Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by Cory Duchesne » Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:28 am

Faust, Iolaus and I veered off topic over in the Fluoride thread, so I figured I'd make a new one, since I think it addresses masculinity and femininity in a way that hasn't been examined enough on this forum:

Cory: Women and men are unquestioning and obedient because it's easiest, less disturbing, more comforting in the immediate.

Iolaus: Men a far more obedient than women.

Cory: In the work place, men tend to be the leaders, the innovators, and also more likely to become cynical and exploitative, stealing from the company. Women are more contented with following instructions, playing by the rules, settling for lower positions as well as with trying to make things warm and fuzzy by decorating the office for Christmas, Halloween, Easter, organizing pot-lucks, and organizing parties outside of work.

Faust: You're saying that women are more moral in the workplace by playing fairer than men? Being innovative and leading is one thing, cynically exploiting and cheating is another.
The behavior of men is delineated by more extreme poles. On the one extreme we have serial killers, thieves, pirates, bank robbers, exploiters of the people, tyrants, genocidal maniacs, etc.

On the other extreme we have our (for the most part) benevolent innovators, inventors, leaders, profound novelists, great composers, scientists, athletes, philosophers, sages, geniuses, etc.

Testosterone is a bit of a double edged sword. Naturally one wonders what the factors are which send one man in a direction of extremely criminality, and another man in the direction of revolutionary genius and social service. Obviously testosterone is influencing both, but why a polarization has occurred, is an interesting question. Most people might guess that the former simply have testosterone levels too high. Maybe so. However, the levels between a serial killer and a great genius might actually be the same, and the factor creating differentiation might be structural differences in the brain, the later simply having a more sophisticated operation comprising their system, the former a relatively more primitive one - despite equally high levels of testosterone.

Women and womanly men are more apt to play it safe by subordinating themselves to the company, the husband or wife, the kids, the popular conventions, ideas, idols, the religion, etc.

For this they rightly get a reputation for being more submissive, obedient, cowardly, and yes, this cowardly submission is often regarded as more moral, whereas masculine overcoming of convention has often been regarded as heresy, immoral, etc.

As I'm sure you are familiar, Nietzsche commented a bit on this, distinguishing the uncreative and submissive slave morality (the feminine), from the creative and individualistic master morality (the masculine).

The later of course is reserved for a more controversial and often despised minority of types distinguished by higher testosterone levels and a relatively more masculinized neuroendocrinology.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: Serial Killers VS Selfless Geniuses

Post by bert » Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:51 am

cory, I'm not into the masculine/feminine thing, but I can give insight to the values and virtues whereby I live and give:

snub the fortuitous, give effect to your desires by effort.the Ecstatic Stoic( what I practice) has no fear of karma ,reincarnation, nor of the earth itself giving way beneath his feet.if he is injured - it is a legality evidencing the discharge of a 'debt'. his sole effort is to do no injury to others. he is acceptive of Nature and mainly negative to Man. he faces life and death with open eyes, and if he seeks suicide as alleviation for a while, he goes forth to meet death with a smile knowing he will come again. how cautious he is in doing good - delicately, like a ropewalker. he has no morals beliefs or ideals that are not tactual to life, possibility , and human nature; thus heaven and hell are within his hands.he neither prays beggs nor borrows (if possible), but works by the sweat of his mind and body; therefore why should he pray? he expects nothing for nothing yet often gives. he is too proud to act or to believe merely for rewards - or punishments.he acts and believes in the way he considers wise and healthy: neither Gods nor Devils, or his Ids, can corrupt him. if he seeks asylum, he is tired, unfit to accept unequal odds, but he always comes back...

this is one part...

bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: Serial Killers VS Selfless Geniuses

Post by bert » Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:50 pm

we love the child for its total dependence and acceptance, therefore be ye the same to your parental good and evil, for until ye have paid and have become sufficient unto yourselves ye shall wear this prevention of progress of dependence.

bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: Serial Killers VS Selfless Geniuses

Post by bert » Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:57 pm

the great motion is that which neither expects nor asks for anything, and which inflicts on others only what is deserved. ask not forgiveness of Gods or men but take your reparations willingly.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Serial Killers VS Selfless Geniuses

