Serious conversations about important issues, Part II: Truth is the root of all evil.

[jupiviv]

Previously on "Serious discussions about important issues" we tried to figure out what truth is, and failed miserably. I admitted my failure openly. Others did not, and the vile impostor David Quinn even went so far as to vomit up as lecherous a concept as "absolute" truth! These crimes against humanity must stand trial before we can proceed any further.

Truth is the measure of correspondence with reality.

Anything at all is a correspondence with reality. There's no way to measure such correspondence because any instrument wherewith done would itself be engaged in that same correspondence. Perhaps you meant "the measure of conscious correspondence with reality". But how does one differentiate between conscious and unconscious correspondences with reality? There is only one reality and every finite thing corresponds with it in the exact same way.

The sage's desire to spread truth outwardly in the world ultimately derives from his life-long desire to become enlightened in his own mind.

BORING! If David wants to spread this bullshit we have a pandemic of boredom-induced mass-suicide on our hands! And the way he talks about it his "desire" must be about as important to him as my desire to fap-watch a GOT sequel based on reanimated zombie dragongirl is to me. Actually that comparison doesn't work because the latter desire is in fact very important, but you get the point.

Anyway, if desiring "truth" for oneself leads to desiring it for others, then truth is a very trivial thing indeed! People don't go around distributing things they value dearly. They only want to spread silly and trivial things like internet memes or watching a TV show. If the desire for truth is both important and the cause of the desire to spread it, there must be something very special about it. I've no doubt David will explain what that is if somebody asks him, but like everything he writes that explanation will be BORING!

So by way of prolepsis, the truth is special because it means whatever you want but also means you're correct. It is a name for getting what one wants or, at least, feeling good about oneself. In other words, truth is the root of all evil. It's not for nothing the loudest and shallowest champions of "truth", almost without exception, claim that evil is stupidity and error.

All notions of "truth" are designed to connect our awareness of things around us to a fake desire to be aware of things in general. And, of course, that "desire" always excludes those things the creator(s) of a particular definition of "truth" want to ignore, distort or destroy. But the real never is not, so even in ignoring it people have to give it a name like "untruth" or "falsity".

I'm not by any means implying that truth has no place for real things. All things are real, so a "truth" that means nothing at all isn't very useful, and hence not evil. Evil people (=all of them, including me) value real things and their awareness of them to the extent doing so serves their evil ends.

In other words, the tremendous passion needed to overcome one's deepest illusions, and the sheer unstoppable momentum that this generates, continues to exist unabated after one's breakthrough into enlightenment. One naturally wants to continue piercing through illusions wherever they may be found.

Evil! Also, BORING! This is just a collection of vague words and phrases the QRS trio have repeated ad nauseum for decades. Stupid and weak-willed people may take pleasure in reciting them. Bold and imaginative people may interpret them to mean anything they want. Wise people like have no time for them.

Our deepest illusions are inseparable from our ability to feel passionate and inspired. If you feel passionate about destroying a deep-seated illusion you're almost certainly making an even deeper one stronger in the process. If you want to destroy illusions precisely because they are illusions and for no other reason, you won't feel any passion. On the contrary you will feel sad and scared.

And what "unstoppable momentum" does overcoming illusions generate? David seems to think willingness to destroy a few "deep illusions" eventually applies to all the rest via some sort of magical osmosis. Not only is there no evidence of such osmosis, the "deepness" of an illusion is moot because many types of illusions can represent an individual's deepest fears and ambitions. The actual contents of illusions have little to do with how deeply they affect people.

Some illusions - however "deep" - are far easier to cast off than others. The illusion of death is probably the easiest one to "destroy", yet it is eo ipso also the deepest. In reality it's little more than a subject for after-dinner idle talk. If you have no reason to suspect you'll die after a definite period of time from causes known to you at present, you won't be afraid of dying and hence have no problem ridding yourself of crazy beliefs about the distinction between life and death.

Our deepest illusions are about little ordinary things like jobs or penis cancer, not big abstract things like religion or death. Thus the task of destroying *all* illusions has to be repetitive, painful and unceasing. It can offer no passion and certainly no "breakthrough into enlightenment". Moreover, it has to tackle each illusion on its own terms. It will achieve nothing if it relies upon "logical" or "absolute" truths as panaceae for curing oneself of illusions. Speaking of which...

A truth is "absolutely true" when it is utterly beyond all possibility of being refuted by either logic or empirical evidence. In other words, when it is necessarily true in all possible worlds.

Absolute truths are far more evil and dangerous than regular ones because they act like force multipliers against things one wishes to ignore. A single thing, like the notion of cause and effect, is made to appear bigger than everything else. All problems and paradoxes seem to vanish into thin air before them, and they emanate an aura of strength and constancy. But they're just elegant ways of expressing rather obvious facts.

There is nothing wrong or evil about elegant expressions of obvious facts per se. Feeling happy due to one's ability to formulate such elegant expressions, or one's awareness of books containing them, or one's acquaintance with other people who like them - that is evil. Thinking that such expressions are the highest form of wisdom, i.e. of being honest with oneself - that is wrong.

"Absolute truth" is a convenient way of treating all of the dishonesty and self-conceit permeating every facet of human life as one big abstract category of falseness, so that our own, actual falseness becomes small and anodyne amongst a heap of hypothetical falseness. What Nietzsche and Kierkegaard said about Christendom applies to all philosophies founded upon the curation of absolute truths - they are sublimated forms of Epicureanism. By transforming delusions into easily identifiable and navigable pathways of "bad ideas", they attempt to bridge the abyss between petty-bourgeois prudentia and the Agnus Dei upon the altar of Sin. They simulate the ecstasies of righteous suffering and existential trauma for people who haven't endured any real suffering in their lives, and never want to either. When real suffering engulfs such people their precious "absolute truths" are as useful to them as an umbrella in a thunderstorm.

As Hakuin noted, Zen practice amidst the chaos of worldly activity is incomparably superior to that hidden away in tranquil isolation. What he meant by "tranquility" is a self-imposed vacuum where all the obstacles to wisdom can be dismantled by incessantly repeating "absolute truths" divorced from any context applicable to the real world. David hasn't addressed even a single one of the problems regarding the very notion of "truth" that I pointed out in Part I of this essay series (or whatever it is I'm doing). He can't, because he hasn't thought about them at any depth. Wisdom to him is his capacity to encapsulate various phenomena into expressions of a vocabulary he learned from Kevin Solway (and which Kevin himself compiled out of various texts he *was* once wise enough to recognise wisdom within.) Anything opposed to wisdom, as far as David is concerned, boils down to people's inability to understand phenomena in terms of that same vocabulary.

At this point I should note (in earnest) that in no way is my current project - as it were - intended to be an assault upon QRS philosophy in particular. The good things that QRS have said and done must be acknowledged. In my opinion the high point of David's career was probably around the pre-recession era, when he still thought of himself as a colleague to the other two, and engaged in the spreading of "truth" within a lively philosophy forum. His two debates with Buddhists and IQ nerds, as well as his blog, are definitely worth reading. Yes, I am damning with faint praise here. No, I will not stop until I'm done damning.

QRS philosophy is, when all is said and done, a Roman Athena. It is a performance of wisdom as it might have existed in the great sages of old, to whom it pays homage. The same can be said of many "wise" writings and sages of the past, including some that appear in the QRS canon. Indeed this observation more or less applies to the entire domain of philosophy. I myself am in the debt of QRS (especially Kevin) and their online literature for my own development. However, I don't want to be an actor and neither should anybody else. Wisdom cannot exonerate foolishness, and if the two cohabit then wisdom is to blame and both must die. Thus, QRS delenda est.

The difference between real and fake wisdom is easy enough to identify - if a person isn't being honest about something, then any "wisdom" he claims to possess is a fabrication meant to conceal his own (and possibly others') dishonesty. True wisdom, then, is no more than a consistent belief in the value of honesty. I must stress that it is a belief and not the logical conclusion of reasoning about "absolute truths". Reason cannot tell us why we should use reason. Nor can our usage of reason in one instance carry over to others irregardless of our willingness to use reason.

