The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

[Cory Duchesne]

I have no objections to your reasoning there, just as long as you’re not suggesting that humans should give up all empirical responsibilities to A.I. I maintain that one can still reap subtle satisfaction from new empirical discoveries and realizing new relationships in the totality.

That's impossible Ryan, a conscious being couldn't give up empirical studies if they tried. I undertake new empirical studies all the time. Such as watching the leaves on a tree as the wind blows through them, observing a thunder storm unfold, watching humans interact with each other, or sitting on a beach at night listening to the waves crash against the shore while I observe the night sky.

Ideally, humans should improve their brains to the point where scientific expertise in any area (or better, all areas simultaneously) is as effortless as watching the leaves on a tree as the wind blows through them, etc.

[mikiel]

Jehu,
I'm still in hit'n'run mode today... just another quickie, but more free time tomorrow.
I'll just address a piece of your last post:
"An absolute entity, if such an entity exists, must then have always existed, for an absolute entity cannot arise or cease or undergo any sort of alteration whatsoever. Neither can an absolute entity have any relationship to anything extrinsic, for to be related is to enter one into the other; and in doing so, to alter the essential nature of both. Consequently, an absolute entity may be said to be ‘unbounded’."

First, I fully agree with your distinction between dyadic and dualistic as in :

"In other words, although the nature of being is dyadic (two-fold), it is not dualistic; that is to say, it does not comprise two independent principles (not two)."

Applying the non-dual principle to the "Kosmos" as *the Absolute Identity *and* the whole entity, cosmos, however we get the following two-fold but non-dualistic Reality:
Cosmos has no beginning or ending but is eternally cyclical (oscillating... "Bang/Crunch.) The science for this is now catching up to my lifelong mystic vision of the "breathing Kosmos", sans the "self consciousness denoted by "Kosmos," which remains in the mystic/spiritual realm of realization. It is un-caused but full of ongoing causation on all levels, micro to macro. It constantly "undergoes alteration" as a dynamic, everchanging cosmos on the manifest plane. Yet, Omnipresent Consciousness, the Creator (both manifesting it all and transcending it) never changes.
Two aspects of one reality. The latter eternally transcendental and never changing, and the former (cosmos) constantly changing... but One Being. On individual scale, same reality: I *am consciousness* ("I Am" never changes) yet I *have* a body and a dynamic life of constant change.
Gotta cut it short again.
mikiel

[Iolaus]

Hi Mikiel,

I first "see" directly "what is" without egoic filters, then study how the vision revealed directly by nature/cosmos fits with current theories and philosophies.

That is exactly the way it works with me, and nearly everything else you've said fits my view to a T. Also, I call myself a mystic.

But you do seem attached to Big Bang theory, which I - who have almost no formal background in science unfortunately - have seen too many good refutations of. I'm convinced it's bankrupt. Consider reading Paul La Violette.

As to cosmology, I used to say even 20 years ago when I went to church every Sunday, that cosmology or astronomy was like theology to me.

But I too intuit a breathing and cyclical cosmos. You just don't necessarily need a Big Bang to get it.

[mikiel]

Hi Mikiel,

I first "see" directly "what is" without egoic filters, then study how the vision revealed directly by nature/cosmos fits with current theories and philosophies.

That is exactly the way it works with me, and nearly everything else you've said fits my view to a T. Also, I call myself a mystic.

But you do seem attached to Big Bang theory, which I - who have almost no formal background in science unfortunately - have seen too many good refutations of. I'm convinced it's bankrupt. Consider reading Paul La Violette.

As to cosmology, I used to say even 20 years ago when I went to church every Sunday, that cosmology or astronomy was like theology to me.

But I too intuit a breathing and cyclical cosmos. You just don't necessarily need a Big Bang to get it.

Hi Iolaus,
We seem to have much in common including reverence for cosmos (Kosmos) as The One Being in which/whom all individuals are integral parts.
About the "Bang/Crunch"... Setting aside for the moment the forces involved in the Bang itself and the continuing accellerating expansion phase... This *is* the cyclical or oscillating ("breathing") cosmological model.
I will check out Paul La Violette but meanwhile can you give me a quick summary of the refutations you mention?
I've already covered (several times) the supposed "missing matter problem." It isn't really missing... just very hard to detect up 'til recently, as most of it it doesn't emit or reflect light.

