GENIUS FORUMS

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Nick wrote:

I think you are giving emotion undue credit. Explain exactly what you mean by emotion. I might have a few more questions for you, but this one needs to be answered first.

I’ll give a few examples:

1. Have you ever just felt the agony and futility of life? Of everything? How everything you can possibility do is futile? This type of realization is necessary and indeed it is an emotional affair.

2. When you are driving your car, and someone almost hits you, your whole body shakes with fear, this is fear in its right place. It is fear as a self-protective mechanism.

3. Sometimes you will observe the odd human who is so confidant, smug, pretentious, but also deluded, and you find the whole design disgusting. It is disgusting how lost people are, but how happy they are able to keep themselves. One feels disgust over the power of delusion.

4. Of course these occurrences do not happen every time, some deluded humans provoke a sort of compassion because they are deluded, but they are trying desperately to be moral/good and one feels a certain positivity for their sincere attempt.

5. Duing a period of creativity, there is suffering/discontent. And suffering is needed to end any behavior, it is the only way one can become tired of a certain tendency/behavior action.

Suffering/emotion is an invaluable resource. it is like oil for the Americans or Rainwater for the farmer.

The philosopher is never free from all suffering.

Suffering is emotion. Suffering is the only way one can grow and come up with deep profound realizations.

So bascially you answered my question with emotion=suffering, right? This is simply not the case, I have experienced many emotions which were quite pleasant, and far from suffering. Certainly some emotions cause me to suffer. I experience an array of emotions everyday. Most of them are short lived and only last as long as the experience that is creating them. The more prominent question I'm getting at is; do I allow my emotions to dictate my thoughts and actions? The answer for me would be rarely. I have disciplined myself through sound reason to dismiss my emotions as "unconscious thought" rendering them untrustworthy. Even though I feel these emotions, they do not enter my logical and conscious thought process.

Now you might be thinking emotions are thoughts, but emotions are not something that you are able to control. They come and go as they please depending on the circumstances of the person and their environment. This is why I refer to them as "unconscious thoughts." True thought is something which we can consciously formulate and from there decide what our course of action should be. In my case most of my logical thought process is dictated by my relationship with reality/God/Truth. I am always perfecting my ability to maintain this highly conscious state of mind. Emotion simply doesn't enter the picture at any point.

You might say I do this because it makes me feel good, but this is not the case either. There are many times when I feel like im suffering for Truth, but rather than act on my feelings I maintain my faith in reason. Which in turn reveals to me that even though I may feel up and down at times, there is only one goal in mind, and that goal is enlightenment. I use italics, because not unlike you, I have yet to know for myself whether there is such a thing. Although where you have dismissed the notion completely, I still see enlightenment as a posibility.

I think this way because by developing my intellectual and logical abilities, I've noticed that I no longer experience as many emotions, and most of the emotions I do experience are less intense. I look at this as progress, and as long as I'm making progress there is no reason for me to think that enlightenment or in your words "a state of mind free from emotion/suffering", isn't a possibility. Since you think otherwise, this leads me to believe you are no longer making progress, or such a small amount of it, that it might as well not be given any credibility anyways.

Essentially your mind has strayed from the path of Truth and has now arrived at a deadend where all that you have gained is rendered useless. The only way to fix this is to allow yourself to backtrack and start from the begining or some earlier point in your intellect. This is not uncommon, I have also had to backtrack multiple times on my path, but it takes much discipline, a strong faith in reason, and most importantly the ego must be kept in check. I know it isn't easy, but a wise man once told me "There's no denying that it's a hard path, and not many people are cut out for it. Perhaps you are not cut out for it either. There's really one way to find out and that is by giving it a go."

bert wrote:I'm using two absolutist concepts and seeing if your ideas - which are also absolutist - fit:

1. "Ultimate Reality is everything"
2. "a thing is an appearance or form of some kind"


bert: -the Absolute creates Cosmos with its aeon;and Cosmos formulates itself dimensionally as the 'alwaysness' we know as existence - the realizable reality - presented serially,partitively;never known as a whole.

Since you know that one part is always appearing, and you know that the other part never appears, why do you conclude the whole is not knowable?

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Quinn once criticised me for suggesting there is no emotionless state and then two weeks later he was showing disdain/disgust over some poor deluded fellow named Terry.

Maybe there's never been anyone wise enough to rid themselves thoroughly of egotism (delusions about Reality), which cause emotion to arise. Who knows? If you focus on weaning yourself from delusions, then you are just following your reasoning. Who can ask anything more of you?

