On the worth of human beings...

[Blair]

Cause and effect is a governing principle of reality. it's not just about human interactions. Try to see beyond the box.

[sschaula]

Passthrough,

Do you have a first name that I can call you instead of your screen name? I don't think our conversation has the same effect if we're hiding our personal lives behind a screen. I put my real name on here, and anyone in my life that wants to google me, they'll find my ideas here. Potential employers...potential girlfriends...extended family members...anyone can see what I think. If you use your real name, it says something about your honesty, and your dedication to what you think. If you won't allow people in your personal life to see what you think here, then it is worthless philosophy, because it's just a mind game that you play with yourself when you're bored. But if you truly live by the principles you think about, then it's honorable.

My example, although now in retrospect wasn’t exactly on point, was to give a more specific version of your discussion that could throw the onus onto the thinking man for killing someone with intentions that on the surface may have seemed violent but perhaps not as violent as those of the five persons he threatened.

It's good to think of different versions of this type of situation, because it develops clarity of what's good versus what's bad. If you're unclear about it, then you're probably doing bad things by just being yourself.

For instance, imagine yourself to be in a big city staying at a hotel and you hear screams coming through your open window. You look down and see three men tearing off a woman's clothes, while she screams the words, "Leave me alone! Rape! Rape!" Is it better to avoid the situation, and allow this woman to become raped, or to go down there and stop the guys?

I know that most people would probably close their window, thinking they're not strong enough to take on three guys. The thought never quite goes through their head: "I will let the woman get raped so I don't get beaten up tonight." But that is exactly what's taking place.

This is the wrong thing to do. It's bad to do nothing about wrong things taking place...but out of (incorrect) reasoning, a lot of people naturally choose to allow such things to happen. "Well it does no good for me to get beat up, so I should wait for someone better to come help her."

Is this actually reasoning, or is it just wimpy thinking?

Or in Sue's case, the philosopher sits up in his hotel and sees this woman getting raped, and thinks to himself: "Well, since the woman is empty and will soon become something else, and since I am empty and will soon become something else, I will let her get raped. In fact, there is no woman per se. It is a momentary flux; a negative image of the rest of reality. So I won't do anything since it's all good, in truth. I am a philosopher, and if I think about right or wrong I'll be deluded, therefore I will only ponder the truth while this woman is ravaged beneath me. What care does the thinker have for the woman? The thinker has no petty emotions." Etc, etc, etc.

To me, the thinking man, the “enlightened” thinking man (ETM), not valuing his life would perhaps put himself in between the clinic and the violent man in an effort to stop the violent act.

As an act of sacrifice? To save abortion doctors' lives? I don't think it's very enlightened to take the bullet for people you don't know. Even though, of course, a lot of people think it's great if you take the bullet for someone else. "What a hero!"

The bullet taker may be a hero, but he's usually not a thinker. If you have met or seen a lot of these heroes, they tend to be pretty simple minded people. "It was just something I had do to", is generally their response.

Not bad, but not thoughtful or enlightened.

There are several things that could happen, but as Sue stated (and my apologies Sue if I’m off base) cause and effect, such as 1) the guy could beat the ETM senseless and still go in and commit the violent act; 2) he might listen to reason; and even, perhaps, 3) the woman might listen to reason if they both went inside to talk to her more. The ETM may be responsible for saving the lives of those inside the clinic, the possible life of the unborn child, and the life and/or freedom of the violent man. He could also be roadkill.

I don't think you've understood what Sue was talking about. Check out David Quinn's "Wisdom of the Infinite" and read the whole chapter on cause and effect if you want to know.

I’m not sure I am clear as to what you are saying here. It is either a very misogynistic statement or I agree that she shouldn’t be the sole decision maker with regard to who can care for the unborn child.

It was that she shouldn't be the sole decision maker.

The only side issue is that it is HER body not his, but she knew the consequences going into the union – another post for another time.

The baby isn't merely her body, but it's also part of his.

