Kelly's Truth Paper

[bert]

I’m a great believer in looking at where desires and beliefs come from, before I'd allow them to shape my life. A “good start”, is looking at why we have beliefs in the first place.

Being brought up in any society means you inherit a set of beliefs, which have proven successful in keeping that group together. Whatever set of beliefs are placed before you, you must accept them, or risk expulsion from the group. The family unit is at the heart of this indoctrination, making it very difficult for any member to ever break free. This is made obvious when you consider the teenager: they push and shove at their bounds, fighting to make a life of their own – then they grow-up, get a job, find a partner, and talk about how they can best protect their assets, and how being loved and showing compassion are all that really matter in life.

Why Do we have beliefs in the first place?
You asked an important question,but lack to answer it properly,if not even at all.

You can only "truly believe" in one thing,yet its involvement is essential,so the imagined goes on forever.The imagination learns that the idea awakens the urge to do something.
To explain the "why" of belief,we must transcend its schism.
The means is in how the self loves .This is not so simple,because we constantly imitate this beliefs through the duality concept.
Who has transgressed the law of conception?

By expecting dissapointment at the time of desire is the means of locating its deceit.Beyond it is something arbitrary,something that sets this law to our believing,imitating it by "reason" is but damning the consequences.
Reason is belief,belief is fear of one's capability.

yes,brought up in a society and putting forth the principles given ,often without question.
Children getting manipulated for parents sake.The adult being the worrieer.Fear overtakes him.
How desirable....?Playing corporal out of love for his own deception.yet tiranising himself.

Children doubt,and abhor learning.this courage even results in cleverness.Why?It's a matter of love.They put forth there urge of natural belief within without damning it.
This wisdom that children have brings them happiness.
But there also is the parent of course.....That every child may have a parent of great common sense.

Some people tell me that they're not like that; that they have broken free from their societies beliefs, and are now living the life of an individual.

But it’s difficult to believe a word of it, and for good reason -

People are a restless mob; always looking for something more, something new and special. Each new generation thinks they have discovered “new ideas”, of which they pronounce as advancements on the past generation’s moldy old offerings. This happens over and over again, with each generation setting out their new found truths as - the “awakening of a new age”.

Of this "new ideas"coming:
I see more of a reliving of things forgotten,now applying it in this time.The meanings become different,but the principles of working/relating remain the same.
But people may LIKE to hear of this NEW THING,they DESIRE ADVANCEMENT in ideas.
And advancement it is.There is but one constant process:
make-take-remake.

I think it's pretty normal to hear that people like to think that they are living as a free individual.And in a sense they are right.It is is still you who makes it like this.A set of beliefs are ,no matter where they come from.

But,in reality no one is entirely free.All of us would be lost in freedom.

Of course, all that really happens is: the new generation gets hold of what’s old, shakes it up a bit, turns it inside out, and then repackages it as “something more meaningful”.

yes,more or less.
Something is made a trend by constant penetrating through some act of power,or they make it to stomach better.

I must add though, most of the 'repackaging' done now-a-days shows just how dumbed down the process has become. Vague sentiments such as the one you’re fostering Bert, “find out your own desires and beliefs,for you are the only one who knows the path”, sounds very New Age.

It might be.At least to you.
But only few know what they really believe and desire ,so it remains important to say.Everybody can forget this.That is why I say it.
Discovering your beliefs is like aquiring the transport towards becoming yourself.

Like most people, you desire a belief system that works for you. That’s fine - as long as you don’t confuse your emotional longing with the cold hard battle to break free from all false beliefs and vague desires. That’s the “path” that interests me. It’s also a path that, though hardly used, other adventurous souls have traveled down before, making it a little easier for those few strong hearts, intending to travel it today

That sounds a bit the same as mine.
In this riddle the way is hidden:
"to whom is this cup served?
He that wills to him that asks"

"Writings are as memoranda,and as signposts for those that follow the same road." - plato.

Can the emotions be trusted?

The philosophic vision expresses itself through the systematic order of proportions which regulate the expression of things immaterial in material ,between life subjectivity and life objectivity.
Thus was spoken by the great souls.

[DHodges]

Being brought up in any society means you inherit a set of beliefs, which have proven successful in keeping that group together. Whatever set of beliefs are placed before you, you must accept them, or risk expulsion from the group. The family unit is at the heart of this indoctrination, making it very difficult for any member to ever break free. This is made obvious when you consider the teenager: they push and shove at their bounds, fighting to make a life of their own – then they grow-up, get a job, find a partner, and talk about how they can best protect their assets, and how being loved and showing compassion are all that really matter in life.

You are presented with an established set of beliefs. Teenagers have a tendancy to reject everything, or at least test everything.

My parents were Protestant ministers. I became an atheist at an early age, maybe 8 or so. The problem I had as a teen - and continue to have - is accepting that there were things of value in their beliefs. The tendancy is to reject out of hand anything that smells like that.

It took until I was maybe thirty to realize that they did the best they could raising me, and I was really very lucky to be raised so well.

[Unidian]

Faizi,

In the US, a depressed person cannot simply get a pension.

In order to receive welfare for depression, you would have to be medicated up the yingyang. Also prolonged stays on psych wards. Electrical shocks. Seroquel. Zyprexa. Depakote.

Once they have turned you into a medicated, zapped out zombie, then, you might get a pension -- and a room in an adult home.

If you ever saw "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," an adult home is a lot like the chronic ward -- lots of drooling.

Depressed people have to work here -- unless they are independently wealthy or medically lobotamized.

Not true, thankfully. Actually, all one has to do is understand the disability system and make the proper applications. I have been on full disability for "cyclothymic disorder" for six years. I have never been hospitalized, recieved shock treatments, or had a lobotomy. I have never been forced to take any medications, and until recently, I was unmedicated for several years. I voluntarily started back on an SSRI a few weeks ago to "take the edge off." I was not pressured to do so, nor was it a condition of continuing to recieve benefits.

