Choice and resistance, freedom and conflict.

[Cory Duchesne]

Perhaps one of you or some of you would like to consider and respond to the following thoughts.....

Would it be delusional to associate freedom with choice? As of late, I feel that 'choice' leads only to conflict and confusion. Is Wisdom a choice? I dont think so. However, what about stupidity? Is stupidity a choice? Maybe there is no choice at all?

Perhaps some of us are simply born lucky in contrast to those who are born unlucky?

Yet, using terms - 'lucky/unlucky' is perhaps deceptive..........for it seems to me that genius is somewhat of a curse in its own right do to the alientation, unsociability and suffering that goes along with it. Whereas, stupidity, because it is more akin to a more contented, sociable, even cow-like state, is perhaps more desirable to most.

To me - - - genius does exist......only because it is contrasted so brightly against the darkness of stupidity. There is also a middle ground as well - - for there are obviously many clever, well adjusted people who don't live with what one could call genious. (I would also like to discuss why an average man with a decent if not above average intellect is so often incapable, or unwilling to be a genius - - - or even wise for that matter)

Finally, I would like to suggest that perhaps there is a distinction between genius and wisdom.

Wisdom, so it seems, is to not be anguished, bi-polar, anti-social, and schitzophrenic as is the typical genius/savant artist, philosopher, musician, mathmatician.

Genius seems obsessed with trying to 'will' the world, or even blinding and bamboozling it with its brilliance.

Wisdom seems to act on the world more darkly, simply and less spectacularly. (socrates(wise) and plato(genious) are perhaps model examples to support or at least give a bit of weight to the case I am making)

If anyone would like to take these thoughts into a more focused and refined direction, I would be willing to go along for the ride. Maybe this can unfold into something interesting.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Is stupidity a choice? Maybe there is no choice at all?

Let us explore stupidity in relationship to choice. If we look at the world together, it seems that stupid people are not choosing to be stupid.

They are conditioned to behave stupid.

For example if we watch groups of humans. A striking connection can be made between all stupid behaviors.

The stupid humans are conditioned like robots to behave the way they are behaving.

Whether it is smoking a cigarette, drinking a beer, drinking a coffee, eating a chocolate bar, gambling at the casino or compulsively masturbating to internet pornography, all behaviors appear to be a conditioned response.

The individual is not choosing, they are programmed like robots. Programmed by pleasure.

So is vice nothing but a conditioned program to a pleasurable stimulus?

If this is the case, you cannot blame someone for behaving stupid.

They are victims. The civilization gives them the materials needed, which ultimately destroy any potential for the infinite to operate through their body.

The materials supplied within the civilization destroy any possibility of wisdom emerging within an individual

it appears that a successful community should have a minimalist philosophy as its foundation, and this philsophy should be inculcated into the youth from a young age.

If this doesnt happen, the result is tragedy, which can be observed in most countries of the world today.

Wisdom, so it seems, is to not be anguished, bi-polar, anti-social, and schitzophrenic as is the typical genius/savant artist, philosopher, musician, mathmatician.

Is the disorder of the genius related to the fact that they are trying to become something?

Whether it is a rock star, guru, famous filmmaker, math wiz, or porn star with an enlarged eighteen inch black penis…

The genius appears to be caught in a state of becoming, and as long as that is happening, he or she is suffering, are they not?

And that suffering is what causes the genius to linger on insanity. And instead of ending their vain pursuits of fame, which would end their suffering, the use that suffering in a corrupt way by fueling their ambition to accomplish their lofty plan.

So does a disorderly genius always have an elaborate plan?

Is it only a wise man that is able to step out of the madness of trying to become something great by ending all plans and living life very simply?

And that wise man doesn’t make the choice to do it, they do it choicelessly because they’re suffering becomes so unbearable.

This is why I can relate to UG Krishnamurti’s body of work in that his disdain for the greats is understandable. He spent a great deal of his life trying to be great, trying to become something in the future, and finally after enough suffering, he just gave up.

And he dismissed the greats as being a hindrance to enlightenment because they are, they prevent followers from totally giving up.

UG was only trying to prevent others from suffering in the manner in which he did, he warned followers of truth not be intoxicated by the image of grandeur that the sage is infamous for living behind….

This is why UG behaved vulgarly, and cruel to everyone. He didn’t want an imprint of perfection left behind for humanity to drool over.

This is also why he disapproved of Jiddu Krishnamurit’s technique. He realized he had been deluded all those years of attending K’s talks. He realized K couldn’t do a damn thing for him.

So there needs to be a point when all teachers, philosophers, and sages are abandoned.

But that action isnt a choice… it is a profound response to suffering…

[sue hindmarsh]

Cory Patrick wrote:

Would it be delusional to associate freedom with choice? As of late, I feel that 'choice' leads only to conflict and confusion. Is Wisdom a choice? I dont think so. However, what about stupidity? Is stupidity a choice? Maybe there is no choice at all?

Perhaps some of us are simply born lucky in contrast to those who are born unlucky?

Yes, some people are luckier than other people. Some people are also shorter, fatter, brighter, taller, meaner, happier, etc. People sometimes seem very different from each other; sometimes they seem very similar. No matter what the differences or similarities are, all people are connected by the fact that everything they are, and everything they do, is ‘caused’.

Yet, using terms - 'lucky/unlucky' is perhaps deceptive..........for it seems to me that genius is somewhat of a curse in its own right do to the alientation, unsociability and suffering that goes along with it. Whereas, stupidity, because it is more akin to a more contented, sociable, even cow-like state, is perhaps more desirable to most.

A Genius only suffers whilst he continues to hold on to bits of "stupidity". Once he lets go of them, he stops suffering.

To me - - - genius does exist......only because it is contrasted so brightly against the darkness of stupidity. There is also a middle ground as well - - for there are obviously many clever, well adjusted people who don't live with what one could call genious. (I would also like to discuss why an average man with a decent if not above average intellect is so often incapable, or unwilling to be a genius - - - or even wise for that matter)

Yes, there is a very wide abyss lying between the ignorant and the enlightened. The “average man” needs more than talent to make that leap across - he needs passion to give him wings. A love of truth can take you further and higher than “a decent if not above average intellect” can.

Finally, I would like to suggest that perhaps there is a distinction between genius and wisdom.

Wisdom, so it seems, is to not be anguished, bi-polar, anti-social, and schitzophrenic as is the typical genius/savant artist, philosopher, musician, mathmatician.

Genius seems obsessed with trying to 'will' the world, or even blinding and bamboozling it with its brilliance.

