GENIUS FORUMS

An obstacle to wise living is the ancient problem of anger, violence and sadism. We are all come from childhoods and families that are far from perfect.

Most of the contempt, violence and malice we experience seems to come from human beings who are pretending to be something they are not. Boldness (acting confidently) is the solution to all unhappiness.

Showing worry and anxiety over silly things related to status eventually leads to atrocity. As long as we are pretending to be something we are not (afraid of what we really are), ones attempts at boldness will eventually spill into violence and sadism.

I don't necessarily advocate peace. I think boldness will always offend people. The liberation of humanity is not so much encouraging peace, but getting people to act confidently in conformity to their own unique attributes.

Acting confidently in a way that violates basic truths about our physical, intellectual and emotional limitations can only lead to embarrassment, anger and violence.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Most of the contempt, violence and malice we experience seems to come from human beings who are pretending to be something they are not. Boldness (acting confidently) is the solution to all unhappiness.

That's a bold statement :)

Violence seems connected to frustrations having built up to some minor form of trauma. With men this often translates to the safety valve of aggression. This is why I think in the social order violence is needed as spectacle, sport or even on-line discussion (hah!) But since it's a very physical energy, in many cases physical activities might bring the most release. Not to mention coitus which appears to be as well a hormonal and therefore "energetic" adjustment or drain. A very ritualized form of violation perhaps but a clever redirect of the raging energies of the average frustrated man. It does appear to violate also the nervous system in the same way the buildup of frustrations do. Lets call it "boom bust cycle".

The frustrations appear to origin from emotions, like humiliation, contempts, insult, worry about status and so on. If you think about it, pretending to be something one is not naturally will bring these type of frustrations as one keeps experiencing the opposite of what one thinks is "right" or "owed". Even a grudge against the whole world could develop, blaming the universe for not complying to ones own demanded position or way of being.

And violence might still not be the worst reaction: contempt and malice, this "ressentiment" at work under the radar could be even a bigger emotional problem, simply because it's stealthier and smarter. It might wrap itself with all the opposite notions: light, love and peace.

Anger and violence could in certain circumstances be a righteous action, whereas sadism is always just wrong.
Sadism may be a release of stored resentments , and many other repressed psycho states that could not find expression / dissipation , but it may also be the result of a weak mind in a moment of extreme weakness allowing the invasion and hijacking of its self-consciousness by a malevolent entity which channels its rage sadism through that human vessel, evidence for this in the way a personality can completly transform in a sadistic mood.
There will be scientific chemical explanations too backed up by giving someone opium or lsd and just watch their personality change, but this may too fall into the entity explanation where their mind was bent and altered by chemicals which allowed spiritual invasion as there is a physical / spirit balance to being as humans experience it , and many things physical alter our moods . emotions, even idea of self .

Its difficult to say with certainty what it is that ails people , a lot of it is their own responsibility , and all walks of humans are affected by negative emotions in varying levels , some hide them away, some run from them , some try to confront them, some allow sadism and violent actions to manifest on others from their frustrations ....or maybe even perverse pleasure for a sadist ?

Another thing to consider is the idea of ancestral memory or stimulation , i know this can be used as a get out clause for personal responsibility but its a phenomena worthy of investigation
Richard Semon invented 2 new words to communicate his ideas of memory before he topped himself
Engraphy = the energetic encoding of info into our memory
Ecphory = the process of retrieval of energetic memory traces

therefore it is possible that engrams (energetic traces of our ancestors memory) are genetically implanted in our minds / bodys
Then one day , a person is in a certain situation that stimulates their recovery (ecphoric retrieval) of this ancestral engram which then affects mood/emotion in a way that was not previously experienced by that person , possibly good possibly bad reaction
Good expla for deja vu (:

There is evidence for types of genetic weird unatural behaviour knowledge in the animal world, for example the cuckoo lays its egg in another birds nest , that cuckoo chick hatches , gets rid of its rival authentic nest buddies, then grows up , breeds but knows without teaching that it has to lay its egg in another birds nest

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: Most of the contempt, violence and malice we experience seems to come from human beings who are pretending to be something they are not. Boldness (acting confidently) is the solution to all unhappiness.

