Jupiviv v QSR

[Dan Rowden]

In another context Jupiviv expressed some views that are worth exploring - maybe:

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.

I'll have to break this down to specific ideas hopefully without losing the overall theme (yes I know 'themes' are really dangerous things):

I think your employment of QRS phraseology is vague and pointless because you substitute the process of gaining wisdom

I'm not sure 'gaining' is the best descriptor you should have in your head regarding the process. I'm sceptical as to how useful words that denote 'acquisition' really are. 'Gaining' connotes 'achievement' and I'm uncomfortable with that psychological paradigm, depending on what is understood by it. Wisdom is more about loss than gain. i.e. the loss of delusion. Sure, there are some things you come to understand, but mostly it's a process of casting off false ideas and the effects/affects that has on the modification of consciousness.

I'm being pedantic here but I think it's appropriate. I hate the use of the term 'organic' but truthfully the process of being less delusional is actually quite organic. There's effort and suffering, initially, but as specific understandings accumulate and take hold there is a diminution of both suffering and any sense of 'acquirement'. It's more like a process of 'becoming', to express it in somewhat New Agey parlance. Wisdom is a lot more accidental and karma-reliant than I'm sometimes prepared to admit.

(i.e. willingness to be honest about everything no matter the cost)

This is surely a prerequisite for a search for Truth, but 'cost' is something one can only calculate a reasonable distance down the path. I may be wrong but I don't recall anyone saying Truth was a requirement for human survival. Pretty sure Nietzsche intimated once or twice that it might even be incompatible with such (so long as human nature stayed the same). It's a matter of values. Truth may not possess us with sufficient force such that we hold it above all other values. That's ok. It's psychologically and statistically normal. Truth is, we are quite mad. I guess in really pragmatic terms the question is: how fucking nuts are you?

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.

This simply means you have not been imbued with the Holy QSR Spirit. It's ok, it can come at a huge expense, like your 'sanity'. The pivotal point here is how intellectual understanding gets incorporated into the broader consciousness and how that broader consciousness responds to it. I can't tell you how many people I've met who can never accommodate the deeper meaning of A=A. But that does not mean such an accommodation is not possible, or desirable, or that it is literally life and consciousness altering.

You are correct in observing that this dynamic is not how people normally [statistically] work, but that observation seems like an excuse rather than an argument as to why it can't be that way for you, or, potentially, for any person that is otherwise not clinically incapable of being a soul of greater reason. If you have an argument for how EGO is hard-wired, by all means make it. We 'know' from experiments with DMT that it is not. I'm not suggesting that 'enlightenment' is some kind of self-induced DMT trip, only that our conventional sense of 'self' is not hard-wired. Your apparent scepticism that a transcendence of said EGO is possible through mere contemplation alone is totally fair enough, but it is also not an argument against the possibility.

In other words, the thing which you assert as a necessary condition of wisdom also turns out to be the substance of wisdom itself.

So you have an issue with the fact that red is red? It ought not be surprising that a necessary condition of wisdom is wisdom itself. Non-attachment is wisdom. But one has to understand what non-attachment is and how it manifests. Your words seem to indicate you don't quite get this. Non-attachment is not a position, a posture, an understanding, a piece of knowledge, a metaphysic. It is the natural consequence of the dissolution of ignorance and delusion. It's like an adult casting off the fantasies of childhood.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Thanks Dan, this is potentially a very interesting exploration. For now I'd only want to zoom in at one element, for clarification.

You are correct in observing that this dynamic is not how people normally [statistically] work, but that observation seems like an excuse rather than an argument as to why it can't be that way for you, or, potentially, for any person that is otherwise not clinically incapable of being a soul of greater reason. If you have an argument for how EGO is hard-wired, by all means make it. We 'know' from experiments with DMT that it is not. I'm not suggesting that 'enlightenment' is some kind of self-induced DMT trip, only that our conventional sense of 'self' is not hard-wired. Your apparent scepticism that a transcendence of said EGO is possible through mere contemplation alone is totally fair enough, but it is also not an argument against the possibility.

This paragraph, as well as the initial post of Jupiviv would demand some clarity on what's being asserted. Two questions came up:

What is meant with how people work "statistically"? On average? Or some inherent evolutionary mode? Or what is health in any case?

