Thanks to those I visited in the US and Canada

[Imadrongo]

Kevin,

It is always a problem when a person stops using reason. Negative consequences for other people cannot be avoided.

Negative consequences for other people are not a problem unless you embrace Christian morality.

Ideally a person can reason fully and freely all the time, with no need to take a holiday of any kind. But few people are that perfect.

Humans naturally need to sleep and they only live for around 70 years. Their minds are only well developed after the first 15+ years. Thinking too much usually makes their minds weary. Shitty ideal anyways.

[Shardrol]

I agree with shardrol and think you're all a bunch of horses' asses.

Wait a minute. I don't think they're all a bunch of horses' asses - not at all - so I'm not sure what you're agreeing with.

[Dan Rowden]

Kevin,

It is always a problem when a person stops using reason. Negative consequences for other people cannot be avoided.

Negative consequences for other people are not a problem unless you embrace Christian morality.

I think the point would be that negative consequences for other people can be negative consequences for one's own goals (depending on what they are).

Ideally a person can reason fully and freely all the time, with no need to take a holiday of any kind. But few people are that perfect.

Humans naturally need to sleep and they only live for around 70 years. Their minds are only well developed after the first 15+ years.

I don't see the relevance of these observations.

Thinking too much usually makes their minds weary.

Any sustained activity makes one weary (at least where one needs to employ effort). How we take rest when weary can be a source of considerable peril, so it's best to think long and hard about it. Oh, shit, hang on......

Shitty ideal anyways.

I hate pink, seersucker shirts.

[skipair]

Your problem here is that you're operating, or seem to be, from a basis of rather herdly values and judgments of success. What does it really matter to you how much influence Kevin has had? What does it matter that he has had any at all? These are questions of providence which lie beyond his or anyone's control.

Good point. On one hand I do value and respect what Kevin & company are doing here regardless of their influence.

On the other, what I'm trying to answer is, "is it worth it?", so I'm measuring what I see here against every standard that I can think of, including influence, but also all the facets of reality as I presently know it. I go back and forth on the question daily, and it might be an easier decision to make if the existence of enlightenment was empirically verifiable. I don't really like tinkering with projects. I like to see the value in achievable goals, and then go all out. With an idea as profound as enlightenment, its simply a pain in the ass for it to be so uncertain. Its the ultimate risk.

-Skipair

[Dan Rowden]

Your problem here is that you're operating, or seem to be, from a basis of rather herdly values and judgments of success. What does it really matter to you how much influence Kevin has had? What does it matter that he has had any at all? These are questions of providence which lie beyond his or anyone's control.

Good point. On one hand I do value and respect what Kevin & company are doing here regardless of their influence.

Can you give some more detail regarding why that is, because I think that will be important to how you approach things yourself.

On the other, what I'm trying to answer is, "is it worth it?", so I'm measuring what I see here against every standard that I can think of, including influence, but also all the facets of reality as I presently know it.

It's a two dimensional issue, really. There's the matter of one's own understanding and the benefits of that, and the issue of what one then does with that understanding - i.e. what goals one might have that involves the rest of the world. These two things present different problems and matters to consider, even if they are somewhat related.

I go back and forth on the question daily, and it might be an easier decision to make if the existence of enlightenment was empirically verifiable. I don't really like tinkering with projects. I like to see the value in achievable goals, and then go all out. With an idea as profound as enlightenment, its simply a pain in the ass for it to be so uncertain. Its the ultimate risk.

Your skepticism is commendable and sensible. I think perhaps you should forget about enlightenment and just focus on the issue of understanding the nature of Reality. Enlightenment is a tough thing to talk and think about of itself. The hypothesis that it is a meaningful and real thing to pursue is one that is essentially tested in the petri dish of one's understanding of Reality. As that understanding grows, the validity of the ideal of wisdom becomes ever clearer. The question is how strong is the desire to understand Reality and how much does one suffer for one's ignorance.

[Kevin Solway]

It is always a problem when a person stops using reason. Negative consequences for other people cannot be avoided.

Negative consequences for other people are not a problem unless you embrace Christian morality.

Since other people are physically connected to me I consider other people to be myself. There is no real division between me and other people.

So when I seek to not create negative consequences for other people I'm really only seeking to not create negative consequences for myself. I don't know whether that is "Christian morality" or not, but I think it is the only kind of morality.

Thinking too much usually makes their minds weary.

A lot depends on the way you think. If you are thinking properly it's not exhausting.