In reality, whether or not I have anything like "cyclothymic disorder" is questionable. I do struggle with depression and anxiety at times, but the official diagnosis is largely a matter of convenience. Like several others here, my real disability is being a thinking individual. That alone is a very real impediment to "making a living" and would be sufficient to secure a pension in a rational world. Since we don't live in a rational world, however, one must obtain a "diagnosis."

Happily, the nightmare you describe doesn't have to be the reality for those on disability. In fact, if you have a documented record of struggling with depression or other issues, you could probably get on the dole yourself without too much trouble. It's mostly a matter of knowing how to answer the questions on the application form in such a way that you use the truth to your advantage. I'm not suggesting you be misleading - that is a crime and will often be deteced by trained reviewers. However, there is always a way to present the truth advantageously.

[Unidian]

Seroquel. Zyprexa.

For the record, I was prescribed both of these, and they were both pieces of shit. I took Zyprexa for 1 day and immediated knew it was wrong. Seroquel lasted a couple weeks before being flushed.

[Dan Rowden]

It's interesting that the content of a truly thoughtful person's mind is so readily seen as sufficiently dysfunctional so as to warrant clinical diagnosis. But then, for such people living in countries whose national ethos includes some form of compassion for the ill and aberrant this is a matter of rather good fortune. Life on the streets doesn't appeal.

Welcome to the new Genius Forum, Nat.


Dan Rowden

[MKFaizi]

I have written two long posts that did not get through. It is late so I will have to wait until the morning to do it again.

Faizi

[Rhett]

But I wonder -- you consider men born in the '40's to be more masculine; taking stands against this thing or that thing; challenging oppressors. Please keep in mind that my intention here is not to discuss politics but do you consider George W. Bush to be that sort of man? He was born in the '40's and he thinks of himself as challenging oppressors and fighting against evil. I think he is delusional. I don't think he is masculine. I think he is a lying pussy.

I am skeptical that any of our young folk will develop the psychological temerity to last even 5 minutes in that kind of role. I see them needing to be pushed into it, they won't even be capable of putting their hand up.

I also do not believe that women should be controlled by men. I think that women should be encouraged to outgrow their dependence on men. I think that men should be encouraged to outgrow their dependence on women.

The fact is that in the majority of respects women are controlled by men, and until females develop sufficienty there is great need for that to be so. They would destroy us all far too quickly otherwise. Keep in mind that control can be detrimental or beneficial. To use your example, the very act of a man encouraging women to outgrow their dependance on men would be a form of control, a beneficial one. Another example would be the men working in government creating policy.

I can well appreciate your contention but I think the human race is slowly advancing rather than going backward. I think that the time of the manly man is well into the past. A man no longer has to be a hog in order to be considered a man.

If we're advancing as you contend, can you explain to me why we have ice-creams named "ego", and why there is such hatred of judgment and of responses to an oppressor? Here in Australia many think that love and kindness will sort everything out, and suppress their hatred of those who disagree with them.

I am female and there is no way in the world that I would allow a man or anything else to decide what I will do or think or say.

He already has.

I do not think a man needs to dominate woman in order to consider himself a man. That's bullshit.

To control 'woman', through appropriate influences, is an important stepping-stone towards becoming a fully-fledged man.

Why should I or Kelly or Leyla or Sue content ourselves with dominance by anyone?

Why indeed.

I cannot speak for the others but I certainly will not content myself in such a way. I am not interested in going back in time. I am not interested in being a house wife -- to ruling some ungodly roost with a matriarchal hand.

As i said, women, in some respects, and perhaps overall, are heading in the direction they need to take.

Actually, it's now very much a woman's world, - but she didn't build it, either physically, intellectually, or morally, and is still eons away from attaining that capacity.

I am bloody sorry that men have become pussies but, I beg your pardon, that is not the fault of anyone but themselves.

So you think that men have fallen, but women have not only been able to take up the slack, but drive us forward. I can't see how women have driven us forward. I see them saying "We want more".

If the ladies are such pissers, then, the guys need to bug off. Don't fuck and don't impregnate. You can't be charged with rape or have to pay child support if you stay out of their pants. How hard is that? The whining is pathetic. Get over pussy and stop the belly-aching.

That's a pathetic effort Marsha. Who are you talking to?

You want a masculine world, then stop being a whimp and start promoting masculinity -- for everyone.

I did.

We are not going backward into "Leave It To Beaver." This is the real world. War injuries are hideous -- no heroes like on D-Day. There are no oppressors as clearly dilineated as Hitler. The John Wayne era is over.

Consciousness and morality utilise civilisation as a mounting-block, but are otherwise independant of it. In other words; civilisation can grow all it likes, but the people need not.

Todays young are domesticated, and they're not being put under pressure to make important political decisions that would inevitably flow into their personal lives.

[avidaloca]

Being brought up in any society means you inherit a set of beliefs, which have proven successful in keeping that group together. Whatever set of beliefs are placed before you, you must accept them, or risk expulsion from the group. The family unit is at the heart of this indoctrination, making it very difficult for any member to ever break free. This is made obvious when you consider the teenager: they push and shove at their bounds, fighting to make a life of their own – then they grow-up, get a job, find a partner, and talk about how they can best protect their assets, and how being loved and showing compassion are all that really matter in life.

Some people tell me that they're not like that; that they have broken free from their societies beliefs, and are now living the life of an individual.

One of the things I like about my family is they come from such radically different cultures. This enabled me to break free very early. It's bad for fitting in to square people who know no other reality than the incredibly amazingly narrow one to which their uniform parents guided them. I marvel at these people every day. I also think having English and Russian parents made me a GREAT candidate for learning German - a clean escape from the two fuckers.

As for the comment about why the sixties was so different to the fifties (i.e it became more feminine) I point out that Weininger said his age (pre WWI, around 1900) was the most feminine of all ages even then. And personal happiness was considered secondary to duty to King and country at that time. So I say the wheels were in motion well before the sixties brought them into the limelight.

[sue hindmarsh]

Bert, I’ve had to translate your thoughts into a more simplistic language – just to make it easier to understand the points you raise. My version may not have the force and clarity of your original work, but I’ve done my best.

Bert wrote:

Why Do we have beliefs in the first place?
You asked an important question,but lack to answer it properly,if not even at all.

