GENIUS FORUMS

Before I make my points, I'll give a brief example of what I have come to understand as emotional intelligence.

Two children are both seated before a cookie. Both are told not to eat the cookie until they are given a signal.

Before the signal sounds, one of the children has eaten the cookie.

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

That example doesnt really indicate 'intelligence' but rather, it illustrates a sort of ideal temperment, an ideal 'sturdiness', an equanimity.

Anyway, my point:

Something I 've been wondering about for the past year has been: "Why are people who seem to have a good enough intellect (or sometimes a very good or great intellect) so often reluctant to explore the human condition honestly and live beyond the common ways of the world - to live beyond self?"

Why are there so many clever to very clever people who haven’t the initiative to go beyond 'self'?

After reading a few things by people who apparently wandered along similar lines of inquiry, I have been tempted to conclude that some humans are more superior than others in the area of being able/willing to take pain.

For example, there are some people who are more willing to be alone, to see the faults of ones self, ones family, parents, government, country, peers, race, species, women, etc... - and depending on how rigorously one can think in solitude, criticize ones self, parents (or parenting in general), ones country, world, race, religion, species and the general tendencies of women, all seem to largely contribute to the degree to which one can go beyond the world/self.

In the same way that some humans are more able and willing to take pain, likewise, it is obvious that some humans are comparitively inferior/superior in areas such as cleverness, genetic constitution/health, physical aesthetic disposition, athletics, etc....

Being willing to take pain, to voluntarily explore areas that are charged with anxiety and revulsion, to tolerate and endure suffering, to flexibly do without or simply discard a comfort or pleasure - all seem to be prerequisites for being truly wise.

I realize that a reality where 'there is nothing' is not as easy to bear as more magical interpretations - therefore the godless, 'we are mortals' interpretation is at least useful to simply explore thoroughly, if not see the truth of – simply because one is taking more pain in the immediate if one can live without any divine rationalization and justifications, and thus one will probably be healthier and less miserable in the long run.

However, I have been leery of the possibility of there being breeds of atheists who have allowed their brains to coagulate in such a way as to establish unconscious fears and anxieties toward exploring the possibility and implications of a literal life-everlasting, a literal eternal continuity of consciousness.

I have not totally closed my mind off to the possibility of a 'mentalistic universe'........but I value and see the importance of diffusing ones anxiety about the mortality of the "personal".

It appears my personality will not at all survive the dissolution of my organism. I think that I am totally fine with that. I see that the only way to be absolutely secure and anxiety free is through an absolute subjection to anxiety in its most extreme forms. A willingness to voluntarily explore what scares and pains me to the greatest extremity allowable ‘is’ the only means to absolute security. The more I can subject myself to unpleasantness and anxiety - - the more secure and strong I become? Surely such a thought can be the basis of neurosis and unhealthy abusive patterns of behavior, probably because one has managed to derive some sort of comfort and security from it.

Anyone care to contribute or debate?

I really don't understand what your point is.

Well, maybe I wasnt making a point so much as I was simply expressing a truth. (to me there is really no significant difference, for you there might be)

Do you have anything against people expressing truth?

Perhaps you feel that my opening post was untruthful. If so, why dont you point out where I went wrong?

have you heard the term emotional intelligence kicked around? Someone explained it to me not too long ago, and they basically said the term refers to those who can maintain equanimity, and good temperment in the face of something unfamiliar, in the face of temptation or in the absence of a particular comfort.

And have you ever met a clever or very clever person who was very irresponsible, unaware, and easily frusterated, depressed, angered and aggrieved?

My point is that wisdom has a significant relationship to ones willlingness to remain in pain instead of escaping in pleasure.

Not only is it a virtue to be able to remain in pain instead of react in a panic-driven escape.

Very clever people are usually too inventive and irritable to be wise. Not to mention they are more likely to have accumulated luxury and comfort, and therefore the succeptibility to aggravation is amplified because of that.

Basically i'm pointing out the relationship between 'truths that hurt' and 'point of views that are pleasurable'.

A point of view that is pleasurable is like a cookie. And the truth that hurts is the view that eating the cookie creates not only an insatiable craving for more cookies, but also an inferior human being in comparison to the human being who has no frusterated desire for cookies (for pleasurable points of view)

Truth hurts those who are gratified by points of view.

The weaker the human being, the greater the craving and persistence of ones pursuit for undegoing a gratified proccess.... this proccess of self gratification is taking place in the imagination, or/and it is by means of a sensation derived outside of the imagination........

Where does this passion to negate the pleasures of the world come from? Does it come from a logical understanding? If so, why are there so many clever to very clever people who are so resistant?

I agree with Cory. Good post.

I also agree with Cory.

Yes, quite a writing style, very subtle and articulate.

I bet Cory is often imitated, but never quite duplicated.

CP franticly writes down Cory’s post and tries to memorize it.

“The memorization of knowledge is not understanding”
Cosmic Prostitute

PS: I stole that quote from someone else and memorized it.

It is probably the writing style that gets to me. I read a sentence and all I am interpreting from it is "bzzzzzzz".

Cory Patrick wrote:have you heard the term emotional intelligence kicked around? Someone explained it to me not too long ago, and they basically said the term refers to those who can maintain equanimity, and good temperment in the face of something unfamiliar, in the face of temptation or in the absence of a particular comfort.

I could be misunderstanding you, but it seems you're describing willpower and composure.

And have you ever met a clever or very clever person who was very irresponsible, unaware, and easily frusterated, depressed, angered and aggrieved?

I have never met a clever or very clever person who was unaware or easily frustrated (perhaps because awareness and perseverance are prerequisites to cleverness?), but I have met many clever people who at any given time can be depressed, angered, aggrieved, and indeed irresponsible. Have you never heard of an expert shirker? A depressed genius?

My point is that wisdom has a significant relationship to ones willlingness to remain in pain instead of escaping in pleasure.

Not only is it a virtue to be able to remain in pain instead of react in a panic-driven escape.

Willingness to remain in pain is not necessarily a sign of wisdom; it is often the opposite. Furthermore, escape from pain is not necessarily panic-driven, and this should be obvious.

A wise man does not keep his hands in boiling water, nor does he keep the company of fools. Escape from pain does not necessitate the entry into pleasure, just as pleasure is not merely the abscence of pain. What's more, a wise man does seek out certain pleasures. Knowledge, truth, justice... higher pleasures, as it were. This does not mean they cannot handle pain, it just means they see pain for what it is, and do not embrace pain for pain's sake.

Very clever people are usually too inventive and irritable to be wise. Not to mention they are more likely to have accumulated luxury and comfort, and therefore the succeptibility to aggravation is amplified because of that.

Inventiveness does not preclude wisdom, I would argue such a conclusion to be counter-intuitive and illogical. I also do not see very clever people being especially irritable, which leads me to believe we hold vastly different conceptions of both cleverness and wisdom.

Pain should always be seen for what it is, and not embraced simply because it is unpleasant. To do so would be simply to redress pain as pleasure, something I'm sure you would agree to be unwise.

Ritzbitts,

Don't you find a society such as America or any really like industiral minded culture is rather 'clever'?

What about Hindu culture? Have you ever acknowledged the terrible cleverness of Hindu ideologies?

The fundamental truths of wisdom on the contrary do not demand any sort of exceptionally gifted intellect or cleverness.

That doesn’t mean a good healthy intellect isn’t a requisite –

However, the simplicity of ones intellectual perception is much more valuable than ones superficial cunning.

Cunning is only a mere incidental affair in light of wisdom, an affair that is helpful to one who knows wisdom - helpful only because one has to constantly be at battle with the wicked cleverness of the students.

For example, have you been following Quinn’s attempts to communicate with the likes of Frank, unwise, suergaz and others? Quinn is trying to show them wisdom (or his more stark idea of it). Unwise, Frank, and suergaz are threatened by Quinn’s idea of wisdom because it negates certain comforts that unwise, frank, and suergaz have become accustomed to.

Cleverness is generally used to maintain worldly pleasures, smugness, self gratifications - while wisdom is used to negate those things completely - to go so far as to end the self.

A wise person employs cleverness only to counter-attack the efforts of the unwise, the mere clever, the superficial - the shallow.

Children, like woman, are very clever and will constantly use their cleverness to find ways to protect themselves from the truth, and exploit you for the sake of their vulgar notions of enjoyment.

Feminine individuals who are constantly enjoying themselves with their desperate cleverness haven’t the strength, self-esteem and simple emotionless mundane logic, to undergo the sort of suffering that wipes suffering away completely.

They find the truth too depressing, and that is because they have become accustomed to the gratification of this, that, and the other.


Anyway to comment more directly on one of your comments:

Cory Patrick wrote:
have you heard the term emotional intelligence kicked around? Someone explained it to me not too long ago, and they basically said the term refers to those who can maintain equanimity, and good temperment in the face of something unfamiliar, in the face of temptation or in the absence of a particular comfort.

RITZ: I could be misunderstanding you, but it seems you're describing willpower and composure.

Well, don’t you think you should make a distinction between will power and composure?

I think we as humans are victims to will power, and thus have weak composure.

I think our composure would be much stronger if we weren’t so willful.

Willfulness begets poor composure. Poor composure begets willfulness.

Wisdom can be approached two ways: 1) ones disgust with worldly pleasures and oneself becomes stronger than ones craving for worldly pleasures and sympathy for oneself - this leads to higher interests. 2) One is lucky enough (due to high quality childhood) to have a very clear perception that the pleasures of this world can only cloud the mind and thus lead to pain, this realization pushes one to go even further and realize the non-existence of the self.

