GENIUS FORUMS

You may come up with logical reasons for why you like it, but the reason you project your feelings onto the statue as a preference is because of the ego.

It's because of reification or trick of consciousness.
Talk about that sir.

Hopefully it's obvious that I have been.. the appealing fast food, deaf bees, the beautiful statue, all those examples are about that.

Don't be shy Dennis, feel free contribute.

Russell wrote:What you said is true, but I said "might as well have not existed." In this instance, the existence of all the of sounds that we humans hear and utilize mean nothing to bees.

I'm confused what your point is if you think what I said was true.

It's not so much as "good feelings" as it is a calm peace and tranquility, due to the absence of the fluctuations accompanied with samsaric realms.

Why are you not counting calm peace and tranquility as good feelings?

You may come up with logical reasons for why you like it, but the reason you project your feelings onto the statue as a preference is because of the ego.

Yes, I agree with that.

It's only becomes practical in knowing why you or others find beauty in things. It's not like you completely forget that things are found to be beautiful, but the impact of such a projection is definitely weakened upon discovering why, and is dropped once the reason is fully implemented.

Why would knowing how it works weaken the experience? That's like saying that taking a botany class would make you think flowers are less beautiful or good smelling. Or do you see life as some kind of magic show that loses it's appeal when you know how the trick works?

Judging if a food is healthy is different than judging how "pretty" it is. Just look at how fast food restaurants present their food in commercials.

Yes, I suppose "pretty" was the wrong word. But do you get what I mean?
Isn't it some basic instinct that we judge whether food would be good to eat or not based on how it looks?

Russell wrote:What you said is true, but I said "might as well have not existed." In this instance, the existence of all the of sounds that we humans hear and utilize mean nothing to bees.

Orenholt wrote:I'm confused what your point is if you think what I said was true.

The point is in the difference between being ego centric about something existing or not existing, and realizing that existence is dependent on perspective. This goes back to the computer screen/conglomerate of atoms example. Nature presents each individual instances of consciousness with different specific perspectives, and assuming any one is any more real than the other is egocentric, like assuming a statue actually is beautiful while your neighbor might find it to be ugly (or neither, if he/she is wise).

Why are you not counting calm peace and tranquility as good feelings?

Pretty much just for convenience of the conversation. "Good feelings" can be easily confused as being the same as egotistical happiness. Transcendence of the ego means a ceasing the attachment to dualistic perspectives like happiness/sadness. Only then can we be one with the wind through the trees, and the waves flowing through a river.

Why would knowing how it works weaken the experience? That's like saying that taking a botany class would make you think flowers are less beautiful or good smelling.

A botany class won't teach you why you find flowers beautiful. Nor will a history class teach you why egotistical attachments lead entire nations into war.

Or do you see life as some kind of magic show that loses it's appeal when you know how the trick works?

Yes, but the ego is the magic show, not life.

Yes, I suppose "pretty" was the wrong word. But do you get what I mean?
Isn't it some basic instinct that we judge whether food would be good to eat or not based on how it looks?

Yes it is related to our basic instincts, but the difference is that the ego attaches your thoughts to a specific perception, disregarding the truth that any characteristic we apply to things (like beauty) is a fleeting appearance, and the suffering arises in holding onto fleeting appearances.

Russell wrote:The point is in the difference between being ego centric about something existing or not existing, and realizing that existence is dependent on perspective. This goes back to the computer screen/conglomerate of atoms example. Nature presents each individual instances of consciousness with different specific perspectives, and assuming any one is any more real than the other is egocentric, like assuming a statue actually is beautiful while your neighbor might find it to be ugly (or neither, if he/she is wise).

Existence is dependent on who's perspective exactly?

Pretty much just for convenience of the conversation. "Good feelings" can be easily confused as being the same as egotistical happiness. Transcendence of the ego means a ceasing the attachment to dualistic perspectives like happiness/sadness. Only then can we be one with the wind through the trees, and the waves flowing through a river.

