GENIUS FORUMS

guest_of_logic wrote:There are a huge variety of human beliefs about the nature of reality, life's purpose, metaphysical concepts, spirituality and ultimate meaning

You're definition of metaphysics is off. Metaphysics encompasses all those things. Metaphysics is first principles. Stop creating phantom categories with the popular cultural definition of metaphysics which limits itself to things of the paranormal. There is the empirical and metaphysics -- nothing else.

guest_of_logic wrote:I'm battling to make sense of you here. Are you saying that empirical beliefs can't be delusional?

Beliefs are metaphysics. Judgment of sensory data is metaphysics. You cannot not do metaphysics.

guest_of_logic wrote:You seem to be saying that to be a great scientist you have to have a truthful set of metaphysical beliefs, whereas it seems to me more the case that to be a great scientist you need to be as impartial metaphysically as possible, because ultimately it's impossible to know metaphysical truth for certain, beyond the relatively trivial.

Your original definition of metaphysics is off and in effect the rest of the links in your chain of thinking are off too. Great scientists have less metaphysical absurdities than mediocre ones and certainly less than ones who inject fantastic metaphysical absurdities and still claim to perform science. In my example, Dawkins has much much less metaphysical absurdities than his intelligent design opponents.

guest_of_logic wrote:Uh, yes. Yes I do. I don't, however, see "the Tao" displayed across the top of this page: I gather that you have adopted David's understanding of "the Tao" as "Ultimate Reality". Fancy that - who would have guessed?

Why is David the source of everything? How much of the material linked to from this site have you read and how much from other sources? Why aren't you charging David with theft and unoriginality and copying Buddha? Because I do. If you think David is original in any fundamental way then you are very lost.

Now onto the science, enlightenment, and the difference of being a man or a woman. First, let me state that your singular examples of women who do well in science does not disprove the fact that the sciences, the real hard abstract sciences, are dominated by men. Secondly, let me restate that you readily admit that it is men who give the best performances in these abstract realms of science.

Given that, I state that because of this fact men are much more well armed to do battle with the realm of pure metaphysics, reach the edge of thought and words, and then correctly identify that which is known as Tao, Ultimate Reality, The Void, Enlightenment, Nirvana, God. Each of those words refer to the same concept to me. So for me to say:

kissaki wrote:Knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles is impressive, yet none of these things brings one closer to Void.

and then:

kissaki wrote:Knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles is more likely to correlate with a capacity to understand the knowledge of the Tao.

is not contradictory. Read the words carefully. The first phrase says that knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles itself is not knowledge of Void. The second phrase says that those who do posses knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles are more likely to have the capacity, which is rationality, to understand Void. One is the thing itself, one is capacity. Even if I have the capacity to understand Void, I must still do the thinking and move towards understanding it. Now, you may argue that having the capacity is itself a step towards Void, and while that may be strictly true in semantic sense of the words I use, that step of having capacity is so tiny that it doesn't deserve too much praise lest one start getting ideas. It's like saying the step of opening the front door of your house and stepping onto your driveway is a step towards driving across the country. Yes, it's a step but let's not kid ourselves.

Again, these are two different sentences referring to two different aspects regarding the link between empirical knowledge and metaphysical knowledge. Yes, the first sentence could be made less ambiguous, so I'll do that now:

kissaki wrote:Knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles is impressive, yet none of these things are knowledge of Void.

Again, another way: Knowledge of the empirical is not knowledge of the metaphysical, but if you cannot correctly identify knowledge of the empirical, you are unlikely to correctly identify knowledge of the metaphysical.

As far as your criticism regarding the undeserved attack on women, my reply to that is that women do deserve such criticism -- every single bit. Men are already effectively trash to society, they are throwaways. They are automatons who take the brunt of risk in the form of dangerous roles who are clearly replaceable since such an attribute is a requirement for such a system to work. So for me to emphasize attacks on women more so than men is simply an efficient use of time. The reality of society attacks and tears down men every day, but who is tearing down women? Women get all the benefits of mens' work with relatively little of the work. The article you linked to in your previous post explains this very well, so I defer this point to it. Also, let me remind you that exceptions to clear general trends do not disprove or nullify them. Your insistence on specific exceptions is effectively irrelevant when it comes to the core issue.