A belief in absolute honesty would require we recognise how deeply interconnected honesty and dishonesty - truth and untruth, reason and unreason - are in human life, and also why this interconnectedness means that truth, reason etc. are just as bad as their supposed opposites. Here we must be ruthless and unyielding because this subject is the key to developing a real philosophy of wisdom. Such a philosophy will abandon any pretenses about standards or thresholds of honesty. At the same time it cannot position itself apart from what is already there, like an epiphany or miracle.

That is probably a good place to end this essay/rant/whatever this has turned into. I realise that some of the above might come across as bloodthirsty Taliban dogma applied to epistemology. If that's what a call to absolute honesty stripped of rationalist twaddle sounds like, I'm fine with it. If my efforts to dismantle the Moloch of truth end up the same jumbled mess of motivations, biases, emotions and actual consciousness that is truth itself, well at least I've tried. Anyway, next time (if there is one) I'll probably dive into that mess itself and then attempt to escape from it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Previously on "Serious discussions about important issues" we tried to figure out what truth is, and failed miserably.

The occurrence of failure has a strong relationship to the possibility of truth.

Truth is the measure of correspondence with reality.

Anything at all is a correspondence with reality. There's no way to measure such correspondence because any instrument wherewith done would itself be engaged in that same correspondence. Perhaps you meant "the measure of conscious correspondence with reality".

Like any other measure in life, something which doesn't correspond with reality would remain possible. Like a "lie".

But how does one differentiate between conscious and unconscious correspondences with reality? There is only one reality and every finite thing corresponds with it in the exact same way.

What would your suggested "unconscious correspondence" look like to our mind? Any correspondence here would point to similarity, connection, or proportional correlation, a bit like the broad term "ratio", I'd suggest.

And I"m okay with changing it to "truth is the measure of connection to reality", allowing degrees of connection, like adding fibers.

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv: Anything at all is a correspondence with reality. There's no way to measure such correspondence because any instrument wherewith done would itself be engaged in that same correspondence. Perhaps you meant "the measure of conscious correspondence with reality". But how does one differentiate between conscious and unconscious correspondences with reality? There is only one reality and every finite thing corresponds with it in the exact same way.

I believe your words above reflects the absolute truth of view relativity, which is lived only when we have given up the delusion of absolute view.

[visheshdewan050193]

True wisdom, then, is no more than a consistent belief in the value of honesty. I must stress that it is a belief and not the logical conclusion of reasoning about "absolute truths". Reason cannot tell us why we should use reason. Nor can our usage of reason in one instance carry over to others irregardless of our willingness to use reason.

A belief in absolute honesty would require we recognise how deeply interconnected honesty and dishonesty - truth and untruth, reason and unreason - are in human life, and also why this interconnectedness means that truth, reason etc. are just as bad as their supposed opposites. Here we must be ruthless and unyielding because this subject is the key to developing a real philosophy of wisdom. Such a philosophy will abandon any pretenses about standards or thresholds of honesty. At the same time it cannot position itself apart from what is already there, like an epiphany or miracle.

I'm wise because I believe I must be *honest* in all contexts, while I recognize there is no morally distinguishing characteristics between positions of supposed truth/reason or untruth/unreason under the application of any contextual framework. *nods sagely*

I believe your words above reflects the absolute truth of view relativity, which is lived only when we have given up the delusion of absolute view.

Uh huh. *nods sagely*

[David Quinn]

jupiviv,

The other day, Vishesh made the observation in the Trump thread that:

while you seem to offer “interesting insights and information that showcases a breadth of literature", the impressions you tend to leave are “thoroughly immemorable". He couldn't have put it any more succinctly. This has always been my experience as well.

Your piece here hasn't changed my view. I've read through it a couple of times now and I can honestly say that I can discern no content at all. Paragraph after paragraph, it looks like a lot of words have been strung together in a seemingly passionate fashion, but when I try to drill down to find some actual meaning, there is literally nothing there. Nothing. It's just incoherent babble. Seriously.

Has it become your goal in life to outdo Alex in terms of spruiking endless reams of meaningless drivel? If so, then congratulations, you are well on your way to success. But why?

It's fine if you want dismiss me or Kevin or whoever. What do I care? That's your prerogative. But to dismiss the very notion that a person can deeply reason his way beyond all duality and open his mind to the nature of reality - to mock and dismiss that- well, that is extremely foolish. Where do you plan to go from there? There is nowhere to go apart from spending the rest of your life aimlessly thrashing away in multiplicity, just as Alex is condemned to do. Do you really want that? It's a direct path to hell. I wouldn't want to wish that fate on anybody.

[jupiviv]

The other day, Vishesh made the observation in the Trump thread that:

while you seem to offer “interesting insights and information that showcases a breadth of literature", the impressions you tend to leave are “thoroughly immemorable". He couldn't have put it any more succinctly. This has always been my experience as well.

And it hasn't lost any of its meaninglessness.

Your piece here hasn't changed my view. I've read through it a couple of times now and I can honestly say that I can discern no content at all. Paragraph after paragraph, it looks like a lot of words have been strung together in a seemingly passionate fashion, but when I try to drill down to find some actual meaning, there is literally nothing there. Nothing. It's just incoherent babble. Seriously.

I challenged the core of your philosophy and all you can do to defend it is sling mud and spout QRS vocabulary. You just can't handle effective criticism can you?

But to dismiss the very notion that a person can deeply reason his way beyond all duality and open his mind to the nature of reality

Ah yes we have to reason *deeply*. The need for our reasoning to be *deep* really cannot be emphasised enough. *Deepness* as it pertains to the manner in which we reason is absolutely non-negotiable.

This is *weak*. Do you honestly think such statements are effective on anyone who doesn't already think of you as a wise guru/mentor? If you do, QED. If you don't then nut up and deal with what I've actually said. Jfc even Vishesh managed to do that!

[Pam Seeback]

Pam Seeback wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:52 pm
I believe your words above reflects the absolute truth of view relativity, which is lived only when we have given up the delusion of absolute view.

Vishesh: Uh huh. *nods sagely*

Not sure how to read your response, so I won't try. Instead, I'll take the opportunity to expand on what I said in relation to the philosophy of the masculine and feminine according to the founders of this website, a philosophy I believe still governs the thoughts of David Quinn today. From the "A man never argues with a beautiful woman - oh, but I insist" thread, 2006, link here

Kevin Solway: Women (unconsciousness) rule our world, there is no doubt about. Unconsciousness is extremely powerful. That is why so few people ever escape its grip. Nothing can overcome Truth, but unconsciousness can overcome consciousness.

Women who attain masculine qualities of mind, such as powerful discrimination, focus, consistency, depth, etc, have no barrier.

Note the use of the absolute tense in Kevin's words, he even underscores his absolute certainty by saying 'there is no doubt about it.' In his mind, Woman represents unconsciousness, and that unconsciousness can overcome consciousness, end of story. My reasoned counter:

First a definition of consciousness and unconsciousness which I believe, in principle rather than content, to be close to that of Jung's. Jung's theory is that of a human collective unconscious that produces archetypes that shape mental-emotional archetypes upon becoming conscious which can be scientifically captured by what is now called the Myers Briggs Personality Indicator. I am not a Jungian expert, so feel free to correct my nutshell version of his theory.

If Jung's theory of unconsciousness forms becoming conscious as archetypes is overlaid onto the philosophy of causality in relation to the female energies of yin and yang, then logically, the unconscious is represented as already being in male-female union, implying that neither Woman or Man as we see them empirically attain to masculine (or feminine) qualities, instead, that they are determined (some would say pre-determined) by the causality itself. This also means that since the unconscious masculine/feminine determines/governs the conscious, that the unconscious cannot overcome the conscious as was stated as an absolute by Kevin.

