GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn,

DQ: If a person's mind is still filled with delusions, then his ethical decision-making is going to be affected by these delusions.

WW: What I am thinking right now is that some intrinsic value to truth is your delusion.

DQ: I agree that believing truth has intrinsic value is a delusion. In reality, nothing has intrinsic value, not even truth. But nonetheless, I choose to value truth because it pleases me to do so. I can't think of anything better to value.

It is unclear from this then whether your really value truth, or you only value that because you value happiness. If you reasoned that something else would, in fact, make you more happy than truth, would you abandon it?

Also a hypothetical: Say there is a person who would not find any happiness in truth. If you could, would you show them the truth (for your own happiness) or not (for their happiness).

WW: While others might value utility or the ego, all your decisions are based on what will bring about the least delusion.

DQ: Yes. Or more accurately, the complete extinguishing of delusion.

Isn't this another dualistic concept? Isn't trying to maximize non-delusion comparable to trying to maximize pleasure?

David Quinn wrote:

What the world generally calls "good people" are those whose greed and violence is molded to include the well-being of a few other people. Their self-centeredness is widened enough to include a few other people.

If the five ill people in question were wise people, and the healthy person an ordinary egotist, then from a wise perspective it would be moral to kill him and use his organs.

It all depends on your values, doesn't it.

I'm so glad you are a "good person" who has widen your self-centeredness enough to include a few other people (wise people).

Sorry if that seemed a bit rude David, I was just trying to point out the inconsistancy in your statements. Loyalty to wise people doesn't seem like a wise perspective to me. It seems just as bad as saying, but if the ill people were my family, then that one man should die. It's just as selfish, if not more so, considering what wisdom is.

Wouldn't a wise man desire the well being of all equally and wouldn't a wise man understand that death is a natural part of life, and not be greedy, and desire to steal life from another so that he could survive longer?

The researcher isn't dealing with the reality that most people are unthinking creatures with conventional values that have been mindlessly absorbed.

I do think that the study is flawed by the very fact that it asks people to think about the situations. In life people don't have someone there telling them, "Think about this, and tell me what's right."

And also, most of the scenarios are out of the ordinary, obscure dilemmas, not personal. In real life figuring out what's right would cause more conflicts. Of course conventional values effect conventional things in most people. I think the part about abortion in the article was interesting.

I do think you're right that most people are unthinking, or only partially thinking. But if a person is unthinking then he can't consciously seek personal happiness over truth, right? He can't do anything consciously because he is on unconscious mode if he is an unthinking person. But he still has the potential to think, the potential to become wise. If his insatiable lust for happiness is intinctual and unconscious, can you blame him for it? Unconscious minded man differs from animals in that he has this potential to think, so I think his life is still very valuable. (Invincible ignorance)

Were you not ignorant once?

This kind of ignorance is quite disconcerting, because it means that there is whole group of people who would do what is wrong, without the slightest thought, if the order put in place by civilization, society, the church, or some other thing, was not in there to mold their actions to the accepted norms. He is unaware of good and evil because he does not think. He is savage, but at the same time innocent. Ignorance is an evil thing for society, the ignorant man is not necessarily so. His capacity to think has not been thwarted, he still has potential.

But then you do have people who think, but choose to seek personal happiness over what is deemed right. They end up with corrupted thoughts, illogical excuses, and a warped conscience. This kind of person is what I would call evil. This is the kind of person who would go against societies norms for selfish reasons. This is the kind of person we have no problem putting in jail, because both his intentions and his actions would be deemed wrong. (affected ignorance) He still may have some small potential for redemption though.

Ultimately in society you can't know whom among the masses will become wise, or who will become corrupted. You can't even know who is wise or who is not, not with a glance, and not even with a test. It's a complicated thing.

WhorlyWhelk,

DQ: If a person's mind is still filled with delusions, then his ethical decision-making is going to be affected by these delusions.

WW: What I am thinking right now is that some intrinsic value to truth is your delusion.

DQ: I agree that believing truth has intrinsic value is a delusion. In reality, nothing has intrinsic value, not even truth. But nonetheless, I choose to value truth because it pleases me to do so. I can't think of anything better to value.

WWW: It is unclear from this then whether your really value truth, or you only value that because you value happiness.

I initially valued truth because I thought it would give me the greatest happiness. But as I developed and became more aware of truth, I became more aware of the illusory basis of happiness. And so nowadays, the seeking of happiness is far less important to me.