So is being enlightened about "good feelings" like peace and calm or is it about lack of feelings, like apathy?

Yes, but the ego is the magic show, not life.

Well I don't see it that way personally. Why does there have to be mystery involved to enjoy it?
Just because you understand that people are caused to be assholes is no reason to stop disliking them.
Even though you know playing Mario is not real life you still want Mario to eat the mushrooms and beat Bowser.

Yes it is related to our basic instincts, but the difference is that the ego attaches your thoughts to a specific perception, disregarding the truth that any characteristic we apply to things (like beauty) is a fleeting appearance, and the suffering arises in holding onto fleeting appearances.

But shouldn't you still hold on to the idea of the value?
Like I was saying to Kunga in the other thread, even if Harvey Dent turns into Twoface does that mean you should no longer value heroism just because some turn to villainy?

Orenholt wrote:Existence is dependent on who's perspective exactly?

Existence is, but what exists is dependent on (any) perspective.

So is being enlightened about "good feelings" like peace and calm or is it about lack of feelings, like apathy

Being enlightened is simply about being enlightened, or knowing and experiencing the true nature of reality. Transcendence of the ego (and therefore samsara), results in a consistent peaceful experience by comparison.

Well I don't see it that way personally. Why does there have to be mystery involved to enjoy it?
Just because you understand that people are caused to be assholes is no reason to stop disliking them.

The mystery is in figuring out what causes people to be assholes. Disliking people is a nonacceptance of nature. Only in acceptance we are in position to help others from being assholes.

Of course, if the asshole is threatening others with violence, the practical thing to do is disarm the threat, which may involve using violence against them. Reasoning with the asshole is then saved for later, if it is deemed possible to do so. Imprisonment and/or therapy might make the better choice.

Even though you know playing Mario is not real life you still want Mario to eat the mushrooms and beat Bowser.

Playing video games is relatively harmless, although addiction to video games is delusional.

But shouldn't you still hold on to the idea of the value?
Like I was saying to Kunga in the other thread, even if Harvey Dent turns into Twoface does that mean you should no longer value heroism just because some turn to villainy?

Yes, concerning value is obviously practical to human experience. It's when we assume absolute value in things is when it starts to get messy.

Russell wrote:Existence is, but what exists is dependent on (any) perspective.

But we're back to the bees again. Why doesn't their perspective of ultraviolet light count?
Also, does the physical death of the body mean that things no longer exist because you cannot perceive them?

The mystery is in figuring out what causes people to be assholes. Disliking people is a nonacceptance of nature. Only in acceptance we are in position to help others from being assholes.
Of course, if the asshole is threatening others with violence, the practical thing to do is disarm the threat, which may involve using violence against them. Reasoning with the asshole is then saved for later, if it is deemed possible to do so. Imprisonment and/or therapy might make the better choice.

Ok so you disagree with Quinn who says that punishment is the "intelligent" thing to do.
I'm on the fence about this one myself. If punishment is ok then it would be fine to dislike them. If punishment is not ok then rehabilitation is the answer.

Playing video games is relatively harmless, although addiction to video games is delusional

My point still stands that things still matter within contexts. Just because Mario isn't real doesn't mean you have no desire to win.

Yes, concerning value is obviously practical to human experience. It's when we assume absolute value in things is when it starts to get messy.

Knowing that a value isn't real is it still wrong to have an attachment to it, regardless of the practicality?

Femininity adapts. Masculinity clings. You can only be conscious if you stand alone.

Orenholt wrote:Knowing that a value isn't real is it still wrong to have an attachment to it, regardless of the practicality?

Attachments are products of delusion (the grasping of the erroneous self). Whether you think that's bad or wrong rather depends on your goals. Given the goal of this forum, "attachments = bad" is kind of obvious.

Orenholt:

Would it be accurate to say that your position is that everything subjective is delusional and does not exist/is not real?

You appear to be saying that "I" is a linguistic practicality and any subjective conception of an actual "I/self" is delusional, therefore.

