GENIUS FORUMS

Dave,

It's not the subject matter, as such, it's the level at which it's engaged. There's often (if not always, really) a deeper dimension to be found in any issue, political or scientific. I just want to get back to finding that, as that's what Genius has always been about. I don't intend to be anally zealous about quality control in this sense, I simply want to people to actually consider this when posting issues.

Personally, I believe that GF forum should be divided into two sections: 1: Genius Forum: which would be primarily concerned with answering some of the more fundamental philosophic/psychological/biological questions.

And then the second section could be called General Empirical Analysis or something like that,, where inquisitive members could tackle current issues in politics, economics, the natural sciences, astronomy, physics, and so on.

Basically, you could still have a more general discussion forum for people that any intellectual questions that don't directly relate to understanding the nature of reality, but you could raise the bar in terms of what is permitted in the general discussion room.

Yeah, we could do that...............oh, wait................

I also think it might be rather harsh to close down the forum altogether. I have an idea, but the moderators may not be all that interested. I think that GF needs some new innovative ideas to attract inquisitive minds to the forum. For awhile, what made this forum spiritually productive is that it experienced surges or waves of new members who asked some fundamental philosophical questions, and the objective of the forum should be to adopt the most highly effective methods of drawing new inquisitive types in.

Moreover, The Reasoning Show is a great idea, but it doesn't tap into where masses of people congregate. you need to take your existing idea, and integrate into a website that is already popular, and draws millions of users worldwide. For instance: if the GF created a YouTube Channel that gave a live video sample of the moderator's masculine philosophy, and then referred them to the message board, then any intellectual that could somewhat tolerate what is being said would be drawn to the forum.

And you may protest by saying that YouTube is rather infantile, but its content has been increasingly improving. Over the last six months, there has been a surge in young intellectuals browsing the directories hungry for all types of truth. Hundreds of great documentaries have been added in the last year alone. It might be worth considering. Globally, YouTube is taking in 43% of the market share for online video. Basically, It is a monster that has the potential for great wisdom and great ignorance. Because what is causing GF to stagnate is that it has grown slightly isolated as an 'entity', and it needs to connect to where all the young thinkers are, and draw them in - like a black hole drawing in star fragments that have recently exploded.

It is not necesarily the best idea to become the most visible. People will be drawn to the forum if it is their intent.

df wrote:

It is not necesarily the best idea to become the most visible. People will be drawn to the forum if it is their intent.

I disagree, if something is more difficult to find, that doesn't necessarily make it better, I think making ones philosophy more easily accessible for people to stumble upon should be a goal of the moderators. The philosophy of GF isn’t exactly easy to find, and that is one of the site’s shortcomings in my opinion.

So basically, don't complain if the same boring posters are here, while at the same time you aren't willing to take the necessary steps to attract new thinkers to the community.

-Ryan-
..if something is more difficult to find, that doesn't necessarily make it better, I think making ones philosophy more easily accessible for people to stumble upon should be a goal of the moderators.

-tomas-
Make that (a goal of) 2 of the 3 moderators ... Kevin was blind-sided :-(




-Ryan-
The philosophy of GF isn't exactly easy to find, and that is one of the site's shortcomings in my opinion.

-tomas-
I've sent this site along to a few different areas..
How many have signed up - this is unknown.




-Ryan-
So basically, don't complain if the same boring posters are here, while at the same time you aren't willing to take the necessary steps to attract new thinkers to the community.

-tomas-
I lurked for years - some of the same flunkies then - are still here. I miss Marsha's brash style, despite her change-of-life ups and downs. She has a good head on her. She's lived many places and exposed to many facets that provided me with an insight to other's cultures. Reading about her kids etc. were a bonus. She worked for a living, a nurse no less...

Thanks Ryan, a thoughtful response by you. You are maturing nicely :-)


Tomas

.

Dave,

Are there other topics that tend to be distracting? I know I kind of groaned when the Quantum Mechanics/Causality thing came up recently. "Oh no, not again!"

I guess I did that. Thing is, until recently, I've been away for a number of years and I had some things to get off my chest on that subject since coming back. And I'm sure you'll agree it's a subject often bandied about as some sort of disproof of causality and therefore an important one to pop. You, being educated on the subject, may not find any interest in that triviality. Others may though.

And surely the whole ire thing is a self-defeating POV. Tiresome things have to be dealt with one way or another mate.

The quantum/causality debate seems entirely significant to me in that it forces us to stop and think about the nature of causality itself. I don't see how that can ever be a bad thing.

"Urgh."
"I forgot to take my medicine, and I like to post." -Carl G

Glad you locked the forum Dan, I think Carl was getting very belligerent with these kind of posts.

PS. I hope I can still post links to yahoos videos on this forum? Let's cheer our selves up with this following video, which is I believe what Carl-G stands for. G.Carl.
Spooky ey?

George Carlin-some people are stupid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oboyox3L_MI

PSS. I think it's hilarious!

If your posts are relevant they'll survive; if not, they won't.

Dan,

I must admit I was disappointed that you decide to close the Worldly Matters Forum. All enlightenment, all the time, eh? Lol ...

Learning to integrate your enlightenment is also a key part to awakening. Without that integration, enlightenment becomes a limited thing, bound by where it fears to tread, timid in the face of what seems overwhelming or where it simply is inadequate to deal with the way things are . A fearful, inadequate or timid enlightenment really isn't much of a realization at all, is it?

Your forum, your decision of course. Maybe you'll see things differently later on, but you do strike me as someone loath to change their mind ...

