand her historical context, where she was coming from.

She came from a communist country, and saw the evils that resulted from communism. Therefore, she glorified the only other option she saw - capitalism. She saw capitalism as a great, wonderous thing, simply because it was not communism. (Her writings more often seem like political propaganda than philosophy.)

Her understanding of how capitalism works was sketchy - or at least, not too applicable to how it works in the modern world. Actually producing things, manufacturing, is a small part of capitalism. Trade, services, and various financial transactions are at least as important.

Her view of capitalism was romantic. She saw a capitalist venture as achieving the vision of a single person - which is rarely true. It is generally the result of the co-operation of a large number of people, each of which has their own interpretation of what it is about. Making it work is about management skills, at least as much as it is about a vision. She ignored - or even glorified - problems that capitalism has, such as a tendancy toward environmental destruction.

It's also interesting to see how she lived her life. She thought she was a rational thinker; her conclusions were correct; anyone who disagreed with her must be irrational. Although she wrote about thinking for yourself and so on, in reality she was very strict about having people think just like her and following her dogma. She built up a cult of personality around herself.

[David Quinn]

I agree with that, Dave. I can't really consider Ayn Rand a philosopher, as she dismissed all philosophical investigation of the nature of Reality as worthless. She was a sociologist, in essence, not a philosopher.

I definitely agree that her thinking on all issues was romantically driven. She had plenty of that smouldering Russian passion inside her. Her worship of rationality and masculinity (and by implication, capitalism) was largely driven by own erotic yearnings for a particular kind of self-reliant man. One only has to view her torrid (and largely delusional) affair with Nathaniel Brandon to see this in action.

-

[David Quinn]

Hades wrote:

How can it occur to him that it happens in all things? He would need universal knowledge of all things and their composition.

How can a thing not be reliant on its constituent parts, or on its external environment, for its existence? No matter what a phenomenon is, or where it is situated in the Universe, it will always be causally dependent on other things.

Keep in mind this is not an empirical matter, and so empirical knowledge of all phenomena in the Universe is not required. Rather, it is something which is logically true for all things.

But what I don't understand is, why things lose their identity or value if they are contingent upon other things for their existance?
I mean, SO WHAT that something 'lacks inherent existance'.

If you stripped away the conceptual veils and saw that everything around you, and in you, and indeed the very you itself, has no more existence than a mirage, you don't think this would be an immensely significant piece of knowledge? You don't think it would change your life?

-

[hades]

Hades wrote:


How can a thing not be reliant on its constituent parts, or on its external environment, for its existence? No matter what a phenomenon is, or where it is situated in the Universe, it will always be causally dependent on other things.

If it can't be reduced any further then it has no constituent parts, for example the law of non-contradiction, can't be reduced any further, but it doesn't have physical existance, we dont see it running down the street, it exists as a mental construction based on our observation about the limitations of reality.

So just like the law of non-contradiction, a mental concept, can't be reduced any further, so must some aspect of the universe, because if the law is correct it must be reflecting a
limitation or essence of the universe.
Even if we haven't found what that irreducible element is, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Keep in mind this is not an empirical matter, and so empirical knowledge of all phenomena in the Universe is not required. Rather, it is something which is logically true for all things.

How do you know? Show me the logical proof.

If you stripped away the conceptual veils and saw that everything around you, and in you, and indeed the very you itself, has no more existence than a mirage, you don't think this would be an immensely significant piece of knowledge? You don't think it would change your life?

-

The notion that everything is a mirage, some sort of grand illusion is simply another idea. One that lacks any inherent existance. Thus by your logic it is another mirage, which should not be taken any more seriously than any other phenomena...

It seems rather self-defeating.

[David Quinn]

Hades,

DQ: How can a thing not be reliant on its constituent parts, or on its external environment, for its existence? No matter what a phenomenon is, or where it is situated in the Universe, it will always be causally dependent on other things.

H: If it can't be reduced any further then it has no constituent parts, for example the law of non-contradiction, can't be reduced any further, but it doesn't have physical existance, we dont see it running down the street, it exists as a mental construction based on our observation about the limitations of reality.

A mental concept, such as the conception of the law of non-contradiction, is composed of consciousness and (as far as we know) produced by neuronal firings and chemical reactions in the brain. It also requires a mind to conceive of it. So there is no question that it is a causally-created phenomenon.