You also appear to be suggesting, with your notion that all feelings/emotions are "ego" ("good and bad") as any conception of ego beyond that of a neurological function (together with the endocrine/autonomic systems) is also subjective and delusional. This would explain why you think enlightenment is possible with an ego. It follows that your conception of egoistic would be attachment to subjective notions abstracted from these biological processes.

Would this be it in a nutshell?

I think this dialogue from Genius News is germane to this discussion:

http://geniusrealms.com/geniusnews/issu ... #happiness

Dan Rowden wrote:

Orenholt wrote:Knowing that a value isn't real is it still wrong to have an attachment to it, regardless of the practicality?

Attachments are products of delusion (the grasping of the erroneous self). Whether you think that's bad or wrong rather depends on your goals. Given the goal of this forum, "attachments = bad" is kind of obvious.

I know that's the given around here but I'm challenging that.

Leyla Shen wrote:Orenholt:

Would it be accurate to say that your position is that everything subjective is delusional and does not exist/is not real?

You appear to be saying that "I" is a linguistic practicality and any subjective conception of an actual "I/self" is delusional, therefore.

You also appear to be suggesting, with your notion that all feelings/emotions are "ego" ("good and bad") as any conception of ego beyond that of a neurological function (together with the endocrine/autonomic systems) is also subjective and delusional. This would explain why you think enlightenment is possible with an ego. It follows that your conception of egoistic would be attachment to subjective notions abstracted from these biological processes.

Would this be it in a nutshell?

Well I think there are plenty of things in the universe that are real and not delusions.
Like a globe, it's real, it's only the CONCEPT that is misleading.
Yes, the concept of "I" is only practical. Just like the concepts of good and bad are dependent on an ego.
I could be wrong but I think you understand pretty much where I'm coming from.

Yeah, I reckon I'm on to you.

Yes, the concept of "I" is only practical. Just like the concepts of good and bad are dependent on an ego.

Like the concept "globe". So, if I have a concept of good or bad about a globe, it's only for practical purposes; you know, so I can realise that if a globe is broken, which has really thin glass, the glass might be harder to see and poses a different danger to that degree to, say, a chunky drinking glass; and that's where your "ego" comes in. Right?

I think in all this i agree with orenholt.

All will (free or not) is by definition want. It doesnt make sense to do something and then say it wasnt willed to be done.And if will is either wanted or not , look in what way would it be will if it wasnt wanted. Maybe my definition is wrong but i always understood te ego to be the descision maker ,and that means will which means what is wanted. You would not get enlightened unless you wanted to.I dont see how else.

Leyla Shen wrote: Like the concept "globe". So, if I have a concept of good or bad about a globe, it's only for practical purposes; you know, so I can realise that if a globe is broken, which has really thin glass, the glass might be harder to see and poses a different danger to that degree to, say, a chunky drinking glass; and that's where your "ego" comes in. Right?

Yes because the ego is what has the emotional reaction. The ego is what judges things as feeling good or bad.

Leyla Shen wrote:KJ: "Ugh", says Woman. "That sounds terribly boring, and therefore illogical."

LS: I disagree in this instance. That sounds like abstracting everything into utter meaninglessness, and therefore illogical (unless logic is devoid of meaning and content of any kind):

You misunderstood. It's Woman --- those "dimensions" of the mind, if one can give such substance to lack, which have no connection with what is ultimately real --- that perceives nothing beyond materialism (sensory whacks).

Orenholt is a good example of this (like virtually every single woman, and most men). She doesn't respond, is unable to respond, to any description of what is ultimately real. She cannot even see her inability to notice. Her mind is totally unreceptive, because she is clinging to the delusion of objective reality. That is all she sees, and where she is comfortable. As she stated in response to her helpful friend, Getoriks, "The brain is real, the only part of it that's a "concept" is the concept of the brain." She literally believes that a brain exists "out there", beyond her own experiences of the world. But scientific materialism is a very popular error, so I'm not surprised.