If you reasoned that something else would, in fact, make you more happy than truth, would you abandon it?

Not nowadays, no.

In any case, it is no longer a possibility. I've seen too deeply into the illusions which generate happiness. It would be like trying to believe in Santa Claus again.

Also a hypothetical: Say there is a person who would not find any happiness in truth. If you could, would you show them the truth (for your own happiness) or not (for their happiness).

Your question doesn't make any sense because everyone is the same in regard to truth. There is a kind of happiness in knowing and experiencing truth, but it is not an egotistical happiness and it doesn't vary from person to person in accordance with their psychology. The experience of realizing one's infinite nature is the same for everyone.

It should also be pointed out that if a person (i.e. a beginner) doesn't believe that he can find happiness in truth, then it will be impossible for anyone to show it to him. For he won't have the motivation to pursue subtle and difficult lines of thought, nor tear down any mental blocks he might have.

WW: While others might value utility or the ego, all your decisions are based on what will bring about the least delusion.

DQ: Yes. Or more accurately, the complete extinguishing of delusion.

WW: Isn't this another dualistic concept?

Of course. You need dualistic concepts if you are going to do anything at all. The path from duality to non-duality is certainly dualistic, but the end-point differs from every other dualistic goal in that it involves the abandonment of all duality.

Isn't trying to maximize non-delusion comparable to trying to maximize pleasure?

Not really. Trying to maximize pleasure would involve having to constantly create the causal conditions for maximum pleasure to take place. It would involve a hell of a lot of hard work! It would be a constant juggling act.

By contrast, eliminating delusion means no longer relying on any causal conditions at all and resting without a care in the world in the emptiness of your true nature. Much easier.

-

Cat,

I'm so glad you are a "good person" who has widen your self-centeredness enough to include a few other people (wise people).

I'm not a good person. I don't grasp at happiness in the way that good people do.

Sorry if that seemed a bit rude David, I was just trying to point out the inconsistancy in your statements. Loyalty to wise people doesn't seem like a wise perspective to me. It seems just as bad as saying, but if the ill people were my family, then that one man should die. It's just as selfish, if not more so, considering what wisdom is.

It is consistent with my goal in life, which is the promotion and preservation of wisdom. I happen to think that wisdom has more chance of surviving if there are more wise people alive.

It is a selfish goal, if you like, in as much as wisdom possesses a "self". But it is the kind of selfish goal which can lead to the end of all selfishness ("selfishness" ultimately being the belief in self-existence).

Wouldn't a wise man desire the well being of all equally and wouldn't a wise man understand that death is a natural part of life, and not be greedy, and desire to steal life from another so that he could survive longer?

If he values the survival of wisdom (which he naturally would), and if he saw that his continued existence was important for this goal, then he would probably think it important to live as long as possible.

A wise man doesn't desire the well-being of all equally, because he desires the end of ignorance. And so he strives to make ignorant people unhappy and dissatisfied with their lot, so that they will begin turning their attention to wisdom.

I do think you're right that most people are unthinking, or only partially thinking. But if a person is unthinking then he can't consciously seek personal happiness over truth, right? He can't do anything consciously because he is on unconscious mode if he is an unthinking person. But he still has the potential to think, the potential to become wise.

In an ideal world, that would be true. But the reality is that most people lose whatever potential they have for thought and wisdom by the time they are thirty. By then, they are far too entangled in their worldly attachments, far too habitualized and hardened in deluded thought, and far too scared to make massive changes.

You can't bend a fully-grown tree too much. It will only snap.

Unconscious minded man differs from animals in that he has this potential to think, so I think his life is still very valuable. (Invincible ignorance)

For young, intelligent, open-minded, idealistic people less than 25 or 30 years old, that is probably true. Most people older than 30 are barely distinguishable from animals.

This kind of ignorance is quite disconcerting, because it means that there is whole group of people who would do what is wrong, without the slightest thought, if the order put in place by civilization, society, the church, or some other thing, was not in there to mold their actions to the accepted norms. He is unaware of good and evil because he does not think. He is savage, but at the same time innocent. Ignorance is an evil thing for society, the ignorant man is not necessarily so. His capacity to think has not been thwarted, he still has potential.

But then you do have people who think, but choose to seek personal happiness over what is deemed right. They end up with corrupted thoughts, illogical excuses, and a warped conscience. This kind of person is what I would call evil. This is the kind of person who would go against societies norms for selfish reasons. This is the kind of person we have no problem putting in jail, because both his intentions and his actions would be deemed wrong. (affected ignorance) He still may have some small potential for redemption though.