What the difference in the two views reveals to me is the difference between how David and I view finite things such as climate change in relation to energy-awareness. Where David seems to interpret energy-awareness as the arousal of conscious masculine passion that overcomes the seductive pull of the devouring, powerful unconscious feminine, 'the grabbing hold of the finite' as he puts it, I interpret energy-awareness as being a priori to the thought 'passion' which explains why, unlike David, I do not interpret spiritual death. Death of ignorance, yes, but that is a different understanding. David believes my view to be a conventional one but I counter that judgment by reasoning that ultimately, it is the quality of the reasoning that counts, not how it is clothed after the fact by one's conditioning to reason opposites, in this case, the conventional versus the unconventional.

Two reasoned theories of the unconscious and conscious with only one of them believed to be absolutely true, which of my reasoning, is its inherent flaw. Which theory ends the suffering of inner contradiction is to me, the relevant question. I believe I have my answer, but am open to higher reasoning.

[visheshdewan050193]

Jupiviv,
I think you probably ought to take a break from activity on this forum or hashing out wisdom and genius. I say this gently, but you seem to sound like somebody who is coming apart at the seams. Even Diebert has expressed that you are stubbornly oppositional (and yes, he's also called you an intelligent critical contributer or something to that effect) ostensibly for not much more than shits and giggles. I've a friend who is of a similar cognitive orientation (INTJ), a TIFR scholar, who was up his ass with philosophy and spirituality (introduced to QRS as well, particularly Kevin), he's doing a lot better focusing on mathematical research with a startup and developing music in his alt rock band, and chilling with his friends. Course, I know nothing else about you (other than being a Don Bosco alumni or something) and what you do, but there ought be something you could apply yourself to whilst taking a break from GF. You can finish posting your essays if you have anything else to write, but I personally feel like I have not much of a choice but to treat you as a troll and not engage. I'd suggest David and Diebert to do the same, at least on GF (not Worldly matters).

Pam,
gotta catch a flight, will get back tomorrow or day after.

[jupiviv]

True wisdom, then, is no more than a consistent belief in the value of honesty. I must stress that it is a belief and not the logical conclusion of reasoning about "absolute truths". Reason cannot tell us why we should use reason. Nor can our usage of reason in one instance carry over to others irregardless of our willingness to use reason.

A belief in absolute honesty would require we recognise how deeply interconnected honesty and dishonesty - truth and untruth, reason and unreason - are in human life, and also why this interconnectedness means that truth, reason etc. are just as bad as their supposed opposites. Here we must be ruthless and unyielding because this subject is the key to developing a real philosophy of wisdom. Such a philosophy will abandon any pretenses about standards or thresholds of honesty. At the same time it cannot position itself apart from what is already there, like an epiphany or miracle.

I'm wise because I believe I must be *honest* in all contexts, while I recognize there is no morally distinguishing characteristics between positions of supposed truth/reason or untruth/unreason under the application of any contextual framework. *nods sagely*

No I'm wise because I recognise that in human life the motivations underlying truth are rarely if ever distinct from those underlying untruth, hence the concept of truth as it really exists cannot be the basis of absolute honesty and is in fact its mortal enemy. Truth is *far worse* than blatant untruth.

I think you probably ought to take a break from activity on this forum or hashing out wisdom and genius. I say this gently, but you seem to sound like somebody who is coming apart at the seams.

Between the racist Australian, the Trump-deranged Australian + Indian acolyte and the climate-skeptic "enlightened centrist" Rhinemaiden, I'm obviously the one with screws loose. Here's some advice - wisdom isn't for everybody and playing at it will not make you happy. Stop looking for exotic/controversial gurus, read some more books and figure out what works for you. I only ask that you keep away from the Sangh. The last thing we need is their IT cells appropriating QRS rhetoric.

INTJ

And of course you would believe in this crap.

Course, I know nothing else about you (other than being a Don Bosco alumni or something)

Might I suggest not trying to find personal info about people on a philosophy forum?

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv: No I'm wise because I recognise that in human life the motivations underlying truth are rarely if ever distinct from those underlying untruth, hence the concept of truth as it really exists cannot be the basis of absolute honesty and is in fact its mortal enemy. Truth is *far worse* than blatant untruth.

Let me see if I can translate the above:

Truth declares that views are relative to perception of form and if I realize truth, then I also realize that none of my views are true, therefore, my underlying motivations are as false as those who don't realize their views are relative, and instead declare them to be absolute. If I have accurately translated your meaning above then I understand what you mean when you say that views cannot be the basis for absolute honesty, but I would not go as far as declaring them to be one's mortal enemy. I say this because unless consciousness remains silent of view (which I believe is impossible) it has no choice but to accept relativity as the means for its causality. One could even be more heavy-handed and suggest that relativity of view is the cost of consciousness. And rather than this means or cost being viewed/reasoned to be an enemy, it could be viewed/reasoned to be a friend. Surely the latter view is the more wholesome, happiness-inducing reasoned perception.

I used to be angry as hell at the idea that views were relative. I wanted view certainty, which in retrospect, was a very reasonable, albeit very irrational desire. What is the point of saying anything if it is not absolutely true I questioned myself...oh the torment of the hidden Catch-22 I refused to see.

The way I view the spoken and written word now is that although it is relative, while it is being spoken or written, it feels absolute. Viewed from this perspective, one can be serious in the moment when seriousness is called for, but not become serious in temperament (cling to things or moments as if they ARE absolute). Now that I know for certain that views are relative and have accepted the means and the cost, I can go about my business freed of my torment. A sweet, well-earned way to be, yes indeedy.

[David Quinn]

Your piece here hasn't changed my view. I've read through it a couple of times now and I can honestly say that I can discern no content at all. Paragraph after paragraph, it looks like a lot of words have been strung together in a seemingly passionate fashion, but when I try to drill down to find some actual meaning, there is literally nothing there. Nothing. It's just incoherent babble. Seriously.

I challenged the core of your philosophy and all you can do to defend it is sling mud and spout QRS vocabulary. You just can't handle effective criticism can you?

Again, the problem is the criticism you offer is incoherent, which makes it ineffective. There is nothing for me to grab hold of and respond to.

For example, just to point to one of the latest things you wrote:

No I'm wise because I recognise that in human life the motivations underlying truth are rarely if ever distinct from those underlying untruth, hence the concept of truth as it really exists cannot be the basis of absolute honesty and is in fact its mortal enemy. Truth is *far worse* than blatant untruth.

Ok, this is what goes through my mind when I read this:

The first thing that pops out is the phrase" "motivations underlying truth" - what does this phrase mean? Is jupiviv trying to say that truths such as "1+1=2", or "all things have causes" have underlying motives? This doesn't appear to make any sense, or have any connection to reality.

What will he say next? That the problem with quadratic equations is that they are always motivated by envy?

Using the phrase “in human life” as a qualifier doesn’t help, since all truths known by the human mind, such as “1+1=2“ and “all things have causes”, are necessarily a part of human life.

So straight away, within the first half of his opening sentence, I am already being overwhelmed by incoherency.

The rest of the sentence doesn't fare any better - for example, "the concept of truth as it really exists cannot be the basis of absolute honesty"....? I think I would have to spend 5 years doing zazen in a cave to make sense of that one.

And then, just to add the final absurdist icing onto this bizarro fruitcake, the whole farce ends with what can only be described as a blatant self-contradiction - "Truth is *far worse* than blatant untruth". (“And that's the goddamn truth!”, mutters jupiviv breathlessly as he stabs at the keyboard with extra emphasis).

This is how your writing continually comes across. There seems to be something colorful and zestful happening on the surface, but in the end it always seems to dissipate into an illusion.

Ok, maybe I'm being a bit too pedantic. I mean, if I squint my eyes a little and make everything go a little bit blurry, then I can just make out a coherent point amongst the babble - namely, those who value truth or seek the truth have the same motivations as those who avoid the truth or value untruth. The same fundamental egotism is involved.