The "entropy problem" is a conceptual error by those who don't understand the universal law of conservation of *all* matter/energy. (Given the required critical cosmic mass, the "gravitational net" will bring it *all*... every single atom... back to the primordial ball of origin.

Then, whether you call the ensuing rapidly expanding ball of matter/energy/plasma a "bang" or not... is just semantics.

And I've not even mentioned here my vision of multiple bangs and crunches as phased "launches" and returns of the stuff of cosmos.
It makes nuclear fusion work for "launching" as it is not such a crushing gravitational field as that which overwhelms fusion-explosion.
(The dynamics of supernovae explosions work for this model of multiple (smaller) cosmic "bangs.")
But this is way far afield into science for this thread and this forum.
I am enjoying the conversation, tho.
mikiel

[Nick]

But even with interest, there are subtle passions operating, meaning that there are subtle preferences for future outcomes. And with interest as a consciously decided purpose as you say, that conscious decision is still governed by subtle passions. Actually, a decision cannot be made without emotional preferences.

I don’t agree with that. I think one might be more indecisive about certain decisions that have to do with emotional satisfaction, but when we are talking about making decisions in relation to what is true as opposed to what is false, no emotion is necessary. One could potentially operate in a purely logical manner because one is conscious enough to have awareness of what the truth is, so that in itself is enough to compel one to align one’s self with it. And as I said earlier, passion may have played a part in one's development that brought them to a point where they can operate in a purely logical manner, but that doesn't mean emotional preference is absolutely necessary for what interests one has and the decisions they maked based on it.

For instance: From previous discussions, I know that you favor libertarian political philosophy over Socialist/liberal philosophy, and like myself, I would say you have an emotional preference between the two. And that passion is fuelled by your concepts of justice as it relates to taxation, inflation, economic stability and so on. Now I maintain that subtle passions are not evil as long as they are directed into intelligent things, rather than unintelligent things. For instance: Debating morality with a certain amount of subtle passionate interest is much better use of the soul than blindly watching reruns of old game shows from the 70s.

I actually favor anarchy because all forms of government have no credibility with me. We can assume for the sake of argument that emotional preference plays a part in it, but that has no bearing on the fact that the more important reason for this preference is because it is completely logical. I believe anarchy provides an environment most conducive to higher levels of consciousness, and since higher consciousness is all about recognizing and understanding truth as opposed to what is false, this decision could also potentially be done with no emotional investment if one were perfectly enlightened.

Ideally, humans should improve their brains to the point where scientific expertise in any area (or better, all areas simultaneously) is as effortless as watching the leaves on a tree as the wind blows through them, etc.

I agree. Hopefully we're around to see it if that ever comes to fruition.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick,

I don’t agree with that. I think one might be more indecisive about certain decisions that have to do with emotional satisfaction, but when we are talking about making decisions in relation to what is true as opposed to what is false, no emotion is necessary. One could potentially operate in a purely logical manner because one is conscious enough to have awareness of what the truth is, so that in itself is enough to compel one to align one’s self with it. And as I said earlier, passion may have played a part in one's development that brought them to a point where they can operate in a purely logical manner, but that doesn't mean emotional preference is absolutely necessary for what interests one has and the decisions they maked based on it.

It seems to me that there is little evidence to support the claim that anyone on earth has ever achieved this non-emotional perfected state that the QRS idealize, so how can you be so certain it is achievable or that it is even desirable?

Furthermore, not having the subtle passions operating would result in a sort of zombie state. For instance: if you were totally without subtle passion, then what would prevent you from sitting in front of a television, and watching Britney Spears music videos all day long, there would not be a casual force to alter your behavior. So if you were totally without passion, there would be no motivation to manage ones time according to what one feels is important. One would simply be content doing nothing all day long, and we know this isn’t the case.

However, I’m saying the passions become very subtle, like a white flame rather than an out of control brush fire. The QRS suggest that even the white flame is eventually extinguished, but I don’t see any evidence of that, both in their behavior and in the behavior of past sages.

Moreover, what I know subjectively about decision-making, time-management, value-judgments, and the overall causal factors that attract one or repel one to certain activities and behaviors leads me to believe that there needs to be subtle passions operating.

