GENIUS FORUMS

And then there is good old Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateraliza ... n_function

Jason,

Jason: if "God" is everywhere, why would you ever need to determine that you really are in "Rome"? How could you ever not be?

You directed this at Quinn - but I'd like to hear what you think of my opinion.

I think you need to use logic to determine what God is and isn't because if you don't use logic rigorously, you might end up a suicide bomber, an evangelical christian, a new age freak addicted to flakey beliefs, etc, etc.

To truly experience God demends a tremendous physical sensitivity that a person caught up in worldiness won't have.

So you need logic in order to free yourself from worldlines, otherwise you'll fall for all the gimmicks and live your life enslaved.

AlyOshA wrote:And then there is good old Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateraliza ... n_function

With Wikipedia it's most of the times way more enlightening to read the Talk page of a subject than the original article. Same goes with this one.

An example is given from this study

(...) These results suggest that enhanced interhemispheric interaction is a unique functional characteristic of the mathematically gifted brain

Now if "mathematically gifted" would be defined as gifted to "gain knowledge justified by deductive reasoning, starting from axioms and definitions", as some mathematicians would define it, then Quinn's statement: "In essence, intuition and creativity are generated by the making of new connections in the brain" suddenly starts to make more sense.

Now back to your own statement about utilizing "all the tools of understanding". One has to really think this over carefully. You wrote to Mookestink there

AlyOsha wrote: Logic and rationalization are only one type of understanding. If you use only logic and rational thinking then you are assuming that life is logical and rational. I strongly feel that life is illogical and irrational

In my view it's best to see three possible modes of understanding. Life itself is not logical nor illogical. Only understandings can qualify for such thing. The first mode is "strongly feeling", opinion, imagination and sensing. It's quite raw, chaotic and most often conflicting. Not something to dismiss but the higher mode is logic and reason that has the ability to rationalize all this imagination, to examine and investigate. Not so many people can use this second mode but only borrow conclusions made by people who do. The highest mode, while not being 'reason' is a rare occasion these days and quite hard to define. It's been described as 'higher intuition' or 'fully ingrained reasoning'. It's irrefutable self-discovered knowledge about god and reality, cause & effect and the true nature of being & becoming. It's not irrational; it completes reasoning like reasoning completes our imagining.

Diebert:

Now if "mathematically gifted" would be defined as gifted to "gain knowledge justified by deductive reasoning, starting from axioms and definitions", as some mathematicians would define it, then Quinn's statement: "In essence, intuition and creativity are generated by the making of new connections in the brain" suddenly starts to make more sense.

Diebert this is all nicely put. There is not a lot that I would want to argue with here. But let me relate to you a couple of personal experiences/perceptions. When I think of rationality I think of that voice in your head that tries to analyze, solve, and label an occurrence. When I reach my zenith of creative potential (in art) I am in a zone (that would almost be better described as unconscious) where new ideas and images are emerging spontaneously, effortlessly, and totally in “the moment”. The only way you can reach that zenith is by shutting down your judgment/censor/little voice of reason. In Taoism this zone is called Wu Wei (or non-doing) and this is the preferred state of all actions (that is effortless actions) and functions in total accordance with nature/the absolute. Also, I practice many types of meditation (and have for most of my life). I practice a Buddhist meditation called mindfulness, which is incredibly useful psychologically speaking, and helped me develop a profound self-awareness of the workings of my mind. The mindfulness meditation utilizes the rational aspects of consciousness. But when I attune myself with the eternal and explore spiritual transcendence I practice a personalized modification of the Taoist meditations. And one such meditation forces you to shut off all reasoning, any thought, any attempt to analyze or use logic must be recognized and then quietly shut off all together. This took years of practice but it wasn’t until I perfected this system that I obtained an ultimate understanding. Maybe my definition of logic is different than other people on this forum, but by my definition I say that at some stage logic must be transcended.

AlyOshA wrote: When I reach my zenith of creative potential (in art) I am in a zone (that would almost be better described as unconscious) where new ideas and images are emerging spontaneously, effortlessly, and totally in “the moment”.

Where lies the value of these ideas and images, for you? Or when is the value established?

ALyOshA wrote: The only way you can reach that zenith is by shutting down your judgment/censor/little voice of reason.

And one such meditation forces you to shut off all reasoning, any thought, any attempt to analyze or use logic must be recognized and then quietly shut off all together.

But shutting off has nothing to do with "transcending it", as you put it later. They are contradicting!

