GENIUS FORUMS

The moral dilemma of modern man is the plight of the unknown beggar. The forgotten axiom: 'Know Thyself' enters into nothingness, when rationality is forlorn. But when the synthesis of a man's history and his present circumstance is justified, there is true meaning, and unfettered free dominion. The man of modern construction lacks the impetus for self-approval, his thinking arrested in hawking goods to suppliment an empty constitution. The market economy of this age, more than any other period in history, has savagely catered to the psychological, spinning persons into products - and vice versa. What man should desire, is not a freedom from reality, so much as, a freedom from his distaste of reality. The dreams of a new man shouldn't reside in the familiar, but in the extraordinary of the familiar: His soul learning to unite his past and future lives. What most have forgotten, is the art of the sure foot, and the steady gaze, the simple smile, the steadfast hunger. The tragedy of the situation is man's ongoing isolation, forgetting that his death is also the death of his fellow man.

from my teacher:

the God of the "Will" is the command to obey,its Justice everyone fears - it is a Sword - your desert for obedience!"Will" is the command to believe,your will is what you have believed actively willing belief for you!you think when "it" wishes!"Will" is complication,the means of a means.Call this will free or not,beyond it is the love of Self.it is free to believe what it desires.you are free to believe in nothing related to belief.The "Truth" is not difficult to understand!The truth has no will - will has no truth!Truth is "will" never believed - it has no truth!"could be" - is the immediate certainty!this haunting Sphinx teaches us the value of the "will to anything"?Then there is no graver risk than Absolute Knowledge - if little is dangerous - what about Omniscience?the Almighty power has no accessoiries!

Form is emptiness! Emptiness form!

:)

Steven,

It is very difficult to understand what you are trying to say with this thread. Perhaps you could clarify by expanding some of your ideas. For example: how do you “justify the synthesis of a man’s history and his present circumstances”? Or: why does “hawking goods” make modern man lack “the impetus for self-approval”? Can you describe how modern man desires “freedom from reality” and how he would benefit from “freedom from his distaste of reality”? What is the “extraordinary of the familiar” and how will man’s “soul” unite “his past and his future lives”? Man’s “isolation” is a “tragedy” you say – in what way? How does a man’s “death” cause the “death of his fellow man”?

Also, what does this apply to? -

Form is emptiness! Emptiness form!

Sue

R. Steven Coyle wrote:Form is emptiness! Emptiness form!

:)

being there and seeing 'this',there is a volant "sight",that conveys somehow by the incidental that truth is somewhere.
It is the unmodified "I" in the sensation of omnipresence.
the mystic unbalanced.

steven,
I see lots of growth in you ,lately.

for those who fear reality,life becomes belated - an ever re-living of yesterday in phantasy

Sue,

How do you “justify the synthesis of a man’s history and his present circumstances”?

When historic actions are recaptured, with a resounding affirmation of the will, all of history becomes a sacred approval, the eternal self-reliance.

Why does “hawking goods” make modern man lack “the impetus for self-approval”?

Human beings project their nature onto their environment. Modern man savagely wields his artistic sensitivity for the progression of his base desires. His moral code corrupts itself with use, placing his often incorrigible heart, inside of a subsequently vacuous mind.

What is the “extraordinary of the familiar” and how will man’s “soul” unite “his past and his future lives”?

The "extraordinary of the familiar," realizing the beauty of forgotten simplicity: the bird that sings for your mind, a handwritten letter from a friend, an old pair of shoes.

"Soul" as the animating spirit of the mind: to discern the heart of things. The ability for the illuminated mind to follow itself back through time, to alter "destiny."

Man’s “isolation” is a “tragedy” you say – in what way?

Because the reality of Nature is accessible to everyone, but few ever begin to think beyond themselves. Man gives meaning to the earth, but the men of this modern age, only think to give meaning to their own ego.

How does a man’s “death” cause the “death of his fellow man”?

The spiritual death of one individual, affects the mind, and the reality, of all those around him.

Also, what does this apply to? -

Form is emptiness! Emptiness form!

I was refering to bert's previous post. An acknowledgment of his juxtaposed teaching.

Rulebooks are burdens, to be thrown haphazardly, back over our backs. Our own mind knows itself, it can cover space with ease. The animals and the insects can know our mind, too. The arrangement of chaotic elements, forms are forms: A tree is a device. Omnipresence is a reality with Nature.

Man!

Where do you ge this pseudo-mystic gobbeldegook!?

Do you REALLY believe you have actually said anything with this kind of rhetoric?

That's why I deleted it, in part.

