Kelly's Truth Paper

[Leyla Shen]

Jason wrote:

It's also interesting that you can stare at a young child(say 3 years old) and they will show no negative reaction to it, in fact they tend to stare themselves.

Kids are pretty cool like that, I reckon.

You ever just looked at a baby around, say, three to six months old? Generally, they are quite content to look and be looked at without any apparent, direct physiological reaction to it.

[Leyla Shen]

DHodges wrote:

I wonder what she told her knitting club.

That 10 ply, canary yellow wool attracts the attention of lunatics, maybe?

[Kevin Solway]

Most people here would agree that the evil-eye is rubbish

Anyone who is not enlightened has an evil eye. It is the eye that looks with desire, that looks for entertainment, amusement, beauty, etc.

[Leyla Shen]

Conversely, the less you look a cop in the eye, the more guilty you are assumed to be.

You ever watched Judge Judy? Try not looking her in the eye when you speak to her.

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason wrote:

Most people here would agree that the evil-eye is rubbish

Kevin wrote:

Anyone who is not enlightened has an evil eye. It is the eye that looks with desire, that looks for entertainment, amusement, beauty, etc.

Looking into another person's eyes brings to the surface of your own mind unresolved yearnings and deeply felt sentimentalities. It also shows how much respect we have for other people, using them, as we do, for our own entertainment, then passing over them to someone new. Worse still, it shows how little we value our minds, wasting our time on 'playing games' with others, again, for our own entertainment.

For example:
Sitting on public transport, 'people watching' to pass the time, has little to do with rationally considering the psychology and actions of people - which can readily be done in your room with the door shut - but it has everything to do with filling in time until you get to your destination, to then get on with your days activities.

Looking at other people also shows the level of violence you have inside you - all the jealousy, longing for attention, longing for acceptance, wanting to be acknowledged as 'existing', wanting to control environments so as to feel safer and therefore more at ease, wanting to be seen as part of a group of people - "I'm on your side" mentality, looking for love, looking for sex, looking for friendship -- all this looking is "evil", because it is people 'using and disposing of' other people for their own pleasure. It is a mindless evil, generated by people who don’t care or desire to understand life.

It is better to see others as an extension of your own self, and thereby treat them with the same degree of respect and consideration you would show yourself. But of course, this can only be done after you have some insight into your true self.

Sue

[Leyla Shen]

sue hindmarsh wrote:

It is better to see others as an extension of your own self, and thereby treat them with the same degree of respect and consideration you would show yourself. But of course, this can only be done after you have some insight into your true self.

Which is why all things feminine must be confronted -- must be looked at -- and eradicated, right?

It seems contradictory to me to say that looking at someone manifesting feminine behaviour shows a lack of respect and consideration, but writing against feminine behaviour does not.

I see no real difference between an emotional reaction to someone watching you knit and an emotional reaction to reading an anti-feminine text -- except, perhaps, the fear of immediate and apparent personal physical danger: you know, ego stuff.

What makes you think that this same person would be caused to think any more through being confronted by a text than they would through experiencing discomfort by being watched in the act?

I see no difference between the level of violence, either.

Where do you look when you are speaking to people face-to-face, Sue? Do you feel forced to smile and be nice? When in public places you catch someone's eye, what do you do -- look away instantly?

[sue hindmarsh]

Leyla,

When you see everyone as you, you do the best you can to help them on the road to wisdom. That could mean speaking out against the feminine or keeping interactions with others to the bear necessity when not involved in philosophical discussions. There are many ways to help others, but probably the best way is to set a good example by using your own time wisely in the pursuit of Truth.

If it had been me you saw knitting on the train that day, you would have been greeted by a smiling, welcoming person, who would more than likely have had a chat with you.

I try my best not to hinder my own and other people’s progress on the philosophical path, but not being anywhere near perfect, I can only do what comes naturally to me.

Sue

[Leyla Shen]

Sue,

I try my best not to hinder my own and other people’s progress on the philosophical path, but not being anywhere near perfect, I can only do what comes naturally to me.

For some time now, I have observed -- with a great deal of respect -- your dedication to unearthing insights into the feminine mind. It is apparent that in the challenges the examination of such a subject brings, you are not yet freed from its shackles. I have to say, however, considering you rather brilliant, this does not make an inch of sense to me and I am struggling with it, therefore.

In your statement; “I can only do what comes naturally to me,” I see a defeatist. A position I hold as rooted in (mis)emotionalism, i.e. the feminine. I have to say that I reckon the fundamental err manifest in the feminine mind is the interpretation of causality as a thing that begins in the past and ends in the present without any regard or foresight into the future whatsoever -- without direction -- without the self both as and at the helm of their own ship (to further build upon and propound a recent analogy) and as one with Nature despite "adversity." That’s what that comment means to me -- and, on those grounds, I reject it.