That's a bold statement :)

Violence seems connected to frustrations having built up to some minor form of trauma. With men this often translates to the safety valve of aggression. This is why I think in the social order violence is needed as spectacle, sport or even on-line discussion (hah!) But since it's a very physical energy, in many cases physical activities might bring the most release. Not to mention coitus which appears to be as well a hormonal and therefore "energetic" adjustment or drain. A very ritualized form of violation perhaps but a clever redirect of the raging energies of the average frustrated man. It does appear to violate also the nervous system in the same way the buildup of frustrations do. Lets call it "boom bust cycle".

The frustrations appear to origin from emotions, like humiliation, contempts, insult, worry about status and so on. If you think about it, pretending to be something one is not naturally will bring these type of frustrations as one keeps experiencing the opposite of what one thinks is "right" or "owed". Even a grudge against the whole world could develop, blaming the universe for not complying to ones own demanded position or way of being.

And violence might still not be the worst reaction: contempt and malice, this "ressentiment" at work under the radar could be even a bigger emotional problem, simply because it's stealthier and smarter. It might wrap itself with all the opposite notions: light, love and peace.

You make many good points.

I think "pretending" can go in two totally different directions. The negative direction seems to be fantasy related to status. The tendency towards oneupmanship over other people drives the imagination into endeavors related to social games. The imagination is at service to cunning, competition, and all "pretending" becomes valuable only insofar as one gets narcissistic supply.

The positive direction is a kind of impersonal drive toward reality, where it becomes less about a human face and more about pattern recognition. The line between scientific modelling and subjectivity gets blurry here. Instead of playing social games, there might be a more solitary sense of play without clear rules.

Acting boldly will serve us best if we clearly know why we are acting. No dice rolling, no leaving things up to chance. The only risk is that we'll be punished for our honesty and our desire for justice.

Cory Duchesne wrote:An obstacle to wise living is the ancient problem of anger, violence and sadism. We are all come from childhoods and families that are far from perfect.

Most of the contempt, violence and malice we experience seems to come from human beings who are pretending to be something they are not. Boldness (acting confidently) is the solution to all unhappiness.

Showing worry and anxiety over silly things related to status eventually leads to atrocity. As long as we are pretending to be something we are not (afraid of what we really are), ones attempts at boldness will eventually spill into violence and sadism.

I don't necessarily advocate peace. I think boldness will always offend people. The liberation of humanity is not so much encouraging peace, but getting people to act confidently in conformity to their own unique attributes.

Acting confidently in a way that violates basic truths about our physical, intellectual and emotional limitations can only lead to embarrassment, anger and violence.

The wise man does not provide surface for friction.

He is unprovoked, therefore he does not lash out. He is undaunted, therefore he does not cower. He does not try to impress, therefore he does not boast. He does not seek to diminish, therefore he does not deride. He is blissful, therefore his words are soft and pleasant.

He speaks truth, therefore he is not timid.

TheImmanent wrote:The wise man does not provide surface for friction.

or

TheImmanent wrote:He speaks truth, therefore he is not timid.

Make up your mind! Unless you think the truth is always smooth and silky. People will take offense you know, unless you're too young to have found out.

As for friction, the whole word is turning around suffering and friction under all the shiny surfaces. Therefore the wise man does not provide the world.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:The wise man does not provide surface for friction.

or

TheImmanent wrote:He speaks truth, therefore he is not timid.

Make up your mind! Unless you think the truth is always smooth and silky. People will take offense you know, unless you're too young to have found out.

As for friction, the whole word is turning around suffering and friction under all the shiny surfaces. Therefore the wise man does not provide the world.

In most social settings, the wise man is quite inoffensive. He expounds so many respectable qualities that almost all come to admire him, openly or in secret. The first sentence you quoted was a general statement.

Of course it can happen that a wise man is persecuted under certain circumstances, when his virtue goes against the established doctrine of the powerful.

But truth does not lie in syntax, nor must all truths be mentioned at all times. A wise man would rarely blurt out a truth in such a way that it offends. For if he knows that his listeners will misconceive the words, in having many different ideas that are incomplete, he speaks so as best to promote truth in his context.