You can only "truly believe" in one thing,yet its involvement is essential,so the imagined goes on forever.The imagination learns that the idea awakens the urge to do something.

Beginning of translation:

Truth may exist, and we all could know it, but where's the fun in that? Making up stories to fill our minds and lives is much more entertaining, and makes life much more fun ---

To explain the "why" of belief,we must transcend its schism.
The means is in how the self loves .This is not so simple,because we constantly imitate this beliefs through the duality concept.
Who has transgressed the law of conception?

--- Who cares if these stories are just bits of unconnected ramblings, we should still consider them, the greatest of all understandings, and use them to unlock all the great mysteries of the universe; which, will inturn, give us great insights into our ‘true nature’. Wow! Talk about great fun ---

By expecting dissapointment at the time of desire is the means of locating its deceit.Beyond it is something arbitrary,something that sets this law to our believing,imitating it by "reason" is but damning the consequences.
Reason is belief,belief is fear of one's capability.

--- Even though we have the unique ability to apply reason to these stories, we shouldn’t bother, because if we showed them up to be ‘just stories’, that would spoil our fun ---

yes,brought up in a society and putting forth the principles given ,often without question.
Children getting manipulated for parents sake.The adult being the worrieer.Fear overtakes him.
How desirable....?Playing corporal out of love for his own deception.yet tiranising himself.

Children doubt,and abhor learning.this courage even results in cleverness.Why?It's a matter of love.They put forth there urge of natural belief within without damning it.
This wisdom that children have brings them happiness.
But there also is the parent of course.....That every child may have a parent of great common sense.

--- We should, at the earliest opportunity, happily tether our children’s minds to this nonsense. In doing so, we protect our own corrupted minds from ever having to answer ‘difficult’ questions about the validity of our beliefs, or our lives. Our children, fully indoctrinated, will pass on this happy tradition to their children; and from their children on throughout time - maintaining happiness for all and loads more fun ---

Of this "new ideas"coming:
I see more of a reliving of things forgotten,now applying it in this time.The meanings become different,but the principles of working/relating remain the same.
But people may LIKE to hear of this NEW THING,they DESIRE ADVANCEMENT in ideas.
And advancement it is.There is but one constant process:
make-take-remake.

--- Every day we are advancing in our ideas, so that very soon; there will be no such thing as war and hunger, men and women will be kind and just to one another, everyone will have all their wishes come true, and all the happy stories we’ve made up will be proven correct - extreme fun ---

I think it's pretty normal to hear that people like to think that they are living as a free individual.And in a sense they are right.It is is still you who makes it like this.A set of beliefs are ,no matter where they come from.

But,in reality no one is entirely free.All of us would be lost in freedom.

--- The freedom of the individual is an abhorrent state, and no one in their right mind would want to become one. It is a lonely life, without friends - so don’t try to become free; instead stay in your happy bubble and enjoy your servitude. You will believe it is fun---

yes,more or less.
Something is made a trend by constant penetrating through some act of power,or they make it to stomach better.

--- Oh, by the way, 'Truth' is a useless concept, a better one is 'fun' ---

It might be.At least to you.
But only few know what they really believe and desire ,so it remains important to say.Everybody can forget this.That is why I say it.
Discovering your beliefs is like aquiring the transport towards becoming yourself.

--- Don’t take seriously anything I’m (Bert’s) saying, because at bottom, nobody knows the truth about anything, and that’s perfectly fine with me (Bert), because I (Bert) just want to have fun ---

That sounds a bit the same as mine.
In this riddle the way is hidden:
"to whom is this cup served?
He that wills to him that asks"

--- I’ll (Bert) speak poetry at you, and that will put a stop to all discussion. Everyone knows that poetry contains the greatest truths, spoken in the most direct way, and anyway, it makes me (Bert) feel kind of fun(ky) ---

"Writings are as memoranda,and as signposts for those that follow the same road." - plato.

--- I (Bert), think Plato was a great man, because he believed in phantasmagorical stuff, which means that he is much respected by all us followers of Fun ---

I wrote:
Can the emotions be trusted?

Bert replied:
The philosophic vision expresses itself through the systematic order of proportions which regulate the expression of things immaterial in material ,between life subjectivity and life objectivity.
Thus was spoken by the great souls.

--- Yes, because the emotions set us free to be happy little munchkins living in a happy little munchkin world, making everything fun, fun, fun ---

* * *

Well Bert, I did my best. Please don’t hesitate in directing my attention to any incorrect translation; though, I don’t think there are any.

I will now go away and think about your stirring words, and get back to you – soon - with my reply.

Sue

[sevens]

This forum really does need to smoke.

[Jamesh]

OK, an partial interpretation slanted to my biases.

Bert wrote:
Why Do we have beliefs in the first place?
You can only "truly believe" in one thing, yet its involvement is essential, so the imagined goes on forever. The imagination learns that the idea awakens the urge to do something.

I am not certain of what you mean. We can only truly believe in one thing at a certain time, because that is the way consciousness works, the consciousness however is something that exists over time, so we can delve into memory by thinking and reavaluation of past events and this process leads to a constant revaluing of what is in memory (mostly done subconsciously).

To explain the "why" of belief, we must transcend its schism.
The means is in how the self loves.
This is not so simple, because we constantly imitate this beliefs through the duality concept.

Agreed. The manner in which we 'realise' a belief is to place values upon all experiences encountered by the brain, which entails the categorisation of things. Once something is categorised it becomes a belief. For important matters, such as planning for our future (which includes seeking ultimate truths for some of us), then the degree of value that we place on the experience/thing/truth will be determined mostly by the ego - 'how the self loves' as you put it. The ego is the result of your memory being created and altered by your experiences.

Duality is instantly created by your ego/memory working relative to current experiences, although there would be many other dualities. At the primary level, there is Your experience (the experience of 1) and there is the actual event of the universe changing (the experience of all).

Who has transgressed the law of conception?

When thinking of matters of the ultimate, one can at times transcend this duality by not believing their beliefs are the whole truth, but no one alive can permanently be in a state of transgressing the law of conception.

