The Survival of Wisdom

[Cory Duchesne]

Is it delusional to be concerned with the survival of Wisdom?

Carl recently insisted that such a concern, because he thinks wisdom cannot be diminished, is nonsensical.

My position is that I do think wisdom can be diminished or increased, that wisdom as a quality, is caused by quantity, and that the more you spread wisdom, the more you stabilize it's survival.

Taken from the Zubaty thread:

Wisdom is a quality. A quality is not a quantity.

The fine smell of charbroiled beef is a quality. How much of that smell is emanating from the grill does not influence that quality one bit.

Sure it does. If you remove the entire quantity of beef, then the smell will fade and will eventually be gone. Quantity and Quality arise together mutually. You cannot have one without the other.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

Sure it does. If you remove the entire quantity of beef, then the smell will fade and will eventually be gone.

I think I understand Carl’s position though. Humanity doesn’t have the power to remove the entire quantity of beef; we only have the power to destroy the survival conditions on our tiny planet. However, meanwhile, an infinite totality continues to exist, which most likely has a myriad of possibilities for wisdom to arise.

One could make the argument that because the totality is infinite, quantity is irrelevant as far as the survival of wisdom as a whole is concerned.

However, I agree your point as well, emphasizing the importance of the microcosm - I agree that we should promote wisdom as best as possible as a means to increase its frequency on this planet, thereby increasing the chances that the species will survive.

[Matt Gregory]

I think you guys are mixing up two different meanings of the word "quality" and confusing yourselves. A quality can either be a characteristic or a measure of how good something is.

[Cory Duchesne]

One could make the argument that because the totality is infinite, quantity is irrelevant as far as the survival of wisdom as a whole is concerned.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

As a finite being, would I be wise if I didn't identify myself with other beings?

By identifying himself with all other beings, a wise man understands himself to always be relatively ignorant, and values the survival of the will to perfection, because that is partly what wisdom is. It's required then, that he identify himself as his fellow beings, who he may find himself often regarding as the imperfect parts of himself. Wisdom is perfect understanding of imperfection, it is the will to decrease imperfection and increase perfection, and for the sake of logical consistency, wisdom must be concerned with preserving it's own existence. Therefore, if a wise mind sees itself as imperfect, then it has no choice to act for the sake of eliminating this imperfection. Hence, he goes to work on himself, which spans the whole universe.

I think you guys are mixing up two different meanings of the word "quality" and confusing yourselves.

Why do you think that? What have I said that appears confused?

A quality can either be a characteristic or a measure of how good something is.

So is that how you partly define wisdom? A mind which measures how good something is?

[Tomas]

.


-tomas-
The names were changed to protect the innocent...




-Cochese-
Cory Duchesne - Is it delusional to be concerned with the survival of Wisdom?

-tomas-
Speaking as a free mason, it is Wise-Dome... meaning to, 'put a lid on it', 'cap it' 'half-sphere'

Religious -- Dome of The Rock - (obelisk[s] nearby)

Political -- The D.C. Capitol Dome - (Washington [Masonic] Monument nearby)

Pagoda with obelisk




-Cochese-
Carl recently insisted that such a concern, because he thinks wisdom cannot be diminished, is nonsensical.

-tomas-
Singularily, as a single person (entity) it the_wisdom cannot be diminished until one leaves this physical human body of a shell.




-Cochese-
My position is that I do think wisdom can be diminished or increased, that wisdom as a quality, is caused by quantity, and that the more you spread wisdom, the more you stabilize it's survival.

-tomas-
Perhaps, in ones' own brain cavity (which is once again, a 'dome' (the scull) providing one doesn't inflict a head-injury, oxygen starvation via alcohol, glue sniffing, etc.

Either you got it OR you don't.



-arlester-
viewtopic.php?p=56156#p56156]

-arlester-
Carl G - Wisdom is a quality. A quality is not a quantity.

-arlester-
The fine smell of charbroiled beef is a quality. How much of that smell is emanating from the grill does not influence that quality one bit.

-tomas-
Consider buffalo steak... will be having (consuming) pemmican in a couple days... big -powwow- on Thursday :-) the peyote comes later... happy days are here again :-)




-Cochese-
Sure it does. If you remove the entire quantity of beef, then the smell will fade and will eventually be gone. Quantity and Quality arise together mutually. You cannot have one without the other.