Post by Cory Duchesne » Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:27 am

bert wrote:cory, I'm not into the masculine/feminine thing, but I can give insight to the values and virtues whereby I live and give:

snub the fortuitous,
Disdain or neglect the fortunate? Isn't the wise man fortunate?
give effect to your desires by effort.
I don't think highly of most human desires, do you?
the Ecstatic Stoic( what I practice) has no fear of karma reincarnation, nor of the earth itself giving way beneath his feet.
if he is injured - it is a legality evidencing the discharge of a 'debt'.
By legality evidencing discharge of a debt, do you mean:

To live is to borrow life, and to borrow life is to owe God your death, and to die is to have that debt of being alive, paid?
His sole effort is to do no injury to others.
Didn't you say that we should snub the fortunate? Isn't snubbing people injurious to them?
he is acceptive of Nature and mainly negative to Man.
Why don't you see man as part of nature?
he faces life and death with open eyes, and if he seeks suicide as alleviation for a while, he goes forth to meet death with a smile knowing he will come again.
Do you believe in a soul that reincarnates? Or do you believe that the body of causality which created you, is the same which will create future persons, and thus future persons, are, in a sense, you?

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Serial Killers VS Selfless Geniuses

Post by Cory Duchesne » Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:36 am

bert wrote:we love the child for its total dependence and acceptance, therefore be ye the same to your parental good and evil,

for until ye have paid and have become sufficient unto yourselves, ye shall wear this prevention of progress of dependence.
It seems like you're saying that we have inner parents, our intellectual pursuits(good) and our sensual pursuits (evil). We are dependent on these parents, and it is after prolonged experiencing the good of the intellectual parent and the evil of sensual parent, that we are no longer dependent on our parents?
bert wrote:the great motion is that which neither expects nor asks for anything, and which inflicts on others only what is deserved.
How are we to know what is deserved and what isn't?
ask not forgiveness of Gods or men but take your reparations willingly.
Take reparations from whom?

User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Re: Serial Killers VS Selfless Geniuses

Post by ChochemV2 » Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:52 am

I'd be interested in studying varying levels of testosterone for certain dispositions, positions in life, and goals. For all we know a relatively high, low or moderate level of testosterone may have no inherent connection towards which path you choose but instead the veracity with which you tread it. For example, you could have a high-testosterone businessman who aggressively pursues upper management in a company or a low-testosterone businessman who owns his own small company without much, if any, higher aspirations. Both would be capable successful businessmen but would have more aggressive or passive goals.

A similar experiment could be set up with women of varying types. Assess the biological differences between the average housewife and the super-productive "soccer mom" or the businesswoman who settles for a position compared to the one who wants a higher position.

I have a feeling you would find almost no correlation between the path people choose and levels of any hormone but, as I outline above, instead a connection between how someone approaches that path.

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1525
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by Matt Gregory » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:01 am

I agree, I think testosterone merely provides motivation and thus empowers the person. The empowerment can be applied any which way.

I'm kind of more interested in the question of what does estrogen do?

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by Cory Duchesne » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:31 am

Matt Gregory wrote:I agree, I think testosterone merely provides motivation and thus empowers the person. The empowerment can be applied any which way.

I'm kind of more interested in the question of what does estrogen do?
From the book I'm reading now, Heros, Rouges & Lovers: Testosterone and Behavior, a bit has been said so far on estrogen:
James Dabbs wrote: pg. 57:

Women have better fine motor skill and computational ability than men. An interesting report concerning the effect of estrogen on computational skill came from a male to female transsexual who was taking estrogen in preparation for a sex change operation. After she started taking estrogen, her computational skills improved to the point that she no longer needed a calculator to keep track of prices in her shop. At the atomic weapons center in Los Alamos in 1945, a job came up that called for a combination of mechanical aptitude, fine motor skill, and computational ability. A group of women, many of them wives of atomic scientists, were selected for the job. They sat in a room full of desktop calculators, working together to solve thousands of equations to predict what would happen during each millisecond of the explosion of an atomic bomb. They were the world's first supercomputer. The women were more accurate and faster than men would have been.
^ In my view, there's plenty of interesting comments to make about this, but regarding what the author himself has said before and after the quoted paragraph above: He seems to basically be saying that women are better at some intellectual things, and men are better at others and that very smart males have more femininity in them than dumb, simple minded, violent, narrow males. Such males he thinks are stuck in tunnel vision and are too concerned with getting in brawls at bars. I'm not very far into the book, so I can't judge that this is his hypotheses for certain. That's just my impression so far.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Serial Killers VS Selfless Geniuses