By expecting dissapointment at the time of desire is the means of locating its deceit. Beyond it is something arbitrary, something that sets this law to our believing, imitating it by "reason" is but damning the consequences.
Reason is belief, belief is fear of one's capability.

Children doubt,and abhor learning.this courage even results in cleverness.Why?It's a matter of love.They put forth there urge of natural belief within without damning it.
This wisdom that children have brings them happiness.
But there also is the parent of course.....That every child may have a parent of great common sense.

When children are experiencing causes that will result learning new beliefs - and as they are curious beings they are constantly looking for new beliefs - they do so in a manner which does not necessarily have a preset value, particularly negative values. Interaction with others teaches them doubt, and although they may have a tendency to dislike learning, by having doubt and being curious the self learns to have courage, their ego starts forming consistency and complexity. This increased sense of self brings them happiness.

Of this "new ideas"coming:
I see more of a reliving of things forgotten, now applying it in this time. The meanings become different, but the principles of working/relating remain the same.

Memory changes as result of experiences, and past experiences affect how memory will be altered by current experiences.

But people may LIKE to hear of this NEW THING, they DESIRE ADVANCEMENT in ideas.
And advancement it is. There is but one constant process:
make-take-remake.

People like to be part of new technology and some new ideas, because they offer an extension of the self. With each new idea that can be fitted into their ego influenced memory they feel a sense of growing more powerful. This sense of growing is emotionally enjoyable.

I think it's pretty normal to hear that people like to think that they are living as a free individual. And in a sense they are right. It is still you who makes it like this. A set of beliefs are, no matter where they come from.

There is no free will because everything is caused, but as we cannot know all or cannot know the future, and there is a form of interrelationship between awareness and one's memory, then the illusion of free will is powerful enough to appear as free will.

But, in reality no one is entirely free. All of us would be lost in freedom.

To be entirely free is impossible. If we were truly free we would be unable to utilise this freedom, every moment we'd be unable to choose from a zillion choices.

Got bored about here.

[Jamesh]

Me: The core QRS teachings are not TRUTH, they are just tools for thinking more holistically.

A Boy called Sue: You mustn’t be good with tools then.

I am just pointing out that you are too attached to this concept of perfect truth, because of the way you objectify it. Really objectifying anything basically just means that you have placed a permanent value upon it, but such value is still a subjective matter, relative to the person.

Truths are just tools for the mind. What they are is the acknowledgment of common patterns of the flow of parts of the universe. In the case of certain ultimate truths, which will never be shown to be false for things (but not for the infinite forces that underlie all things), they are the base layer of pattern matching that ideally needs to be in place before one truly understands the relationships between patterns of more specific, more defined, less abstract, flows of change that we humans experience. They are just foundation tools to aid rational thinking about the Totality.

Me: It is true that women are not good at deep philosophy, but that does not mean that they cannot learn some level of wisdom from philosophy.
Sue: Woman can learn nothing, as your above comment signifies.

Ok, in saying this you show that you are irrational and won’t be able to give an inch. As a masculine desiring woman, your strong emotional need to understand the ultimate precludes this.

I would partly agree with you in one sense though, and that is that women so far have been incapable of creating new advanced philosophy.


Me: The cause of this does not stem from women though. The cause is actually technology and the need for a larger group with more complex lifestyles to have tighter organisation and to maximise the use of available resources.

Sue: No, it is caused by people like you - who will not stop blowing kisses and waving at women long enough to see, that with each minute you waste doing so, you are creating more bad karma for men.

I have not had a girlfriend for about 15 years or so, and no one night stands for about 10. Nonetheless I still have male desires, so I wank. After discovering this forum a few years ago though, women now mostly just make me annoyed with their shallowness and conformity. I don’t have a great desire to stick up for them, and I certainly don’t want them to hold positions of power. Perhaps I’m still a misogynist, as all traditional males are, and I just want to use my masculine powers on their femininity. I miss this masculine-will-to-power-over-the-feminine ego trip.

I don’t particularly like men either, they are just too egotistical for my liking and their ego’s lead them into irrational and selfish behaviour.

The “masculine will to power” can only truly be masculine if it is powered by Truth; otherwise it is just a slave to woman.

Truth helps one achieve power. We are all slaves to our ego's, you are a slave to your ego which values truth above all other ego sustaining agents. I do not believe for one second that the QRS do not have ego's, although I would agree that their ego's are far less subservient to the more base animal desires than nearly everyone else.

You emotionally value all masculine things as being good, worthy, ignoring many of the common negative traits of males. Your picture of masculinity is too limited and thus false. I do not value masculinity as only good and worthy because my experience of males shows me the truth that not enough of them are like that. Most of their masculinity is circumstantially caused, it is simply a result of the evolutionary flow-ons from being more physically powerful and more emotional, more erratic (increased emotion occurred because they have to fight other males to be selected by females, and they need a lot of emotion causing chemicals in their brain to do so). Of the one’s that display a high degree of masculinity mentally, there is always something wrong with them. There is either a strong selfish ego buried under a facade of rationality that comes out later on or a lack of rationality about how to deal with new experiences as their heads are in the clouds, rather than in the finite world we live in.

These days I abstract masculinity out and generalise it to be "self-action" and femininity to be "externally caused action" regardless of the sex of the individual. In this way I can see that for every action of a human, they will be acting on something feminine, on something usable by the person regardless of the purpose. Why bother getting into endless arguments about the relative values of the two, it seems like a bit of a pointless attachment to either sex to me.

I don't mind people saying things like "to achieve enlightenment one must take on the masculine attributes of X, Y and Z", but I disagree with tendency here to completely obliterate certain feminine attributes. To place 100% positive value on masculinity and 100% negative value on femininity is just plain irrational to me. To me someone can only become enlightened once they have moved through very strong mental masculinity into a state of femininity of mind, a mind of complete acceptance of realities of the universe. By tracking this back I can see that for each new truth about reality we learn we learn it by masculinity (the casual agent, self-action) but accept it with femininity (as an effect, it becomes a solid belief).

Me: Your (and Kelly’s) submission to what the QRS have said is disgusting. Fucking nuns!!.