Apparently, you have a rulebook. :)

Apparently, you have a rulebook. :)

Ha, ha.

Unfortunately, my "rulebook" didn't seem to tell me how to spell "quote" because my html tag didn't work in that last post!! (fixed now)

Anyway, I get a little tired of philosophy rhetoric often because it sometimes seems more interested in the rhetoric than in the truth of the matter.

I can understand that.

Though what I was saying was no different to various Buddhist and Taoist insights, in these instances, I should post the direct references, as opposed to my own spin on them.

R. Steven Coyle wrote:

Philosophically, the subject of man/masculinity is an extremely important one. “Modern man” is really no different from his predecessors, except that he now has even more feminine distractions to sink his mind and life into. Your opening of this thread to discuss the issue of man is useful – you just need to make clear your thoughts on the subject. I’ve asked a few more questions with that aim in sight.

When historic actions are recaptured, with a resounding affirmation of the will, all of history becomes a sacred approval, the eternal self-reliance.

So, remembering past actions in a positive way can help man empower himself?

Human beings project their nature onto their environment, most unconsciously. Modern man savagely wields his artistic sensitivity for the progression of his base desires. His moral code corrupts itself with use, placing his often incorrigible heart, inside of a subsequently vacuous mind.

Man should know better than to use his environment to satisfy his needs?

The "extraordinary of the familiar," realizing the beauty of forgotten simplicity: the bird that sings for your mind, a handwritten letter from a friend, an old pair of shoes.

Experiencing these “extraordinary” things will help man become wiser?

"Soul" as the animating spirit of the mind: to discern the heart of things. The ability for the illuminated mind to follow itself back through time, to alter "destiny."

What is the “heart of things”? Where does man find this illumination? And in what way will man alter his destiny if he uses his “illuminated mind to follow itself back through time”?

Because the reality of Nature is accessible to everyone, but few ever begin to think beyond themselves. Man gives meaning to the earth, but the men of this modern age, only think to give meaning to their own ego.

Yes, most men hold tight to attachments that prevent them from ever understanding Nature, but how is modern man's attachments more debilitating than those that his predecessors possessed?

The spiritual death of one individual, affects the mind, and the reality, of all those around him.

Philosophically you may be correct, but you’ll need to expand on it to make clear in what way this occurs.

Sue: Also, what does this apply to? -

Form is emptiness! Emptiness form!

Steven: I was refering to bert's previous post. An acknowledgment of his juxtaposed teaching.

Is “form is emptiness/emptiness form” a philosophical idea that you consider to be true?

Sue

Steven: When historic actions are recaptured, with a resounding affirmation of the will, all of history becomes a sacred approval, the eternal self-reliance.

Sue: So, remembering past actions in a positive way can help man empower himself?

Yes. By remembering one's true nature - as an observer of Nature - an individual can reclaim their life.

Steven: Human beings project their nature onto their environment, most, unconsciously. Modern man savagely wields his artistic sensitivity for the progression of his base desires. His moral code corrupts itself with use, placing his often incorrigible heart, inside of a subsequently vacuous mind.

Sue: Man should know better than to use his environment to satisfy his needs?

Yes. To satisfy his feminine desires, more specifically.

Steven: The "extraordinary of the familiar," realizing the beauty of forgotten simplicity: the bird that sings for your mind, a handwritten letter from a friend, an old pair of shoes.

Sue: Experiencing these “extraordinary” things will help man become wiser?

These types of events, could release him from his egotism, and direct him towards a more introspective, and hopefully, more philosophic life.

Steven: "Soul" as the animating spirit of the mind: to discern the heart of things. The ability for the illuminated mind to follow itself back through time, to alter "destiny."

Sue: What is the “heart of things”? Where does man find this illumination? And in what way will man alter his destiny if he uses his “illuminated mind to follow itself back through time”?

The "essence of things," or, "the crux of the matter."

Man finds "illumination" through introspection and philosophic observation. With an "illuminated mind" a man's history [past lives] open to new revelations, enabling further progression along his path.

Steven: Because the reality of Nature is accessible to everyone, but few ever begin to think beyond themselves. Man gives meaning to the earth, but the men of this modern age, only think to give meaning to their own ego.

Sue: Yes, most men hold tight to attachments that prevent them from ever understanding Nature, but how is modern man's attachments more debilitating than those that his predecessors possessed?

With exponential advances in technology, modern man faces a never before seen existential crisis. The efficiency of technology allows for feminine values [passiveness, laziness, greed] to propogate themselves at an alarming rate.