Wisdom seems to act on the world more darkly, simply and less spectacularly. (socrates(wise) and plato(genious) are perhaps model examples to support or at least give a bit of weight to the case I am making)

I see what you’re getting at – most people who are given the title ‘genius’ have done something “spectacular” according to the world, like; Einstein, Mozart and Plato. But those few who are thought to possess ‘wisdom’, do so without any grandstanding or need to be lauded. You mentioned Socrates as someone “wise”, and I agree with you that he is a good example of a wise man. He definitely didn’t try to win world acclaim, or make a lot of money; instead he walked around saying such things as, “Wisdom is knowing how little we know” - which wouldn’t have made him sound very impressive to the people of his day, and even less so by today’s standards. Today, pop and movie stars are acclaimed for their talents and their lives, and in return they thank the people who worship them for “making it all possible” – so everyone is made ‘happy’. Socrates, on the other hand, was ugly; took no interest in family or friends; possessed no other talent then that of speaking the truth; ignored those who could have elevated him in public life; instead, he preferred to hang out with young guys, who were interested in understanding life.

Einstein, Mozart and Plato did what they did to make the world take notice of them. Socrates did what he did because he loved Truth. To my mind, the wisdom Socrates possessed and the life he lived, is a better measure of what makes someone a Genius - far better than just wanting to be popular.

Sue

[David Quinn]

Sue wrote:

He definitely didn’t try to win world acclaim, or make a lot of money; instead he walked around saying such things as, “Wisdom is knowing how little we know” - which wouldn’t have made him sound very impressive to the people of his day, and even less so by today’s standards.

I don't know about that. That is exactly what is passed off as "wisdom" these days. People are constantly puffing out their chests and proclaiming how little they know. It positively gushes out of them, this little boast.

Socrates made the infinitely deeper claim that he knew nothing at all, which shows great insight into the nature of Emptiness.

-

[David Quinn]

The cosmic slut wrote:

This is why I can relate to UG Krishnamurti’s body of work in that his disdain for the greats is understandable. He spent a great deal of his life trying to be great, trying to become something in the future, and finally after enough suffering, he just gave up.

And he dismissed the greats as being a hindrance to enlightenment because they are, they prevent followers from totally giving up.

The man who constantly talks about this sage and that sage only does it because he is insecure.

To compare yourself with anyone is a sign of a terror of death…

Cosmic gossip is just as superficial as any other gossip. When fear ends, we stop taking about other teachers period. Comparing sages is an addiction, no different than a crack addict.

Forget about the teachers, forget about impressing and pleasing people in this forum and just die already…

-

[David Quinn]

Cory wrote:

Finally, I would like to suggest that perhaps there is a distinction between genius and wisdom.

Wisdom, so it seems, is to not be anguished, bi-polar, anti-social, and schitzophrenic as is the typical genius/savant artist, philosopher, musician, mathmatician.

Genius seems obsessed with trying to 'will' the world, or even blinding and bamboozling it with its brilliance.

I think what you're labelling as "genius" is really just autism, narrow brilliance, mental illness, etc. It would be like calling a fast racing horse a "genius". Or the latest generation of computer. It's a misapplication of the term.

To my mind, a genius is someone whose brilliance isn't confined to a particular field of endeavour, but rather he is brilliant in the deepest and most significant endeavour open to the human race - namely, eliminating all delusion from the mind and comprehending/experiencing the nature of Reality.

In other words, his brilliance is not so much intellectual or artistic in nature, but rather it lies in knowing how to succeed in the most important and most difficult thing of all. He is a master of life itself, rather than of some particular field within life.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Quinn: Yes, the names of sages, and events surrounding sages still pollutes this consciousness, it is a neurosis that has not ended.

some of these rants are attempts to go beyond the inner disorder, and they are not directed at anyone in particular...

contradiction? yes. Solution: suffering and negation.

CP.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sue Wrote:

No matter what the differences or similarities are, all people are connected by the fact that everything they are, and everything they do, is ‘caused’.

I am not so sure about this division between cause and effect. Does the seed 'cause' the tree or does the tree 'cause' the seed?

However, a seed or tree is nothing without the soil. And the soil is nothing to a seed or tree without the unconscious benevolence of the microogranisms acitivity and equisitely composed excretement. Moreover, the harmony of the microcorganisms are nothing without the the organic material being sloughed off by the roots, rotting leaves, etc....and of course, all of the aforementioned are dependent upon water. And water of course can not exist unless you have the earth orbiting not too close and not too far away from the Sun.

So, that being considered: what causes what? There is only an unfathomably complex, incomprehensible interdependence. I say incomprehensible because the intellect can only take what is merely a photograph of the proccess. there are always unknown contituents.

I don't see cause and effect in the 'natural world'. There is only a harmonious simultaneousness. there is no time.

---------------------------

David quinn,

I agree that the word genius had been misapplied in my previous post. I am satisfied with your take on it.

To my mind, a genius is someone whose brilliance isn't confined to a particular field of endeavour,

agreed. Specialization is not genius.

Has anyone seen the movie "A beautiful mind"? Directed by Ron Howard, starring Russel Crowe.

Is it just me, or were they glamorizing and/or glorifying mental illness? His mind was ugly and foolish - - despite it was exceptionally gifted(cursed) in a particular field.

[hsandman]

I am not so sure about this division between cause and effect. Does the seed 'cause' the tree or does the tree 'cause' the seed?

However, a seed or tree is nothing without the soil. And the soil is nothing to a seed or tree without the unconscious benevolence of the microogranisms acitivity and equisitely composed excretement. Moreover, the harmony of the microcorganisms are nothing without the the organic material being sloughed off by the roots, rotting leaves, etc....and of course, all of the aforementioned are dependent upon water. And water of course can not exist unless you have the earth orbiting not too close and not too far away from the Sun.

So, that being considered: what causes what? There is only an unfathomably complex, incomprehensible interdependence. I say incomprehensible because the intellect can only take what is merely a photograph of the proccess. there are always unknown contituents.

I don't see cause and effect in the 'natural world'. There is only a harmonious simultaneousness. there is no time.

Thats well put, for a while i thought you were going off on a tangent there :) I agree on the "beautifull minds" John Nash the mathematician not being a genius. We can agree on that. In a way his mind is beautifull as a specialised adaptation to particular task can be spectacular sight. The ultimate genius in my view always has been Leanardo da Vinci.