[kjones]

No, Leyla, that's the mistake I made. When Sue says, "I can only do what comes to me naturally," that includes everything she (naturally) does.

As Kevin has mentioned several times, one can't force oneself to do something. There is certainly value to being aware of the difficulty of something (valued). But that doesn't mean one can do it. In fact, since it's difficult, it means one can't automatically do it.

This metaphor has been working for me lately: an elite professional cyclist, training daily, builds fatigue resistance. He can only do this by staying at a high degree of efficient performance, and avoiding overtraining. As he develops strength, he can start implementing more intensity, more volume. He can eventually do 8 repetitions of a one-minute period at HRMax, instead of 4, or 6.

So, it's not defeatist for him to realise he'll overtrain and weaken his immune system, if he does 8 repetitions on every training session, instead of what is suitable for his current state.

But he really does have to be training daily, feeding his system with the right foods, resting, etc.

It's a metaphor, so it has faults. But just this fact is revealing.

[kjones]

Talking to the opposite sex, in person (some more on "staring...")

When talking to males about truth, the concept "male", and to what degree this specimen is defined as male, appears in my mind. It's not always highly conscious.

So my behaviour adjusts. I see myself looking at the eyes, face, and body, and listening to the voice. I judge to see if he's understood what I've said. But I'm also judging, often automatically, his sexual response to me (to what degree I'm defined as female).

I see both levels. This bothers me a bit, because I haven't been talking about sex. Nor has he.

So, I've been learning to speak about sex with truth, rather than to speak about truth and think (however vaguely) about sex.

The current sample of males whom I've been conversing with, seem quite relieved about my openness. Females seem a bit offhand, as if I'm joking. This may be because I'm usually add a smile (though I don't really want to laugh).

This is the thing: all of the smallish sample respond sexually when I talk about sex. I'm always relating it to philosophy (what I understand of it so far), and yet they aren't taking much notice of this. It takes quite a few conversations, lots of open and honest descriptions of experiences of sexual responses, and a heavy emphasis on the value of reason, to make much headway.

It's about training everyone involved in the conversation to think of truth when we think and talk of sex. This is just like trying to offset the pull of a planet on its satellites.

It helps to describe myself as "not behaving like an attractive young female" - and also to do my best to live up to it. One can see obvious contradictions if one expresses certain values, but no action. I've had people shrug off my words, because, as they point out, they can see discrepancies. This is useful feedback, and I admit I'm weak, but it doesn't remove the trueness of my words. That's probably why they are pointing out the discrepancies, to avoid seeing they are true.

That would mean they personally have to do something about it.


Kelly

[kjones]

Talking to women about philosophy

Should one discuss the nature of Reality with people who already experience much suffering? It won't be easy for anyone who hasn't learnt to control their emotions and prioritise clear logical thought, to make much progress. A woman may be interested in reason and truth. But the fact she's less accustomed to putting a lid on emotional reactions, and is far more used to (wanting) happiness, means she won't make much progress. She'll spend 95% of her time churning in deeply grooved samsaric cycles. The instant a heavy logical problem arises, she puts it on the shelf of things to do later.She is into palliating the intense conflicts experienced in introspection, by trying to silence and stifle it --- anything related to it.

The mirror of truth is excruciating to anyone with attachments. So, one can't help but cause more suffering, if one is going to speak of the real world. Anyone who can't control the ego, enough to reason how things work, will be so dismayed by the cycles of fighting ego, they'll do anything to obscure the mirror. That's why smiling and laughing can be unhelpful to a sufferer, it palliates instead of providing a sharp, clean knife.

Hatred of truth can be expressed in cunning ways. What a lot of effort and time is squandered this way. So, I have to be prepared for it, and for all the violence of this effort. It could be a tiny thought, yet be so violent --- like, "I'm generally okay, I don't need to take a step towards emptiness, just at this moment." Or it could be more obvious, that "I need to feel happy, for some temporary relief." Ego's worry is that non-attachment is a serious, lifelong intention.

From what I've seen, the average man interested in reason and truth knows the importance of controlling emotion, and hasn't been so accustomed to the "right to be happy" --- although this situation is changing, I think. Generally, a man might be more inclined to feel obliged to tackle heavy logical problems, and consequently will spend 65-75% in those deep grooves of samsara.