Now don’t get me wrong Ritz - I’m not condemning cleverness – for instances a wise individual can use cleverness. However, meditation, wisdom is not cleverness - it is not an act of will. It is the ending of the will. Don’t you think it’s a good idea to make a distinction between wisdom and cleverness?

Anyways, to refer again to America one more time:

They can turn anything into a buck. Even the negative publicity that they receive from their aggressive exploitative politics, ends up making money for their economy with the likes of counter culture music and film. Counter culture in (especially the output from filmmakers and musicians) America is simply a re-energizer of its capitalism. They are incredibly clever and inventive as a whole culture.

You must be open to the context that I am using the word clever in.

We get ourselvse into so much trouble, we maintain so much unneccesary pain by our clever justifications, by our inventiveness, by our politics which all function to establish and protect unnecessary comforts. One of those comforts is woman – who is a mastermind when it comes to subtle manipulation – she is very clever.

She is perhaps the true ruler of the world.

The only way to end suffering is via great suffering. The way to establish and maintain suffering is through worldly pleasure.

That is why most people are fools, and truly wise people are rare.

Why are there so many clever to very clever people who haven’t the initiative to go beyond 'self'?

I'll tell you why. Because this is the way of life (and not just life in a capitalist system, but life as it confronts all of us, every human, throughout time):

The second you fail to do what is expected of you, you lose standing. This standing effects your ability to live comfortably enough to have the time to get past thinking about day to day existence.

We have this desire to stay on top of our game so drummed into us that many can never think past that acquisition of necessities. For some, that need to acquire becomes the self.

Is there any surprise that most of the great philosophers had some patron or were themselves rich and influential somehow so that they had the time to sit about and "think" and write? I mean, let's face it. One still need to eat while one is laying about thinking all these great thoughts!

Is it a surprise that the average person deems such "thinking" a waste of time? After all, such thinking can rarely buy a flat screen TV, a computer, or a Summer home in the mountains.

Now, I am not saying such thinking is useless myself, all I am saying is that it is not clearly and obviously beneficial to the individual, especially if that individual was raised without an emphasis on philosophical concepts as a child.

One final thing, the average age of men in the USA in the 1940's was something like 60 years old. During the Civil War era it was 39! People rarely lived long enough (on average) until recently to have the time to become educated enough to attempt to understand these philosophical ideas. One of the ancient Greek philosophers once said that it is a waste of time for anyone under 50 to study philosophy. He said that because it isn't until that age that one might have the breadth and depth of experience to begin to understand concepts greater than himself (apologies for not remembering which one it was, any help??). In many ways, he was right. But people rarely lived much past that age until recently so there just wasn't time or maturity in people enough to launch into such a realm of thought.

So, don't imagine that people are too stupid to think these thoughts. Most of the time it just isn't practical enough for them to bother with. And above all, man is a practical creature.

Cory Patrick wrote:Ritzbitts,

Don't you find a society such as America or any really like industiral minded culture is rather 'clever'?

What about Hindu culture? Have you ever acknowledged the terrible cleverness of Hindu ideologies?

The fundamental truths of wisdom on the contrary do not demand any sort of exceptionally gifted intellect or cleverness.

That doesn’t mean a good healthy intellect isn’t a requisite –

No one ever said a superb intellect was a prerequisite, just an intellect. I'm sure we've all heard it said that Intelligence is knowledge, but wisdom is the application of knowledge (of course, it isn't as simple as that, but the principle holds).

However, the simplicity of ones intellectual perception is much more valuable than ones superficial cunning.

Cunning is only a mere incidental affair in light of wisdom, an affair that is helpful to one who knows wisdom - helpful only because one has to constantly be at battle with the wicked cleverness of the students.

Wisdom and cunning are seperate things, yes, and indeed they can be contradictory things. While wisdom is necessary for spiritual life, I hold that cleverness, in some degree or form, is necessary for physical life. This is an unfortunate state of affairs, yes, but what wise man would refuse to be clever in any circumstance?

For example, have you been following Quinn’s attempts to communicate with the likes of Frank, unwise, suergaz and others? Quinn is trying to show them wisdom (or his more stark idea of it). Unwise, Frank, and suergaz are threatened by Quinn’s idea of wisdom because it negates certain comforts that unwise, frank, and suergaz have become accustomed to.

Cleverness is generally used to maintain worldly pleasures, smugness, self gratifications - while wisdom is used to negate those things completely - to go so far as to end the self.

Would you say Kierkegaard was a wise man? He has some interesting things to say on becoming a self.

A wise person employs cleverness only to counter-attack the efforts of the unwise, the mere clever, the superficial - the shallow.

Children, like woman, are very clever and will constantly use their cleverness to find ways to protect themselves from the truth, and exploit you for the sake of their vulgar notions of enjoyment.

Children are not, as a whole (or in general) clever. All have a base, animal cruelty to them, but they most certainly are not clever, save a few. Aversion to pain is not cleverness; if it were such running away from a wild dog could be considered clever. True, such an act would be seen clever when compared with someone who does not run, but compared with other, more resolute cleverness, my point can be seen.

Women, on the other hand, are clever, and they are clever from a young age. They learn how to be by taking cues from the world around them, seeing what they can and cannot get away with, and molding their behavior and the behavior of others. Feminine cleverness in the sense that seems to be what you referr to as cleverness. This is unfair in that it calls a clever man feminine and implies masculinity in the female. A distinction must be made between feminine, self-serving, manipulative cleverness, and the cleverness that is not at its root corrupt; masculine cleverness, which can and at times does go hand in hand with wisdom.

Feminine individuals who are constantly enjoying themselves with their desperate cleverness haven’t the strength, self-esteem and simple emotionless mundane logic, to undergo the sort of suffering that wipes suffering away completely.

They find the truth too depressing, and that is because they have become accustomed to the gratification of this, that, and the other.

I agree with you mostly here, however I don't say they find truth depressing because they have become accustomed to gratification. Were that the case, women would be different across time and space, which they are not. The second-class property woman of ancient times is just as thoroughly flawed and feminine as the voting daughter of a modern-day diplomat.

Anyway to comment more directly on one of your comments:

Cory Patrick wrote:
have you heard the term emotional intelligence kicked around? Someone explained it to me not too long ago, and they basically said the term refers to those who can maintain equanimity, and good temperment in the face of something unfamiliar, in the face of temptation or in the absence of a particular comfort.

RITZ: I could be misunderstanding you, but it seems you're describing willpower and composure.

Well, don’t you think you should make a distinction between will power and composure?

You misunderstand. I merely meant to point out that your definition of "emotional intelligence" could also be applied to willpower and composure. This, of course, was to imply that any perceived "emotional intelligence" was not anything more than those things.

I think we as humans are victims to will power, and thus have weak composure.

I think our composure would be much stronger if we weren’t so willful.

Willfulness begets poor composure. Poor composure begets willfulness.

Without power of will, we are lost. We are no better than females or robots. Composure, though it can aid in the exercize of willpower, does not beget willfulness. Willfulness may beget composure, but this is not a certainty.

As for composure being stronger in the abscence of will, this should go without saying. Without will we are nothing and thus have no reason to object or fight anything... no reason to lose our composure. It's like saying that a socket wrench has strong composure.

Wisdom can be approached two ways: 1) ones disgust with worldly pleasures and oneself becomes stronger than ones craving for worldly pleasures and sympathy for oneself - this leads to higher interests. 2) One is lucky enough (due to high quality childhood) to have a very clear perception that the pleasures of this world can only cloud the mind and thus lead to pain, this realization pushes one to go even further and realize the non-existence of the self.

Point two I find interesting, as both Buddha (correct me if I'm wrong there) and Thoreau were of high birth.

Now don’t get me wrong Ritz - I’m not condemning cleverness – for instances a wise individual can use cleverness. However, meditation, wisdom is not cleverness - it is not an act of will. It is the ending of the will. Don’t you think it’s a good idea to make a distinction between wisdom and cleverness?

Yes, it is good to make such distinction, however I do not see cleverness as the ending of the will. According to your statements, a clay pot has no cleverness and the most composure, and thus the most will and potential for wisdom. Will IS NOT willingness, and though wisdom cannot be a tool for cleverness, cleverness can be a tool for wisdom. They are not each other's end, they are different yet related. This, of course, is in reference to masculine cleverness, not feminine.

Anyways, to refer again to America one more time:

They can turn anything into a buck. Even the negative publicity that they receive from their aggressive exploitative politics, ends up making money for their economy with the likes of counter culture music and film. Counter culture in (especially the output from filmmakers and musicians) America is simply a re-energizer of its capitalism. They are incredibly clever and inventive as a whole culture.

Yes, I've always found counter-culture hilarious. "We aren't conformists, and we're gonna show it by adhering to this set style we just bought from K-Mart!"

The politics of the United States had a beautiful start, but unfortunately didn't make the transition from thirteen colonies to 300 million citizens in a techno-media world very well. This is a different discussion, however.

You must be open to the context that I am using the word clever in.

You use it only in the feminine context.

We get ourselvse into so much trouble, we maintain so much unneccesary pain by our clever justifications, by our inventiveness, by our politics which all function to establish and protect unnecessary comforts. One of those comforts is woman – who is a mastermind when it comes to subtle manipulation – she is very clever.

She is perhaps the true ruler of the world.

If you mean to say that women should be given no more protection than men, I say you are cruel. Women are wretched, yes; they are manipulative. They are also weak, and it is our moral duty as the strong to watch out for the weak. Rape is serious, as is the beating of a woman, usually moreso than the beating of a man. I do not mean to say that all the bullshit sexual harassment laws and such are just, I would like to see them reformed or elliminated. I mean to say that blatant abuse is wrong, moreso toward a being who cannot defend itself.

The only way to end suffering is via great suffering. The way to establish and maintain suffering is through worldly pleasure.