It is true that the stupid usualy do not choose to be ignorant conciously, but select that "choice" because of rewards such action promises/brings. There is a choice in actions of the living beings, but it is the world that dictates to evolution which choices should be picked out of the ones it presents. freedom indeed is expressed in act of choosing, the evolution dictates which choice you should select by 2 tools of behaviour modification which it has at its disposal on individual (pain and plesure). The more you are free, the more presented choices you will have. Being campletely free is another matter. the adage "It is all relative." holds true here also. On the matter of why choose to be ignorant, the adage "ignorance is bliss" also holds true under my scrutany. Some people indeed do not have much say in the matter for they are born with damaged intelect machinary. I define "wise" as someone who has acumulated/learned/memorised the answers and "genius" as somone who is capable of finding those answers in the first place. thus you can be wise and not genius, genius and not wise, genius and wise. not absolutely sure on order of genius before wise, but i think genius would come first and become wise with age/time. again "relative". The genius is a mascohist that has fallen in love with pain and has thus reciving plesure with pain. the adage "Ignorance is bliss" is not 100% accurate for genius, for he recives bliss/plesure also with knowlage, thereby changing procedure of choice selection. It is as a snowball rolling down the hill,that gathers more snow the futher it goes by growing bigger untill his choice selection is only comprehandable to him or another genius. I guess it would be kinda like asking athlete why do they exercise their muscles so much even though it hurts exercising. there is a reward in it.
Wisdom is no substitute for inteligence and inteligence is no substitute for wisdom, both of them compliment each other.

[David Quinn]

The slut wrote:

Yes, the names of sages, and events surrounding sages still pollutes this consciousness, it is a neurosis that has not ended.

I would say that your current hypersenistivity towards sages and people's references to them is equally neurotic. The over-the-top allergy you have towards this issue isn't rational.

-

[David Quinn]

hsandman wrote:

The ultimate genius in my view always has been Leanardo da Vinci.

I couldn't disagree more. Granted, he was a rare man in that he possessed several different autistic talents, rather than just the usual one. But his consciousness was still highly undeveloped in a philosophic and spiritual sense. He had no comprehension of the nature of Reality, nor was he even aware that he was lacking in this area.

Thus, calling da Vinci a "genius" is akin to calling a fast racing horse a "genius".

-

[David Quinn]

Cory wrote:

I am not so sure about this division between cause and effect. Does the seed 'cause' the tree or does the tree 'cause' the seed?

However, a seed or tree is nothing without the soil. And the soil is nothing to a seed or tree without the unconscious benevolence of the microogranisms acitivity and equisitely composed excretement. Moreover, the harmony of the microcorganisms are nothing without the the organic material being sloughed off by the roots, rotting leaves, etc....and of course, all of the aforementioned are dependent upon water. And water of course can not exist unless you have the earth orbiting not too close and not too far away from the Sun.

So, that being considered: what causes what? There is only an unfathomably complex, incomprehensible interdependence. I say incomprehensible because the intellect can only take what is merely a photograph of the proccess. there are always unknown contituents.

I don't see cause and effect in the 'natural world'. There is only a harmonious simultaneousness. there is no time.

A person who fully comprehends the principle of cause and effect can view it in both these ways without falling into error.

Yes, from a broader perspective, there is no cause and effect. The Universe, from its beginningless past to its endless future, can be regarded as a single instantaneous event. Things can't really be seperated out into "causes" and "effects". There is only a seamless continuum.

However, from the practical standpoint of us living on this earth as human beings and experiencing time as a reality, things are definitely unfolding all around us via causation. From this standpoint, it is perfectly correct to speak of "causes" and "effects". That is why, for example, we can predict rain by looking at the sky and observing heavy clouds coming towards us.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

David Quinn wrote:

However, from the practical standpoint of us living on this earth as human beings and experiencing time as a reality, things are definitely unfolding all around us via causation. From this standpoint, it is perfectly correct to speak of "causes" and "effects". That is why, for example, we can predict rain by looking at the sky and observing heavy clouds coming towards us.

Doesnt 'nature' merely 'appear' to be unfolding via causation?

I don't agree that we 'need' to believe in causation in order to see the increased probablility of rain. Are you saying that the Heavy clouds 'cause' the rain? For one, are not heavy clouds, rain? Heavy clouds 'are' essentially rain that 'might' drop' The apprehension that the rain observed in the sky might fall is not born from a belief in causation. It seem to me that a person can live in this world practically, without believing in 'causation'. But i'm totally open to seeing it another way, so please, I encourage you to humble me.

Since most of us have interpreted/assumed reality to be time based, cause and effect based, I think we have unfortunatley imposed that interpretation back upon nature. The cruder and more common forms of Religion and science are similar in that they both rest on a foundation of causality.

Believing in Jesus as my savior, causes me to go to heaven.

Believing that by implementing pesticides and technology into my method of agriculture, I will solve my problems producing yields cost effectively.

'The belief in causation' comes very close to explaining the essence of humanities problems. Although the belief in causation has relationships to other constituents (fear, desire, etc)

[back to Quinn's rain]

The 'probability' is higher for rain when the sky is filled with heavy clouds - -precisely because the heavy clouds 'are' rain.

We can only try to predict whether or not the rain will fall. I suppose the heavy clouds(rain) might 'cause' us to go inside and take down the blanket that was on the clothes line with us. However, if one sees oneself as undivided from nature, then there is only one undivided movement that you 'are'. There is only one whole proccess that one naturally moves with without resistance, without absurdly trying to fight against it.

Moreever, some might say, the rain will 'cause' the plants to grow. However, man-made deserts reveal how, the rain is just as much caused by the vegetation, as the vegetation is caused by the rain. A very abundant forest, when clear-cutted, turns the entire area into a desert, because it was the forest that was generating the rain, rather than the rain generating the forest. However, ulimately the rain, the forest, light, etc....are all one. Utlimately, the vegetation 'is' the rain, the sunlight, a great deal of minerals, and, well, everything and much more than we know.

you might find this fellow interesting, as well as his interview.
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC14/Fukuoka.htm

Now, my question is: What is the use in realizing the 'broader perspective of 'no division, no time/no cause and effect?

I have a hunch, I could articulate why it is important, but one mustn't be too long winded. It would be more of an enjoyment to watch someone take the lead or even totally rebuke me. Please, be my guest.

[David Quinn]

Cory wrote:

DQ: However, from the practical standpoint of us living on this earth as human beings and experiencing time as a reality, things are definitely unfolding all around us via causation. From this standpoint, it is perfectly correct to speak of "causes" and "effects". That is why, for example, we can predict rain by looking at the sky and observing heavy clouds coming towards us.

CP: Doesnt 'nature' merely 'appear' to be unfolding via causation?

Well, it appears to me to be unfolding in this way because I already know it to be logically true. In other words, I know that it is logically untenable to believe that things can arise without any cause at all.

I don't agree that we 'need' to believe in causation in order to see the increased probablility of rain. Are you saying that the Heavy clouds 'cause' the rain?

It certainly appears to be one of its causes. Other causes would include the earth, its atmosphere, gravity, the sun, humidity, the molecular structure of water, etc. As with anything else, it necessarily has countless causes.

For one, are not heavy clouds, rain?

I know what you're getting at, but in the interests of minimizing confusion we normally define rain to mean the falling water from the sky, not the floating mists from which this water comes.

Heavy clouds 'are' essentially rain that 'might' drop'

That's right. The rain will drop when all of the causal circumstances are in place. It may be that a strong wind will suddenly whip up and blow the clouds away, dispersing them and not generating any rain at all.