-tomas-
It's an individual matter, no group-think. No amount of arguing back and forth will resolve this. The aroma of the beef goes on forever and ever... til i turn back to the dust of the Earth

However, i'll ask a few of the Indian Elders their impression. Word for word from this thread.



Ta ta,

Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degee
Scottish Rite Free Mason






.

[Matt Gregory]

I think you guys are mixing up two different meanings of the word "quality" and confusing yourselves.

Why do you think that? What have I said that appears confused?

I don't know. Maybe I'm the one that's confused.

A quality can either be a characteristic or a measure of how good something is.

So is that how you partly define wisdom? A mind which measures how good something is?

It seems to me that this discussion is about whether wisdom is consciousness of ultimate truth or if it is ultimate truth itself. You seem to be taking the former position and Carl seems to be taking the latter.

[Cory Duchesne]

So is that how you partly define wisdom? A mind which measures how good something is?

It seems to me that this discussion is about whether wisdom is consciousness of ultimate truth or if it is ultimate truth itself. You seem to be taking the former position and Carl seems to be taking the latter.

Yes, I'm taking the former because it's my understanding that without consciousness, there is no truth.

[Pincho Paxton]

Forget Heaven for a moment... Does any of this argument suggest that wisdom can survive the extinction of life on Earth?

Because in this case.. (Without Heaven) it would take a new period of evolution before intelligence arose once more.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

As a finite being, would I be wise if I didn't identify myself with other beings? By identifying himself with all other beings, a wise man understands himself to always be relatively ignorant, and values the survival of the will to perfection. It's required then, that he identify himself as his fellow beings, who are the imperfect parts of himself. Wisdom is perfect understanding of imperfection, it is the will to decrease imperfection and increase perfection, and for the sake of logical consistency, wisdom must be concerned with preserving it's own existence. Therefore, if a wise mind sees itself as imperfect, then it has no choice to act for the sake of eliminating this imperfection. Hence, he goes to work on himself, which spans the whole universe.

Yes indeed, that is what we do on GF, but my point is that if the planet were completely destroyed, the survival of wisdom would not be affected at all. There are still lots of opportunity.

My main point is that the loss of the species is nothing to get too emotional over, or identify with too strongly.

If the species evolves to be enlightened, that’s great. However, if our solar system is wiped out tomorrow, that is an acceptable and understandable outcome as well.

[Imadrongo]

Both sages and Christians need something to do in their abundant spare time after renouncing everything worldly. Spreading their meme is a good adaption for the meme to persist, evolutionarily/memetically speaking.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory wrote:

As a finite being, would I be wise if I didn't identify myself with other beings? By identifying himself with all other beings, a wise man understands himself to always be relatively ignorant, and values the survival of the will to perfection. It's required then, that he identify himself as his fellow beings, who are the imperfect parts of himself. Wisdom is perfect understanding of imperfection, it is the will to decrease imperfection and increase perfection, and for the sake of logical consistency, wisdom must be concerned with preserving it's own existence. Therefore, if a wise mind sees itself as imperfect, then it has no choice to act for the sake of eliminating this imperfection. Hence, he goes to work on himself, which spans the whole universe.

Yes indeed, that is what we do on GF, but my point is that if the planet were completely destroyed, the survival of wisdom would not be affected at all. There are still lots of opportunity.

My main point is that the loss of the species is nothing to get too emotional over, or identify with too strongly.

If the species evolves to be enlightened, that’s great. However, if our solar system is wiped out tomorrow, that is an acceptable and understandable outcome as well.

I'm not denying any of that. I'm just saying that being logically consistent in ones behavior demands that one be concerned with the preservation of wisdom relative to one's world. From that perspective, which is a necessary one, wisdom can grow or diminish, relative to the known world.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

I'm not denying any of that. I'm just saying that being logically consistent in ones behavior demands that one be concerned with the preservation of wisdom relative to one's world. From that perspective, which is a necessary one, wisdom can grow or diminish, relative to the known world.

Yes, I agree. And I would go on say to that it’s not even a choice for relatively conscious men, they do it without even acknowledging it. They just do it – like Nike. And I would suggest that their work takes place in their immediate subjective experience, and not some planned future outcome.

What I found questionable about the discussion surrounding the printing of Solway’s book are the types of thoughts that arose. People were contemplating how his work would be perceived by others in the future, how much of an impact it will make, if it will be corrupted like the work of Jesus and all the rest of it.

