Sapius,
Sue:Yes Leyla, Sapius’ point seems muddled
Sapius:Sure they seem to be, to most, I know how difficult it is to eliminate contradictions by superimposing them into a seamless logical now.
But sadly you don’t seem to value your own thoughts enough, to actually ensure they are logical; for example, what are you trying to say above?
Sapius:"…irrelevant of obvious natural differences that are necessary for things and consciousness to exist inter-dependently…"
Sue:The fact that things appear different from one another doesn’t impact on the fact that all things are interdependent.
Sapius:I’m sorry, I don’t understand; what has ‘impact’ got to do here? Are you saying that things exist independently of each other?
In your original sentence you seem to be saying that the appearance of “differences†is “necessary†for things etc to “exist inter-dependentlyâ€. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. How about you give it another shot and explain how the appearance of things are “necessary†for one to understand that all things are caused and therefore have no inherent existence.
My point was that it usually goes without saying that things appear different from one another, and that those differences are understood through cause and effect; ie. all things are caused.
Sapius:Consciousness cannot exist without things and vice versa. What is so complicated about it?
Conscious exists because of its causes. It also doesn’t exist because of its causes. I agree, nothing complicated there.
Sue:The rest of it seems to be traveling down the well trodden path of ‘everyone’s point of view is equally valid because they, along with everything else, are part of reality’.
Sapius:'Valid' does not necessarily mean true, but realizing that that statement is true does not mean that all ideas are equally true. And understanding the truth of that statement, and living it as in the Now after shredding all false views, is entirely different than simply professing it. You have to first know the background to what that actually means, since in no way would this statement negate the facts of logically deduced comparative conclusions.
Things exist and do not exist because of causality. I am caused to discriminate, and so are you. Understanding this, will you “Now†answer this question directly: are all point’s of view equal, or not?
Sue:Women love this bit of drivel as it pushes away the cold, hard, conscious discriminations needed to truly understand Reality and placing in its stead their unconscious, airy-fairy, ‘everyone’s ideas are equal and valid’ fluff.
Sapius:Sure, women (the feminine) may love it, those that take it superficially without questioning its philosophical depth, and the majority of them do. And I prefer calling it ‘differentiations’ rather than ‘discriminations’ since I find it almost criminal to call it ‘discrimination’. There is nothing that I may disagree with the QRS on the subject of femininity, except their hardliner approach towards not only the subject, which I can understand, but the person discussing it too, but at the same time I do understand their concern, and their belief in the style of conveying their message.
To differentiate also means to discriminate. So if you have been differentiating between things you have also been discriminating between them.
It is criminal
not to discriminate. If you are not always discriminating between what is true and what is false, you’re wasting your life. Some men have retained this masculine ability and use it to uncover the highest Truth. Most men have lost this ability as they have adopted the feminine bit of madness of describing people as ‘different but equal’.
Sapius:Do things have any inherent values? Not according to my understanding. Then how can “ideas†in them-selves have inherent values? Comparatively, yes, but not inherently, hence All ideas are not equal in comparative values, but that values are irrelevant from the perspective of Totality.
You’re trying to use the Totality to release you from all responsibility for your actions. You cannot say you value ‘not valuing’ because you are still valuing. What you’re actually saying is that you’re not really interested in anything about Reality, but you like the idea that ‘everything is equal’ because you think it means that everyone (but mostly you) can do any thing they please without any consequences and the Totality will consider this ‘perfectly ok’.
Sue:Lucky for women none of their ideas are actually fixed, so they can alter and change them at a moment’s notice. Men don’t have this luxury; they instead must live their lives according to their ideas.
Sapius:I take it you mean feminine traits, for those are not necessarily a man woman issue, it is to be found abundantly even in men, although physicality of sex effects one predominantly. Being a woman may be lucky in your opinion, so accordingly, being a man, I’m not that lucky I guess, and have to live by ideas that I have come to realize as true. What a shame… right?
Yes, masculine men are very rare indeed. Hardly a man on the planet has the degree of masculinity needed to take on a life of Truth. Most men are a sulky mix of failed masculinity using physically violence, misogyny, work, sex, drugs and alcohol to try and regain some control over their lives. But these guys aren’t the worst men can become; no, worst still are those that have given up any pretence of masculinity and have slid completely into the feminine mire. All that sets these men apart from other women is what sets all women apart from each other - their facade.
Sue:Women see men as the inferior sex because of this inability to ‘go with the flow’.
Sapius:You surely have the right to your opinion. No complaints.
You may have no complaints, but this desire of women for men to become more and more like them will be fulfilled if men don’t attempt to free themselves from her influence.
Sue:The funniest bit was when Sapius said she did “not place the quality of consciousness on a pedestalâ€. Oh yes she does! She obviously holds the feminine quality of unconsciousness in very high esteem.
Sapius:Again, you do have the right to first define feminine qualities and then judge accordingly, but I don’t have to agree to that, do I? If you place consciousness on a pedestal and that is what you have logically concluded from all the facts you have, good for you, but according to me, holding on to any “thing†as in inherently valuing it, and consciousness being but another “thingâ€, is a sure sign of a healthy false-ego.
It is incorrect to discriminate against someone because of the way they look, but it is perfectly correct to discriminate against someone because of the way they think.
Consciousness is more valuable than unconsciousness, but only to those that are conscious.
Sue
