GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Not everyone is enlightened enough to understand that it's okay that I die.

For the "enlightened enough" there is no death. The rest is ignorance coming and going. It's not just "okay": the whole thing has to be found out to be extremely absurd, utterly provincial and fundamentally mistaken. Only then actual love is possible because errors of that magnitude can be wholeheartedly forgiven. Other love and forgiveness is done by merely chosing not to see this or that relative aspect. But seeing is where enlightenment is all about, Elizabeth!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: For the "enlightened enough" there is no death.

The body still dies Deebs.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The body still dies Deebs.

Have you been there and then? Assuming continuation is the same as assuming discontinuation. The bullfrog croaks, nothing is really going anywhere where it wasn't going already.

Some Yobbo wrote:What would you say and to whom - assuming you had time (i.e. weeks) to write a eulogy? Who would you say you were? What would you say you've done that matters?

Interesting questions, for a yobbo. But they smack somewhat of a challenge to engage in some self-examination, or perhaps some kind of reminder that talking is not doing, even though it can mistaken for it. Since eulogies are pretty much a bunch of bullshit, especially the conventional kind, I'm assuming you are hedging at something along these lines. I shall, therefore, quite literally not take you literally.

Let's take the "to whom" part first: since I don't own a newspaper and cannot therefore attempt a Murdoch and speak to everyone on the planet, and lacking a Twitter account and the willingness to take photos of my penis, I'd probably limit myself to speaking to the few people I thought would give a shit. Those who might listen and potentially take something from my words. People of sense and sensibility.

Who would I say I was? I would say that I'm a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars... I would say I'm Les Crane. Hang on, no I wouldn't. I would say I'm a man who tried his level best, within his limitations, which he acknowledged but never accepted, to not bring further ignorance into a world that dwells in that very thing. I would say I'm a man who thinks wanting to be right all the time, about things that matter, is a virtue and never a vice (unless it comes from some sort of batshit craziness). I would say I'm a man who sought not to do evil, but who knew you had to first figure out what the fuck evil is to achieve that.

What have I done that matters? Those very things. Oh, plus I once got a score of 45,000,000+ in Space Cadet Pinball. I was on fire that day.

Dan Rowden wrote:I would say I'm a man who tried his level best, within his limitations, which he acknowledged but never accepted, to not bring further ignorance into a world that dwells in that very thing.

You acknowledge but don't accept your limitations? Isn't that ignorance in itself?

Understand your limitations, but never accept them

Not a bad motto, though learned laziness seems to get in the way for me. Accepting them is a good excuse for laziness.

jupiviv wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:I would say I'm a man who tried his level best, within his limitations, which he acknowledged but never accepted, to not bring further ignorance into a world that dwells in that very thing.

You acknowledge but don't accept your limitations? Isn't that ignorance in itself?

No, because often our limitations are only apparent and in fact transcendable. I did not use any "inherent" qualifier there. Limitations, unless inherent, are transient. Most people like to think otherwise, in my experience. That is why never accepting limitations that are presently evident gives one scope to go beyond them.

@Dan Rowden, I take your point. However I would say that sometimes it is wiser to accept your limitations for what they are and try to work from within them.

That's fair enough; so long as one can establish that they're true limits. It's a sign of basic sanity to both acknowledge and accept such things if they're found to be so. I agree with you on that point.

Dan Rowden wrote:That's fair enough; so long as one can establish that they're true limits. It's a sign of basic sanity to both acknowledge and accept such things if they're found to be so. I agree with you on that point.

I am curious Dan, not looking for a fight (honest injun).

What Limits are there to your experience that you have found?

Dan Rowden wrote:What would you say and 1.to whom - assuming you had time (i.e. weeks) to write a eulogy? 2.Who would you say you were? 3.What would you say you've done that matters?

1.I would say it to anyone who cares about it.

2.
I would probably write something about my childhood.
Try to explain the moment when I began to understand, that I could only trust what I knew to be true and how this pursued me through the rest of my life.
How I was trying to live by that only to realize, that I was the only who a least wanted to know if there is an ultimate truth. (because "god" wasn't)
How I tried not to give a shit about truth, because I wanted to be loved and to be like everybody else.
How both contradicting feelings never ended.
How I tried to fill the growing void in myself.
How I found philosophy only after I became really desperate to get the answer to the ignorant questions of life:
What is the Universe?
What is the soul/consciousness?
What is life and what sense does is it have?
How I understood that all the Questions could be answered by the definition of the first one.
And how I became what I am, because it couldn't be other.

3.
Even if I've never reached the goal I was able to drag people with me. (even if just a bit)
I was able to turn against my family’s religious stupidity and took all the consequences.
I was able to inspire other people to become more interested in philosophy.

Maybe it's not much worth but I did more then rest of the people I know personally.

It's much more than 'not much' Mohamed, because of your intuition, or just plain interest in the truth, you are no doubt continuing to come to realizations regarding your true nature or have already found that which is much more fulfilling and grants lasting release and understanding. (Namely, the freedom from all delusional beliefs such as of beings that are higher than you.)

Anyway, what I mean is, good work overcoming.

Even so
I don't think I have what it takes to go all the way.
I can't even imagine living a philosophical life right now.

My life is going pretty well and I'm getting used to work, no even worse, I really like going to work.
The benefits of getting respect, money and the feeling of security is just to big.
I think I could do even better if I would just give myself up and go all the way.

But then on the other hand I don't think I could even do that.
So basically I'm just stuck in the middle and I'll probably won't ever be able to get out.

I guess a lot of people on this forum feel this way.

Some would say you don't have to "get out", personally seems that duties,appearance and attachments perpetuate egotism and hence suffering, leaving little to no time for contemplation, though it isn't always the case. Again, others say there can be a healthy loathing for a "worldly life" as you might call it.


I don't think the important thing is what you do, but simply if you're allowing delusions to effect you negatively.

I just got stuck on the word "if" in the title... Someone here is NOT about to die?! ;)

I'd go with "Hah!" or "I win!".