GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla Shen wrote:

It is possible that the general level of the forum reaches a point that is not conducive to the progress of more mature philosophers.

Unless a connection can be made with suffering these lesser philosophers with overcoming such deeper-dwelling blockages, then I would call that prevention.

Then on my request rephrased the second line to this:

"Unless a connection can be made between suffering these lesser philosophers and overcoming such deeper-dwelling blockages, then I would call that prevention."

But, once again, I am not really sure what you are getting at.

Do you mind Leyla elaborating on your idea a bit further?
-
Sue

Sue,

Do you mind Leyla elaborating on your idea a bit further?

Sure, I’ll give it a shot.

If the forum is primarily filled with lesser philosophers, then logically that will reflect in the standard of dialogue. Even if something incredibly wise is spoken, it will be reduced to -- and dialogue will proceed on the basis of -- the general level of understanding/philosophical development.

Thus, one of these more mature philosophers engaging in this manner is preventing his development. His focus is on the lesser philosopher and not on his deeper blockages. Unless, like I said, there is a connection between more mature philosophers engaging lesser philosophers and, by that means alone, overcoming their deeper-dwelling blockages. Personally, I see no such direct connection.

There is nothing a lesser philosopher understands that would produce the resolution of such blockages in the more mature philosopher. You might argue that materials connected to this forum -- such as Wisdom of the Infinite -- serve that particular purpose. But, they do not. Even in that essay, David speaks of the fact that every individual’s journey is just that -- individual; and one he alone can embark upon with no assistance. Until he does so, he is precisely a lesser philosopher.

So, when we say “mature philosopher,” surely we mean he who is exactly on this journey that David refers to, regardless of where he may or may not write to and who he does or does not engage with, not he who writes to this forum since by this latter definition alone, we can only ever see the lesser philosopher that is the product of it and that is necessarily the sum of wisdom offered by it -- even if held up to whatever lofty heights in general by only a few more mature philosophers.

.

Leyla,

Excuse my butting in, but I'd like to respond. I think you're saying the Genius Forum's many unenlightened persons can block a budding philosopher from perceiving the nature of Reality and becoming enlightened.

On the one hand, aimless nuisances running amok on the forum can provide a useful contrast and a stimulus for disgust (if one isn't already attracted to such behaviour). So removing whatever stimulates the intellectual blockages that one is struggling with, won't help one to pluck them out.

On the other hand, the budding philosopher's understanding of God is vague and imperfect. He's likely to get confused and stressed easily by the delusion that is so widespread. So he needs to suppress some stressful stimuli, briefly. If he's attracted to delusional behaviour, which is likely, then it's up to the moderators to do the suppressing.

-----



It may have nothing to do with your idea, but I'll throw it in anyway. It interests me, and illustrates my above reply:


I suspect Marsha sees the Genius Forum as a blockage to enlightenment because its definition of enlightenment contradicts hers. According to her definition of enlightenment (I have no clear idea of what that is), she is enlightened.

Recently, the ambiguous phrase "I ate the elephant" has appeared a lot. I suspect Marsha means, any threat to one's self can be, and should be, overcome. This is a very popular view: truth is what you make it. It makes one popular and attractive to many unenlightened persons on the forum. I think Marsha knows she has a lot of support here, and also that many people count on her for "holding the fort". This is a good contrast for any budding philosopher to experience.

Marsha's "veteran warrior" status, and strong resistance to any contradiction of her ideas is a somewhat valuable trait. Our heavily sheepified society means rebellious characters are outstanding. The problem is, she misuses that character. She is likely to mislead any stressed, confused would-be philosophers, because she is singularly close-minded to reasoning. It encourages others to play "steamroller", instead of thinking calmly and freely.

Because truth isn't about overpowering any threat to one's self, but finding out what is absolutely true, and discarding what contradicts. The self is one of those falsities.

-

Post-enlightenment development is a different game from pre-enlightenment development because once you're enlightened you can no longer be confused by the unenlightened.

Leyla Shen wrote:

If the forum is primarily filled with lesser philosophers, then logically that will reflect in the standard of dialogue. Even if something incredibly wise is spoken, it will be reduced to -- and dialogue will proceed on the basis of -- the general level of understanding/philosophical development.

The standard of mind that this forum attracts is quite high compared to most other forums or intellectual environments (universities, etc). The fact that everyone here is at different levels of philosophic development isn’t really a problem, because the Truth can be discussed in many different ways and on many different levels – without losing sight of the one Truth.

