GENIUS FORUMS

This is the dynamic with Laird in a nutshell. For him, everything is judged through that particular prism. The perennial wisdom of the forests sages, the Buddhists, Taoists, Zen masters, the house philosophers, etc, doesn't register through this prism at all, and hence is rejected out of hand, without his even understanding it.

-

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:If we define "feeling" to be any kind of awareness or movement of consciousness, then "emotion" is a subset of feeling, referring to the set of preprogrammed reactions that I talked about with jupiviv in the post above.

Your assertion that boundaries are arbitrary seems to apply very well here, so where exactly do you draw the line between non-emotional feelings, and emotions, and how do you justify the line that you draw - aren't you simply drawing an arbitrary line in the sand?

To summarize what I've said many times before:

Consciousness of Truth is the most important thing in life - at least to me. It forms the basis of my judgments, values and my boundary-drawing. Everything I say is motivated by the desire to stimulate people out of their habitual thinking and propelling their minds towards Truth-consciousness. This includes my comments on women and the emotions.

In this light, I define "emotion" to be any feeling that overwhelms the mind, captures it, and enslaves it within a net of selfish, narcissistic thinking. A lack of perspective, a lack of Truth-consciousness, is always involved.

You write that a sage is neither joyful nor content, yet you also write that the nearest comparison for a sage's feeling is "certain high-level, care-free modes of existence in which clarity of mind is accentuated and the normal concerns and worries are completely absent". How are those modes of existence different from joy and contentment?

In these modes, the mind is too pure for joy and contentment. There is no winning in enlightenment and therefore no occasion for joy. Instead, one taps into something infinitely more amazing - namely, the very source of joy (and all other things).

-

When people use the phrase "house philosophy", what are they comparing it to? "Personal philosophy"? Yet how much more personal can the ideas presented on this forum get? "Individualised philosophy"? But where is herdliness more emphatically rejected, than here? "Mainstream philosophy"? - aahhh.

David wrote:The perennial wisdom of the forests sages, the Buddhists, Taoists, Zen masters, the house philosophers, etc, doesn't register through this prism at all, and hence is rejected out of hand, without his even understanding it.

I'd be interested to know what you make of Kierkegaard, a personal-God sage. Can you articulate the difference between how he adopted the role of a suffering servant for the whole of Denmark and a scapegoat for the sins of his father, and Laird's Messianic complex?

How is it that extreme melancholy in childhood, generating a deep psychological need to reach for the highest "power", can drive most to cling to emotional bandaids like guilt, self-hatred, dreams of an eternal mother's love, etc., but then there is a Hakuin and a Kierkegaard?

.

Kelly Jones wrote:

David wrote:The perennial wisdom of the forests sages, the Buddhists, Taoists, Zen masters, the house philosophers, etc, doesn't register through this prism at all, and hence is rejected out of hand, without his even understanding it.

I'd be interested to know what you make of Kierkegaard, a personal-God sage. Can you articulate the difference between how he adopted the role of a suffering servant for the whole of Denmark and a scapegoat for the sins of his father, and Laird's Messianic complex?

How is it that extreme melancholy in childhood, generating a deep psychological need to reach for the highest "power", can drive most to cling to emotional bandaids like guilt, self-hatred, dreams of an eternal mother's love, etc., but then there is a Hakuin and a Kierkegaard?

.

for me, the right person at the right time. ofcourse theres also 'background causes' - but i think ill leave it at that..

Keep trying Kelly, like your avatar by the way, did you draw that yourself with organic crayons? It's really post-modern in it's minimalism and symbolism.

It's all topsy-turvy too, surely not a reflection of you as a person. You are solid and wise aren't you Kelly, a strong opinionated young woman who can cast her fires of judgment here and there and wherever she feels fit, because she is woman!

Right Kelly?

Actually you are a fucking bore. Mensa-maniac is a million times more developed than you.

That entire post was an ad hominem, prince. It's a no-goer.

I think you should rewrite it to make a substantial argument, or delete it if you have realised it was unwarranted.

.

Nah, i don't owe you squat girl, you are the one with pretensions to genius and enlightenment. Thus far, you are but a parrot.

I am a genius. You rough up against me, or go cry to DQ or DR to get me banned.

Make sure you use all your feminine helpless sexual wiles to do to it too, because you have nothing else but your eager earnesty.

Prince.

Do you have a point?

More to the point, do you have a reason why you shouldn't be banned?

.

I don't need to have a point, I make points that ping over the likes of your head all the time Kelly.

You are just child's play.

Your observations are pedestrian

Your insights are faux copies of another more insightful

And you are probably lousy in bed, to top it off.