Post by Cory Duchesne » Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:42 am

ChochemV2 wrote:I'd be interested in studying varying levels of testosterone for certain dispositions, positions in life, and goals. For all we know a relatively high, low or moderate level of testosterone may have no inherent connection towards which path you choose but instead the veracity with which you tread it.
The veracity with which you are capable of treading, dictates the nature of the path you choose. Some paths require a high level of veracity, other paths can be treaded with less.
For example, you could have a high-testosterone businessman who aggressively pursues upper management in a company or a low-testosterone businessman who owns his own small company without much, if any, higher aspirations.
Right, but those are two different paths.
Both would be capable successful businessmen but would have more aggressive or passive goals.
Well, they became successful via different paths though, right? And comparatively, one's success may be another's failure. The man owning a small company may make an income that the high testosterone man may find intolerable, regarding it as a failure, relative to his goals and standards of living.
A similar experiment could be set up with women of varying types. Assess the biological differences between the average housewife and the super-productive "soccer mom" or the businesswoman who settles for a position compared to the one who wants a higher position.
Right, but living the life of an average house wife is a much different path than the one taken by the super productive soccer mom.
I have a feeling you would find almost no correlation between the path people choose and levels of any hormone but, as I outline above, instead a connection between how someone approaches that path.
People approach the goal of 'happily surviving/thriving' differently, and the result is that we each take different paths to attain the goal of happiness. It requires different paths to make different people happy.

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1525
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by Matt Gregory » Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:57 am

Cory quoted James Dabbs:
James Dabbs wrote: pg. 57:

Women have better fine motor skill and computational ability than men. An interesting report concerning the effect of estrogen on computational skill came from a male to female transsexual who was taking estrogen in preparation for a sex change operation. After she started taking estrogen, her computational skills improved to the point that she no longer needed a calculator to keep track of prices in her shop. At the atomic weapons center in Los Alamos in 1945, a job came up that called for a combination of mechanical aptitude, fine motor skill, and computational ability. A group of women, many of them wives of atomic scientists, were selected for the job. They sat in a room full of desktop calculators, working together to solve thousands of equations to predict what would happen during each millisecond of the explosion of an atomic bomb. They were the world's first supercomputer. The women were more accurate and faster than men would have been.
That's really interesting. Maybe the principle behind the two hormones is that testosterone helps us to be individualistic and focus narrowly on one task and estrogen helps us deal with multitudes of people and things. So maybe aggression isn't the primary purpose of testosterone, but is merely a side effect of it.

Cory wrote:^ In my view, there's plenty of interesting comments to make about this, but regarding what the author himself has said before and after the quoted paragraph above: He seems to basically be saying that women are better at some intellectual things, and men are better at others and that very smart males have more femininity in them than dumb, simple minded, violent, narrow males. Such males he thinks are stuck in tunnel vision and are too concerned with getting in brawls at bars. I'm not very far into the book, so I can't judge that this is his hypotheses for certain. That's just my impression so far.
I think most intellectuals conclude that masculinity and femininity should be balanced 50/50 in a person. Any other conclusion and you would be deemed a feminazi or a misogynist, either of which would make your book sales plummet or put your book in the comedy section.

bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: Serial Killers VS Selfless Geniuses

Post by bert » Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:49 am

bert wrote:cory, I'm not into the masculine/feminine thing, but I can give insight to the values and virtues whereby I live and give:

snub the fortuitous,
Disdain or neglect the fortunate? Isn't the wise man fortunate?
give effect to your desires by effort.
I don't think highly of most human desires, do you?
fortuitous:occurring by happy chance.

the all-wise mind permits us any absurdity ,yet power is given to all self-believers.

everyone would like to be a God. Some have not conceived the possibility; others haven't the desire.

I am a lover of humanity.
the Ecstatic Stoic( what I practice) has no fear of karma reincarnation, nor of the earth itself giving way beneath his feet.
if he is injured - it is a legality evidencing the discharge of a 'debt'.
By legality evidencing discharge of a debt, do you mean:

To live is to borrow life, and to borrow life is to owe God your death, and to die is to have that debt of being alive, paid?
It means that I accept nature for what it is, for Equity is the whole moral law.
His sole effort is to do no injury to others.
Didn't you say that we should snub the fortunate? Isn't snubbing people injurious to them?
I'm merely saying that to myself, to get the right attitude going - saying directly that there is work to be done. fortuitous means: occuring by happy chance ,or ,having no cause or apparent cause
he is acceptive of Nature and mainly negative to Man.
Why don't you see man as part of nature?
I do see that.

no knowledge would apart us from the virtues of non-existence but that for man - having become involved with disease, all his food poisonous; his complete process of permeating is inevitable that he may become again healthy. thus man wills by thought.
he faces life and death with open eyes, and if he seeks suicide as alleviation for a while, he goes forth to meet death with a smile knowing he will come again.
Do you believe in a soul that reincarnates? Or do you believe that the body of causality which created you, is the same which will create future persons, and thus future persons, are, in a sense, you?
[/quote]
can I say yes to both?