Steven: The spiritual death of one individual, affects the mind, and the reality, of all those around him.

Sue: Philosophically you may be correct, but you’ll need to expand on it to make clear in what way this occurs.

The propogation of ignorance has a widespread effect. All of our actions, though caused, have an unseen and expansive effect.

Is “form is emptiness/emptiness form” a philosophical idea that you consider to be true?

Yes, definitely.

Steven,

It is still very difficult to understand the point you are trying to make. (You are trying to make a point – aren’t you?)

Perhaps it would be more expedient if you first laid out your idea of philosophy and man’s relationship to it. Maybe then we can begin to discuss this issue.

Sue

I was attempting to spark a dialouge discussing the current "philosophy" of modern man, and his potential philosophy: the means to acheive a revolution of the mind.

An individual's code of truth, their personal value system, reflects their philosophy, shaping the moral behavior of its participant. The fragmentation of society is reflective of modern man's new philosophy, a self-justified free for all, where the ego is not recognized as the centre of the will, but as a representation of a debilitating self.

It would be interesting to discuss the current situation in depth, and the means to philosophic renaissance.

Steven: It would be interesting to discuss the current situation in depth, and the means to philosophic renaissance.

Why dont you discuss it in depth then?

Is it because nobody can really understand you?

It's kind of hard to have a discussion with you Steven because your statements don't seem to mean anything, yet i think you fool yourself into thinking your statements mean something.

For instance:

Steve: I was attempting to spark a dialouge discussing the current "philosophy" of modern man.

Who are you talking about here? Modern man? You are living in abstractions steven.

Do you consider me a modern man? Is everyone on this forum modern men? If that's the case, then why dont you spark a dialogue discussing the current philosophy of George bush, of Ken Wilber, of Arthur Schopenhauer, of Marylin Manson, of even Cory, of Sue, of Sapius, Scott, Cosmic Prostitute, Keven Solway, Quinn, etc, or even of Steven for that matter.

You should only spark a discussion about 'real' people. You seemed to be focused on the boogie-man.

What about the people closest to you in your life - like your mother, or your father, your sister, or brother? How well do you understand them?

Why even bother trying to understand 'modern-man' when you dont even understand the actual people in your life?

Could it be that you arent really interested in anyone? Could it be that you are only interested in deriving excitement via fabricating fancy looking hipster verbiage?

The thing is Steven is I dont think your interested in doing anything other than displaying a bunch of fancy looking sentences in the same way a Peacock displays it's tail.

So this modern man you are interested in discussing with us.....are you sure its not your self? Or is it some abstract phantom that you fabricated in order to escape the responsibility of understanding yourself and the people in your life?

lets continue to examine your sentences.....

Steven: and his potential philosophy: the means to acheive a revolution of the mind, a new philosophic epoch.

ok its clear........Steven is a modern man who has the potential to achieve a revolution of the mind, to be a part of a special epoch.

I'm not going to deny this.

Question: what role does self-gratification and pleasure have in this revolution of the mind?

An individual's code of truth, their personal value system, reflects their philosophy, shaping the moral behavior of its participant.

Why do you divide man's philosophy from his personal value system? And code of truth? Aren't all of these the same thing? Superflouousness again steven.

Like Leyla has already pointed out to you, you are indeed platitudinous.

You take banal and unoriginal simple observations and you dress them up in flashy clothes. People point out to you that you are doing this, but then you continue to do it, out of arrogance?

You take a simple whole, and you break it up into a bunch of fragments. You dont do this to purposely confuse your reader, but rather you do this because you yourself are confused.

I noticed how you said shaping their 'moral' behavior

What does this mean Steven? Can you give me examples from your personal life that might help me understand what constitues moral behavior and immoral behavior?

Here's my interpretation of what you are saying:

"Mans values determine how he behaves."

You need to learn how to write more simply Steven, it would save us all alot of trouble.

Steven: The fragmentation of society is reflective of modern man's new philosophy, a self-justified free for all

Ok, here it is at least clear that you are intersted in criticizing the values and maturity of humanity. And you do know that you are preaching to the choir, dont you?

where the ego is not recognized as the centre of the will, but as a representation of the self.

in other words:

The life of the modern man (the average joe) is a selfish, vulgar, stupid, indulgence. Joe thinks that what he feels and thinks, is his self. He is miserable about who he is and he justifies his confusion by continuing to do the very things that cause his confusion and misery. People point out to Joe that he is a nussiance, an annoyance and a fool, but since he has a friend named bob who shares similar irrational values, Joe contiunes to use his friend Bob as a means to escape into a fantasy where him and bob do something great and thus they become famous. Joe (perhaps unconsciously) regards his friend Bob as his inferior side kick and himself as the great hero. Amusingly, Bob secretly regards himself as the hero and Joe as the sidekick.


