GENIUS FORUMS

"The more sapientally-minded?" LOL.

Dude, have you ever had a date with a real girl?

Unidian wrote:Dude, have you ever had a date with a real girl?

He had a girlfriend when he was ten, like Kevin Solway, and felt from then on that he had "exhausted the possibilities of relationships with women."

:-D

Ark,

The critique you offer amounts to nothing more than irrelevant quibbling and playground taunts.

I'm glad you noticed. I was trying to be as obvious as possible. Your description of the forum was the exact same thing, except you used bigger words. It's a shame you didn't notice the parody, but insane people tend not to have much insight.

You say I pull concepts from every which way, but the mind of the sage is synthetic and incorporates information from each perspective as much as possible.

No, that's what academic blowhards do. A sage only deals with truth.

I am not going to waste my time proving myself and taking insults from coarse-natured knaves and undereducated bozos.

Fuck you, too.

I have been privately informed that the more mature posters are not especially available right now, so I will return to the board in a week or so and see if the more sapientally-minded return.

Spend the week figuring out how to cut out the bullshit, or you'll simply get your ass handed to you and you won't even notice.

Can't we all just get along?

No more pictures please, Philosophaster. I realize that you and Unidian are hopelessly addicted to the charms of women, but that doesn't mean you have to inflict this addiction on the rest of us here.

I must say that my respect for the pair of you has dropped quite considerably because of this thread. Basically, you are sounding like two teenagers on heat. If you don't have any appreciation for the philosophic path or any interest in becoming enlightened, then perhaps you should go off and enjoy your "spring break" mentality at some other place.

Looking at those pictures, I'm reminded of what the Buddha said in the Dhammapada:

So long as the sensual desire of man towards women, even the smallest, is not destroyed, so long is his mind in bondage, as the calf that drinks milk is to its mother.

-

Basically, you are sounding like two teenagers on heat. If you don't have any appreciation for the philosophic path or any interest in becoming enlightened, then perhaps you should go off and enjoy your "spring break" mentality at some other place.

Are you asking us to leave, David? Interestingly, I was chatting with Philo about 20 minutes ago and I predicted you'd ask him to leave. I'm a bit surprised that you appear to be asking me to leave as well, but if that's what you want, no problem.

I didn't realize that play and humor were forbidden in Quinnology, although I must admit I did suspect it.

I think he is just asking me to stop posting pictures, which I will. His playground, his rules. :-)

Yep, I agree. He has every right to make such a request, I'm not disputing that.

So long as the sensual desire of man towards women, even the smallest, is not destroyed, so long is his mind in bondage, as the calf that drinks milk is to its mother.

It does have a lot of side effects that go way beyond the simple pleasure of looking at pretty pictures or a pretty face. Men really do have leashes attached to them that women are always trying to pull on. I don't think men would even notice women if this dynamic weren't in place, judging from how much time men spend ignoring their girlfriends.

I'm the one that started up with the pictures. Sorry about that. Pictures are totally not allowed on the forum.

With the "ego" thing? Or something else?

Yeah, the "ego" thing.

You are welcome to stay, but some standards have to be maintained. Simply echoing the crudeness of the world and presenting it as some kind of argument against what goes on here is not on. I find it difficult to believe that the pair of you thought it appropriate.

It is not that I don't appreciate humour, not at all - after all, there is ample humour in this place and on our various websites, albeit of a more unusual kind. But I just find that adolescent brand of humour you guys displayed on this thread to be incredibly depressing and dull.

If I want to experience that kind of humour (and God spare me from ever having to experience it again), I can simply go out into the world and experience it to my heart's content. It is literally everywhere - which is why I'd rather keep this place focused on more subtle, ironical and unusual forms of humour and insight.

-

Well, your call. I guess we have different tastes in humor. While some of things I find funny are admittedly somewhat "adolescent," that's sort of the reason I find it funny.

Anyhow, I'll lay off the jokes.

Earlier I said:
Touch is more important than sex – a baby requires touch, it does not require sex. Touch is the signal of acceptance, it is an alleviation of suffering. Those who do not get this touch suffer from ideas of being outcast from the herd, and suffer greatly, but this suffering creates a desire to remove the suffering and intellectual development occurs [ or physical development in the case of a sick, weak or fat person who suddenly goes on a health binge, because they have had enough suffering].

I just felt inclined to expand on this point of touch and herdliness.


In terms of sex then one should notice that it is all about touch. It is just that the degree of touch is extremely high in sexual relations so we give it it's own name. Touch is a direct and instinctual form of herd acceptance - it has been part of our nature for millions upon millions of years, before we even had eyesight, we felt others of ourr type.

In the end though even sex can be reduced to an outcome of herdiness. Even one's life partner could be considered not just part of the herd, but a representative of the herd. They are a focal point from which the herd's acceptance or rejection can be obtained and assessed without significant danger.