AlyOshA wrote:...but by my definition I say that at some stage logic must be transcended.

Are you sure about the meaning of 'transcendence'?

AlyOshA wrote:This took years of practice but it wasn’t until I perfected this system that I obtained an ultimate understanding

Well, that's what you think of course. It doesn't matter what your meditations 'are called' or supposed to do for you. What matters is how you make sure you're not being duped by misidentifying the state you find yourself in.

But shutting off has nothing to do with "transcending it", as you put it later. They are contradicting!

Sorry the “shutting off” is what a beginner does when practicing this meditation, the “transcendence” is what occurs in advanced stages. When I started practicing I had to recognize, acknowledge, and then shut off. Now I can enter this meditation just by touching my thumb and forefinger, and the rational thought processes are transcended (until the meditation is over).

I don’t have much time so let me ask you something. Is it possible to rationalize murder? Is it possible to rationalize eating a cheeseburger? Is it possible to rationalize the study of religion? Is it possible to rationalize the search for truth? Is it possible to rationalize stealing? Is it possible to rationalize the necessity of art? Is it possible to rationalize peaceful non-resistance? Is it possible to rationalize sexual intercourse?

[edit=spelling and grammar]

I enjoy the challenge so I will give myself 50 seconds to reply

Where lies the value of these ideas and images, for you? Or when is the value established?

The values are established by myself and others and (as you imply) only when logic enters the picture. But it wouldn’t have reached its zenith with logic in the picture.

Are you sure about the meaning of 'transcendence'?

Transcendence as in acknowledging and then going beyond or above (spiritually speaking).

What matters is how you make sure you're not being duped by misidentifying the state you find yourself in.

Sure and this is when logic and reason enter the picture, but if you can’t transcend logic and reason then you will prevent yourself from being put in “the state”.

Love,

Adam

Jason,

DQ: Experiencing God is a bit like experiencing Rome. Once you arrive in Rome, you can experience it directly in all its manifold glory, but until then, you still need logic to get you there.

C: David, here it seems like your saying; despite it requires logic in order to get to Rome, the actual direct experiencing of Rome is ultimately un-rational.

DQ: That's right. You have to use logic to determine, or even re-determine when you are there, that this is really Rome. But as for the actual experience of Rome itself, it is neither rational nor irrational. Such categories don't apply to it.

J: The difference being that Rome has a limited location, but "God"(a shitty word, too soiled by idiotic religions) is everywhere. Tell me David, if "God" is everywhere, why would you ever need to determine that you really are in "Rome"? How could you ever not be?

We can say that consciousness of God has a particular "location" too. It is a location which is found when we come to the end of the path of deluded thinking. The scriptures and the wise sayings are the signposts to this location.

If indeed God is everything - and I take it as a given that you have worked this out logically - then we can use this fact to judge the validity of whatever spiritual experiences we seem to have. For example, we can use it to determine that if we ever believe, in any moment, that we are entering into an experience of God, we are automatically deluding ourselves.

-

David,

Cory: I was reading a discussion in the wordly matters thread (blockages to enlightenment) - - you and Solway were contributing to the thread quite a bit - - discussion focused quite a bit on the deactivation of the sex drive. You were suggesting that eventually we will be birthing humans in incubation chambers.

I caught myself wondering: Are Quinn and Solway advocating the deactivation of ALL feeling and sensation?

David: No, only those feelings and sensations which spring from deluded thinking.

Can thinking be deluded if one believes nothing?

Is belief the foundation of irrationality?

Cory,

Can thinking be deluded if one believes nothing?

What does it mean to believe nothing? Does it mean not believing that the next moment will come, or that the chair we are about to sit in will support our weight, or that some day in the future we will die? Is it rational or irrational to believe in these things?

Is belief the foundation of irrationality?

Irrational belief is the foundation of irrationality.

-

Cory: Can thinking be deluded if one believes nothing?

David: What does it mean to believe nothing? Does it mean not believing that the next moment will come?

But that would be a belief, wouldn’t it?

I would like to examine this ‘belief/non-belief’ duality.

For example: not believing the next moment will come implies believing that it won’t come.

Not believing in something (like say a creator) implies that you believe that there is no creator.

What I am suggesting is that there is a state of mind that is programmed, that knows words, that considers and weights empirical evidence and makes decisions based on strength of empirical evidence, that is accustomed to the routine of life, yet doesn’t necessarily believe in anything.

