GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote: But you are explicitly presenting your point of view to be superior to mine, and to every other point of view.

If you think my point of view is superior to yours, thats your belief. We do not share it though.

You even label your own views as "seeing it for what it is" and every one else's views as deluded imaginings, which implies that, as far as seeing things as they are is concerned, you consider your own views to be better than anyone else's. In other words, you still think Up is better than Down.

I see things for what they are, some people don't.
Neither one is better or worse, this is just how it is.

It is clear from your behaviour that you try to identify with the thought that all thoughts are empty comedy. It is the one thought that you don't consider to be empty comedy, but rather seriously true. You're seriously locked into that one idea. It is imprisoning you.

Trust me, when that thought arises, I laugh at it too, and then laugh at the 'laughing' Lol

:)

Hades,

DQ: But you are explicitly presenting your point of view to be superior to mine, and to every other point of view.

H: If you think my point of view is superior to yours, thats your belief.

No, I think you are a fool who has had an half-an-insight and thinks it is the ultimate understanding.

Nonetheless, actions speak louder than words. Your actions on this forum reveal that you do think your understanding is superior to everyone else's. No amount of denial on your part can change that.

DQ: It is clear from your behaviour that you try to identify with the thought that all thoughts are empty comedy. It is the one thought that you don't consider to be empty comedy, but rather seriously true. You're seriously locked into that one idea. It is imprisoning you.

H: Trust me, when that thought arises, I laugh at it too, and then laugh at the 'laughing' Lol

I don't doubt it. But that laugher is generated by bouncing around inside that one thought. It's an egotistical laughter that comes with imagining that one has conquered all spiritual and philosophical problems.

DQ: You even label your own views as "seeing it for what it is" and every one else's views as deluded imaginings, which implies that, as far as seeing things as they are is concerned, you consider your own views to be better than anyone else's. In other words, you still think Up is better than Down.

H: I see things for what they are, some people don't.
Neither one is better or worse, this is just how it is.

Translation:

-

[Hades puffs himself up] I am fantastic.
[Adopts a humble pose] But that's just how it is.

[Puffs himself up] My seeing is flawless.
[Adopts a humble pose] But it's no better or worse than what all you deluded folk see.

[Puffs himself up] I understand Enlightenment.
[Adopts a humble pose] Not that my understanding is better than anyone else's.

[Puffs himself up] My ideas are true.
[Adopts a humble pose] Not that my ideas are more true than anyone else's.

-

And so it goes on. Each humble pose is as fake as the preceding wise pose.

Anyway, I think your discourse is starting to get a bit too repetitive for this forum. Hearing the same note over and over becomes tiresome after a while, especially when it is so poorly-thought out. I think you should take a break for 6 months and meditate on these issues more deeply. Come back when you've made some advances in your thinking.

-

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I distinctly remember her posting once that she regretted that she used it.

No, she said she regretted using her picture as her avitar because no one else did. Right after she said that though, two of the guys posted their pictures as their avatars.

Steven,

No, Shahrazad is not Leah. Shahrazad is Sher who has posted on a couple of other boards I'm aware of so I have some idea of her personality, and I've been in touch with Leah through email so I have a bit of an idea of her personality too - and the two are quite different. Honestly I don't think that Sher is tough enough to deal with GF and I can't really imagine her enjoying it here, but we'll see - she could surprise me.

David now has a sense of humor? I would've never thought.

Elizabeth,

Honestly I don't think that Sher is tough enough to deal with GF and I can't really imagine her enjoying it here, but we'll see - she could surprise me.

You're right that I'm not tough enough, and it is quite predictable that I will be everyone's easy target -- especially that of some of the other females. And just in case that last phrase of yours was meant as a challenge, no I'm not going to try to surprise you.

The three or four days that I've been here, I've been enjoying it very much. I like a place where intelligent discussion takes place, and where I can interact with intelligent people. The fact that these people have many thoughts that I disagree with does not mean that I am above learning from them. I am a very open-minded person.

Plus, I haven't found a single discussion place in the whole wide web where I can hang out and enjoy it. So, you kids have me here, at least until some posters drive me away.

David Quinn wrote:
And so it goes on. Each humble pose is as fake as the preceding wise pose.

Anyway, I think your discourse is starting to get a bit too repetitive for this forum. Hearing the same note over and over becomes tiresome after a while, especially when it is so poorly-thought out. I think you should take a break for 6 months and meditate on these issues more deeply. Come back when you've made some advances in your thinking.

-

Well no matter what I say you grab onto your preconceptions like a safety-blanket, this is fine, I suggest you take a 6 month break where you simply observe your thoughts for what they are, observe your shackles for what they are, come back to me when you have realized there is no progress to be made, and that where you are in 6months is exactly where you are now. Then perhaps you might be able to interpret my words for what they are, instead of what you imagine them to be.
If you don't see this, this is fine, continue to play in your mental playground like a little boy in a sandbox.

