GENIUS FORUMS

Scott, here I am addressing just one of your ideas taken from your Monday post – more later.

Sschaula wrote:

Women MAY benefit from hearing the truth.

Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."

Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that he too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Thomas: 114

Mary must have been a very rare female indeed. She must have been very single-minded, courageous, open-minded, independent, idealistic, rational and discerning. Jesus must have observed in her these attributes before consenting to teach her. Since these are the necessary attributes for anyone wanting to explore philosophy, it makes sense that he did not discriminate from which sex they emanated.

Possessing such a strong mind and a strong heart is rare in either sex, but even rarer amongst females. From birth to death, most females can remain safely in the womb that is Woman, without ever wanting or needing to know of any other life except the one she has. And why would she? Being a woman means to never having to be responsible for anything, never having to be consistent, never having to depend on rationality, and never having to be alone. But obviously Mary wasn’t the type of female who found womanhood consoling or comfortable. Her masculine mind must have driven her in her youth to have a deep desire to understand everything about life, long before she became interested in Jesus' philosophy. Obviously his ideas resonated with her own, and in that way she was able to consider them rationally, instead of finding them offensive. So when he said that she must first become “male”, unlike most women, she didn’t laugh out loud, or slap his face – she knew what he meant.

Understanding and accepting this one point: that to become a philosopher you must first be a highly masculine man, is a huge step for most males. For most females, it is a step that will never be taken.

* * *
We don’t know what became of Mary, maybe she found the way too hard going, or maybe she continued doing philosophy. It doesn’t really matter, because we at least have the above story about her as an example of what is possible.

Sue

unwise wrote:

frank: One's Form is one's preference...one's Meaning, which one is Free to do...

It does not follow that one is necessarily 'unhealthily attached' simply because one lives inside a Form...any Form.

A Sangha is a Form.

However you live, it will have Form to it...Structure...

You will either feel oppressed by the Form you live inside of or Live happily enough inside of it...
That depends on the Meaning you bring to it.

Circumstances will change...

These things are activities...the pleasure is having the Form be beautiful...even for a moment...

Life is for Doing's short as it is.

unwise: Once again Frank the Tank is very wise. It certainly seems to me that one's form or way of life makes no difference in thinking about real philosophy.

This is plainly incorrect. At the very least, one has to give up the forms of ignorance if one wants to become conscious of Truth - which means giving up all false thoughts and their accompanying false behaviours. Consciousness of Truth literally means consciousness without delusion in all of its various forms.

Frank makes it plain that he has no interest in Truth, so he isn't qualified to speak about these matters. His only interest, it would seem, is ensuring that his ego has the freedom to do whatever it pleases without the constraints of conscience. That is what his ceasying to worry about "forms" is all about. Living egotistically without conscience.

What is plain to see no matter how you choose to live your life is that you completely disappear at night.

If you really believed this, then why are you critical of people who choose to live on the dole?

Look at you here:

I have only contempt for those who are able-bodied but REFUSE to participate in the game. They deserve no dole. THEY are bums. On top of this, they bite the hand that feeds them by saying that we are inferior creatures.

Why this sudden concern for "Forms"? Have you suddenly given up thinking that frank the tank is wise?

It is hard for me to take advice from a bum. It's just the way I was raised. It is like listening to a doper talk about his great insights when he's high on reefer. It just sort of goes in one ear and out the other with me because such a person has little credibility to me.

So even if a bum or a doper were to speak pure truth with great insight, you wouldn't listen to him simply because he is engaging in particular forms that you have been brought up to disapprove of?

The more I think about your position, the stranger it gets. For example, you would rather take philosophical advice from working people who spend very little time in philosophical pursuit, than take it from those who devote their whole lives to it and might well be experts in it. Do you also prefer to take medical advice from hairdressers and garbage collectors on account that they spend little or no time on medical practice?

Celia Green once said with great insight: "The unemployed may or may not be wasting their time, but those who are employed are sure to be."

It's just the way I was raised.

I never thought I would see the day where someone would come onto Genius Forum and proudly boast that they have not challenged and escaped their socal conditioning.

-

frank wrote:

Someone whom frank disrespectfully didn't acknowledge: It certainly seems to me that one's form or way of life makes no difference in thinking about real philosophy.

frank: That's the point Socrates was making.

The Form of One's Life wasn't so relevant as the Inquiry into the aspects that made up that Life...an unexamined Life is a Life not worth Living...

In Athens, Socrates 'hung out' with philosophical types and saw that it boiled down to a 'Heavyweight Title Fight' between the respective Forms...biffo, bumpo...

Socrates thought that Philosophy is Inquiry...nothing else.

Socrates saw the 'lust for Power' the protagonists had as they promoted their particular brands of meaning...

Socrates developed a thing that was later dubbed the Socratic Method...a form of Inquiry or questioning...
that very quickly exposed the Hubris of the Form protagonists...any Form PR pimping perpetrator...