While entheogenic trips demonstrate indeed experimentally that one can drop the usual or habitual sense of self, nearly everyone on the planet would agree that this state in particular does not allow people to function as people, like socially, rationally or fully aware of all aspects of any particular situation. In other words: wouldn't freedom from ego, in the context of the DMT example, always be trip away from the current definition of normative functioning? There's some new field called "micro-dosage" which might change the whole playing field here though.

[Dan Rowden]

Thanks Dan, this is potentially a very interesting exploration. For now I'd only want to zoom in at one element, for clarification.

You are correct in observing that this dynamic is not how people normally [statistically] work, but that observation seems like an excuse rather than an argument as to why it can't be that way for you, or, potentially, for any person that is otherwise not clinically incapable of being a soul of greater reason. If you have an argument for how EGO is hard-wired, by all means make it. We 'know' from experiments with DMT that it is not. I'm not suggesting that 'enlightenment' is some kind of self-induced DMT trip, only that our conventional sense of 'self' is not hard-wired. Your apparent scepticism that a transcendence of said EGO is possible through mere contemplation alone is totally fair enough, but it is also not an argument against the possibility.

This paragraph, as well as the initial post of Jupiviv would demand some clarity on what's being asserted. Two questions came up:

What is meant with how people work "statistically"? On average? Or some inherent evolutionary mode? Or what is health in any case?

I think Jupiviv just means that the process of 'acquired' or developed non-attachment as a consequence of the dissolution of Ego (through understanding of reality) is not how people normally function. That's correct, but he goes further to state it as a kind of truism for all people, and I obviously disagree with that position. Something difficult to attain is not thereby unattainable. I'm not sure how much fleshing-out the idea that it's statistically normative for people to be delusional (in ways and degrees) really needs. The question is whether an ego-less state is actually possible wherein a state of logic and reason inheres, is possible. I think that can only be 'argued' but never proved.

While entheogenic trips demonstrate indeed experimentally that one can drop the usual or habitual sense of self, nearly everyone on the planet would agree that this state in particular does not allow people to function as people, like socially, rationally or fully aware of all aspects of any particular situation. In other words: wouldn't freedom from ego, in the context of the DMT example, always be trip away from the current definition of normative functioning? There's some new field called "micro-dosage" which might change the whole playing field here though.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting DMT states as some kind of potentially functional mode of existing, but just an example of how the conventional sense of self as Ego can cease to exist and is not therefore a thing utterly hardwired into consciousness. That said, DMT is a fascinating thing. I do sometimes wonder what role it might play in so-called 'enlightenment' experiences, even for people like me who think there's a direct correlation between their intellectual understanding of Reality and the state of consciousness it appears to produce, rather than the possibility that said understanding produces an abnormal level of production of DMT.

Anyway, I probably ought not have mentioned DMT as is might side-track the whole discussion.

[jupiviv]

Hey Dan you came through! Unfortunately I've been too busy spotting Diebert's squats at a 24-7 Gold's gym in [redacted] to concentrate on posting. It's been a wonderful experience, especially with the spandex bicycle shorts - many sizes too small - that we gave each other for Xmas+New Year! He still struggles with his final reps, but with my arms wrapped firmly around his supple yet strong pecs, the Leonardo to his Kate Winslet, I always see him through the gimlet eye and into the boundless realms of Dharma. He always whines, "I can't make it, my legs are giving out; I'm scared!" but I've never let him down yet. "Don't worry, I *got* you bro. We can make it... Together."

Anyway, I'll respond later.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Are you really hiding your increasing lack of style and substance with bromance humor borrowed from Alex? I guess someone has to fill up that slot.

[jupiviv]

In another context Jupiviv expressed some views that are worth exploring - maybe:

Link to thread. Full response with quote from David's post:

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.

I think your employment of QRS phraseology is vague and pointless because you substitute the process of gaining wisdom

I'm not sure 'gaining' is the best descriptor you should have in your head regarding the process. I'm sceptical as to how useful words that denote 'acquisition' really are. 'Gaining' connotes 'achievement' and I'm uncomfortable with that psychological paradigm, depending on what is understood by it. Wisdom is more about loss than gain. i.e. the loss of delusion. Sure, there are some things you come to understand, but mostly it's a process of casting off false ideas and the effects/affects that has on the modification of consciousness.