Read the following comments by Kevin –

I don't want people to ever think that I believe women, as they currently are, to be fairly conscious beings, with a great respect for truth.

Jesus was made into a woman through the interpretation of the Church. I don't want that to happen to me.

I question the maturity of fantasizing about leaving a personal legacy, isn’t ones actual relationships in the present more important than fantasizing about some future outcome where one is perceived as significant as Jesus?

There are all kinds of wise bodies of work online and in printed form, and it seems to me that the future of enlightenment is going to happen in real time on discussion boards anyhow, I can foresee humanity using more interactive types of environments where people can challenge each other’s delusions and ideas using the latest technology.

People learn far less from books than they do from scathing critiques of each other, and the process works much better online than in real person.

From my point of view, a book has just a little value, It is like a primer that prepares the mind for actual relationships.

I could be mistaken, but perhaps there is a little vanity in Kevin’s concern with the survival of the species, and his urgency to conquer space. You see, if the species ends, then so does poison for the heart, and all his fantasies of being remembered as a great man after he dies.

I could be wrong with all this, but I had to throw it out there as an inference.

[Pincho Paxton]

I'm not denying any of that. I'm just saying that being logically consistent in ones behavior demands that one be concerned with the preservation of wisdom relative to one's world. From that perspective, which is a necessary one, wisdom can grow or diminish, relative to the known world.

I am concerned about starvation in the world, but I do nothing to help the situation. Mating is pretty much against intelligence, as women dislike nurds. Somebody said that natives disliked genius as though they were witches, and so killed them.. (not sure if that is true) The flow of bodies around us want to deminish intelligence through natural selection. Maybe the next few years will change this situation.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory wrote:

I'm not denying any of that. I'm just saying that being logically consistent in ones behavior demands that one be concerned with the preservation of wisdom relative to one's world. From that perspective, which is a necessary one, wisdom can grow or diminish, relative to the known world.

Yes, I agree. And I would go on say to that it’s not even a choice for relatively conscious men, they do it without even acknowledging it. They just do it – like Nike.

And I would suggest that their work takes place in their immediate subjective experience, and not some planned future outcome.

I think that one should act largely with the past and future in mind. Living in immediacy, spontaneously, without giving much thought to how one is effecting the future - is not wise.

What I found questionable about the discussion surrounding the printing of Solway’s book are the types of thoughts that arose. People were contemplating how his work would be perceived by others in the future, how much of an impact it will make, if it will be corrupted like the work of Jesus and all the rest of it.

Read the following comments by Kevin:

I don't want people to ever think that I believe women, as they currently are, to be fairly conscious beings, with a great respect for truth.

Jesus was made into a woman through the interpretation of the Church. I don't want that to happen to me.

I question the maturity of fantasizing about leaving a personal legacy, isn’t ones actual relationships in the present more important than fantasizing about some future outcome where one is perceived as significant as Jesus?

I can see how you suspect megalomania, as I've also suspected it. It's a possibility.

However, what is also possible is that Kevin is just showing how he has learned from his past lives. Jesus was his past life, and he isn't going to allow history to repeat itself; he is going to learn from his past lives and not allow what happened to him in the past, to happen to him in the future.

Given how clear and profound of a work Poison is, he has good reason to suspect that it will gradually draw a bit of a following. But it might not. And he's hopefully aware of something so simple. However, he is right to suspect it might make an impact, and he is right to do his best to make sure it doesn't become corrupted in the way that spiritual teaching tend to become corrupted.

There are all kinds of wise bodies of work online and in printed form, and it seems to me that the future of enlightenment is going to happen in real time on discussion boards anyhow, I can foresee humanity using more interactive types of environments where people can challenge each other’s delusions and ideas using the latest technology.

In the same way that the people who frequent here have read many of the same books, it will be no less convenient to do the same in the future. A message board should be a place for people to discuss the validity of ideas that they read on their own. It makes things more efficient that way. It's helpful to pick up ideas on your own first, and then discuss them with others later.

People learn far less from books than they do from scathing critiques of each other, and the process works much better online than in real person.

From my point of view, a book has just a little value, It is like a primer that prepares the mind for actual relationships.

I kind of look at the ebooks and literature connected to this forum as a vital part of what makes it such an effective place. It's a lot less tedious for people who are enlightened if those seeking enlightenment read the books first, whether it is Nietzsche, Quinn or Solway. Try to do the work on your own first, and ask questions later. Books help.