So anyway Joe....um, I mean Steven, are you saying that Joe can improve by realizing that his ego is the 'center of the will'.

'Center of the will'? Why not just say 'will'?

Joe can improve upon or end his stupidity by realizing his ego is his will?

This is so foolish. Where is that going to get him? Do you even know what the ego is steven? do you know what 'will' is?

Why not start with the basics?

Start a thread called: what is the ego?

or: What is 'will'?

I think by doing so you might realize how difficult and complicated of a proccess it is to understand what ego and will are.

Maybe then you wont' be so quick to write such inconsiderate and pointless remarks.

Cory,

First, you should realize your attachment to my own shortcomings, as an attachment to a part of yourself that you despise.

Modern man? You are living in abstractions, Steven.

Modern man: prototype of our feminine times . . .

If you would also read inbetween the lines, in this regard, you might be able to decipher what I'm getting at.

You should only spark a discussion about 'real' people.

Where is that written?

What about the people closest to you in your life - like your mother, or your father, your sister, or brother? How well do you understand them?

Very well. Too well. In fact, part of the reason I choose the style of writing that I do -- as to not "speak my mind," for fear of offending delicate human nature.

Why even bother trying to understand 'modern-man' when you dont even understand the actual people in your life?

Don't assume with simplicity.

Could it be that you arent really interested in anyone? Could it be that you are only interested in deriving excitement via fabricating fancy looking hipster verbiage?

I can easily understand bert? His mind reads in essence. To have to filter your expression, the manner in which you perceive, is willfully draining your own energy.

I don't contest to making myself clear, on certain threads.

The thing is Steven is I dont think your interested in doing anything other than displaying a bunch of fancy looking sentences in the same way a Peacock displays it's tail.

I think in abstractions. Nature thinks in abstractions.

So this modern man you are interested in discussing with us.....are you sure its not your self? Or is it some abstract phantom that you fabricated in order to escape the responsibility of understanding yourself and the people in your life?

Cory, there is always part of yourself in what you choose to write.

What role does self-gratification and pleasure have in this revolution of the mind?

Energy propels us.

Why do you divide man's philosophy from his personal value system? And code of truth? Aren't all of these the same thing? Superflouousness again steven.

I didn't divide them.

You take banal and unoriginal simple observations and you dress them up in flashy clothes.

Like any observation, the mind that perceives it gives it continuity and meaning.

You dont do this to purposely confuse your reader, but rather you do this because you yourself are confused.

...

I noticed how you said shaping their 'moral' behavior

What does this mean Steven? Can you give me examples from your personal life that might help me understand what constitues moral behavior and immoral behavior?

Moral behavior: consciousness of "I."

Immoral behavior: unconsciousness of "I."

You need to learn how to write more simply Steven, it would save us all alot of trouble.

I'll work on it.

And you do know that you are preaching to the choir, dont you?

Right, Cory. But, maybe that's why I wrote it.

Where the ego is not recognized as the centre of the will, but as a representation of the self.

"Modern man derives his pleasure [energy], not from an established identity, but from a persona built on corporate infrastructure"

The life of the modern man (the average joe) is a selfish, vulgar, stupid, indulgence. Joe thinks that what he feels and thinks, is his self. He is miserable about who he is and he justifies his confusion by continuing to do the very things that cause his confusion and misery. People point out to Joe that he is a nussiance, an annoyance and a fool, but since he has a friend named bob who shares similar irrational values, Joe contiunes to use his friend Bob as a means to escape into a fantasy where him and bob do something great and thus they become famous. Joe (perhaps unconsciously) regards his friend Bob as his inferior side kick and himself as the great hero. Amusingly, Bob secretly regards himself as the hero and Joe as the sidekick.

bert is a genius. His soul [psyche] has acheived consciousness.

'Center of the will'? Why not just say 'will'?

Cause I don't feel like being Cory.

I think he has good suggestions, though.

Joe can improve upon or end his stupidity by realizing his ego is his will? This is so foolish. Where is that going to get him? Do you even know what the ego is steven? Do you know what 'will' is?

Ah, but when you reclaim yourself [your will].

Nope, I'm stupid.

Why not start with the basics?

Start a thread called: what is the ego?

or: What is 'will'?

Don't make me laugh. You might add to a new will.