I explained what I meant by "gaining wisdom" in the paragraphs immediately preceding the one you quoted:

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.

Having clarified that, I agree that wisdom mustn't be thought of as a thing to be literally achieved or gained. Indeed it's largely what I've been criticising in the general worldview of Quinn and Solway, especially as it manifests in their opinions about "worldly matters". I mean the obsession with abstract truisms and categories, the relentless, tiresome performances of "wisdom" and "logic valuing" in lieu of arguments or even *sense* that would make Lacan blush.

Yes, if wisdom is thought of as a prize or reward for doing logic well enough, one's own life and by extension the whole world is going to end up looking like a "marketplace of ideas" where it's just a matter of choosing the best chain of "wise" thoughts. The price of course being the loss of "dialectical redoubling... used in the service of earnestness... in such a way that it only wards off misunderstandings and preliminary understandings, while the true explanation is available to the person who is honestly seeking (my emphasis)." (Kierkegaard, The Point of View p34). In other words refusing to cheat by declaring "rational" if going further threatens mortal danger; fighting the dragonWOMAN who is domesticated and cute instead of the real dragon at the edge of the farm.

I also agree that wisdom is more about loss than gain, like the loss of delusions or fantasies that help to ignore some painful reality. However, I would further add that delusions themselves in a general sense are merely a loss/lack of consciousness as a result of the (often conscious) limiting or halting of conscious activity outside of vital, instinctual biological processes like sleep. They aren't and shouldn't be conceived of as paraconscious entities actively working against consciousness, because after all that train of thought has to end up in "theoretical" retcons of evobio e.g. evopsych and Jordan Peterson's snake DNA; you know, devil worship. And that is another big component of my QRS critique - self/ego/WOMAN qua "root" of all delusions is too vague and abstract to be useful. And really, it *has* to be vague because the real motivation behind such concepts - I think - is the aforementioned arbitrary limiting, whenever convenient, of reasoning and what it entails, where it leads, etc.

Returning to delusions/attachments - if they are nothing more than a category for whatever we do, think or say in the absence of *total* honesty, then it necessarily follows there are no 'core' delusions or truths. The loss of delusions occurs in infinitely different ways and directions, fuelled by infinite motivations, most of which are also deluded. Further, the effects of the delusion-loss are as diverse as their causes, and there is no basis to claim that some kinds of delusion loss - like that of 'core' delusions - are inherently more important to the search for wisdom.

Now, assuming caeteris paribus i.e. your assent to everything I've said so far, it's a matter of figuring out where that leaves us with the definition of wisdom. I've already hinted at two counterfactuals:

a) Any loss of delusion whatsoever doesn't lead to wisdom, or qualify as wisdom, in and itself.
b) Neither does the loss of specific, inherently powerful and important, delusions, because such things don't exist.

The same applies to consciousness as well, following from what I said in my post from before. Wisdom is neither any random instance of consciousness, nor a special type of consciousness that's better and deeper and specialer than all the rest. So that's two more counterfactuals.

Yet wisdom is certainly *something*. Explaining what that is the broad purpose of the Serious Conversations, to reject the QRS ideas that aren't leading anywhere, or leading to very bad places, and building upon whatever remains.

I'm being pedantic here but I think it's appropriate. I hate the use of the term 'organic' but truthfully the process of being less delusional is actually quite organic. There's effort and suffering, initially, but as specific understandings accumulate and take hold there is a diminution of both suffering and any sense of 'acquirement'. It's more like a process of 'becoming', to express it in somewhat New Agey parlance. Wisdom is a lot more accidental and karma-reliant than I'm sometimes prepared to admit.

I agree with most of that. Wisdom is something you have to constantly do, with respect to many different things in your life. But the real issue is not "What things in my life should be wisely dealt with?" (Answer: "Ideally, all of them."); it's "What *kind* of life, in real terms, should proceed from the resolution to value wisdom more than everything else?" (Answer - Uh...) The latter is where things are bound to "get real", meaning painful, confusing, scary etc., because you're no longer dealing with abstractions but standing naked in the Lord's light. It's Kierkegaard's "dialectical redoubling" in all its glory - take into account all of these things you've been ignoring this whole time, or burn in hell. I'll say no more about this ftm but I'll develop it for the next (unfinished) serious conversation (probably).