KJ: That dependency is causality. Think of it this way. A building is made of lots of elements pinned together, and creating strength as a mass. If certain elements are missing, including the ground it rests on, the building could collapse. The building exists only as interdependent elements.

LS: If certain elements are missing, you don’t have a building (I could ask you really, based on your reasoning, "But where is the building?"); if the ground a building is resting on disappears (you know, “poof”?), the building not only could but most definitely would collapse—this is a logically and empirically demonstrable fact.

You're missing the point, and in doing so, falling into the error I was pointing away from. If Orenholt is ever capable of accepting the principle of causality, which would be astonishing, then she might in turn be ready to consider the next step. That is, that there are no distinct causes, only causality, and therefore no causality.

Causality can only exist if things inherently exist.

Illogic.

Causality is just a revised, more enlightened, concept of the delusion of inherently existing things. It's a springboard.


.

Denis wrote:So the question is, if a human understands the workings of the dual mind and tasting pleasure is a possibility.

False conclusion. Understanding duality means seeing the relativity of all things, and their illusory nature. Even one who doesn't quite get so far as that, recognises the intrinsic folly of preference (pleasure / pain reactions).

Why not, if it's possibility is free of harmful consequences.

The possibility doesn't exist for one who understands duality. It's impossible. Only if they weren't aware, would there be a possibility; and of course, all the consequences are harmful.

Those who swoop in here and declare 'womanly'.
have a little think about your own preferences/aversions and indulgence thereof first.

To value truth, consciousness, tools for enlightenment, etc. is embedded in wise intellectualising, and doesn't entail a delusion of preference, because it recognises the true nature of such things. It activates the mind without delusion, rather than stopping thinking altogether. I would have thought you'd have known this by now.


.

chikoka wrote:All will (free or not) is by definition want. It doesnt make sense to do something and then say it wasnt willed to be done.And if will is either wanted or not , look in what way would it be will if it wasnt wanted. Maybe my definition is wrong

There is no definition there, that I can see.

but i always understood te ego to be the descision maker ,and that means will which means what is wanted. You would not get enlightened unless you wanted to.I dont see how else.

A human can have some degree of ego, or not. Prior to enlightenment is wholly ego, by default and by definition.

After enlightenment, the human being continues having biological needs, and it generally makes sense to look after it wisely, to sustain consciousness and wisdom. That entails making decisions and acting on them, not leaving everything to chance. And, the ramification of mortality can also mean trying to communicate wisdom to others, which also brings along the need to make decisions and act on them.

Surely all this is obvious.


.

Kelly Jones wrote: Orenholt is a good example of this (like virtually every single woman, and most men). She doesn't respond, is unable to respond, to any description of what is ultimately real. She cannot even see her inability to notice. Her mind is totally unreceptive, because she is clinging to the delusion of objective reality. That is all she sees, and where she is comfortable. As she stated in response to her helpful friend, Getoriks, "The brain is real, the only part of it that's a "concept" is the concept of the brain." She literally believes that a brain exists "out there", beyond her own experiences of the world. But scientific materialism is a very popular error, so I'm not surprised.

So if you're saying that the brain doesn't exist (even as a thing that is dependent on the rest of the universe and causality) then are you ascribing to solipsism?

wikipedia wrote:"Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind."

If not please explain how you're not a solipsist.

Are you going to deny what your senses tell you about the universe?

According to you everything can only exist through perception, yet perception is dependent on the ego.

Kelly Jones wrote: A human can have some degree of ego, or not. Prior to enlightenment is wholly ego, by default and by definition.

After enlightenment, the human being continues having biological needs, and it generally makes sense to look after it wisely, to sustain consciousness and wisdom.

There is no difference between a need and a want. No matter how you slice it. Needs are only dependent on wants.

Kelly Jones:

That is, that there are no distinct causes, only causality, and therefore no causality.

Alright, I actually do understand what you're saying there; no causality because there can't be (just) causality with no-thing caused/to cause. Nevertheless, the conclusion appears both counterintuitive and absurd.

