Judging Others

[mikiel]

Can't wait -there's still nothing on TV.

Reply, continued.... just for the hel of it...

Dan:

The desired outcome would be that you become saner. That would necessitate you developing certain views that are consistent with mine, but it does not involve you being "like me". I mean, dream on, stud.

"Saner" ="developing certain views that are consistent with mine"...
not, of course to say that I should be more like you.
(Are you at all aware of how ridiculous this denial sounds/is? I will not be working on development of hate-mongering bigotry as a view consistent with yours or on going back to egoic consciousness to be more like you. Thanks.)

Your indulgences - but more importantly, your defense of them - indicate a deluded mind.

Very non-judgemental of you here, Dan. This is not a "defense" but a presentation of my take on my "indulgences." Or maybe you think your condemnation should go unchallenged.
You have never defined what "indulgences" are except in terms of an ascetic life, which you now deny is part of your philosophy. I used to get drunk, but don't anymore... quite moderate actually. But you keep using my drinking as an example of such an indulgence unworthy of enlightenment. And I am not aspiring to meet your standards anyway, tho you reek of self-righteousness as you condemn me.

it doesn't mean I think you're a "bad" person as such - just a twat :)

What a relief! You had me worried there.

You can judge things to be bad without that having a moral dimension. Is a flood that wrecks your home a moral evil?

My home ain't wrecked, but that doesn't stop you from trying to fix it.

The word twat has various meanings, dependent upon regional dialect. The word's main meaning in British English is that of idiot or stupid/idiotic/tasteless, generally towards a male person.

You rely way too much on smear tactics in lieu of having any intelligent criticism on any given point. We do not like each other. You are a not-too-smart hate-mongering bigot without a clue to what enlightenment is. So there! (Sticks out tongue.) If you keep on being mean to me, I'm going to tell the teacher. (Pout!)
m:

A "rise?" A response presenting 'truth as I know it? You have never actually made me angry, bud.

D: "Liar, liar, leathers on fire."

So now you are the expert on whether I get angry or not. I actually use harsh language quite a lot on these boards without any anger at all. You still have'nt done your homework on radical honesty... my constant practice.... which makes being called a liar even more painful. (Not!) It's your shit rising to the top of your own personal sewer sump here chump.

Hope this conclusion of the reply was entertaining for you. You are one mean-spirited bigot, bub (and a twat too!!), so I have no illusion that you can hear or use any of this feedback. I'm not attached at all to how you take it. And, no, sorry but I have not actually been angry since my awakening, much less provoked by an angry little man like you.

mikiel

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert wrote:

To me you are a unconscious liar, twisting every idea, every statement to mean what you need it to say. It's getting tiring and I wish someone would make an end to your suffering and ban you for a while. Your philosophy has nothing in common with the goals of the board and a prolonged stay with endless repetition of arguments over the months will not get anyone anywhere. It only spams the board right now.

Agreed.

Cory wrote:

Personally, I have no problem judging Sam as evil. As far as I'm concerned, being ignorant is being evil, while being conscious is being good. Now does that imply I am condemning Sam?

Yes good point, and that has been my problem with Sam. He is a master of circumventing truth with his slimy, greasy, and squirmy uses of language. Basically, he has all sorts of tricks to divert looking at things honestly, and by reading his total number of posts, one can conclude that he doesn't have much hope for rational thought. I can honestly say that I have never encountered another thinker so deeply entrenched in his own pseudo-intellectual, and anti-truth worldview.

David Quinn wrote:

This normally wouldn't be a problem (after all, 99% of the human race is just like this), but because he posts so much nowadays he is effectively ruining every thread that he goes on. Attention is constantly being diverted into his superficial game-playing, to the detriment of the quality of the discussions. And what's worse, its the same games over and over again, with nothing ever being achieved. This is no longer acceptable to me

He's never going to change, so it's time to put the foot down. For the sake of the forum, Sam is now banned on the grounds of energetic incompetency.

Nice. Finally, one less mosquito sucking the blood from my cerebellum….

[Fujaro]

I see nobody judging nobody here! They're just all geniusses.

[Carl G]

Ryan wrote:

Yes good point, and that has been my problem with Sam. He is a master of circumventing truth with his slimy, greasy, and squirmy uses of language. Basically, he has all sorts of tricks to divert looking at things honestly, and by reading his total number of posts, one can conclude that he doesn't have much hope for rational thought. I can honestly say that I have never encountered another thinker so deeply entrenched in his own pseudo-intellectual, and anti-truth worldview.