That is why most people are fools, and truly wise people are rare.

Yes.

Cory: Feminine individuals who are constantly enjoying themselves with their desperate cleverness haven’t the strength, self-esteem and simple emotionless mundane logic, to undergo the sort of suffering that wipes suffering away completely. They find the truth too depressing, and that is because they have become accustomed to the gratification of this, that, and the other.

Ritz: I agree with you mostly here, however I don't say they find truth depressing because they have become accustomed to gratification. Were that the case, women would be different across time and space, which they are not. The second-class property woman of ancient times is just as thoroughly flawed and feminine as the voting daughter of a modern-day diplomat.

Well I know a few women who are masculine enough to be fairly intellectual -- -so they are not devastated and angered about a conversation that points out the absurdities of conventional Christianity. They can actually contribute to the conversation a bit and laugh from satirical observations. In that case they are more masculine females – they haven’t become as sensually involved in gross delusions and thus aren’t as pervious to being upset by coming into contact with a somewhat deeper conversation than is usually witnessed by them.

My grandmother for instance is outraged by the Da Vinci Code which paints Jesus as a man who was married to Madeline someone or other (a prostitute).

She’s outraged because she has it all worked out in her head how she is going to heaven, Jesus’s role in that, what god is, etc, etc……

I think anthropologically, women have evolutionarily become habituated to certain gratifcations that, if you deprive them of these gratfications, they are in a great deal of inner turmoil. A women my mother worked with lost all of her hair through a disease. She was an exceptionally vain women to begin with, so you can imagine how devested she was by losing her hair.

She was bed-ridden with depresion for a very long time. Eventually she adopted the saying (maybe through reading a book) "if you want to change the way you feel, change the way you think" - and from there found new ways of motivating herself to get out of bed every day. She became a deeper woman because of her experience, however, this isnt saying too much. But its an example.


Would you agree at least that males find the truth depressing because they have become accustomed to physical and ‘especially’ mental comforts, not only in their so called personal life, but evolutionarily, much like woman?

Cory: I think we as humans are victims to will power, and thus have weak composure. I think our composure would be much stronger if we weren’t so willful. Willfulness begets poor composure. Poor composure begets willfulness.

Ritz: Without power of will, we are lost.

The truth is that will is not a personal thing. Individual will is an illusion. It is a myth. There is no individual/personal will.

I say that the belief that we have individual will is merely born out of vanity.

Everything about you Ritz is not a choice on your part. You did not choose or will anything, it only seemed like you did. You’re suffering is created by believing you have achieved something personally, among many other factors.

Could you give me an example from your personal life that proves to me that you have actually willed something personally? I say that one can only be willful (which is not personal) or willing (which is also not personal)

Ritz: Composure does not beget willfulness.

I know, I said poor composure begets willfulness.

But maybe I should have said poor composure ‘allows’ the presence of willfulness.

In order to have good composure one must be willing to not do, rather than be willful and do.

One must be willing to not do what the will-full masses are doing.

If a group of friends from work are going on a pub-crawl for instance, I understand them to be sowing the seeds of bad composure.

I am willing to face the truth, while they are not.

(keep in mind I maintain that personal will does not exist)

Impersonal will is the only sort of will that exists, and ‘poor’ composure allows for willfulness, and willfulness exacerbates ‘poor’ composure.

Ritz: Willfulness may beget composure, but this is not a certainty.

Willfulness can only cripple ones composure, ones well being, ones craving for more experience.

The mark of an immature human being is his craving for more experience.

This desire for more experience is both the cause and the effect of not paying heed to and questioning the inner impulses that are involuntarily compelling one to pursue this, that and the other.

And no it is not an act of personal will to pay heed and question the details – this is how the brain works.

Do you choose how your brain works? No, you simply realize ‘the way it is’ and that is because you have the good composure to do so.

Ritz: Without will we are nothing and thus have no reason to object to or fight anything...

Exactly. We can only do what we have no choice to do - and therefore we do not choose, but instead acknowledge that which we see is illogical to resist.

Cory: Wisdom can be approached two ways: 1) ones disgust with worldly pleasures and oneself becomes stronger than ones craving for worldly pleasures and sympathy for oneself - this leads to higher interests. 2) One is lucky enough (due to high quality childhood) to have a very clear perception that the pleasures of this world can only cloud the mind and thus lead to pain, this realization pushes one to go even further and realize the non-existence of the self.

Ritz: Point two I find interesting, as both Buddha (correct me if I'm wrong there) and Thoreau were of high birth.

Yes, Buddha certainly was. I think Diogones and Jesus were of low birth. But correct me if I’m wrong.

Cory: Now don’t get me wrong Ritz - I’m not condemning cleverness – for instances a wise individual can use cleverness. However, meditation, wisdom is not cleverness - it is not an act of will. It is the ending of the will. Don’t you think it’s a good idea to make a distinction between wisdom and cleverness?

Ritz: Yes, it is good to make such distinction, however I do not see cleverness as the ending of the will.

On the contrary I say that meditation (which of course is not cleverness) is to be beyond will.

Meditation is the soil of wisdom, and 'good' cleverness is the flower of wisdom.

Ritz: Will IS NOT willingness, and though wisdom cannot be a tool for cleverness, cleverness can be a tool for wisdom.

I agree with this. The absence of will is the willingness to be the truth. Wisdom is willingness to be nothing.

You cannot will yourself to truth.

Cory: You must be open to the context that I am using the word clever in.

Ritz: You use it only in the feminine context.

Yes, I wanted to explore and so I started a thread by saying a limited little bit to see where it would go.

It’s good to see and work with your contribution Ritz.

We get ourselves into so much trouble, we maintain so much unneccesary pain by our clever justifications, by our inventiveness, by our politics which all function to establish and protect unnecessary comforts. One of those comforts is woman – who is a mastermind when it comes to subtle manipulation – she is very clever. She is perhaps the true ruler of the world.

Ritz: If you mean to say that women should be given no more protection than man, I say you are cruel.

Women are wretched, yes; they are manipulative. They are also weak, and it is our moral duty as the strong to watch out for the weak.

Rape is serious, as is the beating of a woman, usually moreso than the beating of a man. I do not mean to say that all the bullshit sexual harassment laws and such are just, I would like to see them reformed or elliminated. I mean to say that blatant abuse is wrong, more so toward a being who cannot defend itself.

Why would I advocate that we fight to remove the laws that we have made to punish those who are abusive towards anyone, let alone the weak?

However, I think it is just as cruel if not more cruel to treat women like they are so weak and incapable that they cannot be rational as well as take the steps to be less susceptible to being abused.

I read about a woman not too long ago who had taken martial arts for years and had succeeded at defending herself from a spontaneous assault.

Not only with their martial arts, but with pepper spray women can defend themselves – sometimes they even employ rationality and good sense to defend themselves, or prevent situation where they need to defend themselves :)

Women in this day and age, in my opinion, are pretty much asking for it anyway.

Just look at the clothes they wear, just look at how they exaggerate their bodies.

Women have stooped very low.

And it’s not really their fault. How the ‘so called males’ treat women (in part) makes women stoop so low to begin with, with their clothing, their makeup, etc.

She is just doing it to please us (and thus please herself).

They are (in part) molding themselves to our dreams.

And then we blame them for it.

Women are not guilty.

If we truly care for them, then we need to treat them differently – we need to speak to them as like we would speak to a child who we would like to see become a man.

But we often treat our daughters like we know they will become what we unconsciously hate.

However, women occasionally get raped and beaten unjustly, and our society takes these crimes very seriously, and should continue to do so.

It is useful to note that those who stoop to raping and abusing women are lower than women. Most men, because they are feminine, are in my opinion inferior to women. The only way to be superior to woman is to be beyond her, otherwise, you are her puppet.

If we wish to tackle the problem of rape and abuse then I think we need to focus on both being wise/male, and providing the material and support for those who desire absolute clarity, certainty, and truth.

DQ - If you are, in this very moment, viewing both of them as real, then it would mean you are currently adopting a third perspective on the matter. You cannot, at this moment, be viewing things from Purusha, for that would make you see Prikriti as unreal. And you cannot be viewing things from Prikriti either, for that would make you see Purusha as unreal. So you must be viewing the pair of them from some other perspective which comes from some other place. It would mean that you currently consider this third place as being more real than either Purusha or Prikriti. So what is this third place?

This is a very good point. The ego, or interface, is the third position. It is the interface between the two worlds that is the whole game. However, this ego interface is temporary. The person is temporary, thus 'unreal.' Not eternal. In all beings, gods, enlightened sages, humans etc. the ego is always necessary. I say there are two types of ego - 'good ego' and 'bad ego.' Regular human consciousness is bad ego because it does not see or acknowledge Purusha which is the very support of his own consciousness. This makes him a moron and an ingrate. He supposes he is the apex of creation instead of a temporary created thing. Pure arrogance. On top of this, he supposes his ego has an afterlife. Delusion. And, he strives to dominate others - demonic.

DQ - Human egotism is also a manifestation of nature. At root, it is just as natural and as awe-inspiring as animal behavior is. So why do you discriminate between them, calling one of them disgusting and the other wonderful? They are all part of the magic and mystery of Prikriti, wouldn't you agree?

No, I wouldn't agree. See above. Jesus said of the bad ego, "Satan, get behind me." Bad ego may be a necessary aspect of the creation, but I am not sure of that. It may be an aberration. Many sages taught that it was an unnecessary aberration and mutation. A blemish. A mistake. Nevertheless, as a pimple, it passes.

DQ - Well, you're still pleasing your ego there. Pursuing things for enjoyment's sake - such as a sunset or a piece of music or an experience of Purusha - is still a case of trying to please the ego.