Jamesh - you wear your heart on your sleeve. Some women find that attractive, but what’s popular now-a-days is the carefree, fun-loving type. Try that next time you're out. (Don’t miss Agony Aunt’s helpful hints in coming posts.)

Well, you believe that women have no place in philosophy, but here you are spouting fundamentalist-like support for the teachings of the QRS. The following passage gives an indication of how you regard the QRS, I think you see them as mature monk like grandfather Gandalf types who will show you the way, someone in whom you can place complete trust in. You have the young boys awe of older seemingly wiser men, and the desire to learn from them. I will grant you that some men have overcome the more destructive male attributes by being forced to face experiences that result in reflection, and those who have used philosophy and logic to examine their emotions, are the most mature, but I don’t find them to be typical of men.

“Your eloquent history of the lost of masculine values during the last century, was most edifying. It reminded me of the men I knew as a child; grandfathers, uncles, cousins, brothers and my father. They all had a clear position to play in the family unit and, even as a little girl I had regard for them as men. My grandfathers were both pioneer-types, both fought in WWI, and both made lives for themselves, and later for their families, built on their own sweat and blood.”

[bert]

@ Sue:

An interesting reply!
Ending all of your translations with 'fun' if find very amusing.
The spirit of joy;to please thyself entirely.

It is not where I was talking about directly ,but yeah,in the end the great virtue is the completion of belief.The ecstacy of life.

I just love your reply...It gave me some inspiration.

One thing,about poetry:
The essence of the poet is to make look the common as if were not common;by fluent phrases and compellings that poetry conveys.

@Jamesh & Sue:

"You can only "truly believe" in one thing, yet its involvement is essential, so the imagined goes on forever. The imagination learns that the idea awakens the urge to do something."

when believing timely(at a certain moment in time),the involvement of the believing needs to be there.The imagination predicates imagined limits.


"By expecting dissapointment at the time of desire is the means of locating its deceit.Beyond it is something arbitrary,something that sets this law to our believing,imitating it by "reason" is but damning the consequences.
Reason is belief,belief is fear of one's capability"

when a desire one feels is "pulled down" as not needed,you feel that these beliefs are resultants from an indirect inherent process which easily deceives introspection,therefore,getting 'behind' it with "reason" doesn't makes things any better.

I need to go now

[MKFaizi]

Rhett,

I doubt that I will reply this evening but I did read your post.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Dear Natural,

Congratulations on getting disability. In which state do you live?

I do not understand the disability system and I do not think I could make the proper applications.

I have worked in medical offices for ten years and I have not seen anyone get disability for a psych disorder in about eight years. Not a disability that was not truly disabling. The last person I knew who was "mild" was kicked off the dole years ago.

Beyond that, I reckon I have worked enough years that it is not a big deal to me. I have no emotional or other investment in working. It is just something I do to pay the mortgage -- small mortgage. Just enough to get by. I get no ego gratification out of it.

Personally -- that is all -- I reckon I would rather work than to go to psychiatrists or other doctors to have them renew my disability. Maybe, you do not have to do that. But you must have to see a psychiatrist once in a while to re-certify your condition.

I am capable of working. If someone asked me if I am capable of working, I would have to answer, "yes." I can't say otherwise. I have been working for years. It's not a big deal. Ten years ago, it was a big deal. At fifty three, I think I can work as easily as being on disability.

It is not that I think that being on disability is a bad thing. I don't. If you can do it and it suits you, I think that's fine. Other than the reasons I have already mentioned, I do not trust the government. I do not ever want to have to be a retiree on Medicare. Scares hell out of me.

Likely, I will work until the day that I die. Not out of pride -- but from fear.

I do know one man on disability because of back problems. He is expert at working the system. He has a beautiful home with a swimming pool. Beautiful gardens. His wife is an expert gardener. In addition to collecting disability, he buys things at auction and sells them. He owns ten or twelve houses that he rents. Last year, he bought two commercial size greenhouses for his wife. She runs a very profitable business selling seasonable plants.

He also managed to pull off VA benefits by claiming he has Agent Orange. He never went to Vietnam. He was dishonorably discharged from the army for punching a sergeant. He claims that he got Agent Orange from welding on vehicles that came back from Vietnam.

Gets all of his medications free from the VA. Both of his kids are on Medicaid because he is so poor. His wife gets federal assistance of some kind for health care now. She is having surgery soon.

He is a master.

Some people resent him for his ability to work the system but I don't. The man is a genius. No way I could pull that off. I am nowhere near that good a liar.

I am not good at presenting the truth advantageously. Not a good liar. I can work and, if asked, I have no choice but to say that I can work.

I still say that it is not easy to get the dole in the US. I see the crap daily. How many others do you know who are on disability?

You were prescribed Zyprexa and Seroquel. Pretty serious drugs. Used for schizophrenia. I had hard enough time forcing myself to take Zoloft. I would not take Zyprexa or Seroquel unless I could be convinced I was schizophrenic or psychotic in some way.

Personally, I do not trust either the US government or psychiatrists or drug companies to go the way of the dole in the US.

I reckon that is all that I can say. I think it is wonderful if you are on disability and happy with it. Good for you. I am not that trusting and I do not think I could make proper applications to use the system to advantage.

I do not believe that, because I work, I am less a thinking person than yourself or others. Over my years writing to Genius, I think I have proven that.

Faizi

[/url]

[Unidian]

Dan,

Thanks for the welcome. You're quite correct in that life on the streets is a lot less romantic than one might suppose. I've tried it briefly, and it is certainly inferior to life on the dole. However, our disability program for the poor is not very generous - I have a feeling that one can do much better in Australia. America is not very big on "compassion" these days - support is given grudgingly. Current payment levels run at about 60% of the poverty line.

Faizi,

Congratulations on getting disability. In which state do you live?

Alabama, although it doesn't really matter. The actual payments are made through state agencies, but the funding is ultimately derived from federal sources. The disability determination process is fairly unifrom in all states.

I do not understand the disability system and I do not think I could make the proper applications.