A form of inquiry .....

He used a form to expose other forms. Does that make him a Form PR pimping perpetrator as well?

When the 'Form Fans' were demolished they turned on Socrates and said 'OK smartarse..which Form should a Life take?'

Socrates would reply 'I don't know'...

This pissed them off no end and eventually led to them taking Socrates to Trial, conviction and the Hemlock thang...

You can't get away with saying 'I don't know'....apparently.

You get the Joke don't ya'...ya' just gotta get it...it's hilarious.

As I've already intimated, Socrates did indeed push forward a particular set of forms. He too was a "form fan", as we all are. For example, he encouraged people to adopt the form of thinking and develop into the form of rational men. He wanted people to detach from their current forms of delusion imposed on them by society and replace them with the form of truthful living.

Even his statment, "I don't know" , is a particular form that he openly pushed. It was a form he deliberately adopted as a means for expressing the great truth of life - namely, the emptiness (or lack of inherent existence) of all things.

Socrates developed a thing that was later dubbed the Socratic Method...a form of Inquiry or questioning...that very quickly exposed the Hubris of the Form protagonists...any Form PR pimping perpetrator...

You're a "Form PR pimping perpetrator" too, don't forget.

-

This comment was aimed more at Frank, but I realize it applies to me as well. Yes, David, I'm a bit hostile towards you and some of the genius forums values and ways of speaking,

Follow your own Star Cory....think it thru' yourself....resist the seduction techniques of QRS....read stuff on 'brainwashing techniques' and apply it to this Cult here...realise you are being seduced...
Why be just another 'clone' emanating from the 'cookie cutter' QRS production line.

What have they got?
No job.
No Money.
No Relationship.
Misogyny.
Penis envy.

And what they call 'enlightenment' is actually knowledge gleaned from a short course in Sophistry 101...
A technique to develop a sophisticated argument that can't be beaten against all comers....a style that focuses on the definitional failures and logical fallacies of the interlocuter...this is lazy philosophy...
Real Philosophy is a 'firebrand of passion, a creative spark that leaps into the unknown and retrieves new knowledge'...

QRS and it's reliance on Sophistry is a Wooden Duck.

QRS takes the position 'I am enlightened'....when an opponent arises QRS attacks the opponent with Sophistry...focusing on the definitional failures and logical fallacies....take note of this for future reference..
You've seen this time and time again....and when you see the opponent waylaid by this trickery you are impressed and think QRS has something....but this is not enlightenment...this is a sheer Power Play of Ego...

If QRS was genuine Cory, tell me this...why doesn't QRS 'correct' the definitional failures and logical fallacies of it's own and of it's Supporters?

The Nature of QRS is a Will to make itself impregnable...QRS is a fear of vulnerability...a technique to avoid vulnerability....a technique to feel powerful against vulnerability...

It sees the Solution as 'If you ain't got nothin'...you got nothin' to lose'....QRS believes 'having something' makes you vulnerable so it's 'enlightened' to 'have nothing'...

QRS is a Cult...an heirarchical set up with loyal adherents...a herdlike cluster...

You can see how projection works when QRS shrieks that a man is waylaid by a woman because he is afraid of the cold...QRS, projecting that Image out there is ultimately revealing of itself...it's own clustering together to defeat some imagined cold...

Go with your gut instinct which appears to have you resisting...

frank

frank wrote:

Wow. How you can offer a post that contains multiple logical fallacies (subtle ad homs, appeals to sentiment, argument from ignorance, petitio principii [begging the question], and then accuse someone of "coloured posturing" is something towards which I can only express amazement.

I'm not immune to coloured posturing...who is?...what's amazing about it?...it's commonplace.

frank

What I'm primarily concerned with is whether you care about hypocrisy or not. Judging by your response, you don't. And do you always take your ethical guide from the herd, frank? I can't think of anything less ethical than the "everyone else does it so why is it wrong for me to do it?" justification.

And, while I'm here, your argument that women who wear make-up and follow fashion trends are expressing "their own meaning" leaves out a very important component of any such equation, and certainly one that would have been important to Nietzsche - consciousness. Women do not bring consciousness to such dynamics and without consciousness what meaning is there? Meaning comes into the world through conscious activity and only through conscious activity. What possible "meaning" could there be in that which is not consciously actualised? The women you speak of are not expressing their own meaning at all; they are merely players in the artistry of someone else's meaning.


Dan Rowden

Frank wrote:

And what they call 'enlightenment' is actually knowledge gleaned from a short course in Sophistry 101...
A technique to develop a sophisticated argument that can't be beaten against all comers....a style that focuses on the definitional failures and logical fallacies of the interlocuter...this is lazy philosophy...

Sophistry? You've read a great deal of greek philosophy, no doubt. Werent the sophists concerned with making money off of people by selling advice?

