GENIUS FORUMS

As an exercise on the forum, I thought it might be interesting to compile a set of fundamental definitions for any beginner/intermediate seeker of truth. A kind of “Sage’s Pocket Dictionary” if you will, so feel free to post a definition that you believe is detrimental to the path, and if someone posts something that is incomplete, irrelevant, or worded incorrectly, make the necessary corrections.

Moreover, using a 'wikipedia' type of rule system, it could be interesting to see what sort of originality arises in terms of the compilation created.

And just for fun, lets see if we can work together to prevent this thread from regressing into cat fighting, name calling, personal attacks, emotionally heated accusations, small talk, ego back rubs, long winded rants, egotisicial story telling, and so on.

Here is a broad, yet rather foundational definition to begin:

1. Emotional Attachment: The tendency for the mind to cleave to ‘things’ within the totality as if they have some sort of concrete separate existence. These ‘things’ can include people, places, material possessions, symbols/language, images, ideas, concepts, fantasies, entire perspectives, pleasurable/painful stimuli from the environment, and so on.

All one needs to do is be idealistic in the process of establishing a definition for the terminology at hand and there wouldn't be much, if any confusion at all. In other words one would be seek to define a term so it holds the same weight in any and all contexts. This is something that comes fairly easily to the wiser individual.

Nick wrote:

All one needs to do is be idealistic in the process of establishing a definition for the terminology at hand and there wouldn't be much, if any confusion at all. In other words one would be seek to define a term so it holds the same weight in any and all contexts. This is something that comes fairly easily to the wiser individual.

Are you saying that wise individuals are able to interchange words and meanings so effortlessly that a dictionary is actually redundant?

And if so, I agree that a dictionary is not needed for wise individuals. However, it could be useful for seekers, beginners, and intermediates to condition themselves with correct knowledge as a means to eventually come to realizations on their own.

Also, for lovers of wisdom and language in general, it is interesting to observe how universal truths can be expressed in many different ways. And sometimes, a definition can be expressed with such subtlety and refinement, that new insights can even arise in the most veteran of thinkers.

Ryan;

Your suggestion of a "Sage's Pocket Dictionary" is useful.

Regarding your first entry, what function does the adjective "emotional" serve as your definition seems to apply to attachment (without qualification)?

My first entry is:

ego: the habitual notion of possession

clyde

Clyde wrote:

Regarding your first entry, what function does the adjective "emotional" serve as your definition seems to apply to attachment (without qualification)?

Well, I used the adjective emotional to accompany the word attachment because the process of cleaving is a movement of emotional identification. And an unwillingness to let go of the identifications is due to the emotional rewards that are sustained through the actual cleaving to ‘things.’ So I thought the word emotional should be used as an additional describer.

Regarding your (2.) ego entry - shouldn’t we add that the ego is a sort of limited 'center' which consists of a ‘network of emotional identifications that is sustained through memory’ and the ego believes that all these conditioned movements of thought actually have a concrete existence when in fact the entire network is a deception?

Imagination: It is your imagination that pushes you onwards; it is the imagination that will ultimately secure your understanding. And beyond that, you will still use it.

Steven's entry:

Imagination: It is your imagination that pushes you onwards; it is the imagination that will ultimately secure your understanding. And beyond that, you will still use it.

To add to Steven's entry, I would say:

3. Imagination: The ability of the mind to use thought/memory to project possibilities, and complicated relationships between ‘things’. However, If the mind is not bathing in emptiness, ones imagination will be superficial and shallow because most of its activity will be restrained to egotistical projections, trivial objects of analysis, and obtaining the various types of worldly security.

Ryan;

You seem attached to the adjective “emotional”, using the term “emotional identification” to explain the use of “emotional” in the phrase “emotional attachment”.

Perhaps you can define the term “emotion”.

clyde

Clyde wrote:

Perhaps you can define the term “emotion”.

In this context, I’m using the term 'emotional' to signify that we become attached to things because they give a momentary feeling of pleasure, comfort, security, warmth, or merely a reliable cycle of conditioning within our brains that we cling to out of a fear of total emptiness. We fear losing the attachments because their loss destroys the emotional security we derive from them, so our identifications are always emotional ones, and based on that insight it is important to include the term 'emotional' with the definition.