Bad form, lashing into sam after he's been banned. What's the point, reiterating what Diebert and David have said? It's like kicking a man when he's already down -- and been put down by another. Weak-assed ego bully stuff.

[mikiel]

An epitaph:
Samadhi is/was the only one here I know (besides me) speaking the truth about enlightenment, abeit second hand knowledge, in defiance of the party line dogma of this little cult.

You guys are well on your way to eliminating all but your indoctrinated 'yes' men... assuring a minimum of disagreement and and a maximum ass kissing of the presiding priests of enlightenment-as-logic with no clue to the reality of transcendental consciousness.

I, for one will miss Sam's honest integrity and intelligent openness to the variety of ways that enlightenment manifests among the many unique individual e nlightened teachers in this world.

Peace, Love, Enlightenment, Brother.

mikiel

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

Bad form, lashing into sam after he's been banned. What's the point, reiterating what Diebert and David have said? It's like kicking a man when he's already down -- and been put down by another. Weak-assed ego bully stuff.

He deserved a good thorough analysis after the fact. There should be no softening to Sam’s ego. He doesn’t deserve any sympathy, only harsh honest criticism.

Perhaps he’ll feel depressed after such collective criticism, which will cause him to reconsider his philosophy. However, I highly doubt it based on all his behavior. I doubt he will ever change significantly. Actually, He’ll probably just get a slight girlie piss on for a few days, judge the forum as arrogance fools, and continue on indefinitely with his “non-judgmental, pro-free will stance.”

[Dan Rowden]

I think what Dan was getting at was that he isn't interested in any morality that hasn't truth at its core. And that would mean that he wasn't interested in most morality because most morality is seeped fully in irrationality.

No, I'm pretty sure he's trying to say that he doesn't value making moral judgments at all.

What about you Sue? Do think it's reasonable to morally judge someone as good or evil?

What I'm doing, primarily, is rejecting all conventional ideas of morality - which spring from false sources. But really, "moral" judgements for a wise person are indistinguishable from logical judgements, so the label "moral" seems redundant to me, and echos false mindstates. They are just judgements, discernments. One wouldn't classify the judgement that a Phillips head screwdriver is a bad tool to use for a standard slot screw as a moral one. To me all judgements are of this form for a non-delusional being.

[Dan Rowden]

Thank you, Mikiel for your reply. It was great considering there really wasn't anything on TV.

[Cory Duchesne]

I think what Dan was getting at was that he isn't interested in any morality that hasn't truth at its core. And that would mean that he wasn't interested in most morality because most morality is seeped fully in irrationality.

No, I'm pretty sure he's trying to say that he doesn't value making moral judgments at all.

There's this issue of the actual existence of any difference between moral judgments like good & evil designations and more utilitarian judgments like what is beneficial in light of a certain purpose, will or functioning.

It appears to me there is no real difference. The only differences that could be asserted are playing on a way more detailed level like the question: for whom or what the benefit or utility is in the first place.

I definitely think moral and utilitarian judgments exist only in a unity, but perhaps it is worthwhile to distinguish them much like we would distinguish consciousness from the biological body which supplants consciousness.

For instance, anyone who uses the internet judges it as a useful means for achieving specific ends. But by judging the internet as useful, does it necessarily follow that the means (the internet) or even the ends (getting some banking done) are good?.

To my mind, goodness (whether we deem it to be pleasure or consciousness) is always the same - whereas the things we use to experience pleasure or consciousness are transient and/or largely disposable. I might judge that preserving my biological organism is useful when it comes to protecting wisdom. But that could change. It might one day be logical to gradually replace the biological organism with a more superior carrier of wisdom.

What generates consciousness or pleasure one day, may be be something quite different down the road. So yes, we can judge X as useful, but X is not good. (e.g., unlike goodness, X is disposable and can likely be substituted with something else)

So if someones morality is based on certain beliefs, the judgments made will be serving those beliefs, and it will be utilized to enforce or confirm that morality.

Yes, which is why Sam got banned. There is a morality established here, and Sam was judged as an impediment to the vitality of good.

So like I tried to explain to Sam in another thread: one cannot offset utilitarian to moral judgments.

Yes, and likewise, one cannot offset moral to utilitarian judgments.

In general discourse I'd say that when people talk about morality, it's about faith, conscience, upbringing, manners - things that are not easy to pinpoint where they originated or which reasoning is behind it.

Yes, old fashioned notions are very prevalent, but we have interesting folks like Peter Singer who has done an interesting job of redesigning our morality.