Many questions I had for David and Kevin were answered when I referred to their books first instead of asking.

Having well presented info in books outside the forum makes things move along more effectively and gives weight and material for discussion.

I could be mistaken, but perhaps there is a little vanity in Kevin’s concern with the survival of the species, and his urgency to conquer space. You see, if the species ends, then so does poison for the heart, and all his fantasies of being remembered as a great man after he dies.

I could be wrong with all this, but I had to throw it out there as an inference.

Well, your suspicions are reasonable - in fact, narcissism was the first things that came into my head when I started digging into David's, Dan's and Kevin's stuff. However, perhaps they are extremely self aware people, perhaps they know very well what vanity is, have gone past it and harbor a purely logical concern for how they impact the future with their work. These aren't matters of certainty. We can only work on being emotionally unattached to these sorts of concerns and do what makes sense to our own minds.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

However, what is also possible is that Kevin is just showing how he has learned from his past lives. Jesus was his past life, and he isn't going to allow history to repeat itself; he is going to learn from his past lives and not allow what happened to him in the past, to happen to him in the future.

That would be ironic considering Kevin has criticized Buddhism ideas like reincarnation.

Many questions I had for David and Kevin were answered when I referred to their books first instead of asking.

Yes, but from my experience, many members do not behave as you.

The humorous part is that many new forum members do not come to learn, they come to teach, and they learn reluctantly, against their wills. Or they refuse to learn, and run for the hills.

One of the main roles of literature is to condition the student with some of the right information, so when they come to teach others, the sage can attempt to straighten out their minds, if they are strong enough to handle it.

Perhaps they know very well what vanity is, have gone past it and harbor a purely logical concern for how they impact the future with their work.

Yes, perhaps I’m dead wrong on this, but only Kevin knows the truth, to whether or not his motivations are pure or slightly egotistical. All I can do is make empirical based inferences.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

However, what is also possible is that Kevin is just showing how he has learned from his past lives. Jesus was his past life, and he isn't going to allow history to repeat itself; he is going to learn from his past lives and not allow what happened to him in the past, to happen to him in the future.

That would be ironic considering Kevin has criticized Buddhism ideas like reincarnation.

Give Poison a closer read (I think there is a chapter on Buddhism and Reincarnation), and also check out Buddha's teachings from Quinn's site. I assure you, the moderators are all in favor of the idea of reincarnation. It's just not the watered down, corrupted version that holds together your typical community of feminine Buddhist monks.

The humorous part is that many new forum members do not come to learn, they come to teach, and they learn reluctantly, against their wills. Or they refuse to learn, and run for the hills.

The more serious forum members have explored Quinn, Solway and Rowden's work to greater and lesser degrees. These are the types you want on a forum, and GF has some strong members.

On the future message boards there will likewise be those who are serious, strong and active - and there will be those who just get mindlessly blown around by the force of the strong, like dead leaves.

One of the main roles of literature is to condition the student with some of the right information, so when they come to teach others, the sage can attempt to straighten out their minds, if they are strong enough to handle it.

Right. Therefore books are a good idea when it comes to engendering a strong community, message board or otherwise.

Perhaps they know very well what vanity is, have gone past it and harbor a purely logical concern for how they impact the future with their work.

Yes, perhaps I’m dead wrong on this, but only Kevin knows the truth, to whether or not his motivations are pure or slightly egotistical. All I can do is make empirical based inferences.

His motives could be exceptionally noble and wise, but also a tad tainted. If that's the case, it doesn't matter too much. The human race is still young. A guy like Kevin, relative to the sort of super-humans that could lie in the future, might be like the flimsy soft stem of a redwood breaking out of the earth of low brow humanity. In many centuries, some individuals might be like full grown red wood trees, in terms of their purity and strength.

[Pincho Paxton]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about. It sounds like you have read some strange literature which I have bookmarked, and will read shortly. But once you start talking about a man that was once Jesus, you give me cause to think that the literature is going to be like the Bible of the thinking man. which I will find distasteful. However I will let you know when I have read it.

EDIT: Well I read half of it, and had to think that this guy has used drugs, and has lost himself within himself. His words seem to be the thoughts going through his head, and therefore are relevent to mostly himself. A lot of information is incorrect, but some is interesting to read. I think that he plants a bad seed however. Somewhat religious, and dangerous. especially if you are easily turned by his words. He says that you reach 30 and your thinking becomes fixed. Well, all I can say is don't read the subject of his document if it is going to be the last thing you read before your mind becomes fixed. keep an open mind for as long as possible. Keep your mind mallible.