Thus, one of these more mature philosophers engaging in this manner is preventing his development. His focus is on the lesser philosopher and not on his deeper blockages. Unless, like I said, there is a connection between more mature philosophers engaging lesser philosophers and, by that means alone, overcoming their deeper-dwelling blockages. Personally, I see no such direct connection.

Each individual is working for his own development – whether he be a beginner or a more mature thinker, he will use whatever he thinks useful to advance himself along the philosophical path. Writing is another form of thinking, and since it is the thinker’s job to think, writing to this forum is a natural thing to do – and that is true for even the most advanced thinkers.

There is nothing a lesser philosopher understands that would produce the resolution of such blockages in the more mature philosopher. You might argue that materials connected to this forum -- such as Wisdom of the Infinite -- serve that particular purpose. But, they do not. Even in that essay, David speaks of the fact that every individual’s journey is just that -- individual; and one he alone can embark upon with no assistance. Until he does so, he is precisely a lesser philosopher.

Yes, each thinker is totally alone in his development. Whether you’re a beginner, or advanced; only you can judge what is best for your development.

So, when we say “mature philosopher,” surely we mean he who is exactly on this journey that David refers to, regardless of where he may or may not write to and who he does or does not engage with, not he who writes to this forum since by this latter definition alone, we can only ever see the lesser philosopher that is the product of it and that is necessarily the sum of wisdom offered by it -- even if held up to whatever lofty heights in general by only a few more mature philosophers.

When starting out you may look to other thinkers for guidance and encouragement, but you will still only learn from them what you yourself are ready to learn. No one can force you to understand something that you yourself are not ready to understand. So any blockages you have, gross or subtle, will only become unblocked when the circumstances are ripe for that to happen, and not a moment sooner.

The mature philosopher knows what blockages he has, as well as what is needed to unblock them - but he also knows that there is nothing he can do about them until the circumstances arise allowing those blockages to naturally fall away.

Each step of the way is blessed by Nature.

-
Sue

Sue,

Yes, each thinker is totally alone in his development. Whether you’re a beginner, or advanced; only you can judge what is best for your development.

When starting out you may look to other thinkers for guidance and encouragement, but you will still only learn from them what you yourself are ready to learn. No one can force you to understand something that you yourself are not ready to understand. So any blockages you have, gross or subtle, will only become unblocked when the circumstances are ripe for that to happen, and not a moment sooner.

Since these statements are contradictory, which slant do you think communicates/is true to a mature philosopher and which to a lesser philosopher?

~

Hi, Kelly:

Excuse my butting in, but I'd like to respond. I think you're saying the Genius Forum's many unenlightened persons can block a budding philosopher from perceiving the nature of Reality and becoming enlightened.

Not really. I am particularly interested in investigating the idea of how writing to this forum directly assists the more mature philosopher in rooting out blockages that are dwelling deeply within his ego. That is: what, exactly, is the nature of such an apparently large differentiation between mature and lesser philosophers.

One assumes that the mature philosopher (who stops short of fully enlightened Buddha just as the lesser philosopher stops short of the mature) already has a perfect intellectual understanding of reality. What could be beyond such a perfect understanding, Kelly?

I'll reply to your post more soon.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:One assumes that the mature philosopher (who stops short of fully enlightened Buddha just as the lesser philosopher stops short of the mature) already has a perfect intellectual understanding of reality. What could be beyond such a perfect understanding, Kelly?

Probably willingness. Any reluctance means self-driven thought has crept in, and at that moment the perfect understanding is corrupted. That is my best guess.

I can't speak from experience about post-enlightenment training, but only from projection: that it's about letting wisdom capsize the instinctive and deeply-embedded delusion of self-existence. Such a one might write to the forum to keep stimulating mindfulness throughout all kinds of experiences of egotism.

The main difference I see between the "lesser" and "mature" philosophers is the degree of faith in Truth and in reason. I'm not sure whether both have equally strong and healthy self-images, which are necessary to propel the self's slow and progressive down-fall.

.

Yesterday I decided to eat out. While I was eating I was reading a book about the ancient Greeks, fascinating period of history and the philosophers are amazing.

I was interupted by a very attractive young lady(later found out she was 24). She saw something she liked. As she described it she could be 'real' around me. I kept trying to go back to my book but she was intent on gaining my attention. She invited herself to sit down at my table.

She was, as could be described, a knockout. Jet black hair, tight fitting clothes and charisma that comes with being smart and alluring.

She engaged the conversation as being something about me that was very 'deep' and that she could expose her inward thoughts with me without feeling judged or gawked at. She asked me for my phone #. I did not answer.

She kept saying she wanted to get to know me as she could get in touch with her innermost thoughts around a person like me. I told her straight up I was celibate and she momentarily paused but pretended not to miss a beat.