The apprehension that the rain observed in the sky might fall is not born from a belief in causation. It seem to me that a person can live in this world practically, without believing in 'causation'. But i'm totally open to seeing it another way, so please, I encourage you to humble me.

Everything you do in this world has consequences. When you type your posts and send them to this forum, for example, you implicitly assume that the electronic data will successfully reach the right address, that the server's software will successfully reconvert this data into English text, that what you have to say will impact upon the eyes and brains of everyone who reads it, and that, hopefully, one or two of us will be inspired enough to write a response. All throughout this, you are tacitly assuming the reality of causation.

Since most of us have interpreted/assumed reality to be time based, cause and effect based, I think we have unfortunatley imposed that interpretation back upon nature.

At the same time, the reason we do this is because Nature has already imposed this reality upon us. We can only do what Nature causes us to do.

The cruder and more common forms of Religion and science are similar in that they both rest on a foundation of causality.

Believing in Jesus as my savior, causes me to go to heaven.

Believing that by implementing pesticides and technology into my method of agriculture, I will solve my problems producing yields cost effectively.

What people crudely believe has no bearing on matters of truth.

[back to Quinn's rain]

The 'probability' is higher for rain when the sky is filled with heavy clouds - -precisely because the heavy clouds 'are' rain.

We can only try to predict whether or not the rain will fall. I suppose the heavy clouds(rain) might 'cause' us to go inside and take down the blanket that was on the clothes line with us. However, if one sees oneself as undivided from nature, then there is only one undivided movement that you 'are'. There is only one whole proccess that one naturally moves with without resistance, without absurdly trying to fight against it.

You're actually arguing for causality here. Yes, in reality, there are no divisions in Nature. There is only an undivided whole. But as soon as we mentally carve up Nature into things, causality immediately becomes a reality. Causality is like a conceptual glue which rejoins what has been artificially seperated in the first place.

Moreever, some might say, the rain will 'cause' the plants to grow. However, man-made deserts reveal how, the rain is just as much caused by the vegetation, as the vegetation is caused by the rain. A very abundant forest, when clear-cutted, turns the entire area into a desert, because it was the forest that was generating the rain, rather than the rain generating the forest. However, ulimately the rain, the forest, light, etc....are all one. Utlimately, the vegetation 'is' the rain, the sunlight, a great deal of minerals, and, well, everything and much more than we know.

Well, we don't want to push this line of thought so far that we start confusing the identity of things. Rain, after all, is rain, and vegetation is vegetation. But I agree with the overall thrust of what you are saying here.

Now, my question is: What is the use in realizing the 'broader perspective of 'no division, no time/no cause and effect?

I have a hunch, I could articulate why it is important, but one mustn't be too long winded. It would be more of an enjoyment to watch someone take the lead or even totally rebuke me. Please, be my guest.

Most people here already know my take on these matters, so I'd like to hear what you have to say. I can always give you my views as our dialogue unfolds.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

To comment on this topic, I also suspect that ‘cause and effect’ is a limitation is man’s consciousness when applied to nature.

You cannot say that the heavy clouds cause the rain. At first glance it appears sound and reasonable, but if you examine all processes related to ‘heavy clouds’, and related to ‘rain’, you will discover a confusing intermingling weave of infinite ‘cause and effect’ relationships. So I question whether you can pin down one of these relationships and actually claim to know something.

You cannot talk about heavy clouds without looking at high and low pressure zones. But you cannot talk about these zones unless you consider the activity occurring at the equator where solar insolation penetrates the atmosphere from the sun. And so on and so on….

But someone may come along and say “yes, but look, you’ve followed the heavy clouds back through a series of related processes, so therefore you are seeing the ‘cause and effect’ relationships. But I remain skeptical because all I am only seeing is a limited incomplete picture.

I am unable to grasp the subtlety of the infinite amount of interrated “cause and effect” relationships that relate to each one of these processes.

This is why the scientists are so destructive to nature. They find a ‘cause and effect’ relationship that they feel gives them some sort of knowledge, and they create a product, which manipulates that one relationship. The problem occurs because nature functions harmonious without these added products, and when we add them into the environment, they send hundreds of other ‘cause and effects’ relationships into disarray at the same time.

So then the scientists franticly create other products to solve these newly created problems. And then out of stupidity they complain that nature a cruel, unbalanced, force that is in need of conquering.

And all these problems caused by the scientists fool the ignorant man into thinking nature is disorderly, and they worship science as the holy grail of human achievement.

Many people feel science has rescued humanity, but let us not forget that humanity has grown increasingly depressed, alienated, confused, dull, debauch and all the rest.

Japan is a great example. Japan is a country that leads the world in technological achievement. But I suspect you will not find too many followers of the infinite in a Japanese society. These people have been programmed to work like ants. There is very little leisure because they are competitively working towards creating technology, which the wise are actually able to live without.

Japan has the highest suicide rate of all countries, but they represent one of the richest in terms of the abundance of luxury, technology, pleasure and all the rest.

Although one important exception that Quinn points out is man made things. Causation works in terms of man made things. For example: causation can be applied to a car engine or a computer because this machine-like object has components, which malfunction and must be replaced. Therefore we can apply causation to it.

But Nature does not have components, which break. Components may decay, but then mysteriously transform into something new. Nature doesn’t consist of components that are a susceptible to malfunction. This undivided whole is more intelligent than that. It renews itself independently of man’s meddling. And because it does so causation is rarely needed, when working with nature.

Natural farming for instance is a method, which involves very little meddling and intervention. I can see clearly that this is the future for humanity, if we are to survive.

there still maybe technology, but it will be minimal technology. Not every indvidual will have the luxury of having a cell phone, computer, palm pilot, tv, landline phone, hot water tank, dvd player, honda civic, etc, I see one device shared in an entire farming village. The cities are something the intelligent man must abandon. I forsee pockets of wise man uniting, and leaving the cities to create sustainable communities. The unatural energy demand of the city is destroying the planet, this is a irrefutable fact.

[DHodges]

This is why the scientists are so destructive to nature. They find a ‘cause and effect’ relationship that they feel gives them some sort of knowledge, and they create a product, which manipulates that one relationship. The problem occurs because nature functions harmonious without these added products, and when we add them into the environment, they send hundreds of other ‘cause and effects’ relationships into disarray at the same time.

So then the scientists franticly create other products to solve these newly created problems. And then out of stupidity they complain that nature a cruel, unbalanced, force that is in need of conquering.

My view of nature changed, after living in Texas for a short while.