Nick wrote:

I experience an array of emotions everyday. Most of them are short lived and only last as long as the experience that is creating them. The more prominent question I'm getting at is; do I allow my emotions to dictate my thoughts and actions?

So you admit that you feel emotion? But are you suggesting that one can be completely free from all suffering? If you are, I’m just pointing out the futility of such a pursuit. It is painful to work in society, it is painful to try to survive in this mess, realistically I don’t see an end to emotion.

There are many causal processes which act one the organism and cause suffering.

Nick wrote:

Even though I feel these emotions, they do not enter my logical and conscious thought process.

Now you might be thinking emotions are thoughts, but emotions are not something that you are able to control. They come and go as they please depending on the circumstances of the person and their environment. This is why I refer to them as "unconscious thoughts.

I agree that there is unconscious activity, and it seems that it functions in the background.

Nick wrote:

I still see enlightenment as a posibility.

As do I, you assume I have strayed from the path.

Nick wrote:

I've noticed that I no longer experience as many emotions, and most of the emotions I do experience are less intense.

As do I.

Nick, my point is that to suggest that suffering/emotion completely ends is a pipedream, if you understand the wide range of causal processes that can affect the organism then one realizes that all one can do is learn to live with certain types of suffering and as you say not allow thoughts to dictate ones action…

Also you strayed away from my initial point which was that emotion plays an important role for instance when you are growing weary of a deluded human that is unconsciously trying to exploit you, it is emotion that acts. You’re disdain is what causes your reasoning outburst.

You wouldn’t be able to stand up for yourself without emotion and in another post your were emphasizing the importance of challenging my father if he is standing in my way…

But I cannot do anythiing without an emotional response to what he is doing, if there was no emotion I wouldn’t act in the first place.

Emotion is acceptable in some cases. My only point Nick is you are suggesting we rid ourselves of something that is impossible to completely rid ourselves of.

I’m just pointing out the futility of such a pursuit…

we are hardwired to feel emotion, but I agree that as one grows wiser certain emotions have less control over you.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Maybe there's never been anyone wise enough to rid themselves thoroughly of egotism (delusions about Reality), which cause emotion to arise. Who knows? If you focus on weaning yourself from delusions, then you are just following your reasoning. Who can ask anything more of you?

I think it takes a lot of courage to admit that one is genetically controlled and some tendencies appear to be fixed. We are controlled by how the DNA is functioning.

It is tragic that some of us think we are progressing, but the very tendencies we are working to end are still operating in the background; we are simply using our ideals to try to override them.

I’m also suggesting certain emotions serve a function in the survival of the species and if we rid ourselves of all emotion then we would be incapable of interacting with each other.

Like I said to Leyla earlier: when one is interesting in a certain thread over another, it is emotion that is interested. We have an emotional investment in certain threads over others.

For instance: why was Faizi, Dan, Solway and others so interested in the middle-east conflict while others couldn’t care less? There is emotional interest there.

I’m not saying emotional interest is bad in this case, but we are drawn to certain posts depending on what we have been wondering recently, and we have an emotional investment to discover new truths related to our recent contemplation.

You cannot have interest without emotional investment, they go hand and hand.

I'm just pointing out the futility of trying to end all emotion, it is an absurd pursuit because you are trying to end one of the very mechanisms that allows you to function in the world.

There is immature emotion and mature emotion and obviously the goal would be to develop an awareness the is incapable of being controlled by immature emotions.

Kelly Jones wrote:

bert wrote:I'm using two absolutist concepts and seeing if your ideas - which are also absolutist - fit:

1. "Ultimate Reality is everything"
2. "a thing is an appearance or form of some kind"


bert: -the Absolute creates Cosmos with its aeon;and Cosmos formulates itself dimensionally as the 'alwaysness' we know as existence - the realizable reality - presented serially,partitively;never known as a whole.

Since you know that one part is always appearing, and you know that the other part never appears, why do you conclude the whole is not knowable?

because existence is alogical to any logic we know.
there is no man who knoweth anything,for there is no 'absolute collective'.

the "great" question begins immediately hallucinative when when we ask :what is Truth?
this question implies colour-blindness.it is asked if Truth were an unrelated fact,complex,or thing,but always as abstract.for there are many kind of truths and they become through negatives. then what is 'its' beginning?what has no beginning has no becoming.
what you do gather through past ,actual and being potential in the conceptive is Truth.Self is the negation of completeness as reality.we are what we believe and what it implies by a process of time in the conception,creation is caused by this bondage to formula.

still ,there is more to say...
for we are of the Absolute,in as much as...!for we have our mental powers which have become from a protoplasm,and maybe other some-things.and therein lies the answer.
that we can ,perhaps,establish a negative.for maybe we can know what is inessential to truth?but again it becomes a problem ,for the answer is both and neither are things essential to truth for all things are true.we have the 'confusion' of relating it in time and space.we wrongly relate them in time and space.
Truth (for us) is ever enrapped in our belief.
but if I can not explain it,then I can assure in a true manner that I am the living Truth.