[As an aside, I have often wondered why this forum was dedicated to, among other things, all things masculine. Again, my apologies to you Sue if I misinterpreted, but without feminine there can be no masculine.

According to the ones who inspired this forum, masculinity is necessary for enlightenment, as it's aggressive. Femininity is a hindrance to enlightenment, as it's passive. That's about as simple as I can put it. You can look through the various writings around here to learn more...however I think it's something that's overthought. I don't think that thinking about the differences between men and women is necessary for enlightenment. Trying to become enlightened is.

(Notice that trying is masculine.)

A woman is masculine and feminine as is a man. There is no yin without yang.

There are some women who are achievers, and some men who do nothing. What it comes down to is not mere outer action, though, but the way a person's mind works. A girl may be an overachiever and have no will. No drive. No soul. A man may be a slacker, and lazy, but he could possibly be that way because of his driven state of mind. He may see no use in the ways of the world, and seek enlightenment, which has nothing to do with doing a bunch of things.

I suppose some will say that those men who illicit the feminine are weak, but are they?

Weak men are weak. Feminine seeming men may actually be very strong individuals. Like I said, it mostly depends on a person's state of mind. Their innermost character.

What was Jesus, certainly the most Enlightened example I can think of, but a mixture of the two. He raised the awareness level of the spirituality of women in his day to day life. He recognized the potential of women as thinkers and would-be enlightened ones in the story of Martha and Mary.]

So much can be said about Jesus...which is probably why so much is said about him! Yet very little is said on his part. When it comes to this subject, I personally take very little seriously. I was raised a Christian, and have no respect for misinterpretations on the part of other Christians.

I'd say that a person who doesn't fast, who prays for things they want instead of surrendering to whatever happens, who thinks any lustful thought whatsoever, and who believe that they can never be sinless are not Christians. Because Christianity is about being just like Jesus. Jesus fasted. His recommendation for prayer is saying "Thy will be done". He says not to even think a lustful thought about a woman at all, and he says to become perfect like God.

I'd say there are very few real Christians in the world, even though a lot of Christians are nice people. What was that thing Jesus said himself? "Many will try to enter but very few will make it."

So beyond these things, it's hard to say much about Jesus. He lived so long ago. Instead of caring about those things, I'd personally rather make myself that righteous. Who needs Jesus when you have perfect righteousness?

Actually, no. You speak of most of the majority as ignorant, not in a mean spirited way, just masses of folks going a long to get along. To me, ignorance is not an excuse to do what you please because you didn’t know any better. It is up to those that do see past the trees to be willing to step “in between the violent man and the clinic” because the masses are not innocent, not by a long shot.

Now, I don't understand this. Why would an enlightened person take action when he sees a man walking into an abortion clinic with a gun?

Trust me, anyone who does a bad thing is innocent...because anyone who knows what they're doing doesn't do bad things. Innocence doesn't make bad things good, though.

You could argue that a person who needs to lose weight consistently breaks their diet, and the same thing can happen with right and wrong. A person would do wrong in the face of the choice...yet I argue that this person truly doesn't understand right and wrong. They may see a choice and choose the wrong choice, yet they don't see the full picture. They don't see the consequences that stem from that single choice.

Anyway, this is just semantics really. What's more important to think and talk about are various scenarios where you weigh out good vs bad, and to see each action in your life as a scenario.

BTW, I am not just talking about abortion, but a universal plethora of issues. Would I have the “balls” (your terminology) to stand there in between the violent man and the clinic, I would hope I would but until it comes down to it, I’m not sure I would. It’s a risky proposition, look what it did to Jesus.

To truly know what was happening with Jesus, I would've had to be with him in the garden while he was praying. I wasn't there, and I don't know about the crucifiction. I'm not going to claim to be any expert at all on that stuff. All I know is that Jesus says to be perfect, and that seems to sum up the rest of the bible...so that's as far as I choose to look into it.