It is my view that the creation of 'good ego' is the entire purpose of creation. After this, the function is to 'enjoy'. It is 'god' playing with 'god,' 'god' enjoying 'god.' Before this level of ego development, the person is unable to enjoy anything as he is constantly in a state of doubt about death and he has no appreciation. He has not seen the universe disappear, so he has no appreciation for its miraculous appearance.

Yes, the purpose of life is to enjoy it. That is the highest state.

Cory Patrick wrote:

Cory: Feminine individuals who are constantly enjoying themselves with their desperate cleverness haven’t the strength, self-esteem and simple emotionless mundane logic, to undergo the sort of suffering that wipes suffering away completely. They find the truth too depressing, and that is because they have become accustomed to the gratification of this, that, and the other.

Ritz: I agree with you mostly here, however I don't say they find truth depressing because they have become accustomed to gratification. Were that the case, women would be different across time and space, which they are not. The second-class property woman of ancient times is just as thoroughly flawed and feminine as the voting daughter of a modern-day diplomat.

Well I know a few women who are masculine enough to be fairly intellectual -- -so they are not devastated and angered about a conversation that points out the absurdities of conventional Christianity. They can actually contribute to the conversation a bit and laugh from satirical observations. In that case they are more masculine females – they haven’t become as sensually involved in gross delusions and thus aren’t as pervious to being upset by coming into contact with a somewhat deeper conversation than is usually witnessed by them.

My grandmother for instance is outraged by the Da Vinci Code which paints Jesus as a man who was married to Madeline someone or other (a prostitute).

She’s outraged because she has it all worked out in her head how she is going to heaven, Jesus’s role in that, what god is, etc, etc……

I think anthropologically, women have evolutionarily become habituated to certain gratifcations that, if you deprive them of these gratfications, they are in a great deal of inner turmoil. A women my mother worked with lost all of her hair through a disease. She was an exceptionally vain women to begin with, so you can imagine how devested she was by losing her hair.

She was bed-ridden with depresion for a very long time. Eventually she adopted the saying (maybe through reading a book) "if you want to change the way you feel, change the way you think" - and from there found new ways of motivating herself to get out of bed every day. She became a deeper woman because of her experience, however, this isnt saying too much. But its an example.

The Da Vinci code is a work of fiction, and as such should not be taken as more by either Christians or non-Christians.

As per evolution, the more I learn about it the less I believe it. Mutation never adds information, never. There are no transitional fossils (Darwin predicted millions of them), and many components of biologicle life are just far to advanced to have come about by mere random chance (the human eye, for one). Evolution is just as much a religion as Islam or Shintoism, save the fact that it bases itself in pseudo-science, and thus can be proven invalid. Note that natural selection is not evolution (though it is often claimed to be). At any rate, this isn't a discussion about evolution.

Would you agree at least that males find the truth depressing because they have become accustomed to physical and ‘especially’ mental comforts, not only in their so called personal life, but evolutionarily, much like woman?

"The truth" is not one contiguous entity. Some truths are certainly found depressing because they contrast with conditioned comfort, but other truths are found to be depressing for other reasons. It depends, it all depends.

Cory: I think we as humans are victims to will power, and thus have weak composure. I think our composure would be much stronger if we weren’t so willful. Willfulness begets poor composure. Poor composure begets willfulness.

Ritz: Without power of will, we are lost.

The truth is that will is not a personal thing. Individual will is an illusion. It is a myth. There is no individual/personal will.

I say that the belief that we have individual will is merely born out of vanity.

Everything about you Ritz is not a choice on your part. You did not choose or will anything, it only seemed like you did. You’re suffering is created by believing you have achieved something personally, among many other factors.

Could you give me an example from your personal life that proves to me that you have actually willed something personally? I say that one can only be willful (which is not personal) or willing (which is also not personal)

Ah, the old predestination bit. I love pondering this. I've heard a plethora of possible solutions and explanations. My favorite would be the compatabilist theory, though it is still inadequate. Allow me to illustrate with a thought experiment, once presented to me by a professor of philosophy:

Scenario A: You walk down a dark alley. Suddenly a mugger jumps out from behind a dumpster, points a gun to you, and demands all your money. Without hesitation you fork over your cash, and he makes off.

Scenario B: You walk down a dark alley. Suddenly an old grandmother shuffles out from behind a dumpster. She tells you the saddest story of woe and misfortune you've ever heard. She needs money. Without hesitation you fork over your cash, and she makes off.

Here we see two different chains of events leading up to the same result. The moral? It doesn't matter why you do something, so long as you do it.

As I said, it is flawed. Ultimately we cannot prove all of our actions to be determined by our past experiences... to do so would require seperate but identical realities and a whole mess of stuff straight from science fiction.

I have known people who use philosophy as a shield from responsibility, in one way or another. By claiming no control over their will they relinquish their will and dissolve all sense of personal responsibility, making themselves pathetic.

It is also important to note that accoding to your explanations, it is not just our will but our entire self which is determined entirely by our past experience. Could it not be said then that your theories and thoughts are no more a result of you than anything else? You'll say yes, or you'll say that self is an illusion, but I don't think it will be with great confidence. After all, how can such a thing as enlightenment or wisdom exist or be revered if it is all purely circumstancial?

Ritz: Composure does not beget willfulness.

I know, I said poor composure begets willfulness.

I apologize; I completely misread that.

The mark of an immature human being is his craving for more experience.

This desire for more experience is both the cause and the effect of not paying heed to and questioning the inner impulses that are involuntarily compelling one to pursue this, that and the other.

I'm not sure I follow you. Do you mean to say that only an immature being is able to pursue the ascetic? Or do you mean to say that any who does not desire more experience is mature?

And no it is not an act of personal will to pay heed and question the details – this is how the brain works.

Do you choose how your brain works? No, you simply realize ‘the way it is’ and that is because you have the good composure to do so.

We have no control over the raw biological workings of our cerebral tissues. We can have control over our thought processes, to a degree. It is not easy, it is rationality, reason, and discipline. May I ask your views on the metaphysics of mind and the problem of interaction?

Ritz: Without will we are nothing and thus have no reason to object to or fight anything...

Exactly. We can only do what we have no choice to do - and therefore we do not choose, but instead acknowledge that which we see is illogical to resist.

I fear this is a somewhat dangerous mentality, as is any that claims personal responsibility to be an illusion. Illusion or not, there is still a point at which we make a choice.

The absence of will is the willingness to be the truth. Wisdom is willingness to be nothing.

You cannot will yourself to truth.

You cannot simply will yourself to truth, but you do will yourself to find truth; you will yourself to meditate, do you not?

Cory: You must be open to the context that I am using the word clever in.

Ritz: You use it only in the feminine context.

Yes, I wanted to explore and so I started a thread by saying a limited little bit to see where it would go.

It’s good to see and work with your contribution Ritz.

Thank you... it's nice to have a dialogue with someone who can support their reasoning and is not fearful of exploring alternatives. As per the context, I just felt the distinction had to be made, so as to avoid confusion.

However, I think it is just as cruel if not more cruel to treat women like they are so weak and incapable that they cannot be rational as well as take the steps to be less susceptible to being abused.

Protection is not prevention of prevention, nor are women rational.

And it’s not really their fault. How the ‘so called males’ treat women (in part) makes women stoop so low to begin with, with their clothing, their makeup, etc.

She is just doing it to please us (and thus please herself).

They are (in part) molding themselves to our dreams.

And then we blame them for it.

Women are not guilty.

Not all, not even most women dress in a truly indecent manner. If two women can grow up in the same society, one dressing in the uniform of a whore and the other being modest, it cannot be the collective male pressure alone driving them to be indecent. They choose the clothes and they put on the clothes, and thus they are responsible for them.

If we truly care for them, then we need to treat them differently – we need to speak to them as like we would speak to a child who we would like to see become a man.

But a women can never become a man, and those who have come close did not do so through the efforts of others. Women are treated differently through time and space, and as I said before, we continue to see feminine traits and feminine flaws.

But we often treat our daughters like we know they will become what we unconsciously hate.

That is because they already are. Have you ever spent time with little girls? I have three younger sisters (the oldest is six years younger than I, the youngest ten years younger), and I've spent a great deal of effort and time trying to improve them, but they resist, as all females do in some way. Young women are women still, they just have yet to refine their talents and as a result appear differently.

However, women occasionally get raped and beaten unjustly, and our society takes these crimes very seriously, and should continue to do so.

Occasionally? When has a woman ever been raped justly?

It is useful to note that those who stoop to raping and abusing women are lower than women. Most men, because they are feminine, are in my opinion inferior to women. The only way to be superior to woman is to be beyond her, otherwise, you are her puppet.

Yes, this is true, and as Paglia said, would be useful if implemented into modern American therapy.

If we wish to tackle the problem of rape and abuse then I think we need to focus on both being wise/male, and providing the material and support for those who desire absolute clarity, certainty, and truth.

Unfortunately, those who would rape and abuse likely won't be the ones seek out higher things.

Ritzbitts wrote;

The Da Vinci code is a work of fiction

Everything that stems from the deluded mind is fiction.

Is that so? Perhaps you might like to defend that position, Prince.
I have to say that Kevin's and David's chastisement of Zag for his "glib" one-liners doesn't stack up all that well in comparison to their seemingly complete indifference to "Prince"'s forum persona.

I smell hypocrisy and I smell it bad.

So, as an admin, I will warn you, Prince: either engage the discussion meaningfully or prepare for the worst. Either that I will ban David and Kevin from admin duties.


Dan Rowden

ideas you conceive are their own possibility.

only dominant desire shall compel us to do what we want to do succesfully.

Hello Cato,

Cory: Why are there so many clever to very clever people who haven’t the initiative to go beyond 'self'?