THUS,we see only a refraction of the mighty reflection and experience them through the timely,the ever reaccurence of 'then' to the re-experience 'as now',with an ever changing relationship of 'I am' through changing environments,desires,etc.
the I becomes illusionary, refrangible and we become lost to ourselves.

still there is more to say...

cosmic_prostitute wrote:I’m also suggesting certain emotions serve a function in the survival of the species and if we rid ourselves of all emotion then we would be incapable of interacting with each other.

Are you absolutely certain that emotions are necessary to human survival? If so, can you reveal your logical deduction that arrived at this idea?

Or is the uncertain induction that since you constantly experience emotional mindstates, then every other human's mindstates (which are unknown to you) must also be constantly emotional, really the case here ?

If the latter, what do you think of the conscious and rational person who's had an "emotion-ectomy", and reasons that:

- consciousness is valuable because it's absolutely required for genius;
- and that genius is valuable because it's completely logical;
- and that being logical allows values to be decided on;
- and that he can't help valuing, so he might as well do it properly
- and that maintaining consciousness probably requires looking after his health;
- and that genius shows everything he is to be inseparable from cause and effect, so he might as well talk about genius wherever he goes.....

....and so on? Possible?

cosmic_prostitute wrote:So you admit that you feel emotion? But are you suggesting that one can be completely free from all suffering? If you are, I’m just pointing out the futility of such a pursuit. It is painful to work in society, it is painful to try to survive in this mess, realistically I don’t see an end to emotion.

There are many causal processes which act one the organism and cause suffering.

It's only suffering if your logic isn't good enough to reveal Truth.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:As do I, you assume I have strayed from the path.

How can you still think that enlightenment is a possibility when you don't think you can escape the torment of your emotions, when enlightenment requires one to escape the torment of their emotions?

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Nick, my point is that to suggest that suffering/emotion completely ends is a pipedream, if you understand the wide range of causal processes that can affect the organism then one realizes that all one can do is learn to live with certain types of suffering and as you say not allow thoughts to dictate ones action…

Also you strayed away from my initial point which was that emotion plays an important role for instance when you are growing weary of a deluded human that is unconsciously trying to exploit you, it is emotion that acts. You’re disdain is what causes your reasoning outburst.

You wouldn’t be able to stand up for yourself without emotion and in another post your were emphasizing the importance of challenging my father if he is standing in my way…

But I cannot do anythiing without an emotional response to what he is doing, if there was no emotion I wouldn’t act in the first place.

Emotion is acceptable in some cases. My only point Nick is you are suggesting we rid ourselves of something that is impossible to completely rid ourselves of.

I’m just pointing out the futility of such a pursuit…

we are hardwired to feel emotion, but I agree that as one grows wiser certain emotions have less control over you.

Like I said in earlier, this may be the case with yourself, which is why I think you have strayed or never were on the correct path. Also, not everyone is cut out for enlightenment. Just because you can't see yourself escaping your emotions doesn't mean others can't. This may be difficult for you, but I think and act quite often without emotion being involved. Also whether or not we feel emotions is irrelevant, if you rely on your logic to formulate thoughts and actions you will become one with the Tao. Then your emotions will be as effective at distracting you, as a slight breeze does is at lifting you off the ground.

Kelly wrote:

If the latter, what do you think of the conscious and rational person who's had an "emotion-ectomy", and reasons that:

- consciousness is valuable because it's absolutely required for genius;
- and that genius is valuable because it's completely logical;
- and that being logical allows values to be decided on;
- and that he can't help valuing, so he might as well do it properly
- and that maintaining consciousness probably requires looking after his health;
- and that genius shows everything he is to be inseparable from cause and effect, so he might as well talk about genius wherever he goes.....

....and so on? Possible?

Yes I agree.

Nick wrote:

How can you still think that enlightenment is a possibility when you don't think you can escape the torment of your emotions, when enlightenment requires one to escape the torment of their emotions?