(i.e. willingness to be honest about everything no matter the cost)

This is surely a prerequisite for a search for Truth, but 'cost' is something one can only calculate a reasonable distance down the path. I may be wrong but I don't recall anyone saying Truth was a requirement for human survival. Pretty sure Nietzsche intimated once or twice that it might even be incompatible with such (so long as human nature stayed the same). It's a matter of values. Truth may not possess us with sufficient force such that we hold it above all other values. That's ok. It's psychologically and statistically normal. Truth is, we are quite mad. I guess in really pragmatic terms the question is: how fucking nuts are you?

Well it's just as much a prerequisite for Truth as it is for the honour of Philosophiae Doctor. Yet the same abyss separating fancy ideals and corrupt practice exists in both contexts. Indeed, QRS have discussed real world examples of such many times in the past, about others. I'm just weaving QRS into that great tapestry.

Also, I don't understand why you interpreted "no matter the cost" to mean "all future costs can be predicted". Since my meaning was clear enough, I'll say no more.

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.

This simply means you have not been imbued with the Holy QSR Spirit. It's ok, it can come at a huge expense, like your 'sanity'. The pivotal point here is how intellectual understanding gets incorporated into the broader consciousness and how that broader consciousness responds to it. I can't tell you how many people I've met who can never accommodate the deeper meaning of A=A. But that does not mean such an accommodation is not possible, or desirable, or that it is literally life and consciousness altering.

That is what a "story built around a bunch of assumptions" looks like! Which is very unfortunate, because we seemed to have started off on solid mutual ground. You're just asserting, without any evidence or explanation, that intellectual understanding of certain special, deep truths or meanings leads to broader consciousness. Again, like I asked David, why are these truths so special or deep? By what mechanism do they intensify consciousness? Unless you can articulate that, we'll keep going around in circles.

You are correct in observing that this dynamic is not how people normally [statistically] work,

No I'm observing that NOONE works like that. The phenomenon of honesty about some things naturally or automatically leading to honesty about some more things, irrespective of all other factors, is utterly lacking in human experience. Of course, you're not really saying that, but you're not really explaining what you are saying either. You assert that "A=A" has a deeper meaning that cannot be accommodated by most people. Fine, so explain what that meaning is and why a deeper understanding of A=A in particular happens to be necessary for its realisation? Why can't literally any other fact or thing serve the exact same purpose?

but that observation seems like an excuse rather than an argument as to why it can't be that way for you, or, potentially, for any person that is otherwise not clinically incapable of being a soul of greater reason.

Does it really seem that way to you, in light of everything else I've written on these topics? Because if it does then there is nothing else to discuss. I've clarified and reiterated my basic position enough to the point interpretations like this aren't possible unless done in *total* bad faith or rendered useless by a language barrier I've yet to identify.

If you have an argument for how EGO is hard-wired, by all means make it. We 'know' from experiments with DMT that it is not. I'm not suggesting that 'enlightenment' is some kind of self-induced DMT trip, only that our conventional sense of 'self' is not hard-wired. Your apparent scepticism that a transcendence of said EGO is possible through mere contemplation alone is totally fair enough, but it is also not an argument against the possibility.

I don't believe an ego in the QRS sense exists. For one thing it's not defined clearly enough. If it's supposed to mean all mental activity involving emotions and desires, it's logically valid but useless. If it refers to some neurological 'core' of emotion and desire, there is no evidence for it in science or my personal experience. If the 'core' is a concept we happen to always believe in that makes our thoughts deluded, simple logic tells us it cannot exist: people can reject fallacious concepts in one instance but not others, depending on other factors.

I'm pretty sure a DMT trip involves a lot of "ego" (deluded thoughts), like the decision to embark on one.

In other words, the thing which you assert as a necessary condition of wisdom also turns out to be the substance of wisdom itself.

So you have an issue with the fact that red is red?