In my experience, the QRS have never offered advice and give a great deal of their time and energy to people for free, offering books, and deep conversation. It suprises me how well they tolerate and manage attackers like you and me.

That is not to say that I think they are perfect men. My issues with the QRS are different then yours Frank, yet in ways our issues are of course similar. We are both struggling to defend the validity of something that comforts us. That which comforts us, the QRS does not value. What makes the situation troublesome, as well as interesting, is that the reason why the QRS pose such a threat, is because the QRS stand behind (or in front of) symbols like Neitzche, Jesus, Socrates, Genius, logic, ethics.......all of the things that we happen to have valued before stumbling upon this forum! The problem is that Quinn and Solways websites are actually very good in quality, they adhere to somethings we agree with, but......oh no.........they say what?

You know what I mean Frank?

Before I even stumbled upon Genius forum I had been determined to do without family and woman. I had and still do agree with what the QRS says about woman and family. The QRS and genius forum community, for me, serve simply as a support for an understanding that is fragile and hard to achieve and keep without social support (at first).

Often I have been tempted by the mirage of woman and family.

Like Quinn, I have been raised in a family without too much dysfunction, and thus, I can see family for the stifling limitation that it is. I've had enough girl-friends to know that there is nothing there worth 'jumping through the hoops' to keep.

Frank:

They have a style that focuses on the definitional failures and logical fallacies of the interlocuter...this is lazy philosophy...

Judging by the quality of your posts comprising the exchange that has unfolded over the past few weeks Frank, I can say confidently that you yourself are no stranger to such a method. You are no different from them in that regard. The quality of your posts reveal you as a defender and attacker of that which threatens you. Your attempts at attack/defense seem to be in spite of logic, not because of it. Most of your posts of late are by themselves strong indicators of an irrational-emotional-feminine thinker.

I think woman and family are for people who tremble in fear and rumble with rage at the thought of not having woman and family.

There are some of us who find the idea of woman and family apalling. I would fall under that category.

Most of my posts come from a desire to improve my logic by debating with people, and behind this desire to improve is usually a more unconscious desire to see the people on this forum conform to or at least recognize and value my preferences. I am not saying such an attitude is good or bad, thats just the way it has been.

Cory said to Frank,

Most of your posts of late are by themselves strong indicators of an irrational-emotional-feminine thinker.

I agree. It's hard to even read through it, with all the misplaced capitalizations and code words. I just look at her posts and laugh.

Why do people here say that you must be on the dole to think? Do I need to list the number of great thinkers who had jobs? What does this QRS make of Nisargadatta Maharaj who ran a gift store and cigarette shop? Would you not say that 'I am That' is evidence of thinking and consciousness?

Mr. Quinn asked me why I would have a problem with a person on the dole if I believed that I disappeared at night when I sleep. I think he may have a point. If I do not exist, why does it matter what I do? If he finds himself on the dole, I suppose this is fine, but I wouldn't advise it for others. I have no advice because I simply see myself doing things and having a particular job. Why do I care what it is if I don't exist? It is some sort of script that is just happening. What is that to me? If you wake up inside a dream, it is called 'lucid dreaming' (conscious dreaming), but the dream continues.

I know I am dreaming and the dream and the dreamer are unreal. Why then do I need to quit my job? That would demand all sorts of actions and decisions as though I exist and need for circumstances to bend to my will.

About Nisargadatta Maharaj, you can use this website as a reference: http://www.nonduality.com/asmi.htm

unwise,

If I do not exist, why does it matter what I do? If he finds himself on the dole, I suppose this is fine, but I wouldn't advise it for others.

If you don't exist, you don't have opinions. You don't have advice for others. You don't have a job.

If you catch yourself thinking, "I am good for working instead of being on the dole" then realize that you're thinking falsely. You can't be good if you don't exist, nor can you work or be on the dole. There is no one to work or not work, if you don't exist.

You should probably throw that "I don't exist" thought out of your mind right now. If you catch yourself thinking it, you better start thinking that you can't think because you don't exist, nor can you catch yourself thinking, because that would require you to exist as well.

I know I am dreaming and the dream and the dreamer are unreal. Why then do I need to quit my job?

If you're dreaming, then it isn't you who is quitting the job but the character in your dream.

S.S.,

You almost have it right. I do not have a job, but the dream character does. The dream character does all the thinking and choosing as well. The dream character is carried about by circumstances from the eternal script. Whatever choices he makes are ones he is supposed to make based on the script. Circumstances determine the script.

If you find yourself on the dole, enjoy it. But make no effort to either get on it or get off it. The dream character may offer advice, but I have none - and neither do I speak or write.

frank wrote:

Follow your own Star Cory....think it thru' yourself....resist the seduction techniques of QRS....read stuff on 'brainwashing techniques' and apply it to this Cult here...realise you are being seduced...

With reason and truth. Oh, the shame of it.