This has been addressed many times before on this forum. There is no question that when a person starts out seeking the truth, he is doing it out of impure motives. After all, he still has an ego. He is still motivated to seek egotistical benefits such as social status, happiness and security. It is only later when he starts to comprehend the truth of his own lack of existence, that those motivations begin to fall away.

But to dismiss the very notion that a person can deeply reason his way beyond all duality and open his mind to the nature of reality

Ah yes we have to reason *deeply*. The need for our reasoning to be *deep* really cannot be emphasised enough. *Deepness* as it pertains to the manner in which we reason is absolutely non-negotiable.

This is *weak*. Do you honestly think such statements are effective on anyone who doesn't already think of you as a wise guru/mentor?

I don't really care. I just sing my song and let others deal with it in whatever manner they see fit.

By "deep", I mean the kind of reasoning that is directed at the very core illusion that underlies all other illusions - namely, the illusion that things really exist.

I am fully aware that you don’t really know what this means. You just haven’t spent the time engaging in the kind of mental focus that is needed to bring this deep spiritual process into life.

How old are you now? 27? I spent my twenties wandering the streets single-mindedly absorbed in the task of thrusting my mind into ultimate reality. What have you been doing? Visiting trivial websites and reading endlessly about politics and culture wars and playing video games and watching fantasy shows like Game of Thrones and writing long self-admiringly clever posts? And now here you are, wanting to parade this spiritual laziness about as though it were a virtue.

There is something very dark happening here, and I think you need to face it. As I said in my last post, it is one thing to mock me or to mock everyone here or to mock the human race in general. That’s minor stuff. But to mock the fundamental spiritual process that leads to enlightenment? That is a very serious act. That is akin to slamming the door in God’s face. I really don’t know where you go from there.

[visheshdewan050193]

And of course you would believe in this crap.

Since you seem so enthusiastic about reading books, I could point you to the appropriate literature. Course, judging by your interests it'd be completely wasted on you.

Might I suggest not trying to find personal info about people on a philosophy forum?

Just something that I remembered from perusing through the forum. Why so impersonal, jups?

Anyhoo, I think an appropriate response was meted out in the previous post.

[visheshdewan050193]

First a definition of consciousness and unconsciousness which I believe, in principle rather than content, to be close to that of Jung's. Jung's theory is that of a human collective unconscious that produces archetypes that shape mental-emotional archetypes upon becoming conscious which can be scientifically captured by what is now called the Myers Briggs Personality Indicator. I am not a Jungian expert, so feel free to correct my nutshell version of his theory.

If Jung's theory of unconsciousness forms becoming conscious as archetypes is overlaid onto the philosophy of causality in relation to the female energies of yin and yang, then logically, the unconscious is represented as already being in male-female union, implying that neither Woman or Man as we see them empirically attain to masculine (or feminine) qualities, instead, that they are determined (some would say pre-determined) by the causality itself. This also means that since the unconscious masculine/feminine determines/governs the conscious, that the unconscious cannot overcome the conscious as was stated as an absolute by Kevin.

Well Jungian cognitive functions (the way he described them in Psychological Types, a couple of people have successfully simplified it) aren't really related to archetypes as far as I can tell (I tend to ignore the populist crap that's peddled on the internet about this stuff). I haven't really looked into archetypes(Jung's Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious), but they just seem to be patterns that upon manifestation (or projection) tend to resonate with limbic systems and bring about surges of libidinal energy (in a Jungian sense, not Freudian) and motivating behaviour. There are other psychological models that attempt to explain certain characteristics of various alterations in consciousness and drives, so they're not unique.

I've tended to decouple masculine and feminine drives from notions of consciousness and unconsciousness (I find it more appropriate to reserve 'unconsciousness' for the metaphysical construct of the hidden void). Instead I see both drives as conscious drives with generally different aims, one that seeks to impose order in relation to an 'other', and one that seeks security in an 'other' (partly by diluting the distinction or separation from the other). In this way, I can for example relate the same feminine drive with a variety of experiences, such as memories of childlike consciousness, experiences of oceanic connectivity, sex, or my day to day normal cognitive activity (same goes with masculine drive) - and I'm not particularly compelled to distinguish between the degree of consciousness associated with each of these activities. I think QRS associate unconsciousness with a lack of being able to discern contrast (which is linked to memory), which really is something Weininger hashed out, and while that makes sense, and one can see why a feminine drive that seeks dilution of separation could be considered as an unconscious impulse, but I tend to be able to reflect on these moments of giving in to the feminine drive in significant detail afterwards, so I don't think that I'd be truly be able to associate the feminine drive with pure unconsciousness until I develop an enlightened perspective of my own (which would give me a qualitative understanding of the difference between enlightened, adult, and child consciousness).

Given my views, you can see why "the unconscious is represented as already being in male-female union" doesn't really make much sense to me. Btw, why do you insist on the 'absolutism' of relativity (a contradiction in terms) of views when absolute truths such as causality/ interdependent origination have already been hashed out on this forum?

[Avolith]

I think you probably ought to take a break from activity on this forum or hashing out wisdom and genius. I say this gently, but you seem to sound like somebody who is coming apart at the seams.

Emphasis on 'seem to sound' here. I'm not trying to make a point regarding Jupiviv's current state of mind, rather your argument for prodding Jupiviv away from this board. It's a very weak basis for advising someone to reverse on a (probably?) serious personal decision to be here seeking something instead of chasing wordly success. Finally, do you really think Jupiviv would accept your friendly advice given your history on this board?

I've a friend who is of a similar cognitive orientation (INTJ), a TIFR scholar,

he's doing a lot better focusing on mathematical research with a startup and developing music

Pam,
gotta catch a flight, will get back

blah blah blah!

Even Diebert has expressed that you are stubbornly oppositional

I personally feel like I have not much of a choice but to treat you as a troll and not engage. I'd suggest David and Diebert to do the same,

That's some feminine group think, trying to band people together and form factions as far as I see it.

INTJ
And of course you would believe in this crap.

Agree with Vishesh's assessment. Incidentally, INTJ (aka INTp aka ILI in socionics) have Ti logic as a demonstrative function. The cognitive function placed in the 'demonstrative slot' is used to demonstrate the untruth of that particular cognitive function, rather powerfully and chaotically - making it seem incoherent for someone using it as their dominant cognitive function, like David, Kevin, Dan or Vishesh! Also see https://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/c ... -relations

Again, the problem is the criticism you offer is incoherent, which makes it ineffective. There is nothing for me to grab hold of and respond to.

Finding words for things related to Truth is inherently a very difficult thing to do, actually, probably impossible. Yet it has to be done. This is how I see Jupiviv's posts.

Logic of causality, A=A, and related absolute, 'clean', undeniable truths that are part of your philosophy - in the eye of someone who is not enlightened - are trivialities, similar to 'your current experience is absolutely true and cannot be denied'. Actual enlightenment has to come from truly thinking through the *implications* of those truths, which is the actual, nitty gritty, brutal, (?) work of enlightenment. From that perspective, the truth of such 'absolute truths' is not so absolute anymore. The effects that some truth might have, are part of how true it is. Given all of this, the absolute truth of causality seems self contradictory. Those 'clean' truths could be used to conceal and avoid dealing with the complexities of one's personal psychology, as I think Jupiviv was getting at when he said (and I'm roughly quoting by heart, which I can do because the words made an impression on me) "Global issues are not what's keeping people from enlightenment, it's the small, personal stuff" and "Truth is the root of all evil". I think your pedantry (which isn't a minor thing in my eyes) is employed to avoid dealing with the truth (forgive me Jupiviv) / actual criticism underlying his words.