She asked for my phone # again and I redirected her attention.

I asked her what she was looking for and a great pause or dead air space. "What do you mean"? She asked.

What did she have to gain from a guy who is obviously much older, not very attractive in the Brad Pitt kinda way. What was she so attracted to that she asked for my phone # a third time?

Father figure? Maybe, but I doubt it. Consistant sugar daddy? Doubt that to but maybe. Perhaps on the surface of her mind all of these thoughts and yet - she knew, without a conscious knowing something much, much deeper.

I relented and gave my phone # to her with the understanding it would be a spiritual journey and I asked how committed she was to understanding what the essence of being is. She said she wanted to understand as boyfriends, husband, and career just wasn`t doing it for her.

She stands to gain alleviation of suffering and could very well assist humanity in greater ways than either of us are consciously aware of in the now.

What did I gain from this new found friend? Flattery, that an old guy like me has still got what it takes to pick up the hot babes - just kidding.

I found insight into the modern stress of womanhood for a twenty something year old trying desperately to make sense of it all. I found myself exploring brand new ways to seek truth in an experience by proxy.

I could see through her eyes and in so doing see the relationship of what I could find through a new avenue of truth to expand into. I could use the logic to help and assist the emotional pain of attachment that I was sailing into.

I found myself going into uncharted territory as each new life experience is one of a kind and never to be repeated. Questions arise; can truth overcome such vast exposure to so deep illusion of what happiness is? Can truth heal such a deeply wounded soul?

Kevin, Dan, and David are assisting humanity because they cannot help doing anything other than just that. Each question brings further contemplation. If you are teaching everyone the same, you are teaching most of them wrong.

Life is not 'normal' as if there is such a thing. There is the reflection of the infinite in all that every face shines. No matter that it is buried beneath a legion of childhood trauma, the teacher is always the student. There is always innocent perfection hidden behind every mask.

There is only forgetting everything I thought I knew to learn what each moment, person, and experience can teach me. We use memory and depend upon it but it falls dreadfully short and fails to survive its meeting with reality.

What I learned from this young lady is that; no matter the pitfalls, plebes trying to suck life, parents trapped in illusion, men using her - she was able to follow her heart amongst the noisy conversations in a public eating establishment and completely eradicate all pride, surface judgment, and glitter to find what her heart was yearning for.

It showed me that the heart does not judge - it is the mind fueled by resentment and unforgiveness. She taught me that hope and a deep longing for an answer is still very much part of the hardwiring of every person that I could possibly meet.

She taught me that most, if they believe it possible, will follow the heart that would normally be considered meaningless insanity. Following our heart/purity shreds us of all points of reference and exposes us to what we truly are and desire.

It is in the mind that most cannot shake the attachments - constantly comparing what others may approve and disapprove of. She ignored the other patrons because she was instinctively drawn to an old guy with nothing externally desirable.

She made a small step in breaking from the herd and in this, my own heart was lifted.

We are all students and we are all teachers.

I don't believe that story. It would never happen.

If she was a butt-ugly mole dressed in dowdy clothes, it would be somewhat plausible.

prince wrote:I don't believe that story. It would never happen.

Beingof1 may have made it up. Either way, it's worth thinking about how to deal with a "helpless stunner". The urge to reproduce is largely the driving force for egotism, after all.

My thoughts are:

- If he'd like more information to help in analysing the girl, Beingof1 could check out Dan Rowden and Rhett Hamilton's discussion of the nature of women back on the Genius List in 2003. I have it in a .dbx file that can be opened in Outlook Express, and can email it.

- It's likely that the girl has psychological problems, has seen you before, and was in her ovulatory phase when she contacted you (it made her outgoing and capable of a cold call). She's looking for a psychotherapist (a loyal thinking man), but doesn't have the confidence or self-awareness to articulate what she requires. That's why she's offering sexually satisfying company, since she wants you to stick around to help clarify her problems.

I could be wrong.........................but doubt it.

.

prince:

I don't believe that story. It would never happen.

If she was a butt-ugly mole dressed in dowdy clothes, it would be somewhat plausible.

This is a great example of the mindset of what is the key blockage to enlightenment. It could never happen eh?

I experienced it and this is not the first - keep that box that you cannot step out of, at least it is familiar and cozy.

Reality and enlightenment is not confined to you as the judge of who is capable of acheiving it, how it must happen, and what is and is not possible. If you want to experience the impossible you must, at the very least, acknowledge you live in a universe that can manifest the highly improbable.