Oh and relax. You might blow a brain cell and forget all that self-proclaimed 'wisdom' you are in love with.

hades: Red wallpaper makes twelve? Isn't that too warm? Personally, I'm riddled with quarters.

Sherezada, if you were able to see Victor "the Insult Philosopher" Danilchenko's good side, you'll have no problem dealing with this group.

[BTW, I was a TPG poster as well: mookestink]

Sherezada, if you were able to see Victor "the Insult Philosopher" Danilchenko's good side, you'll have no problem dealing with this group.

Wonder where Victor got to, haven't seen him post for a while.

Sher and I (as jimhaz) have a history of conflict. I find her to be rather conformist.

But each to their own herd.

Jamesh wrote: Wonder where Victor got to, haven't seen him post for a while.

Victor is posting at YAP on ezboard now.

I was wondering what happened to Victor?

What is YAP?

Carl G wrote:I was wondering what happened to Victor?

What is YAP?

Yet Another Politics Board

Sherezada, if you were able to see Victor "the Insult Philosopher" Danilchenko's good side, you'll have no problem dealing with this group.

I got along well with Victor for years. But recently I got fed up with his snobbishness. There isn't a more profitable business on earth than to buy a Victor for what he's worth and to sell him for what he thinks he's worth.

Sher and I (as jimhaz) have a history of conflict. I find her to be rather conformist.

Really? I find you to be a very feminine man; one of those looking for a very dominant woman to put him on a leash and whip him into compliance.

Sher,

There isn't a more profitable business on earth than to buy a Victor for what he's worth and to sell him for what he thinks he's worth.

I respect Victor as being a very good teacher. He had a knack for making rather dull statements humourous with well-placed insults, and he tended to be able to judge very well where his opponent/audience was coming from.

He had a very low opinion of the Genius forum moderators (David, Kevin, and Dan), as their philosophies were useless to his "process utilitarianism". I don't believe he cared very much about Truth or Enlightenment or anything metaphysical. To that extent, yes, I agree with you. His philosophy, at bottom, is barely worth the forum space it's written on.

But it is also very entertaining: judging by the number of people who were just wondering where he disappeared to, I believe he's had quite a wide influence on keeping people interested in philosophy. Not to mention, he never seemed to mind slowing down to teach newbies the basics. Arrogant or not, correct or not, he made a great teacher.

Trevor,

I respect Victor as being a very good teacher.

Another Victor fan here. Can't say that I'm surprised.

I'm unimpressed by people whose self-esteem depends completely on showing off in front of an audience. He himself said that he liked being a big fish in a small pond. His legs would shake if there ever was a bigger fish than him, though.

Sher,

Another Victor fan here. Can't say that I'm surprised.

Bah, I'm not a fanatic. I simply believe he's got a talent for making philosophy fun. When you outgrow the need for fun, and no longer need a teacher, he's not the best person to argue with. You won't achieve enlightenment through Victor, but you may gain a passion for philosophy.

I don't see what you are complaining about. You said you got along well with him for years, as well. You outgrew him, though.

I'm quite sure if I were to talk to him again, I'd find him insufferable. But, still, respect is a hard thing to tarnish; I'm able to recognize that Victor wants to speak to younger ears, and he's a good man for that.

He himself said that he liked being a big fish in a small pond. His legs would shake if there ever was a bigger fish than him, though.

Victor used to be a member of Genius, but he left... and I'm believe you have the reason right there.

We just had one of the moderators defending the premeditated murder of all unwise elderly -- hopefully in jest -- which is a far graver issue than anything Victor was willing to deal with. I imagine if David suggested such a thing at TPG, he'd have gotten banned quite quickly.

We just had one of the moderators defending the premeditated murder of all unwise elderly -- hopefully in jest -- which is a far graver issue than anything Victor was willing to deal with. I imagine if David suggested such a thing at TPG, he'd have gotten banned quite quickly.

If you're wondering why I'm not all bent out of shape by that plan, the answer is that I'm years past the shock effect of David Quinn's ideas. Unless he personally picks on me, I'm not likely to have the slightest emotional reaction to his posts.

They ought to put "Youth" among those words at the top. :-)

Shazza said:
Really? I find you to be a very feminine man; one of those looking for a very dominant woman to put him on a leash and whip him into compliance.

I’d have to agree with your first point, at least in one way. I'm content though asd averaged out I'm more towards the middle.

Even the second point, yes, I have felt that in the past when I was more herdlike - it is what I thought would make me successful and secure. Way too late for that now, thank god. Luckily I always argued so much with those types that it caused sufficient suffering not to end up married.