Jupiviv I find your points on passion versus unhappiness/depression in relation to finding truth also resonate with my experience. They seem contradictory, yet both necessary. I ask myself, do they interact somehow, do they fuel eachother? David, why the focus on only the passion part - didn't you acknowledge that personal suffering is a vital part of finding truth? Why go for truth if it brings unhappiness, and so forth. Many interesting questions to explore, maybe in my next post I'll pain my brain to formulate something better.

Another thought, there is that truth of no-self, no inherent existence of the self. Given that as an absolute truth - what if it were to start dawning on someone. What could happen in a psychological sense? How could they be expected to continue to play the game of 'being a person', including, being polite, presenting oneself as one coherent entity with coherent ideas and thoughts, etcetera?! I think it's conceivable that a certain revolt against this 'game of self' would come up, that makes a mockery of itself, when really it's just the ego reinventing itself, which if not recognised could become a permanent deviation from the spiritual path, like with Alex.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The first thing that pops out is the phrase" "motivations underlying truth" - what does this phrase mean? Is jupiviv trying to say that truths such as "1+1=2", or "all things have causes" have underlying motives? This doesn't appear to make any sense, or have any connection to reality.

Motivations have always to do with a larger context. Why even raise the issue, why now and what is the goal of saying or doing it this way? If someone dies from a gun shot, it's not the gun that murdered (barrel+bullet=hit) but the one holding the gun, aiming, expressing something. If the killer would say "causality did it", he would be using a larger truth but it would still turn it into a motive during its expression or truth telling.

He is still motivated to seek egotistical benefits such as social status, happiness and security. It is only later when he starts to comprehend the truth of his own lack of existence, that those motivations begin to fall away.

Those motivations, like social status, happiness and security, are also caused by being part of a larger matrix, the body, social body and are part of the puzzle of functioning inside a larger whole. Awareness can be added to the process but any falling away, on the psychological level, is not going to happen. Our mind, its whole make-up will always look for those things. It's shaped that way and even enlightenment becomes status and security, if one is not mindful. Like a thief in the night....

I spent my twenties wandering the streets single-mindedly absorbed in the task of thrusting my mind into ultimate reality.

You wrote a week ago here: "[Woman: An Exposition] is not a work I could produce nowadays because I no longer experience the kinds of issues and frustrations that I did back then. Woman loomed large in my mind during that phase of my existence".

So you were walking around attempting to thrust your mind into ultimate reality while Woman still loomed large in your mind, experiencing all kinds of issues and frustration? And somehow you know you were doing so much better with your intent than modern day Jupiviv? Because you walked the streets I suppose on bare feet, not possessing anything, not voicing your doubt, not challenging anyone?

[Pam Seeback]

vishesh: I've tended to decouple masculine and feminine drives from notions of consciousness and unconsciousness (I find it more appropriate to reserve 'unconsciousness' for the metaphysical construct of the hidden void). Instead I see both drives as conscious drives with generally different aims, one that seeks to impose order in relation to an 'other', and one that seeks security in an 'other' (partly by diluting the distinction or separation from the other). In this way, I can for example relate the same feminine drive with a variety of experiences, such as memories of childlike consciousness, experiences of oceanic connectivity, sex, or my day to day normal cognitive activity (same goes with masculine drive) - and I'm not particularly compelled to distinguish between the degree of consciousness associated with each of these activities.

Thanks for the expansion on your view re masculine/feminine drives. And even though I presented a model of a priori masculine-feminine energies, I also understand them to become conscious. I find it interesting that you use the concepts of 'impose' and 'security' when referring to each, concepts that to me, carry a negative connotation.

I think QRS associate unconsciousness with a lack of being able to discern contrast (which is linked to memory), which really is something Weininger hashed out, and while that makes sense, and one can see why a feminine drive that seeks dilution of separation could be considered as an unconscious impulse, but I tend to be able to reflect on these moments of giving in to the feminine drive in significant detail afterwards, so I don't think that I'd be truly be able to associate the feminine drive with pure unconsciousness until I develop an enlightened perspective of my own (which would give me a qualitative understanding of the difference between enlightened, adult, and child consciousness).

Your insight that you can reflect on the forms caused of the feminine drive in significant detail afterwards is a important insight in relation to understanding how one who realizes the truth of emptiness and impermanence can consciously use the feminine drive to wisely and creatively dissolve separations. Obviously I do not consider the view of the conscious feminine as being one of 'giving into' or of 'seeking safety.'

Given my views, you can see why "the unconscious is represented as already being in male-female union" doesn't really make much sense to me. Btw, why do you insist on the 'absolutism' of relativity (a contradiction in terms) of views when absolute truths such as causality/ interdependent origination have already been hashed out on this forum?

Absolute truths such as causality and interdependent origination and the truth of relative View (or subjectivity) are not views, they are facts, A = A.

Why I insist on pushing the absolute truth of view relativity (or subjectivity) is that I often see on this site, particularly on the Worldly Matters forum a confusing of the two where a poster will speak as if their spiritually alive, subjective view is a factual, absolute truth, i.e., my mention of Kevin's assertion that Woman = unconsciousness. I am still sorting out how subjectivity-relativity of view (the arousal of the I/self) relates to the absolute truths as mentioned above (as I believe are most of the posters here are doing) ergo, I continue posting. I have yet to find a better vehicle than this site to do the sorting-through, so many thanks to David, Kevin and Dan for being its Daddies.

[jupiviv]

Again, the problem is the criticism you offer is incoherent, which makes it ineffective. There is nothing for me to grab hold of and respond to.

Bullshit. I'll admit the essay is poorly written in places because I wrote it all in one stretch, but nothing in it's incoherent.

Ok, maybe I'm being a bit too pedantic. I mean, if I squint my eyes a little and make everything go a little bit blurry, then I can just make out a coherent point amongst the babble - namely, those who value truth or seek the truth have the same motivations as those who avoid the truth or value untruth. The same fundamental egotism is involved.

So you can understand perfectly well what my argument is. Unsurprising, because it's very simple and direct. You disagree because you think I'm applying that argument to certain things or people *unfairly*. That too is a simple and direct argument, and perfectly valid by itself. Now that's settled we can all assume your community theatre vignette of Socratic befuddlement was meant to be a hissy fit. I for one, am fine with that. Let's move on!

There is no question that when a person starts out seeking the truth, he is doing it out of impure motives. After all, he still has an ego. He is still motivated to seek egotistical benefits such as social status, happiness and security. It is only later when he starts to comprehend the truth of his own lack of existence, that those motivations begin to fall away.

Firstly, the concept of the ego in Genius circles is problematic. For now it should suffice to point out that the "ego" in valid usage is not the cause or agent of egoistical motivations but a *category* for such motivations. Bearing that in mind - does egoism "fall away" as a result of comprehending the truth of non-existence? Things don't really exist, because they only exist through and in other things. Thus the truth of non-existence - which after all is just another thing, a thought in our minds - only exists through and in *other* truths, thoughts, actions, objects of desire, etc. The actual conscious awareness present in truth isn't special or isolated from all the other things, like deluded motivations.

The reality of dependent origination means that consciousness is no more inherent to truth than, say, pleasant circumstances that cater to a superficial form of consciousness by suppressing deeper unconscious tendencies. And yet all philosophies (including QRS) hold certain types of consciousness to be inherent to themselves and derive their power and legitimacy from those thoughts/ideas. They value the awareness of *some* real things only so that they can do what they want anyway, which inevitably requires the denial of other real things.

Like all things, consciousness may increase or decrease depending on various factors. But there is no special absolute truth/s that can transform a consciousness of the sort described above into a deeper, more robust form. Which is to say, one that doesn't flinch before pain, loss and suffering and can therefore retain its honesty even when personal interests or attachments are challenged in a very immediate and material sense. Neither can the transition towards the latter type of consciousness be reduced down to a gradual process of comprehending some abstract logical deduction.

So the reason I think your employment of QRS phraseology is vague and pointless because you substitute the process of gaining wisdom (i.e. willingness to be honest about everything no matter the cost) with individual or serial acts of reasoning about various logical constructs (absolute truths) and their applications within different contexts. In other words, the thing which you assert as a necessary condition of wisdom also turns out to be the substance of wisdom itself.