You believe I am lying because you live in the 'prince' box and superimpose your belief system over all of what appears to be lesser manifestations of reality.

You believe I am lying because my philosophy does not adhere to the comparison in your mind of what is 'true'. To what a true philospher talks about.

You believe I am lying because others here believe that to and so; you want to defend your religion against bad ole influence.

That is why I keep bringing others out of their 'box' of what they describe as infinite understanding. Well, if the eternal was understood it would be manifesting; now wouldn`t it?

We would begin to acknowledge the capacity of everyone we meet as having the desire deep within; that, would change the world.


Kelly Jones,
I appreciate the advice but I was answering a question.

I think I know what to do.

Beingof1 wrote:Kelly Jones,
I appreciate the advice but I was answering a question.

I think I know what to do.

Ok. I was just concerned when I read your lines about "she teaches me....". You do realise that people are just images in your mind, and that anything you learn, you're teaching yourself ?

.

Kelly Jones:

Ok. I was just concerned when I read your lines about "she teaches me....". You do realise that people are just images in your mind, and that anything you learn, you're teaching yourself ?

Kelly, there are times when you teach me.

Right now; you should reread what I wrote. The question should resolve itself.

I have only one quick suggestion, take the whole post in from another if you are going to respond. Do not get stuck on certain words that are 'triggers' and miss the rest of the post and its meaning.

Know what I mean?

I suggest this because you have great potential but you will be completely ignored if you do not 'very carefully' listen to what the other person is saying behind the words to get the essence of the meaning.

Beingof1 wrote:She made a small step in breaking from the herd and in this, my own heart was lifted.

I'm not so convinced. Depth, wisdom, and stability are secondary sexual characteristics in a man, just as nice legs, tits and hair are in a woman.

Since a woman's mind is essentially unorganized chaos, she seeks a deep running current to give some kind of stability and meaning to her life. She sees this in man.

Beingof1 wrote:I suggest this because you have great potential but you will be completely ignored if you do not 'very carefully' listen to what the other person is saying behind the words to get the essence of the meaning.

I'll be completely ignored if I happen to offend as well.

There is only forgetting everything I thought I knew to learn what each moment, person, and experience can teach me. We use memory and depend upon it but it falls dreadfully short and fails to survive its meeting with reality.

If you're really interested in understanding Reality, your own reasoning is the best teacher.

Remembering or forgetting something to understand Reality is a faulty method. If one is depending on a memory, then one is holding to a dead corpse.

she was able to follow her heart amongst the noisy conversations in a public eating establishment and completely eradicate all pride, surface judgment, and glitter to find what her heart was yearning for.

What does "follow her heart" and "her heart was yearning" mean?

I asked her what she was looking for and a great pause or dead air space. "What do you mean"? She asked.

Did she say what she was seeking, or did she just agree that whatever you value, she also valued?


I have a question: Are you delighted she selected you?

it is the mind fueled by resentment and unforgiveness.

Do you mean that what one feels compelled to do is a better guide than reasoning ?

Following our heart/purity shreds us of all points of reference and exposes us to what we truly are and desire.

What is this "purity"?

It is in the mind that most cannot shake the attachments - constantly comparing what others may approve and disapprove of.

Where else ?



A comment, which you can take or leave:

Most people massively underestimate how deep the instinct for pair-bonding is.

Test it. If you tell the girl that reason, logic, masculinity, and truthfulness are your primary values, and that you'll correspond with her by email (not phone or hand-written letter), see if she's still interested. Remaining in an impersonal, intellectual zone and writing one's thoughts in a logical analytical manner, is something that revolts women. Women have tantrums when their emotional manipulations are resisted.

I reckon it's a great learning opportunity to have love affairs. Every man should learn how to be a woman's new handbag, and see if the identity fits easily or not.

.

ksolway:

I'm not so convinced. Depth, wisdom, and stability are secondary sexual characteristics in a man, just as nice legs, tits and hair are in a woman.

No doubt this was a factor and you make a good observation.

Just as a certain young lady who is enamoured with you would defend you to almost the brink of extinction of wisdom itself.
;)

This does not mean she is not seeking wisdom, just simply idealizing it.

Since a woman's mind is essentially unorganized chaos, she seeks a deep running current to give some kind of stability and meaning to her life. She sees this in man.

I would agree for the most part this is almost always true. Everyone must begin the path and as you well know sir, it has its beginning in a myriad of idealism and attachments.


Kelly Jones:

I suggest this because you have great potential but you will be completely ignored if you do not 'very carefully' listen to what the other person is saying behind the words to get the essence of the meaning.

Kelly: I'll be completely ignored if I happen to offend as well.