So just like the law of non-contradiction, a mental concept, can't be reduced any further, so must some aspect of the universe, because if the law is correct it must be reflecting a limitation or essence of the universe.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. The law of non-contradiction goes to the heart of existence, as it refers to the fact that an existing thing is what it is and not something else. For example, an object can't be an organic tree planted in the ground and a petrol-driven car racing around the streets at the same time. Existence is non-contradictory by nature. But how this relates to the issue of causality and irreducibility, I haven't quite grasped.

Even if we haven't found what that irreducible element is, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If a thing exists in time and space, then, mentally at least, we can reduce our own perspective, enlargen the appearance of the so-called "irreducible phenomenon" and mentally carve it up into parts.

And even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that we cannot do this and that irreducible objects really do exist, they will still be dependent on external circumstances for their existence, and thus they will still be causally-created phenomena.

Existence is contingent by its very nature.

DQ: Keep in mind this is not an empirical matter, and so empirical knowledge of all phenomena in the Universe is not required. Rather, it is something which is logically true for all things.

H: How do you know? Show me the logical proof.

I've spelt my reasonings on this issue in some detail in an ebook - Wisdom of the Infinite.

DQ: If you stripped away the conceptual veils and saw that everything around you, and in you, and indeed the very you itself, has no more existence than a mirage, you don't think this would be an immensely significant piece of knowledge? You don't think it would change your life?

N: The notion that everything is a mirage, some sort of grand illusion is simply another idea. One that lacks any inherent existance. Thus by your logic it is another mirage, which should not be taken any more seriously than any other phenomena...

The idea's existence as a concept is certainly just another mirage, but it is still a vehicle for truth nonetheless.

Suppose you were to conceive of the equation, 1+1=2, in a dream at night. The mere fact that it exists as a dream equation doesn't make it false in any way. The truthfulness of 1+1=2 still remains valid. In the same way, the mirage-concept of "all things lack inherent existence" is still a valid truth, even though its existence as a concept is a mirage.

-

[Kevin Solway]

But what I don't understand is, why things lose their identity or value if they are contingent upon other things for their existance?

I mean, SO WHAT that something 'lacks inherent existance'.

All egotistical and deluded life is based on the idea that certain things have inherent existence, such as the self, property, love, etc. Once they are seen for what they really are, they lose their power, and their deluded significance and existence evaporates.

[hades]

But what I don't understand is, why things lose their identity or value if they are contingent upon other things for their existance?

I mean, SO WHAT that something 'lacks inherent existance'.

All egotistical and deluded life is based on the idea that certain things have inherent existence, such as the self, property, love, etc. Once they are seen for what they really are, they lose their power, and their deluded significance and existence evaporates.

Not in all cases. For example, I realize and completely understand the fact that food and hunger lack inherent existance. I know that porkchop I'm eating is simply the product of other things which themselves are the product of other things ad infinitum (into emptiness). And that my hunger exists in the same way my satisfaction exists, as products of the right conditions. But that doesn't take away from the fact that I get hungry and must eat! Food still has power over me.
Sleep has power over me. Air, water, money, etc....

Your VALUES might change, but thats irrelevant, we are still subject to conditions, and values lack inherent existance. So no matter what you decide to pursue, appreciate, or care for, be it philosophy, truth, lies, money, sex, wisdom, its all the same since its all empty.

[Kevin Solway]

And that my hunger exists in the same way my satisfaction exists, as products of the right conditions.

Hunger is not necessariliy a product of delusion, but mental satisfaction is normally a product of delusion. For example, if a person feels satisfaction because of what they have achieved, or because of the praise or recognition they receive from others, then they are deluded.

Your VALUES might change, but thats irrelevant, we are still subject to conditions, and values lack inherent existance. So no matter what you decide to pursue, appreciate, or care for, be it philosophy, truth, lies, money, sex, wisdom, its all the same since its all empty.

Certainly, a person is wise only because he is caused to be wise. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for wisdom. The wise man is only more valuable if you choose to put value on truth. But there is no necessity for you to put value on truth. Whether you value truth is a matter of luck, or cause and effect.

[sevens]

Shouldn't feel satisfaction from mental acheivement?

Depends on your definition of satisfaction.

This could result in craving, which could lead to distortion - but, damn.

Cause and effect!?

(thud)

[hades]

Hunger is not necessariliy a product of delusion, but mental satisfaction is normally a product of delusion. For example, if a person feels satisfaction because of what they have achieved, or because of the praise or recognition they receive from others, then they are deluded.

So in the case of wisdom and truth, if someone thinks they have actually stumbled upon something important and valuable and they feel satisfied and continue on their path, they are actually just as ignorant as someone who has discovered how to put lego-pieces together and feels proud of his achievement...