Yes, the more advanced, spiritually-aware a person becomes, the greater capacity he has for evil. People such as Osho and U.G Krishnamurti would fall into this category.

Ultimately in society you can't know whom among the masses will become wise, or who will become corrupted. You can't even know who is wise or who is not, not with a glance, and not even with a test. It's a complicated thing.

Well, with wisdom and a trained eye, you can get a pretty good idea. With 99% of the population, you can easily see that there isn't a chance in hell they will become truthful. It is only that 1% which are more difficult to judge - and even then only up until they reach 30 or so.

Hopefully, it will change in the future. But as things stand, that is the sad reality before us.

-

It is consistent with my goal in life, which is the promotion and preservation of wisdom. I happen to think that wisdom has more chance of surviving if there are more wise people alive.

It is a selfish goal, if you like, in as much as wisdom possesses a "self". But it is the kind of selfish goal which can lead to the end of all selfishness ("selfishness" ultimately being the belief in self-existence).

Personally, I don't think selfishness will promote selflessness.

But to the example at hand. I think you're looking at it too narrowly. Your statement that wisdom has more chance of surviving if there are more wise people alive, isn't so simple. You see, if you kill random innocent egoists to give there organs to 'wise' people then you will scare all the other egoists, and as you estimate that they are 99% of the population, then by scaring all these people, you will remove their sense of order, then everything will fall apart, and it will jeopardize the lives of wise people everywhere.

:)

Cory Duchesne wrote:Inwardly he may have very low self esteem, he may be very anguished, and so having a big truck and a boat to brag about makes him feel better. His emotions are ruling over his reason. I'm sure he apprehended the logic of Dave's advice, but he found it too dry and empty. Having anything less than a truck and boat leaves him feeling too naked, vulnerable, anxious.

All that is quite possible. The whole thing with the boat was crazy enough that I didn't care to speculate about something even less rational behind it. (And he really likes fishing. )

He sounds like a very sensitive and emotional man.

I think he would probably agree with that description.

Should I have just said that he's from Texas?

David Quinn,

WW: Isn't trying to maximize non-delusion comparable to trying to maximize pleasure?

DQ: Not really. Trying to maximize pleasure would involve having to constantly create the causal conditions for maximum pleasure to take place. It would involve a hell of a lot of hard work! It would be a constant juggling act.

By contrast, eliminating delusion means no longer relying on any causal conditions at all and resting without a care in the world in the emptiness of your true nature. Much easier.

I am still failing to see the difference between spreading wisdom and spreading, say, ignorance, or seeking happiness, or whatever else. They all require a lot of hard work. They all seem fundamentally deluded in that there is no inherent "goodness" to picking any of them. So to pick one over the other as you do seems illogical to me.

That is what I thought Kevin was talking about when he said that he lost his desire for truth and hatred of ignorance, and that he was realizing that the herd is really as buddha as himself.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:I am still failing to see the difference between spreading wisdom and spreading, say, ignorance, or seeking happiness, or whatever else. They all require a lot of hard work. They all seem fundamentally deluded in that there is no inherent "goodness" to picking any of them. So to pick one over the other as you do seems illogical to me.

You are correct that there is no inherent goodness. But we can still say that wisdom is wise and the lack of wisdom is foolishness. And there is nothing inherently good or bad about something being hard work.

At some point you have to make a decision about what your values are. You may decide that you just want to be happy and you don't care if that is wise or foolish. (Not a wise decision in my view, but the choice is yours to make,)

This is the essence of doing philosophy as opposed to reading it: it has a real impact on how you live your life. Choose wisely. (Or not.)

David Quinn wrote:WhorlyWhelk,

DQ: If a person's mind is still filled with delusions, then his ethical decision-making is going to be affected by these delusions.

WW: What I am thinking right now is that some intrinsic value to truth is your delusion.

I agree that believing truth has intrinsic value is a delusion. In reality, nothing has intrinsic value, not even truth. But nonetheless, I choose to value truth because it pleases me to do so. I can't think of anything better to value.

It is only through the valuing of truth that one can burn away all valuing, even to truth. It is like when a campfire burns away all the wood and then itself disappears.

While others might value utility or the ego, all your decisions are based on what will bring about the least delusion.

Yes. Or more accurately, the complete extinguishing of delusion.