And you won`t be addressing the conversation at all if you do not listen. You will be speaking to strawmen.

Perhaps you are speaking of my 'offensive' style. If you pay attention and do listen, you would realize if respect is given it is returned. If assumptions, suppositions, and accusations are flying, I am clear minded enough at exposing them.

There are certain things I have mastered, one of which is being a mirror image of exposing absurdity.

And yes; the ego does deny being exposed and literally hates the one unveiling it.

BO1: There is only forgetting everything I thought I knew to learn what each moment, person, and experience can teach me. We use memory and depend upon it but it falls dreadfully short and fails to survive its meeting with reality.

Kelly: If you're really interested in understanding Reality, your own reasoning is the best teacher.

Remembering or forgetting something to understand Reality is a faulty method. If one is depending on a memory, then one is holding to a dead corpse.

These statements contradict each other and you did not listen again. Reread my statement and try to decipher its meaning.

What does "follow her heart" and "her heart was yearning" mean?

One kind of fool follows their heart.

Another kind ignores it altogether.

Do you have a heart and would it be self - evident if you did?

Did she say what she was seeking, or did she just agree that whatever you value, she also valued?

That part was intentionally left out, did you notice that?

Do you think most are capable of defining to your satisfaction what they want? Would someone who knows nothing of philosophy be able to describe to you what they want in terms that you would accept?

I have a question: Are you delighted she selected you?

Yup; I am a reborn Rambo. I think I will change my screen name to Titan of the Harem.

If you read my post and actually do pay attention you would see I answered that question.

Why should I keep covering ground that I have already explained? Could you answer that question?

BO1: it is the mind fueled by resentment and unforgiveness.

Kelly: Do you mean that what one feels compelled to do is a better guide than reasoning ?

I don`t know what I meant to say - could you explain what I actually meant in the above statement?

BO1: Following our heart/purity shreds us of all points of reference and exposes us to what we truly are and desire.

Kelly: What is this "purity"?

Logic of win/win.

Check into the holy texts of all scripture, they explain it quite well.

BO1 said:

It is in the mind that most cannot shake the attachments - constantly comparing what others may approve and disapprove of.

And what follows is a great example of this thought.

Kelly:

A comment, which you can take or leave:

Most people massively underestimate how deep the instinct for pair-bonding is.

Test it. If you tell the girl that reason, logic, masculinity, and truthfulness are your primary values, and that you'll correspond with her by email (not phone or hand-written letter), see if she's still interested. Remaining in an impersonal, intellectual zone and writing one's thoughts in a logical analytical manner, is something that revolts women. Women have tantrums when their emotional manipulations are resisted.

As if she would have any clue as to what those terms mean.

You think 'magic' words are the answer?

OOOnga, OOONGA, waLLY WUFF - magic powder do your stuff.

That is what most people hear when the words "reason, logic, masculinity, and truthfulness" are used - they have no reference point Kelly.

It is not the right 'words', it is meaning and understanding.

Is this going to wizz by you again or are you going to make a serious attempt at understanding what I am actually saying?

I reckon it's a great learning opportunity to have love affairs. Every man should learn how to be a woman's new handbag, and see if the identity fits easily or not.

Your pride and arrogance just boggles the imagination.

You did not comprehend anything I said and yet you pretend to know what I am motivated by?

You make no attempt to try to understand what I am saying and instead - straight to your agenda.

You know what talking to you is like? Here is an example in satire.

"Wisdom will lead to understanding."
"If you truly know wisdom you would begin to understand."
"That is what I said."
"Then why don`t you understand?"
"I said, wisdom will lead to understanding."
"Then why don`t you acknowledge wisdom?"
"I just did."
"Why are you being illogical?"
"What are you talking about?"
"I am pointing out your lack of wisdom and understanding."
"Will wisdom lead to understanding?"
"You are hung up on sexual issues and are not seeking wisdom."
"Will you ever listen to a word I say?"
"When you start making sense."
"What did I say?"
"You said you could not find wisdom because of sex."
"When did I say that?"
"Are you hung up on sex?"
"I am not the one talking about it."
"Then how did the subject come up?"
"You brought it up."
"If you want to talk about reason, logic, masculinity, and truthfulness you would acknowledge that you have an issue about sex."
"What does that have to do with anything I said?"
"You do not understand because you are not aware that wisdom leads to understanding."

Hey Bo1,

Just as a certain young lady who is enamoured with you would defend you to almost the brink of extinction of wisdom itself. ;)

This does not mean she is not seeking wisdom, just simply idealizing it.