I have worked in medical offices for ten years and I have not seen anyone get disability for a psych disorder in about eight years. Not a disability that was not truly disabling. The last person I knew who was "mild" was kicked off the dole years ago.

There are a number of critical strategies one must employ in order to win benefits. I figured them out intuitively. Others may be able to discover them through research.

First, one must understand that almost everyone is reflexively denied the first time. The real process of winning benefits doesn't even start until the second application. The first application WILL be denied. They are trying to discourage malingerers and "weed out those who don't really need it."

Secondly, there is one particularly important question that must be answered correctly. Applicants will be asked "do you expect to be able to return to work at any point in the future" or something similar. For claims based on mental issues, "yes," "maybe," "possibly," and "not sure" are all wrong answers. The only correct answer is NO, never. If one indicates that they might be able to work at any time, the determinations agency figures that the applicant can work right now.

From there, it's essentially just a matter of having some medical records that show that the applicant has sought treatment for their condition in the past and describing the ways that the condition intereferes with their ability to work. Of course, if one has a solid work history stretching back years, they might have more trouble showing that they have suddenly gone loco. I had a crappy work history and a good amount of medical references, which probably helped.

Beyond that, I reckon I have worked enough years that it is not a big deal to me. I have no emotional or other investment in working. It is just something I do to pay the mortgage -- small mortgage. Just enough to get by. I get no ego gratification out of it.

If one has to work, that seems like the sensible attitude toward it. If one doesn't attach ego gratification to work, it isn't really a serious impediment to thought. It doesn't sound like you are falling into the "work ethic" trap that makes employment a fetish for so many people.

Personally -- that is all -- I reckon I would rather work than to go to psychiatrists or other doctors to have them renew my disability. Maybe, you do not have to do that. But you must have to see a psychiatrist once in a while to re-certify your condition.

Once every three years, and it's a pretty painless process. For about 30 minutes of "work" every three years, I'm getting around $20,000. For what amounts to $40,000 an hour, I'm willing to show up for a periodic psych evaluation.

I am capable of working. If someone asked me if I am capable of working, I would have to answer, "yes." I can't say otherwise. I have been working for years. It's not a big deal. Ten years ago, it was a big deal. At fifty three, I think I can work as easily as being on disability.

That's fine. If you honestly feel capable of working, I wouldn't advise lying about it. They are trained to detect liars and malingerers. I don't feel capable of working not only because of my "issues," but also because of my deep philosophical conviction that employment is a mind-numbing scam (for me, anyway). If someone asks me if I felt capable of working, I can honestly say "no" on that basis alone.

It is not that I think that being on disability is a bad thing. I don't. If you can do it and it suits you, I think that's fine. Other than the reasons I have already mentioned, I do not trust the government. I do not ever want to have to be a retiree on Medicare. Scares hell out of me.

I can understand that. It's certainly not the life of careless ease some might imagine it to be. There are some very worrisome aspects to it. For example, I don't relish the thought of being used as a medical guinea pig because I am poor and on Medicaid. One has to be willing to take certain risks to live on disability. You're right, it's not all roses and tea parties.

Likely, I will work until the day that I die. Not out of pride -- but from fear.

IMO, fear is a far more rational reason than pride.

I do know one man on disability because of back problems. He is expert at working the system. He has a beautiful home with a swimming pool. Beautiful gardens. His wife is an expert gardener. In addition to collecting disability, he buys things at auction and sells them. He owns ten or twelve houses that he rents. Last year, he bought two commercial size greenhouses for his wife. She runs a very profitable business selling seasonable plants.

He must have worked a long time before filing for disability. In America, we have a strange system which punishes people who are disabled from an early age. If you have never worked much due to your disability, you can only collect SSI, which is a separate disability program for the poor. It pays a set amount of $572.00 per month to all recipients. However, if you didn't become disabled until later in life, your work earnings are counted up and you recieve a payment proportional to them. I know a guy pulling down $2000 a month on disability. I have to deal with the $572, though.

He also managed to pull off VA benefits by claiming he has Agent Orange. He never went to Vietnam. He was dishonorably discharged from the army for punching a sergeant. He claims that he got Agent Orange from welding on vehicles that came back from Vietnam.

Gets all of his medications free from the VA. Both of his kids are on Medicaid because he is so poor. His wife gets federal assistance of some kind for health care now. She is having surgery soon.

He is a master.

Some people resent him for his ability to work the system but I don't. The man is a genius. No way I could pull that off. I am nowhere near that good a liar.

I am not good at presenting the truth advantageously. Not a good liar. I can work and, if asked, I have no choice but to say that I can work.

You are probably not good at presenting the truth advantageously because you erroneously conflate it with lying. One must never lie (or even "mislead") during the process of presenting the truth to their advantage. That is the whole trick. Lies are easily detected and always result in failure. The truth, properly framed and presented, is much more powerful than any lie.

It sounds like a bullshit distinction, but it's really the key to the whole thing. This is a subtle point and the mechanics of it may not be immediately clear, but it makes all the difference between the "masters" and those who get denied.

I still say that it is not easy to get the dole in the US. I see the crap daily. How many others do you know who are on disability?

I would agree that for those lacking a certain intuitive understanding of how to make these things happen, it's not easy. I know a few other people on disability, but I know many more who have tried and given up. Chances are, they did not have access to the proper intellectual and psychological tools required to navigate the system successfully. I'm not saying that they were "stupid" - they simply lacked the necessary understanding to undertake this specialized task.

You were prescribed Zyprexa and Seroquel. Pretty serious drugs. Used for schizophrenia. I had hard enough time forcing myself to take Zoloft. I would not take Zyprexa or Seroquel unless I could be convinced I was schizophrenic or psychotic in some way.

Oddly enough, I was not prescribed either drug for schizophrenia. I'm not schizophrenic. Believe or not, I was prescribed both for what amounts to a bad temper. I didn't stay on Zyprexa long enough to know whether it would have been effective, but Seroquel actually magnified the problem.

I'm pretty sure my doctor was an idiot.

Personally, I do not trust either the US government or psychiatrists or drug companies to go the way of the dole in the US.