Would you have the balls or not....well that's pretty much up to your character. Something that most people have a hard time changing. If you were enlightened, there'd be no fear whatsoever, though.

There'd also be no reason for you to stand between the man and the clinic.

While I understand your line of thinking (and, me personally, doing good is better but not necessarily a thinking man’s answer), reason is the better argument. Cause and effect. Actions and consequences. The violent man may still blow you away because he is without reason at that moment, but all it may take is one spark of reason from the ETM to lower his gun. Your definition of “good” may not be one and the same as another’s.

I don't get what you're saying. You think that goodness isn't tied in with reason, and cause and effect? A person that chooses good isn't a thinker? That's very wrong. A true thinker is the highest moral person, despite what others on the forum say.

You talk of an individual person's definition of goodness. People don't define what's truly good or truly bad, though they may try. What's truly good is what causes the most happiness for people and what's truly bad is what causes the most misery for people. By looking, you can see what's good or bad by the fruits of the action. Think, "Does this make people feel good?" Think, "What action could make people feel the best?" Seeing this isn't a matter of interpretation or personal conviction.

For example, take a man with an IQ of 85. He is simple but an honest and good hearted man. He may make an assumption that something is bad and thwart all attempts to allow the event to occur because he is not bright enough to see past his own idea of what is right and wrong, good and bad, when, indeed the event was for the betterment of mankind.

He's obviously innocent, and obviously wrong.

In the end, though, goodness or doing good things may be the way you move along on your path to enlightenment. Who’s to argue? Logic and Reason are without a moral compass, they ARE cause and effect, but not necessarily the road to get you where you need to go.

All paths are tied into one. If a person who uses logic tries to avoid morality, in some time they'll find that it's unavoidable. There's one path to enlightenment, and there's one enlightenment.

[Cathy Preston]

I'm sure the universe doesn't care, but obviously you do. You value honesty over dishonesty. You're just unconscious of the rest of good and bad.

Honesty / dishonesty has at it's roots a logical premise at least, either true or false. Good and bad have no such underpinning, and are purely subjective.

[sschaula]

Cathy,

Honesty / dishonesty has at it's roots a logical premise at least, either true or false.

Really? When you're faced with either admitting the truth, or hiding it, you're faced with logic? I think you don't actually understand what anything means here, and you're just mindlessly using words.

Honesty and dishonesty has everything to do with right and wrong. You feel it's wrong to be dishonest. Feel. You haven't actually thought about dishonesty and what it means with the truth. It's a fact that you can know the truth and not tell it...so how is honesty better than dishonesty if there's no right and wrong? Or good and bad? How can you choose to never be dishonest when you don't believe in morality?

You say you value logic when really, you're only doing and valuing what you think is right. I suggest you actually think some more about this issue. And read some more of the works on the site.

Good and bad have no such underpinning, and are purely subjective.

Something subjective is something that can't be experienced by anyone else. Like your thoughts, for example. They're yours and no one has any idea what you're thinking or what it's like to be inside of your mind.

But goodness and badness are in the world, and people experience these things. You can say that there seems to be no good, because something good for one person is bad for another. You could say that person A thinks money is good and person B thinks money is bad. If both people get a lot of money, only one will think it's good.

So it seems people have different ideas of what's good and what's not...but as I've already said, these ideas are mostly stupid. Also, as I already said, goodness is what spreads the most peace, and badness is what doesn't (or what spreads the most negative feelings).

So as you can see, what's good or bad isn't subjective. You can see what's good or bad by the effects in the world. It's as easily observable as anything else...all it takes is a little honesty to admit to yourself that good and bad are there, and that you have a choice.

You can say to yourself "that isn't logical" as much as you want, but when you're faced with your own misery, you'll see good and bad clearly.

[Gretchen]

You said:

I thought so, too...but when I read this topic all I see is "blah blah blah", flirting and pandering. "You me you me blah blah blah". This is nothing but a bathroom.