Kevin's an ordinary, ugly mug who seems quite capable of managing on his own, and I'm stable enough in my subjectivity as not to need to defend Kevin. I'm using techniques that I've learnt are necessary to resist the easy road of self-pity and unconsciousness (woman). The struggle to overcome woman is very dear to me, naturally. That's why I repeat key techiques like a mantra:

rationality, truthfulness, masculinity, logic, wisdom, determination, courage, cause and effect

This may appear like parroting. But I've hard-won the meanings, and have made them mine. In conversation, I explain the meanings of words I use, and I expect you do too. I don't see why this should present a problem with your new girlfriend. It will keep her thoughts focussed, and challenge her emotional attachment to you (she will already have developed quite a number of fantasies about you). She is like a little child, that needs consistency in the "rules". It's your responsibility, being more conscious.

I think that's all pretty realistic, don't you?

What it boils down to, for me anyway, is that you are quite pushy, and have displayed on a number of occasions a tendency to bully. This is quite evil, if you're getting involved with a woman, who is passive.

You also seem pretty naive about women, and idealise their capability for wisdom. I'm telling you from acquaintence with the species and self-analysis, they have practically nil.

BO1: There is only forgetting everything I thought I knew to learn what each moment, person, and experience can teach me. We use memory and depend upon it but it falls dreadfully short and fails to survive its meeting with reality.

Kelly: If you're really interested in understanding Reality, your own reasoning is the best teacher.

Remembering or forgetting something to understand Reality is a faulty method. If one is depending on a memory, then one is holding to a dead corpse.

Bo1: These statements contradict each other and you did not listen again. Reread my statement and try to decipher its meaning.

How do they contradict each other?

I define your statement to mean that you have to forget something in order to experience Reality directly, which means, you've been holding onto a dead corpse to experience Reality directly (which is all things). Your own reasoning is therefore faulty in this regard, and needs to be corrected - by your own reasoning.

What does "follow her heart" and "her heart was yearning" mean?

Bo1: One kind of fool follows their heart.

Another kind ignores it altogether.

Do you have a heart and would it be self - evident if you did?

I still have no clear idea what you mean. It seems to me you're talking about desires. If so, then, no, desires are not self-evident, since they aren't clearly understood until contrasted with what they aren't.

Did you mean, she felt emotionally dissatisfied with her life?

Did she say what she was seeking, or did she just agree that whatever you value, she also valued?

Bo1: That part was intentionally left out, did you notice that? Do you think most are capable of defining to your satisfaction what they want? Would someone who knows nothing of philosophy be able to describe to you what they want in terms that you would accept?

If you've any experience with how dishonest women are, then you'll know how much a struggle it is for them to admit why they're honest on occasion. A woman will say to me she wants to understand philosophy because she wants to be my friend. She is so passive and weak, she only wants to please. So frightened of being rejected, that she will not say what she values. She'd be the same with anyone.

If this sounds like your girl, do you really think it's worth spending hours and hours of your time, slowly feeding her fragile ego, leading her gradually closer to valuing radical honesty? Can you do it, if your own understanding is still imperfect?

If she looks tough physically, then she's might to be capable of withstanding years of solitude and the intense suffering needed to learn how to bear the weight of reason. If she doesn't, then your time is wasted and she'll move on to find a new identity that's easier to wear.

That's what your intention is, isn't: a spiritual journey? So it would be cruel to disguise it as an easy, pleasant thing she'll sail through.

I have a question: Are you delighted she selected you?


Bo1: Why should I keep covering ground that I have already explained? Could you answer that question?

If you're bothered by your sexual arousal, then covering and recovering the ground ought be a spiritual delight. That's the point of my initial reply to prince.

BO1: it is the mind fueled by resentment and unforgiveness.

Kelly: Do you mean that what one feels compelled to do is a better guide than reasoning ?

Bo1: I don`t know what I meant to say - could you explain what I actually meant in the above statement?

No, I can't, because I'm still not sure what you meant.

BO1: Following our heart/purity shreds us of all points of reference and exposes us to what we truly are and desire.

Kelly: What is this "purity"?

Bo1: Logic of win/win. Check into the holy texts of all scripture, they explain it quite well.

You mean that this woman, by following her heart, and exposing herself to her true self, was already enlightened?

Bo1: It is in the mind that most cannot shake the attachments - constantly comparing what others may approve and disapprove of.

And what follows is a great example of this thought.

Kelly: A comment, which you can take or leave:

Most people massively underestimate how deep the instinct for pair-bonding is.