Behavioral scientists, anthropologists, neuro-scientists and philosophers do explore these issues though and often point to the basic observable strategies underpinning much of our cherished morality.

I think these 'basic strategies' which underpin conventional morality are weak efforts to keep the mind untroubled. People instinctively designate comfort as the good and discomfort evil. And what could cause more discomfort than being judged?

[Dan Rowden]

Perhaps he’ll feel depressed after such collective criticism, which will cause him to reconsider his philosophy.

Hahaha! Just laughing at that for Sam's sake. Sam has copped worse than this before, especially in terms of collective bagging. It won't faze him in the slightest, in part because it's not about him! Isn't that right, Sam?

However, I highly doubt it based on all his behavior. I doubt he will ever change significantly. Actually, He’ll probably just get a slight girlie piss on for a few days, judge the forum as arrogance fools, and continue on indefinitely with his “non-judgmental, pro-free will stance.”

Sam is pretty comfortable with his position on things, so this assessment is likely accurate. But really, even though he started his point about judgement very, very clumsily, in the end he did have a point - just not in the context he chose to make it.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

Thank you, Mikiel for your reply. It was great considering there really wasn't anything on TV.

Even if they were showing great movies on TV, I think Sam deserved an epitaph.

[Alex Jacob]

[But it helps no part of Sam's project (I am supposing because I paid no attention to his last major thread, in the Crucible, which seems to have created so much bad blood) that this 'epitaph' comes out of that distorted complex of entities known as Mikiel.

[Mikiel is, it seems, the psychological doppelganger, the forgotten relative who pops up through the Ouija board, the poltergeist in a spooky teenage girl's bedroom closet, who just won't go away---like a dream that repeats itself until one psychologically gets it.

[I wonder sometimes if I am the only one who sees these things?

[Thing get so odd around here from time to time. Each person's distortions, to which each is blind, get so oddly blown out of proportion, and these distortions are at the same time reflected in others who exist in a 180 degree opposite plane of mental existence. And then they go at each other like giant, lumbering Quixotes on a bizarre Holy Mission.

[L'enfer, c'est les autres.

[Long live the Quintuplets!]

[Philosophaster]

An epitaph:
Samadhi is/was the only one here I know (besides me) speaking the truth about enlightenment, abeit second hand knowledge, in defiance of the party line dogma of this little cult.

I disagree with a lot of the "accepted" line of thinking here, but I haven't been banned, and I doubt that I will be.

If it were my call, I wouldn't have banned Sam, but I can see David's point that Sam's attitude and style of posting were antithetical to the goals of the forum.

[sue hindmarsh]

Cory wrote:

What about you Sue? Do think it's reasonable to morally judge someone as good or evil?

Judgments made using those divisions (good and evil) are made no differently than other judgments. Things and situations are processed through your consciousness. And discriminations are made dependent on your degree of consciousness. Which is why I described most morality as being completely irrational - because the truth is that most people are barely conscious. Which is made clear by the state of the world.

Look at what Dan wrote:

One wouldn't classify the judgement that a Phillips head screwdriver is a bad tool to use for a standard slot screw as a moral one.

But that is exactly the sort of thing people do. They heavily load each event and/or person with such enormous significance that the said event or person is made something that it is not. It becomes so altered that it is unclear exactly what it really is, or what is really happening. And this 'vague' is exactly the way most of the world likes everything to be - because vague is constantly their state of their mind.

[sue hindmarsh]

Dan wrote:

"moral" judgements...are indistinguishable from logical judgements, so the label "moral" seems redundant to me

Making the Highest Morality that there is no morality.

[Dan Rowden]

One of the main facets of conventional moral judgement that identifies its delusional nature can be understood in what Nietzsche said: "There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena." Most people think there's an actual ethical dimension in things themselves. This is pretty convenient as it dispenses with any need of a sense of personal responsibility for value judgements. It also doesn't require much in the way of consciousness. It's all about feelings, and hell, feelings are always legitimate.

It's amazing how many people can tell you what is morally bad, but really struggle if asked to give an account of that judgement.

[Nick]

It's amazing how many people can tell you what is morally bad, but really struggle if asked to give an account of that judgement.

In the Bible it says...

[Dan Rowden]

Oh, yeah, forgot about: "It's what God says, so there. Only bad people question what God says or try to understand it."

Though, it's difficult for even moderately sane people to explain their moral judgements.

[Shahrazad]

Alex,

But it helps no part of Sam's project . . . . that this 'epitaph' comes out of that distorted complex of entities known as Mikiel.

