I think you've misunderstood what I meant by perfect enlightenment. I merely meant that a person lives without any delusion. I didn't mean morally perfect, or a person who is the best at everything they do.
Of course no one is perfect. A juggling champion, the best in the world, may not be good at math. Someone can be great at everything, but there's always someone better, and there's always something they haven't done.
Enlightenment - a state of stupor or constant thought?
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Cory quoted:
Or is he saying that a "species" can be perfect only because it is an abstraction? But that's no good either, as my entire existence as an individual is an abstraction ....
-
I don't really understand this quote. Is he saying that perfection only applies to a collective? My body is comprised of a number of different species of cells, neurons, organelles, etc. So, under UG's criteria, I can be perfect after all."There are no perfect individuals, only a perfect species". -U.G.
Or is he saying that a "species" can be perfect only because it is an abstraction? But that's no good either, as my entire existence as an individual is an abstraction ....
-
The chicks really dig an enlightened dude
So, you see enlightenment as something one would do... for other people? It's only worthwhile if it is useful?Cory Patrick wrote:There will always be blunders and mishaps, but the more wise we get, the more easily we will be able to laugh at ourselves and thus get along with others. The more pompously enlightened, sagely and spiritual we become, the more isolated, robotic and useless we will become.
I don't see the any reason to think that the enlightened being will necessarily be useful to anyone else - or care if he was - or have a desire to get along with others (which is generally egotistical).
Also, I think it's a mistake to think of enlightenment as a means to some end (e.g., "the end of suffering") rather than an end in itself. Clearing the mind of delusions should be the goal - not some supposed benefit you would get from doing so.
The truth is just true. That's all. There is no reason that it will have to make you - or anyone else - happy. Truth has no goal or reason; it's just true. That's all it has going for it.
Either that's enough... or it isn't.
-
Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
David Quinn wrote:
Yeah, good eye Dave. After thinking it over, I realize I have no choice to be in agreement with your logic. Pretty irrefutable. You know, my ‘liking’ of that particular U.G. quote is probably a good illustration of how ones intelligence gets hindered, hampered, distorted by comforting thoughts. My relationship with that U.G. quote is somewhat sensual I suppose. Sensual in that, I was gratified and comforted by the quote. I think the quote is very ‘consoling’ to those who are very anxious about who they are, and is also a bit enigmatic, thus feeding the human desire for mystery.
I can just imagine U.G.’s subconscious motives:
“There, there…….nobodies perfect, just relax, give me some food, a place to sleep, and continue to believe I am a mysterious, great manâ€
U.G. – what a con.
So anyway, a species becomes perfected only by means of perfectly functioning individuals.
You can define perfect as an ‘absence of delusions’
However, have you ever studied the phenomenon of a psychopath? Dr. Hervey Cleckley was a psychologist who released in 1941 a book called The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Clarify Some Issues About the So-Called Psychopathic Personality
Cleckley defined psychopathy thus:
1. Superficial charm or intelligence.
2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking.
3. Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations.
4. Unreliability.
5. Untruthfulness and insincerity.
6. Lack of remorse or shame.
7. Antisocial behavior without apparent compunction.
8. Pathological egocentricity and incapacity to love.
9. General poverty in major affective relations.
10. Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations.
11. Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated.
12. Failure to follow any life plan.
Do you think Dr. Hervey was correct about the psychopath as being someone who is free from delusino. Or was Dr. Hervey simply sharing the same delusions as the psychopaths he was studying?
I don't really understand this quote. Is he saying that perfection only applies to a collective? My body is comprised of a number of different species of cells, neurons, organelles, etc. So, under UG's criteria, I can be perfect after all.
Yeah, good eye Dave. After thinking it over, I realize I have no choice to be in agreement with your logic. Pretty irrefutable. You know, my ‘liking’ of that particular U.G. quote is probably a good illustration of how ones intelligence gets hindered, hampered, distorted by comforting thoughts. My relationship with that U.G. quote is somewhat sensual I suppose. Sensual in that, I was gratified and comforted by the quote. I think the quote is very ‘consoling’ to those who are very anxious about who they are, and is also a bit enigmatic, thus feeding the human desire for mystery.