I reckon that is all that I can say. I think it is wonderful if you are on disability and happy with it. Good for you. I am not that trusting and I do not think I could make proper applications to use the system to advantage.

I do not believe that, because I work, I am less a thinking person than yourself or others. Over my years writing to Genius, I think I have proven that.

I don't believe so, either. Work does not seem to be an ego attachment for you, as it is for so many others. For you, it seems to serve the same purpose as the dole does for me - the procurement of food, clothing, shelter, and medicine.

[kjones]

From Kelly's paper:

"Here follows an analysis of the popular, but logically flawed, belief that "Truth is in the eye of the beholder". This belief is supposed to be an absolute truth. It means that, when there is no beholder present, then falsehood reigns."

It has never meant that to me. It just means that truth is subjective. Sure you are not getting confused with "If a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, then does it make a sound?"

Do you think Truth is subjective? Whatever this is, is created by non-subjective truth. Therefore truth itself is neither.

I had a hunch someone would interpret dualism as the need for a yin-yang type sexual balance. Fancy calling that a koan.

Well, I liked it because all my personal philosophy is about dualism. To me a koan is something for which the answer must encompass all things, as the above does.

Does dualism encompass non-dualism (the Totality of all things)?

Reality is created by illusionary separation – ie consciousness.

You fell into the same trap with Beingof1. The same rescue: in what realm of Reality do you think consciousness is created?

Not sure what you mean to point out. Consciousness is created by the dualistic physical realm, which itself is created by the dualistic non-physical realm.

When you regard Ultimate Reality (of which there is only one, by definition), as caused by consciousness, then you have created a non-Ultimate Reality. That is, another reality. This is illogical.

You could avoid this problem easily by recognising consciousness as exactly the same kind of thing as anything else in the universe, namely, a causally created thing. And since it is, your problem is solved.

Reality cannot be created, since it includes all causes.

Yes because females are less emotional than men (and in this regard less conscious to a degree, a decreasing degree actually, not unconscious though as the 'One-Eyed Dicks' here like to pretend). If they were more emotional the result would be that they would create difficulties for themselves which they could learn from - this learning process is where "mature" masculine perseverance and depth stems from.

Nice try, but it's incorrect. Females are more emotional, generally, but aren't propelled by this emotional suffering into rationality, because they indulge in the feminine sensitivity to suffering.

No, women indulge in sensitivity to suffering because they feel less, but they still enjoy emotions, so they mentally build them up to be more than they actually are. Hysterics is a learned behaviour – women use it to attract more attention as with more attention they will be caused to experience more emotions. Women’s emotions tend to need direct external causes to be activated, whereas men have greater propensity for self-causing emotions as a result of them being caused while younger to rationalise due to negative reactions from others to their emotional displays when young.

Men by having greater desires seek out situations where satisfaction and suffering can occur, however most by the time they are adults reject their additional emotionalism and seek to rationalise and control it better than women, they certainly have a greater need to do so.

Would you accept a rephrase: instead of "women feel less", how about "women are less conscious"......?

The reason I suggest this, is that using emotions to increase sensitivity to experiences doesn't work. Heightened awareness of things depends on judging things accurately. Emotions are judged to be what they are (physiological sensations) using reason. Thus, anyone depending on so-called "emotional intelligence" usually comes up with vague, wishy-washy hunches (untruth-oriented consciousness), having almost suffocated reason.

This is why I said women are generally more emotional than men, although I'd disagree that their lack of reliance on reasoning in favour of emotions, including hysterical behaviour, is all learnt. If emotionalism were learnt, we'd see equally rational male and female toddlers, rather than generally emotional monkey-spawn. Women just aren't genetically as given to self-reliant problem-solving as men. You can see it in little children - the boy-toddler will cry often only when a screaming harridan mother has upset him.

Women screaming in childbirth is not learnt behaviour, since most cultures remark this behaviour, except (I have heard) some Asian cultures (who teach self-control).

This could all change, if women really found rationality more rational than emotion. But, despite the recent posts, I see this as uncharacteristic as long as women are mothers (child-bearing), and physiologically weaker than men. These two characteristics are at the heart of the problem.

It comes back to sexual egotism: women are seeking power over others, beyond themselves, and won't recognise things directly as what they are. To do so takes the will to individuality.

Rubbish. Masculine men seek power over others to a greater extent than women, feminine women tend to seek power over a limited few. Women attempt to draw power into themselves, to make it part of themselves, whereas men tend to spread their personal power over as many others as they have the skills for.

The key in my description of the feminine mind is "beyond themselves". Women have, at all times, their womanly self-image in their consciousness, however vague it might be. Everything they do has that appearance in mind. It is very difficult for most women to consider doing anything outside the womanly paradigm, for instance, something (eg. clothing, speech, skills) that makes them appear unattractive. It makes them terribly shallow, unadventurous, and gullible.

So, whatever power a woman seeks, can never be drawn into herself, since she lacks any self whatsoever. She is really obsessed with a public self, that never relates to or awakens her real individual self. This is why I say women have no soul.

The power that males seek, generally speaking, is similar, since it is a preoccupation with the ideal male (the socially acceptable paradigm). However, being preoccupied with this ideal forces males to be more self-reliant. Thus, they're more capable of relating to and awakening the real individual self (not their real nature, but the tools necessary to do so).

You seem to be ignoring the fact that emotion causes desires, even the desire for rationality, for tools to minimise the irrationalities that emotions cause.

No desire for rationality exists without some degree of rationality.


Kelly

[kjones]

Marsha,

I compressed your post to a few lines, to indicate more clearly what kind of endurance you were writing of when you wrote this:

Kelly wrote:

I think that being born female means one has less capacity to endure difficulties at all.

I don't think that endurance has anything to do with masculinity. Endurance is a feminine trait.

.......I doubt that many men could have endured my life -- for example -- over the past fifteen years. I have always known that my kids would have been better off without me. But I lacked the guts to leave. Also, any woman who could leave her kids is considered a piece of crap. I reckon that was part of it -- even if leaving would be the best thing for the kids.

I agree that this "endurance" is a feminine trait.