This is a warning: don't fall for women, who want you to help them. Be careful when you do, how you feed the ravenous ego. It's probably better to leave them screaming their hatred at you (even silently). If they don't get it, even after several years and taking only a single step towards truth, fence them off, and let them work through humiliation and doubt.

Maybe women will learn to pee standing up, before they take to philosophy.


Kelly

[sue hindmarsh]

Re: Talking to women about philosophy

One of the main reasons why discussing Truth with a woman is futile is because she has at her disposal too many ‘outs’. As we know, woman is a parasite, gaining her goals and ideas from whatever happens to be nearby. This way, she doesn’t need to have a mind of her own, and is free to flow from one thing to another, unhindered. So if you mention, for example, that becoming Wise means the death of the ego and the end of suffering, she will more than likely nod and say something like, “Yes, that sounds okay, but is it really necessary?”. After which, she’ll wander off onto some other topic, such as; the importance of compassion, or the amazing discoveries made in quantum mechanics.

She can hear the words, she can even see that you are serious and passionate, but the meaning of the words can’t touch her, because she doesn’t need them. Suffering and ego, truth and wisdom - she knows all these things through and through. She is filled to the brim with words like those; she has experienced all of them ‘first hand’. Having no mind means that nothing sticks; no one thing is more important than another thing. This way, she is able to immediately experience other people’s thoughts and ideas as if they were her own. Anything she requires to bring her comfort and happiness, just floats to the surface, like a bubble on a puddle.

Sue

[kjones]

Having no mind means that nothing sticks; no one thing is more important than another thing. This way, she is able to immediately experience other people’s thoughts and ideas as if they were her own. Anything she requires to bring her comfort and happiness, just floats to the surface, like a bubble on a puddle.

Apart from the last sentence, this is a good description of what I think Nirvana is.

That everything is equal, lacks real stick, and everything is the great me, really nothing.

Taken with the larger quote, it certainly is the unconscious evil eye. Yet when I see that, then I'm suddenly the conscious eye, capable of God-looking.


Kelly

P.S. I'll address the problem I emailed you about here on the forum, Sue. It needs more clarifying first, though.

[Lennyrizzo]

I have no idea what she was thinking. Though, it did make me wonder for a moment what she thought was wrong with knitting.

"Shit, I knew I should have left it home, I'm not good enough at this thing to do it in public, that bitch has no right to critisize me, at least Ive got the courage to do it even if she thinks I'm no good at it which is more than i can say for her sorry ass, if she really cared she'd say someting constructive to help me improve not just sit there staring, i'lll show her, and read my damn book instead."

[Leyla Shen]

Kelly,

No, Leyla, that's the mistake I made.

It’s not a mistake, Kelly. It was quite deliberate: a method of reasoning on the subject different to yours. I think the only mistake you made lay in your emotional attachment to her. I reckon reasoning performed on the basis of emotion rather than for its own sake often has this effect.

As Kevin has mentioned several times, one can't force oneself to do something. There is certainly value to being aware of the difficulty of something (valued). But that doesn't mean one can do it. In fact, since it's difficult, it means one can't automatically do it.

There is a difference between force and determination. And that difference lies in Truth.

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason wrote:

It's also interesting that you can stare at a young child(say 3 years old) and they will show no negative reaction to it, in fact they tend to stare themselves.

Leyla wrote:

You ever just looked at a baby around, say, three to six months old? Generally, they are quite content to look and be looked at without any apparent, direct physiological reaction to it.

Guys, young children have little or no consciousness, their discrimination skills are pretty limited – are you my mum, and, where’s the food. The three year old would be looking around noting all in its domain – sometimes interested, sometimes not.

Men and women on the other hand, possessing consciousness, or at least enough consciousness to appear conscious – can’t help but discriminate between objects (people, nice, yellow, busy, bus, sexy, tree, etc) according to what they value. So, the woman sitting on the train knitting gets huffy, because she values her personal space, or social conventions, or perhaps the attention of only men, or a combination of all of them. She may have thought you were ‘checking her out’ Leyla, or sizing up her knitting skills. If you were a male, she might have thought the stare was flirtatious, and flirted back. All in all, she was reacting to the situation emotionally – she was actually doing that before she noted you, and after she got off the train, she would still be reacting emotionally.

Whilst we consider ourselves separate from others, we will respond emotionally to all situations. This is because our ego is in the driver’s seat and considers itself unique and special. Its job is to see that all desires are satisfied; so no matter who we are, or what we do – our ego is always striving to ensure that it is getting the best possible outcome from any and every situation. What it doesn’t like, is when we rationally discriminate that at no time can we be separated from each other, or for that matter, from anything else. And that anything people do or say is at base, the same as our selves. Most egos hate this fact, and will work hard to push the thought away. But a few egos actually get off on this idea and go with it.