I've always enjoyed outdoor activities, just being out in nature, camping, and so on. But in Texas, it seems like nature is always trying to kill you in some way. In the summer, there is the ridiculous heat (over 100 degrees F for 90 days straight). There are the insane plagues of insects. There are torrential downpours of rain that I had never seen before; the occasional hurricane; hailstone that is a common source of damage to vehicles and roofs. In one season there is the pollen which gives some people allergies, and molds in another season. There are even some large wild cats that will occasionally wander into the suburbs.

Most (urban) Texans just don't go outside that much. Generally, it's much nicer inside, with filtered, refrigerated air. Nature in Texas is just harsh.

And all these problems caused by the scientists fool the ignorant man into thinking nature is disorderly, and they worship science as the holy grail of human achievement.

That is sometimes true, but it is also true that a good deal of science addresses and solves real problems. A good example is medical science. Sure, it has its flaws, but if you break a leg you will be damn glad there is a hospital and people who know what to do.

Many people feel science has rescued humanity, but let us not forget that humanity has grown increasingly depressed, alienated, confused, dull, debauch and all the rest.

This is based on the idea that there was some "golden age" when men were NOT depressed, alienated, etc. I don't think there was. This is just an expression of alienation with civilization in general, which is quite natural and common. Civilization by its nature trades off satisfaction of short-term desires for longer-term goals, and so is often frustrating to the individual.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I've always enjoyed outdoor activities, just being out in nature, camping, and so on. But in Texas, it seems like nature is always trying to kill you in some way. In the summer, there is the ridiculous heat (over 100 degrees F for 90 days straight). There are the insane plagues of insects. There are torrential downpours of rain that I had never seen before; the occasional hurricane; hailstone that is a common source of damage to vehicles and roofs. In one season there is the pollen which gives some people allergies, and molds in another season. There are even some large wild cats that will occasionally wander into the suburbs.

Yes, Texas could be harsh by nature. Perhaps we have moved into areas, which should not have human inhabits such as the artic and the desert.

There is another possibility as well, Perhaps much of the disorder in Texas is a consequence of human activity. For instance pesticides will cause unnatural imbalances of insects because the insects that are not destroyed by the product build up an immunity and become “super insects”. Or sometimes a pesticide will whip out an entire predator of another insect causing an imbalance in certain populations.

Ridiculous heat can be attributed to industrial activity. We are having a record high winter where I live. No cold weather until this month. Very strange for this far north. I live in Nova Scotia, which is farther north than Maine.

We live on the coast so I attribute weather changes to the warming of the atlantic ocean because further inland is much colder. And this warming of the atlantic ocean could be caused by industrial activity, or it could be some natural cycle.

So there seems to be visible climatic fluctuations, perhaps they part of some sort of hot house period, which occurs after an ice age period. I’ve studied geology, and this is one possible explanation.

Or the other is that our industrial activity is to blame.

Or weather may not be this static, consistent process as we once believed. It is very difficult to pin down the culprit.

That is sometimes true, but it is also true that a good deal of science addresses and solves real problems. A good example is medical science. Sure, it has its flaws, but if you break a leg you will be damn glad there is a hospital and people who know what to do.

Agreed.

This is based on the idea that there was some "golden age" when men were NOT depressed, alienated, etc. I don't think there was. This is just an expression of alienation with civilization in general, which is quite natural and common. Civilization by its nature trades off satisfaction of short-term desires for longer-term goals, and so is often frustrating to the individual.

Agreed. My only point is that science has not addressed our psychological disorder. Or has done so very feebly. There isn’t much wisdom at my university, just incomplete reductionism.

a psychology course I took teaches you the different parts of the brain, which is irrelevant for a follower of the infinite.

The problem with Scientists is that they are unable to discern what is of value to invent of what isn’t. Many of their inventions only make it more difficult for man to free himself from the vices of civilization.

But you make a valid point. Science has done good work in certain areas of study. I cannot refute this.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cosmic Prostitute wrote:

Nature doesn’t consist of components that are a susceptible to malfunction

Well, wouldnt you agree: human beings are malfunctioning? I wouldn't say nature is infallible. Nature has produced humans which are obviously not functioning very smoothly. However, nature does a good job at taking a mistake, a problem and ingeniously turning it into a solution.

As for using science for health treatment, medicine and healing broken limbs - - yes, that is a good thing, however, doctors, nurses, etc...are sensely overworked because they are slavishly treating people who have been so tragically degraded and injured by a cause and effect, time based understanding of life.

Technology and science have been used to support and pamper stupidty. You help the weak and it makes them weaker. By realizing that, one will perhaps help hummanity simply be being wise and not trying to change any particular person with any particular medicine or method.

Technology, from it's crudest origins (the slavery of animals being), has definitely given man the ability to do things he would be wise to not do, and live in places where he would be wise to not live.

Cosmic Prostitute did a good job of illustrating some of the practicals advantages of going beyond a cause and effect(time) understanding.

If one's reality is limited to a 'cause and effect, time' based understanding - - then a large portion of the choices one makes (or believes he/she is making) are born out of a motive to improve nature/oneself (and thus degenerate nature/oneself)

Cause and effect is a reality that only exists if you believe in it.

The belief is born from a causal interpretation of ones experience. Technology has obviously been begotten from man's facination with trying to understand nature. Nature provides wonderful ideas to mimic in the form of technology as well as art.

If you believe in cause and effect and do not know what it means to be free from cause and effect(time) - - - then you will commit all sorts of absurditites. You will be enslaved by your talents, your ambitions, your vulgar attempts at sedating yourself, you will be enslaved by your most sophisticated thoughts. You will practice, practice, practice.......believing that it will be the cause of a great life. Motives are born out of a cause and effect way of thinking. Motives can only lead to disspointment, terror, depression, anger, hatred, etc....

There needs to be a joy in doing what one has no choice to do. Humans have no choice to find themselves in the predicament called living, and graceful, intelligent living is not a choice. Each of us has a role that we are cut out to play. It is a neccesity to discover what it is you are, rather than alowing yourself to be subjugated to the will of the human who wants to control you for his own gratification and fantasy of superiority.


Nature does not impose itself upon us. We 'are' nature. We must move with it naturally, we must be one with it, rather than trying to control it and the illusionary image we have of ourselves. Trying to control is an attempt to impose upon nature something that one hopes will make life better......and then life of course gets worse.

Why does one believe there is a division between oneself and nature? You cannot impose yourself upon yourself. You can try, but that would be madness. And madness is precisely what humanity is.

Whoever makes it his aim in life to awaken as many people as possible is perhaps deluded.

Who here believes that they are going to the be the cause, and enlightened people are going to be the effect?

I'm not so sure that it works that way. Sure you will gain yourself some admirers, disciples, etc....soley do to your narcissistic cunning.......but I don't see how you are going to be the cause of the inner richness of another person.

I question whether a human being can be the cause of his own inner richness. hopefullly the people reading this do as well. If not, hopefully you will prove me wrong.