For as you say, the world (society) is turning around suffering and friction, which is to say that the paradigm is false. Does this prompt the wise man to run the streets and scream his lungs out? It does not.

Appropriateness is not fixed but it is an integral aspect of mindfulness, and is caused when intent meets situation. At times it may indeed be appropriate for a wise man to run the streets and scream his lungs out, particularly if intent is to awaken others from the ongoing slumber that is the continuity of complacency, or assumptions of how the world should be.

The truth must be heard to awaken, and in a suitable situation being a source of annoyance can be an effective megaphone.

The phenomena of benign flash mobs can also Stop the World (to borrow a Castaneda term,) by making what is, something more and unexpected, although the familiar insulation of whipping out the digital camera somewhat mitigates the benefits for those caught in the mob, by ordering the world back into a familiar TV show.

Example:
Opera Company of Philadelphia "Flash Brindisi" at Reading Termina …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zmwRitYO3w

Here’s a illustrative anecdote about a crazy wisdom teacher who stopped the world of violent intent, for a moment, which fortunately for the teacher, turned out to be an action appropriate to intent and situation.

At the Redneck Bar by David Wilde
http://chronicleproject.com/stories_19.html
(also the first retrieval in a google search)

A wise man or woman is no longer disturbed by the truth of contrast, however, he or she retains the consumptive fire of having been contrast-disturbed. Therefore, a wise person is made of hardness (boldness) but not anger.

TheImmanent wrote:In most social settings, the wise man is quite inoffensive. He expounds so many respectable qualities that almost all come to admire him, openly or in secret. The first sentence you quoted was a general statement.

Of course it can happen that a wise man is persecuted under certain circumstances, when his virtue goes against the established doctrine of the powerful.

But truth does not lie in syntax, nor must all truths be mentioned at all times. A wise man would rarely blurt out a truth in such a way that it offends. For if he knows that his listeners will misconceive the words, in having many different ideas that are incomplete, he speaks so as best to promote truth in his context.

Agreed.

For as you say, the world (society) is turning around suffering and friction, which is to say that the paradigm is false. Does this prompt the wise man to run the streets and scream his lungs out? It does not.

If he for some reason thinks it might help his cause, whichever that is, or if his house and pants are on fire, perhaps he would!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:In most social settings, the wise man is quite inoffensive. He expounds so many respectable qualities that almost all come to admire him, openly or in secret. The first sentence you quoted was a general statement.

Of course it can happen that a wise man is persecuted under certain circumstances, when his virtue goes against the established doctrine of the powerful.

But truth does not lie in syntax, nor must all truths be mentioned at all times. A wise man would rarely blurt out a truth in such a way that it offends. For if he knows that his listeners will misconceive the words, in having many different ideas that are incomplete, he speaks so as best to promote truth in his context.

Agreed.

For as you say, the world (society) is turning around suffering and friction, which is to say that the paradigm is false. Does this prompt the wise man to run the streets and scream his lungs out? It does not.

If he for some reason thinks it might help his cause, whichever that is, or if his house and pants are on fire, perhaps he would!

Fair enough!

Hell, there certainly are a lot of wise men then! In fact, in that case, there are more wise than unwise men!

Hey honey! we shrunk the kids.
secret men's business.
religion.

TheImmanent wrote: The wise man does not provide surface for friction.

He is unprovoked, therefore he does not lash out. He is undaunted, therefore he does not cower. He does not try to impress, therefore he does not boast. He does not seek to diminish, therefore he does not deride. He is blissful, therefore his words are soft and pleasant.

He speaks truth, therefore he is not timid.

You've been reading from too many poetic sages, you've become too inspired, (it sounds like young love) and hence you're unable to recognize your own attachment. The beauty of the idea of wisdom is too shiny for you, who needs reason and logic when you've got a crush?

Classic newbie. That attachment, "oh my god this is wonderful!" will fade in time, along with the blinding excitement.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

TheImmanent wrote: The wise man does not provide surface for friction.

He is unprovoked, therefore he does not lash out. He is undaunted, therefore he does not cower. He does not try to impress, therefore he does not boast. He does not seek to diminish, therefore he does not deride. He is blissful, therefore his words are soft and pleasant.

He speaks truth, therefore he is not timid.