Do you have an issue with the fact that receiving the honour of Philosophiae Doctor requires a commitment to truth above all else? Or the fact that Trump is rational because he correctly pointed out that Hillary is corrupt? "Red is red" is empty rhetoric and you know it. Yet you said it anyway because you don't want to agree with me but can't think of any valid reason why - and that is a perfect example of "contemplation alone" not transcending delusions.

It ought not be surprising that a necessary condition of wisdom is wisdom itself. Non-attachment is wisdom.

Non-attachment to *everything* one experiences is the highest form of wisdom, and there are less-developed versions of that too. However, none of them are limited to the state of non-attachment, which after all is itself the conglomeration of many conditions. It certainly isn't primarily determined by one's success in deducing why an abstract representation of all attachments is illogical.

Non-attachment is not a position, a posture, an understanding, a piece of knowledge, a metaphysic. ...It is the natural consequence of the dissolution of ignorance and delusion.

If non-attachment refers to all instances of the loss of delusions, it can't *also* refer to a single instance of losing all delusions for all time. The former is a valid category, but the latter is a hypothetical event which is logically impossible.

[Dan Rowden]

Thanks for the substantive response, Jup. I will work on a reply that might mitigate or possibly eliminate the potential 'circularity' of argument you identify.

But I suspect a degree of impasse may be unavoidable given our respective viewpoints.

[visheshdewan050193]

You're just asserting, without any evidence or explanation, that intellectual understanding of certain special, deep truths or meanings leads to broader consciousness. Again, like I asked David, why are these truths so special or deep? By what mechanism do they intensify consciousness? Unless you can articulate that, we'll keep going around in circles.

Ah well, this just sheds light on the crux of your issues with QSR's work. Besides a few scatterings on GF about the issue, there's this from an email exchange.

"Have you ever been interested in the neurological changes associated with gearing towards and attaining enlightenment?
DQ: Not in specialized, scientific sense. However, I am acutely aware at all times of the connection between my thoughts and experiences and the underlying neural networks that produce them.
Every time we experience a new thought, a new neural pathway is laid down. When we focus heavily on that thought and explore logically around it, more pathways are laid down and a neural network is created. When a person reaches Buddhahood, his consciousness entirely inhabits the neural networks that he has created via his pursuit of wisdom. It never slides back into the old neural networks that sustained his ego."

Based on my research and experience, there are avenues of neurological research worth investigating in order to establish correlations with 'wisdom consciousness'. Given that thinkers such as Kevin and David are oddities (I gather that Dan doesn't have as pure a perspective as they have/had developed) and lack of substantive technology/research, I wouldn't sweat over the questions you've posed above much atm.

Oh and Dan, you're right about some impasse being unavoidable, specially when its cognitively engendered.

[jupiviv]

You're just asserting, without any evidence or explanation, that intellectual understanding of certain special, deep truths or meanings leads to broader consciousness. Again, like I asked David, why are these truths so special or deep? By what mechanism do they intensify consciousness? Unless you can articulate that, we'll keep going around in circles.

Ah well, this just sheds light on the crux of your issues with QSR's work. Besides a few scatterings on GF about the issue, there's this from an email exchange.

"Have you ever been interested in the neurological changes associated with gearing towards and attaining enlightenment?
DQ: Not in specialized, scientific sense. However, I am acutely aware at all times of the connection between my thoughts and experiences and the underlying neural networks that produce them.
Every time we experience a new thought, a new neural pathway is laid down. When we focus heavily on that thought and explore logically around it, more pathways are laid down and a neural network is created. When a person reaches Buddhahood, his consciousness entirely inhabits the neural networks that he has created via his pursuit of wisdom. It never slides back into the old neural networks that sustained his ego."

I'm asking Dan to explain the philosophical relevance of "absolute truths", not neurology. Regarding David's answer, assuming the pop/pseudo -scientific language is intended as rhetorical flourish to a philosophical idea, he makes the exact same error I'm dealing with i.e. some thoughts ("neural networks") are special and "somehow" are able to become both causes, and chief components of, wisdom.

Based on my research and experience, there are avenues of neurological research worth investigating in order to establish correlations with 'wisdom consciousness'.

If you're conducting research into a 'thing' that you need to put inside quotation marks, you probably shouldn't be.

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv to Dan: You're just asserting, without any evidence or explanation, that intellectual understanding of certain special, deep truths or meanings leads to broader consciousness. Again, like I asked David, why are these truths so special or deep? By what mechanism do they intensify consciousness? Unless you can articulate that, we'll keep going around in circles.