This is like a delusion in itself, one that Kevin, in a letter, seems to have realized (from my understanding) when he said:

I have recently realized how shallow I am. I am shallow because I am not
deeply immersed in fantasy. Because of my fear I flounder on the surface
making foolish and undignified noises.

Zarathustra's last vice was supposed to have been compassion. I have many
vices, but my biggest vice is probably my attachment to truth. Yet it dwindles.

My hatred for the herd is gone, and with it my love of truth. I can no longer
look down on the masses. They are geniuses, Buddhas, truly they are. To
choose to live in fantasy, success and failure, gain and loss, and be happy with
all: happy in pain, happy in joy, and to live long and healthy, is surely godlike
almost beyond comprehension. They feel themselves individual and whole,
free as can be.

I believe he was merely giving a colorful description of his own temporary descent into ordinary egotistical consciousness here.

-

intresting...
I wrote this now a respectable time ago:

there is nothing conceivable that does not exist, because the vision is fraint.
in keeping the right aloofness from Things, is Safety. but how much should we aquire?
experience is ignorance.the necessity of rehappening.
one thing is certain: we are subject to our own moral laws, whether we are or are not aware of them.
the desire pressures his teeth,and no later belief shall alter it a whit.
the highest creations are those that harmonize the most discrepant things.
Art, the truth we have realized of our belief.
the great human factor in Life is dissimulation: always the greater deceiver - self?
the wrath is exposed against all that hold the truth in righteousness.
Still are the shalownesses, who could know they hide a universe?

The Gospel Accordion to Bert:

there is nothing conceivable that does not exist, because the vision is fraint.

If you can think of it, it exists, because the seeing is fraint. Fraint: if it's French, it ain't, or, what appears, isn't.

In other words, seeing is suspect, but logic is definite. Astute, my brother, astute.

in keeping the right aloofness from Things, is Safety. but how much should we aquire?

Detachment is a rightful stance, but not complete detachment. To what level of detachment should we attach ourselves, is the question. Again, astute.

experience is ignorance.the necessity of rehappening.

Experiencing something doesn't necessarily lead to knowing, thus circumstance calls for repetition of the experience. Very Zen.

one thing is certain: we are subject to our own moral laws, whether we are or are not aware of them.

We live by our beliefs, even if we are unconscious. So true.

the desire pressures his teeth,and no later belief shall alter it a whit.

Hunger makes the mouth water, and no contrary mental gyration can change that. We are creatures of instinct and biological need. Indeed, and this is humbling.

the highest creations are those that harmonize the most discrepant things.

The most awesome ideas unify all things. Deep.

Art, the truth we have realized of our belief.

Art (Garfunkel), what you sang about in "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" touched us all. Or, a painting can express our deepest realizations. In either case, wonderful.

the great human factor in Life is dissimulation: always the greater deceiver - self?

Maya, otherwise known as "Dis simulation" or sometimes "Dis damn simulation" is a bitch of an illusion. So true, brother. Tell it.

the wrath is exposed against all that hold the truth in righteousness.

One's anger issues are plainly visible when one is conscious, as well as the fact those issues obstruct the very clarity we seek. Very wise.

Still are the shalownesses, who could know they hide a universe?

Attachment to shallowness (or more precisely the mirror illusion (the still) of the surface itself) (the trap of physicality) prevents an attainment of depth. Here is penetration to the heart of the matter.

Thank you, bert. Despite your garbled English, your sagacity shines.

enjoy it..

in case you want to participate in a contest for "best team", let me know when we won.

WhorlyWhelk,

WW: Isn't trying to maximize non-delusion comparable to trying to maximize pleasure?

DQ: Not really. Trying to maximize pleasure would involve having to constantly create the causal conditions for maximum pleasure to take place. It would involve a hell of a lot of hard work! It would be a constant juggling act.

By contrast, eliminating delusion means no longer relying on any causal conditions at all and resting without a care in the world in the emptiness of your true nature. Much easier.

WW: I am still failing to see the difference between spreading wisdom and spreading, say, ignorance, or seeking happiness, or whatever else. They all require a lot of hard work. They all seem fundamentally deluded in that there is no inherent "goodness" to picking any of them. So to pick one over the other as you do seems illogical to me.

It just depends on whether you value sanity, rationality, ultimate understanding, etc. If you do value these things, then it becomes natural to want to spread wisdom rather than ignorance.

That is what I thought Kevin was talking about when he said that he lost his desire for truth and hatred of ignorance, and that he was realizing that the herd is really as buddha as himself.