For example, you urge the necessity of understanding "non-existence" because figuring out why various things are non-existent will stop us from attaching ourselves to them. After a while spent doing this, we will also naturally realise that we ourselves are non-existent, and hence become free of our core delusions. This *sounds* logical enough but it's really just a story built around a bunch of assumptions! People just don't function that way, even people obsessed with seeking wisdom.

What model would you propose for the dissolution of complex emotional and material realities through the introduction of a unique mode of reasoning about their non-existence? Why would you stop wanting adequate food and water, stop being willing to abandon honesty and integrity for their procurement if necessary, simply by virtue of your awareness of their non-existence? How does the thought of something being non-existent act like a difference-maker in a hypothetical scenario where you do not let your emotions about that thing affect your judgment of it or your actions towards it? I know for a *fact* that you can offer no response to any of the above that doesn't ultimately return to the value of a supposed deep truth that holds the key to paradise.

But of what use is a philosophy that cannot answer those questions properly? We can reason about things all we want but reason by itself cannot change our deepest interactions with the world and our own existences, which are never as abstract as the existence of God or the non-existence of all things. In real life, delusions are complex psychological processes that are *materially* intertwined with each other and the world at large. Thus, the process of getting rid of them requires, above all, a *material* reorientation of one's life and place in the world. I cannot claim to have done that, not even close.

The best I can do with what time and energy I currently have to spare is to try and describe what it might be like. And the first step towards that is this: the sort of honesty that can become a true force for change in the world must be able to persevere through the most extreme forms of suffering and radical opposition to the very fabric of the human condition. Thus, it cannot be a more complete version of the sort of "honesty" that relies upon dishonesty in a fundamental way to preserve itself. The former sort of honesty doesn't differ from the latter merely in its abstract jurisdiction aka "applicable to more things" but also - and much more importantly - in how it approaches and affects its circumstances.

The next Serious Conversation will continue and expand upon this train of thought.

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv: Like all things, consciousness may increase or decrease depending on various factors. But there is no special absolute truth/s that can transform a consciousness of the sort described above into a deeper, more robust form. Which is to say, one that doesn't flinch before pain, loss and suffering and can therefore retain its honesty even when personal interests or attachments are challenged in a very immediate and material sense. Neither can the transition towards the latter type of consciousness be reduced down to a gradual process of comprehending some abstract logical deduction.

I don't believe that Kevin, David or Dan are suggesting that the transition between ignorance and wisdom can be reduced down to a comprehension of abstract logical deductions. Rather that logical deductions act as the fire of (and for) the transformation beyond ignorance. I propose that it is precisely because logic is abstract that it ignites the experiential/material fire of inquisition and realization. Try to imagine non-abstract thought awakening non-abstract thought - a fizzle if ever there was one.

So the reason I think your employment of QRS phraseology is vague and pointless because you substitute the process of gaining wisdom (i.e. willingness to be honest about everything no matter the cost) with individual or serial acts of reasoning about various logical constructs (absolute truths) and their applications within different contexts. In other words, the thing which you assert as a necessary condition of wisdom also turns out to be the substance of wisdom itself.

If I turn the mirror around, is it an honest statement to declare QRS phraseology to be vague and pointless considering that their words have prompted fiery discussions on 'truth' for almost twenty years, including this one?

For example, you urge the necessity of understanding "non-existence" because figuring out why various things are non-existent will stop us from attaching ourselves to them. After a while spent doing this, we will also naturally realise that we ourselves are non-existent, and hence become free of our core delusions. This *sounds* logical enough but it's really just a story built around a bunch of assumptions! People just don't function that way, even people obsessed with seeking wisdom.

But you have discovered the truth of "non-existence" have you not?

What model would you propose for the dissolution of complex emotional and material realities through the introduction of a unique mode of reasoning about their non-existence? Why would you stop wanting adequate food and water, stop being willing to abandon honesty and integrity for their procurement if necessary, simply by virtue of your awareness of their non-existence? How does the thought of something being non-existent act like a difference-maker in a hypothetical scenario where you do not let your emotions about that thing affect your judgment of it or your actions towards it? I know for a *fact* that you can offer no response to any of the above that doesn't ultimately return to the value of a supposed deep truth that holds the key to paradise.

It is my understanding that David, Dan and Kevin believe that logic is the only true key to paradise. And while it is true that David, Kevin and Dan have not provided a formal wisdom model such as Buddhism or Hinduism, I suspect they view their writings and videos in that light. Can logic take you to the door beyond dependent origination? I believe David believes it can, which I believe is the reason why you and I (and others), who don't believe it is possible to exit dependent origination are challenging his claim. As I have experienced the logic of emptiness, the fire of delusion can be put out, but the fire itself that makes forms, cannot.

But of what use is a philosophy that cannot answer those questions properly? We can reason about things all we want but reason by itself cannot change our deepest interactions with the world and our own existences, which are never as abstract as the existence of God or the non-existence of all things. In real life, delusions are complex psychological processes that are *materially* intertwined with each other and the world at large. Thus, the process of getting rid of them requires, above all, a *material* reorientation of one's life and place in the world. I cannot claim to have done that, not even close.

Being of dependent origination is a given whether one realizes dependent origination or not. Meaning that whatever is one's 'material' life right here, right now, it offers every opportunity to challenge one's belief in inherent existence.

The best I can do with what time and energy I currently have to spare is to try and describe what it might be like. And the first step towards that is this: the sort of honesty that can become a true force for change in the world must be able to persevere through the most extreme forms of suffering and radical opposition to the very fabric of the human condition. Thus, it cannot be a more complete version of the sort of "honesty" that relies upon dishonesty in a fundamental way to preserve itself. The former sort of honesty doesn't differ from the latter merely in its abstract jurisdiction aka "applicable to more things" but also - and much more importantly - in how it approaches and affects its circumstances.

Your keyboard is smoking. I love a good fire.

[jupiviv]

jupiviv: Like all things, consciousness may increase or decrease depending on various factors. But there is no special absolute truth/s that can transform a consciousness of the sort described above into a deeper, more robust form. Which is to say, one that doesn't flinch before pain, loss and suffering and can therefore retain its honesty even when personal interests or attachments are challenged in a very immediate and material sense. Neither can the transition towards the latter type of consciousness be reduced down to a gradual process of comprehending some abstract logical deduction.

I don't believe that Kevin, David or Dan are suggesting that the transition between ignorance and wisdom can be reduced down to a comprehension of abstract logical deductions. Rather that logical deductions act as the fire of (and for) the transformation beyond ignorance. I propose that it is precisely because logic is abstract that it ignites the experiential/material fire of inquisition and realization. Try to imagine non-abstract thought awakening non-abstract thought - a fizzle if ever there was one.

That was more or less my view of logic for the first few years of my time on this forum, but in the fullness of time, thought and experience I gravitated towards the one I intend to flesh out as extensively as I can with this article/essay series. Logic means being aware of things, so it occurs in all functioning adult human brains.

The key to wisdom lies in the *willingness* to think logically even if doing so is very painful and distressing. And that willingness is something different from, or perhaps more than, the phenomena called logical thought. I'm not implying it is supernatural by any means, or for that matter something unique or extraordinary like a prodigious talent. But it's a necessary condition for wisdom, in addition to logical thought including "spiritual logic" in the QRS sense.

If I turn the mirror around, is it an honest statement to declare QRS phraseology to be vague and pointless considering that their words have prompted fiery discussions on 'truth' for almost twenty years, including this one?

I said David's employment of it at present is vague and pointless. Quite apart from that I do have some big problems with QRS philosophy itself, and a lot of them are *related* to my problems with David's current behaviour in response to my criticism. But I don't think it's vague and pointless. In fact I conceded in the OP that it has influenced me.

But you have discovered the truth of "non-existence" have you not?