Cato: I'll tell you why. The second you fail to do what is expected of you, you lose standing.

So wisdom goes against what appears like the logical thing to do? Wisdom seems irrational to people. It is unpleasant to them. Wisdom hurts the foolish.

Cato: [The loss of standing] effect’s your ability to live comfortably enough to have the time to get past thinking about day to day existence.

I agree that one needs to have the degree of leisure. But I say this leisure is naturally available to everyone, however, right now humanity is suffering from an unnatural situation. This unnatural situation was born from the advent of agriculture. Our entire global situation is built around an inherently irrational agriculture. If we can fix this, then everyone will have the necessary leisure.

We have this desire to stay on top of our game so drummed into us that many can never think past that acquisition of necessities.

Don’t you agree that it’s far more than the acquisition of necessities that drives us?

Is there any surprise that most of the great philosophers had some patron or were themselves rich and influential somehow so that they had the time to sit about and "think" and write? I mean, let's face it. One still need to eat while one is laying about thinking all these great thoughts!

Yes, that is why much of what I write focuses on methods of food production and lifestyle design that helps to reduce labor and energy use in general.

Is it a surprise that the average person deems such "thinking" a waste of time? After all, such thinking can rarely buy a flat screen TV, a computer, or a Summer home in the mountains.

No, the behavior of the masses is not surprising - pursuing pleasure seems logical to them, while abiding and exploring discontent and anxiety makes no sense to them.

One of the ancient Greek philosophers once said that it is a waste of time for anyone under 50 to study philosophy.

He said that because it isn't until that age that one might have the breadth and depth of experience to begin to understand concepts greater than him self (apologies for not remembering which one it was, any help)

Do you think Jesus was pretty much deluded then? (he only lived until he was 33) What about Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Ernest Becker? (all died before reaching 50)

Was there some value to their characters and their words?

If so, then waiting until your 50 to study philosophy may be evidently quite foolish. Personally, my impression is that it is foolish to wait until your 50 to begin philosophy. One must start young - otherwise I doubt one would have the strength to go beyond pedantry and academia.

Although, 50 + may very well be the golden years of the philosopher. But that doesn’t mean valuable insights cannot be beheld between 20 – 50.

So, don't imagine that people are too stupid to think these thoughts.

That was actually the purpose of this thread, to show that the masses aren’t too stupid to be wise – but rather, they are too emotionally unbalanced and clever.

And above all, man is a practical creature.

Practical? Hardly. He may ‘think’ what he is doing is practical – but it’s actually quite the contrary. This world (each culture) was designed with the intent of practical functionality – but it has been for the most part a spectacular failure. Most cultures rest upon a way of doing agriculture that depends on the destruction of the very thing they scramble fearfully to preserve and glorify. Man is irrational, not practical.

Cory,

If this…

Everything about you Ritz is not a choice on your part. You did not choose or will anything, it only seemed like you did. You’re suffering is created by believing you have achieved something personally, among many other factors.

…is your understanding, then…

Most cultures rest upon a way of doing agriculture that depends on the destruction of the very thing they scramble fearfully to preserve and glorify. Man is irrational, not practical.

…this seems to suggest that you are holding Man responsible for being irrational and impractical. But they had no choice at all? Any ways...

Regarding Agriculture, I wanted to point out earlier. I believe that whatever decision taken at any point of time is necessarily a result of information available and the level of intellect of that particular time, and the decision would seem perfectly rational and practical, then. As the intellect and experiences grow, we learn form it, and then try to find new ways of feeding the multitude now that they are already here, and try to save the planet at the same time since we now know what mistakes we made. I know that remaining hunters and gatherers would have supported us very well, but then may be you would not have been born, neither would we be having this discussion.

On the other hand, if this discussion and everything with it was inevitable due to no choice of ours, then that renders logic, reasoning and responsibility meaningless. For we had no choice in becoming hunter/gatherers, no choice in becoming farmers, no choice in breeding till the planet goes out of orbit, and no choice in taking any future “rational” or “practical” decision. It just happens!

Further more, may be any different decision taken now, on or about Earth will be laughed at as being irrational and impractical by future generations scattered all over reachable planets.

.

Ritz: The Da Vinci code is a work of fiction, and as such should not be taken as more by either Christians or non-Christians.

Well, yeah, no kidding - but do you see my point? My grandmother’s a perfect example of how a woman can get sensually involved with and habituated to a particular idea and as a result gets upset when a contradictory idea is introduced. It was my mother in fact who was enjoying the Da Vinci Code recently, and during a visit she asked my grandmother if she read the book. My grandmother’s reply was so indignant and angry. My mother found her reaction puzzling and amusing – but it was no surprise to me at all.

Do keep in mind Ritz that I am in now way saying that the Da Vinci code is anything more than a preposterous work of fiction.

I am just trying to show you how woman are similar to men in that they derive gratification and mental security via belief systems, and thus suffer the consequences.

Ritz: As per evolution, the more I learn about it the less I believe it.

What about the evolution of culture, of music, of art, of trends, of economics, of agriculture, and the more supeficial asspects of psychology?

Are those examples of evolution not plainly obvious? Do you deny that there is a physical process of modification over time?

I do share your concerns about mutation however. My theories on evolution are not so great that I think it all makes perfect sense. Darwin admited the same thing, and that is why i have great respect for him.

I don’t believe in a theory of evolution that totally explains it all, but that doesn’t mean I totally deny the observations of Darwin, nor do I turn a blind eye to the obviousness of some evolutionary mechanics in regards to at least how a culture progresses sociologically.

Although it is interesting to note that it seems spiritual creative individuals breathe life and novelty into a culture and in part help shape how it evolves - so therefore, most change that you see in culture has it’s origins in spontaneous individualities which diffuses and percolate and live through the masses over time.

Ritz: Mutation never adds information, never.

You mean there are no tracks left behind? There is no smoking gun?

The birds of today would once have to be creatures that were in a stage of awkward superfluity would they not? Half lizard or mice with useless webs of skin between there arms and body?

It seems all animals we see existing today are equipped with features ‘for a reason’.

Are there any creatures existing today that have features that seem totally purposeless and accidental? I can’t really think of any.

All species that I’m aware of seem shaped and streamlined perfectly.

Any mutations you find in the odd creatures seen nowadays always seems to be caused by pollution or lab experimentation and leaves the creature at a disadvantage in terms of survival.

Ritz: Evolution is just as much a religion as Islam or Shintoism, save the fact that it bases itself in pseudo-science, and thus can be proven invalid. Note that natural selection is not evolution (though it is often claimed to be). At any rate, this isn't a discussion about evolution.

Well, just because the obviously flawed morality of Christianity has its origins in Jesus, doesn’t mean we dismiss the value of Jesus.

And just because the obviously flawed morality of Evolutionary theory has its origins in Darwin, doesn’t mean we dismiss the work of Darwin.

Darwin’s work was undoubtedly very helpful in terms of helping humanity see how significant the most seemingly insignificant of creatures are – creatures like worms and insects, because of Darwin, were revealed to be responsible for the flourishing of most vegetation and thus all of our civilizations. Taking a species and envisioning the role it has played over thousands and thousands, if not millions of years in relationship to other species was Darwin’s specialty, and it has been invaluable.

Cory: Would you agree at least that males find the truth depressing because they have become accustomed to physical and ‘especially’ mental comforts, not only in their so called personal life, but evolutionarily, much like woman?

Ritz: The truth" is not one contiguous entity.

Are you saying that instead truth is fragmented and disjointed?

I think the truth is one undivided whole, while ‘thought’, which we use to acknowledge the truth, appears to be in fragments to us (however thought is undivided from the undivided whole as well).

Ritz: Some truths are certainly found depressing because they contrast with conditioned comfort

Yes.

But other truths are found to be depressing for other reasons.

Can you name some reasons?

Ritz: I have known people who use philosophy as a shield from responsibility, in one way or another.

By claiming no control over their will they relinquish their will and dissolve all sense of personal responsibility, making themselves pathetic.

Yes, but I don’t think you should say ‘they use philosophy’ to shield from responsibility. The etymological root meaning of philosophy is ‘love of truth’.

There is responsibility and irresponsibility, and to be irresponsible (by my definition) is to be dishonest.

How can you love truth dishonestly?

The bottom line is; some people are strong, some people are weak.

There are innumerable idiosyncratic ways to be weak, to be dishonest, deluded and crooked.

There is only one way to be the truth. To be the truth is to be responsible.

Ritz: It is also important to note that according to your explanations, it is not just our will but our entire self which is determined entirely by our past experience.

I don’t use the words ‘will’ or ‘self’ in the possessive sense as in my will, or my self, etc, etc….(sometimes I do for conveniently navigating through a more every day common conversation).

To me, will is just a blind force that pervades and pulsates throughout the universe.

Self is just an impersonal tendency. To ‘know yourself’ as Socrates would say, is simply to be aware of the ‘ways of the self’ rather than assuming that there is some sort of unique special soul in me that I need to finally understand and thus be liberated.

Rather than truly understand the mundane common tendency or relationship in front of our eyes, humanity likes to focus on what it hopes is more special, unique and important (only because it fancies itself as more special, unique and important)

That is not to say that we are not each unique vessels or that we should seek to destroy our uniqueness.

I agree with J. Krishnamurti when he said that we should regard the self like a vase that holds the water.

“Humanity worships the uniqueness of the vase and overlooks the importance of the plain common water.”

Am I nothing but the result of the past? Before I can answer that I need to understand what the past is. If you want to understand what you are, understand history, understand biology, anthropology, astronomy, quantum physics, etc, etc……..

But as for the question : “am I nothing but an outcome of what has happened in the past”?