You've been reading from too many poetic sages, you've become too inspired, (it sounds like young love) and hence you're unable to recognize your own attachment. The beauty of the idea of wisdom is too shiny for you, who needs reason and logic when you've got a crush?

Classic newbie. That attachment, "oh my god this is wonderful!" will fade in time, along with the blinding excitement.

Bliss is the natural state, mind in self-expression. Should "it" fade, this is saying that mind is distracted from true nature, "attached" to misconceived nature. Therefore you understand things backwards; believing that the bliss of clarity is blinding, and that melancholia is clarity.

TheImmanent wrote:Should it fade, it is because the mind has again become attached and distracted from its true nature

I didn't say attachment doesn't cause suffering. I said there is no reason to assume you won't experience attachment/delusion/misconception/suffering or any of these things again.

You are effectively saying "because I'm joyful now I will be for eternity", but provide no reason as to how you will retain this exalted state of non-attachment (that even the various sufferings of death or pain would not effect you).

You have been subject to suffering in the past and are still subject to it.

Anyway, this discussion should have waited till after, when you say true nature are you referring to the awareness that existence as we experience it,(mostly referred to as the mind) is the nature of reality?

TheImmanent wrote:

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

TheImmanent wrote: The wise man does not provide surface for friction.

He is unprovoked, therefore he does not lash out. He is undaunted, therefore he does not cower. He does not try to impress, therefore he does not boast. He does not seek to diminish, therefore he does not deride. He is blissful, therefore his words are soft and pleasant.

He speaks truth, therefore he is not timid.

You've been reading from too many poetic sages, you've become too inspired, (it sounds like young love) and hence you're unable to recognize your own attachment. The beauty of the idea of wisdom is too shiny for you, who needs reason and logic when you've got a crush?

Classic newbie. That attachment, "oh my god this is wonderful!" will fade in time, along with the blinding excitement.

Bliss is the natural state, mind in self-expression. Should "it" fade, this is saying that mind is distracted from true nature, "attached" to misconceived nature. Therefore you understand things backwards; believing that the bliss of clarity is blinding, and that melancholia is clarity.

When you are honest with yourself, does bliss not exist because its contrast "melancholia" also exists? I understand the desire to delete melancholia so that bliss can stand alone and never leave, but imagine for a moment what this reality would actually be like. To always be in bliss...always be in bliss...always be in bliss...

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:Should it fade, it is because the mind has again become attached and distracted from its true nature

I didn't say attachment doesn't cause suffering. I said there is no reason to assume you won't experience attachment/delusion/misconception/suffering or any of these things again.

You are effectively saying "because I'm joyful now I will be for eternity", but provide no reason as to how you will retain this exalted state of non-attachment (that even the various sufferings of death or pain would not effect you).

You have been subject to suffering in the past and are still subject to it.

How can that which is present suffer in the future, or in the past?

Anyway, this discussion should have waited till after, when you say true nature are you referring to the awareness that existence as we experience it,(mostly referred to as the mind) is the nature of reality?

The true nature of thought is understanding, i.e., to conceive truth, think fully (thus the full expression of thought).

movingalways wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:
Bliss is the natural state, mind in self-expression. Should "it" fade, this is saying that mind is distracted from true nature, "attached" to misconceived nature. Therefore you understand things backwards; believing that the bliss of clarity is blinding, and that melancholia is clarity.

When you are honest with yourself, does bliss not exist because its contrast "melancholia" also exists? I understand the desire to delete melancholia so that bliss can stand alone and never leave, but imagine for a moment what this reality would actually be like. To always be in bliss...always be in bliss...always be in bliss...

Bliss does not exist in contrast, since it is the simple affirmation of nature. On the contrary it is absolute.

Envy exists in contrast, since it depends on the idea of someone else being better off than you. Hatred exists in contrast, since it depends on the idea of something being the source of your suffering. Sorrow exists in contrast, since it depends on the idea of something important being lost to you. Regret exists in contrast, since it depends on the idea of your own actions causing you to lose something important. Schadenfreude exists in contrast, since it depends on the idea of someone else losing something important.