I have but this "truth" by itself doesn't make me wiser or even more insightful than the average person. Even David would agree that absolute truths aren't "understood" in the strictly conventional sense, but instead as part of the process of aiding us to reason correctly about various things. So even his reasoning has to conclude that the "truth" of an absolute truth lies beyond the logical syntax/content of the truth itself. I'm saying that this applies to *all* truths, or more correctly all instances of consciousness both "absolute" and "relative". The "truth" of all "truths" exceeds them.

Can logic take you to the door beyond dependent origination? I believe David believes it can, which I believe is the reason why you and I (and others), who don't believe it is possible to exit dependent origination are challenging his claim.

The "truth" of dependent origination means that every truth, indeed every finite thing, must express the truth of dependent origination. Reality is dependent origination, so the possibility of exiting it is a nonsense concept if understood literally. The people who talk about exiting dependent origination are really expressing a desire to get rid of their suffering, without confronting the nature of that suffering.

As I have experienced the logic of emptiness, the fire of delusion can be put out, but the fire itself that makes forms, cannot.

Delusions are forms that put out the fires of awareness, which are also forms.

But of what use is a philosophy that cannot answer those questions properly? We can reason about things all we want but reason by itself cannot change our deepest interactions with the world and our own existences, which are never as abstract as the existence of God or the non-existence of all things. In real life, delusions are complex psychological processes that are *materially* intertwined with each other and the world at large. Thus, the process of getting rid of them requires, above all, a *material* reorientation of one's life and place in the world. I cannot claim to have done that, not even close.

Being of dependent origination is a given whether one realizes interdependent origination or not. Meaning that whatever is one's 'material' life right here, right now, it offers every opportunity to challenge one's belief in inherent existence.

By "material reorientation" I meant changing what we do in our everyday lives.

[jupiviv]

Jupiviv I find your points on passion versus unhappiness/depression in relation to finding truth also resonate with my experience. They seem contradictory, yet both necessary. I ask myself, do they interact somehow, do they fuel eachother?

Unhappiness is bound to be the norm in the kind of project that QRS ideally should be (and instead merely simulates, as I claim). If you reject the values of other people, i.e. the way they interact with the world and each other, then they will reject you. To the extent possible, you have to think and act independently of your affections for or allegiance to the people in your life, so your relationships with them can never be very intimate or fulfilling. At the same time you must love everyone in a deeper sense, i.e. in the sense of recognising yourself in them and wanting them to be more like you.

This tension between what you expect of others and what they expect of you will cause a lot of loneliness and fear, and it will stay with you no matter how many absolute truths you understand. Wisdom cannot make you stop wanting intimacy, companionship etc. or suffering from their lack. All it can do is confront suffering and its causes honestly, both in yourself and in others. That confrontation itself makes you resilient to suffering and able to selflessly work for the good of others.

Another thought, there is that truth of no-self, no inherent existence of the self. Given that as an absolute truth - what if it were to start dawning on someone. What could happen in a psychological sense? How could they be expected to continue to play the game of 'being a person', including, being polite, presenting oneself as one coherent entity with coherent ideas and thoughts, etcetera?!

The self is just a category. Some components of your self are useful if kept together, while others aren't.

[Avolith]

Unhappiness is bound to be the norm in the kind of project that QRS ideally should be (and instead merely simulates, as I claim). If you reject the values of other people, i.e. the way they interact with the world and each other, then they will reject you. To the extent possible, you have to think and act independently of your affections for or allegiance to the people in your life, so your relationships with them can never be very intimate or fulfilling. At the same time you must love everyone in a deeper sense, i.e. in the sense of recognising yourself in them and wanting them to be more like you.

Rejection is a superficial thing - it happens on the surface level, a practical thing that can be managed with worldly skills. Therefore, whether or not you act in such a way that people reject you or not is a superficial detail that doesn't necessarily reflect an inner state of enlightenment or non-enlightenment.

Take the other extreme, a confrontational attitude, the angry preacher of truth complaining about the ways of the world from the sidelines. How 'true' is that, as far as its effects go?

Regardless of being rejected or not rejected, in the case of enlightenment there could not be any satisfying feelings of companionship or 'group-belonging'. I think in my own case, I'm subconsciously dealing with it by being in companionship with myself to some degree. There's ideas, images that were thought up to function as some replacement. It may sound like a mental disorder, but I'd say it's something that keeps me sane. At least the idea of companionship has to continue existing in some way as a contrast for its opposite to exist, to use some QRS logic?

This tension between what you expect of others and what they expect of you will cause a lot of loneliness and fear, and it will stay with you no matter how many absolute truths you understand. Wisdom cannot make you stop wanting intimacy, companionship etc. or suffering from their lack. All it can do is confront suffering and its causes honestly, both in yourself and in others. That confrontation itself makes you resilient to suffering and able to selflessly work for the good of others.

Wouldn't you say that there is such a thing as skillfully managing the divide between the inner and outer worlds, to alleviate and deal with this tension. It may even be part of skillfully applying your understanding in such a way that it lands in the world effectively. This would mean that enlightenment involves skill.

The self is just a category. Some components of your self are useful if kept together, while others aren't.

I did say at the end that the perspective was just 'the ego reinventing itself'. It's just a practical use of the word ego, not a denial of its non-existence. I'd say the most 'real' thing about the ego is that it's a very strong, constantly present, biologically evolved, internal sense perception - like the senses of hunger, exhaustion, sleepiness and so forth. It mingles itself with a particular set of other perceptions to create the divide between two categories of perceptions - self and other. It's like a piece of code that classifies perceptions as 'self' or 'other'.

Our DNA is such that literally all humans have an ego. Advanced thoughts can't be coded into your DNA. An ego came pretty much completely from your DNA, so it must be a crude, primitive piece of software compared to advanced thinking. Assuming all this, it should also be easy to come up with a way to fool this ego! It shouldn't require a 180 points of IQ and advanced thinking, it requires overcoming the crude, ancient structures that are still pulling the strings of the advanced cognition portion of the brain. As if a dumb brute with a sword were holding a small smart one hostage. Some sort of courage and faith is required to dare to act as if the brute is just a dumb idiot, and his sword is of no consequence. It's overcoming your slimy human origins.

[visheshdewan050193]

It's a very weak basis for advising someone to reverse on a (probably?) serious personal decision to be here seeking something instead of chasing wordly success.

Not really. I'm not particularly anal about dissociating all worldly endevours from avenues of developing genius. And I never meant permanently being removed from GF. However, I see cognitive forces at play, and it's unwise to be unaware of their influence and proclivities, even if one is passionate and devoted solely to the goal of cultivating genius.

That's some feminine group think, trying to band people together and form factions as far as I see it.

It's cute how uni dimensional your conception of feminine behaviour to be any form of 'group think' is, but you're probably right, there was no need for me to invoke David and Diebert. I've just taken to pointing out the nuisance that jupiviv's muleheadedness and "fractured" thinking (not my own choice of word) has become, particularly on matters pertaining to genius and not other issues. But it's become increasingly clear that his responses aren't really criticisms per se, so jups, you do you.

What I actually get hints about from the passages above is a natural discord between Ni ideality and inferior Se sensuality (I'm not particularly inclined to point out evidence of this directly, unless specifically asked to). Expanding on this, "Less plagued by subjective concerns about meaninglessness, INTJs are disinclined to sympathize with arguments from personal meaning. Rather than fretting over meaning (F), INTJs tend to be more preoccupied with the challenges posed by inferior sensing (Se). While these challenges may assume a variety of forms, INTJs are particularly apt to struggle with the profound sense of incongruence between their image of an ideal world (Ni) and the world as it currently exists (Se). "

Jupiviv I find your points on passion versus unhappiness/depression in relation to finding truth also resonate with my experience. They seem contradictory, yet both necessary. I ask myself, do they interact somehow, do they fuel each other? David, why the focus on only the passion part - didn't you acknowledge that personal suffering is a vital part of finding truth? Why go for truth if it brings unhappiness, and so forth. Many interesting questions to explore, maybe in my next post I'll pain my brain to formulate something better.