Ryan R wrote:Clyde wrote:

Perhaps you can define the term “emotion”.

In this context,

So even with your sage's pocket dictionary, you still have to specify context.
.

This is how I would have worded it. Pleasure/pain needs to be bought to the front.

1. Emotional Attachment: The tendency for the mind to value rational thinking below that of pleasurable/painful experiences, as a result of the desires of one’s self-obsessed ego. One effect of emotional attachment is that people tend to cleave to ‘things’ within the totality as if they have some sort of concrete separate existence. These ‘things’ can include people, places, material possessions, symbols/language, images, ideas, concepts, fantasies, entire perspectives and so on.

Jamesh wrote:1. Emotional Attachment: The tendency for the mind to value rational thinking below that of pleasurable/painful experiences, as a result of the desires of one’s self-obsessed ego.

If you had stopped right there, that would have been good. Leave out the cleaving of things, as that would be part of the definition of ego.
.

Yep, perhaps I was too accomodating to Ryans idea.

intellectual attachment: the tendency for the ego to value rational thinking above all else.

Elizabeth wrote:

So even with your sage's pocket dictionary, you still have to specify context.

Yes, there are quite a few different ways to define the word emotion, but many of the academic definitions fail to explain the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of delusions. For instance: According to MSN Encarta "Emotion is agitation or disturbance caused by strong feelings." However, this definition is rather weak because it's decription is so vague and limited, as it doesnt convey any examples of how emotion relates to delusions.

Elizabeth wrote:

If you had stopped right there, that would have been good. Leave out the cleaving of things, as that would be part of the definition of ego.

Again, I don’t think it’s a good idea to stop there because much of the ‘how and ‘why’ of the definition is abandoned.

And as for Clyde’s definition for intellectual attachment, I would change it to this:

4. Intellectual attachment: the tendency for the deluded ego to value academic thinking above all else. In the Sage’s physiology, there is no attachment to rational thinking, as his rational thinking is the result of him having direct or partial connection to the Source. It is only a deluded ego that can be attached to anything.

Although this definition is so close to the definition for emotional attachment that it is probably redundant.

Ryan R wrote:Although this definition is so close to the definition for emotional attachment that it is probably redundant.

Hmmm, the definition of emotional attachment and intellectual attachment are very close... so close as to probably be redundant... Do you suppose that attachment means the same thing, whether it is emotional attachment or intellectual attachment?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Ryan R wrote:Although this definition is so close to the definition for emotional attachment that it is probably redundant.

Hmmm, the definition of emotional attachment and intellectual attachment are very close... so close as to probably be redundant... Do you suppose that attachment means the same thing, whether it is emotional attachment or intellectual attachment?

I see what you're getting at here E - I'm almost inclined to agree, but I would say placing an adjective before the term attachment is neccesary because by doing so we differentiate the term attachment from its more mundane, non-psychological meaning. We need an adjective in order to distinguish the context we are using the word in.

Maybe the term 'psychological attachment' might trump the need for adjectives like emotional or intellectual. E.g. - All psychological attachments, whether to intellectualizing, beer, sex, food, etc, are rooted in an attachment to emotional (and thus volitile) states of consciousness.

Ryan;

As you have edited each definition offered to satisfy you, it seems that this is intended as “Ryan’s Pocket Dictionary”. Nevertheless, I wish you well on your endeavor.

clyde

Clyde:

As you have edited each definition offered to satisfy you, it seems that this is intended as “Ryan’s Pocket Dictionary”. Nevertheless, I wish you well on your endeavor.

You have made many corrections and suggestions as well, so this effort is just as much yours as mine, it is only in my nature to respond to entries by adding more subtlety.

Moreover, some of the definitions have been a tad too short for my taste, and therefore I have merely expanded to them.

Cory wrote:

Maybe the term 'psychological attachment' might trump the need for adjectives like emotional or intellectual. E.g. - All psychological attachments, whether to intellectualizing, beer, sex, food, etc, are rooted in an attachment to emotional (and thus volitile) states of consciousness.