I agree that Cory, and anyone else who comes here, should follow their own thinking and gut feelings, and not accept anything they hear on blind faith. I would have thought that, on a forum dedicated to genius, this was a given.

And what they call 'enlightenment' is actually knowledge gleaned from a short course in Sophistry 101...
A technique to develop a sophisticated argument that can't be beaten against all comers....a style that focuses on the definitional failures and logical fallacies of the interlocuter...this is lazy philosophy...
Real Philosophy is a 'firebrand of passion, a creative spark that leaps into the unknown and retrieves new knowledge'...

Wisdom of the Infinite

Poison for the Heart

Cow Te Ching

Exposition for the Advanced Mind

Life and Death Magazine

Devil's Gallery

Letters Between Enemies

Book of Wife

Genius News

Atheist Archives

etc

-

unwise wrote:

Why do people here say that you must be on the dole to think? Do I need to list the number of great thinkers who had jobs? What does this QRS make of Nisargadatta Maharaj who ran a gift store and cigarette shop? Would you not say that 'I am That' is evidence of thinking and consciousness?

I don't think much of Nisargadatta Maharaj. He was essentially a purveyor of traditional hindu scripts, which are a dime a dozen. Perhaps, if he stopped selling trinkets and tubes of cancer to people, he could have spent more time developing his thought and reached a deeper, less scripted understanding of Reality.

Mr. Quinn asked me why I would have a problem with a person on the dole if I believed that I disappeared at night when I sleep. I think he may have a point. If I do not exist, why does it matter what I do? If he finds himself on the dole, I suppose this is fine, but I wouldn't advise it for others. I have no advice because I simply see myself doing things and having a particular job. Why do I care what it is if I don't exist? It is some sort of script that is just happening. What is that to me? If you wake up inside a dream, it is called 'lucid dreaming' (conscious dreaming), but the dream continues.

I know I am dreaming and the dream and the dreamer are unreal. Why then do I need to quit my job? That would demand all sorts of actions and decisions as though I exist and need for circumstances to bend to my will.

Why have you concluded that everything is a dream? For that to be meaningful, there would have to something apart from the dream which can be deemed "real". What is this thing that you have determined to be "real"?

-

David wrote:

Even his statment, "I don't know" , is a particular form that he openly pushed. It was a form he deliberately adopted as a means for expressing the great truth of life - namely, the emptiness (or lack of inherent existence) of all things.

Of course Socrates was a Form Fan as we all are...after all we 'do' life don't we...we build a Structure of Meaning about ourselves and live it...someone was asking the other day what the Self is...it's the thing that attaches to the Form or Invents the Meaning Structure isn't it?

When Socrates was tried he was convicted and given a Choice of Punishment...
Death by Hemlock or Banishment to Carthage.

If Socrates opted for the Carthage Road Trip he would have ditched himself wouldn't he?

By taking the Hemlock he was true to Form...his Form...his Self..his Meaning.

Socrates is held in high esteem for 'Holding True to Form'...if he hadn't taken the Hemlock his Form or Self would be 'in tatters' as a reputation today...

Despite knowing that Form is 'empty and meaningless' Socrates held true to Form....go figure...

Socrates made a Power Play...that his Form 'wins out' over his 'persecutors'...and that's how we remember him...

Even tho' Socrates understood that Form is 'empty and meaningless'...he also understood that it is 'empty and meaningless THAT it is empty and meaningless'.....

He realised the Absurdity of the Human Condition.

Jesus held true to Form and was Crucified...and we remember him as Heroic because of it...

Holding true to Form somehow translates as 'Substance' and yet we realise Forms as 'empty and meaningless'...

QRS splits the sexes into Categories and Assigns them Properties...

Basically QRS holds that Masculine holds 'true to Form'...can 'hold the Form' thru' any amount of Suffering and this equals 'Genius'...

QRS also says Form is Empty.

Basically QRS holds that Woman cannot 'hold Form' but flip/flops about like a spineless sardine according to the way the wind blows...that she is feckless and manipulative in her fear of Suffering...

QRS also says Form is Empty and yet QRS is making Form Solid.

Why?

Power Play of course...Socrates/Nietschke understood meaning structures were Power Plays.

QRS also says Forms are the effect of prior causes...

Then if Woman is Caused...and if it's True that she is feckless...well wouldn't she be in herself 'True To Form...and in that way identical to Masculine in that she 'Holds her Form'?

And yet QRS ridicules her Form which she is being True to...how she was caused to be..

Another piece of chicanery QRS indulges is that if a Woman somehow is peceived by them to be 'Holding Form' then she qualifies as Masculine...

So there's Joan of Arc being placed atop her Bonfire...nary a whimper, nary a complaint....
And as the flames lick up her legs and melt her fanny...
There's QRS standing by proclaiming 'Joanie's a Man...woohoo!'

You are correct Dave.