Well, Buddhism's central tenet is that sentience is suffering, the experience of which can instill a sense of spiritual impetus in you at best. David's probably not interested in emphasizing it too much for it might make him seem like another two bit Buddhist philosopher (something that was suggested in his tone during a conversation), but you'd notice he didn't respond to my questions about unmangling western conceptions of Buddhist/Hindu ideals of 'extinguishing desire' with ideals such as 'highest expression of passion'.

Anyhoo, I leave a couple of snippets from the compilation I made, make of it whatever you will.

"For example, there is the faulty premise that sentience automatically equals suffering/selfrighteousness/ignorance. If that were the case, then it would be impossible for any sentient being to become enlightened while remaining sentient. Buddhas would be an impossibility. So at the very least, a distinction needs to be made between deluded sentience and enlightened sentience. As for logic working out the cause of suffering, this is exactly what the Buddha and other wise people in the past were able to accomplish without any problems. Suffering is essentially the experience of lack, of desiring to be somewhere else. Logic thus dictates that suffering ends either when you are so fulfilled by the moment that you no longer experience any lack (i.e. a fleeting emotional attainment that is experienced very rarely), or when you put an end to desire altogether."


"The task of uprooting "sicknesses, tape-loops, obsessions and justifications" from the mind, while important on some levels, is ultimately a distraction because it is generated from the delusion that things inherently exist and that there is a pure and pristine reality that we need to see. Genius Forum, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with what is being expressed in the second stanza. Of course, the issue isn't quite as black and-white as this. Sicknesses, tape-loops, obsessions and justifications can, and often do, have a huge impact on a person's ability to attain enlightenment. At root, these blemishes are a product of our emotional attachments, and emotional attachments (to anything other than Truth) serve as the biggest stumbling block to enlightenment. Some attachments are far more significant than others, however. For example, eliminating attachment to all viewpoints, beliefs, and values (other than the valuing of Truth) is absolutely vital as far as trying to become enlightened is concerned - as is giving up attachment to praise, worldly honour, respect, status, wealth, comfort, love, etc. Genius Forum deals with these issues all the time. Not so critical, however, is the attachment to, say, humour, writing, taking showers, bungie-jumping, smoking, being rude to people, imagining that one is more advanced than one really is, attacking falsehoods in society, listening to Irish music, cycling, drinking tea, etc. While these sorts of attachments need to be addressed in the long-run if one is seeking perfection, they are incidental to the short-term task of becoming enlightened about the nature of Reality - unless, of course, they dominate the mind too much and suffocate its philosophical aspirations. In other words, one can become enlightened and still have "sicknesses, tape-loops, obsessions and justifications" of the mind - albeit in the more peripheral, less philosophically-critical areas of the mind. As for the major sicknesses, these are overcome by abandoning attachment to all beliefs and views, and developing the mental freedom to perfect one's intellectual understanding of Reality. It differs in that the whole process of attempting to wipe dust off the mirror is abandoned. In other words, a whole swathe of dualistic activity is dropped."

[visheshdewan050193]

Obviously I do not consider the view of the conscious feminine as being one of 'giving into' or of 'seeking safety.'

How would you generally describe masculine and feminine drives?

[Pam Seeback]

Obviously I do not consider the view of the conscious feminine as being one of 'giving into' or of 'seeking safety.'

How would you generally describe masculine and feminine drives?

Generally, I would describe the masculine drive as the drive to make logical connections and the feminine drive as the drive to make meaningful connections, the key component of each being the drive to make connections. And although the masculine and feminine drives can be distinguished from each other, they cannot be separated, the yin yang symbol comes to mind.

The two-in-one drive for structure and relatedness is unconscious, however, one can become conscious of their interplay in the human world at large.

[jupiviv]

Unhappiness is bound to be the norm in the kind of project that QRS ideally should be (and instead merely simulates, as I claim). If you reject the values of other people, i.e. the way they interact with the world and each other, then they will reject you. To the extent possible, you have to think and act independently of your affections for or allegiance to the people in your life, so your relationships with them can never be very intimate or fulfilling. At the same time you must love everyone in a deeper sense, i.e. in the sense of recognising yourself in them and wanting them to be more like you.

Rejection is a superficial thing - it happens on the surface level, a practical thing that can be managed with worldly skills. Therefore, whether or not you act in such a way that people reject you or not is a superficial detail that doesn't necessarily reflect an inner state of enlightenment or non-enlightenment.

I'm talking about rejecting ordinary human values, interests and activities on principle, and being rejected by others to the extent you follow this through. It's a different context than one's ability or willingness to handle particular instances of it like a relationship that isn't working out.

Take the other extreme, a confrontational attitude, the angry preacher of truth complaining about the ways of the world from the sidelines. How 'true' is that, as far as its effects go?

He may genuinely think confronting specific things he personally has no stake in amounts to an unswerving dedication to reason or whatever, while only valuing reason to the extent it benefits him. He may be right about those things but his deeper relationship to those things is a deluded one and will have bad consequences. Kierkegaard makes the same point in "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" with the example of an escaped lunatic trying to make everyone believe he is sane by repeatedly shouting "the earth is round!".

Regardless of being rejected or not rejected, in the case of enlightenment there could not be any satisfying feelings of companionship or 'group-belonging'. I think in my own case, I'm subconsciously dealing with it by being in companionship with myself to some degree. There's ideas, images that were thought up to function as some replacement. It may sound like a mental disorder, but I'd say it's something that keeps me sane.

I can understand that, but you have to figure out how to live without these mental processes. If lack of enough interaction/intimacy with other people causes actual mental trauma in you then I suggest dialing it down or taking a break. Other people may not despise your goals or behaviour but you still have to live with them and treat them with compassion. Besides, many group activities do not explicitly require lying to yourself and others. Also, exercising regularly will make you feel better. There are plenty of ways besides idea-companions that can help you bear the suffering of trying to live honestly.

This tension between what you expect of others and what they expect of you will cause a lot of loneliness and fear, and it will stay with you no matter how many absolute truths you understand. Wisdom cannot make you stop wanting intimacy, companionship etc. or suffering from their lack. All it can do is confront suffering and its causes honestly, both in yourself and in others. That confrontation itself makes you resilient to suffering and able to selflessly work for the good of others.

Wouldn't you say that there is such a thing as skillfully managing the divide between the inner and outer worlds, to alleviate and deal with this tension. It may even be part of skillfully applying your understanding in such a way that it lands in the world effectively. This would mean that enlightenment involves skill.

You'll get better at dealing with the suffering but it won't go away. This should be contemplated very seriously before going down such paths. You will also have to make exceptions about how strictly you want to abide by the implications of total honesty, but you should at least try to be honest about how dishonest you are. But figure it out for yourself. I'm only telling you what seems to work for me.

I'd say the most 'real' thing about the ego is that it's a very strong, constantly present, biologically evolved, internal sense perception - like the senses of hunger, exhaustion, sleepiness and so forth.

I don't think the ego is an independent mental process. It's kind of like videos - pictures seem to move but it's an illusion created by viewing similar pictures in rapid succession. Our thoughts, desires, actions etc. are related to the same types of things, or our memories of them. Our memories of the occurrences of such mental processes combine with other thoughts, desires etc. and we experience that phenomenon as a continuity. And this continuity isn't necessarily even an illusion, just like movie scenes aren't necessarily illusions even though they're collections of still images.

It mingles itself with a particular set of other perceptions to create the divide between two categories of perceptions - self and other. It's like a piece of code that classifies perceptions as 'self' or 'other'.

This is closer to what I said above, except there is no "it" mingling with perceptions. The similarity of perceived things, and of our interactions with them through time, creates the self. Then we make up assorted bullshit about this self to suit our needs.