GENIUS FORUMS

While Fromm was being scathing which is useless as usual.
Other thinkers developed thinking/language styles that were not the ordinary language style which fails to disclose much.
The approach was from 'thinking about thinking' and 'the question of being'.
These thinkers noticed consciousness in 2 ways.
1)Reflective consciousness.
2)The consciousness happening 'in the moment' as one gets around in the world doing a life.

The thinking/language styles help to get at a 'me' and 'the moves it makes' or the contexts the 'me' is happening in.

The reflective style is like a flatland expression or 2D picture where the emotion, hubris, ambition is removed, the tension of the 'me' that is coping with the developing drama is removed.

Like this:

'I have a piece of equipment (GF) in my life and it's in a breakdown'
The equipment is good for this and not so good for that.
I need this equipment to work.
My life doesn't work without equipment.
Is there an owner's manual for this thing?
The equipment was damaged by it's previous owner.
Can it be fixed?
What's my responsibility to this equipment?
What's my responsibility to me?
I'm torn.

The 'in the moment' style is got at by transitioning the intentional verb to copulative verb.

In that way it would become:

I am my Girlfriend.
A context which includes all her understandings, moods, mood swings. All my understandings, moods, moodswings, all the daily to and fro's of quarrelling, making up, reeling from crisis to crisis, all the lust, all the angst, jealousy etc...
It gives the full 3D picture.
I am really my Girlfriend and she is really my Boyfriend in one living entity. 2 has become 1.

When existence (me) makes a move (engages in a context for living).
Applying these 2 thinking/languaging modes,
discloses one's situations,
completely.

These modes were gleaned from the works of Neitschke, Weininger, Kierkegaard, Heidegger etc..
The modes can be applied in any situation the me is in.
They get at 'what it means to be a human being' in it's living where ordinary thinking/languaging fails.

Bob Michael wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:This is why, Bob, your emphasis on love as the proper route to wisdom, is incorrect. You've blinkered out another option.

Hmmm, I tend to think the problem is that I've shined too much light into your dark cave of genius, Kelly.

If you think so, why not respond to my point on how the definition of the main object of the monocerebral man's interests doesn't actually match the essence of a genius? Namely, the gradual accumulation of empirical data vs. the immediate understanding of Reality itself?


.

Kelly Jones wrote:If you think so, why not respond to my point on how the definition of the main object of the monocerebral man's interests doesn't actually match the essence of a genius? Namely, the gradual accumulation of empirical data vs. the immediate understanding of Reality itself?

Love can only dialogue, communicate, or have a genuine relationship with its own kind. And I don't feel that you're in that dimension, Kelly. You seem to lack true understanding of things along with being bound up or seeking security (including the need to be right and to feel superior to others) in the intellect, thought, reason, analogies, and logic, while wrongly thinking you're in possession of wisdom or genius.

It's a simple enough proposition:

A monocerebral man, as defined in your opening post, tries to offer wisdom through empirical knowledge. Genius, as defined on this board, doesn't use that method.

If you refuse to accept the proposition, then by all means give your explanation as to why not.

"You cannot possibly understand", or "You lack love and empathy, and are cold, sterile, and unfeeling" are - surely you can see - responses that don't connect with the reality. For, if I don't actually regard myself to have anything in common with the definition of the monocerebral man, and have a clear philosophy against attachment (and attachment is love), but not against unconditional love (if defined as non-attachment), then your response so far doesn't even have luck on its side. It is blindsided against the evidence.


.

You 'win' my dear. Nevertheless you appear to me to be an oh-so-clever but tellingly lost, discompassionate, and defensive misanthropist, Kelly. One that bites the hand that feeds her.

I'm a logical person. It's not at all overly cerebral to make an effort to express oneself as clearly and unambiguously as possible. I'm trying to get you to engage on that level - being clear with your concepts.

Kelly Jones wrote:I'm a logical person. It's not at all overly cerebral to make an effort to express oneself as clearly and unambiguously as possible. I'm trying to get you to engage on that level - being clear with your concepts.

I find logical people dull and boring. And not much fun to be around.