GENIUS FORUMS

Its unfortunate that the agenda of this Forum is primarily metaphysical i.e. claptrap, the presumption being that genius is synonymous with the discussion of 'the nature of ultimate reality and the path to enlightenment...' For free thinkers this statement is a joke and not even worthy of serious philosophical consideration. For example, how can you discuss the nature of something you have never known or experienced? Even the definition of terms such as 'ultimate reality' and 'enlightenment' have their roots in belief and superstition rather than life and objectivity. And what has truth, courage, honesty, logic, masculinity, bla bla got to do with discussing ultimate reality and enlightenment? Of all these terms, truth is the most potent. But how can you be truthful when you discuss the 'nature' of these metphysical concepts, which are beyond your comprehension to begin with? Unless you bullshit...or what amounts to the same thing: believe your own propaganda. The sign over the gateway to Genius Forum should read: to discuss weather or not untimate reality and enlightenment EXIST, rather than any discussion about their 'nature' which presupposes their existence to begin with. As old Nietzsche once said, 'the metaphysicians have rigged the game before it starts, they have nailed the sign 'truth' over the gateway to a lie....'

z

You don't really have to know something is true to believe it. If I have a die (Dice) and throw it 1000 times you might never throw the number 6. I could say "You will defiinately throw the number 6 at least once." I am just using logic to suggest that I am right, but I could be wrong. When searching for true enlightenment you are gambling that you are most likely going to be right, and you just want the odds to be stacked in your favour.

zarathustra wrote:Its unfortunate that the agenda of this Forum is primarily metaphysical i.e. claptrap, the presumption being that genius is synonymous with the discussion of 'the nature of ultimate reality and the path to enlightenment...' For free thinkers this statement is a joke and not even worthy of serious philosophical consideration.

If you know that as an absolute truth then you will have discovered some element of ultimate reality.

For example, how can you discuss the nature of something you have never known or experienced?

If you know as an absolute truth that nobody here has experienced ultimate reality then you will have discovered some element of ultimate reality.

Even the definition of terms such as 'ultimate reality' and 'enlightenment' have their roots in belief and superstition rather than life and objectivity.

Is that an absolute truth? See above.

how can you be truthful when you discuss the 'nature' of these metphysical concepts, which are beyond your comprehension to begin with?

Are you absolutely sure they are beyond the comprehension of everyone here? See above.

All of your above statements are metaphysical in form.

z: Its unfortunate that the agenda of this Forum is primarily metaphysical i.e. claptrap, the presumption being that genius is synonymous with the discussion of 'the nature of ultimate reality and the path to enlightenment...' For free thinkers this statement is a joke and not even worthy of serious philosophical consideration.

You've got it all wrong. The definition of the word genius employed around these parts has nothing to do with discussing the nature of ultimate reality or the path to enlightenment. A genius is defined as one who has banished all gross delusion.

The conventional definition of genius is therefore regarded as referring to someone who is merely prodigiously talented in one or more areas of thought and/or action, whilst remaining much like everyone else in most other senses. Free from delusion, the true genius is uninhibited. This turn of mind is not confined to particular parts of their thought like the conventional genius, rather it pervades their every thought. The conventional genius' brilliance is therefore myopic and limited only to certain areas of their life whereas the true genius' understanding is ubiquitous and cannot be separated from anything they consciously do. Indeed, this true genius is omniscient in the only possible sense of the word omniscient.

For me, pushing this re-definition has value as it marks out a very real difference in quality of mind and understanding, an area where the conventional definition of genius is seen as the ultimate honour bestowed.

z,

to discuss weather or not untimate reality and enlightenment EXIST,

If I had to constantly discuss and re-discuss whether or not reality is real, I would think I was surrounded by madmen.

I think it's safe to say that if something exists, it is part of ultimate reality.

As to enlightenment: well, it's defined to be the absence of false beliefs. Not believing in enlightenment is tantamount to believing that no one can ever get rid of false beliefs. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is equivalent to you saying that you still believe false beliefs. Why would I be interested in discussing your false beliefs?

It is unfortunate that there are people who, although they have absolutely no idea what metaphysics is about, nor understand its fundamental tenants or terms, erroneously conclude that those who do know, must necessarily be speaking nonsense. You call your self a ‘free thinker’, however, you are completing tied in by foregone conclusions such as that no one has ever known or experienced reality, or that such knowledge is beyond human conception. Now, I for one would be willing to listen if you can put forward any reasonable argument as to why these conclusions are valid, but to simply insist that it is so, however forcefully, this is not how to do philosophy.

zarathustra wrote:The sign over the gateway to Genius Forum should read: to discuss weather

This is ludicrous. Enlightenment has little or nothing to do with discussing the weather.

or not untimate reality and enlightenment EXIST,

Hear, hear. Important subject. I definitely want to know if untimate reality exists. Uh, what is it, like, reality without time? Sounds cool.

Jokes aside, I do think there are basic terms used here which are difficult to understand in their QRS definitions, including Wisdom, Genius, Enlightenment, Sage, Masculine, and Woman. I don't think there is anything wrong with making one's own definitions to words, or in having one's own language of ideas, per se, but I do see it causing frequent confusion (like, in this thread) among the visitors to this forum. Perhaps a short glossary attached to the main page would help.