User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by skipair » Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:16 am

As far as testosterone levels between positive and negative players in society, my guess is the hormone itself is innocent. I have personally experimented with raising and lowering the testosterone in my body. Apparently, it is really the difference in testosterone and estrogen levels that create the hormonal "effect" of high T, or lack of it. High T with accomanying high E makes no difference.

When T is high and E is low, I personally feel my warrior qualities come out, but it is personal ethics that determine HOW I use these qualities. Bottom line, I become more active, and more awake. When T is low and E is high, I'm much more likely to sit around, become unfocused, and not get anything done that would contribute to my spiritual evolution.

If you're interested in getting higher T to check it out:
1)Get plenty of sleep, 8-9 hours
2)Eat more
3)Exercise with heavy weights for 20-40 minutes a few times/week.
4)Take a zinc suppliment daily. Modern diets are chronically zinc deficient.
5)Ejaculation 2x/month MAX
Last edited by skipair on Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Serial Killers VS Selfless Geniuses

Post by Cory Duchesne » Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:22 am

bert wrote:
bert wrote:cory, I'm not into the masculine/feminine thing, but I can give insight to the values and virtues whereby I live and give:

snub the fortuitous,
Disdain or neglect the fortunate? Isn't the wise man fortunate?
give effect to your desires by effort.
I don't think highly of most human desires, do you?
fortuitous:occurring by happy chance.
Can you point to an example of a 'happy chance?'
the all-wise mind permits us any absurdity
So you are dividing the all-wise mind from 'us'.

Are you saying that God permits humans of any absurdity?

Or are you saying that you permit 'yourself' of any absurdity?

(as you can see, you write in a way that leaves different interpretations open, none of which seem to relate very directly to the thread's topic)
yet power is given to all self-believers.
And is it good to believe in your self?

(I can't tell if your notion of self-belief and 'power' is pejorative or not)
everyone would like to be a God. Some have not conceived the possibility; others haven't the desire.

I am a lover of humanity.
So does that mean you have the desire to be God, and that others should desire what you desire?
His sole effort is to do no injury to others.
Didn't you say that we should snub the fortunate? Isn't snubbing people injurious to them?
I'm merely saying that to myself, to get the right attitude going, saying directly that there is work to be done.
Well, I wouldn't call your choice in communication 'direct'

But let me get this straight:

Are you saying that we must snub the somewhat random opportunities for pleasure, the happy chances for carefree indulgence, in order to do work? That we must snub the things that distract us from our work?
he is acceptive of Nature and mainly negative to Man.
Why don't you see man as part of nature?
I do see that.

No knowledge would apart us from the virtues of non-existence but that for man
Bert, this little sentence in particular is an example of what I think is very inappropriate language for a discussion forum. The ambiguity with which you write makes conversation very difficult, it atrophies the flow, and dilutes the focus of the thread. This is because your posts, if they are to be understood (at least by me) require many more posts of inquiry from me, and these posts from me are attempts at uncovering the meaning of your initial expressions, which, after the thread-stifling analysis, seem to be merely some very basic points, one's which did not require the cryptic language, and one's which do not really relate much to the thread.

Are you interested in having a clear discussion that is directly related to the main topic? If so, I suggest you make a greater effort to write in a way that minimizes multiple possible meanings.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there is a time and a place for ambiguity and cryptic expressions - but I find with you the ambiguity is perpetual, and in the case of "fortuitous, happy chances, and snubs" the meaning of what you are saying, after the analysis, is pretty mundane and doesn't require the veil of uncommon word usage. Let's keep things simple, at least at first.
- having become involved with disease, all his food poisonous; his complete process of permeating is inevitable that he may become again healthy.
It seems to me that you aren't really accepting of man's nature, nor do you see him as equal to you, but rather, you, being discontented with the ways of man, want to change his nature into that which you regard as superior.
Do you believe in a soul that reincarnates? Or do you believe that the body of causality which created you, is the same which will create future persons, and thus future persons, are, in a sense, you?
can I say yes to both?
Who can stop you?