I’m referring to the emotions that guide you. As with my father: Disdain towards his behavior guides me, it keeps me on the path. Disdain is not without emotion. I’m just trying to point out that there are beneficial emotions, you are trying to lump everything in one pile.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Nick wrote:

How can you still think that enlightenment is a possibility when you don't think you can escape the torment of your emotions, when enlightenment requires one to escape the torment of their emotions?

I’m referring to the emotions that guide you. As with my father: Disdain towards his behavior guides me, it keeps me on the path. Disdain is not without emotion. I’m just trying to point out that there are beneficial emotions, you are trying to lump everything in one pile.

Letting emotions guide you is a risky business, sometimes they may be beneficial, sometimes not. This is why it's a good idea to let your logic dictate you instead of your emotions. If your emotions happen to coincide with your logic it is only by chance that this is happening.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:I’m also suggesting certain emotions serve a function in the survival of the species and if we rid ourselves of all emotion then we would be incapable of interacting with each other.

and then you agreed that a conscious and rational person (a genius) who's had an "emotion-ectomy" can talk about genius. So, which is it to be?

Do you think he'd need to experience hell (irrational states) and its associated emotions, in order to talk to people? Why can't he rely on his memories?

-----

On the irrational idea of emotions benefitting the survival of the human species:

This individual wouldn't have emotional urges to reproduce, but he could decide to reproduce if it would assist in the preservation of the human species and therefore of genius.

-----

Kelly Jones wrote:

So which emotions could ever benefit him?

Fear
Hatred/disdain/disgust

Here is another example: a wise person can only stand the unintelligent behavior of others for a short period of time before he leaves the room, what causes him to leave the room?

Also the biological organism is not without fear, it is self-protective. You cannot be completely free from fear, it just changes into something that is more intelligent.

Many in here preach the importance of an emotionless state, but meanwhile emotional screwups surface again and again in their posts.

Sometimes they do a good job protecting their image/ideals that they have set, but most of the time I can see the hypocrisy.

Why emphasize the importance of something that you have not yet acheived? why have ideals? how can you be absolutely certain that a emotionless state exists if you are still by nature emotional?

Ideals create division. I say I will acheive this in time, I will develop and slowly approach the emotionaless state, but I dont think they will ever acheive anything in that pursuit.

Why not face the fact of emotion and live with it day to day instead of becoming idealistic and preaching to others?

Many people here are quick to throw out verbatims such as "the self is an illusion" but for being an illusion they are pretty damn protective over it...

The man who has the ideal of perfection is incapable of acknowledging his own imperfections, he worships an image just like a christain.

Only his new godhead is "causality" or "reality" or "formlessness" or god knows what other gimmicky ideas he believes will illustrate the "ulimate reality."

Reality cannot be known. There is no experiencer there to know it.

CP, I just want to address a contradiciton I see in your last post. There seems to be a flaw in your reasoning, perhaps due to emotion.

First you said:

"Many people here are quick to throw out verbatims such as "the self is an illusion" but for being an illusion they are pretty damn protective over it..."

But then you said:

"Reality cannot be known. There is no experiencer there to know it"

--------------------------------------------------

What difference to you think is there between a self and an experiencer?

Cory Patrick wrote:

CP, I just want to address a contradiciton I see in your last post. There seems to be a flaw in your reasoning, perhaps due to emotion.

First you said:

"Many people here are quick to throw out verbatims such as "the self is an illusion" but for being an illusion they are pretty damn protective over it..."

But then you said:

"Reality cannot be known. There is no experiencer there to know it"

The first statement is saying that someone may have the conceptual understanding that the self is an illusion, but then continue to cultivate, modify and create an imaginary identity for themselves based on ideals and then work hard to preserve the validity of the identity created.

they never actually come to grips with their limitations/imperfections.

The second statement is saying that there is no ultimate reality to be known and there is no experiencer to know it.

the self and the experiencer are one.

Moreover ultimate reality is defined as the ultimate conceptual grasp of how the universe functions/is put together.

some feel causality can do it, but it seems to come up short in my opinion. You could try to combine causality with duality, but it still fails to capture the whole. In the end it is merely a conceptual understanding which is limited.

However I'm not denying that one can understand the nature of the psyche.

Am I missing the contradiction?

Now, just for the records - what role did emotion play in that last response of yours?

Is there the emotions of boredom, dread, loathing and anxiety at the very essence of all of our posts here on this forum?

Personally, I feel like I'm function in a 'like/dislike' duality.