As for whether discussing the subject matter constitutes a necessary lie (talking about that about which we do not know), this is a false charge. So long as one can remain factual (honest) (and be conscious) about his or her experience, and therefore be scientific, there is little danger of gross error along the path. And as there are the experiences of others who have gone before, on which to draw, there is reliable information as to what lies ahead, in terms of realization.

Science assumes that human reason and our finite sense-abilities are adequate to seize upon the mystery of life, and little by little understand it more, this approach has rewarded us immensily: medicine, genetics, computers, bla bla bla. The fact that we can now communicate over great distances (e.g. computers) has nothing to do with abstract notions about ultimate reality, but with our developing understanding of 'how' the mystery of life unfolds; metaphysicians, on the other hand, seek to base their dogmas upon faithful acceptance of revealed truth from beyond the limits of our shared experiential understanding, in other words, on bullshit. Since we as sentient finite beings are part of the matrix of life, it would seem that the path that leads to unraveling the mystery lies inside us, and involves an objective relationship with what is outside. The rest is folly, guesswork, metaphysics, no matter how philosphically eloquent you dress it...What is outside constitutes our objectivity and allows us to enter into a relationship with others and world in which we live i.e. our 'shared' experiences which we validate. Metaphysicians work in the opposite direction, by presupposing the nature of existence as being this or that, their conclusions are purely subjective: that we mere mortals can either accept and reject, providing we have a glossery of terms and realise that one man's experience of ultimate reality, god, enlightenment, and so on, is different to another. Is it any wonder these primatives never seem to come up with any new ideas!

z

Everything started from bullshit... actually bullshit might have once been a medicinal cure for open wounds. So if medicine started from bullshit, and then we eventually discovered how to heal an open wound, then all knowledge can come from bullshit. Afterall, you have already admitted that we have been rewarded by our progress in medicine.

z, you are talking to yourself. Maybe you should write in a diary instead of on a forum.

True, but knowing what we know, and what we have learned, do we really need to wollow in the shit? Its time to move on...

z

ello,

every belief is a man's own belief

if you say so then we cannot talk about anything

we must all believe in something

Life...

z

zarathustra,

As old Nietzsche once said, 'the metaphysicians have rigged the game before it starts, they have nailed the sign 'truth' over the gateway to a lie....'

Amazing. :)

Kevin,

If you know that as an absolute truth then you will have discovered some element of ultimate reality.
...
If you know as an absolute truth that nobody here has experienced ultimate reality then you will have discovered some element of ultimate reality.
...
Is that an absolute truth? See above.
...
Are you absolutely sure they are beyond the comprehension of everyone here? See above.
...
All of your above statements are metaphysical in form.

It is unfortunate that you have been ignoring the other threads attacking 'absolute truth' or you wouldn't be replying with this nonsense.

Pincho

You don't really have to know something is true to believe it. If I have a die (Dice) and throw it 1000 times you might never throw the number 6. I could say "You will defiinately throw the number 6 at least once." I am just using logic to suggest that I am right, but I could be wrong.

You don't know as truth that the dice will hit hit 6 at least once, that is just based on probabilities and statistics. To assert something is true that is beyond empirical observation (and thus statistics) is irrational.

Jehu,

It is unfortunate that there are people who, although they have absolutely no idea what metaphysics is about, nor understand its fundamental tenants or terms, erroneously conclude that those who do know, must necessarily be speaking nonsense. You call your self a ‘free thinker’, however, you are completing tied in by foregone conclusions such as that no one has ever known or experienced reality, or that such knowledge is beyond human conception. Now, I for one would be willing to listen if you can put forward any reasonable argument as to why these conclusions are valid, but to simply insist that it is so, however forcefully, this is not how to do philosophy.

Oh Jehu, we understand it better than you. I have tried explaining in several other threads why metaphysics is trash in different ways but I'll give you a quick run down here.
1. Metaphysics does deductions on concepts.
2. All concepts come at root from empirical observation or senses.
3. To assert that concepts that have no other source than our world hold outside or above our world, as metaphysics would, is invalid.
I have seen you arguing about existence and intrinsic and extrinsic modes of being. Do you think the creator of all wrote the dictionary that you use as your basis of these deductions? No, the concepts evolved with fallible human beings and at some point someone erroneously started applying them beyond their accurate scope and in a different manner than they were meant (for 'truth' rather than utility). Hence the birth of metaphysics.

Trevor,

z, you are talking to yourself. Maybe you should write in a diary instead of on a forum.

Hard to talk to people who have closed their minds off to some religious belief.

You don't know as truth that the dice will hit hit 6 at least once, that is just based on probabilities and statistics. To assert something is true that is beyond empirical observation (and thus statistics) is irrational.

Well take the same example. You will deffinately throw at least one six the next 1000 die throws, but then never actually throw the die. Just leave them on the table. Do you still believe that I am right? Or do you have some doubt that there will be a six thrown?