Yes, psychological is probably the more appropriate adjective.

Ryan R wrote:Are you saying that wise individuals are able to interchange words and meanings so effortlessly that a dictionary is actually redundant?

No. I'm saying that a wise individual is able to see the ideal "picture" a term is trying to paint.

Ryan R wrote:And if so, I agree that a dictionary is not needed for wise individuals. However, it could be useful for seekers, beginners, and intermediates to condition themselves with correct knowledge as a means to eventually come to realizations on their own.

Yes, some type of basis is always nice to have.

Ryan R wrote:Also, for lovers of wisdom and language in general, it is interesting to observe how universal truths can be expressed in many different ways. And sometimes, a definition can be expressed with such subtlety and refinement, that new insights can even arise in the most veteran of thinkers.

It certainly is a wonderful effect.

Ryan, I think that this could be a fascinating exercise, but I want to clarify exactly what you are trying to achieve. With that in mind, I will first provide a definition of a term that I have invented.

Rational infinitism: a philosophy founded by Kevin Solway, later joined by David Quinn and Dan Rowden, and promulgated through the website theabsolute.net, the forums therein, and various guiding texts including "Poison for the Heart" and "Wisdom of the Infinite". The underpinnings of the philosophy are that absolute truth is attainable through pure reasoning, that to be ignorant of this absolute truth is to be deluded, that the truth that one arrives at is of an infinite universe (the Totality) containing all causes but itself uncaused, and that the seeking of the continued undeluded awareness of truth is the ultimate goal of the spiritual path. Other facets of the philosophy are a definition of masculinity as consciousness and femininity as unconsciousness, a belief that reality is based entirely upon thought and mind, and an eschewing of the value of comfort and love other than universal, spiritual compassion.

So, to the clarifying - a few of questions:
1. Do you identify as a rational infinitist by the above definition?
2. Do you intend the Sage's Pocket Dictionary that we compile in this thread to be:
a) a compilation of terms used in rational infinitism.
b) a more general compilation of terms commonly used on this forum.
c) an even more general compilation of terms that various members of this forum find personally useful but that we might not necessarily reach agreement on.
d) something else (please specify)
3. Will you keep track of the definitions that we generate so that you can later publish them somewhere static, such as on a personal website? (if you don't have one then perhaps they could fit somewhere on theabsolute.net)

I would be most interested in pursuing 2a and I consider that to be the most useful focus for this thread, for what it's worth, and I have several definitions that I could contribute right now if that's the way that you want to go. I would be very interested in running these definitions past QRS so that we can come to a clearer understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of rational infinitism.

Laird,

That is an apt description, seemingly accurate. I wonder how David, Dan, or Kevin would tweak it. I wonder how it compares to some of their source philosophies, like, Buddhism or Taoism as taught by Buddha and Lao'tse.

Laird wrote:Rational infinitism: a philosophy founded by Kevin Solway, later joined by David Quinn and Dan Rowden, and promulgated through the website theabsolute.net, the forums therein, and various guiding texts including "Poison for the Heart" and "Wisdom of the Infinite". The underpinnings of the philosophy are that absolute truth is attainable through pure reasoning, that to be ignorant of this absolute truth is to be deluded, that the truth that one arrives at is of an infinite universe (the Totality) containing all causes but itself uncaused, and that the seeking of the continued undeluded awareness of truth is the ultimate goal of the spiritual path. Other facets of the philosophy are a definition of masculinity as consciousness and femininity as unconsciousness, a belief that reality is based entirely upon thought and mind, and an eschewing of the value of comfort and love other than universal, spiritual compassion.

I wonder if wikipedia would let that stand.

What the fuck does Wikipedia have to do with this?

Elizabeth: I wonder if wikipedia would let that stand.

Carl G: What the fuck does Wikipedia have to do with this?

Almost a month back I suggested that we write a Wikipedia article with that title - Elizabeth might be remembering that suggestion or she might have come up with it independently. In any case, Elizabeth: I reckon they'd be happy with that or something similar as an introductory paragraph. I suggest these subsequent sections to flesh it out a little:
* Influences
* History
* Rationale
* Description
* Criticisms
* External links

Any removals/additions/edits?