Form is Suffering....Holding Form is double suffering...Holding Form is not the easy life...while you are holding your Form with a Strong Grip...the World around you changes and you are driven further from the Herd...like a limpet on a rock as the tide draws out...

And eventually the Herd will call you to your crucifix or hemlock.
We are eventually Martyrs to our Form...even while declaring it as our Freedom.

But Dave...does it matter which Form you hold?....Isn't QRS really about respecting 'Being True to Form'...and it's this property that QRS assigns to 'Masculinity'...

Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu understood this and proffered the advice to disengage from abstract speculation and then they 'built' a Meaning Structure/Form for us...huh?

Meaning/Form is as important to us as Food and Water...

In this way the Universe is mechanical....that we are caused to Invent Meaning and argue with each other about the 'highest meaning'...Power Play...

Your 'Form Fan Club' is into shaming me Dave...call 'em off and acknowledge me please...even if you disagree with me...you can respect my Spirit and enjoy me...as I enjoy you...I recognise a firebrand of Passion in you...I am not the dullard the 'troops' make me out to be...

frank

Whoever it is you are talking about, you'll have to ask them yourself. I don't have any "troops". Everyone here is an individual in their own right, making their own decisons based on their own understanding and thought processes. You're only insulting them by thinking otherwise

The reason why I stress the "form" of masculinity is because I know how difficult and lofty enlightenment is. It is an attainment that only the most gifted and mentally-active can achieve. It requires great persistence, singlemindedness, aggression, ruthlessness, rationality, objectivity, courage, intuition, calmness, etc - that is, all the traits usually associated with masculinity and found most predominantly in men. There is nothing in the feminine mentality which is even remotely suited to the task.

I also know that women are far too attractive and worldly to be anything other than stumbling blocks for men. If you put a pot of honey next to a bear, why would he go off and catch fish? Women are simply too pleasurable for men to want to break away and seek what lies beyond them. It takes great strength of character for a man to break away - and even then only after plenty of encouragement.

-

It requires great persistence, singlemindedness, aggression, ruthlessness, rationality, objectivity, courage, intuition, calmness, etc

I swear that's word for word what an athlete said after Olympic Gold was achieved.

Holding Form...for Reward.

frank

Wow, that is deep shit, Frank. Classic.

David Quinn said the following quotes: Do you also prefer to take medical advice from hairdressers and garbage collectors on account that they spend little or no time on medical practice?

As a matter of fact, I have gotten better medical advice from peddlers of herbs than my doctor who almost killed me twice now.

I never thought I would see the day where someone would come onto Genius Forum and proudly boast that they have not challenged and escaped their social conditioning.

I said it was how I was raise; I did not say I did not question how I was raised.

I don't think much of Nisargadatta Maharaj. He was essentially a purveyor of traditional hindu scripts, which are a dime a dozen. Perhaps, if he stopped selling trinkets and tubes of cancer to people, he could have spent more time developing his thought and reached a deeper, less scripted understanding of Reality

That is making light of a great body of work. NM did not rehash 'dime a dozen' Hindu thought. He is a part of just a few thinkers who reinvented advaita in modern times.

Why have you concluded that everything is a dream? For that to be meaningful, there would have to something apart from the dream which can be deemed "real". What is this thing that you have determined to be "real"?

I conclude that waking life is also a dream because it has a connection to my psyche as Jung described. Anyone who has experienced synchronicity knows this. It is mind stuff. I do not think I - the dreamer - is real, but I posit that there is 'something' that creates both a world and a dreamer - THIS is real.

frank,

DQ: It requires great persistence, singlemindedness, aggression, ruthlessness, rationality, objectivity, courage, intuition, calmness, etc

f: I swear that's word for word what an athlete said after Olympic Gold was achieved.

Holding Form...for Reward.

And your point is? There are a lot of similarities between winning a gold medal and attaining enlightenment, in that both require tremendous dedication and sacrifice. Enlightenment is indeed a reward for those who put in the right effort. It is not something that just falls to your lap.

I'm still trying to figure out why "unwise" thinks what you said was deep. It was probably because you didn't actually say anything.

-

Cory,

Yes, David, I'm a bit hostile towards you and some of the genius forums values and ways of speaking, but I think this is because you so confidently and seemingly arrogantly dismissed among other things, 2 things that I've enjoyed speculating and being uncetain about. 1) Mentalistic universe and 2) Radical reorientation of consciousness at death of physical body (merging into the consciousness of god)

I am not so opposed to these things as you might think. For example, I do hold the view that everything we experience is mentally created, that all existence occurs within consciousness, that nothing exists beyond the mind, and so on. I have no doubt all these things are true.

However, I have no reason to believe in a cosmic consciousness, in the sense of an over-arching consciousness beyond our own. Consciousness can only be generated by the brain, or a machine like it, just as flowers can only be generated by plants or their equivalent. It is a causal phenomena, just like anything else.