Both touch and our strong sex drives must however come from that part of the herd that is held in positive regard at the time - and the herd acceptance given here must first be regarded as acceptable. As an non-obvious example, most prostitutes are unlikely to reach orgasm from customers, because their average customer is not considered to be in a position from which acceptance should be coming from - they are lower of that persons subjective hierarchical chain in the herd, so acceptance means nothing, rather they are lower form of competition from which a price must be extracted. If they are higher on the herd scale then the price for you is submission to their authority. The higher the authority is valued the greater the submission. At a group level, imaginary gods reside at the top of this herd, but at the personal level, it is partners whom are deeply appreciated, that will often be top dog.

Next to obtaining food and air, the herd emotion is the strongest. It is the cause of other emotions like love, hate, envy, pride and so on. Any form of instruction is as well. Even commenting on something is herd driven. The herd is the key to our survival.

One must remember that as thinking beings, we have never not been part of a herd, except in the very beginning of whatever might be placed under the definition of "life". It is quite natural for herdiness to be extremely strong, after all we all stem from the one creature, and if one removes the semi-illusion of time, then we are parts of the same creature.

There are many species that have little herdiness, most predators for example, but they are radically different than mammals, they are other branches on Life's tree who split off so long ago that there are many degrees of property separation. A combination of herdiness and individualism works best for evolution of the type that includes a gradual growth of mental capacity, hence the mammal tree containing many variations of same. In mammals where individualism is stronger in males than in females, then brain growth has been particularly strong. Whatever we were before we were mammals I imagine also would have been herdy creatures.

Too little individualism and species tend to find survival in the numbers game. Too much individualism and competition for resources and between each other becomes too dominant. Individualistic mammals are often high on the food chain, lions and tigers for example, and large numbers mean starvation. They evolve physically more so than cognitively.

Asexuality could be though of as a pinnacle of physical evolution, because that is where individualism is at its strongest - though it is definitely not the pinnacle in terms of species survival. Excluding the single cell starter of life, the only asexual life I am aware of is asexuality that evolved from sexuality. Evolution does not stop at asexuality however, although they are all clones, that does not mean that DNA will be altered as the environment changes. Evolution can only stop at oneness, which is partly why the concept of God and non-duality are so appealing to so many - that's our long term goal, to be everything.


With something like love, you have the heady infatuation stage, where you fuck like rabbits. Conditions are good for acceptance, our love is blind, juices are flowing. The representative of the herd accepts me fully, unconditionally. I'm saved, my future is guaranteed. Over time however, the love juices dissipate, and the brain once again begins to assess the representatives status relative one's own conceived position in the herd. Dissatisfaction sets in. Rejections occur. Both parties attempt to make the other submit to whatever they can. If an equalisation of values forms, the partnership will continue, if it does not then both sides will instinctually reject each other and suffering will ensue.

With something like hate, lets say racial hatred as an example, you think your group is higher in the herd hierarchy than another. It is they that must submit to you, and where you see aggression or signs of a refusal of this group to submit, emotions are invoked that cause you to feel you have to do something about this defiance. You are constricted in doing so however by the conventions of the greater herd, and this causes distress and irrational behaviour. Arktos display here was a prime example of this.

Jamesh wrote:It is they that must submit to you, and where you see aggression or signs of a refusal of this group to submit, emotions are invoked that cause you to feel you have to do something about this defiance. You are constricted in doing so however by the conventions of the greater herd, and this causes distress and irrational behaviour. Arktos display here was a prime example of this.

You're wrong in that last sentence Jamesh. Everyone's display on this thread apart from Arktos and perhaps David is a prime example of what you're describing as herdish reaction to something that not subscribes to some subconscious rulebase [based on style or psychological profile] one which defines the group many here are imagining to be part of, although they are probably unaware of it. In other words: you're not going far enough with your analysis to see the more subtle manifestations of it, ending up with a conclusion almost opposite of what's really happening.

Arktos wrote:The greatest minds of civilized mankind (Pythagoras, Plato, Jesus, etc.) were one in their assertion of the metaphysical and moral importance of chaste and celibate values.

Arktos, I'd like to see this sentence more substantiated as you seem to be building your argument around it.

First of all there's no way to be sure of anything around the existence of a Pythagoras or Jesus. But the little that is known indicates that Pythagoras was married and Jesus, at least in canonical writings, does not speak out against sexual intercourse at all. That suggests he'd have followed the orthodox Jewish laws on them.

Since you mentioned Gandhi, could you summarize his position on this topic? And why we would value the rest of his teachings? How would you summarize his position?

The modern writer Sivananda Sarasvati explains this teaching: "The seed is dynamic energy which has to be converted into spiritual energy,"

There is a truth here, though Sivananda does not encourage any attempt to suppress anything, abstain or walk away from women or sexual activity. He points to a spontaneous process.