I'm 44, and still learning new things. I am also an athiest, but willing to accept God if there is ever any evidence of him. I think that at 30 you are not fixed, but just require good evidence of a fact.

[Kevin Solway]

I question the maturity of fantasizing about leaving a personal legacy, isn’t ones actual relationships in the present more important than fantasizing about some future outcome where one is perceived as significant as Jesus?

My attitude is that in whatever I do I want to minimize the harm and maximize the benefit for others (which includes my future self).

Now, I ask myself, how could I cause the most harm? The most harm would be caused if I wrote a book that could be badly misinterpreted, easily watered-down, and which became extremely popular, and if I became regarded as some kind of Messiah. This could lead to something really dreadful like Christianity.

This may be very unlikely, but I have to account for it.

Of course the odds are that the book will never take off, and that only a few people will read it, but it's not wise to work on a book with the assumption that nobody will read it. Rather, it's far better to assume that it is the only book in the world. That way, you are more likely to give it proper care and attention.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin wrote:

Now, I ask myself, how could I cause the most harm? The most harm would be caused if I wrote a book that could be badly misinterpreted, easily watered-down, and which became extremely popular, and if I became regarded as some kind of Messiah. This could lead to something really dreadful like Christianity.

Okay, I cannot argue with this.

Cory wrote:

However, what is also possible is that Kevin is just showing how he has learned from his past lives. Jesus was his past life, and he isn't going to allow history to repeat itself; he is going to learn from his past lives and not allow what happened to him in the past, to happen to him in the future.

From Poison from the Heart –

However, reincarnation is literally true when understood correctly. Your causes, which are what you were, are called your past lives. Your effects, which are what you will become, are called your future lives. For example, a child is to some extent the future existence of the parent.

Okay, I agree with this, but my only objection is that the memories of past lives are not certain. For instance: Kevin doesn’t actually have access to the memories of Jesus, instead he has a lot of fragmentary, incomplete historical information that is based mostly on second-hand empirical accounts.

Unless Kevin has an esoteric way of perceiving reality in some sort of multi-dimensional omnipresent fashion… and if you do Kevin, perhaps you could give me some pointers on how to master such a skill… : )

[Kevin Solway]

my only objection is that the memories of past lives are not certain. For instance: Kevin doesn’t actually have access to the memories of Jesus, instead he has a lot of fragmentary, incomplete historical information that is based mostly on second-hand empirical accounts.

Even the existence of historical figures such as Jesus is an empirical claim, and is therefore uncertain. Since we can't be certain that Jesus ever existed, how much less can we be certain what his thoughts were.

So yes, you're right. I also try to keep alive the thoughts of people like Kierkegaard and Weininger, but I have no way of knowing that they wrote the works that are attributed to them. The thoughts expressed in those books might be the thoughts of someone else. And in any case, I may have misinterpreted those books. There might not be any wisdom at all in those books other than what I project onto them.

Interestingly, there's even a reference to a kind of reincarnation in Christianity. John the Baptist was supposed to be the reincarnation of Elijah. But I believe this only signifies a causal link between the two; its as though they are different manifestations of the same "spirit" - the same pattern of cause and effect.

[divine focus]

Rather, it's far better to assume that it is the only book in the world. That way, you are more likely to give it proper care and attention.

Preach on! ;)

[Ergasiophobic]

"I could be mistaken, but perhaps there is a little vanity in Kevin’s concern with the survival of the species, and his urgency to conquer space. You see, if the species ends, then so does poison for the heart, and all his fantasies of being remembered as a great man after he dies."

I have accused myself of the same and wondered if it's a delusion. Afterall, it is an attachment to human knowledge but I refuse to repent.

"Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes, [Kevin Solway :)] .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars." Sinclair, Infection, Babylon 5

The only remaining immortality we can find?

[Pincho Paxton]

"Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes, [Kevin Solway :)] .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars." Sinclair, Infection, Babylon 5

Not if you believe in Heaven. And believe it or not, their is a sort of high percentage explenation of Heaven. I say that even though I'm an athiest. But Heaven doesn't have to have a God anyway.

[xerox]

...

[divine focus]

A sad thing, though, for us born and contemplating.