I actually favor anarchy because all forms of government have no credibility with me. We can assume for the sake of argument that emotional preference plays a part in it, but that has no bearing on the fact that the more important reason for this preference is because it is completely logical. I believe anarchy provides an environment most conducive to higher levels of consciousness, and since higher consciousness is all about recognizing and understanding truth as opposed to what is false, this decision could also potentially be done with no emotional investment if one were perfectly enlightened

.

I do not agree, Anarchy doesn't work because there are many services that do very poorly, and they cannot sustain themselves when privatized. IE: A fire department does poorly because people are not motivated to pay into the service to keep fire fighters employed. Moreover, When certain services are privatized there is little interest from the working class to pay for the service, even though the service maybe very desirable for the whole.

The space program is very similar, most people are not motivated to pay into the research and development of this type of technology because it doesn't immediately affect their daily lives, and so taxation is needed.

Most colleges, research faculties and universities were historically helped out by government taxation, when the people would never rally together to give money to these things. Again another great benefit of having taxation on people to pay for services that humanity needs, but isn't collectively motivated to pay into.

Another reason that anarchy is inferior to a more limited government is that with an anarchy there is no mechanism in place to regulate and universally apply fair standards to companies providing goods and services. The result is a very shoddy and haphazard market place, where consumers must always be on the look out for products and services that are not up to acceptable standards. For instance: In an anarchy environment, food manufacturers would not be pressured to provide consumers with nutritional information, or even remove substances that science discovers is harmful. An example would be trans fats.

[mikiel]

mikiel,

No Steven, there is no formula. For genius, polymath or otherwise, or for "contact with the Source."

If enlightenment is genius, then there's a formula.

Enlightenment is not genius. The most simple minded can become enlightened. It has nothing to do with content of consciousness or degree of intelligence. It has everything to do with realization that "separate identity," "me-in here; not-me out there") is an illusion... that there is One Identity, Consciousness Itself in all.
And there is no "formula" for this realization.

And ..."Universal Genius.." - describing the theoretical principle of being able to teach oneself nearly anything"... is pure myth with no possible reality for an individual being omniscient. (What is meant by the hedge, "nearly?") Just all about Earth, or textbook learning or would this level of omniscience include all life everwhere and all details about the whole universe in minutely detailed "fact?"
Totally without a base in reality, for an individual.

Well, Not so much knowing everything. as knowing the self to be everything.
Yes, as in the One Universal "Self" in all individuals.

I'm interested in what you mean by the following:
"I know from experience that in the realm of spirituality, 'emptiness' enables correlation to become causation."

1 + 1 = 2 (or, 'I' + 'I' = 'I') Not so much "I!" as eye. Cause ('I') Effect ('X')
This makes no sense to me, period... nor as an explanation of the above.

Also wondering how you see the balance of "absorbing a text for a few hours during the day" as background for the direct *knowing* of "allowing Nature to teach" ... ("through causation" seems a superfluous concept in this context.)
I first "see" directly "what is" without egoic filters, then study how the vision revealed directly by nature/cosmos fits with current theories and philosophies.

Yes, without egoic filters. Yes. Knowing that All is me.. I obtain relativity of light, through imagination and will. Instead of 'tracing' ("I am that"), I'll 'trace' & 'draw'. "I AM" to Art...

ditto my last statement.

The linear mind wants "formulae" for genius and enlightenment.
Recipies are great for fine quisine, and formulae are essential in chemistry, but it does not transfer to the unique individual polymath (guided by inspiriation and interests) or the enlightenment, which depends on the*grace* of surrender of the illusion of personal identity. "Just let it all go"... could be considered a formula for such surrender, but it takes real, direct experience in the real world, not just "the right words."
(Likewise, "Be still and know that I am God." Sure thing... got it. Just be still... OK.)

No, linear mind receives formula (causation or koan), non-linear mind creates essence ('inspiration'). Though, linear mind also knows that one event follows another. So after absorbing a book, one could ask Nature a question about it!

"No" to what above? I see no contradiction between what followed and my statements above.... 'cept for my emphasis on first "seeing" directly and then finding consensus, if available.