Ojas is spiritual energy that is stored up in the brain. By entertaining sublime, soul-elevating thoughts of the Self or atman, by meditation, japa, worship and pranayama, the sexual energy can be transmuted into ojas shakti and stored up in the brain. This stored up energy can then be utilised for divine contemplation and spiritual pursuits.

This is something my personal experience can back up somewhat. Actually at some point the sexual energy created during arousal after waking from a dream, just before ejaculation I could literally sense going 'up', without warning, to feel it exploding in my head. The sexual desire disappeared instantaneously - no ejaculation and for days the levels of clarity in my mind were unusually high and for a long time sexuality seized to mean anything to me, while feeling unusual alive in the mean time (so no dulling of senses or activity at all).

The key here is that it was not a matter of trying to accomplish this. One can only prepare the mind and body for this diversion, and it might not always be noticeable with 'fireworks' or something.

A year ago I was reading this interview with Swami Chidananda in Cohen's What is Enlightenment Magazine which also explores the topic and I'd like to see some reactions on it.

Hey thanks for the Swami interview Diebert.

And your account of that mystical wet dream you had was very thought provoking. :)-

I find that ever since I've worked at weening myself off masterbation a bit, I've occasionally had the odd wet dream. (I know this is just my crude conditioning, but I think there's something funny and almost embarassing about a grown man in his late twenties reverting back to wet dreams)

But I've had no experiences like the one you described - but I'm very open to whatever mystical benifits are there to be had. (perhaps that's why I'll never reap them - too greedy)

Despite I shamelessly masterbate sometimes at about 1 once a week, I'm very interested in understanding the benifits of celibacy more scientifically, and becoming more serious about it.

In the interview, they spoke of the difference between the east and the west in regards to how much the west frowns upon celibacy and how the east highly respects it.

This might be due to the ammount of freedom women have recently had in the west to not only form their own opinions and be more independent (which I think is good), but to act on those opinions and become more dominant as wives and overblown famous media figures (which I think is bad, they should be restrained)

The west, seemingly because woman are given more freedom to do as they please, have greater disdain and less interest in celibacy.

The sexual abuse scandals associated with Catholicism in the west might have alot to do with it too, Simon.

It seems reasonable that the west associates celibacy with becoming a crooked and evil soul.

Yeah, but Catholic priests perhaps become priests to escape from dealing with their homosexuality, and that's why they end up abusing young boys. They put on an image of holiness and celibacy to escape from dealing with their sexual orientation or their psychological problems honestly and courageously. They thus become crooked and evil souls.

Diebert,

Everyone's display on this thread apart from Arktos and perhaps David is a prime example of what you're describing as herdish reaction to something that not subscribes to some subconscious rulebase [based on style or psychological profile] one which defines the group many here are imagining to be part of, although they are probably unaware of it.

I disagree about the "subconscious" part. I am wholly aware that I refuse to read this style of writing, whether it's in a book or on the internet in any form (forum and blog included). There are several well-respected authors that I have thrown away in disgust because they do this same thing.

The amount of names dropped, quotations referenced, and esoteric terms used makes it not worth my time. I was able to read your response to him because you picked through all the writing for content. I do not have your patience.

Simon wrote:This might be due to the ammount of freedom women have recently had in the west to not only form their own opinions and be more independent (which I think is good), but to act on those opinions and become more dominant as wives and overblown famous media figures (which I think is bad, they should be restrained)

Do you think that all overblown famous media figures should be restrained, or only the female ones? And restrained in what way(s)?

I think that of the offerings so far, Jamesh has some of the most interesting things to say about interpersonal relations and such. While I find the Nietzchean "herd" terminology somewhat off-putting, I did find his analysis of social dynamics in terms of "herd representatives" interesting. Also, there is this:

Evolution does not stop at asexuality however, although they are all clones, that does not mean that DNA will be altered as the environment changes. Evolution can only stop at oneness, which is partly why the concept of God and non-duality are so appealing to so many - that's our long term goal, to be everything.

I sometimes entertain similar ideas, in which a "naturalistic teleology" not unlike Hegel's historical dialectic is leading us in the direction more or less inevitably, as long as we don't self-destruct first.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: I am wholly aware that I refuse to read this style of writing, whether it's in a book or on the internet in any form (forum and blog included).

Have you always had this strong dislike? And if so, what if you were drawn to this forum because you had this in common with many members here?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: I was able to read your response to him because you picked through all the writing for content. I do not have your patience.

I get your point and there are many days I don't have the time or the patience but then I just ignore the topic. If one is not hungry - don't start cooking dinner.

If I was only a bit less patience I'd stop reading this board altogether. I'm skipping already so much! And not all teachings come in ready made chunks.

It's true that many advanced teachings appear to be expressed simple and in original and powerful wordings. But these words have their own danger like taking it in too literal or interpreting it in some moronic sense and thus ignoring any further depth or twist.