Regarding your second point, radical reorientation of consciousness is indeed a feature of becoming enlightened. But it occurs with the death of maya (i.e. the delusion of inherent existence), rather than the death of the body. In other words, the death involved is a psychological one, rather than a physical one. Waiting until physical death for this to happen is far too late.

I suppose there is a part of me that wants to learn, aknowledge and be certain of potential truths that I would rather not value, and accompanying that desire to be influenced by you, there is this really aggressive urge to throw at you every attack I can muster. I want to know and be confident that the person who is making an impact on me isnt a neurotic narcisist who has become very good with words and argument to compensate for his fear of valuing what 'I' value.

You're working through the issues - that's good. Ideally, it shouldn't really matter to you if I am a neurotic narcissist or not. What matters is the truthfulness of my words. If they seem reasonable and ring true for you, then you can use them to further your own development. If they don't, then you are free to reject them and explore someone else's thought.

The last thing I am looking for is believers or worshippers. It's important that you always exercise your critical faculties in your philosophical endeavours and to ensure that any knowledge you uncover comes directly from your own understanding and nowhere else. That is the only way to become a genuine thinker.

I realize that you are doing this already, but I just wanted to emphasize the point nonetheless.

But, I find that believing in life-everlasting and a mentalistic universe is much more enjoyable then beliving in the contrary, so, that being said, and judging by my experience of how things work, I am probably wrong.

There is life-everlasting or immortality, but perhaps not in the sense you currently understand it. A sage is immortal not because his ego or personality or consciousness will live forever, but because he realizes the truth that life and death is an illusion and that he has never really existed in the first place. It is impossible to kill what does not exist to begin with.

DQ: To me, knowing the Truth is extremely meaningful. I love knowing it and I love sharing this knowledge with others.

c: What is this love you speak of? Can we make a distinction between mere pleasure (which is the seed of pain) and this 'other' quality of energy that keeps you going?

To say you are just an unemotional robot who feels nothing, just seems off.

You have said a number of times that you enjoy your reality, that you love, etc...

Can you explain?

In order to successfully conquer ignorance and become enlightened, one has to form a very strong attachment to the concept of Truth. As Jesus puts it, "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your strength and all your mind and all your soul." One needs to become like a pointed cotton thread, shorn of all the unnecessary extraneous elements, so that one can pass through that tiny hole and go through to the other side.

And so one develops a very strong love of Truth, which helps to overcome all the wavering and hesitation and backtracking, and helps keep one's mind wholly focused on the task of becoming enlightened. Then, later on, after enlightenment is attained and one becomes increasingly wiser, this all-consuming love of truth is allowed to gradually fade away, to be replaced by a natural and spontaneous valuing of wisdom.

-

unwise wrote:

I conclude that waking life is also a dream because it has a connection to my psyche as Jung described. Anyone who has experienced synchronicity knows this. It is mind stuff.

How does one experience synchronicity? What does that feel like?

I do not think I - the dreamer - is real, but I posit that there is 'something' that creates both a world and a dreamer - THIS is real.

Why do you posit this 'something' in the first place? Do you have any proper knowledge of it? Or are you simply speculating in blind hope?

Perhaps you are simply dreaming it?

-

suergaz, it is obvious from your recent post to me on the subject of the sexes that you have never truly thought about this topic. In this, you are not alone, but your mindless babble on the forum in praise of your own femininity is just too disgusting to bear witness to.

Maybe you serve a purpose on the forum by expressing the woman’s point of view, but enough is enough. Readers, look at this obnoxious piece of nonsense -

suergaz wrote:

I don't feel the need to be true to my sex, it is something I can't help.

And this –

Men and women differ rhythmically. Their discernment and discrimination in everything most often seems at odds because of this. Odds which will always be a pleasure to the sexes.

This mindless piece of vomit, suergaz, exposes the reason most people (including you) will never understand the truth about the sexes, for they are having far too much fun rolling around in the mud and covering themselves in muck.

Then you channel Barbara Cartland and spit this at us –

… noble women …women in whom the inner life wants to burst and spring forth into life out of love…noblewomen whose love, and intelligence in love simply rule the passions... This is not romanticization. It is intelligence, desire, love, it is will.

It is unmitigated crap. But, a long and grand career awaits you writing books for Mills and Boon.

Oh, but wait, there’s more –

A noble man has no need of belief in the mind of a beautiful and intelligent woman. He simply loves it.

What honest man hasn't been made to feel ashamed of his strengths or individuality? To pretend this primarily stems from the admonitions of women, and not rather reproof from weaker, more dishonest men, is ridiculous!

Not all women choose men that way. Heroines have always loved the heroic, and consequently, the hero.

The only extraordinary thing tied to woman is her self. With what else could she love the extraordinary man?

I know Reader's, that it was painful to have suergaz’s hatred for humanity spewed into your minds, but I lay it out before you as a warning: if you ever have a ‘thought’ that matches anything like surgaz’s, know that you are in peril and quickly turn your mind back to Truth.