Who would've been better qualified to write Sam's epitaph, then? Certainly not those who despise him.

I wonder sometimes if I am the only one who sees these things?

I have to admit that I don't see it as you do, but frame of reference has everything to do with what you see.

Thing get so odd around here from time to time. Each person's distortions, to which each is blind, get so oddly blown out of proportion, and these distortions are at the same time reflected in others who exist in a 180 degree opposite plane of mental existence. And then they go at each other like giant, lumbering Quixotes on a bizarre Holy Mission.

Are you saying that you don't enjoy to watch these opposite planes meet?

Look at the recent clash between Mikiel and Dan. IMO, they are both very nice, intelligent people, who would probably get along quite well in a social environment, but have incompatible philosophies. Each of them seems to see the other as arrogant, while I get no arrogant vibes from either.

I wonder if any of us are capable of objectively assessing someone else. I seriously doubt it. What do you think?

[Dan Rowden]

One glaring difference between myself and Mikiel is that he's a hypocrite and I'm not. He philosophically spurns judgement of others, yet his posts are chock full of that very thing. What's remarkable is that he is - seemingly - utterly oblivious to this fact. This speaks to the level of consciousness a person brings to their engagement of others and the world generally. Of course, he's not alone in falling into that trap - anyone who speaks against judgements must, of necessity, fall into it eventually. It seems so obvious and yet people seem not to see it - or could it be they're just pretending not to for various reasons?

[David Quinn]

An epitaph:
Samadhi is/was the only one here I know (besides me) speaking the truth about enlightenment, abeit second hand knowledge, in defiance of the party line dogma of this little cult.

You guys are well on your way to eliminating all but your indoctrinated 'yes' men... assuring a minimum of disagreement and and a maximum ass kissing of the presiding priests of enlightenment-as-logic with no clue to the reality of transcendental consciousness.

I just see it as eliminating some deadwood, to make the ship sail better. Have no fear, the majority of the forum is still comprised of no-men.

I don't mind no-men, but I want them to be lively and intelligent, not ones who are as dull as dishwater.

I, for one will miss Sam's honest integrity and intelligent openness to the variety of ways that enlightenment manifests among the many unique individual e nlightened teachers in this world.

You will miss your own yes-man .... ?

You and Sam share the same generic mentality and the same mental blocks, so it's no surprise that you speak up for him. Not that you have an ego, of course.

Who would've been better qualified to write Sam's epitaph, then? Certainly not those who despise him.

I don't despise him. I just think he is dumb. His dumbness has been impacting on the forum for far too long, in my opinion.

-

[David Quinn]

One glaring difference between myself and Mikiel is that he's a hypocrite and I'm not. He philosophically spurns judgement of others, yet his posts are chock full of that very thing. What's remarkable is that he is - seemingly - utterly oblivious to this fact. This speaks to the level of consciousness a person brings to their engagement of others and the world generally. Of course, he's not alone in falling into that trap - anyone who speaks against judgements must, of necessity, fall into it eventually. It seems so obvious and yet people seem not to see it - or could it be they're just pretending not to for various reasons?

You're forgetting that he doesn't have an ego. He lost that back in 1993. So how could "he" possibly be making judgments? Even when judgments are constantly pouring out of his mouth, as they undoubtedly are, it is not "he" who is making the judgments. It is God Himself, the Transcendent Consciousness, the One without a Second, who makes them.

Just as thoughts can arise without there being a thinker, hypcrisy can arise without there being a hyprocite. Therefore, Mikiel isn't a hypcrite.

It's all there in the New Age 101 manual.

-

[Shahrazad]

David,

I don't mind no-men, but I want them to be lively and intelligent, not ones who are as dull as dishwater.

So liveliness and intelligence can at least in part compensate for our no-man nature? This is so good to know!

I don't despise him. I just think he is dumb.

In the 7 or 8 years I have cyber known him, I've never thought of Sam as dumb. Dense, yes; new-agey, stuck in some flawed mental patterns, annoying, yes, and many other things, but not dumb.

-

[David Quinn]

He might have had some raw intelligence once, but I think it's long gone - for the reasons you mentioned.

Intelligence is like muscle, it can atrophy if it isn't exercised properly.

-

[Shahrazad]

David,

He may be like me and just sucks at philosophy, but is very good at other things that require high intelligence. I hardly ever call anybody dumb because I could be falling into assessing them along a single dimension, and there are many dimensions to a person's brain power. Even the smartest person does badly in some fields. You, for example, may be terrible at math, and/or physics.