It's a decision that's been coming for a considerable time, Sam. I have been dropping hints at my displeasure at the direction the board has taken. Obviously I'm either too subtle or certain people just don't care. Oh, and one does not "learn" to integrate their enlightenment. Indeed, enlightenment isn't something you integrate at all. It's right there in everything.

Dan,

Oh, and one does not "learn" to integrate their enlightenment. Indeed, enlightenment isn't something you integrate at all. It's right there in everything.

What Sam means is that when one is fully enlightened, he can analyze reality through any context, whether it be economics, politics or astronomy. His areas of inquiry are not limited to the fundamentals. His enlightenment is capable of stretching across all areas of intellectual thought.

Myself, I think you've jumped the gun by closing down the worldly forum, your best bet is to attract new young members instead of punishing the existing ones by restricting their access. People are limited, they are only going to discuss what they are capable of and what they are discontent with. Do you really think you can change someone's limitations if they have now been on GF for years? people are caused to be what they are.

Moreover, there have been some recent general conversations in worldly that apply directly to the QRS philosophy - like how liberalism is relatively more feminine, and libertarianism is relatively more masculine.

Moreover, there have been some recent general conversations in worldly that apply directly to the QRS philosophy - like how liberalism is relatively more feminine, and libertarianism is relatively more masculine.

Wow, how did I miss a gem like that?

BTW, even granting QRS views (for the sake of argument), a strong case could be made that liberalism is more "masculine," because it concerns aggressively confronting and struggling against oppressive institutions with the goal of progressively building a more equitable society. Libertarianism, on the other hand, is avowedly afraid of conflict and force, and would prefer to just hand the kids the keys to the candy store and hope for the best.

But I'd rather clamp my head in a vise and turn the crank for all I'm worth than actually engage the idiotic issue at all.

Unidian wrote:BTW, even granting QRS views (for the sake of argument), a strong case could be made that liberalism is more "masculine," because it concerns aggressively confronting and struggling against oppressive institutions with the goal of progressively building a more equitable society.

That is exactly what libertarianism is about, confronting oppressive governments and the like in order to form a more free and prosperous society. It boggles my mind to think that anyone who values individuality and the masculine mind can not sympathize with anarchy and libertarianism. That's exactly what libertarianism is about, individual freedom and individual responsibility. I don't think it makes any sense at all to place liberalism at odds with libertarianism, in fact libertarianism is historically a very liberal and progressive movement. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we have only in the past 200-300 years began to experiment with individual property and rights, and as you can see, the writing is on the wall. Of course when it comes to the progressive movement that is libertarianism, we haven't even begun to fully stand on two feet, not even close actually. No, people still continue to cry for more government to solve their problems instead of taking a look at what they can do for themselves, namely growing up and becoming men.

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Unidian wrote:Libertarianism, on the other hand, is avowedly afraid of conflict and force, and would prefer to just hand the kids the keys to the candy store and hope for the best.

There is no hope in anarchy and libertarianism, it's about people going out, making things happen, and dealing with the consequences like a man. People like yourself on the other hand, are always hoping the government will take care of things for you like whiny little bitches.

LOL, Nick strikes again.

Nick, you try too hard to "be a man." It says a lot about your true self-image, whether you realize it or not.

Serious people can't post here very long, because stuff like the above is too common. Oh well. At least it has comic value.

I agree with Uni that it is hard to take the board seriously.

For me ultimate truth is not something static. It is rather something alive, and an ongoing process. Essentially it is a consciousness which is not reflexive (as in works on past reflexes) but lives moment to moment in a coherent fashion ( i.e. conflict free or stress free). It clears up the incoherence in thoughts and in action. Which some would refer to as the dissolution of karma, or the past.

For that reason I feel that truth would be best served if we are open to each others perceptions or the world and have a open dialog while checking for incoherence and reflexive patterns in ourself.

On the other hand it seems that here posters are just vigorously defending their own world view, and try to browbeat opposite viewpoints into submission.

I guess that is because the moderators themselves are not open to any new insights or ideas and have convinced that they have found the truth, which they now vigorously defend, but theirs is but a static dead truth, like a mathematical formula.

Nick Treklis wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, we have only in the past 200-300 years began to experiment with individual property and rights,

Ah, of course - the Romans had no idea about property or rights, the Mongols never experimented with such things. Sopho-who? Plato-what?

Unidian wrote:Serious people can't post here very long, because stuff like the above is too common. Oh well. At least it has comic value.

Serious people like who, you? The only time I ever see you being serious on here is when you are defending your reasons for recieving a welfare check.

Elizabeth,

Those Empires were not founded on individual rights and property. The United States of America was the first nation truly founded on these principles which are written into the U.S. Constitution. This is part of what makes us a Republic, not an Empire.

Nick,

This is part of what makes us a Republic, not an Empire.

I see no reason why the two should be mutually exclusive.

Nick,

The Romans worked out individual property rights which included the rights of the individual to the property.

I believe that it is fair to say that the Mongols experimented with human rights.

My contention primarily was with your word "began" because without all the previous endeavors into those arenas, America would not have had anything to build on. I challenge your choice of the arbitrary boundary of "beginning" in the chain of causality.

Serious people like who, you? The only time I ever see you being serious on here is when you are defending your reasons for recieving a welfare check.

Still heckling, eh? LOL. Okay, welcome to my ignore list.

Bye-bye.

Ok, this thread has now lost its way so I'll close it.