On this topic, I'd like to refer to Sue's post about why a female takes up philosophy. My question, directed to Sue and Marsha, is, regardless of what initially motivated you to take up philosophy, why is motherhood worthwhile to you now?

I think that your femininity is very unconscious, Kelly. You are a good thinker but not nearly as good as you have been lead to believe. You are quite feminine.

Femininity is always unconscious! I don't think anyone has led me to believe I am a good thinker. If I am at all, it is because I think so. I'm well aware of my sins --- and what a relief, that by contrast, Truth changes never.


Kelly

[kjones]

Then ,as a last question, Kelly:
What is Truth?That being the truth of the absolute well to speak.That is why it has a big t.

Ultimate Truth is everything. Logically it cannot exclude anything. Thus, it is quite possible to speak rigorously of it.


Kelly

[kjones]

It is true that women are not good at deep philosophy, but that does not mean that they cannot learn some level of wisdom from philosophy.

There are no levels of wisdom. There's just consciousness of Truth, and not.

Masculinity is given smaller and smaller avenues to travel in and develop along; it amazes me that it continues at all.

The cause of this does not stem from women though. The cause is actually technology and the need for a larger group with more complex lifestyles to have tighter organisation and to maximise the use of available resources. And I don’t think men really create new technologies to please women, which is what the QRS would say, that is simply one of the factors, the masculine will to power is the key factor.

I agree that "masculinity" has not planned well enough, since human survival and comfort has been prioritised over truthfulness. However, if the masculine will to power is the key factor in this failure, as you say, then truthfulness would be more important than comfort and survival, since these latter reflect less power, being easier to obtain.

So in fact, the key factor in the endangering of masculinity is love of femininity (life, security, comfort, etc.)


Kelly

[kjones]

Having decided that women were weak, immoral and manipulative they yet chose to go fight a war and leave their male children -- the entire future -- in the care of such creatures?

The fortification of the home (governance) has ensured women (at home) don't turn traitor while at war, by conscripting all the sexually available men as soldiers, and cunningly attempt to conscript the enemy women-folk to abandon their home.

No one particularly planned post-WWII disillusionment. The sell-out of masculine values had a big kick start during women suffrage (changing governance), and that sped on the process. Women in all religions have traditionally been excluded from leading the congregation: but so-called feminist emancipation changed that.



Kelly

[bert]

Then ,as a last question, Kelly:
What is Truth?That being the truth of the absolute well to speak.That is why it has a big t.

Ultimate Truth is everything. Logically it cannot exclude anything. Thus, it is quite possible to speak rigorously of it.


Kelly

You speak of what is necessary for Truth,namely everything,but do not speak OF Truth.

Truth IS not everything.
Truth is not the truth of formula.

[Blair]

Kelly the sage has spoken, but not really...

kjones is just a mixed up young woman, who is starting to resemble a parrot.

[Leyla Shen]

Having decided that women were weak, immoral and manipulative they yet chose to go fight a war and leave their male children -- the entire future -- in the care of such creatures?

The fortification of the home (governance) has ensured women (at home) don't turn traitor while at war, by conscripting all the sexually available men as soldiers, and cunningly attempt to conscript the enemy women-folk to abandon their home.

What about the "conscription" of women by the allied forces from the perspective of, say, a British serviceman and his family?

http://www.canadianwarbrides.com/docume ... noldst.pdf

This paper must really begin in the dance halls of Britain (93% of war brides were indeed British), where the Canadian soldiers, wealthy compared to the local residents, wooed the young women with their foreign accents and handsome uniforms: “With the sound of a big band in the city or a small group in the village hall, it was possible to hold each other without the glaring eyes of disapproving parents.” The local men were either away at military training or they were fighting on the battlefields of Europe. In 1939, the influx of tens of thousands of Canadian soldiers into the cities and towns filled the gaps left by the fighting locals and fulfilled the needs of the young women, whom the soldiers outnumbered “fifteen to one.” It was “in fact, just fortythree days after Canadian soldiers arrived...that they celebrated the first marriage between a British woman and a Canadian serviceman .”

Furthermore, the anticipation (fear) of death and desire for life (in humans and animals, through sex) often go hand-in-hand:

http://www.heretical.com/costello/01love.html

Since love and war represent the extremes of human experience, it is no surprise to find that a 'total war' had profound emotional and sexual consequences for many of its participants. 'We were not really immoral, there was a war on,' was how one British housewife explained her behaviour during World War II. So pervasive was this attitude that it seemed that sexual restraint had been suspended for the duration, as the traditional licence of the battlefield invaded the home front. 'By most people's standards we were immoral,' admitted an American soldier, 'but we were young and could die tomorrow.'

The urgency and excitement of wartime soon eroded moral restraints, and life on many home fronts appeared as cheap and short as life on the battle front. Soldiers had always claimed fear of death on the battlefield as an excuse for sexual licence. 'In war a man has to love, if only to reassert that he's very much alive in the face of destruction,' explained a US army sergeant. 'Whoever has loved in wartime takes part in a passionate reaffirmation of his life.'

In the same way, many British women attributed their wartime immorality to air raids. (p. 19)

[Leyla Shen]

Rhett Hamilton wrote:

...and why there is such hatred of judgment and of responses to an oppressor? Here in Australia many think that love and kindness will sort everything out, and suppress their hatred of those who disagree with them.

Surely that depends on your view of who or what the oppressor and oppressive are.

Are protests not an expression against those with whom you disagree -- or should people start attacking their own governments as a standard form of masculinity?

Marsha: Please keep in mind that my intention here is not to discuss politics but do you consider George W. Bush to be that sort of man? He was born in the '40's and he thinks of himself as challenging oppressors and fighting against evil. I think he is delusional. I don't think he is masculine. I think he is a lying pussy.

Rhett: I am skeptical that any of our young folk will develop the psychological temerity to last even 5 minutes in that kind of role. I see them needing to be pushed into it, they won't even be capable of putting their hand up.

On that basis alone ("1940s masculinity"), we might as well admire Saddam Hussein and John Howard for the same reason/s. Hell, why not even Joan Kirner, while we're at it?