(Gone for a week.)
mikiel

[Nick]

Ryan,

All I am saying is that the possibilty of a conscious being operating without emotion exists. I've made decisions that had no emotional input and I'm sure many others have done this through out history. To assume no one has or ever will be able to do this at all times is very closed minded and an under estimation of the potential of Nature to produce any phenomena imaginable.

As for whether or not government should exist, we can spend all day arguing about the specifics but the bottom line with me is that government has no credibility with me, and it necessarily threaten one's liberty which I believe is the most important thing when it comes to developing a healthy and wise individual. Aside from that, if people aren't interested in willingly funding science, fire departments, and educationally facilities then they will reap what they sow. I have no qualms with survival of the fittest in relation to the human race.

[Ryan Rudolph]

NIck,

All I am saying is that the possibilty of a conscious being operating without emotion exists.

You haven’t answered my question; in the absence of subtle passions and desires, what motivation would men having for doing anything? Why would one ever read another book, or ever watch a PBS documentary program, or walk on a beach on a sunny day, if it wasn’t for the beauty of the subtle passionate interest operating? Why deny our very motivator?

I've made decisions that had no emotional input and I'm sure many others have done this through out history.

If you could be so kind, could you provide me with a few detailed examples?

To assume no one has or ever will be able to do this at all times is very closed minded and an under estimation of the potential of Nature to produce any phenomena imaginable.

Or it could be closed minded to idealize a state of consciousness that is not possible or not even desirable in the first place. It could be a reluctance to face the truth of how the enlightened mind actually functions in the world. The whole idea sounds a tad too dogmatic for my liking, without a whole lot of empirical evidence to back up the claim.

In my opinion, life is habits, and those habits are regulated according to time management, and time management is governed by interests, some intellectual, some biological, but interest is always rooted in the passions, either gross or subtle. For instance: A dullard behaves exactly as a sage, except that his habits are rooted in the gross passions, while a sage’s habits are rooted in subtle passions, and that is the primary reason why each one doesn’t enjoy the others company. One interest is the other’s poison.

One can either have the subjective center of a dullard, which is similar to an out of control brush fire, or one can have the subjective center of a sage, which is akin to a concentrated white flame, or one can idealize the dogma of no subjective white flame...

But to deny the fact of discontent/passionate interest is to deny our very masculine motivator in the world…

[Nick]

You haven’t answered my question; in the absence of subtle passions and desires, what motivation would men having for doing anything? Why would one ever read another book, or ever watch a PBS documentary program, or walk on a beach on a sunny day, if it wasn’t for the beauty of the subtle passionate interest operating? Why deny our very motivator?

I already answered this question when I said that once one becomes conscious of the truth they will naturally align themselves with it which will cause them to avoid untruthful thoughts and actions by default. It has nothing to do with denying anything, it's a natural transformation.

If you could be so kind, could you provide me with a few detailed examples?

Aligning myself with Truth is the root example of all thoughts and actions I carry out with no emotional investment, and if there is any emotional investment in some these thoughts and actions that follow it is only a coincidence that the same action or thought satisfies both my conscious purpose in life and emotional desires. My participation in this discussion with you is another example of a discussion or action that I am not invested in emotionally.

Or it could be closed minded to idealize a state of consciousness that is not possible or not even desirable in the first place.

Whether it is desirable or not never really enters the equation. It's a natural transformation that happens with no extra effort from person in question. As they become more conscious of Truth, the less emotion plays a part in their decision making. Based on what I know about Nature, I know it is perfectly capable of producing anything imaginable, so it is absolutely possible that it could produce an individual who reaches a perfect state of enlightenment.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick,

I already answered this question when I said that once one becomes conscious of the truth they will naturally align themselves with it which will cause them to avoid untruthful thoughts and actions by default. It has nothing to do with denying anything, it's a natural transformation.

You still haven’t really answered my question, which is what motivates you to do things in daily life? What motivates you to prefer one thing over another?

However, I agree with your point that understanding truth results in a negation of some of the more crude animal behaviors, but what motivates you to come to genius forum, why come here at all? You see, there must be something in it for you when you come because If you had no emotional investment, then why not go listen to some britney spears records instead, it should be all the same to you, you see. If you have no emotional investment in anything, then one experience should be no more desirable than another, do you follow? But this is not the case because I assume you would rather come to GF and debate rather than watching Britney Spears videos? Personally, there are only a small number of threads that catch my attention at GF because I have some sort of subtle interest, and that interest is not separate from the passions…

This is how motivation works.