Of course, this ‘striving’ that the ego does so well, is what brings about its downfall. If you are attached to Truth, and won’t be satisfied with anything less than to become it – the ego, if large and strong enough, will destroy itself to fulfill your desire.

Sue

[Lennyrizzo]

Jason wrote:
Quote:
It's also interesting that you can stare at a young child(say 3 years old) and they will show no negative reaction to it, in fact they tend to stare themselves.


Leyla wrote:
Quote:
You ever just looked at a baby around, say, three to six months old? Generally, they are quite content to look and be looked at without any apparent, direct physiological reaction to it.


Guys, young children have little or no consciousness, their discrimination skills are pretty limited – are you my mum, and, where’s the food. The three year old would be looking around noting all in its domain – sometimes interested, sometimes not.

As early as five or six months babies can recognize the actions of others as intentional and by one year anticipate the effects of their own actions.

[Sapius]

I haven’t read all the posts so I don’t know who thinks along these lines and has said the same thing, but any ways.

I believe “consciousness” arises in a thing when it can automatically, without any conceptual thoughts, react to its environment. That is, it is instinctually aware of the A=A principal without conceptualizing it as such. I don’t want to go into a discussion as to what all “things” I’m talking about, or at which point do we draw the line, but in case of humans I would say within about 2~3 weeks after conception.

A newborn baby will stare away without an intended meaning until a point or age when the concept of ‘why’ or ‘how’ arises, which starts with an instinctual curiosity seen in his stare, and distraction, and lack of concentration at a single thing, since he is beginning to make instinctual sense of things he experiences. When he acquires this instinctual understanding of a certain thing, he gets disinterested and moves along. Staring at that same particular thing becomes unnecessary since it is now registered what it is, instinctively; he will look at it again as a familiar thing only, not with the same curiosity as before, unless he sees a change in that thing and gets re-interested, or on the other hand has yet to register what he has been repeatedly looking at.

An adult is essentially no different, who by now is already immersed in a conceptual world, and plays with meaningful verbal concepts, and conceptually gives meaning to ‘staring’, and their kinds according to facial expression that he has encountered and deciphered so far.

When staring, firstly you are conceptually aware that you are staring, and somebody else is staring too. Then you ask why, because you see a meaning in any stare. Both parties are thinking something or another, continuously deciphering this act according to their intent of stare, or deciphering others stare because you consider it a stare. If you don’t consider it so, you wouldn’t be staring in the first place. A child stares out of instinctual curiosity, an adult stares out of conceptual curiosity, but in both cases, sometimes curiosity could kill.

I hope I make sense.

[kjones]

I try my best not to hinder my own and other people’s progress on the philosophical path, but not being anywhere near perfect, I can only do what comes naturally to me.

In your statement; “I can only do what comes naturally to me,” I see a defeatist. A position I hold as rooted in (mis)emotionalism, i.e. the feminine. I have to say that I reckon the fundamental err manifest in the feminine mind is the interpretation of causality as a thing that begins in the past and ends in the present without any regard or foresight into the future whatsoever -- without direction -- without the self both as and at the helm of their own ship (to further build upon and propound a recent analogy) and as one with Nature despite "adversity." That’s what that comment means to me -- and, on those grounds, I reject it.

It would naturally be defeatist position for a self, if it had power to do good and evil for itself, and decided it ought to, not to do so.

But Sue's "self" that "can only do what comes naturally" isn't at the helm of the ship. It's an I that is everything that comes to it. It doesn't have unlimited or even limited power for good and evil. It's pure chance that it does anything at all.

There's no emotional defeatism in this at all, or attachment to wanting this understanding of cause and effect to be true. It is reasoned to be true. You could call it emotional defeatism in the sense the emotions are defeated by it.

This is probably why Socrates wasn't disturbed by being condemned to death by idiots. He didn't even try to run away, preserve his life, look after the education of his children, help his friends and countrymen improve their thinking. He saw all as God, and put his faith in what he saw.


Kelly

I'll put the email to Sue into a new thread.

Edited formatting and added PS.

[kjones]

I'm currently changing the Truth Paper, rewriting as well as adding sections. I'd like it to be clear and simple. It needs to come from the plains, with an acute angle, and then move up to the mountains, where the angle is huge.

I'm not sure how much of the last version will remain, as there wasn't enough to it, that I still like.

[Faust]

I was reading this and I need to take a Devil's Advocate position to kelly's post

It is the instinct to find a mate to complete oneself, believing that perfection is created by coupling.

do you think that all coupling is motivated to be complete? What about to satisfy lust? What about unattached men who satisfy their lust but don't want to be 'complete'?