Why not just be interested in not only what has happened, but what is happening?

Then you might ask: “What is the relationship between what has happened and what is happening?

I say there is no difference – they are one.

And what is the difference between me and that one?

none.

Ritz: Could it not be said then that your theories and thoughts are no more a result of you than anything else?

I say with absolute certainty that they are not a result of anything in particular. They are the result of everything. In the ultimate sense they have no cause.

They are at one with an ‘uncaused’ body of cause and effect.

You can only look at it in two ways: We have no cause, and we are caused by everything.

Ritz: After all, how can such a thing as enlightenment or wisdom exist or be revered if it is all purely circumstancial?

What was the circumstance that brought about an uncaused body of cause and effect?

Are you hung up looking for a particular cause that will make everything clear?

Wisdom is brought about via particular circumstances, likewise, foolishness is brought about via particular circumstances.

There are poorer quality, less sophisticated processes -- -and there are higher quality processes.

Cory: The mark of an immature human being is his craving for more experience.

This desire for more experience is both the cause and the effect of not paying heed to and questioning the inner impulses that are involuntarily compelling one to pursue this, that and the other.

Ritz: I'm not sure I follow you. Do you mean to say that only an immature being is able to pursue the ascetic?

Yes. Being immature is at first necessary and we should not resist our desires, our curiosity.

Most religions teach that we should suppress and control our desires.

However, I say we shall never become truly mature if we do this.

We will only become mature through following through with what we desire.

Our suffering, boredom, isolation, alienation that result’s from getting what we want - will cast our eyes in a new direction.

A new desire and curiosity will be born and thus the process of pleasure to pain repeats itself at an increasingly more subtle level (ones insights and genius become more apparent and frequent) or if we are unlucky enough, the cycle repeats itself at an increasingly more gross level (one becomes closer and closer to drug, sex or gambling addiction, or/and one falls into various patterns of neurosis, depression, psychosis, etc, etc) –

It all depends on how many positive factors were present in childhood and ‘are’ present now.

One must go through with this process and hopefully, if one is surrounded by the right influences in childhood and in the present moment, ones eyes will be cast upon greater and greater truth, and eventually one will be it.

Or do you mean to say that anyone who does not desire more experience is mature?

A mature man is the truth, and being the truth, he doesn’t demand any particular experience out of anyone or anything (unlike the immature person who is always trying to control people in order to get something in particular from the person he is focused on)

The mature man makes sure that the present moment conforms to the truth and forsakes anything that is diluting it.

He who dilutes truth does so because he desires a particular experience.

Notice how the moderators of this forum ban certain people. They do not do this because they desire a particular experience, they do this because they want to deny particular experience.

They do this because they are close to the truth, and thus they forsake anyone who wants to be far away from the truth.
Is the truth an experience? No, it is beyond mere experience.

Ritz: We can have control over our thought processes, to a degree. It is not easy, it is rationality, reason, and discipline.

Men of rationality, reason and discipline are men who hate otherwise. The hatred is not a choice, and the hatred of vulgarity is the essence of the highest.

Negative feelings such as hatred, discontent, boredom, and sorrow are involuntary.

They are what drive men to be rational. Men who are rational are involuntarily rational.

Men who are stupid are likewise involuntarily stupid.

May I ask your views on the metaphysics of mind and the problem of interaction?

What you’ve read so far and what lies ahead are all I have to say for now, maybe I can satisfy your interest with this post, maybe it will take a few more – but I maybe never.

Ritz: Without will we are nothing and thus have no reason to object to or fight anything...

Cory: Exactly. We can only do what we have no choice to do - and therefore we do not choose, but instead acknowledge that which we see is illogical to resist.

Ritz: I fear this is a somewhat dangerous mentality, as is any that claims personal responsibility to be an illusion.

Responsibility is not an illusion. The ‘personal’ however is an illusion.

Illusion or not, there is still a point at which we make a choice

No, there is no choice.

Cory: The absence of will is the willingness to be the truth. Wisdom is willingness to be nothing.

You cannot will yourself to truth.

Rtiz: You cannot simply will yourself to truth, but you do will yourself to find truth; you will yourself to meditate, do you not?

Your negative feelings and your desires for the highest are not a choice, do not resist them. Searching, investigating, researching – these are all good things – but however personal it may feel to you – your actions are driven by that which is very common and involuntary, your actions and experiences however unique they may seem to you, rest upon the universal, your actions are very impersonal archetypes, and your discoveries are absolutely involuntary.

Cory: However, I think it is just as cruel if not more cruel to treat women like they are so weak and incapable that they cannot be rational as well as take the steps to be less susceptible to being abused.

Ritz: Protection is not prevention of prevention, nor are women rational.

There are degrees of rationality and women are indeed capable of becoming rational and male to a significant and helpful degree. This world has produced helpful, decent masculine women – although not in high numbers, nor in the form of a sage.

Women desire to please, and if the majority of men place value on rationality – if power starts shifting more to the hands of the good, then the women will gravitate towards wanting to please the good (and surely they will do their best to make the good men bad - - but they will fail if the men truly are good and the women will thus gradually come to do what please the good).

Right now the power lies with bad men - therefore, women gravitate towards bad men.

Cory" And it’s not really their fault. How the ‘so called males’ treat women (in part) makes women stoop so low to begin with, with their clothing, their makeup, etc.

She is just doing it to please us (and thus please herself).

They are (in part) molding themselves to our dreams.

And then we blame them for it.

Women are not guilty.

Ritz: not even most women dress in a truly indecent manner. If two women

I would say, in this day and age, if a woman has the package, she will flaunt it. Even if she doesn’t have the right package, she often wants to and tries to flaunt it anyway – to the dismay and entertainment of those who are aesthetically involved in the show.

Sometimes the overweight and/or very unattractive girls allows enough rationality to keep things covered up.

Cory: If we truly care for them, then we need to treat them differently – we need to speak to them as like we would speak to a child who we would like to see become a man.

Ritz: But a women can never become a man, and those who have come close did not do so through the efforts of others. Women are treated differently through time and space, and as I said before, we continue to see feminine traits and feminine flaws.

You cannot be certain that a woman cannot reach significant degrees of rationality/masculinity. Intelligent, strong women have existed and exist today. Some post on this forum. It doesn’t necessarily have to be all or nothing. There is the highest and there is the lowest, and just because someone isn’t the absolute highest doesn’t mean they are totally worthless. Now, as for those who have absolutely no interest in wisdom and live like pigs – perhaps they truly are worthless.

Plenty of them are men.

Cory: But we often treat our daughters like we know they will become what we unconsciously hate.

Ritz: That is because they already are.
Have you ever spent time with little girls? I have three younger sisters (the oldest is six years younger than I, the youngest ten years younger), and I've spent a great deal of effort and time trying to improve them, but they resist, as all females do in some way. Young women are women still, they just have yet to refine their talents and as a result appear differently.

Are you telling me that there is nothing you, your parents and your people can do from preventing yourself sisters from becoming prostitutes, whores, and the like?

I dont think womans situation is quite as extreme as you make it to be.

Cory: However, women occasionally get raped and beaten unjustly, and our society takes these crimes very seriously, and should continue to do so.

Ritz: Occasionally? When has a woman ever been raped justly?

Bad things happen to unwise people - - A severely traumatic experience will provoke some deep thinking and thus maybe some good will come out of the rape.

We have laws that punish woman beaters and rapists, and this is fine.

Sometimes rape happens anyway despite the laws – and this can also be good.

It encourages women to be more aware, to learn to protect themselves, to be more rational, responsible, to be less optimistic and stupid.

I am not one of the humans who will have anything to do with policing and maintaining laws. That is not my purpose in life. Life is cruel, the truth is cruel, and I am the truth - -- so call me cruel.

Nor do I have any close relationships to women, and if I did, or if I do, they will be wise enough to not get themselves into a situation where they might get raped.

Cory: If we wish to tackle the problem of rape and abuse then I think we need to focus on both being wise/male, and providing the material and support for those who desire absolute clarity, certainty, and truth.

Ritz: Unfortunately, those who would rape and abuse likely won't be the ones seek out higher things.

Those who rape have failed as human beings, and there are reasons for their failure. The reasons for their failure is the responsibility of the philosohper to identify and bring to peoples attention - thus we evolve.

Cory Patrick wrote:

Ritz: As per evolution, the more I learn about it the less I believe it.

What about the evolution of culture, of music, of art, of trends, of economics, of agriculture, and the more supeficial asspects of psychology?

Why do you intentionally misunderstand me? Evolution was a word before it was a theory, but I think it was extremely obvious that I was speaking of biological evolution.

I do share your concerns about mutation however. My theories on evolution are not so great that I think it all makes perfect sense. Darwin admited the same thing, and that is why i have great respect for him.

I don’t believe in a theory of evolution that totally explains it all, but that doesn’t mean I totally deny the observations of Darwin, nor do I turn a blind eye to the obviousness of some evolutionary mechanics in regards to at least how a culture progresses sociologically.

I don't deny the observations of Darwin, I deny many of his conclusions.

Although it is interesting to note that it seems spiritual creative individuals breathe life and novelty into a culture and in part help shape how it evolves - so therefore, most change that you see in culture has it’s origins in spontaneous individualities which diffuses and percolate and live through the masses over time.

Technology is by nature cumulative, and thus can be said to evolve. Culture and society, however, evolve only by means of technology and ideology. If this were not the case, we would see progression without deviation from hunter-gatherer, to tribal, to agriculture society, on up to what we have today. This is not the case. The ancients of Greece and Rome do not fit this model, nor do the Australian Aborigine peoples. Society and culture evolve, but by different means and to different ends than "biological evolution," or, to be precise, macro evolution.