I think by doing so you might realize how difficult and complicated of a proccess it is to understand what ego and will are.

Not really. Our memories hold tight to what is important.

Maybe then you wont' be so quick to write such inconsiderate and pointless remarks.

Me, me, me.

Steven,

Earlier on, I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were actually trying to consider this topic of “Modern man” seriously. But; from your responses to Cory, it is clear that you are not interested in the survival of masculinity – quite the reverse – you seem more interested in turning men toward femininity. And here is the proof –

Steven: If you would also read inbetween the lines, in this regard, you might be able to decipher what I'm getting at.

What you have written comes directly from the mind of Woman. Being incapable of any great depth of thought, she relies instead on superficialities to get by on. In this case, you expect us to do your thinking for you, while you just sit back and feed off of our hard work. Women do this all the time, as they have no substance – depending entirely on the mind of man for their existence.

You do it again when you throw the responsibility for your “shortcomings” onto Cory -

Steven: First, you should realize your attachment to my own shortcomings, as an attachment to a part of yourself that you despise.

It is obvious from Cory's work that you are incorrect. Instead, Cory’s objections to your work, speaks volumes about his attachment to masculine values and truth.

Cory: You take a simple whole, and you break it up into a bunch of fragments. You dont do this to purposely confuse your reader, but rather you do this because you yourself are confused.

The masculine mind values thinking that is clear, to the point and which arises out of a deep well of understanding. What it does not value, or appreciate in any way, are ‘thoughts’ that are not fully formed, due to being neither connected to any deeper understanding, nor to an ability to reason with discernment and discrimination.

Steven, if you do want to become a thinker, perhaps it would profit you to spend some time considering the points I have raised. Your sentiments below seem to indicate a desire for change -

Steven: It would be interesting to discuss the current situation in depth, and the means to philosophic renaissance.

Sue

Steven: If you would also read inbetween the lines, in this regard, you might be able to decipher what I'm getting at.

Sue: What you have written comes directly from the mind of Woman. Being incapable of any great depth of thought, she relies instead on superficialities to get by on. In this case, you expect us to do your thinking for you, while you just sit back and feed off of our hard work. Women do this all the time, as they have no substance – depending entirely on the mind of man for their existence.

That comment was more from a frustration with my own inability to communicate my thoughts.

But your insight is taken to heart.

Steven: First, you should realize your attachment to my own shortcomings, as an attachment to a part of yourself that you despise.

Sue: It is obvious from Cory's work that you are incorrect. Instead, Cory’s objections to your work, speaks volumes about his attachment to masculine values and truth.

Well, Cory and I discussed the topic of drug use awhile back, where he made it known, quite clearly, that he harbored resentment towards parts of himself that he saw within my character. I saw the same pattern in this thread. I also appreciate Cory's suggestions, but changes in character and subsequent writing style, take some time to remedy. Cory showed his truer intention in this post: not a wholly masculine striving for a pure ideal, but rather an egotistic showcase, for his own "development."

Cory: You take a simple whole, and you break it up into a bunch of fragments. You dont do this to purposely confuse your reader, but rather you do this because you yourself are confused.

The masculine mind values thinking that is clear, to the point and which arises out of a deep well of understanding. What it does not value, or appreciate in any way, are ‘thoughts’ that are not fully formed, due to being neither connected to any deeper understanding, nor to an ability to reason with discernment and discrimination.

Point taken. But, to reroute the topic somewhat, I knowingly acknowledge my current lack: writing with clear precision, while maintaining a depth of consciousness, is an art form unto itself. Seeing that the masculine mind also contains many layers of consciousness - which is where I am currently writing from, I'll need to shift my mind, when writing, from essence, to a more concrete structuring.

So far in this thread, Steven has displayed more sagacity than either Sue or Cory. Why can't they get to the point of what they really want from him? :D

Steven,

Steve: First, you should realize your attachment to my own shortcomings, as an attachment to a part of yourself that you despise.

Why do you think it’s bad to hate the lower self?

Steven, you do indeed remind me allot of how I used to be about 5 years ago. And I do have a very intense amount of self hatred for my past, for who I was, and for some qualities that exist in me today. I love clarity, honesty, logic, masculinity, etc, etc.

Therefore, I think it’s more accurate to say that I have an attachment to our potential to be masculine, rational, clear, honest, courageous, strong, etc, etc…

I don’t have an attachment to my weakness or your weakness. I want to see them destroyed. You understand? Or do you refute? Let me know what you think.