Regarding your charge that I am prejudiced and psychologically motivated in my philosophy, I am guilty as charged. The very fact that you bring this up tells me what level your thinking is at. The very fact that you level that at me implies to me that somehow you think you have escaped it or that you plan to escape it at some imaginary point in the future. It implies that you think you somehow can escape the judging action of your mind and the specific character traits that color your personality and preferences. Understand cause and effect and this entire paragraph disappears.

All that said, I hate women. I hate them more than you can imagine. I hate how unthinking they are. I hate how simply because I am caused to sexually respond to them they think I must obey them, put up with their inane fetishes, or structure my entire life and very being around them. But most of all, I hate them because they are such pathetic representatives of the vehicle which gives rise to my current and future vehicles. I swear to the living god of reality that should I succeed in breaking their monopoly on the restrictions of form I will cut theirs down in an instant.

Quinn, Solway, and Rowden can act as arrogantly as they see fit. They are actually quite humble all things considered. If it wasn't for Solway's greatest book ever written I would still be a fool who believes in literal reincarnation like the Dali Lama and his circus ilk. You really have no idea from where they come.

Finally, ultimately everything I've said here is a lie and I expect to be hung for these words.

David Quinn wrote:I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I think that it was made harder to understand by steve's use of "their" as a non-gender-specific singular pronoun. I think that his third last sentence could be rephrased more understandably (considering that both kissaki and I are male) as: "Interestingly though, only one of the two insists on his power with words, only to demonstrate his insignificance as a wordsmith." He can correct me if I'm wrong.

What is the difference between the science mind and the Zen mind? The science mind amazes itself with the fact that I never actually touch the floor, I merely float above it less than one billionth of an inch due to electron cloud repulsion. The Zen mind on the other hand knows no such distinctions. It never comes into contact with any thing at all.

kissaki: why are you distinguishing between the science mind and the Zen mind as you do if you have earlier said that the Zen mind and the science mind are not mutually exclusive?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:kissaki: why are you distinguishing between the science mind and the Zen mind as you do if you have earlier said that the Zen mind and the science mind are not mutually exclusive?

You fail at reading comprehension. The science mind only signals a potential capacity to understand the Zen mind, which is the Void itself.

kissaki, you have still not clarified these categories, or why you see fit to use them, or why sometimes they are mutually exclusive, and sometimes not. As far as you have used the term, this "science mind" is something of feeling, and has absolutely nothing to do with what science is or does. You don't describe the science mind as something that produces hypotheses and tests them, but as something that feels mystical amazement. Why do you define it so?

This is not a failure in my reading comprehension. You are not being as clear as you think you are. If it was not your intention to invent some stereotyped, strawman "scientist" that can never be the same as an archetypical "Zen master", then you will have to put some more work into this. Because that is what you have done, and nothing else.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:kissaki, you have still not clarified these categories, or why you see fit to use them, or why sometimes they are mutually exclusive, and sometimes not. As far as you have used the term, this "science mind" is something of feeling, and has absolutely nothing to do with what science is or does. You don't describe the science mind as something that produces hypotheses and tests them, but as something that feels mystical amazement. Why do you define it so?

This is not a failure in my reading comprehension. You are not being as clear as you think you are. If it was not your intention to invent some stereotyped, strawman "scientist" that can never be the same as an archetypical "Zen master", then you will have to put some more work into this. Because that is what you have done, and nothing else.

Yes Master Trevor, I shall continue to clarify and re-clarify these concepts until I find the exact combination of words that suit your specific tastes. Never mind that this mind practices science. Never mind that this mind practices mathematics. Never mind that this mind is familiar with the development of the metaphysics which underpin the scientific process. Never mind the countless examples of scientific minds throughout the history of the world expressing the beauty, amazement, and wonder in an equation or physical process. Never mind that the words you read right now come from such a scientific mind that makes the journey from science to Void. Never mind that this mind only relates concepts in terms of its specific causal history. Never mind that this mind only writes and thinks for itself. Never mind that this mind remains unconcerned whether this or that other mind understands it. Never mind that this mind can tell from your words that you wouldn't know a "Zen master" if he whacked you upside your head with his staff.