These are views that he uttered when he stopped valuing sanity, rationality, ultimate understanding, etc, for a time.

(He didn't really stop valuing them. Rather, he allowed himself to explore the ordinary egotistical realm while keeping his truthful perspective in attendance.)

For example, the statement that "all people are buddhas" conflicts with the definition of a buddha as "someone who comprehends the nature of reality and is without delusion". So in making that statement, Kevin had purposely abandoned sanity and rationality.

He was being poetical. He was describing his indulgences in the fuzzy, emotional thinking that ordinary people like to indulge in.

-

Cat,

DQ: It is consistent with my goal in life, which is the promotion and preservation of wisdom. I happen to think that wisdom has more chance of surviving if there are more wise people alive.

It is a selfish goal, if you like, in as much as wisdom possesses a "self". But it is the kind of selfish goal which can lead to the end of all selfishness ("selfishness" ultimately being the belief in self-existence).

Cat: Personally, I don't think selfishness will promote selflessness.

It's not really selfishness, because the promotion of wisdom, when done properly, involves the complete abandonment of egotistical reward.

But to the example at hand. I think you're looking at it too narrowly. Your statement that wisdom has more chance of surviving if there are more wise people alive, isn't so simple. You see, if you kill random innocent egoists to give there organs to 'wise' people then you will scare all the other egoists, and as you estimate that they are 99% of the population, then by scaring all these people, you will remove their sense of order, then everything will fall apart, and it will jeopardize the lives of wise people everywhere.

Yes, all those things would have to be taken into consideration. It might be that it isn't a wise move to save the wise people in that situation, for the reasons you mentioned. But in different circumstances, it might well be. One would have to make an assessment of the specific situation at hand.

But all things being equal, it still remains true that wisdom has a far better chance of survival if there are more wise people living and actively inserting their poisons into society.

-

the flip-flop comes back from the place where it began, mental gymnast.
there is no lasting peace - you for ever fall in love with the new thing of belief.

I took it upon myself to read the Koran, or as Islam would have it, an interpretation of the Koran. Nowhere did I find references to flying lessons, exploding vests, or suicide missions. Much like Christian Fundamentalists, Islamic extremists take scripture and twist the shit out of it until it suits their political purposes. The Koran is expressly anti-Semitic because the Jews killed God’s messenger Jesus, but I found no explicit exhortations to kill Jews.

Organized religion relies on scripture written by human beings – I think it has its place as a way to carry societal values from one generation to the next. It bears only a superficial relationship to spirituality, which is personal. I would love to know what happens to the Jimmy Swaggarts and Osama bin Ladens after they die. Self-righteousness makes me puke.

brokenhead wrote: Organized religion relies on scripture written by human beings – I think it has its place as a way to carry societal values from one generation to the next. It bears only a superficial relationship to spirituality, which is personal.

Over the years I've come to the view that Old Testament, New Testament and the Qur'an are all three not 'written' in the normal sense and have no direct original link to any originating group, society of cult. The idea that they do is what makes the religion sprouted out of the texts to difficult and sensitive!

All three scriptures are basically 'cocktails' of spiritual teachings and parables combined with rules and laws that wise leaders in the past might have formulated. One could say they all hi-jacked or even attempted to "safe-guard" wisdom texts, like arks in the seas of time.

It would be a bit like combining all the content of Kevin Solway's or Quinn's website with some of the topics of this forum perhaps and some podcasts into one compendium (a DVD!) and then put one specific author on all the texts and voices, or a 'god' called QRS (instead of a YHWH). It would for a distant future annihilate the centuries, translations and interpretations present and create a new holy script with not context, no timeline. It might be very hard to understand many of the texts and logic. Some could distill some wise things out of it still, I'm sure.

Self-righteousness makes me puke.

Self-righteousness equals the QRS definition of masculinity, regardless of whether its appearance is displayed in masculine or feminine form. That the QRS value non-self is a complete falsity, what they value is an "outside" perspective, namely they supposedly have a perspective that values "the rest of the universe as a whole", but such a perspective is still a self. It is the self as an imagined wholeness.

There cannot be any ego configuration that is more self-righteous. In denying a subjective self, they make the "objective" self so much stronger. lol, and the funny thing about this is that it only works emotionally if one places themselves in the subjective position of a guru.

The self is all there is. Without a self, wisdom or delusion or whatever, cannot make an appearance.