Ritz: Mutation never adds information, never.

You mean there are no tracks left behind? There is no smoking gun?

This is exactly what I mean.

The birds of today would once have to be creatures that were in a stage of awkward superfluity would they not? Half lizard or mice with useless webs of skin between there arms and body?

They would according to evolution.

Side note: It is often claimed that reptilian scales evolved into avian feathers, because of their superficial similarity. Upon closer examination of the reptiles' scales we find the to be hardened folds of skin. Upon closer examination of avian feathers we find them to be much more akin to mammilian hair, being produced by follicles and possessing structure and growth pattern similar to hair. This does not fit in with the evolutionary model and goes unmentioned all too often.

It seems all animals we see existing today are equipped with features ‘for a reason’.

Are there any creatures existing today that have features that seem totally purposeless and accidental? I can’t really think of any.

I could say "axillary hair," or I could just agree. Either way I would again be contradicting evolution.

All species that I’m aware of seem shaped and streamlined perfectly.

Does this point more to coherent design or to the product of random chance and billions of years?

Any mutations you find in the odd creatures seen nowadays always seems to be caused by pollution or lab experimentation and leaves the creature at a disadvantage in terms of survival.

Please don't talk out yo' ass, son. Mutations occur billions (if not more) times daily in organisms of every kind. Mutations are not limited to the dramatic and notorious six-legged frogs found near radiation. They have occured throughout the natural history of our planet, and indeed those caused by pollutants and experimentation are in the extreme minority. You don't seem to understand what a mutation is, what it can be caused by, or what it accounts for. Think diabetes, sickle-cell anemia, and premature baldness, not X-Men.

Ritz: Evolution is just as much a religion as Islam or Shintoism, save the fact that it bases itself in pseudo-science, and thus can be proven invalid. Note that natural selection is not evolution (though it is often claimed to be). At any rate, this isn't a discussion about evolution.

Well, just because the obviously flawed morality of Christianity has its origins in Jesus, doesn’t mean we dismiss the value of Jesus.

And just because the obviously flawed morality of Evolutionary theory has its origins in Darwin, doesn’t mean we dismiss the work of Darwin.

Darwin’s work was undoubtedly very helpful in terms of helping humanity see how significant the most seemingly insignificant of creatures are – creatures like worms and insects, because of Darwin, were revealed to be responsible for the flourishing of most vegetation and thus all of our civilizations. Taking a species and envisioning the role it has played over thousands and thousands, if not millions of years in relationship to other species was Darwin’s specialty, and it has been invaluable.

I never said we should dismiss the collective work of Darwin, I merely said that (biological) evolution is a falsehood. Please don't confuse the issue any more than is necessary.

Cory: Would you agree at least that males find the truth depressing because they have become accustomed to physical and ‘especially’ mental comforts, not only in their so called personal life, but evolutionarily, much like woman?

Ritz: The truth" is not one contiguous entity.

Are you saying that instead truth is fragmented and disjointed?

I think the truth is one undivided whole, while ‘thought’, which we use to acknowledge the truth, appears to be in fragments to us (however thought is undivided from the undivided whole as well).

I see no support for this claim.

But other truths are found to be depressing for other reasons.

Can you name some reasons?

If you need an example, I'd be happy to provide one.

I find the truth that the vast majority of human beings have no aspiration for "higher" things to be depressing (I use that term loosely for the purpose of the discussion), not because I am conditioned to the comfort of higher things (indeed, I think we can both agree that many higher things are uncomfortable by nature), or any particular comfort, but because I know higher things to be superior to lower things. I find it depressing that I cannot have a genuine discussion of philosophies or other higher things with the majority of the people I meet, not because I am conditioned to the comfort of having such discussions, or because I am conditioned toward the comfort of companionship, but because I know this truth reflects the lower things so many gravitate toward.

Ritz: I have known people who use philosophy as a shield from responsibility, in one way or another.

By claiming no control over their will they relinquish their will and dissolve all sense of personal responsibility, making themselves pathetic.

Yes, but I don’t think you should say ‘they use philosophy’ to shield from responsibility. The etymological root meaning of philosophy is ‘love of truth’.

I'll rephrase: They use the philosophical insights of others out of context and without understanding as a shield from responsibility.

But as for the question : “am I nothing but an outcome of what has happened in the past”?

Why not just be interested in not only what has happened, but what is happening?

I did not imply that I wasn't, but I make a habit of being coherent in my questions. If I am to be "interested in not only what has happened, but what is happening," I still need an interest in what has happened.

Then you might ask: “What is the relationship between what has happened and what is happening?

I say there is no difference – they are one.

And I say you are full of empty words and semi-sophism.

We will only become mature through following through with what we desire.

Too bad you also say we have absolutely no control over ourselves, our choices, or anything else.

Our suffering, boredom, isolation, alienation that result’s from getting what we want - will cast our eyes in a new direction.

A new desire and curiosity will be born and thus the process of pleasure to pain repeats itself at an increasingly more subtle level (ones insights and genius become more apparent and frequent) or if we are unlucky enough, the cycle repeats itself at an increasingly more gross level (one becomes closer and closer to drug, sex or gambling addiction, or/and one falls into various patterns of neurosis, depression, psychosis, etc, etc) –

What about those who want not material things but abstract things, like lack of suffering, stimulation, company, or comfort? I do not claim to want any or all of these things, I merely point out that getting them would not bring about their opposites which you have mentioned. Perhaps the question is where unobtainable things fit in with these statements you have made.

It all depends on how many positive factors were present in childhood and ‘are’ present now.

Right, because people have absolutely no say in their actions, no responsibility for their actions, and are just as animate as a rock. According to you, that is.

Notice how the moderators of this forum ban certain people. They do not do this because they desire a particular experience, they do this because they want to deny particular experience.

Or it could be said that they wish to experience a realm free of undesireable elements. This, like many of your assertions, boils down to semantics.

They do this because they are close to the truth, and thus they forsake anyone who wants to be far away from the truth.
Is the truth an experience? No, it is beyond mere experience.

Truth is an abstract concept, ergo truth is not an experience. Truth is a noun, experience is an event. A noun is not an event.

Ritz: We can have control over our thought processes, to a degree. It is not easy, it is rationality, reason, and discipline.

Men of rationality, reason and discipline are men who hate otherwise. The hatred is not a choice, and the hatred of vulgarity is the essence of the highest.

Negative feelings such as hatred, discontent, boredom, and sorrow are involuntary.

Yes... they are emotions. As such, would a truly rational man hate, in the "truest" sense of the word, anything? He would dislike things, but dislike, especially that which results from rationality, is not the same as hatred.

They are what drive men to be rational. Men who are rational are involuntarily rational.

Men who are stupid are likewise involuntarily stupid.

According to you, nothing is voluntary. Do you repeat yourself for emphasis or enjoyment?

Responsibility is not an illusion. The ‘personal’ however is an illusion.

Of course cause and effect (non-personal responsibility) is not an illusion. But may I ask you why, if you say there is no personal responsibility, you do not disagree with the laws against rape, or all laws for that matter?

Cory: The absence of will is the willingness to be the truth. Wisdom is willingness to be nothing.

You cannot will yourself to truth.

Rtiz: You cannot simply will yourself to truth, but you do will yourself to find truth; you will yourself to meditate, do you not?

Your negative feelings and your desires for the highest are not a choice, do not resist them. Searching, investigating, researching – these are all good things – but however personal it may feel to you – your actions are driven by that which is very common and involuntary, your actions and experiences however unique they may seem to you, rest upon the universal, your actions are very impersonal archetypes, and your discoveries are absolutely involuntary.

If they are truly involuntary, if we truly have no choice, then the truth is worthless and useless.

Cory: However, I think it is just as cruel if not more cruel to treat women like they are so weak and incapable that they cannot be rational as well as take the steps to be less susceptible to being abused.

Ritz: Protection is not prevention of prevention, nor are women rational.

There are degrees of rationality and women are indeed capable of becoming rational and male to a significant and helpful degree. This world has produced helpful, decent masculine women – although not in high numbers, nor in the form of a sage.

Women desire to please, and if the majority of men place value on rationality – if power starts shifting more to the hands of the good, then the women will gravitate towards wanting to please the good (and surely they will do their best to make the good men bad - - but they will fail if the men truly are good and the women will thus gradually come to do what please the good).

Right now the power lies with bad men - therefore, women gravitate towards bad men.

I'm sure you've heard it said that power is corruption, or that power corrupts, or some variation thereof.

You say that women are rational and should be treated as men, yet you also say that they can be improved only by the improvement of men? That they act as they do only because of men?

Cory" And it’s not really their fault. How the ‘so called males’ treat women (in part) makes women stoop so low to begin with, with their clothing, their makeup, etc.

She is just doing it to please us (and thus please herself).

They are (in part) molding themselves to our dreams.

And then we blame them for it.

Women are not guilty.

Ritz: not even most women dress in a truly indecent manner. If two women

I would say, in this day and age, if a woman has the package, she will flaunt it. Even if she doesn’t have the right package, she often wants to and tries to flaunt it anyway – to the dismay and entertainment of those who are aesthetically involved in the show.

Sometimes the overweight and/or very unattractive girls allows enough rationality to keep things covered up.

I beg to differ. Drawing from personal experience, I have known many attractive young women who hide their endowments for one reason or another. I knew one girl in particular, when I was still in high school, who had a body that would put to shame all those around her, a pretty face, etc etc. She dressed in baggy jeans and loose sweaters because she hated to be treated differently due to her physical beauty. There is more to it, of course, but this is not her story. Know though that she is not unique in this regard. Many exist like her.

