Females and Genius

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Females and Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:
diebert wrote:The self is perpetually seduced -- even your genius will still propel a self as he's being seduced by this idea of elimination, true selves and undivided realities.
I never used the concept of true selves or undivided realities (plural). Were you not suggesting the idea of elimination when you posted this in the "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment" thread?
When there's any knowledge, self or reality reached, owned or captured, it isn't beyond any doubt. That's all what was being said. Since it's not beyond the forces of change, it will need defending or fortification. This happens generally through the ritualistic, in language or deed, which then perpetuates the power of seduction.
It is true that a self is propelled during the process of "arriving beyond" to realize the absolute but it is a self of necessity (the parable of the raft attributed to the Buddha comes to mind).
All is necessary that way. Don't get too hung up on processes or any beyond :-).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Females and Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bobo wrote:I've re-read Diebert and I agree with a lot of what you wrote. The strong may be identified as the creators of new values and they will be attacked by the weak as the destructors of value, as a threat to their biological imperatives. Advertisement, emotions, are forms that are geared to be meaningless exchanges, as money, that bonds the herd and enforces their values. I don't think there is a new class per se, what we see are the effects of mechanization on a process that is based on the threat and submission of biological imperatives towards embodiment and promises of value.
Sometimes I wonder if it might be as well a function of change, the very flux of increased change in this period. Modernization, if anything, has a lot to do with rather violent changes over a short time. With in its slipstream some degree of chaos and annihilation appearing, threatening to wipe out much of the meaning, values and any other "firm" product, almost as an "after-thought". This process then is named a lot of things and wears many faces.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Females and Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

Quote:Diebert
It is true that a self is propelled during the process of "arriving beyond" to realize the absolute but it is a self of necessity (the parable of the raft attributed to the Buddha comes to mind).
All is necessary that way. Don't get too hung up on processes or any beyond :-).
Which is why I put it in quotation marks. :-) Getting down to brass tacks, any idea of self or an I is for the sake of communicating form or thingness, that is all. It is interesting but totally understandable that many come to the truth that one cannot find the beginning or ending to things but struggle with applying this same truth to the thing 'self.'
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Females and Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:Getting down to brass tacks, any idea of self or an I is for the sake of communicating form or thingness, that is all. It is interesting but totally understandable that many come to the truth that one cannot find the beginning or ending to things but struggle with applying this same truth to the thing 'self.'
So much of our self-consciousness is wrapped up in a verbal dialog, being it inner or outer oriented. Remove the conversation and deliberation, what is left? This is not easy to answer because while at the surface one can discipline silence, more below the conversations and dreaming will continue.

The idea has been posed that "in the beginning was the Word" or Logos. Which would work with the realization that within words self-consciousness as well as object-consciousness arises. The fundamental dialog "Ich und Du" like Martin Buber posited.

Perhaps a small modification then: the idea of self or I not just "for the sake of communicating form or thingness" but form, self and thingness as arising within the communication itself or as the very nature of it. Of course all I'm doing here is interchanging "reality" with "conversation" -- the sum of exchanges, weaving, affirmations and annihilations of meaning. With the word "meaning" here possibly interchangeable with "connection" in the larger sense. This to differentiate dreaming from waking.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Females and Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: Perhaps a small modification then: the idea of self or I not just "for the sake of communicating form or thingness" but form, self and thingness as arising within the communication itself or as the very nature of it. Of course all I'm doing here is interchanging "reality" with "conversation" -- the sum of exchanges, weaving, affirmations and annihilations of meaning. With the word "meaning" here possibly interchangeable with "connection" in the larger sense. This to differentiate dreaming from waking.
I see your point about the idea or thing "self" as being of the nature of communication or reality (as one of its things) but these things of the nature of reality don't really arise, do they? The sense of arising is a trick of the mind is it not, perhaps as a result of belief in a fixed/objective foundation of conscious intent emanating its conscious intent as things? Can you expand on what you mean by "dreaming" and "waking"? If one understands consciousness or reality as the appearance of its things, why clutter things up by defining its appearance as one of two different states or realms?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Females and Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:but these things of the nature of reality don't really arise, do they? The sense of arising is a trick of the mind is it not, perhaps as a result of belief in a fixed/objective foundation of conscious intent emanating its conscious intent as things?
That question would make more sense if you could give an example or "really arising". Any arising would still be a sense or some effect ("trick") of mind. No matter if it's the sense of table and spoon or higher self, inner guide, permeating forces, absolutes and so on.
Can you expand on what you mean by "dreaming" and "waking"? If one understands consciousness or reality as the appearance of its things, why clutter things up by defining its appearance as one of two different states or realms?
Since everything can be said to be "trick of mind" in the broadest sense, the question still remains then what is true and what is lie. Saying everything is ultimately "real" is just as simultaneously true and false as the idea that everything is ultimately illusion. In practical terms we keep on distinguishing, applying some gradation of reality or truthfulness. Even the body with all its reflexes and instincts reacts differently to perceived "actual" threats and what just "seems" -- they are ingrained patterns and not precise at all. But our daily life is filled with such determinations: what is real, what is more meaningful to us: what is being prioritized, what is important?