[David Quinn]

cosmic-prostitute wrote:

To comment on this topic, I also suspect that ‘cause and effect’ is a limitation is man’s consciousness when applied to nature.

You cannot say that the heavy clouds cause the rain. At first glance it appears sound and reasonable, but if you examine all processes related to ‘heavy clouds’, and related to ‘rain’, you will discover a confusing intermingling weave of infinite ‘cause and effect’ relationships. So I question whether you can pin down one of these relationships and actually claim to know something.

No one here is attempting to do this. As you suggest, causality is infinitely complex. At the same time, it is a principle of infinite simplicity and the creator of all things.

You cannot talk about heavy clouds without looking at high and low pressure zones. But you cannot talk about these zones unless you consider the activity occurring at the equator where solar insolation penetrates the atmosphere from the sun. And so on and so on….

Yes, as with anything else, rain has countless causes. And as human beings with limited senses and brains, we can only ever be aware of a few of them.

-

[David Quinn]

Cory wrote:

Cosmic Prostitute did a good job of illustrating some of the practicals advantages of going beyond a cause and effect(time) understanding.

No, he spoke against a limited conception of causality and advocated a more advanced conception of causality.

Cause and effect is a reality that only exists if you believe in it.

Cause and effect is always a reality whether you are caused to believe in it or not.

The belief is born from a causal interpretation of ones experience.

Translation: One's experiences causes the belief in causality.

Even in your attempt to negate the reality of causality, you are affirming it.

Again, you don't need to negate the reality of causality in order to affirm the reality of the undivided Whole. But you do have to negate the delusion that things can pop into existence out of thin air, without any cause at all. Such a conception creates divisions where none really exist.

If you believe in cause and effect and do not know what it means to be free from cause and effect(time) - - - then you will commit all sorts of absurditites. You will be enslaved by your talents, your ambitions, your vulgar attempts at sedating yourself, you will be enslaved by your most sophisticated thoughts. You will practice, practice, practice.......believing that it will be the cause of a great life. Motives are born out of a cause and effect way of thinking. Motives can only lead to disspointment, terror, depression, anger, hatred, etc....

You are linking these two things together unnecessarily. It is possible to affirm the reality of causality (because it is irrefutably true) and yet not engage in the kinds of limited behaviours which you describe.

I personally have used my understanding of causality to discern the further truth that nothing inherently exists, including the self, and thus it has enabled me to cease the striving for a "great life".

I'm not sure what you mean by motiveless choices and behaviour, though. You seem to be mashing two conflcting ideas together here. On the one hand, you say that motivated behaviour is wrong because it is time-based, but you seem to overlook the fact that choosing is time-based as well.

What is an example of a choice which is completely unmotivated? As far as I'm aware, choices are always motivated, by definition.

Nature does not impose itself upon us. We 'are' nature. We must move with it naturally, we must be one with it, rather than trying to control it and the illusionary image we have of ourselves. Trying to control is an attempt to impose upon nature something that one hopes will make life better......and then life of course gets worse.

I trust, then, that you are living in the wild without any of the trappings of human civilization.

Whoever makes it his aim in life to awaken as many people as possible is perhaps deluded.

Who here believes that they are going to the be the cause, and enlightened people are going to be the effect?

A wise person can indeed be one of the causes that leads to a person's enlightenment. I know in my case that I was helped by other enlightened thinkers. A few wise words uttered with timing and skill by a sage can easily be the difference between a person's mind being triggered into the highest understanding, or him receding back into worldly mediocrity.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

If I am preparing a meal, and am cutting carrots on a cutting board, what is causing the carrots to cut? The knife? My hand gripping the knife? The energy exerted? Where does the energy come from? The brain is perceiving and concentrating on the carrot, coordinating the knife. (what causes the brain to do that?) How did I learn to cut a carrot? Did someone show me as a child? Who showed them? To be truthful, you have to go back, back, back, back. You have to consider everything. If you are thoughtful and patient enough, you will see that there is no cause to what you are doing, or better; there is no cause to what you are.

Even if everyone did wake up and realize that there is no causality, that does not mean that we should abandon our intellects, that does not mean we should stop using tools, technology, etc…….on the contrary there needs to be the presence of genius, which realizes that we are being used by our tools and our technology, rather than the assumption that we have some sort of control and independence over our tools. It is a mutual exploitation, technology exploits us, just as much as we exploit it - - however, to be more accurate, there is simply an indivisibility between us and our tools - -- there is only a particular quality of energy/intelligence/health expressed in a form.


The belief in the supremacy of causality was the birth of tragedy. Religion and Science are both rooted in a casual interpretation of existence. In nature, there is no tragedy. However, our desire for the unreal has created tragedy. I realize that it is not just as simple as ‘not believing’ in causality. There simply has to be the presence of intelligence/genius/cosmic consciousness. This quality of intelligence sees what is true and what is illusion and thus any desires for the unreal come to an end. If I am somehow freed from delusion, if genius takes over my body, the tragedy of humanity of course continues……however, I am no longer part of it, (or at least, I ‘m not sacrificing myself to contribute to the momentum of stupidity) I am not giving most of, or all of my self to humanities tragic momentum. I am, for the most part, being removed from the great volume of ignorance rushing like a ferocious river. The death of ‘me’ weakens the river and makes it easier for people to die peacefully. What is causing me to be removed? What is causing me to die? One cannot choose to be removed, to die. One cannot will his way out of limitation. One can only die/regenerate, which is a-causal.

Causality is not the creator of all things. There is creation. That is all. The intellect can divide the creator from the created, it can divide life from death, pain from pleasure, but it is only an illusion.

Rain, fire, vegetation, truly do not have any causes. There is only the convenience of using thought and sounds to make distinctions between manifestations in order to communicate to each other for practical cooperation.

Cory wrote:

Cosmic Prostitute did a good job of illustrating some of the practicals advantages of going beyond a cause and effect(time) understanding.

David Replied:

No, he spoke against a limited conception of causality and advocated a more advanced conception of causality.

Well, reading over what he wrote, it’s true, he seemed to point to a more advanced conception of causality, however, his conception was born out of a realization that causality is not the truth.

Cosmic Prostitute, do you care to elaborate? Maybe you could clear this up.

To me it seems that, knowing is born out of unknowing. Cosmic prostitutes more advanced conception of causality was born out of a state of unknowing.

There is a practicality in seeing beyond the belief that causality (time) exists ‘in nature’. CP, perhaps unwittingly, helped to reveal this usefulness by revealing how an awareness of nature’s incomprehensibleness (such an awareness is timeless, beyond causality) unveils the inadequacies of our past and present mentalities and the inadequacies of most of our attempts to live sensibly/peacefully. He thus points a finger into a direction where, if we are pliable enough receptacles, we have no choice to find ourselves gravitating toward. We shall continue to use technology, but with increased reluctance, safety and sophistication only because we have come to understand the perniciousness of a causal conception). That new understanding is not born from time. It is a timeless consciousness that does not see things in terms of cause and effect. That quality of consciousness is the only consciousness that can live without creating problems. That quality of consciousness, timeless and a-causal, operates.