It's a bit like the difference between a pro-golfer and a hacker. The pro expends much less energy in his golf swing, while generating much more effective power than the hacker does. The pro can hit golf balls all day without being wasted, while the hacker will be ready to drop after an hour.

[clyde]

Since other people are physically connected to me I consider other people to be myself. There is no real division between me and other people.

So when I seek to not create negative consequences for other people I'm really only seeking to not create negative consequences for myself. I don't know whether that is "Christian morality" or not, but I think it is the only kind of morality.

Kevin;

I returned (lurked) recently and this thread intrigued me. I agree with you: "do no harm" or as you phrased it, "[do] not create negative consequences". I would go further that we are connected to the actual universe, reality as it is. Realizing that is the beginning of wisdom. Living harmlessly is compassion.

Be well.

clyde

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Whether you want to consider Kevin's trip a holiday or missionary work, I did not notice Kevin stopping reasoning on his visit. He did some fairly literal "chop wood, carry water" but isn't that part of the Buddhist tradition of after achieving enlightenment? What's more, being an example of an advanced person is more instructive than any "do what I say, not what I do" book.

As for criticisms of Kevin over how he lived the last 10 years, the half-story that ended up on the internet does look bad, but understanding the whole story shows that he was acting for the greater good. I also recognize that his not explaining things publically protects others but at his expense.

There was a lot of greater good value to Kevin's visit. Who are you to judge that which you do not understand?

I see David and Dan's complaints a jealous whining. Also by getting to understand Kevin first-hand, I see where both David and Dan misunderstood him. The things I previously did not like about Kevin were actually the misunderstandings of David and Dan rather than actual parts of Kevin.

I will say that I think it is a loss that Kevin does not post more often. I hate to add to his already over-inflated ego, but he does have a great deal higher quality things to contribute than David or Dan.

Kevin, I accuse you of having an over-inflated ego because of the effect of your self aggrandizing statements on those who read them, and because you have previously ranked yourself higher than historical sages who you have never met personally. The perceptions of them gained through the perceptions of others is likely to be flawed, just like I could not see who you really were until I met you for myself. I do believe that you have assessed yourself correctly; it is only the tremendous degree of separation you have set yourself above others - especially others you have not even met - that is pompous. You recognize that after seeing America first-hand, you have formed a more accurate opinion of what is going on over here. I propose that other things and people that you do not know personally are also different from the filtered view you are getting from your remote view of the world.

[Imadrongo]

Why shouldn't Kevin have an over-inflated ego when he is probably the most superior person to ever walk on the face of earth? We can ignore the fact that he doesn't actually exist and that he is an illusion for practical purposes. ;)

[David Quinn]

Does it worry you, Kevin, that it is primarily women who are rushing to your defense? What is it that you are giving them?

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Does it worry you, Kevin, that it is primarily women who are rushing to your defense? What is it that you are giving them?

-

I remember quite a period of time where if anyone said anything even slightly negative about Kevin, it was you and Dan who would rush to his defense. What was it that he gave you?

[Tomas]

Does it worry you, Kevin, that it is primarily women who are rushing to your defense? What is it that you are giving them?

-

......


Wouldn't this be better served as a private message to him?


Tomas

.

[David Quinn]

Perhaps. But I think he needs to deal with this monster that he's created.

-

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth,

I remember quite a period of time where if anyone said anything even slightly negative about Kevin, it was you and Dan who would rush to his defense. What was it that he gave you?

I've hardly ever done that. Certainly no more than Kevin coming onto a thread I've been on and speaking on my behalf. It's been fairly minimal either way.

But in any case, perhaps Kevin can better address this.

-

[Tomas]

Does it worry you, Kevin, that it is primarily women who are rushing to your defense? What is it that you are giving them?

-

I remember quite a period of time where if anyone said anything even slightly negative about Kevin, it was you and Dan who would rush to his defense. What was it that he gave you?

...


You know, Elizabeth... just some time ago you said you had lost respect for him.

He's goading you to say something stupid (beyond dumb)

Guys stick together, you know. Herd mentality rules the male race.

ps- way to go David, it worked :-)

Hahahah


Tomas


.

[Tomas]

Perhaps. But I think he needs to deal with this monster that he's created.

-

Oddly enough i see your point. Will keep me trap shut...