Frankly, if you actually were as intelligent as your criticism seeks to be, you'd never mind about this mind.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:archetypical "Zen master"

Don't make me puke. I care not for your rules.

kissaki, you are only being evasive now. Adding to that your derision, perhaps you believe I set out to offend you? That was not my intention, but I seem to have succeeded anyway. What's the source of all this emotion -- and this knee-jerk nausea is an emotion -- at the least criticism?

What is Zen?

Continuous failure.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:kissaki, you are only being evasive now. Adding to that your derision, perhaps you believe I set out to offend you? That was not my intention, but I seem to have succeeded anyway. What's the source of all this emotion -- and this knee-jerk nausea is an emotion -- at the least criticism?

I may be evasive, but you are deceptive. If my words are worthless and meaningless then why bother? Leave the fool to himself. I am not your word nanny.

In what way have I deceived you? I move toward wisdom, and even were you a total buffoon, I would still look for an opening to push you in that direction.

But, it is clear you hold your own wisdom in higher regard than you claim here, as you were so offended when I cast doubt on some of your pearls. So, it is you who is seeking to deceive. So let's clear this hypocracy up right now. Are you, yourself, a sage?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:In what way have I deceived you? I move toward wisdom, and even were you a total buffoon, I would still look for an opening to push you in that direction.

But, it is clear you hold your own wisdom in higher regard than you claim here, as you were so offended when I cast doubt on some of your pearls. So, it is you who is seeking to deceive. So let's clear this hypocracy up right now. Are you, yourself, a sage?

Still looking to words? Your tactics and motivations are transparent. Begone vampire and disturb not the living.

You have a prolific imagination, I'll grant you that, but you have not used it to clear up a single point. You evaded all my questions as to why you separated minds into two categories and even as to what these categories meant, rationalized your evasion by imagining that someone who values wisdom does not seek to enlighten fools (so my questions were themselves foolish), and now evade the simple question of whether or not you consider yourself fool or sage. I dub you ostrich, startled by the least wisdom. I am no vampire: that's only an ostrich's imagination.

.



Trevor Salyzyn - You have a prolific imagination, I'll grant you that, but you have not used it to clear up a single point.

-tomas-
Shame on you. Treating these newbies like one of the gang.




-Trevor-
You evaded all my questions as to why you separated minds into two categories and even as to what these categories meant,

-tomas-
You are not one of the two annointed, 'Enlightened of Canada'. Maybe in the next lifetime (and beyond).




-Trevor-
rationalized your evasion by imagining that someone who values wisdom does not seek to enlighten fools (so my questions were themselves foolish),

-tomas-
Tsk-tsk! This young lad is but 27-years of age!




-Trevor-
and now evade the simple question of whether or not you consider yourself fool or sage.

-tomas-
The fellow is attempting to find a way to burrow-out of your tunnel, he fails to understand your plane of reality.




-Trevor-
I dub you ostrich, startled by the least wisdom.

-tomas-
Fortunately for him, the ostrich is not native to the Americas.




Trevor-
I am no vampire: that's only an ostrich's imagination.

-tomas-
Excuses don't fill empty minds..



.

tomas - Shame on you. Treating these newbies like one of the gang.

-Trevor Salyzyn-
He's read lots of the GF material. Soon enough, he'll understand it.



tomas - You are not one of the two annointed, 'Enlightened of Canada'. Maybe in the next lifetime (and beyond).

-Trevor Salyzyn-
Don't tell him that. I can pretend very well.



tomas - Tsk-tsk! This young lad is but 27-years of age!

-Trevor Salyzyn-
And I bet he doesn't even have a beard yet. Probably still at the shaved head and face stage. Women like men with a 5 o'clock shadow, but hate baby-faces and scruffiness. It takes courage to get across the attractive middle.



tomas - The fellow is attempting to find a way to burrow-out of your tunnel, he fails to understand your plane of reality.

-Trevor Salyzyn-
I'll throw in some of the "you dig?" lingo that's all the rage among kids with their hip-hop and their bebop.



tomas - Fortunately for him, the ostrich is not native to the Americas.

-Trevor Salyzyn-
The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?