Basically, I think the QRS should rethink some of their masculine ideals…This non-passionate man seems like unattainable dogma to me….similar to the ideal Christian or the ideal boyfriend, or ideal this or that….it misses the reality of the thing.

I don't deny all ideals, but some are simply unrealistic and impractical. The non-passionate man is just as unrealistic as anarchy because both do not work when put into practice, and this is probably why there hasn't never been a true anarchy or a true non-passionate man.

[Nick]

You still haven’t really answered my question, which is what motivates you to do things in daily life? What motivates you to prefer one thing over another?

That all depends on what I’m doing. I don't always have just one motive for each action, and sometimes I have no motivation at all.

However, I agree with your point that understanding truth results in a negation of some of the more crude animal behaviors, but what motivates you to come to genius forum, why come here at all? You see, there must be something in it for you when you come because If you had no emotional investment, then why not go listen to some britney spears records instead, it should be all the same to you, you see. If you have no emotional investment in anything, then one experience should be no more desirable than another, do you follow? But this is not the case because I assume you would rather come to GF and debate rather than watching Britney Spears videos? Personally, there are only a small number of threads that catch my attention at GF because I have some sort of subtle interest, and that interest is not separate from the passions…

I come here because this is what I’m caused to do. I have been caused by Nature to become conscious of Truth and when I am operating close to or at a perfectly enlightened state of mind I really don’t have an interest or passion in anything. Sometimes I allow interest or passion to lead me somewhere and sometimes they take me along for the ride, but when I reach a certain point where they can be abandoned I become exactly like a tree, a rock, or a river. The only difference between me and these objects is that I am conscious and they are not. I make no decisions, I take no action, I have no passion, I become an effortless agent of God.

Basically, I think the QRS should rethink some of their masculine ideals…This non-passionate man seems like unattainable dogma to me….similar to the ideal Christian or the ideal boyfriend, or ideal this or that….it misses the reality of the thing.

Well, you will have to take that up with “the QRS”.

I don't deny all ideals, but some are simply unrealistic and impractical. The non-passionate man is just as unrealistic as anarchy because both do not work when put into practice, and this is probably why there hasn't never been a true anarchy or a true non-passionate man.

There is pure speculation on your part, and nothing more.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick,

I come here because this is what I’m caused to do. I have been caused by Nature to become conscious of Truth and when I am operating close to or at a perfectly enlightened state of mind I really don’t have an interest or passion in anything. Sometimes I allow interest or passion to lead me somewhere and sometimes they take me along for the ride, but when I reach a certain point where they can be abandoned I become exactly like a tree, a rock, or a river. The only difference between me and these objects is that I am conscious and they are not. I make no decisions, I take no action, I have no passion, I become an effortless agent of God.

This is all very beautifully written Nick, but your poetry hasn’t really satisfied me with a concrete empirical answer, you have succeeded in showering me with vagueness, but the answer still remains elusive. You see, I believe that everything can be described empirically in detail, but when you say you are simply caused to do something, that doesn’t make any sense to me. Moreover, you cannot say that you are just caused to do it, and expect me to believe that. A cause can always be pinpointed as something, but in this instance, you elude the actual cause by simply saying you are just caused to do it, as if that cause doesn’t have a describable essence. However, A cause always HAS to have a describable essence, otherwise it isn't a cause, the word cause always points to something. Furthermore, being an effortless agent of god sounds very mystical, but even an effortless agent of god has to be motivated by something, rather than just a fuzzy cause beyond description.

Well, you will have to take that up with “the QRS”.

Kevin, David or Dan are free to join in at anything time to defend the position that a perfectly enlightened individual is simply caused to take action independent of any sort of subtle passions operating. Perhaps they can adequately describe what this cause is, if it isn’t subtle passion.

Moreover, to give an explanation – I would say that an enlightened being is perfectly able to be motivated by subtle passion/discontent, but not be devastated in the same manner as the ego. Why? Because his understanding of causality is so complete that he can work for future outcomes, but not be devastated if things do not turn out favorable relative to his values/goals because he works without an exact expectation. His behavior is fuelled more by his own momentary passionate interest/discontent rather than by precise future expectations, and this is why he is able to continue working for something, but not be emotionally affected if causality deals him an unfortunate blow relative to his values.