Also drawing from personal experience, I find that all too often overweight/very unattractive females do not have the presence of mind to cover their jelly rolls. It's attrocious. I live in an area that gets very, very hot during the summer months, so of course some degree of "indecency" is unavoidable, but even in cold months I see females in excess of 200 lbs. wearing clothing that exposes their midriffs, thighs, buttocks, breasts... you name it. If it has grotesque amounts of fat and "cottage cheese," they're showing it. Not all of them are like this, of course, but a noticable population of them are.

Cory: If we truly care for them, then we need to treat them differently – we need to speak to them as like we would speak to a child who we would like to see become a man.

Ritz: But a women can never become a man, and those who have come close did not do so through the efforts of others. Women are treated differently through time and space, and as I said before, we continue to see feminine traits and feminine flaws.

You cannot be certain that a woman cannot reach significant degrees of rationality/masculinity. Intelligent, strong women have existed and exist today. Some post on this forum. It doesn’t necessarily have to be all or nothing. There is the highest and there is the lowest, and just because someone isn’t the absolute highest doesn’t mean they are totally worthless. Now, as for those who have absolutely no interest in wisdom and live like pigs – perhaps they truly are worthless.

Plenty of them are men.

And more are women.

Cory: But we often treat our daughters like we know they will become what we unconsciously hate.

Ritz: That is because they already are.
Have you ever spent time with little girls? I have three younger sisters (the oldest is six years younger than I, the youngest ten years younger), and I've spent a great deal of effort and time trying to improve them, but they resist, as all females do in some way. Young women are women still, they just have yet to refine their talents and as a result appear differently.

Are you telling me that there is nothing you, your parents and your people can do from preventing yourself sisters from becoming prostitutes, whores, and the like?

If by "and the like" you mean women, then yes, we are powerless.

I dont think womans situation is quite as extreme as you make it to be.

This could be because you do not have much or as much experience with women. There are good women, few and far between, and I do not think these women deserve to be called such (women, that is). Note however that even these women are still fundamentally feminine and are powerless against their own femininity, albeit to different degrees.

Cory: However, women occasionally get raped and beaten unjustly, and our society takes these crimes very seriously, and should continue to do so.

Ritz: Occasionally? When has a woman ever been raped justly?

Bad things happen to unwise people - - A severely traumatic experience will provoke some deep thinking and thus maybe some good will come out of the rape.

We have laws that punish woman beaters and rapists, and this is fine.

Sometimes rape happens anyway despite the laws – and this can also be good.

It encourages women to be more aware, to learn to protect themselves, to be more rational, responsible, to be less optimistic and stupid.

Just because some good can come out of a heinous act does not mean that act is just. It is heinous. It is lemonade from lemons. It is not and is never just that a woman be raped. Any rape that is rape is unjust necessarily.

I am not one of the humans who will have anything to do with policing and maintaining laws. That is not my purpose in life. Life is cruel, the truth is cruel, and I am the truth - -- so call me cruel.

You claim to be truth, and this makes you suspect. You contradict yourself (no personal responsibility, but necessary law all the same?) and rely on the tricks of language far too much. You are not truth, you only claim to be.

Nor do I have any close relationships to women, and if I did, or if I do, they will be wise enough to not get themselves into a situation where they might get raped.

Do you mean to say that you can envision yourself raping a woman under certain circumstances? Or do you not care, because it wouldn't be your choice anyway? Is this truth?

Cory: If we wish to tackle the problem of rape and abuse then I think we need to focus on both being wise/male, and providing the material and support for those who desire absolute clarity, certainty, and truth.

Ritz: Unfortunately, those who would rape and abuse likely won't be the ones seek out higher things.

Those who rape have failed as human beings, and there are reasons for their failure. The reasons for their failure is the responsibility of the philosohper to identify and bring to peoples attention - thus we evolve.

The responsibility of the philosopher? Not the responsibility of philosophy? You say there is no personal responsibility, yet here you say there is. If you are truth, then how can you contradict yourself? You are not truth. You are deception, and deceive yourself into believing otherwise.

Cory et Ritz,

A real good read indeed, I must say. Focused on the matter at hand without any personal emotions or prejudice involved. :)

.

Hello Sapius,

Cory: Most cultures rest upon a way of doing agriculture that depends on the destruction of the very thing they scramble fearfully to preserve and glorify. Man is irrational, not practical.

Sapius: this seems to suggest that you are holding Man responsible for being irrational and impractical. But they had no choice at all?

Sapius, rather than holding man responsible, am I not simply challenging him to be more rational? To me, being rational 'just so happens' to also be responsible. I'm not talking about being responsible in the sense that you and Ritz seem to value. What do you mean by responsible anyway? Do you mean: suppressing what you long to do, in order to protect and please other people? Who are these people that you are supressing youself for?

There is no battle between right and wrong in the man who is truly rational. He does what he does because thats what he wants to do. What he wants to do isnt a choice.


For example - there is the man in a dark cave who is longing for fresh air and sunshine: should he resist his desire to find the outdoors?

His desire to leave the cave isnt a choice, but rather it is a pressure. He didnt choose to find himself in this cave, he didnt choose to feel oppressed and unhealthy in the cave - and he didn't choose that there just so happens to be a bright light in the distance leading to the infinite. Nor does he choose that there is 'the infinite'. There is only the proccess of acknolwedging that you have no choice in the matter.

I see very clearly where the craving for worldliness takes us, and this very understanding (which is involuntary) is what acts, rather than some fearful adherence to the laws of man.

People who don’t have the clarity of perception and emotional balance to understand what I am saying are those who (involuntary) desire/crave to participate in foolish gratifications.

Ones craving for the seeds of misery is destroyed if one is strong enough to face and clearly see the futility of trying to attain happiness.

Sapius, I don’t feel I’m holding man responsible , but rather I am saying: “look at the prison you have created for your self. Do you see it?"

"Now, do you have the energy, the humility to understand, to change, to truly be Life ?"

Sapius: I believe that whatever decision taken at any point of time is necessarily a result of information available and the level of intellect of that particular time, and the decision would seem perfectly rational and practical /quote]

I agree that people generally do things because they see no other way – they do what they do because to them, it is the rational and practical thing to do – however - the truth ends up being different from what they thought was the truth – no? Also, lets not forget to mention and consider the role fear plays in determining peoples actions........

As time tends to reveal, what one thought was best (or fearfully hoped was best) and what was really best - eventually proved to not be parallel.

Sapius: I know that remaining hunters and gatherers would have supported us very well, but then may be you would not have been born, neither would we be having this discussion.

Understand Sapius that I’m not upset or regretful about humanity's naive and inevitalbe deviation from the hunter gatherer state –

however – I am urging humanity to see both why our conventional manifestation of agriculture doesn’t work and how food production can work.

Understanding why indigenous, primitive hunter gather types managed to live balanced lives is helpful in understanding how we can design ways of living that are superior to our present designs.

Sapius: On the other hand, if this discussion and everything with it was inevitable due to no choice of ours, then that renders logic, reasoning and responsibility meaningless.

And what if I am wrong and you are right Sapius? -- Is the right answer Sapius’s choice?

In other words, does Sapius have a say in what the right answer is?

No, it is not up to him. He simply acknowledges what is true, rational and hence acknowledges what is false, irrational.

Did you choose to be born Sapius? And did you choose to find yourself speaking your first few words of English to your guardians? And did you choose that it just so happens 2 + 2 = 4? Logic is involuntary. You are just one of the lucky ones Sapius – that is all. There’s nothing to be proud of – there is nothing you achieved or accomplished. You were just lucky to have a good healthy brain. I'm not assuming that you are supremely healthy and good - we are all to a degree unhealthy and twisted i'm sure - however, we are lucky that we have the composure to concieve of actions which will heal us to perhaps greater degrees.

Sapius: For we had no choice in becoming hunter/gatherers, no choice in becoming farmers, no choice in breeding till the planet goes out of orbit, and no choice in taking any future “rational” or “practical” decision. It just happens!

Of course, why not?

Cory,

The moral dilemma of modern man is the plight of the unknown beggar. The forgotten axiom: 'Know Thyself' enters into nothingness, when rationality is forlorn. But, when the synthesis of a man's history and his present circumstance is justified, there is true meaning, and unfettered free dominion.

Hello again Ritz

Ritz wrote:

Why do you intentionally misunderstand me?

Ritz, Earlier in our conversation I said: “ I think anthropologically, women have evolutionarily become habituated to certain gratifications that, if you deprive them of these gratifications, they are in a great deal of inner turmoil.

You replied to this by saying: “As per evolution, the more I learn about it the less I believe it. Mutation never adds information, never.”

To me, this was kind of a weird jump you made.

To me it felt that there was a space left to fill - in between what I said and how you replied.

I felt and still feel that it was and is necessary to try and bridge the gap between my statement and your reply – and that was simply all I was trying to do.

So rather than intentionally trying to misunderstand you, I think I was instead involuntarily longing for the truth (superficially also known as: I was trying to understand you) .

Don’t you think Ritz, that maybe it was you who first misunderstood me?

And don’t you think that this original misunderstanding had laid the foundation for further confusion on your part?

I don’t think I misunderstood you Ritz.

I was just doing my best to get us both on the same page, as well as introduce some variables into the conversation that might make things clearer between us.

I mean, I didn’t mind you introducing your views on mutation into this conversation.

But like you yourself said: “At any rate, this isn't a discussion about evolution.”

No it originally wasnt, however, it might be necessary to explore evolution a bit in order to get closer to the truth.

And that's because the truth is (in part) what this conversation is about. No?

I don’t see any problem with evolution coming up in our exploration.

I just think your getting a bit confused and carried away yourself, and instead of acknowledge this, you are trying to tag it onto me.

But I don’t think your doing this intentionally :)

I'll post again soon addressing your other comments