Look Bert, I realize that what you're saying does in some very indirect way relate to the theme of this thread, but I would prefer if you would pay greater heed to focusing and contributing to the topic directly.

Now don't get too put off, for I would like you to answer my latest questions so we can continue what we've started.

I'm just saying, next time; be more careful how you respond to a thread. Make an effort to express simple things with simple language, ones which attempt to focus the thread, rather than dilute it.

bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by bert » Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:31 am

the whole quote thing is messed up, but I need to go now
fortuitous:occurring by happy chance.

Can you point to an example of a 'happy chance?'
in New York ,there was a guy who shot a woman,but it was a mystery why...
he said," I'm so sorry, I wanted to shoot my wife, but forgot my glasses."

the all-wise mind permits us any absurdity [/quote]

So you are dividing the all-wise mind from 'us'.

Are you saying that God permits humans of any absurdity?

Or are you saying that you permit 'yourself' of any absurdity?

(as you can see, you write in a way that leaves different interpretations open, none of which seem to relate very directly to the thread's topic)[/quote]
I'm saying: should it worry Cosmos if we act the Goat ,or fall, in our poisonous circle?
yet power is given to all self-believers.
And is it good to believe in your self?

(I can't tell if your notion of self-belief and 'power' is pejorative or not)[/quote]
it looks like you are trying to push me in directions.I'm not saying what is good,here,do I?
I say, believe in yourself altruistically and your eventualities will be equal to your ability...no more.
everyone would like to be a God. Some have not conceived the possibility; others haven't the desire.

I am a lover of humanity.
So does that mean you have the desire to be God, and that others should desire what you desire?[/quote]
hahaha...
the Ecstatic Stoic is largely indifferent to praise or blame but makes no virtue of it; he doeth whatever he does and asks none to accept unless he so desires. he will say: "this I believe, but I would that you believe differently, as your actions are different".

and,
if God exists at all ,then all is his will and there seems no outlet, even in death.also, and equally,I am at least a descendant and related to God: may be even as a child who grows up,leaves his parents, becomes independant and may superseed them.

His sole effort is to do no injury to others.
Didn't you say that we should snub the fortunate? Isn't snubbing people injurious to them?[/quote]

I'm merely saying that to myself, to get the right attitude going, saying directly that there is work to be done. [/quote]

Well, I wouldn't call your choice in communication 'direct'

But let me get this straight:

Are you saying that we must snub the somewhat random opportunities for pleasure, the happy chances for carefree indulgence, in order to do work? That we must snub the things that distract us from our work?[/quote]
most things I write contains a whole,when you do not immediately get it, than try considering the whole of what I've expressed, and you more likely will find a balanced idea.
the first sentence(snub the fort...) is the balanced composition of what follows. I open with strong suggestions.always strong suggestions.
I try to eliminate an openly expressed belief.because I believe it will be short-circuited.

he is acceptive of Nature and mainly negative to Man.
Why don't you see man as part of nature?[/quote]

I do see that.

No knowledge would apart us from the virtues of non-existence but that for man [/quote]

Bert, this little sentence in particular is an example of what I think is very inappropriate language for a discussion forum. The ambiguity with which you write makes conversation very difficult, it atrophies the flow, and dilutes the focus of the thread. This is because your posts, if they are to be understood (at least by me) require many more posts of inquiry from me, and these posts from me are attempts at uncovering the meaning of your initial expressions, which, after the thread-stifling analysis, seem to be merely some very basic points, one's which did not require the cryptic language, and one's which do not really relate much to the thread.

Are you interested in having a clear discussion that is directly related to the main topic? If so, I suggest you make a greater effort to write in a way that minimizes multiple possible meanings.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there is a time and a place for ambiguity and cryptic expressions - but I find with you the ambiguity is perpetual, and in the case of "fortuitous, happy chances, and snubs" the meaning of what you are saying, after the analysis, is pretty mundane and doesn't require the veil of uncommon word usage. Let's keep things simple, at least at first. [/quote]
I respect your intrests.and you (as almost with anyone) have (secure) arguments for yourself as to why this or that. but believe me,I know quite well what I'm into. I do all this as an Ecstatic Stoic.