I don't see anyone with a passion for understanding. I don't see any philosophy going on in here. I see playing and bantering. That isn't philosophy. Everyone here talks about eachother's personality traits...is that so entertaining? Soon, those traits will disappear forever and you'll be left with nothing to entertain you.

Let your desire for understanding entertain you. Let it consume you...so that you stop bantering about nothing useful.

Everyone here thinks they get it. "I understand the truth!" Everyone is so wrong, because the one that understands is the root of delusion. Any understanding built upon that delusion isn't true understanding. Yet people still come on this forum waving their flag around, banging their own drum, like proud patriots of themselves. Everyone toots their own horn.

So I come onto a topic like this, and all I read is "honk honk honk." Absolutely useless.

Then you said:

Do you have a first name that I can call you instead of your screen name? I don't think our conversation has the same effect if we're hiding our personal lives behind a screen. I put my real name on here, and anyone in my life that wants to google me, they'll find my ideas here. Potential employers...potential girlfriends...extended family members...anyone can see what I think. If you use your real name, it says something about your honesty, and your dedication to what you think. If you won't allow people in your personal life to see what you think here, then it is worthless philosophy, because it's just a mind game that you play with yourself when you're bored. But if you truly live by the principles you think about, then it's honorable.

So which do you believe?

My name is just a name, it is attached to me like my social security number. How on earth does my name define me? I have no "Potential employer" - I am employed. I'm not looking for a relationship - I have one. And my extended family members all live within a reasonable distance of me - we use a phone. All of them know what I think because I don't spare thought. Personal life? I eat, sleep, work, read, think, breathe, exist. How does my personal affect what I think? I live what I think. As for anyone out there I don't know, well, what they think about me doesn't really affect me does it?

And do you think that just because YOU put your name on here, I am supposed to know the whole you? You could have made up that name as simply as I did. Your name means nothing to me and tells me nothing, but your words tell me more about you because you cannot deceive anyone long the more you talk, an example is above. None of us is perfect, our honesty shows sometimes in what we don't say vs what we do.

I am not famous nor do I care to be, so I am not concerned about my reputation for future novels. I am not bored, perhaps some could say I was boring, I think to live and live to think. I don't usually post but scroll, absorb, and move on.

The reason why I did post is because the dialogue went from interesting discussion to gross misunderstanding of what this forum "should" be about which is respect for others opinions and perhaps attempting to see their side in an effort to help one's own self grow, because one may be wrong.

If you choose to ignore me from now on because I have a name that offends your senses of integrity, then that is your choice. Let's move on, ok?

I'll await your response before I waste anymore space in a reply to your tempting post.

[sschaula]

So which do you believe?

Both. It's not as if those two things I said contradict eachother.

My name is just a name, it is attached to me like my social security number. How on earth does my name define me? I have no "Potential employer" - I am employed. I'm not looking for a relationship - I have one. And my extended family members all live within a reasonable distance of me - we use a phone. All of them know what I think because I don't spare thought. Personal life? I eat, sleep, work, read, think, breathe, exist. How does my personal affect what I think? I live what I think. As for anyone out there I don't know, well, what they think about me doesn't really affect me does it?

So then what's stopping you from at least giving me your first name? It doesn't make sense to have a serious discussion with someone behind a pseudonym.

And do you think that just because YOU put your name on here, I am supposed to know the whole you? You could have made up that name as simply as I did. Your name means nothing to me and tells me nothing, but your words tell me more about you because you cannot deceive anyone long the more you talk, an example is above. None of us is perfect, our honesty shows sometimes in what we don't say vs what we do.

How was I decieving anyone? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you...

My name is my real name. You can believe that or not. No, it doesn't tell much about me besides the fact that I live what I think, and I'm not afraid that people know who's posting these thoughts.

I am not famous nor do I care to be, so I am not concerned about my reputation for future novels. I am not bored, perhaps some could say I was boring, I think to live and live to think. I don't usually post but scroll, absorb, and move on.