I read through some of my old note books from when I was 19-22 and it blows me away how ridiculous it was. It is kind of humiliating. I was very superfluous, masochistic, craving to be great and special, lopsidedly intellectual, emotionally unbalanced etc, etc.

These are all qualities that still linger and haunt. And my hatred for them is ferocious.

One of the things I hate most about my past is my meekness and masochism, and the petty sadism that went along with it.

I don’t feel that my previous post was petty sadism, or purely an egotisitcal show-case. I see clearly what needs to be uprooted and destroyed. To be able to see is a virtue that is bought at the cost of undergoing great pain.

One must go through tremendous suffering to be able to criticize others in a way that is not merely petty and squalid.

Responsible criticism of others is indeed criticism of oneself.

So you are correct to acknowledge that when I criticize you, it comes from many years of hating qualities of myself for the very qualities I hate you for.

After going to sleep after a days work, I read over what my original post on this thread said - - For a moment, I was actually quite shocked by how aggressive and ruthless I was. (not that it was really that bad - but for me it was a new level)

For a brief moment I was embarrassed and disturbed by it. I felt a pang of humiliation – and this was before I read your reply.

As you might have read in my other posts, I don’t believe in choice.

I simply live in a state of non-resistance. If I suffer for my actions, that suffering copulates with a new rationality, and a new action is born – and here it is….

Cory: what about the people closest to you in your life - like your mother, or your father, your sister, or brother? How well do you understand them?

Steve: Very well. Too well. In fact, part of the reason I choose the style of writing that I do -- as to not "speak my mind," for fear of offending delicate human nature.

Well, I don’t think this board is the kind of place for tip-toeing around delicate human nature. Most of us here are interested in gaining immunity from suffering -- and we don’t do this by being easy on each-other and tip-toeing around delicate issues.

Have you ever read the disclaimer that introduces and describes the purpose of this forum, and the meaning of genius in context of this forum?

viewtopic.php?t=128

Being able to give pain – and thus being able to take pain is a big part of what is meant to go on here.

What do you think about that?

But being very passionate and serious can seem quite depressing, especially for people who aren’t very serious.

I know you are recovering from depression - - this place could potentially help you gain immunity from your depression OR if you misuse this forum, it could send you into a level of suffering that you might not be able to deal with.

However, there might be no better way to become strong than to participate on this forum. It all depends on how you use it.

So far Steven, I haven’t been too fond of your conduct.

Focusing on understanding your self and the people in your life is abiding in hell and exploring it, rather than indulding in self gratification as much as you can until (like most people do) life suddenly decides to drop you into hell when your too old and feeble to deal with its ruthlessness.

In your case, you do indeed seem to enjoy pretentious wankering with words. Playing with uncommon words and assembling really unique sentences can be fun and exciting.

And I have come to despise such fun and such excitement.

My passion to live in the darkest depth I can go in order to gain higher and higher levels of clarity and become immune to the cruelty and tragedy of life has created an intense hatred for all that seems shallow, thoughtless, pretentious, and feminine.

Lately I've just been in such a passionate, serious, focused mind-set lately that my tolerance for anything that doesn't seem truthful and insightful is anathema to me.

Cory: Could it be that you aren’t really interested in anyone? Could it be that you are only interested in deriving excitement via fabricating fancy looking hipster verbiage?

Steven: I can easily understand bert? His mind reads in essence. To have to filter your expression, the manner in which you perceive, is willfully draining your own energy.

No, it hasn’t really drained my energy. It's actually a source of insight and self- revelation. I feel I've grown.

But I can imagine my attitude may have drained you a bit, or at least hurt you, humiliated you?

I admit, for a very brief moment I was quite shocked, disturbed and even a bit humiliated by my aggression - at that moment of pain I suddenly felt a strong seemingly frightened desire to comfort you, to be nice to you.

I suddenly had a thought that I think most people have at certain times in their life.

What if the person I was cruel to, suddenly committed suicide?

Life was already hard enough for him -- his rope was already fraying - -the poor fellow was making progress slowly, climbing the rope toward the plateau where he might have been able to get himself together and do the work that I am forcing upon him so ignorantly and arrogantly - -- He might have lived - but I came along and shook his fragile rope.

And his rope (tolerance) broke, and he died. Maybe he was close to recovering? Maybe he genuinely needed kindness for the time being? Maybe he needed to first reach some sort of plateau where he could then work on the harder truths? (that I so arrogantly and viciously tried to brand upon him with a glowing red hot poker)

What right do I have confronting him so aggressively?


You see Steven - I am obviously not a supremely mature being. I am often emotional and disturbed by cruelty and thus sympathetic towards that which I identify with).