To address this in philosophical terms, the notion of meaning could be seen as state of interconnection. The more connected, the more as "real" it appears. And philosophically, the most real must be the most connected, seeing how the "real" would mean basically totality. Which means a philosophical truth which can be applied universally to all experiences could be called "the most real" as far as words or ideas could be said to be real. But since reality could be said to be a function of connection and words and ideas arise out of the connections with the larger world, they would have definitely the ability to be more or less real or truthful. Like everything else. And really, all we do is making these determinations which guide our actions. The states of connection and alienation, of truth and falsehood, reality and simulation.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Females and Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

Deibert,

I have included a quote from your earlier post, one that I meant to include in my previous response:
Diebert: The idea has been posed that "in the beginning was the Word" or Logos. Which would work with the realization that within words self-consciousness as well as object-consciousness arises. The fundamental dialog "Ich und Du" like Martin Buber posited.
Yes, and as I see it, self consciousness is the stopping to consider how other people will judge one's words and deeds whereas object-consciousness is absent of this shadow consideration. One could call self-consciousness "impure" or inauthentic thinking and object-consciousness "pure" or authentic thinking. Also, lack of integrity and integrity come to mind.
movingalways wrote:
but these things of the nature of reality don't really arise, do they? The sense of arising is a trick of the mind is it not, perhaps as a result of belief in a fixed/objective foundation of conscious intent emanating its conscious intent as things?
That question would make more sense if you could give an example or "really arising". Any arising would still be a sense or some effect ("trick") of mind. No matter if it's the sense of table and spoon or higher self, inner guide, permeating forces, absolutes and so on.
I wasn't suggesting that things "really arise", just the opposite. I was questioning your use of the word "arising" in your previous post, making the same point you are making, that any sense of arising (as if moving upward) from the subconscious (your dreaming state?) to the conscious (your waking state?) is a trick of the mind. I sometimes refer to these two aspects of nondual mind or awareness as the concealed (the supernatural referred to in another thread) and the revealed, aspects that don't, as you suggest, exclude any object as being absolute to the thinker.
Since everything can be said to be "trick of mind" in the broadest sense, the question still remains then what is true and what is lie. Saying everything is ultimately "real" is just as simultaneously true and false as the idea that everything is ultimately illusion. In practical terms we keep on distinguishing, applying some gradation of reality or truthfulness. Even the body with all its reflexes and instincts reacts differently to perceived "actual" threats and what just "seems" -- they are ingrained patterns and not precise at all. But our daily life is filled with such determinations: what is real, what is more meaningful to us: what is being prioritized, what is important?
At some point, at least for me, there was a dropping of dividing my consciousness into real and illusory, spirit and matter, Atman and Brahman, Father and Son, etc.,, although I acknowledge that the dividing into two seems to be a step taken by most, if not all who begin the quest to find the truth of their existence. A dropping of dividing which leaves one "simply" with the appearance and disappearance of questions, answers, realizations, insights, etc., the Logos of "the moment."
To address this in philosophical terms, the notion of meaning could be seen as state of interconnection. The more connected, the more as "real" it appears. And philosophically, the most real must be the most connected, seeing how the "real" would mean basically totality. Which means a philosophical truth which can be applied universally to all experiences could be called "the most real" as far as words or ideas could be said to be real. But since reality could be said to be a function of connection and words and ideas arise out of the connections with the larger world, they would have definitely the ability to be more or less real or truthful. Like everything else. And really, all we do is making these determinations which guide our actions. The states of connection and alienation, of truth and falsehood, reality and simulation.
Like attracts like, each after it own kind, etc., a truth that applies to relationship with "other", especially "other" thinking beings, which for the most part (at least this is my experience) is a connection that must be weighted heavily with the solitary experience. Too much "other" and one's integrity of Word becomes lost. This is the point I was trying to make with Alex in his thread entitled "Metaphysic, Intuition, Intelligence": I don't see how the authentic, integral solitary experience can be (or should be) "harnessed or encapsulated" for the sake of guiding/managing the masses that value self consciousness over object consciousness, which is what he seemed to be suggesting was not only possible, but desirable. So much wisdom in old sayings, in this case the one that comes to mind is "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