I like clicking the refresh button to see if anyone responded to my posts. I like writing and reading on this forum. I dislike having to go out and Mow the lawn for my parents or going to work.

Actually, I say that logic has alot to due with how we feel about people and activities.

Because my logic tells me that mowing the lawn is a loud, wasteful stupid activity, and because I have memories of it being a tedious activity, the emotion of dislike emerges when I think about doing it.

The emotion of dread emerges at the thought of not mowing the lawn - because there is also the memory/anticipation of the angry stressful reactions of the parents.

So in my life, emotion and feeling accompany my logic with almost everything I do.

That's not to say I have strongly concluded that I cannot have a relationsihp to life that is less emotional or even emotionless.

I am interested in reducing emotion. I think the only way one can do that is understand why one is emotional 'now' and make the adjustements.

You are emotional CP because you are attatched to emotional people.

Likewise, I am emotional because I am attatched to emotional people.

I don't think its wise to conclude so strongly that one cannot be free from emotions.

Cory Patrick wrote:

You are emotional CP because you are attached to emotional people.

Attached or financially dependent? There maybe a small difference. For instance two lovers are attached to each other, but if one is only financially dependent then the bonds are less strong. it is purely for survival purposes, there is less delusion involved.

The entity needs to weasel around in order to survive, especially in these god forsaken conditions.

You don’t happen to know of any good abandoned bear caves in your area do you? Or maybe a monastery? or perhaps a nostalgic RPG town?

Cory,

The logic below - is the goods.

First you said:

"Many people here are quick to throw out verbatims such as "the self is an illusion" but for being an illusion they are pretty damn protective over it..."

But then you said:

"Reality cannot be known. There is no experiencer there to know it"

CosP: Attached or financially dependent? There may be a small difference. For instance if two lovers are attached to each other, but if one is only financially dependent then the bonds are less strong. It is purely for survival purposes, there is less delusion involved.

It sounds like what your stressing is simply:

The best a human being can ever be is someone who is inexorably driven by an egotistical fear of death of which prevents him from finding a way to live that free's him from being 1) financially dependant upon romantic, sentimental, debauch people AND 2) feeling the emotion of hatred for these people that he is financially dependent on.

Is this what your saying? Or is there more to it?

Cory/CP,

I also still live with the parents. Earlier this morning, I was mowing the lawn, when I came across a mental block. I realized, I had become attached to my parents' discontent. Growing up I dreamt it was my obligation to heal them. It was this deep-seated desire that lead to a confusion between wanting and needing, the conflict at the heart of idealism. While mowing, I also realized that I've only really known them for a few years now. So, it's only natural for disparity to accompany a raise in consciousness. With higher degrees of idealism, comes a sense of self that is never fully established (due to the near constant striving for perfection).

By establishing what is needed for greater freedom (an ideal), what is wanted is more easily attained.

Steve: I realized, I had become attached to my parents' discontent.

how did you realize this? What where the the main factors triggering this realization?

Steve: Growing up I dreamt it was my obligation to heal them.

And can we agree that this ideal of healing your parents is what caused you to become attatched to their emotions?

Steve: It was this deep-seated desire that lead to a confusion between wanting and needing, the conflict at the heart of idealism.

Yes, where there is idealism there is conflict.

Steve: By establishing what is needed for greater freedom (an ideal), what is wanted is more easily attained.

To me, freedom is beyond measure. There is no lesser or greater. You are either trapped in the measurable, or you are immeasurable.


PS: ever see the movie 'thumbsucker'?

I think you'd find it hillarious but its also serious - the guy who made the film really seems to be quite aware.

S: I realized, I had become attached to my parents' discontent.

C: how did you realize this? What where the the main factors triggering this realization?

I finally noticed my own reaction to my mother and father's mannerisms, without personal blame.

I was motivated to unearth as much information about my roots as possible, in order to better understand my self, others and the universe.

S: Growing up I dreamt it was my obligation to heal them.

C: And can we agree that this ideal of healing your parents is what caused you to become attached to their emotions?

Yeah, yeah, I guess we can agree.

S: By establishing what is needed for greater freedom (an ideal), what is wanted is more easily attained.

C: To me, freedom is beyond measure. There is no lesser or greater. You are either trapped in the measurable, or you are immeasurable.

The act of consciousness is also the act of measuring, so really, to be immeasurable is still to measure.

PS: ever see the movie 'thumbsucker'?

I have not seen this 'thumbsucker' of which you speak.

I'll look into it.