I can just imagine U.G.’s subconscious motives:
“There, there…….nobodies perfect, just relax, give me some food, a place to sleep, and continue to believe I am a mysterious, great manâ€
U.G. – what a con.
So anyway, a species becomes perfected only by means of perfectly functioning individuals.
You can define perfect as an ‘absence of delusions’
However, have you ever studied the phenomenon of a psychopath? Dr. Hervey Cleckley was a psychologist who released in 1941 a book called The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Clarify Some Issues About the So-Called Psychopathic Personality
Cleckley defined psychopathy thus:
1. Superficial charm or intelligence.
2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking.
3. Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations.
4. Unreliability.
5. Untruthfulness and insincerity.
6. Lack of remorse or shame.
7. Antisocial behavior without apparent compunction.
8. Pathological egocentricity and incapacity to love.
9. General poverty in major affective relations.
10. Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations.
11. Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated.
12. Failure to follow any life plan.
Do you think Dr. Hervey was correct about the psychopath as being someone who is free from delusino. Or was Dr. Hervey simply sharing the same delusions as the psychopaths he was studying?
Dr. Hervey did not refer to illusions in the sense meant for this board. In other words, the psychopath isn't like the obvious crazies. He was talking about delusional thought processes that afflict the mentally ill, the type that causes him or her to wear a tin foil lined hat to ward off the emissions from the local research lab that is downloading knowledge from his brain, or who won't work because they refuse to give the evil government their social security number. Oh, wait. That might be rational...
-
Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Dhodges,
To be good, is to be useful. To be evil is to be useless.
Evil is misery preserving, misery creating, and misery perpetuating. The very essence of misery is self-gratification.
MacDonald’s is useless, as are cigarettes, drinking alcohol, guns, gambling machines, skimpy sexual clothing, patriot attitudes, flags, tattoos, etc….
Rather than concerning myself with a sudden burst of enlightenment, I simply see wisdom as a quality. In relationship to wisdom is foolishness. Wisdom is good, while foolishness is of course evil.
One may derive egotistical gratification by understanding what behavior is most efficient and peaceful, however, this self-gratification is an incidental affair. The indisputable ‘good sense’ is what is primary.
Whereas, generally, what gives us the most self-gratification, is often quite misery begetting, not to mention absurd.
I am advocating that we understand in its entirety, the problem of living, and I say this because this is my way of avoiding suffering.
Dhodges, do you value the survival of the human race? If so, then do you not agree that mutually beneficial ways of living are a pre-requisite for survival? Humanity is indeed blundering, and there is a chance that we will turn ourselves around via understanding what makes sense and what doesn’t. Largely, we are not making much sense, whereas a smaller minority of us are making ‘more’ sense.
I feel that one should either commit suicide, or one should devote themselves to the proccess of discovering truth, and thus live in a way that is mutually beneficial to the balance of ones biological organism, as well as the balance of future generations.
To live in a way that is gratifying exclusively to me (and maybe a small clique of so-called friends) is to live at the expense of my peers and future generations of being. I would be worthless to gratify myself in such a way.
That is why I advocate the sort of fearfullness which can sagaciously judge when the organism has become too physically and mentally worn and feeble to work/function comfortably. We should literally dig our own graves and then promptly and calmly starve ourselves, dying voluntarily, with dignity. (If we eat a very strict, healthy diet we should probably live 80-110). This isnt really an original thought. I am basically following the lead Scott Nearing, a man who I would consider a sage.
It all depends on what you mean by useful, and what I mean by useful.DH: So, you see enlightenment as something one would do... for other people? It's only worthwhile if it is useful?
To be good, is to be useful. To be evil is to be useless.
Evil is misery preserving, misery creating, and misery perpetuating. The very essence of misery is self-gratification.
MacDonald’s is useless, as are cigarettes, drinking alcohol, guns, gambling machines, skimpy sexual clothing, patriot attitudes, flags, tattoos, etc….
Rather than concerning myself with a sudden burst of enlightenment, I simply see wisdom as a quality. In relationship to wisdom is foolishness. Wisdom is good, while foolishness is of course evil.