Test it. If you tell the girl that reason, logic, masculinity, and truthfulness are your primary values, and that you'll correspond with her by email (not phone or hand-written letter), see if she's still interested. Remaining in an impersonal, intellectual zone and writing one's thoughts in a logical analytical manner, is something that revolts women. Women have tantrums when their emotional manipulations are resisted.

I'm just telling the truth.

That is what most people hear when the words "reason, logic, masculinity, and truthfulness" are used - they have no reference point Kelly.
It is not the right 'words', it is meaning and understanding. Is this going to wizz by you again or are you going to make a serious attempt at understanding what I am actually saying?

Alright, I'll make a serious attempt. What's the problem with introducing these words to those who aren't familiar with them? Sure, they may say initially, "Got it!" when they're way off, but that's the learning process.

I reckon it's a great learning opportunity to have love affairs. Every man should learn how to be a woman's new handbag, and see if the identity fits easily or not.

Bo1: Your pride and arrogance just boggles the imagination.

You did not comprehend anything I said and yet you pretend to know what I am motivated by?

You make no attempt to try to understand what I am saying and instead - straight to your agenda.

What are you so uptight about? Why should it bother you that your true motivations aren't being published? Do you need to be understood?

If one isn't aware how the ego dreams of the "big man" glory among men, which might include (based on spiritual goals) the trophy of converting a woman, one could easily mistake its "truths" as noble.

"You are hung up on sexual issues and are not seeking wisdom."

I'm not sure whether you are seeking wisdom or not. So far you've been chucking nancies because I've pointed out that your understanding of feminine psychology may benefit from more information. A more sensible answer might be, "Thanks, I can always improve in this regard. I'll read what you have to offer".

But hey, learning the hard way is sometimes necessary.


.

Kelly Jones,

I don't see why this should present a problem with your new girlfriend.

What it boils down to, for me anyway, is that you are quite pushy, and have displayed on a number of occasions a tendency to bully. This is quite evil, if you're getting involved with a woman, who is passive.

You also seem pretty naive about women, and idealise their capability for wisdom.

you've been holding onto a dead corpse to experience Reality directly (which is all things). Your own reasoning is therefore faulty in this regard, and needs to be corrected - by your own reasoning.

If this sounds like your girl, do you really think it's worth spending hours and hours of your time, slowly feeding her fragile ego, leading her gradually closer to valuing radical honesty? Can you do it, if your own understanding is still imperfect?

If you're bothered by your sexual arousal, then covering and recovering the ground ought be a spiritual delight.

What are you so uptight about? Why should it bother you that your true motivations aren't being published? Do you need to be understood?

If one isn't aware how the ego dreams of the "big man" glory among men, which might include (based on spiritual goals) the trophy of converting a woman, one could easily mistake its "truths" as noble.

I'm not sure whether you are seeking wisdom or not.

"Why do I waste my time talking to you."
-- Jesus

I have nothing whatsoever to say to you and we have nothing at all to discuss.

Good luck with your handpuppet.

Being of One,

I've had similar experiences, with the hot female thing. I don't take it to mean anything anymore. She's not breaking from the herd, because there isn't a herd to break from. Like Kevin said, her mind is chaos. It's impossible to break from chaos. Sometimes chaos happens to break into the life of an honest man.

It means nothing at all. There's no reason behind it, such as her seeking stability. There's not even the reason of you kind of being indifferent to her and her wondering why.

Shit happens.

It's probably worth mentioning that I'm deliberately exploring the obnoxious 10-year-old mentality, an undeveloped area of mine. That might explain my tendency to be rude. No apologies for practising, but I could have picked someone my own size.

.

with regard the original question, I would had to say that the biggest downfall is knowledge itself.

Knowledge has made me realise the universe is a zero sum game, and we are mere representatives of this.

Ultimately everything is meaningless, so why bother pretending that increasing one's knowledge of reality is in any way different.

I'm getting the impression that the human race has gone over the top and is going through the compulsory destruction process that occurs when things are not tightly controlled.

War with muslim idiots
Nukes
Death

Kelly wrote:

The main difference I see between the "lesser" and "mature" philosophers is the degree of faith in Truth and in reason. I'm not sure whether both have equally strong and healthy self-images, which are necessary to propel the self's slow and progressive down-fall.

The self does exist, and is not necessarily (or inherently, if you prefer) delusional. Just like any other thing. Remember that “a mountain is indeed a mountain” idea?

The difference between the self and a mountain is simply that, like genius and memory, self is the product of inference. It differs again from a pink unicorn in that the idea “pink unicorn” implies some tangible, objective existence -- whereas memory and self do not. One cannot say without falling into contradiction that because physicians cannot remove a memory from the brain and place it on a table, that memory does not exist. One cannot say without falling into contradiction that because the self cannot be shown to exist apart from a physical body, it does not exist. However, given the images and definition of “unicorn,” one can not only reasonably conclude that pink unicorns do not exist, but that any type of unicorn does not exist, save only as an idea.