True understanding has no cause.

Cause and effect do not exist. There is only the ‘tragedy/comedy’ that is begotten from the belief in it.


David wrote:

One's experience’s cause the belief in causality.

How about we put it this way:

One’s experience is shaped, limited, conditioned by thought/beliefs. (Now, what causes thought?)

Sometimes thoughts are organized with sufficient sophistication in order to invent and wield technology. (What ‘causes’ the brain to organize thought in a way that is sophisticated enough to invent?)

David wrote:

Even in your attempt to negate the reality of causality, you are affirming it.

What is causing me to do this? What is causing me to attempt negating the reality of causality? Any answer you give me leaves another question. If you tell me it is my fear, then, what causes my fear? Any answer will breed another question, add infinitum.

David wrote:

You do have to negate the delusion that things can pop into existence out of thin air, without any cause at all. Such a conception creates divisions where none really exist.

How can an ‘undivided Whole’ cause itself? I don’t see how an undivided whole can have a cause.

David wrote:

Is it possible to affirm the reality of causality (because it is irrefutably true) and yet not engage in the kinds of limited behaviors which you describe?

I would think that one would have to realize the un-reality of causality first, before he or she could have the strength to not engage in enslaving activities, from subtle to gross. If one realizes the un-reality of causality - - only then can one act holistically (without choice). Otherwise you will seek and establish comfort in things that have no permanency, and thus, you will become increasingly empty, anguished, bored, lonely, arrogant, hateful, anti-social, frightened, sadistic, depressed, etc….

Personally I have used my understanding of causality to discern the further truth that nothing inherently exists, including the self, and thus it has enabled me to cease the striving for a "great life".

I think you have to be careful here. A computer cannot understand itself. ‘Intellect/thought’ is basically a computer. What makes us different from computers is that we can ‘be an understanding’ that is not of the computer that we perhaps formally assumed ourselves to be. (we are not our intellect/thought/emotions).

This ‘understanding/cosmic consciousness/genius’ understands that what it is, is not the ‘computer/thought/intellect’.

Likewise, you are not the reflection you see in the mirror or in the pond or lake. Thought is a reflection, sometimes very low resolution, sometimes very high, very detailed, very subtle or very wavy, dull and vague. Either way, the mirror(thought) is not what understands. Consciousness runs through (benevolently uses and/or is malignantly absorbed by) ‘intellect/thought/animal emotions’. Consciousness sees itself in the mirror of thought. That ‘consciousness/understanding/light’ is divorced from a causal conception, it is divorced from thought.

What ‘causes’ that consciousness? And second, is that consciousness ‘yours’? The ‘understanding/consciousness’ within you….is it not the same ‘understanding/consciousness’ that operated through the brains and intellects of Jesus, Socrates, lau-tsu, etc, etc, etc……That pure, uncontaminated, timeless consciousness is conditioned, distorted, and absorbed by thought (to a very mild degree (sage), a moderate degree (more typical philosopher) or to extreme degrees (bourgeois business man, Christian, etc….)

Our idiosyncrasies, our uniqueness is created by how our brain is conditioned by thought, by our hurts and acquired pleasures and preferences. Speculation: A state of pure consciousness that is not absorbed by intellect/thought at all is perhaps god, unbridled freedom via death, or an exceptional state of meditation.

David wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by motiveless choices and behavior, though. You seem to be mashing two conflicting ideas together here.

No, there is no such thing as motiveless choices. There are simply motive-less actions - -- which are not choices. Motiveless actions are simply the circumstances that you find your senses and logic responding to - -which very often is a problem for most people, an anxiety, a pain, etc…..the solution to the problem of life is never a choice, an answer, a thought - - there is simply the ability to accurately distinguish facts from mere knowledge and from there, live, for the most part, unknowingly.

You didn’t choose to be born, right? And as you read this right now, you are not choosing ‘what’ has been written. If your brain disagrees with it, that disagreement is not a choice, right? Or if you are genuinely confused or puzzled by what you are reading, then that bewilderment is not a choice. And the solution to my errors (in your opinion, or factually) is also not something you choose, or I choose, it is simply the only obvious solution (which is not a mere explanation). If one is in a dark cave, there is really only one light, one exit.

You can choose to read what I have written you - - -but you don’t choose ‘what’ I write to you. Likewise, you don’t choose to ‘see’ my statements as inaccurate, illogical - - and you don’t choose what the solution is…....it simply is.

The same goes for living. You can choose ‘to’ live ---- but you do not choose ‘what’ you actually end up going through in order to live.

It is the undesirability of this predicament that leads people into stagnant lives of isolation, misery, and occasionally suicide. The human being wants a sense of control, superiority and distinction, and the only way he can get that sensibility of control and distinction is by striving and unwittingly isolating himself and thus becoming more and more miserable and/or malevolent.

On the one hand, you say that motivated behavior is wrong because it is time-based, but you seem to overlook the fact that choosing is time-based as well.

There is only apprehension, pain and anxiety in relationship to a desire or demand for freedom from pain and anxiety.

The apprehension of pain and anxiety is not a choice, nor is the desire that sprouts from pain and anxiety. I am a human being in relationship to people and things, and I have found myself filled with ‘thoughts/desires’ based on a particular language, articulated with a certain vernacular, mingled with rationalizations, ideas, beliefs, fears, emotions and animalistic excitements. As humans, we did not choose this predicament we find ourselves conditioned by, and seldom do we realize even ‘that’ much. Generally, as a human being, I am anxious, uncertain, lonely, there is the dreadful sense of inferiority, etc, etc, etc…….The desire for freedom or release from this is accompanied by a certain logic, a map that one is tempted to use in order to arrive at a destination, a promised land.

This logic, like the brain, is not personal, although there are some idiosyncrasies comprising a person’s logic, however this is largely unimportant. A vase is a vase. Holding water is what is important. The uniqueness of the vase is not important. It takes strength to also admit that some individuals have greater capacities and more auspicious hardware/software than others (and this is solely due to luck, there is nothing to be proud about).