I would presume that you would believe me even though you never actually get to see the result. So you are asserting something as true without observation. This is not irrational, it is just that you can believe something is true so long as the probabilities are high enough.

Pincho Paxton,

NM: You don't know as truth that the dice will hit hit 6 at least once, that is just based on probabilities and statistics. To assert something is true that is beyond empirical observation (and thus statistics) is irrational.

Well take the same example. You will deffinately throw at least one six the next 1000 die throws, but then never actually throw the die. Just leave them on the table. Do you still believe that I am right? Or do you have some doubt that there will be a six thrown?

I would presume that you would believe me even though you never actually get to see the result. So you are asserting something as true without observation. This is not irrational, it is just that you can believe something is true so long as the probabilities are high enough.

I believe that it is 99.999% probable to roll the six because of statistics. This means that after observing hundreds of dice rolls I know that all the numbers are approximately rolled an equal number of times. There is always the possibility that the six won't be rolled in 1000 rolls, however extremely unlikely it is, but due to statistics we can predict otherwise.

Everything comes down to statistics -- is based on empirical observations.

Now to believe something in some realm where we have no empirical observations simply because a similar phenomena was observed in our realm is what you call a misuse of statistics. Imagine I studied a population of native human beings in the amazon and blindly claimed the conclusions reflected the population of all human beings across the globe. This isn't nearly as big a crime as metaphysics is as it tries to say its conclusions reflect "everything" and "the Totality", etc.

Neil wrote:

Oh Jehu, we understand it better than you. I have tried explaining in several other threads why metaphysics is trash in different ways but I'll give you a quick run down here.
1. Metaphysics does deductions on concepts.
2. All concepts come at root from empirical observation or senses.
3. To assert that concepts that have no other source than our world hold outside or above our world, as metaphysics would, is invalid.
I have seen you arguing about existence and intrinsic and extrinsic modes of being. Do you think the creator of all wrote the dictionary that you use as your basis of these deductions? No, the concepts evolved with fallible human beings and at some point someone erroneously started applying them beyond their accurate scope and in a different manner than they were meant (for 'truth' rather than utility). Hence the birth of metaphysics.

You contradict yourself, for the creator of all must necessarily have created the dictionary, albeit, by way of us fallible human beings. But how is it that you hold there to be a ‘creator of all’, but still claim that metaphysics is ‘trash’; for is not the belief in a creator a metaphysical view?

Jehu wrote:You contradict yourself, for the creator of all must necessarily have created the dictionary, albeit, by way of us fallible human beings. But how is it that you hold there to be a ‘creator of all’, but still claim that metaphysics is ‘trash’; for is not the belief in a creator a metaphysical view?

I don't believe in any creator of all but it is a useful concept (albeit meaningless to me) for me to employ when discussing with metaphysicians.

Neil, I wonder: why do you separate yourself from metaphysicians as though you somehow have not been discussing metaphysics the whole time you have been in this forum?

Your lack of insight is mind-boggling. The number of metaphysical concepts you have thrown yourself against far out-strips anyone else in this forum. In the same span of time as you have unsuccessfully attacked all the major metaphysical concepts, I have stuck to merely defining two or three (say, truth and reality and possibly causality) -- but have mostly kept myself to ethics (included among my ethics is not responding to you when I find that I've run out of anything pleasant to say).

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Neil, I wonder: why do you separate yourself from metaphysicians as though you somehow have not been discussing metaphysics the whole time you have been in this forum?

Your lack of insight is mind-boggling. The number of metaphysical concepts you have thrown yourself against far out-strips anyone else in this forum. In the same span of time as you have unsuccessfully attacked all the major metaphysical concepts, I have stuck to merely defining two or three (say, truth and reality and possibly causality) -- but have mostly kept myself to ethics.

I have successfully attacked metaphysics in my view. You guys aren't open to anything that might crumble your whole philosophy, that's understandable. It isn't surprising that you would jump in here and talk about how wrong I am about metaphysics and then shy away from actually discussing it. I am well acquainted with such tactics after attending church for too many years in the past.

Neil, it's simply that you contradict yourself and see nothing wrong with such contradiction.

The claim "there is no such thing as an absolute truth" does not raise your hackles. It doesn't even register as something that could contradict itself. When you are that bad at thinking, discussion with you is not even remotely interesting.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Neil, it's simply that you contradict yourself and see nothing wrong with such contradiction.

The claim "there is no such thing as an absolute truth" does not raise your hackles. It doesn't even register as something that could contradict itself. When you are that bad at thinking, discussion with you is not even remotely interesting.

Your inability to grasp this after me trying to explain it at least 3 times here shows that you are not open to new positions. You have found your God savior and closed off your mind to any possibility that you might be wrong.

See, I have grasped it. I described it perfectly well, and you just admitted that it accurately described your position.

However, your position is unequivocally wrong. There must be absolute truths because of a contradiction that you -- being an incredibly poor thinker -- can't even see.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:However, your position is unequivocally wrong. There must be absolute truths because of a contradiction that you -- being an incredibly poor thinker -- can't even see.

"There must be absolute truth because even after Neil has argued against it 3 times and I refused to see his argument, he still didn't convert over to my position!"