But I want to go beyond this.

So, my energy level is still quite high - - I'm not depressed or drained about over how I treated you.

But the sudden and short lasting humiliation I had felt upon re-reading my post had immediately distilled a warmer, sympathetic state of mind, that was equally energetic (a great deal of this energy has gone into this post).

Cory: The thing is Steven is I don’t think your interested in doing anything other than displaying a bunch of fancy looking sentences in the same way a Peacock displays it's tail.

Steve: I think in abstractions. Nature thinks in abstractions.

Cory: How do you know nature thinks? Can you support your conclusion with logic?

So this modern man you are interested in discussing with us.....are you sure its not your self? Or is it some abstract phantom that you fabricated in order to escape the responsibility of understanding yourself and the people in your life?

Steven: Cory, there is always part of yourself in what you choose to write.

Yes I agree, and do you think the part of me that I choose to expose in my writing is something that is a common quality that most people hide from? I'm doing my best to unite us Steve, if it seems like I am sadistically trying to destroy you - it's not really so much that - - but there is just a passion to destroy the values that I feel are keeping us divided.

Cory: What role does self-gratification and pleasure have in this revolution of the mind?

Steven: Energy propels us.

Steven, beware of the tendency to resort to simplicity when complexity is necessary - and complexity when simplicity is necessary.

Cory: 'Center of the will'? Why not just say 'will'?

Steve: Cause I don't feel like being Cory.

I think he has good suggestions, though.

Well, maybe one day you might share my view that in the big picture, differences and uniqueness are superficial and ultimately worthless. We need to work on being clear with each other, rather than posturing pretentiously and playing foolish ambiguous games.

Understanding why we are the same and being united is what is important.

When we are immature we like to worship our differences, our uniqueness.

This seems to be what you are mostly about.

Cory: Well, Cory and I discussed the topic of drug use awhile back, where he made it known, quite clearly, that he harbored resentment towards parts of himself that he saw within my character.

Well, it actually provokes sympathy just as much as it provokes hatred.

After getting a bit of information about your personality, I’ve actually felt drawn to you in a sympathetic sort of way.

I remember watching Leyla Shen picking on you quite badly in a worldly matters discussion thread.

I felt like telling her to stop, to leave you alone. This is because I had learned enough about you to know that you have had struggles quite similar to my own.

It was then that I had come to realize the strong relationship between self-pity and sympathy.

To me, self-pity and sympathy are undivided.

Steve: changes in character and subsequent writing style, take some time to remedy.

Changes in character come about through devastation, destruction, humiliation, failure.

It would be cruel of me to be too sympathetic towards you and myself.

You must suffer on your own initiative Steven, or take the brunt from others.

Do the work yourself, because I really don’t enjoy having to point out your weakness. It probably is not much my responsibility, and perhaps my original post on this thread was immature in that regard. One can never be too sure.

I have enough suffering caused just by dealing with my own weakness.

I am not the sort of psychopath that delights in the egotistical showcase of tearing into others. Your humiliation is mine.

However, I do see this forum as a great place to talk about what matters, and when I see someone who wants to experience that which I see as stupid, I do indeed want to see them destroryed. This is what having values is about. In order to love, you must hate - and vice versa.

Steven: Cory showed his truer intention in this post: not a wholly masculine striving for a pure ideal, but rather an egotistic showcase, for his own "development."

If that were the case, then it wouldn’t be development would it? Wouldn't that(egotisitcal showcase) be called degradation?

I was and have been doing my best to make your thread meaningful.

You divide your development from my development – and you are wrong to do this.

Steven: Me, me, me, me

Yes, you are deluded. :)

Cory:

One must go through tremendous suffering to be able to criticize others in a way that is not merely petty and squalid.

Can you support this conclusion with logic? :D

In your case, you do indeed seem to enjoy pretentious wankering with words. Playing with uncommon words and assembling really unique sentences can be fun and exciting.

And I have come to despise such fun and such excitement.

My passion to live in the darkest depth I can go in order to gain higher and higher levels of clarity and become immune to the cruelty and tragedy of life has created an intense hatred for all that seems shallow, thoughtless, pretentious, and feminine.

:D

Must one of necessity hate where one does not love? Love and hate are not polar opposites.

I admire your energy Cory.

What is your maturity for? Are your passions (truth, logic, masculinity etc.) directed to an end?

Cory,

I don’t have an attachment to my weakness or your weakness. I want to see them destroyed. You understand? Or do you refute? Let me know what you think.

Let's work to destroy it then, old pal.

Seriously.