Why is realizing the absolute truth of emptiness special (emphasis on realizing)? Because it puts an end to the struggle of ignorantly pursuing truth in form - because it ends suffering. Would not knowledge that ends suffering not be described as being special (as in not usual, not common) knowledge? How many people believe their suffering can be ended? I would suggest very few.

Being released from the suffering of delusion is described as being deep because being released requires that one keep hold of the intellectual truth of emptiness and that kind of holding on requires attention, discipline and faith. The mind wants to wander, doubt and to insert distractions - depth of feeling and intention are not its strong suits.

As for wisdom intensifying consciousness as per David's description, I would say that once all doubts of the truth of emptiness have been cleared away (I suggest you are in the depths of the doubting stage?), one's consciousness is freed to think solely from the POV of emptiness. This is where depth of feeling and intention toward fully realizing the truth of emptiness pays off.

Being freed from all doubt that things are empty of inherent existence is akin to having a laser beam inside one's head that will not be diverted from the brightness and fire of its beam.

[jupiviv]

jupiviv to Dan: You're just asserting, without any evidence or explanation, that intellectual understanding of certain special, deep truths or meanings leads to broader consciousness. Again, like I asked David, why are these truths so special or deep? By what mechanism do they intensify consciousness? Unless you can articulate that, we'll keep going around in circles.

Why is realizing the absolute truth of emptiness special (emphasis on realizing)? Because it puts an end to the struggle of ignorantly pursuing truth in form - because it ends suffering. Would not knowledge that ends suffering not be described as being special (as in not usual, not common) knowledge? How many people believe their suffering can be ended? I would suggest very few.

The concept of a special truth to end all suffering is itself a byproduct of suffering. After all, how can suffering end if it doesn't even exist? What we call "suffering" is just our psychological and physical connection to empty objects; and the connection itself is empty of its own existence and ever-changing: suffering, indifference, contentment, boredom and so on. Enlightenment is the unswerving commitment to the Dharma exercised amidst these dusts of the world, not in safe isolation from them.

[jupiviv]

Thanks for the substantive response, Jup. I will work on a reply that might mitigate or possibly eliminate the potential 'circularity' of argument you identify.

But I suspect a degree of impasse may be unavoidable given our respective viewpoints.

While you're working on your reply, I'll restate a point I may have failed to clarify before. You're grossly misrepresenting my criticism of QRS notions of wisdom as scepticism about attaining wisdom.

What I'm actually saying is that QRS notions like special wisdom-generating "absolute truths" are at best useless and at worst harmful to the pursuit of real wisdom, i.e. a thoroughly honest and virtuous life. It's the epitome of samsaric thinking, where X *must* be the centre of gravity in all situations. For example, a simplistic, abstract definition of EGO/WOMAN/attachment *must* be the root of all delusions, *must* be the fundamental context for analysing all deluded/irrational behaviour. Or, logical truths like A=A *must* contain deeper meanings; the ability to reveal such deep meanings *must* indicate wisdom (as opposed to, say, pride in one's ability to play around with abstract concepts).

In reality, any delusion can acquire subjective significance due to local, temporary, transient conditions; creating an abstract category for such delusions and contemplating that category won't stop delusions from occurring. Creating an abstract category like A=A for moral principles, in this case "fax over feels", and coming up with "deep" interpretations of it won't stop you from corrupting it or using it to serve immoral ends. This isn't exactly rocket science, you know. Like all of this should go without saying on this of all places and yet here you are talking about DMT. Come the fuck on.

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv: The concept of a special truth to end all suffering is itself a byproduct of suffering. After all, how can suffering end if it doesn't even exist? What we call "suffering" is just our psychological and physical connection to empty objects; and the connection itself is empty of its own existence and ever-changing: suffering, indifference, contentment, boredom and so on. Enlightenment is the unswerving commitment to the Dharma exercised amidst these dusts of the world, not in safe isolation from them.

The fact that you associate what I said with declaring a position of safe isolation from suffering rather than experiencing suffering as the way to go beyond suffering indicates to me that our POV's are miles apart. No problem, appreciate the opportunity to speak my piece, bowing out.