I'll leave it there, for now.

Orenholt wrote:So if you're saying that the brain doesn't exist (even as a thing that is dependent on the rest of the universe and causality) then are you ascribing to solipsism?

No one has ever experienced their own brain directly. They have only ever perceived empirically that consciousness appears to require a brain. It's not an absolute logical truth that consciousness is created by a brain. One can never peep behind the workings of consciousness to find out.

This has absolutely nothing in common with solipsism. Solipsism is the view that nothing but what oneself experiences is all that exists. Clearly, a logical person realises that what appears to consciousness is not caused by itself.

Are you going to deny what your senses tell you about the universe?

Must we keep babying you, and answering your thoughtless questions? If you put in a bit of elbow grease, I might take you seriously.

According to you everything can only exist through perception

You're not a logical person, are you? Evidently you have some talent for conceiving of the existence of something that you can't conceive of, that no one else has.

, yet perception is dependent on the ego.... There is no difference between a need and a want. No matter how you slice it. Needs are only dependent on wants.

If you thought about things a bit more, you wouldn't be wasting people's time pointing out your illogicalities. If needs = wants, then how could needs be dependent on wants?


.

Leyla Shen wrote:no causality because there can't be (just) causality with no-thing caused/to cause. Nevertheless, the conclusion appears both counterintuitive and absurd.

Only if you're still clinging to causality as if it really exists (i.e. to things). Causality cannot be caused, by definition, so it is not a thing that exists relatively. Since it doesn't exist relatively, it has no distinction, shape, form and character. In other words, well, what is causality?


.

Kelly Jones wrote: No one has ever experienced their own brain directly. They have only ever perceived empirically that consciousness appears to require a brain. It's not an absolute logical truth that consciousness is created by a brain. One can never peep behind the workings of consciousness to find out.

Ok name something that's conscious that doesn't have a brain.

This has absolutely nothing in common with solipsism. Solipsism is the view that nothing but what oneself experiences is all that exists. Clearly, a logical person realises that what appears to consciousness is not caused by itself.

I know that solipsism is illogical which is why I'm questioning your reasoning so much, because it seems to me that's what you're talking about. I admit I could be wrong though.

You're not a logical person, are you? Evidently you have some talent for conceiving of the existence of something that you can't conceive of, that no one else has.

Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't mean that it's not real.
There may be life on other planets but according to your logic it's not even there because you haven't perceived it yet.
Sure it may not have an appearance to you yet but that's not because it isn't real.

If you thought about things a bit more, you wouldn't be wasting people's time pointing out your illogicalities. If needs = wants, then how could needs be dependent on wants?

Needs are just wants in disguise. You only need something IF you want something so essentially they're the same.

Orenholt wrote: But we're back to the bees again. Why doesn't their perspective of ultraviolet light count?
Also, does the physical death of the body mean that things no longer exist because you cannot perceive them?

Bees, ultraviolet light, the mind, all are merely perceptions that exist only upon conception.

Ok so you disagree with Quinn who says that punishment is the "intelligent" thing to do.
I'm on the fence about this one myself. If punishment is ok then it would be fine to dislike them. If punishment is not ok then rehabilitation is the answer.

Actually I read Quinn differently than you here. In fact, I already made a post about it.

Knowing that a value isn't real is it still wrong to have an attachment to it, regardless of the practicality?

Absolutely. Egotistical attachment in any form is made up of delusional thinking.

Orenholt wrote:Ok name something that's conscious that doesn't have a brain.

This is a clever question. However, the point still remains, just because we know that consciousness was caused, and has a source, what that source is exactly can only be speculated based upon the strongest bits of evidence. For all you know, reality could be just like the Matrix movie, and instead of a human on the other side, it's some alien life form.

Now, this is not to say that there's any reason to believe anything like this. In all practicality, there's no reason to assume that our consciousness isn't made up of complex chemical and electrical processes in our human brains. But observance of such evidence can only come after the appearances has come into contact with our consciousness.