Man leads two lives, imagery and a more or less real. he has marked preferences for his suppositions ; he fears or begrudges everything that makes him feel inferior and therefore grasps everything that gives him a sense of superiority.Man, as standing unpretensiously for what he is, is inferior to none - beast,man,God; which makes the whole thing an absurdity. Man lies to defeat his defects; he deceives a few, but himself mostly; paradoxically , because he is actually far more than his pretences. he who 'pretensiously' says he is God, says far less than the truth. his syntax is at fault... he is only what he formulates as be-livable as God.

as you (as far as I remember)also more or less suggested in the 'language thread' about poetry, language now is pefect for poetry.I can say lots of other things about language but that would again be off-topic and so on..

yes, discussions with me may be considered difficult.
- having become involved with disease, all his food poisonous; his complete process of permeating is inevitable that he may become again healthy.
It seems to me that you aren't really accepting of man's nature, nor do you see him as equal to you, but rather, you, being discontented with the ways of man, want to change his nature into that which you regard as superior.[/quote]
yeahyeahyeah,I know that story.yet some have to indulge for years into the writings of important writers before they can really grasp what they are talking about,and then still...

first of all, your sentence is at fault and there already begins the humbug.it's acceptive not accepting. being acceptive of nature means that he accepts nature for what it is.(man's nature).so he also accepts the nature that is within man.no greater evidence to that than my 500 posts, in which I mainly explain exactly this: of finding out what I am doing.

the net of Space enwraps us, its meshes are close when our contraceptives are evil. here is hilarity: we forecast ourselves! what do you expect to be, in inverse ratio to your pretensions?

some people are uneasy with my absorptions with the spirit world,with its labyrinthian darkness.I am a humanist who understand the darker side of human nature quite well,maybe too well, with its atavistic forces, that once they surface , spread like a prairie fire.the portrayals of elementals,devils,etc. were never a reflection of a diseased mind,but a graphic warning that it is man's mind which is diseased, making him an enemy to himself and others.
Do you believe in a soul that reincarnates? Or do you believe that the body of causality which created you, is the same which will create future persons, and thus future persons, are, in a sense, you?
can I say yes to both?[/quote]

Who can stop you?

Look Bert, I realize that what you're saying does in some very indirect way relate to the theme of this thread, but I would prefer if you would pay greater heed to focusing and contributing to the topic directly.

Now don't get too put off, for I would like you to answer my latest questions so we can continue what we've started.

I'm just saying, next time; be more careful how you respond to a thread. Make an effort to express simple things with simple language, ones which attempt to focus the thread, rather than dilute it.[/quote][/quote]
I wouldn't know what to say about testosteron,etc. I rely on delphic means for my answers,which come directly from the Soul. in that way the dualities do not obstruct with associations that involve infinite complexities and much education.existence is a continuation of self-realization.to create value where there is none.

User avatar
Imadrongo
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:52 am

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by Imadrongo » Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:11 am

Cory Duchesne wrote: The behavior of men is delineated by more extreme poles. On the one extreme we have serial killers, thieves, pirates, bank robbers, exploiters of the people, tyrants, genocidal maniacs, etc.

On the other extreme we have our (for the most part) benevolent innovators, inventors, leaders, profound novelists, great composers, scientists, athletes, philosophers, sages, geniuses, etc.
How are being a genius and being a killer, thieve, pirate, etc are mutually exclusive?
bert wrote:snub the fortuitous, give effect to your desires by effort.the Ecstatic Stoic( what I practice) has no fear of karma ,reincarnation, nor of the earth itself giving way beneath his feet.if he is injured - it is a legality evidencing the discharge of a 'debt'. his sole effort is to do no injury to others.
Why is your sole effort to do no injury to others? This really isn't possible.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by Cory Duchesne » Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:19 am

WhorlyWhelk wrote:
Cory Duchesne wrote: The behavior of men is delineated by more extreme poles. On the one extreme we have serial killers, thieves, pirates, bank robbers, exploiters of the people, tyrants, genocidal maniacs, etc.

On the other extreme we have our (for the most part) benevolent innovators, inventors, leaders, profound novelists, great composers, scientists, athletes, philosophers, sages, geniuses, etc.
How are being a genius and being a killer, thieve, pirate, etc mutually exclusive?
How aren't they?

fr13d 86c0n

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by fr13d 86c0n » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:36 am

Where do homosexual-she-men fit in?