Kelly, is there a place yon can be PM'd? Can't seem to PM you here and im not sure if you check the other places

Got an extended reply that id like to write but i think its best its left in pm, hence me asking

You can email me, Anders: kellyjones@naturalthinker.net



Looking back over what I'd written a couple of posts up, I think prince must have thought I was talking about him, when discussing types like Hakuin and Kierkegaard. If he hadn't said anything, no one would have thought of him in that context.

.

Prince's like to play and frolic; that's why they are not Kings.

Touche Dan, but princes do become Kings, and said Kings become rulers.

And I will pronounce with my deep sexy male voice (kelly thinks its high pitched, I could burst her delicate ear drums with one masculine growl)

No more circumcision!
No more Turbins!
No more lies because I am lucifer the inventer of all Lies and I am Prince!

Hi, I am just realizing I am a Genius, I am having an extraordinarily hard time with with, I need counsel bad, please help someone if you can, thanks,

GW1

So what do you want a fucking medal?

I could shred shit like Steve Vai when I was 16.

No need for counselling, just examine A=A.

GuitarWarlock1 wrote:Hi, I am just realizing I am a Genius, I am having an extraordinarily hard time with with, I need counsel bad, please help someone if you can, thanks, GW1

In what sense do you think you possess genius? Never mind Prince; he's our nipping guard dog for whom we can never find a suitable leash. One day we'll have to put him down.

Hey Dan when I was about one year old I had a rogue dog lunge at me in the face with intent to harm my self. It fucking bit me on the lip and left me emotionally scarred.
You ever had that shit happen to you?

No, in my case it was a feral cat. I think our dog eventually ate it.

guest_of_logic wrote:The three admins of this forum share a relatively homogenous philosophy which several of the participants (including yourself) support, going so far as to refer to the findings of this philosophy as Absolute (or Ultimate) Truth. "House philosophy" is a perfectly reasonable and sensible phrase in that context.

It's called logic, and I don't think anyone here is the first person to apply it in the same overall manner.

guest_of_logic wrote:Oh dear, Nick. How faulty can your "logic" get? One doesn't have to know the answer to a question to be able to know that certain answers are insufficient or plain wrong. For example, I don't know the answer to the question, "What is the square root of 39574.187?" but I do know that "5000" and "a red rose" are wrong answers, and that "sqrt(39574.187)" is an insufficient answer. That analogy applies to the question, "What is Absolute (or Ultimate) Truth?"

Ok so you're basically saying that absolute truth is located somewhere within a certain range of deceptions. Ignoring how stupid this sounds and why your analogy doesn't apply at all to the question of absolute truth... What you don't realize is you're actually making a claim to absolute truth (something you actually denied having earlier) by saying that "the truth is within a particular range and not beyond it". Don't worry, I wont bother asking what this range consists of or how you arrived at this conclusion because I know it's bunk. There is no approaching the absolute. It's all or nothing.

guest_of_logic wrote:You keep on asserting your answer to be the answer, and so long as you do that you're simply talking past me, because I don't recognise that your answer is THE answer. When you talk about "this wisdom" you're making an implicit claim to possess a certain type of wisdom, and I don't recognise that claim - in the same way that I don't recognise as valid the answers that I gave as examples for the square root question.

It's obvious you don't recognize my claims, that's not really what I'm trying to get you to do, but what I do want you to recognize is that your uncertainty is not a valid argument or rebuttal against anything I've said. You don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the absolute.

guest_of_logic wrote:I have made no claim to know more about life than anybody else on this forum. I don't have to know more about life than you do to pick problems with your philosophical positions.

But that's exactly what you're doing when it comes to absolute truth. So if you're going to mount an argument that can be taken seriously against anything I say on the subject, then yes, by necessity you must know as much or more about it than me. But since you already admitted you don't know what is absolutely true....

guest_of_logic wrote:I'm pointing out problematic dynamics and presenting criticisms - to characterise that as "spitting in your faces" is an over-emotional reaction.

I know you don't realize what you're doing, but I hope you can at least trust that I know when I'm being disrespected.

David Quinn wrote:

divine focus wrote: Having emotions "fade away" is really just making emotions calm and cold, even. They are still there, just unperturbable. Disassociated maybe. Nothing stays the same. Emotions are a way of connecting with the reality around you, whether local, global, or whathaveyou.

A poor man's way.

Emotions are triggered by the delusion of separation - between self and other. They are evolutionary tools centered around the protection of the self. When a person tries to "emotionally" connect to his environment, it means that he is still spellbound by the fiction of his own self. His emotional striving is an attempt to bridge the chasm, a chasm created by his own deluded mind, between his self and the rest of the universe.