David, lets examine your questions one more time:

David: What does it mean to believe nothing? Does it mean not believing that the next moment will come, or that the chair we are about to sit in will support our weight, or that some day in the future we will die? Is it rational or irrational to believe in these things?

But the fact of the matter is, the next moment comes whether we believe in it or not. No? When I go to sit down in a chair, I can perhaps perceive its instability – and If don’t, then it breaks, I fall down – I get up. You see, it breaks in spite of the fact that I did not acknowledge anything hazardous about the chair.

And if the chair did break while I was sitting on it, I don’t need to believe it just broke.

The fact is, the chair just broke, and I hurt my bottom. I don't have to believe my bottom hurts. The fact is, it does.

Belief has nothing to do with it, and I don’t think it is necessary, at least not in that situation (and I am examining whether belief is necessary in any situation)

Cory: Is belief the foundation of irrationality?

David: Irrational belief is the foundation of irrationality.

Hey David, remember when you said:

David: Acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of empirical phenomena is a basic component of understanding the nature of Reality itself

It seems to me that there is a big difference between acknowledging facts with your own perception and thinking, as opposed to merely believing in something that some proffesional says is right.

Belief seems like either 1) a very superficial by-product of something deeper and more essential - - or 2) the oppressor of this ‘something that is deeper and more essential’.

David, do you agree with me that we are born into reality involuntarily and we experience things whether we believe in them or not?

Empirical evidence is a fact that we can acknowledge without belief. Often belief is used to escape from strong empirical evidence - -

However, despite I am thinking belief might not be necessary, I see that belief can be based on empirical evidence that is strong (and thus belief begotten from these conditions is less virulent) rather than belief being based on empirical evidence that is totally absent, very vague or hardly tangible (which is usually the case)

Was my previous post worth responding to david? Or did/do you plan on responding (hence am I just impatient)?

Sorry, Cory, it had slipped my mind. I'll get onto it soon.

-

Cory,

I would like to examine this ‘belief/non-belief’ duality.

For example: not believing the next moment will come implies believing that it won’t come.

Not believing in something (like say a creator) implies that you believe that there is no creator.

What I am suggesting is that there is a state of mind that is programmed, that knows words, that considers and weights empirical evidence and makes decisions based on strength of empirical evidence, that is accustomed to the routine of life, yet doesn’t necessarily believe in anything.

If we define "belief" to be affirmation without having sufficient evidence to support the affirmation, then we are always engaging in belief whenever we do anything in our lives. It is unavoidable.

As soon as we make any plans concerning the future, we are engaging in belief. For example, when a person plans to do a three-year university course, he is operating by the belief that the world will continue to exist for that period of time, that it won't be ending in, say, two days time, that he won't be killed, etc. He has no real evidence that this will be the case, but nonetheless he chooses to believe it.

The same is true whenever we reach down and pick up a cup. We are believing that it won't crumble into dust the moment we pick it up, even though we havn't any real proof beforehand that it won't. We just hope or assume it won't, based on past experiences of cups.

What we think happened in the past also falls into the category of "belief". We might believe that we are X years old and have journeyed through a particular past, but we have no way of actually proving it. It is just an appearance that occurs to the mind; it could easily be an illusion. Even so, we have no real choice but to accept it as being "real".

Different belief-systems lead to different behaviour. For example, a person might decide to live a very hedonistic, dissolute life on the basis that he could get "knocked down by a bus tomorrow". So instead of making long-term plans in the belief that he will live to a ripe old age, he decides instead to live in the moment in the belief that it all could end tomorrow.

Engaging in belief only becomes a problem if there is no compelling reason to adopt a particular belief, or if we become so attached to a particular belief that it is distorts our minds and causes us to erect mental blocks, or if we make the fatal mistake of confusing the distinction between belief and knowledge.

-

David,

David: If we define "belief" to be affirmation without having sufficient evidence to support the affirmation, then we are always engaging in belief whenever we do anything in our lives. It is unavoidable.

Well, I don’t think that is the kind of belief that I am talking about.

If you define belief in that way, then animals behavior is based on this sort of belief too, no?

Sorry to butt in but DQ wrote

We can say that consciousness of God has a particular "location" too. It is a location which is found when we come to the end of the path of deluded thinking. The scriptures and the wise sayings are the signposts to this location.