(i've been travelling to other countries for 40+ years in many different capacities) There's something strange about returning to the U.S., never'ev been able to put a finger on it much less any words. Even the short jaunts to Canada growing up in the early 60s they talk "different" even tho they are as white as the rest of Dakota people are, except the Native Indians, Blacks & Lebanese (quite a few brave races fare well in Dakota)

Kevin has a bit of "american" in him now and he will never lose that...



Tomas


.

[Dan Rowden]

Kevin now has a bit of "american" in him now and he will never lose that...

Oh no, you mean he's going to spend the rest of his life trying to undermine foreign democracies?

[Carl G]

Right, that's what we really mean by "dangerous thinkers."

These are CIA type philosophers, subverting from society those who possess the potential to strip away delusions. These are the brotherhood of SEE-EYE-A men, men who SEE with the clear EYE the truth that A = A.

Love them or fear them be aware, one of them may be lurking in your hometown now.

[Kevin Solway]

Does it worry you, Kevin, that it is primarily women who are rushing to your defense? What is it that you are giving them?

I reckon Elizabeth and Shardrol would defend anyone if they were attacked for travelling.

[Dan Rowden]

Yeah, you got totally mauled over the New Zealand trip! But, hey, if you see them as equivalent then fair enough - I'm done both talking and thinking about it.

[Shardrol]

Does it worry you, Kevin, that it is primarily women who are rushing to your defense? What is it that you are giving them?

This is simply not true. The two biggest defenders of Kevin's traveling on this thread have been Elizabeth & Unidian - that's one & one for the genders.

If you count my post about limitations on a sage's behavior as 'rushing to Kevin's defense', you are misunderstanding what I was talking about.The idea that there are some activities (such as getting married, for example) that can be used as evidence that a person is not enlightened has appeared on this forum a number of times, mostly asserted by you. I was arguing with the idea of criticizing Kevin's trip as 'unsagely'. If you just want to say you think it was a waste of time, that's fine.

You have this image of women across America falling in love with Kevin & compromising his sagehood but actually you're the one who appears to be having an irrational emotional response.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Shardrol,

Actually there have been a number of biological males saying there was nothing wrong with what Kevin did... actually the only ones who seem against it are Dan, David, and Sue - so I wasn't quite sure what definition of "women" David was using. The closest I could figure was David's usual definition - anyone who disagrees with David gets called a woman.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Perhaps. But I think he needs to deal with this monster that he's created.

-

Oddly enough i see your point.

The "monster" he is pointing at is over on the Zubaty thread in The Reasoning Show forum. This thread has turned into nothing but a cat-fight. Of course, this is another monster that Kevin created 20 years ago, and has been quietly feeding ever since.

I agree that it would be good if Kevin started a new thread to discuss American culture when he is ready to discuss that.

[skipair]

S: Good point. On one hand I do value and respect what Kevin & company are doing here regardless of their influence.

DR: Can you give some more detail regarding why that is, because I think that will be important to how you approach things yourself.

I value the practice and promotion of reason. Personally, I've found it allows me to navigate the world more skillfully toward my personal goals, among them honesty, health, humor, creativity, friendship, and women.

I suppose the sage philosophy I see here would mostly correspond to me valuing being honest, but the biggest disparity that I see is that ethics to me is about action. In a sense it is about how one, and how much one makes a difference which is why I brought up influence. Otherwise it is truely 100% selfish.

I see many other people who may not be as ego free as others, but with the reason they have they could spend $ on practical education reform that would reach countless more than "sages" that I see here, who more or less seem to do nothing.

Thanks for all your comments, very thought provoking.

-S

[David Quinn]

Shardrol wrote:

If you count my post about limitations on a sage's behavior as 'rushing to Kevin's defense', you are misunderstanding what I was talking about.The idea that there are some activities (such as getting married, for example) that can be used as evidence that a person is not enlightened has appeared on this forum a number of times, mostly asserted by you. I was arguing with the idea of criticizing Kevin's trip as 'unsagely'. If you just want to say you think it was a waste of time, that's fine.

I've made it plain that it wasn't the trip itself that I have issue with, but the manner with which it was organized. I saw it as being symptomatic of a deeper problem that I currently have with Kevin. But it's become clear to me that, apart from Dan and Sue, no one really knows what I am driving at - not even Kevin himself, which I find disturbing. So it looks like I will have to be a bit more explicit.

But before I do this, I just want to let you know that I wasn't including you in the "woman" grouping. I do respect your considered approach to things and I have no problem with your responses in this thread. I apologize for giving you this misleading impression.

-