What relevance, then, does “a strong and healthy self-image” have to reason and enlightenment?

This down-fall of the self that you seek, should it not be instead the down-fall of self-image/s: that is, idol worship -- paraphrased: “graven image or likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, beneath the earth, in the water (et cetera)“?

I posit precisely the opposite: only the self can propel the slow and progressive down-fall of self-images; “strong and healthy,” weak and diseased alike.

There is, in the reasoning individual, no more or less than a reasoning self. This has nothing to do with self-image.

.

sschaula:

I've had similar experiences, with the hot female thing. I don't take it to mean anything anymore. She's not breaking from the herd, because there isn't a herd to break from. Like Kevin said, her mind is chaos. It's impossible to break from chaos. Sometimes chaos happens to break into the life of an honest man.

My entire point was; if we prejudge anyone, at anytime that they are not capable of desiring wisdom we have fallen prey to illusion.

I was explicite in letting her know I was celibate - and guess what? I still am.

I do not need the effections of a woman because I am already complete in my state of being. Why would I want to step down off my buzz to hell on earth?

Most try to derive their wholeness by putting their faith in another human being and set themselves up for failure. A human will always let us down(even the enlightened) because the root cause of separation is internal and it is folly to try to be complete in another. It creates the cycle of hell to use someone else to be put on a throne and attempt to evoke worship from another.

Women idealize a man and believe they can be whole through bonding with this fantasy. A man desires to be worshipped by a woman and then procedes to corrupt her, only to find that a woman is better at the game.

The cycle of mutual torment for not meeting the idealized self image worship. I am free from this cycle but still acknowledge that all and everyone is trying to break free - just looking in the wrong place.

It means nothing at all. There's no reason behind it, such as her seeking stability. There's not even the reason of you kind of being indifferent to her and her wondering why.

There is meaning to everything I do and if I do not see this person ever again that does not mean I had no influence. She may decide ten or twenty years from now to seek wisdom, I may very well have been part of that catalyst.

But if we prejudge, we ourselves are the victim of our own pathetic desire for self worship as feeling superior.


Kelly Jones:

t's probably worth mentioning that I'm deliberately exploring the obnoxious 10-year-old mentality, an undeveloped area of mine. That might explain my tendency to be rude. No apologies for practising, but I could have picked someone my own size.

And I will not talk to a ten year old who throws temper tantrams.

So from now on I will choose when I talk to the wisdom that is buried deep within you and has yet to surface in a continuous state.

I will not talk at all to the made up Kelly in your mind that pretends to be smart and noble. I will only lecture the truth within you until that wisdom surfaces.

So if you want to play mindless games - I do not participate and will only speak when I desire, as you do not yet have the wisdom to know truth from deception.

I am speaking only to the wisdom buried beneath the chaos in your mind. I refuse to talk to the nonsensical made up Kelly and simply will not do it.

Beingof1

I do not need the effections of a woman because I am already complete in my state of being. Why would I want to step down off my buzz to hell on earth?

If you are really complete in your being then having sex with a woman would not change anything, it would make no difference whatsoever.

Most try to derive their wholeness by putting their faith in another human being and set themselves up for failure. A human will always let us down(even the enlightened) because the root cause of separation is internal and it is folly to try to be complete in another. It creates the cycle of hell to use someone else to be put on a throne and attempt to evoke worship from another.

I agree with this, but what if you obtain a different kind of relationship? Like two birds who are complete within themselves and free to fly anywhere they choose, but instead they choose to fly together. We have hormones and biological instincts for a reason, it is best to understand these aspects of ourselves and not confuse them for our true being, but that does not necessarily mean that we have to refuse them altogether (although that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t). After all they are a part of our nature (and nature in general).

I am free from this cycle but still acknowledge that all and everyone is trying to break free - just looking in the wrong place.

What if everyone was exactly like you? What if there was no diversity, no extremes, and no violence, just spiritually complete people? Would it be paradise? Is this type of paradise possible? Will it ever happen?

AlyOshA wrote to Beingof1:

If you are really complete in your being then having sex with a woman would not change anything, it would make no difference whatsoever.

I've never used viagra, but a man cannot have sex unless he can generate some kind of desire. A fully enlightened person cannot generate the desire.

But viagra could possibly get around that.

If the woman was also complete (enlightened) then there would be no negative consequences.