If you see how vegetation, forests and gardens develop over time, they are held together by symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationships. A wise gardener for instance will sow 3 specific species together, while being careful to keep these same 3 species apart from another crop of species. The wise gardener will keep various species apart from each other or together, because he or she understands that the activity happening at the root level of one type of plant will weaken or strengthen the other type of plant. Sometimes plants mutually strengthen each other, sometimes plants mutually weaken each other.DH: I don't see any reason to think that the enlightened being will necessarily be useful to anyone else - or care if he was - or have a desire to get along with others (which is generally egotistical).
One may derive egotistical gratification by understanding what behavior is most efficient and peaceful, however, this self-gratification is an incidental affair. The indisputable ‘good sense’ is what is primary.
Whereas, generally, what gives us the most self-gratification, is often quite misery begetting, not to mention absurd.
I’m not advocating that we make it our goal to ‘benefit’ something or someone in particular. Although, can you deny Dhodges that everything you do is rooted in a drive to avoid suffering? What else in you is operating besides that?DH: Also, I think it's a mistake to think of enlightenment as a means to some end (e.g., "the end of suffering") rather than an end in itself. Clearing the mind of delusions should be the goal - not some supposed benefit you would get from doing so.
I am advocating that we understand in its entirety, the problem of living, and I say this because this is my way of avoiding suffering.
I’m not advocating happiness either. The reason being is because I see happiness and misery as two sides of the same coin. I am in favor of discarding the coin.DH: The truth is just true. That's all. There is no reason that it will have to make you - or anyone else - happy.
Fine, but in the meantime we actually have to get along with others. I have to wake up and face the day and exist in a utilitarian sense. That is what it all comes down to. Living in relationship to people. We can mutually benifit each other, or we can exploit and do harm to each other.DH: Truth has no goal or reason; it's just true. That's all it has going for it.
Dhodges, do you value the survival of the human race? If so, then do you not agree that mutually beneficial ways of living are a pre-requisite for survival? Humanity is indeed blundering, and there is a chance that we will turn ourselves around via understanding what makes sense and what doesn’t. Largely, we are not making much sense, whereas a smaller minority of us are making ‘more’ sense.
I feel that one should either commit suicide, or one should devote themselves to the proccess of discovering truth, and thus live in a way that is mutually beneficial to the balance of ones biological organism, as well as the balance of future generations.
To live in a way that is gratifying exclusively to me (and maybe a small clique of so-called friends) is to live at the expense of my peers and future generations of being. I would be worthless to gratify myself in such a way.
That is why I advocate the sort of fearfullness which can sagaciously judge when the organism has become too physically and mentally worn and feeble to work/function comfortably. We should literally dig our own graves and then promptly and calmly starve ourselves, dying voluntarily, with dignity. (If we eat a very strict, healthy diet we should probably live 80-110). This isnt really an original thought. I am basically following the lead Scott Nearing, a man who I would consider a sage.
Re: The chicks really dig an enlightened dude
This is an excellent post Dave. I think a number of people here could really learn something from it.DHodges wrote:So, you see enlightenment as something one would do... for other people? It's only worthwhile if it is useful?
I don't see the any reason to think that the enlightened being will necessarily be useful to anyone else - or care if he was - or have a desire to get along with others (which is generally egotistical).
Also, I think it's a mistake to think of enlightenment as a means to some end (e.g., "the end of suffering") rather than an end in itself. Clearing the mind of delusions should be the goal - not some supposed benefit you would get from doing so.
The truth is just true. That's all. There is no reason that it will have to make you - or anyone else - happy. Truth has no goal or reason; it's just true. That's all it has going for it.
Either that's enough... or it isn't.
-
SBN Charles
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:46 am
- Location: England, U.K
On exercise and health.
If a man or woman commits to being lazy, not exercising and having a terrible diet their bodies will become less healthy and start to deteriorate, health wise quickly, its in a persons human nature and interest to exercise and eat the correct foods in order to keep a clean and healthy body.
If the body becomes unhealthy and improperly maintained does the mind also become unhealthy in conjuction with the body?
If a man or woman commits to being lazy, not exercising and having a terrible diet their bodies will become less healthy and start to deteriorate, health wise quickly, its in a persons human nature and interest to exercise and eat the correct foods in order to keep a clean and healthy body.
If the body becomes unhealthy and improperly maintained does the mind also become unhealthy in conjuction with the body?