If indeed God is everything - and I take it as a given that you have worked this out logically - then we can use this fact to judge the validity of whatever spiritual experiences we seem to have. For example, we can use it to determine that if we ever believe, in any moment, that we are entering into an experience of God, we are automatically deluding ourselves.

ie Taoist "The Tao that can be experienced is not the Tao...I think this is what you mean but I'm not sure ..please clarify thanks

Yes, what I am saying is in accord with Lao Tzu's comment. A person can only enter into an experience of the Tao by falsifying it and turning it into what it is not. The error lies in unconsciously reducing the infinite nature of the Tao into a limited, finite phenomenon that one can either experience or not experience.

-

Cory,

David: If we define "belief" to be affirmation without having sufficient evidence to support the affirmation, then we are always engaging in belief whenever we do anything in our lives. It is unavoidable.

Cory: Well, I don’t think that is the kind of belief that I am talking about.

I don't see how you could be talking about anything else.

If you define belief in that way, then animals behavior is based on this sort of belief too, no?

To the degree that they are conscious, yes. Most of it is genetic programming, thoogh, and whatever beliefs they might have are very much centered around the events of the present moment.

-

-

David,

I guess what I am trying to get at is what meditation is in relationship to the believer.


You see, I'm under the impression that meditation is a state where awareness becomes so subtle that the 'meditator' ceases to be. How can there be belief when there is no believer?

Well, it is difficult to make sense of your question here. The "self" has always been non-existent, and so the believer has never really been there in the first place. And yet beliefs are still able to arise, such as the belief that there is a self and that the future is real.

Sitting down and trying to meditatively wipe away the "believer" is pointless, and would probably only serve to reinforce the illusion of its existence instead.

-

The "self" has always been non-existent

Yet this non-existence stills forms the sense of self-existence, which is a reason why as well as not existing, the self exists. The same applies to the totality, it exists and does not exist.

The self does not exist because it has nothing that has always been and always will be. All its form arose from that which was external. It is subject to the same cause and effect reality as everything else. There is no permanent soul.

But then again the self exists because there IS form. This is not deniable. Form is caused by the totality therefore everything must have form, if everything has form then there can be no emptiness. How the form is described by any form of conscious being is irrelevant.

Form is caused by something otherwise it would always remain the same and no things could evolve. For a cause to come into existence two different forms must exist at the same time and they must cause relativity.

There is no universal time, 'passing time' is caused by the same as that which causes form. It is a factor of relativity, not separate. All causes must exist at the same time, because there is no time as a constant, BUT all things do not, because things are just changing flows of two differing fundamental forms.

If the initial causal forms exist, and they do as they always have, then all things must exist, including the self.

What the self is not is the physical, though it is totally caused and effected by the physical. It is caused by the relativity of the physical. Where that relativity becomes causally balanced, then an effect occurs, and that effect is a form that is not the exactly the same as the form of its causes. With this relativty we now have a secondary dualism, and dualism is just relativity. The same applies to the self that emerges from the physical self, and thats why we humans now conceptually and ermotionally fuck about with things like mind and matter.

The balanced unit has its own form relative to its two foundational causal forms, of which one of the foundational causes will be in the process of altering the forms balanced structure, causing permanent change. Evolution has commenced for this new existence-of-form within the totality, evolution which incidentally has to be balanced out by an opposite 'devolution' of something else.*

We have a three way causal trinity. However, each of these foundational causes will not be just a three way causal trinity but will end up, via causal chain reactions, being a balanced unit that can be relative to any point across the causal spectrum from pure expansion to pure contraction.


*when our particular universe devolves (expands) sufficiently it must also be making something else evolve, damn black holes again.

David,

Well, it is difficult to make sense of your question here. The "self" has always been non-existent, and so the believer has never really been there in the first place. And yet beliefs are still able to arise, such as the belief that there is a self and that the future is real.

Sitting down and trying to meditatively wipe away the "believer" is pointless, and would probably only serve to reinforce the illusion of its existence instead.

No, but thats not really what I'm aiming for here. Let me put it to you this way. Some weeks ago you mentioned in a post that Schopenhauer had a merely 'theoretical' understanding instead of a real understanding.

What is the difference between someone like Schopenhauer in contrast to say; Buddha, Nietzche, Kierkguaard?

What is the major factor differentiating Schopenhauer from the less theoretical and deeper thinkers?

Hey James,

Jamesh: What the self is not is the physical, though it is totally caused and effected by the physical. It is caused by the relativity of the physical.