What sad fools, Trevor and Tomas, playing at enlightened parents and socially bonding over their supposed age-based wisdom, and all on a forum dedicated to the individual expression of Ultimate Reality no less. Yes, great teachers both of you, examples of what never to become.

Tomas is twice cursed, as only a serious fool would fall in love with a female at such a young age and proclaim it as some kind of honor or goal for others to strive for. His first and only for ever and ever! What a pathetic old man.

Should anyone catch me engaging in such acts of stupidity I only hope they might be so merciful as to cut off my head while I disembowel myself in shame.

kissaki wrote:Tomas is twice cursed, as only a serious fool would fall in love with a female at such a young age and proclaim it as some kind of honor or goal for others to strive for. His first and only for ever and ever! What a pathetic old man.

Should anyone catch me engaging in such acts of stupidity I only hope they might be so merciful as to cut off my head while I disembowel myself in shame.

I would pay to see that, you selfish little prick.

kissaki wrote:What sad fools, Trevor and Tomas, playing at enlightened parents and socially bonding over their supposed age-based wisdom, and all on a forum dedicated to the individual expression of Ultimate Reality no less. Yes, great teachers both of you, examples of what never to become.

Bizarre. Tomas is at least twice my age. He lost body parts fighting in a war that happened before I was even born. Do you have a second guess?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Bizarre. Tomas is at least twice my age. He lost body parts fighting in a war that happened before I was even born. Do you have a second guess?

Your actual age is irrelevant. Your great

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: And I bet he doesn't even have a beard yet. Probably still at the shaved head and face stage. Women like men with a 5 o'clock shadow, but hate baby-faces and scruffiness. It takes courage to get across the attractive middle.

acting

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: I'll throw in some of the "you dig?" lingo that's all the rage among kids with their hip-hop and their bebop.

skills

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: I move toward wisdom, and even were you a total buffoon, I would still look for an opening to push you in that direction.

are to what I refer.

I'll never use the word sage, especially in reference to myself. I'm willing to let cultural bygones be bygones. If you actually care for an authentic response from me then give me an authentic question and drop the sage act.

I gave you authentic questions, yet you failed to answer a single one. It is only due to tomas' remarks that I'm letting that slide.

So, rather than rephrase the old questions, I'll ask a new one. Do you believe that because few people value sagehood any more that anyone who appears to be a sage is acting?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I gave you authentic questions, yet you failed to answer a single one. It is only due to tomas' remarks that I'm letting that slide.

Letting that one slide? Do you even see what a caricature you paint yourself out to be with such lame comments? This is exactly why I made fun of your stupid parenting acting show. I already had parents Trevor, you aren't some higher spiritual version you goddamn fool.

Your questions are as authentic as you are uncreative. All you want is more words and more definitions. If you haven't had your fill of precise definitions and verbose displays of expounding spiritual truth after browsing this forum for however many years you have, then you are an attached idiot. How many words do you need huh? Will you be blabbing on about sages and bullshit forever until you are six feet under?

My comments which you clearly care not for, which is fine in and of itself, are in the spirit of Zen. That is to say, they intended to be direct, short, to the point, and remain somewhat ambiguous so as to let the reader of said comments struggle some. Maybe his thinking is too muddled, too crazy, and so the comment appears as the jumbled mess that is his mind. Maybe his thinking is somewhat clear and still, and he can fill in the gaps which the comment skips and hops over like a flat stone skipping across a lake. Maybe you think I do bad Zen. That's an entirely ok judgment, but unfortunately your criticism don't reflect that. Rather, your criticisms reflect an egoism that is looking for the tiniest variance or divergence in definitions from the "one true definitions" so that the great sage may pounce upon them in a final true victory of superior wisdom! And on display for everyone else to see and recognize to boot. It's so goddamn laughable it makes me vomit.

Your incessant requirement that I define and explain and clarify every little detail is typical of a robot on set tracks put putting around saying, "you are a sage! you are not a sage! you are a sage!"

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: So, rather than rephrase the old questions, I'll ask a new one. Do you believe that because few people are sages any more that anyone who appears to be a sage is acting?