Steve: I was motivated to unearth as much information about my roots as possible, in order to better understand my self, others and the universe.

You see, my only problem with ideals is that the idealist tends to think he already understands what the thing is that he wants.

That's really my only point when it comes to this idealism thing.

This motivation to unearth the most relevent, useful and practical information really is just an inborn instinct. You don't know what the truth is, so why idealize it? The idealization is only blocking you.

Really there is only this healthy instinctive drive to settle only for what is superior. Nietzche would call this instinctive drive the snake.

You need not idealize a proccess which is already operating, a proccess which you simply need to not resist.

The biggest folly is to think you already know what is superior before you actually investigate the dark places humanity shys away from.

Humanity uses pleasant ideals to protect itself from the dark places a wise man is driven to investigate. And thus the pleasant ideals become chains and life becomes drudgery.

If you put a mouse in a maze, the mouse will be instictively driven to find his way out. He is not being idealistic, he is simply acting according to his nature.

The way that just so happens to be the way out of the maze, is not an ideal, or a choice, it is the truth.

If we don't resists our ancient drives and thus investigate thoroughly with unbiased minds - perhaps we will find ourselves eagles.

The mark of an eagle is of course his solitude, his vision, and lofty perch.

Steve: The act of consciousness is also the act of measuring, so really, to be immeasurable is still to measure.

Yes, but it is folly to confuse the freedom of truth with your calculated plans and measurements that are good and neccesary but only to merely survive. Man, if he is to be free, must be interested in more than just his organisms survival.

Measurement is only neccesary when it comes to practical day to day, survival affairs. Giving the cashier the right ammount of money, making sure there is enough oil in the lawn-mower, cooking your food, etc, etc.

But when it comes to dealing with your pain, you will not succeed at ending it via measurement.

Dying to the world is not a calculated, measured act.

However, despite one may live in this world with a consciousness that is beyond life, death, and measurement, one still must function in this world of measurement and calculation - just not to the extreme of mere pendants, book-worms and mathmaticians.

Cory Patrick wrote:Steve: I was motivated to unearth as much information about my roots as possible, in order to better understand my self, others and the universe.

Cory: This motivation to unearth the most relevent, useful and practical information really is just an inborn instinct. You don't know what the truth is, so why idealize it? The idealization is only blocking you.

I would argue that an ideal state is also an instinctive drive, from which humans derive their sense of ethics and morality - which further drives us in search of truth.

Really there is only this healthy instinctive drive to settle only for what is superior. Nietzche would call this instinctive drive the snake.

You could argue that the true idealist is also an experimenter by nature.

Steve: The act of consciousness is also the act of measuring, so really, to be immeasurable is still to measure.

Cory: Measurement is only neccesary when it comes to practical day to day, survival affairs. Giving the cashier the right ammount of money, making sure there is enough oil in the lawn-mower, cooking your food, etc, etc.

But when it comes to dealing with your pain, you will not succeed at ending it via measurement.

Well, that depends on your methodology.

If you applied the same creativity that you use to think abstractly, to your emotional pain, then you could use psychological measurements to solve your emotional blockages.

Recognizing a 'think' as a 'thing' (as Alan Watts would say.)

Steve: I would argue that an ideal state is also an instinctive drive, from which humans derive their sense of ethics and morality - which further drives us in search of truth.

Yes, but this ideal state doesnt need to be idealized because it's not in time. Idealization implies time.

You need only to be what you are - an involuntary proccess.

Being idealistic implies struggle, a fight, it implies concentration, effort. Those things are for the foolish.

Ideals divide 'what is now' from 'what should be later'.

The idealistic man is resisting a proccess that wants to happen now and will happen now if only he just faces up to the truths that can be acknowledged right now - not later.

Ideals imply - 'later' as opposed to now.

It wasnt an ideal to be born, it's not an ideal to die.

The things that happen to you in between birth and death, inwardly and outwardly - they are not choices.

Freedom is non-resistance.

Being idealistic implies struggle, a fight, it implies concentration, effort. Those things are for the foolish.

I guess you could say that the degree of idealism (in this context) is proportionate to that which is to be overcome.

Ideals divide 'what is now' from 'what should be later'.

Not if 'what is now' was once 'what should be later'.

Freedom is non-resistance.

Unless there is resistance to overcome.

Steve: I guess you could say that the degree of idealism is proportionate to that which is to be overcome.

You have no way of knowing 'how much' is yet to be overcome, do you?

Do you think an unenlightened person can measure the length from where he is to the goal of enlightenment?

Can he know before he knows?