Certainly, a person is wise only because he is caused to be wise. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for wisdom. The wise man is only more valuable if you choose to put value on truth. But there is no necessity for you to put value on truth. Whether you value truth is a matter of luck, or cause and effect.

Well there is nothing inherently WISE about anyone according to you. If things lack inherent existance then they must lack inherent properties.

The man who thinks he is wise after figuring something out about the world, (i.e that things lack inherent existance), is no different than the man who thinks he has achieved something truly fantastic and unique after taking a dump.

Neither are right or wrong.
Both occur when the conditions are right.
Both are transient phenomena.

So putting stress on the search for wisdom and striving for truth, in reality, are fundamentally equivalent to someone searching for money and striving to become better at lying.

[Kevin Solway]

So in the case of wisdom and truth, if someone thinks they have actually stumbled upon something important and valuable and they feel satisfied and continue on their path, they are actually just as ignorant as someone who has discovered how to put lego-pieces together and feels proud of his achievement...

Yes, in the moment they feel that satisfaction at having achieved wisdom, they fall from wisdom and descend again into mere egotism. The truly wise person feels no sense of satisfaction at having achieved wisdom, since he knows it was not his doing.

Well there is nothing inherently WISE about anyone according to you. If things lack inherent existance then they must lack inherent properties.

Yes. I label a person "wise" only if I perceive them to have wise properties. Nothing inherently exists - not even properties.

The man who thinks he is wise after figuring something out about the world, (i.e that things lack inherent existance), is no different than the man who thinks he has achieved something truly fantastic and unique after taking a dump.

They have both achieved something fantastic according to their own differing values. In that sense they are the same. But they are different in that they value different things. The wise man values truth and wisdom.

An enlightened sage is no greater than say, a rock, since both are doing exactly what they were designed to do. But the enlightened sage is greater in wisdom than the rock. And the rock is greater in hardness.

Neither are right or wrong.
Both occur when the conditions are right.
Both are transient phenomena.

A person is right when he is right, and wrong when he is wrong. But a person is wrong only when he is caused to be wrong and shouldn't feel ashamed because of it. Just as a rock shouldn't feel ashamed because it is not even conscious.

So putting stress on the search for wisdom and striving for truth, in reality, are fundamentally equivalent to someone searching for money and striving to become better at lying.

A perfectly enlightened person is just like a tree, which naturally strives and reaches upwards towards the light. There is no delusion in his striving.

But in the case of a deluded person (virtually everybody) there is delusion in their striving - even in their striving for truth. The striving of a deluded person for truth is similar to his striving for standard wealth and pleasure. The only difference is that striving for truth leads to the dissolution of delusions, whereas the striving for standard wealth and pleasure leads to the reinforcement of delusions.

[hades]

Yes. I label a person "wise" only if I perceive them to have wise properties. Nothing inherently exists - not even properties.

If you admit that inherent properties do not exist, then what you are perceiving to be wise properties are merely illusions.

:)

The same is true for anything that appears to be a delusion to you. It is a result of you imposing your value system on something, that in reality...is not even there.

[Kevin Solway]

If you admit that inherent properties do not exist, then what you are perceiving to be wise properties are merely illusions.

Things are only illusions if you mistake them for what they are not. For example, if you mistake a mirage for real water then you have been deceived by an illusion. But if you know the mirage is a mirage, then it is not an illusion.

Similarly with all properties. They are only illusions if you don't know what they really are.

The same is true for anything that appears to be a delusion to you. It is a result of you imposing your value system on something, that in reality...is not even there.

Appearances are really there. That goes for the appearance of wisdom, and the appearance of delusion. If you are wise you will not project anything unreal on top of these appearances. But if you are deluded you will.

[hades]

Things are only illusions if you mistake them for what they are not. For example, if you mistake a mirage for real water then you have been deceived by an illusion. But if you know the mirage is a mirage, then it is not an illusion.

The water is also an illusion because according to you it is contingent upon other factors and thus lacks inherent and 'real' existance...etc etc

So as I said "If you admit that inherent properties do not exist, then what you are perceiving to be wise properties are merely illusions."

Once you stop and think to yourself, "gee that is a wise property!" Do not stop there. Deconstruct it, like you deconstructed the fountain, and you will see it is not a wise property at all! Get it?

Appearances are really there. That goes for the appearance of wisdom, and the appearance of delusion. If you are wise you will not project anything unreal on top of these appearances. But if you are deluded you will.

I think if you deconstruct wisdom and appearances in an honest way you will reach the same singularity that delusion an illusions reach. They must all be equal in reality.

Then no wise man will bother claiming to be wise, and even if he did it would make no difference...