Could you not say that about anything though? In other words, does the same apply for an apple, a banana, a car? Do you think that all ‘apparently’ separate objects are not physical, but rather, are merely effects caused by the relativity of ‘the physical’?

I’m thinking that the ‘relativity which causes’ that you speak of, rather than being a cause, IS the object that you think is the effect.

lame joke ahead:

Perhaps the physical is not the physical, but rather, it is caused by the relativity of the physical.

Jamesh: Where that relativity becomes causally balanced, then an effect occurs

Well, it could just as easily be considered a cause, no? An effect, is a cause. Both are physical. It doesn’t make sense to say that one isn’t physical.

The effect that you are talking about; the self, or an apple IS the relative configuration. I think it’s an illusion to see it any other way.

Jamesh: and that effect is a form that is not exactly the same as the form of its causes.

Yes, but it is a physical form none-the-less, a physical form which effects other forms and causes other physical forms.

Jamesh: The same applies to the self that emerges from the physical self

I don’t understand this. I thought you originally said that the self is not physical. I might have read your post wrong.

Jamesh: And that’s why we humans now conceptually and emotionally fuck about with things like mind and matter.

Can you give me examples of such humans? Not quite sure what you mean.

Jamesh: The balanced unit has its own form relative to its two foundational causal forms

What? Is the balanced unit supposed to be ‘the self’? ‘an apple’? ‘etc’ ?

And you are saying that a thing has 2 foundational causes?

Jamesh: the foundational causes alter the forms balanced structure, causing permanent change.

I really don’t understand what you are trying to say here. I could be a moron though. Help me out here James.

Evolution has commenced for this new existence-of-form within the totality,

Commenced when? You sound as if you think this start date is fairly recent.

James: we have a three way causal trinity. However, each of these foundational causes will not be just a three way causal trinity but will end up, via causal chain reactions, being a balanced unit that can be relative to any point across the causal spectrum from pure expansion to pure contraction.

Your post overall has been quite a riddle for me.

Jamesh: when our particular universe devolves (expands) sufficiently it must also be making something else evolve, damn black holes again.

Does devolution happen when something (a universe, a creature) ‘evolves’ sufficiently? Do you see expansion and evolution as synonymous?

And when something is devolving are you saying that it causes the evolution of something else?

James, in my opinino your posts would communicate a lot more if they included examples. I find I read your post and often don’t get much out of them because they are highly, highly abstract and often exclude that which might bring more life to your words: for instance: examples, illustrations, metaphors.

However, your vague writing style does make me think though, so thats not so bad.

Cory,

Some weeks ago you mentioned in a post that Schopenhauer had a merely 'theoretical' understanding instead of a real understanding.

What is the difference between someone like Schopenhauer in contrast to say; Buddha, Nietzche, Kierkguaard?

What is the major factor differentiating Schopenhauer from the less theoretical and deeper thinkers?

The key difference is that Schopenhauer used Eastern philosophical concepts to rationalize his emotional indulgences - his pessimism, melancholy and self-pity. In contrast, the other three went beyond all emotions, beliefs and worldviews, and opened themselves up to the majesty of the Infinite.

So yes, here we could say that Schopenhauer tried to hide his ego in a fortress of belief, while the others abandoned belief altogether and became one with the nature of reality. They still would have exercised belief in their practical affairs, as described earlier in this thread, but not in their relationship to God itself.

-

David wrote:

The key difference is that Schopenhauer used Eastern philosophical concepts to rationalize his emotional indulgences - his pessimism, melancholy and self-pity. In contrast, the other three went beyond all emotions, beliefs and worldviews, and opened themselves up to the majesty of the Infinite.

I enjoy reading Kierkguaard just as much if not more than I enjoy reading Schopenhauer, however, Kierkguaard on more than a few occasions expressed his profound depression and melancholy. He almost seems manic-depressive. There is such excessive productivity and brilliance in contrast to excessive malencholy and depression which he himself admits in his journals.

And if Schopenhaur really was a pessimist, then why was he putting so much care into writing books? Did schopenhauer really assert that he was a pessimist? Or is that just the way people interpret him?

The picture you paint of Schopenhauer seems exagerated to me Quinn.

Schopenhauer was known to speak with people who were willing to listen to him long into the night, never seeming to tire. People remarked how unusual it was for a man to speak at such lenghts and never seem to show signs of fatigue.

What views of Schopenhauers do you find the most disagreeable?