There is pure speculation on your part, and nothing more.

But you are purely speculating too Nick, you throw these ideals at me as if you have achieved them, but your behavior suggests otherwise. How can you be so certain that your ideal is even attainable? And more importantly, how can you be so certain that a man can even survive in the world at all without some sort of subtle passions operating? You are unable to provide me with one example from the world, and you expect me to believe this dogma out of blind faith? Surely an experienced philosopher requires repeated and consistent empirical validation before he believes anything.

I am just being thorough in my thinking. At least give me credit for that.

[Nick]

This is all very beautifully written Nick, but your poetry hasn’t really satisfied me with a concrete empirical answer, you have succeeded in showering me with vagueness, but the answer still remains elusive. You see, I believe that everything can be described empirically in detail, but when you say you are simply caused to do something, that doesn’t make any sense to me. Moreover, you cannot say that you are just caused to do it, and expect me to believe that. A cause can always be pinpointed as something, but in this instance, you elude the actual cause by simply saying you are just caused to do it, as if that cause doesn’t have a describable essence. However, A cause always HAS to have a describable essence, otherwise it isn't a cause, the word cause always points to something. Furthermore, being an effortless agent of god sounds very mystical, but even an effortless agent of god has to be motivated by something, rather than just a fuzzy cause beyond description.

This isn't poetry, it's a very useful comparison. A perfectly enlightened individual is the same as a river in every single way, except the enlightened individual is conscious. So if you ask a river, "what is the nature of reality?" you wont get a response, but if you ask the enlightened individual you will receive an answer. He has no motive, no passion, no ego, he speaks the truth because that is exactly what he has been caused to do. There is no other explanation beyond this other than saying he has become an effortless agent of God.

Moreover, to give an explanation – I would say that an enlightened being is perfectly able to be motivated by subtle passion/discontent, but not be devastated in the same manner as the ego. Why? Because his understanding of causality is so complete that he can work for future outcomes, but not be devastated if things do not turn out favorable relative to his values/goals because he works without an exact expectation. His behavior is fuelled more by his own momentary passionate interest/discontent rather than by precise future expectations, and this is why he is able to continue working for something, but not be emotionally affected if causality deals him an unfortunate blow relative to his values.

I basically agree with that.

But you are purely speculating too Nick, you throw these ideals at me as if you have achieved them, but your behavior suggests otherwise. How can you be so certain that your ideal is even attainable? And more importantly, how can you be so certain that a man can even survive in the world at all without some sort of subtle passions operating? You are unable to provide me with one example from the world, and you expect me to believe this dogma out of blind faith? Surely an experienced philosopher requires repeated and consistent empirical validation before he believes anything.

I am just being thorough in my thinking. At least give me credit for that.

I'm not speculating. It is an absolute possibility that an enlightened individual can arise at any moment. I'm not asking you to blindly believe that it has ever happened or ever will happen any time soon. I'm merely pointing out that when you write this off as an impossibility you are basing this completely on empirical observation which is inherently limited and uncertain as opposed to the logical possibilities provided by Nature.

[Kevin Solway]

Re motivation.

Once you are enlightened you will continue doing whatever it was you were doing a moment before.

Why does a tree grow? It grows because the causes are in place for it to do so (if they are). Likewise with the enlightened person. If the enlightened person previously sought to live perfectly truthfully, and to spread wisdom, then they will continue to do so.

[brokenhead]

Why would we want AI to do everything for us? It seems to me that what makes life worthwhile is the fact that there is limitation in this world, and as a consequence there is the possibility of overcoming that limitation through inquiry, research, experimentation and diligence.

Women are prone to wanting something that seems outside of current limitations. There will always be limitations, and women are likely to tell you what they are. There will still be plenty to overcome.

Well, they are constantly telling me what mine are.

[brokenhead]

If the enlightened person previously sought to live perfectly truthfully, and to spread wisdom, then they will continue to do so.

The antecedent "enlightened person" is singular; you have used a plural anaphor. Hey, I won the English Award in my high school and edited the school newspaper. Old habits die hard.

[brokenhead]

Hey, Ryan, I think your opening post was very well put. FWIW.