At the core of the feminine mind is this delusional belief that a particular ideal form can solve the psychic puzzle. Essentially the error is wanting to duplicate the self.

I don't know if satisfying one's basic biological lust is a desire to 'duplicate' one's self. Many people are just lusty and don't want at all to duplicate themselves.

I'll also expose why sex is most detrimental of them all. Ego's basic aim is to maintain the false self's illusory boundary between it and everything else, at all costs.

that's not why I want to have sex... I already know about illusory boundaries, but my sexual desires aren't at all motivated to somehow try to fix this. If anything sex removes boundaries.

The constructed self, set up against the rest of the world as if there is an inherent separation, naturally appears vulnerable.

I'm new to this 'self is illusory' concept. Why is the self not seperate from the world and what do you mean by seperate?

So much mad obsession obscures the truth that Reality has no inherent form, or things, or nature, divisions, boundaries, or truths.

Reality has no truths? You just stated a truth here

Ultimate Reality, or the Absolute, can only be everything. There can't be any thing, reality, world, or life beyond Ultimate Reality, because by definition, it includes everything. Whatever is created is Reality. In other words, it can't be grasped or held onto. Ultimately, it cannot be divided up. So chasing self-existence is doomed to failure.

What is 'self-existence' and 'chasing' it? Why is it doomed to failure due to Absolute Reality?

It's impossible to meet the true needs of the psyche with egotistical solutions. It just doesn't work. One has to go all the way and abandon the false self, to be psychically healthy.

too vague. Why is the self false?

Psychic illness, caused by egotism's fundamental truthlessness

why is egotism untruthful?

For instance, many people experience frustration when sexual urges are not met, because they perceive their self-construct lacking power. Sexually expressive people, experiencing power and vitality, are perceiving their self-construct as able to dominate the rest of the world. It's all illusion.

I wouldn't think I'm dominating the world after I'm sexually expressive, that's irrational.

I won't bother discussing other grounds for abandoning sex, such as overpopulation.

overpopulation's a myth

The spiritually inethical nature of sex is reason enough

why is sex spiritually unethical?

Truth is the emptiness inherent in all things.

too vague

The meaning of all words is their emptiness

what?

In conclusion, the core intellectual blockage to enlightenment is egotism

what is enlightenment? I'm tired of this empty circular arguing. "Enlightenment is knowing absolute reality" "What is absolute reality?" "nothing inherently exists" "so? what's the value in that?" "because it's enlightenment" etc....

Sex does more than simply express the belief in the I's inherent being, but goes further and seeks approval for it

Umm, what about sex as a way to lose one's self in someone else?

Sex expresses the eternal need of the I to be completed, which can never happen

Is satisfying one's biological lust a desire to be completed? Even though you can't fully satisfy lust, what's wrong with satisfying it when you need to?

The I is finite, and because it is, cannot attain perfect individuality

hmm in a past paragraph kelly specifically stated that enlightenment is perfect individuality

Only by abandoning this mental construct, can the psyche be healed, and perceived in its perfect, whole infinite nature --- the nature of Reality.

WHAT?

[JohnEDPMalin]

To the Group:

This proved to be a mawkish diatribe on sentimentality masking itself as male lust and feminine mystic.

What was Kelly's Truth Paper? The URL is no longer operable.

Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin

--

[Tomas]

.


-JohnEDPMalin-
To the Group:

This proved to be a mawkish diatribe on sentimentality masking itself as male lust and feminine mystic.

What was Kelly's Truth Paper? The URL is no longer operable.


-tomas-
Here's her website. http://www.naturalthinker.net


.

[sue hindmarsh]

John,

This thread goes back a bit. Many of the participants have moved on.

Perhaps you could pick out of it some of the points you feel are -

mawkish diatribe on sentimentality masking itself as male lust and feminine mystic.

- boil them down to a point you'd like to discuss, and then begin a new thread.

[JohnEDPMalin]

Sue:

I briefly eyed the website given. The preferred books given to read, I have read seven of them previously.

I suspect my business duties will deny me ample time to internalize and digest these threads in any thoughtful manner.

I will ponder your words for the next few days, and see if my observations and narratives can contribute enrichment within the mental space of you fellow contributors. One wants to tenderly elicit 'positive' feedback [This is the bad kind of feedback: women giving birth to children, growth of unregulated cancer cells, overpopulation (I am afraid to tell the contributor above, it is not a myth; it is very, too real.), destabilization of our bio-geo-chemical system by greenhouse gases or climate change, etc. are some common examples.] in the minds of this website's members.


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin

--