How do I get out of this limited predicament? I am relatively stupid compared to so and so and I want to be more intelligent. I am mortal and I want to become immortal. I am brutal and impatient and I want to become gentle and tolerant. I am sullen and withdrawn and I want to become witty and outgoing. Questions and desires that are along the lines of the aforementioned are what has plagued a great deal of humanity from the beginning, and for the most part, questions such as these have lead to quick, cheap, ‘destructive’ answers. It is the pleasurable, comforting answers in relationship to the gnawing, anxious questions that have made humanity such an idiotic, degenerated, tortured, isolated, miserable, species. The limited logic of human beings, because it is based on causation/time, functions only to amplify the pain and the anxiety. The limited capacity, emotional balance/temperament and overall health of my brain/body is not a choice. Hopefully one was raised in a healthy enough situation to understand that they must eat well, sleep well, avoid drug, not read too much, not acquire prejudiced views, etc…

I have a disposition and it has limits. Those limits can be incrementally surpassed to a certain extent, however, no matter how much one accumulates and progresses, one remains imprisoned within the field of time. There must be a consciousness that is not of time/causation. Realization of a fact in relationship to the challenge of surviving and the drive to survive is not a motivated choice. It simply is. The brain, if it is healthy, is in a state of wonderment. There is no motive in this state of wonderment. There is dishonest inquiry, an inquiry that is based on assumptions. Obviously such an inquiry will only seek answers that support the cherished assumptions. True inquiry is a wonderment and watchfulness that does not know what it is going to get, or better, it sees quite plainly there is nothing to get. The inquiry is born out of a discontent with the ways of the world. This discontent is not a choice, nor is the wonderment and watchfulness that goes along with it.

David Wrote:

What is an example of a choice which is completely unmotivated? As far as I'm aware, choices are always motivated, by definition.

Yes, if choices exist, (and as of late, I’ve been doubting their existence) then they are definitely accompanied by a motivation to achieve something. What you are trying to achieve is a conditioned state. What is one’s aspiration? - - one fellow wants to be a musician, the other, an actor, or a police man, a film maker, a priest, a guru, or a politician, or…..even a genius. The aspiration to become ‘something’ implies that you are lured by a hope of what it will be like to be what you aspire for. Generally, a human being is going to have an image of what it is like to be the thing they admire. Of course, whatever it is they want to be, whether it is a goal of becoming a cool person who smokes cigarettes and drinks, or a scientist who achieves something great, there is really only the desire for comfort, happiness, and security, the idiosyncratic aspiration is just a unique mask, not really of much worth.

Humans are motivated to become secure and will aspire towards that security in many different ways from the most stupid to the most sophisticated. Instead of actually wanting to be a genius, a musician, a politician, the human being really only wants to achieve the emotional state of what they imagine such a status will bring. Motivation implies that there is a desire for a positive emotional state. Motivation implies desire. Desire implies emotion. Of course, after striving for many years towards a fantasy, one becomes very dissatisfied, isolated, disappointed, lonely, anti-social, bored, frustrated, etc. That is why marriage is such a disappointment, or, even if you weren’t expecting much, you are still imprisoned by conditions that you deemed were better than the conditions of no-marriage. If you are going to live without conditions, then you better be very intelligent. If not, then you will be more miserable than you would be if you organized yourself into a conventional, dull, routine. Human’s desire to be defined, confined, and conditioned. Genius/wisdom is unconditional, a-casual and thus undesirable. You cannot desire/choose and set out to achieve wisdom/genius. Aspiration and motivation can only chase mirages of happiness and security. There is no motive in recognizing the fact that there is no security, there is no happiness that will not bring just as much or more pain.

If someone encourages me to smoke cigarettes - - - because I am not frightened and emotional - --because I am not concerned with trying to fit in socially - -- I have the composure to see the fact that cigarettes are addicting, a waste of money, and destroy health. Negating the cigarette is not a choice, it is simply the presence of intelligence displacing irrationality.

David wrote,

I trust, then, that you are living in the wild without any of the trappings of human civilization.

No, I live with my parents right now. They are interested mainly in working at jobs they don’t like, drinking wine, and playing golf. I have grown quite a bit of my own food in their back yard using a no till, mulch intensive method, no weeding, or watering, much like cosmic prostitute had claimed to have done.

Tomorrow I’m actually going to a place called wind-horse farms – it is an eco-village that emphasizes a oneness with nature using similar agricultural methods, and much more…..

I welcome you to explore their site.

http://www.windhorsefarm.org/map/windhorsefarm.htm

There is no reason why we can’t move with and cooperate with nature while using tools, technology, agriculture and architecture. Wind-horse farms is a village that has been functioning in just the way that I am urging everyone to function.

A wise person can indeed be one of the causes that leads to a person's enlightenment. I know in my case that I was helped by other enlightened thinkers. A few wise words uttered with timing and skill by a sage can easily be the difference between a person's mind being triggered into the highest understanding, or him receding back into worldly mediocrity.

You can’t drag a horse to the water that doesn’t want to drink. And for the horse that does want to drink, what causes him to want to drink? As far as I can tell, there is only harmony in relationship to disorder. Harmony has no cause. Were the people who helped you the ones who caused you to seek, to think, to wonder? What caused you to seek enlightenment, to wonder? What caused these people who helped you to be wise? Isn’t the intelligence that existed or exists in them, the same intelligence that exists in you? What caused that intelligence?

David, as far as I can tell, you are only lucky to have a healthy enough brain to discriminate good food from bad, good books from bad, good people from bad, and good words from bad. What caused your brain to be healthy? If you have anything…….well, I know for certain that you don’t have anything - -- - all there is, is a harmonious relationship, a healthy body and brain in relationship to other harmonious constituents (people, food, energy, books, etc...) Harmony has no cause, it simply is.

I'll be gone for about 7 days, reply to you then.

[hsandman]

Cory Patrick

Since we live and in dimention of time as well as space , causality is our reality, if you were conciousness outside time cousality would not be your reality, but i can not grasp that concept since my brain works with laws of causality. I can aknowledge that causality laws would not exist in such case, but i can not fanthom it. Your post was like rollercoaster of insights and also wrong turns, but i guess thats the way reason works with information, the problem is being able to determine where each road is leading before walking too far on it, thats where logic comes in, the better your logic the earlier you will realise when you are on the wrong path and can make corrections in your navigation.

The "Freedom of choice" is subject in itself that im sure somone has explored with greater deapth, the problem would be sifting trough all that garbage without geting dirty before finding it. ( i am not much of a scholar on written texts) , but let me just point out that the choices do not depend upon you or any single thing, but the "whole cosmos" of past, present and future. The end result of you choosing the red mnm over blue mnm esentialy is not your choice, it is the someone elses choice, you and your actions being the end result and the cause ( the reasoning in matrix movie :P )in the "circular chain" of "choices". Bit complicated, but makes sense to me, such realisation is not good for the ego (the big "I") , but thats where reasoning has led me. Then again i could be heading down the wrong path :) As the saying goes "The only certainty is that there is no certainty" (which would make that sentance also subject to uncertainy :) ) So these are just my thoughts on subject nothing more.

Otherwise your post was interesting and entartainging :) I might brake it up latter in critical junctions and try to follow it more deeply with comments. It depends on the cosmoss i guess :P