[jupiviv]

jupiviv: The concept of a special truth to end all suffering is itself a byproduct of suffering. After all, how can suffering end if it doesn't even exist? What we call "suffering" is just our psychological and physical connection to empty objects; and the connection itself is empty of its own existence and ever-changing: suffering, indifference, contentment, boredom and so on. Enlightenment is the unswerving commitment to the Dharma exercised amidst these dusts of the world, not in safe isolation from them.

The fact that you associate what I said with declaring a position of safe isolation from suffering rather than experiencing suffering as the way to go beyond suffering indicates to me that our POV's are miles apart. No problem, appreciate the opportunity to speak my piece, bowing out.

I said you're conceiving of *enlightenment* as something carried out without suffering, possibly as a result of experiencing suffering and wanting it to end. I see how you could interpret that as an accusation of cowardice before any prospect of suffering, but isn't what I meant. But it is deluded to want to attain a suffering-less state, even if such a want is qualified by the necessity of righteous suffering at some stage of its fulfilment.

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv: The concept of a special truth to end all suffering is itself a byproduct of suffering. After all, how can suffering end if it doesn't even exist? What we call "suffering" is just our psychological and physical connection to empty objects; and the connection itself is empty of its own existence and ever-changing: suffering, indifference, contentment, boredom and so on. Enlightenment is the unswerving commitment to the Dharma exercised amidst these dusts of the world, not in safe isolation from them.

The fact that you associate what I said with declaring a position of safe isolation from suffering rather than experiencing suffering as the way to go beyond suffering indicates to me that our POV's are miles apart. No problem, appreciate the opportunity to speak my piece, bowing out.

I said you're conceiving of *enlightenment* as something carried out without suffering, possibly as a result of experiencing suffering and wanting it to end. I see how you could interpret that as an accusation of cowardice before any prospect of suffering, but isn't what I meant. But it is deluded to want to attain a suffering-less state, even if such a want is qualified by the necessity of righteous suffering at some stage of its fulfilment.

I guess it depends upon one's definition of suffering. For me, today (such was not always the case) suffering is defined as not living according to one's authentic, subjective self, and that once one discovers how to live their authentic, subjective self, their suffering ends. And that this authentic, subjective self cannot begin to be formed until one is satisfied that it aligns with the most logical truth they can find about the nature of reality. i.e., how can one live authentically if they cannot describe for themselves, the foundation upon which they are forming their thinking-feeling worlds? Along the way, of course, the delusion of aligning oneself with objective, unchanging laws must be thoroughly dispelled - one must accept that when it comes to ultimate reality, a logical truth is the highest truth available to the sensing mind.

In my previous post, I stated that emptiness is an absolute truth. I would like to revise that statement to say that emptiness is the most logical truth I have found and that based on the logical truth of emptiness (what I call infinite subjectivity), I have found the thinking and feeling value, that for non-inherent me, perfectly aligns. Of course, this value is also empty of inherent meaning or definition.

[Pam Seeback]

To clarify what I said about going beyond suffering above so as to dispel any idea that to be enlightened is to deny suffering or escape suffering once one has ceased to identity with culturally conditioned ideas believed to be inherent to an inherent self, the transcendence of suffering such a one experiences is an individual or subjective transcendence. Which, because subjectivity implies inter-connection (inter-subjectivity?) one is not excluded from being aware of the suffering of 'others' (dare I say 'deeply' aware?) or from forgetting the suffering that brought them to question their own.

Long story short, I believe I understand your equating the claim of knowing an absolute truth with dishonesty. Personally, I do not think of David, Dan and Kevin as having in their character, the desire to consciously deceive, which is how I define the notion of dishonesty. I believe the three men who started this forum almost twenty years ago did so with honourable intent and regardless of how any of us who post here have 'ended up' vis a vis our individual paths of enlightenment, each of us has benefited greatly from their longstanding and passionate call to wisdom.

I think of this forum as 'my cleansing place', my mind enema. :-)

[Tofara_Moyo]

There are two issues i see, enlightenment and what it does for you. Why would we expect the truths explored in enlightenment to do anything good for us. would the causative mechanism for this process have developed from evolution and why would it have done so if not in the context or limits of survival.