* * *

suergaz, I can’t blame you for your unconsciousness, but because my time is valuable, I cannot continue to waste it by talking to a woman.

Sue

Here's another take on the subject of the thread. Haven't read the whole thread, just a few pages.

Enlightenment has a kinship with religion. To be content you firstly must have a conscience, you must have some overall value system that is regarded as right, and you must be performing tasks that have the goal of meeting these values. For those who seek enlightenment via truths of reality, then the only sustainable value that can remain is to value truth, to value being as real as practically possible in everything you do.

For me the distractions of the modern world, my habits unrelated to truth, are far too dominant for mere truths of reality. They just don’t have the ability to break down my attachment to the future. Losing one's self, one's ego, seems like deadness.

To become a true individual it seems that one has to lose completely their individuality, as well as their herdiness. Seems a bit unfair to me.

At least the religious get to keep their herdiness, the randy blighters :), but of course that herdiness at times causes pain as well. Their truths, their gods become one's of "righteous" emotions, of animal emotions that appear beneficial to their herds future.

Enlightenment seems like a contraction of the soul into nothingness, counter-balanced by a corresponding expanding mindset. A mind that has the ability to expand as it has been freed to some extent from the limitations of what others have taught it to think.

Perhaps the other way to enlightenment, as more commonly desired, is the expansion of the emotional mind and the contraction of the thinking mind. Over time, I imagine this situation is too difficult to maintain without a total retreat to herdiness, preferably as a wolf in sheep's clothing, a leader of others.

Either way has a void of emptiness that cannot be filled without losing oneself completely.

For others near perfect balances between the two poles, emotions and reality, occur from time to time, but they are transient. One has to constantly take note of, and react to the changes in the world. One is always on their toes trying to create or maintain this balance. They, and myself are constantly juggling emotions and reason. Emotions tend to win though because they are in the here and now, they have a stronger pull than the future (that sadly has the Catch 22 of sustaining an ego).

All the same, when one reasons deeply about their emotions and desires, in an emotional-less way, then this causes suffering. We relate suffering with the experience of emotion and begin to dislike experiencing emotion. We are then caused to retreat from herd activities so as to avoid emotions causing occurrences.

When we still have an ego, yet have a strong knowledge of cause and effect, this causes some of us to still experience the sufferings of loneliness and boredom, namely the pining for ego stimulation. Truths of reality have taught us the futility of ego-stimulation, and some of us move towards the mundaneness of nihilism, the blandness of a lack of values. I don't know, but it seems that this void is best constrained by calmness. It is dangerous not to constrain it with something, even pseudo herdiness if need be. Perhaps when one has that calmness, then attachments fall away more readily. One way to achieve calmness is to think rationally without any strong traditional value attachments, or to not think such as through mediation or religious rituals. I am only driven to think of what is real when the habits of entertainment fail to satisfy.

suergaz, it is obvious from your recent post to me on the subject of the sexes that you have never truly thought about this topic. In this, you are not alone, but your mindless babble on the forum in praise of your own femininity is just too disgusting to bear witness to.

Maybe you serve a purpose on the forum by expressing the woman’s point of view, but enough is enough. Readers, look at this obnoxious piece of nonsense -

An appeal to the readers Sue? What would you be without certain overbearing witnesses? Where is your masculine calm? The ice of reason? How petty that you misquote me and take me out of context!

This mindless piece of vomit, suergaz, exposes the reason most people (including you) will never understand the truth about the sexes, for they are having far too much fun rolling around in the mud and covering themselves in muck.

Not enough humanity in your humour Sue. You're losing me girl.

Then you channel Barbara Cartland and spit this at us –

I don't know her, Sue.

It is unmitigated crap. But, a long and grand career awaits you writing books for Mills and Boon.

Wit?

Oh, but wait, there’s more –

Oh, wit.

I know Reader's, that it was painful to have suergaz’s hatred for humanity spewed into your minds, but I lay it out before you as a warning: if you ever have a ‘thought’ that matches anything like surgaz’s, know that you are in peril and quickly turn your mind back to Truth.

There's no need to appeal to the readers emotions Sue. Your histrionics hatch a kind of heartlessness that honour you, horribly.

suergaz, I can’t blame you for your unconsciousness, but because my time is valuable, I cannot continue to waste it by talking to a woman.

Sue

Your precious, precious time. Let it be precious! I will value you Sue! I mean, I do!

:D

.
Jamesh writes:

For others near perfect balances between the two poles, emotions and reality, occur from time to time, but they are transient. One has to constantly take note of, and react to the changes in the world. One is always on their toes trying to create or maintain this balance. They, and myself are constantly juggling emotions and reason.