I found this Martin Buber quote which seems to fit nicely here: “When two people relate to each other authentically and humanly, God is the electricity that surges between them.”
― Martin Buber
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Females and Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:
Diebert wrote:The idea has been posed that "in the beginning was the Word" or Logos. Which would work with the realization that within words self-consciousness as well as object-consciousness arises. The fundamental dialog "Ich und Du" like Martin Buber posited.
Yes, and as I see it, self consciousness is the stopping to consider how other people will judge one's words and deeds whereas object-consciousness is absent of this shadow consideration. One could call self-consciousness "impure" or inauthentic thinking and object-consciousness "pure" or authentic thinking. Also, lack of integrity and integrity come to mind.
It's not a distinction I find very clear. What is "pure" about object-consciousness? You mean some "true objectivity", the thing "an sich"? In the end self-consciousness is another manifestation of object-consciousness, that is: self-as-object with the added attachment simply because it's so dear to us. But it's clear people can just as easily become attached to any object or idea in their universe. That becomes their new self, their projection of an "absolute".
...making the same point you are making, that any sense of arising (as if moving upward) from the subconscious (your dreaming state?) to the conscious (your waking state?) is a trick of the mind.
But only if we call the whole mind a trick, a play of light and shadow. The question which rises is not how to foil the trick and enter some purity but to at least know the trick, which of course will remain very tricky.
At some point, at least for me, there was a dropping of dividing my consciousness into real and illusory, spirit and matter, Atman and Brahman, Father and Son, etc.,, although I acknowledge that the dividing into two seems to be a step taken by most, if not all who begin the quest to find the truth of their existence. A dropping of dividing which leaves one "simply" with the appearance and disappearance of questions, answers, realizations, insights, etc., the Logos of "the moment."
It certainly looks like a deeper level, with more granularity. But knowing a bit of how the engine of a car works after having peeked under the hood (while remaining seated!) doesn't make one a better driver or closer to any destination. For this reason the accusation of "navel gazing" has been raised at times, which in many ways it still is. The specific illusion I'm targeting here is that there's no one "simply" sitting with the appearances and disappearances. It was already the case, it's what everyone already knows deep down. What is being achieved? It's for its own sake but it can be simply hijacked by the desire for another resting place and from that moment all kinds of distortions and delusions set in. That old game of seduction really.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Females and Genius

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: The specific illusion I'm targeting here is that there's no one "simply" sitting with the appearances and disappearances. It was already the case, it's what everyone already knows deep down. What is being achieved? It's for its own sake but it can be simply hijacked by the desire for another resting place and from that moment all kinds of distortions and delusions set in. That old game of seduction really.
It is ironic that self or spirit is always on the same resting spot but that it hijacks itself in the thrall of desire - hello Eve! Then there comes a day when it wakes up and tells Eve to reattach herself to the rib cage - hello WoMan of the Infinite. ;-)
User avatar
amerika
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 6:14 am

Re: Females and Genius

Post by amerika »

thelonelyunicorn wrote:Does anybody else find it strange that so many beliefs about genius say females are really incapable of it?
Women's thinking operates in a different way; adaptive/inductive might be one term for it. Many possess a form of genius by intuition, to which they are more closely connected than men.
thelonelyunicorn wrote:Also what is it with sterility and genius (particularly in women)? It's like they go hand in hand.
All that energy that could go into breeding goes into the brain instead. See also: homosexuality.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Females and Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

amerika wrote:Women's thinking operates in a different way; adaptive/inductive might be one term for it. Many possess a form of genius by intuition, to which they are more closely connected than men.
Another term is unconsciousness: a surprising lack of realizing why they do things, say things or which or whose purpose is really driving them. To mask the unconsciousness a habitual lie needs to be in place which ends up filling up the whole of consciousness: the self is born! One way to recognize this in people is how all meanings are modified to avoid every further meaningful thought: adaptive now means "whatever I say it is", inductive means random, genius means talent and intuition means social awareness and connection with whatever reflects her best: being it partner, child, pet or dress.
User avatar
amerika
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 6:14 am

Re: Females and Genius

Post by amerika »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Another term is unconsciousness: a surprising lack of realizing why they do things, say things or which or whose purpose is really driving them. To mask the unconsciousness a habitual lie needs to be in place which ends up filling up the whole of consciousness: the self is born!
Reminds me of Fred N's analysis in "On Truth and Lies." I agree that people backward justify almost all that they do.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: One way to recognize this in people is how all meanings are modified to avoid every further meaningful thought: adaptive now means "whatever I say it is", inductive means random, genius means talent and intuition means social awareness and connection with whatever reflects her best: being it partner, child, pet or dress.
I tend to refer to this as "inversion": when the actual definition is offensive, people create a fake one in its place. From a recent interview:
In my experience, the most common human event is the takeover of a term. Certain words, symbols and images convey great power, and so those who want to be powerful attempt to possess those things for purposes of thought control of the group. They almost always do this by creating a positive vision that involves the term, and then use that vision to define other terms as good or bad, which makes people want to do the good and run away from the bad. It is mind control, just not the type with radio waves and mystical charms. It operates through peer pressure.
Locked