Thus it is apparent that only the positive emotions have a positive existence, or are true emotions that accompany understanding — i.e., the fulfillment of the nature of thought. Likewise we see how the enlightened mind is unafflicted by any of the negative emotions, since they depend on misconceptions.

No one's wishes could change these things one way or the other. Existence can be only the way it is.

TheImmanent: Bliss does not exist in contrast, since it is the simple affirmation of nature. On the contrary it is absolute.

On the contrary it is absolute? The mirror of wisdom is speaking, your job now is to see and hear.

movingalways wrote:

TheImmanent: Bliss does not exist in contrast, since it is the simple affirmation of nature. On the contrary it is absolute.

On the contrary it is absolute? The mirror of wisdom is speaking, your job now is to see and hear.

Poorly formulated, but you argue semantics when you make it the point of your post. Otherwise you mean that existence stands in contrast to non-existence, which is to stand in contrast to nothing.

TheImmanent wrote:

movingalways wrote:

TheImmanent: Bliss does not exist in contrast, since it is the simple affirmation of nature. On the contrary it is absolute.

On the contrary it is absolute? The mirror of wisdom is speaking, your job now is to see and hear.

Poorly formulated, but you argue semantics when you make it the point of your post. Otherwise you mean that existence stands in contrast to non-existence, which is to stand in contrast to nothing.

There is no such thing as non-existence. What stands in contrast to the actuality of existence, the isness of existence, is the name "existence." The name is the contrast, the name is the thing. Until you name "it", whatever "it" is, "it" does not exist for you.

movingalways wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:

movingalways wrote:

TheImmanent: Bliss does not exist in contrast, since it is the simple affirmation of nature. On the contrary it is absolute.

On the contrary it is absolute? The mirror of wisdom is speaking, your job now is to see and hear.

Poorly formulated, but you argue semantics when you make it the point of your post. Otherwise you mean that existence stands in contrast to non-existence, which is to stand in contrast to nothing.

There is no such thing as non-existence.

Correct.

What stands in contrast to the actuality of existence, the isness of existence, is the name "existence."

Correct. (In the sense that the name is not the actuality of existence)

The name is the contrast, the name is the thing. Until you name "it", whatever "it" is, "it" does not exist for you.

Here you stumble. A name is a contrast, but the actuality of existence is the thing. The reason we disqualify "thingness" of a tree is because it does not exist by its own definition — dependent arising. Then you disqualify "thingness" of the actuality of existence because it does not have the form of the tree. This is circular reasoning, for the tree was not a thing because it had the form of a tree. The actuality of existence is self-defined, it is timeless and absolute, cannot be given form in relation to anything and exists without being named.

Here you stumble. A name is a contrast, but the actuality of existence is the thing. The reason we disqualify "thingness" of a tree is because it does not exist by its own definition — dependent arising. Then you disqualify "thingness" of the actuality of existence because it does not have the form of the tree. This is circular reasoning, for the tree was not a thing because it had the form of a tree. The actuality of existence is self-defined, it is timeless and absolute, cannot be given form in relation to anything and exists without being named.

All of this is true, but until you see the tree (contrast) you can't approach the tree for food. And until you name the fruit of the tree as either good to eat or not good to eat, you'd best not eat the fruit of the tree. Existence without names is still existence, but existence without names is not conscious existence.

First there is a mountain,
then there is no mountain,
then there is.
~ Zen Proverb

movingalways wrote:

Here you stumble. A name is a contrast, but the actuality of existence is the thing. The reason we disqualify "thingness" of a tree is because it does not exist by its own definition — dependent arising. Then you disqualify "thingness" of the actuality of existence because it does not have the form of the tree. This is circular reasoning, for the tree was not a thing because it had the form of a tree. The actuality of existence is self-defined, it is timeless and absolute, cannot be given form in relation to anything and exists without being named.

All of this is true, but until you see the tree (contrast) you can't approach the tree for food. And until you name the fruit of the tree as either good to eat or not good to eat, you'd best not eat the fruit of the tree. Existence without names is still existence, but existence without names is not conscious existence.

First there is a mountain,
then there is no mountain,
then there is.
~ Zen Proverb

Since we seem to have left the subject of this thread and entered the same subject as in another thread, I have replied to the discussion in the other topic.