You make sound dire here what is really quite fluid, what is so well expressed in Tao-speak. The straining language of "constantly" and "toes" and "juggling," "react" is sounding fearful, like a teetering thing, which would be a thing trying to stand once and steady in the same river, apart from it. But a living thing that gives itself over to that which is already in motion (the Tao) becomes this fluidity, and thoughts and feelings don't have to tangle the feet and currents don't have to push. Reasons, decisions, and feelings (values) all make their appearances and with them one moves, is moved, their passing character the repeated testimony of their passing character.

No, not flotsam being rolled along. Yes, reason has built a little highway to this, but reason - like everything else that is helped (least hindered) in its best movement - rises, does its job effortlessly, doesn't have to fight with feelings or announce itself as present. Enlightenment, held off as a big inner fight with perceived parts of ourselves at irreconcilable war, is an idea that has to be passed through.

.

suergaz,

Hello,

Are you a silky fox? When will you smash that final mirror?

[edit: attempts at concealing my love]

It was this part of Frank's post that I thought was deep:

If Socrates opted for the Carthage Road Trip he would have ditched himself wouldn't he?

By taking the Hemlock he was true to Form...his Form...his Self..his Meaning.

Socrates is held in high esteem for 'Holding True to Form'...if he hadn't taken the Hemlock his Form or Self would be 'in tatters' as a reputation today...

Despite knowing that Form is 'empty and meaningless' Socrates held true to Form....go figure...

Socrates made a Power Play...that his Form 'wins out' over his 'persecutors'...and that's how we remember him...

Even tho' Socrates understood that Form is 'empty and meaningless'...he also understood that it is 'empty and meaningless THAT it is empty and meaningless'.....

He realized the Absurdity of the Human Condition.

Jesus held true to Form and was Crucified...and we remember him as Heroic because of it...

Holding true to Form somehow translates as 'Substance' and yet we realize Forms as 'empty and meaningless'...

Mr. Quinn said: For example, I do hold the view that everything we experience is mentally created, that all existence occurs within consciousness, that nothing exists beyond the mind, and so on. I have no doubt all these things are true.

However, I have no reason to believe in a cosmic consciousness, in the sense of an over-arching consciousness beyond our own. Consciousness can only be generated by the brain, or a machine like it, just as flowers can only be generated by plants or their equivalent. It is a causal phenomena, just like anything else.

This part of your philosophy I agree with. I differ in that I do believe in gods and beings in other places or dimensions (not to be confused with a creator GOD), and, I do not believe in free will. What seems to be happening in my world is due to causes - most of which I am not aware of. That leaves me little room for personal freedom.

. It is impossible to kill what does not exist to begin with.

Again, I agree. But such truth came to me quite unexpectedly - in a flash - not something I conjured up in my brain cells. That is why I say that insight is 'grace' or something that comes from who-knows-where-or-why.

One needs to become like a pointed cotton thread, shorn of all the unnecessary extraneous elements, so that one can pass through that tiny hole and go through to the other side.

This is my problem with your teaching. From my own experience, there was no improvement with effort. Many, most, teach effort and look how many VERY DEDICATED, disappointed seekers we have. Maybe not so much in the West where we are all bullshit artists, but in the East - many dedicated seekers. Yet, in my own case - all improvement occurred when I said, "fuck it."

Mr. Quinn asked me about synchronicity. This must be a trick question. Surely you know what synchronicity is - it is a very personal and meaningful merging of the outer and inner worlds that are far beyond chance. It is an experience in which the 'solidness' and 'realness' of the external world is seen through and it becomes hinged to one's consciousness quite outside of normal cause and effect.

Why do you posit this 'something' in the first place? Do you have any proper knowledge of it? Or are you simply speculating in blind hope?

Perhaps you are simply dreaming it?

If I am dreaming, then the dream comes from somewhere - it is a 'real' dream. And, yes, I have direct knowledge of 'something' outside of the dream and dreamer.

Mr. Quinn - your philosophy is dirtied-up by all this talk of heroic effort and female this-and-that. It gets everyone excited about side issues and it functions as an ego boost for many who suppose themselves rid of 'cunt affectations' and other silly things you guys talk about. It goes on and on. Why not talk about reality without all the trappings? This is why Frank calls it 'your form' and why we both call it a cult.

....and here is exactly what I am talking about:

nlightenment has a kinship with religion. To be content you firstly must have a conscience, you must have some overall value system that is regarded as right, and you must be performing tasks that have the goal of meeting these values. For those who seek enlightenment via truths of reality, then the only sustainable value that can remain is to value truth, to value being as real as practically possible in everything you do.

This is exactly incorrect - this saying that enlightenment has kinship with religion. This is what all the ignorant say. - that it is brought about by piety and other fucking horseshit. In all of these 'forms' the ego is playing games. The ego must be put down - or stepped out of. By saying that the ego has to do this and that keeps the ego quite trapped inside the circus tent. As long as you insist that the ego is running the train, you are fooling yourself. Do it only if you get a kick out of it.