Well, I don’t think this board is the kind of place for tip-toeing around delicate human nature. Most of us here are interested in gaining immunity from suffering -- and we don’t do this by being easy on each-other and tip-toeing around delicate issues.

I'll try to point to the heart of the matter, without compromising my integrity, and without purposely deriving pleasure through egotism.

The masculine mind must also have within itself, the wisdom to balance a layered consciousness, for self-filling repose.

Focusing on understanding your self and the people in your life is abiding in hell and exploring it, rather than indulding in self gratification as much as you can until (like most people do) life suddenly decides to drop you into hell when your too old and feeble to deal with its ruthlessness.

I've been to hell.

I don't think it is a bad thing to enjoy words, for friendship.

You must be cautious, though. Your striving for masculinity can quickly cyphen the life out of life.

Life is also delicate.

In your case, you do indeed seem to enjoy pretentious wankering with words. Playing with uncommon words and assembling really unique sentences can be fun and exciting.

Well, having a clever mind, my memory forms abstract associations with imagery.

But, I recognize that philosophy is geared more towards direct expression. I will try to work on my writing, in order to work on my self.

My passion to live in the darkest depth I can go in order to gain higher and higher levels of clarity and become immune to the cruelty and tragedy of life has created an intense hatred for all that seems shallow, thoughtless, pretentious, and feminine.

Beware. You can build a fortress of logic to uphold masculine prestine, but, in reality, you create your mind. You are in control of your Nature. What may appear shallow, thoughtless, pretentious, and feminine, will always be a part of you.

Lately I've just been in such a passionate, serious, focused mind-set lately that my tolerance for anything that doesn't seem truthful and insightful is anathema to me.

Inbetween the words, like in Zen practice, there can also be a source of meaning.

No, it hasn’t really drained my energy. It's actually a source of insight and self-revelation. I feel I've grown.

But I can imagine my attitude may have drained you a bit, or at least hurt you, humiliated you?

I'm not as weak as you might assume.

No, your comments are part of Nature.

I admit, for a very brief moment I was quite shocked, disturbed and even a bit humiliated by my aggression - at that moment of pain I suddenly felt a strong seemingly frightened desire to comfort you, to be nice to you.

You still think too highly of yourself, overcompensateing for past transgressions. You can't disrupt my understanding.

Friendship should be centered around an exchange of wisdom.

But I want to go beyond this.

You must also work on your understanding of what enlightenment is.

So, my energy level is still quite high -- I'm not depressed or drained about over how I treated you.

The wind blows from the east to the west as I type.

But the sudden and short lasting humiliation I had felt upon re-reading my post had immediately distilled a warmer, sympathetic state of mind, that was equally energetic (a great deal of this energy has gone into this post).

I appreciate it, Cory. Compassion is knowing applied.

Steve: I think in abstractions. Nature thinks in abstractions.

Cory: How do you know nature thinks? Can you support your conclusion with logic?

Where is Nature?

Yes I agree, and do you think the part of me that I choose to expose in my writing is something that is a common quality that most people hide from? I'm doing my best to unite us Steve, if it seems like I am sadistically trying to destroy you - it's not really so much that -- but there is just a passion to destroy the values that I feel are keeping us divided.

In order to repair your own divisions.

Well, I'm down with that.

Cory: 'Center of the will'? Why not just say 'will'?

Steve: Cause I don't feel like being Cory.

I think he has good suggestions, though.

Well, maybe one day you might share my view that in the big picture, differences and uniqueness are superficial and ultimately worthless. We need to work on being clear with each other, rather than posturing pretentiously and playing foolish ambiguous games.

I agree. But, there also comes a point when you are the big picture. And then, our differences and uniquenesses can be truly appreciated.

To me, self-pity and sympathy are undivided.

You're right.

It would be cruel of me to be too sympathetic towards you and myself.

Agreed.

If that were the case, then it wouldn’t be development would it? Wouldn't that (egotisitcal showcase) be called degradation?

Ah, you know what I meant. That's why I put development in quotes.

You divide your development from my development – and you are wrong to do this.

Considering your unprovoked disdain a few threads back, I was not wrong in assuming this.

Steven: Me, me, me, me

Cory: Yes, you are deluded. :)

Knowledge is limitless :)

our efforts are mainly to re-experience,make probable and permanent those things we like and desire most.whereas mind and body reshapes,for other powers to serve their purpose first.

Cory,

Maybe if we begin a discussion about the specific weaknesses we're currently dealing with, we'll unearth some of our modern conditioning, along with some more valuable insights.