If you're not concerned about your reputation then why not give a first name at least? When I write to you, beginning with "pass through," it's hard to take you seriously at all.

The reason why I did post is because the dialogue went from interesting discussion to gross misunderstanding of what this forum "should" be about which is respect for others opinions and perhaps attempting to see their side in an effort to help one's own self grow, because one may be wrong.

Um...this is "the thinkers minefield". The "Genius Forum". This isn't some other philosophy forum. If you're stupid, this is the place to confront your stupidity. Real growth happens here, not growth of the ego (well, that does happen here too).

Mainly, I have a problem with you saying what this forum is supposed to be about. How long have you been here? From your posts, it doesn't seem like a long time at all. A year at most.

So being a newbie, there's no reason for you to say how this forum should or shouldn't be. Have some respect. In my view, this isn't your forum. It's not my forum. It's truth's forum...therefore don't try to change it. If you want to stay here, accept it.

Accept when the forum starts becoming a hot zone and people's personal growth is at stake. Because a person's personal growth has to do mostly with their delusions. When a person has none, then the self can be said to have grown...but it could also be said to have disappeared entirely. To put it simply - the person would be mature.

They'd have no problem posting their birth name.

If you choose to ignore me from now on because I have a name that offends your senses of integrity, then that is your choice. Let's move on, ok?

Well, I never said I'd ignore you. I just think you're dishonorable, disrespectful, scared and a poor thinker. But it's not like I actually know you.

I'll await your response before I waste anymore space in a reply to your tempting post.

Okay, I'll await your reply.

[yombie]

Dan (drowden) wrote in another thread:

If it wasn't for what our consciousness is potentially capable of we would certainly not be worth a dime, let alone saving.

What is consciousness potentially capable of? Why would we be worth nothing if we didn't have this potentiality?

I believe consciousness is capable of streamlining the strength of the ephemeral connections humans have with one another, such as the 'integral field' or collective consciousness and evolving it. I believe it has the ability to return to the mass connective energy that is the spark of life in all eyes. We would be worth nothing, if the potential was gone because worth wouldn't be a factor to a purely reactionary being, yet with that worth eliminated and the unfiltered emotions that would transgress, it'd be worth 10x what consciousness could ever allow me to experience. 'cause with the elimination of consciousness, the collective (sub) consciousness' would just happen, as we wouldn't relate to other humans by comparing them to any said 'thing', merely take and experience without the filters of others, truly relate... With or without the potential.. it's inevitable that this will occur.

[sschaula]

"Yombie",

I believe consciousness is capable of streamlining the strength of the ephemeral connections humans have with one another, such as the 'integral field' or collective consciousness and evolving it.

What proof do you have of this?

I believe it has the ability to return to the mass connective energy that is the spark of life in all eyes.

"Mass connective energy"...how did you find this? "Spark of life in all eyes"? What does any of this stuff mean?

We would be worth nothing, if the potential was gone because worth wouldn't be a factor to a purely reactionary being, yet with that worth eliminated and the unfiltered emotions that would transgress, it'd be worth 10x what consciousness could ever allow me to experience.

What does this mean? It looks like nothing to me.

'cause with the elimination of consciousness, the collective (sub) consciousness' would just happen, as we wouldn't relate to other humans by comparing them to any said 'thing', merely take and experience without the filters of others, truly relate... With or without the potential.. it's inevitable that this will occur.

How do you know that the collective subconscious would just happen with the elimination of consciousness? Is it just something you've guessed, or something you've experienced yourself?

I can sum up all of my questions into one: what the hell are you talking about, man?

[yombie]

"Yombie",
111

I believe consciousness is capable of streamlining the strength of the ephemeral connections humans have with one another, such as the 'integral field' or collective consciousness and evolving it.

What proof do you have of this?
222

I believe it has the ability to return to the mass connective energy that is the spark of life in all eyes.