I've noticed there are many such discussions on these forums and never once have I seem a comment about transvestites, malesborninfemalebodies, or homosexuals. Why is that?

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by Dan Rowden » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:37 am

Because such people fall within the general rubric of the discussion of the feminine and masculine dimensions of mind.

User avatar
Imadrongo
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:52 am

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by Imadrongo » Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:30 pm

WW:How are being a genius and being a killer, thieve, pirate, etc mutually exclusive?

Cory: How aren't they?
Well being a genius, according to the definition used at this forum, is understanding the nature of ultimate reality. Can one not understand the nature of reality and at the same time kill, steal, or commit any other "immoral" acts? Geniuses ultimately value truth over all else.

At the very least I would say that any killing or stealing that is required in the pursuit or spread of truth or in protecting one's life would be automatically the correct action for a genius to take.

Why would a genius not question the lingering Christian morality that he was raised into by society?

User avatar
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by Dave Toast » Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:02 pm

Why would you assume that the only reason for not killing one's fellow man would be religious morality?

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1525
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by Matt Gregory » Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:58 pm

I think what he's asking is: What ties a genius to any particular morality at all?

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by Cory Duchesne » Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:30 am

Matt Gregory wrote:I think what he's asking is: What ties a genius to any particular morality at all?
Is that essentially the same as asking: what causes a genius to value notions of good and bad?

Or is there a significant difference between the questions?

User avatar
Imadrongo
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:52 am

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by Imadrongo » Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:22 am

Dave Toast wrote:Why would you assume that the only reason for not killing one's fellow man would be religious morality?
I never made that assumption. Killing might be the incorrect choice of action for a genius mainly because he is highly likely to end up in jail which is probably a negative for him. On the other hand, if the chance of getting caught is low, it may very well be the rational way to go.
Matt Gregory wrote:I think what he's asking is: What ties a genius to any particular morality at all?
Yes.
Cory Duchesne wrote:Is that essentially the same as asking: what causes a genius to value notions of good and bad?

Or is there a significant difference between the questions?
A genius would probably have a different conception of "good" and "bad". In David's case, anything that inhibits the pursuit or pursuit to spread truth being "bad", and anything that aids him in it being "good".

Killing, for example, is not inherently "bad". In fact, all life revolves around it. We can not survive without killing other life. However, since people don't understand reality, killing has become deemed "bad":
- People have separated themselves from the animals through artificial means; this was required since we cannot avoid killing lower life forms.
- People believe that we all inherently exist and therefore it is some horrible sin to kill others and tragedy to die by the hand of another.
- The aristocracy deems killing bad because it doesn't want to be losing subjects.
- The democracy deems killing bad because it's aim, the aim of herds, is to eliminate or minimize all suffering.
In large we can thank Christianity for all of this.

Anyways, I want to know if there is something with understanding the nature of reality that makes killing, stealing, or any other acts considered bad by the herd, fundamentally wrong on the basis of truth.

windhawk
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:47 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Serial Killers & Selfless Geniuses

Post by windhawk » Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:54 am

Just an observation: I am a complete hypocrit in this regard, but how I got here puzzles me.

I will kill a spider on sight, but I've risked rabies by coaxing a bat to crawl onto a broom for transport to the nearest window On TWO speperate occasions. The idea that a splattered bat, or a shotgun blast to the ceiling of the house may influence this decision is likely pertinent. I am niether appalled by hunting nor impressed with the arguments against it, but I wouldn't go hunting if asked. I would go along for the walk. I am a carnavoire, more like an omnivoire... hell, I'll eat chemicals alone. Here's the kicker, I no longer fish, but when I was very young, say age 4 until about 12, I lived to fish. I caught cleaned, and cooked what I caught before I started school. I'm not so certain that I could accomplish that feat any longer.

I know this is all rather mundane, but something is occuring behind the scenes that I've not paid sufficient attention to. Your point about most people having removed themselves from the process, and thus both sanitizing it, and removing the sanctity of it is spot on. Hmmm, won't kill a bat, but loathe to say it, if you intentionally harmed my dog, I'd have to remove myself from your presence as you would be in danger.

Why morality? One more thought, senseless slaughter of animals is not only a waste of resources, it dimminishes your humanity. I feel an instinctive need to preserve that portion of my... soul? It certainly has nothing to do with me having evolved... (?)!

Post Reply