It's completely fucking played out, thanks in part to shit heads like yourself. It's fucking dead. Gone. Finished. Done. Get over it. I'll admit the administrators of this board are providing excellent spirited and authentic examples of "sage" in the classical sense, but the way of the world is too much even for them. Besides they're in fucking Australia and else where around that area. I'm in the middle of city in Texas. I and them are not the same people. Yet none of that prevents me from recognizing what they have to say. Shit changes. Remember, Buddha and all that shit about not becoming attached to form? Even they are not so deluded as to think that their particular lifestyles are the only vehicles open to expressing truth. Who is to say fucking truth can't have a shitty mouth, huh? You? And here you are trying so hard to become a mere shadow of what they do effortlessly.

Is that all you have Trevor? These soft volleys? How about I give you one more fucking chance unless you wish to just pass your turn and let me ask the questions. Puke face.

You wondering why I am so pissed of? It's because I've been lied to about every single thing in life by every single person I've known and the only people honest enough to tell me about it are three guys living in the middle of the goddamn down under. How's that for fucking Zen.

Finally, in that splurge of anger that would be wholly misdirected if you were telling the truth about its origin, you answered one of my questions.

Except you answered it twice, in both the affirmative and the negative.

Is sagehood acting? "My comments which you clearly care not for, which is fine in and of itself, are in the spirit of Zen. That is to say, they intended to be direct, short, to the point, and remain somewhat ambiguous so as to let the reader of said comments struggle some."

Is sagehood acting? "It's completely fucking played out, thanks in part to shit heads like yourself. It's fucking dead. Gone. Finished. Done. Get over it. I'll admit the administrators of this board are providing excellent spirited and authentic examples of "sage" in the classical sense, but the way of the world is too much even for them."

So you hate sagehood and consider it dead, yet you also try to be a sage. You're a self-hating sage.

Is that all you have Trevor? These soft volleys?

When I point out your hypocracies, those are not soft volleys. They show major problems at the core of your beliefs, and that is where your anger comes from. I'm someone who can sting you without the faintest concern that you can sting back.

How about I give you one more fucking chance unless you wish to just pass your turn and let me ask the questions. Puke face.

You are down to mindless anger and insults. I've been nigh-emotionless this whole time, except for a chuckle at the occasional bit of irony and tomas' remarks. This dynamic will stay as it is until you can show some sign that you are capable of controlling your own thoughts. I highly doubt you could ask me a question that would cause as much consternation as my questions are causing you.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: So you hate sagehood and consider it dead, yet you also try to be a sage. You're a self-hating sage.

So I have a penchant for Zen. I've never once called myself Zen Master or called myself sage. Who was it that first even brought up those phrases? You could of left well enough alone and just let some poor deluded soul express his Zen thoughts, but no, you had to come waltzing in here like some big macho sage. Do you really want to play the "let's count how many times you've played the sage" game mr. 2083 posts vs my 94? Idiot.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: When I point out your hypocracies, those are not soft volleys. They show major problems at the core of your beliefs, and that is where your anger comes from. I'm someone who can sting you without the faintest concern that you can sting back.

Yea I'm angry, angry that I have to play this stupid sage game with you. Did you even bother to notice that I've actually made reasonable, polite, and insightful comments to others? How come that's not the case with you, huh? Big hint: You're a pretentious prick and you don't even realize it. And if you're suggesting I can 'give up anger' in order to be an unoriginal fuck like yourself well isn't that just what a robot would suggest. "C'mon now, you too can become like me!"

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: You are down to mindless anger and insults. I've been nigh-emotionless this whole time, except for a chuckle at the occasional bit of irony and tomas' remarks. This dynamic will stay as it is until you can show some sign that you are capable of controlling your own thoughts. I highly doubt you could ask me a question that would cause as much consternation as my questions are causing you.

You've certainly showed me sage. Behold, the emotionless robot. Watch him do ... nothing. You never pass up an opportunity to flatter yourself do you? It's almost in every single one of your sentences, such as suggesting consternation? Trevor, it's because individuals like you inspire sadness in me that I make it a point to tell you what I really think of you. It reinforces my neurons to detect what genuineness is not.

Trevor,

I just read your pathetic profile. Incredible. Who's the one taking medication to help his depression? And a schizophrenic fuck at that. No wonder you come across as emotionless and robotic, you've drugged it all away you defective genetic reject.