I fail to adequately meet too many of these points about manliness (lol even admitting this is a sign of non-manliness).

I've been collecting these from a Anime series, that l'm watching at the moment.


There should be yearning in a man's heart at the beginning of a new day.

A man should be rested, so that he can prepare for whatever new battles lie ahead.

A man who is too eager becomes unfavourable.

A man should not dream idly about his past.

A man should never turn back, he should always look ahead to the future.

A man should not back away from the fear that lies in front of him.

A man should try hard and always do his best work, and never be concerned what the outcome will be.

A man should never use a woman's love for his own gain.

A woman shouldn't be so eager for a man to approach her.

If a man has good intentions he should not expect thanks.

Man only exists to bring the future into being.
A man should not make excuses.

It is in the aesthetics of a man not to reveal his true feelings.

There are times when the wind will bring you a message from far away.

A man who is overly influenced by accepted ideas cannot step into the future.

A good feeling in a man will often cause him to do things to bring forth a new challenge.

A man shouldn't be too curious unless it is necessary.

A man should not procrastinate on any task that lays before him.

A man should not complain about his work in front of others.

A man must always strive to remain tough.

A woman who is modest is a woman with a heart of gold.

A man must do what he needs to regardless of any thing else.

A man should learn not to sweat the small stuff.

A man should not be so stubborn that he is blind to stupidity.

A man should strive to contain his anger, even when he is hungry.

A man should not be afraid to explore the unknown. One should not confuse exploration with recklessness. When exploration is of no benefit it is reckless.

It is not proper for a man to joke around too much.

The truth is hidden deep inside a mans past.

A man should never think he has the right to invade another man's mind.

A man should never try and imitate another man.

A man should respect another's nervousness.

A man should learn how to go with the flow.

A man should never shed tears for his sadness. A man cries instead for a kindness.

James,

Please explain what you think is conformist about me. Because I have been a rebel all my life.

Please explain what you think is conformist about me.

The manner in which you conceptualise is not that of an individual, someone who has learnt how to think for themselves, by rejecting everything and starting again. Everything I read that you write seems to be that of a typical reasonably intelligent female that is entirely part of WOMAN (as per David's essay).

It is like you’re here only to chat, and play games to stir up emotional interests, rather than any interest in understanding reality. Everyone of us does a little bit of that, but we also do try and get to the bottom of philosophical questions. Do you? (rhetorical). I want to "get you" because I perceive shallowness in you, whereas you want to get me back for me, in the past, calling you fat, shallow, materialistic, egotistical, and for putting shit on women and Sth Americans - it's all emotionally based. Get over it.

I want to "get you" because I perceive shallowness in you, whereas you want to get me back for me, in the past, calling you fat, shallow, materialistic, egotistical, and for putting shit on women and Sth Americans

You called me all that shit? I don't think I read any of that.

And what makes you think I'm fat?

- it's all emotionally based. Get over it.

I don't know what I'm supposed to get over. You don't like me, and it's no big deal.

As for the rest of your post, it's much more a reflection of the way you think than of me.

Jamesh wrote:Please explain what you think is conformist about me.

The manner in which you conceptualise is not that of an individual, someone who has learnt how to think for themselves, by rejecting everything and starting again. Everything I read that you write seems to be that of a typical reasonably intelligent female that is entirely part of WOMAN (as per David's essay).

All generalizations, no specifics.

Jamesh wrote:It is like you’re here only to chat,

Well, the tips on pizza toppings kind of annoyed me too, but it was in Worldly Matters. So far, she has not gone shallow on the main forum.

Jamesh wrote:and play games to stir up emotional interests, rather than any interest in understanding reality. Everyone of us does a little bit of that, but we also do try and get to the bottom of philosophical questions. Do you? (rhetorical). I want to "get you" because I perceive shallowness in you, whereas you want to get me back for me, in the past, calling you fat, shallow, materialistic, egotistical, and for putting shit on women and Sth Americans - it's all emotionally based. Get over it.

So you admit you want to "get her" and simultaneously accuse her of trying to stir up emotional stuff? Hypocrite.
.

It is like you’re here only to chat,

If I come here only to chat, wouldn't it make sense that I would instead join a forum where no discussion at all takes place? 'Cuz those are easy to find.

.

All generalizations, no specifics.

I don’t care about it enough to find specifics. A lot of what we are talking about was a long time ago, and I couldn't be bothered searching through her posts recently to show you what I mean.

So you admit you want to "get her" and simultaneously accuse her of trying to stir up emotional stuff? Hypocrite.

Mine has a purpose related to wisdom, dreary deary.

Anyway, that is enough from me. In responding to the context twisting ways of you women, the points scoring mind, I'm being as feminine as you lot. Context twisting is exactly what married women do to their husbands, and the husbands just learn to say "yes dear".

So yes dears!