[bert]

spending the further virtue of previous effort characterizes the birthed genius.

ps: brokenhead, seek the fault; not the capital :-) . tricky?

[bert]

born genius

at school I had about 7.5/10 for english, one of my better subjects :-)
geography the best.

[brokenhead]

spending the further virtue of previous effort characterizes the birthed genius.

ps: brokenhead, seek the fault; not the capital :-) . tricky?

say no more, say no more, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, eh?

[Carl G]

born genius

at school I had about 7.5/10 for english, one of my better subjects :-)
geography the best.

I've got 7.5 now, and really know how to please the ladies.

bert, your english is great. It's my comprehension skills that need so much more work for deciphering your posts.

[bert]

well, let me commit myself to leaving the forum. in 2009 I want to travel around the world for a year (something I want to do for a long time now). much of my spare time will be in preparation of this.

all the best to you

let me pass on..

____________________


and so let it be said that this aforementioned gentleman spent his times of leisure - which meant most of the year - reading books of chivalry with so much devotion and enthousiasm that he forgot almost completely about the hunt and even about the administration of his estate; and in his rash curiosity and folly he went so far as to sell acres of arable land in order to buy books of chivalry to read, and he brought as many of them as he could into the house; and he thought none was as fine as composed by the worthy Feliciano de silva, because the clarity of the prose and complexity of his language seemed to him more valuable than pearls, in particular when he read the declarations and missives of love, where he would often find written: the reason of my unreason to which my reason turns so weakens my reason that with reason I complain of thy beauty. and also when he read: ...the heavens on high divinely heighten thy divinity with the stars and make thee deserving of the deserts thy greatness deserves. --- Cervantes beginning page of Don Quixote

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin wrote:

Once you are enlightened you will continue doing whatever it was you were doing a moment before.

Why does a tree grow? It grows because the causes are in place for it to do so (if they are). Likewise with the enlightened person. If the enlightened person previously sought to live perfectly truthfully, and to spread wisdom, then they will continue to do so.

This also sounds a tad vague, and oversimplified..

It seems to me that a tree and a human being aren’t the greatest comparison as far as motivation is concerned because human beings are much more complex subjectively than trees. Moreover, a tree lacks consciousness altogether meaning it lacks values, talent, a will to survive, the ability to discriminate according to choice, which is basically the ability to dedicate ones time to one thing over another.

A tree isn’t even in the same league as a human being.

A human being can value wisdom, but still have talents in other areas, and then they have to decide how much time to spend spreading wisdom, and how much time to spend on some of their other empirical talents. Not to mention, that the they have to balance their basic survival needs with those two, which requires specialization is some economically viable skill. And the only way one can decide how to balance these different impulses is to feel their way through it…and so subtle passion seems necessary to me , which is simply a consequence of having a will to survive in the first p lace. However, the challenge is to refine the will as much as possible, and to develop a robust sort of super-will that has the ability to subjectively discriminate between what is important to their own unique trajectory, and what is not. And even though they favor certain outcomes, they are not emotionally tied down to a specific future.

A tree lacks this complex subjective decision-making process altogether… and isn’t pulled in many different directions.

[mikiel]

Re motivation.

Once you are enlightened you will continue doing whatever it was you were doing a moment before.

Why does a tree grow? It grows because the causes are in place for it to do so (if they are). Likewise with the enlightened person. If the enlightened person previously sought to live perfectly truthfully, and to spread wisdom, then they will continue to do so.

Kevin misses by a mile the whole point and meaning of enlightenment.

Pre-enlightenment one is driven by egoic conditioning, the ubiquitous programing of the human bio-robot.
Post enlightenment the former is transcended. "Pre" is looking out for #1. "Post" is knowing there is only One, that we are all Family, and the spontaneous motivation, born of universal love inherent in this gnosis, is to serve in whatever way is presented in one's individual life. (One as living through "this one" post enlightenment.)

Consciousness is primary "cause." Universal consciousness transforms the individual illusion of "me" and "my motivations."
One prayer of such surrender (of the illusory "me") is "Thy will be done." Not based on belief but on gnosis. Giving up an illusion is a no-brainer once one "knows" the Truth.

No one could possibly be further from the Truth here, Kevin.

mikiel