By contrast, buddhas already know that everything is a part of them, They already know that there is no chasm and thus laugh at people's artificial attempts to bridge it. They are already consciously connected to the universe and therefore too pure for emotion.

"What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight", said Jesus.

Most people are criminal types who hide away underground in dark corners, seeking to warm themselves in the momentary flare of their own emotions. Meanwhile, buddhas are heard to stride around overhead in the sunlight, breathing in the fresh air and laughing with the mountains.

We may not mean the same thing by 'emotion.' Don't know much about laughing with mountains, but things "highly valued" just are. Not much that's detestable. With understanding comes acceptance, not haphazard tolerance. You like what you like.

And thus, the divine focus becomes so vapid that it fades away into a dispersing cloud of unfocused nothingness ......

-

Kelly Jones wrote:

David wrote:The perennial wisdom of the forests sages, the Buddhists, Taoists, Zen masters, the house philosophers, etc, doesn't register through this prism at all, and hence is rejected out of hand, without his even understanding it.

I'd be interested to know what you make of Kierkegaard, a personal-God sage. Can you articulate the difference between how he adopted the role of a suffering servant for the whole of Denmark and a scapegoat for the sins of his father, and Laird's Messianic complex?

A prodigious intellect, a highly-developed sense of irony, and a sincere passion for truth were probably key factors. Kierkegaard may have started off trying to form a relationship with a personal God (in the traditional Christian manner), but his intelligence soon got the better of him and he moved far beyond that. As he himself put it: "As the individual develops, God becomes for him more and more infinite, and he feels himself farther and farther from God."

When people use the phrase "house philosophy", what are they comparing it to? "Personal philosophy"? Yet how much more personal can the ideas presented on this forum get? "Individualised philosophy"? But where is herdliness more emphatically rejected, than here? "Mainstream philosophy"? - aahhh.

Obviously, it's just another attempt by the forum-detractors to dehumanize everyone here, much like how the word "heathens" was used to dehumanize those who challenged the Christian church. I don't mind the term "house philosophers", though. It has an anonymous, yet grand, ring to it, like "forest sages".

-

David Quinn wrote:Laird: What is the square root of 4?

Rational person: 2

Laird: Wrong. There is no mention of a personal God, it doesn't feed my emotions, it doesn't give my life any meaning, it doesn't affirm my messiah-complex.....

-

Reminds me of this:

Hundrup told me about a luckless genius, a poor, addicted elementary school teacher named Andresen, who went around to the most common, ordinary places and showed off his mathematical proficiency. One time in just such a place he met a traveler, whom he promptly nabbed, and exhibited his skills in a number of sharp mathematical calculations on the condition of free board as his reward. When he had finished and the traveler, who actually had enjoyed his performance, asked how much he should pay him for his board, he answered: four shillings, two shillings for beer and two shillings for brandy.

From Kierkegaard's journals and papers*.

(* A little background: This entry was from 1840, possibly just after his doctoral presentation on "The Concept of Dread, with reference to Socrates", at a time when he was travelling through his father's ancestral lands, and about to make his engagement proposal to Regina Olsen, which he already knew to be in conflict with his God-relationship, and which puts the above entry into some context.)

.

It's sometimes difficult to interpret Kierkegaard's later writings as wholly without a personal-God influence. It is possible, but it is not always easy. He would often write that Governance knew what was good for him, when he did not; or, even more often, that he was trying to make sense of God's plan for him in a way that made it sound as if God was something quite apart from his own consciousness. For instance, he retained a deep admiration for Bishop Mynster, who baptised him as a child and remained his personal pastor even after becoming Bishop of Denmark, because of a respect for his own father, whose love he regarded as his introductory education into God's Fatherly love; it's difficult to interpret that concept of God as anything but separate to himself, even though his own mindfulness would be a reflection of that fatherly love. But maybe this can all be explained by the fact that he never claimed to be an authority or an apostle, but "only" an extraordinary and ethical poet.

I've studied almost all his autobiographical writings for the past few years, more than I've studied any other past sage, and I think it could never be said that Kierkegaard actually conceived of God as literally a personal deity out there separate to himself, in the way that religious people do to reinforce their delusional self-conceit. But there is definitely something very personal and omniscient about the concept he did have of God. The way I've always tried to interpret it, and which does make sense to me, but isn't always easy to do, is that the Infinite does teach one "privatissimo" through a very particular kind of relationship. It's just knowing how to relate oneself to the Infinite, and allowing one's entire psychology to exist within that relationship, that is the key.

.