"Mass connective energy"...how did you find this? "Spark of life in all eyes"? What does any of this stuff mean?
333

We would be worth nothing, if the potential was gone because worth wouldn't be a factor to a purely reactionary being, yet with that worth eliminated and the unfiltered emotions that would transgress, it'd be worth 10x what consciousness could ever allow me to experience.

What does this mean? It looks like nothing to me.
444

'cause with the elimination of consciousness, the collective (sub) consciousness' would just happen, as we wouldn't relate to other humans by comparing them to any said 'thing', merely take and experience without the filters of others, truly relate... With or without the potential.. it's inevitable that this will occur.

How do you know that the collective subconscious would just happen with the elimination of consciousness? Is it just something you've guessed, or something you've experienced yourself?


555:
I can sum up all of my questions into one: what the hell are you talking about, man?

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

555:
Well, allow me to elaborate. I have numbered my responses to fit yours.

111:
You asked "What is consciousness potentially capable of ?"
And I merely responded stating that it was my belief and in no way absolute. But... my rationale. We as humans are not struggling to survive anymore, we have kinda stopped evolving physically... although as time goes on we will change phisiologically regardless of survival, that doesn't mean the progress is good. We are living too sedentary of lives to progress physically.. so evolutionarily speaking, that in this reality which shall make us stronger is the expansion of our minds and souls. Do you not believe we are all connected?
There was a post refering to crystals at vertexes of a web that covered everything, and the crystals reflected all of that web, while retaining it's individuality... that is the "collective consciousness" I refer to. We as humans had the ability to communicate using language... We created it so that we could further express our feelings... yet all this time, the way a human interacts subconsciously with one another speaks volumes more... well what about interpretation? the way the subconscious feels about something is going to innately be more pure than how you think you feel, as there wouldn't be so much filters you're running feelings through. This dependencies on mind and soul now a days is far too emphasized not to grow and flourish. Proof? well... it's something left to be experienced... I cannot say something that is ephemeral, merely grasp the concepts.
---
222: The spark of life which I am speaking of, is merely that.
I was once taught that the first philosophers had trouble with dealing other people, as there were no real ways to ensure that there is a mind/soul in people who weren't you, yet they quickly got over this problem due to the fact that the other people had a reality they were experiencing that was not from your own eyes, they understood, and most beliefs do, that other people are not just figments of your imagination and do affect the world just as you (I) do. The connective energy I speak of is yet again, the essence of life and expression that is innately in all of us.

----
333: If the potential I speak of is lost from the conscious,
then the worth of the individual is gone. Because the thing that holds us back from having profound connections with others is our conscious, that judges people from a skewed perspective instead of awknowledging the uniqueness and necessity of other's views on our (my life). You would lose a sense of self worth because with it, you'd lose a sense of self.
I have experienced this, as I grew more self aware.
----
444: Who is to say that there isn't already a collective consciousness? And to lose the consciousness (morals,analysis) would be making that which is subconsciousness (emotion,ephemeral) in the first place, something that would be brought to the forefront without the "Needed" filters of a definition. As morals and analysis are subjective and emotions and ephemeral things are objective.
So what I'm saying is, just cause the potential may or may not be there for the collective (sub)consciousness to be consciously experienced and conducted. Because of it's innate presense in us now, it's only feasible that as we evolve our minds, synergisticly not matter what, the Collect.S.Consci. will also improve.
----

[Sonata]

Dan (drowden) wrote in another thread:

If it wasn't for what our consciousness is potentially capable of we would certainly not be worth a dime, let alone saving.

What is consciousness potentially capable of? Why would we be worth nothing if we didn't have this potentiality?

Other perceptions that humanity could never preceive or comprehend. To even imagine its range would be impossible for any form of life.

[sschaula]

Sonata,

Other perceptions that humanity could never preceive or comprehend.

But you can? You are human, so if you could never perceive these things then how do you know this?

To even imagine its range would be impossible for any form of life.

So then how do you come up with this?