GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl,

Do it as slowly as you wish. I am still alive at one point, and dead at another. There is no partially.

It is a matter of opinion. I bet you will feel yourself dying. For instance: you will feel your lungs fill up with blood, you will feel the blood not traveling to your body and brain, which eventually cause you to become light headed, dizzy, and eventually unconscious, or semi-unconscious. It is very close to being dead, but slightly still alive. I would define that transition period as partially alive, and it is probably quite unpleasant to experience. I don’t recommend it – if you have to die, make it quick.

Do it as gorily as you wish -- and I see you do like to revel in the gory details -- but still I am alive or I am dead. I am not partly dead or partly alive. Not legally, not biologically, only in your warped killer mind, my friend.

Okay, it is perfect to me, but not to you. Question: Do you regard God (the Totality) as imperfect?

I regard the world as presently imperfect.

Okay, I understand. That's your opinion according to your definition.

The ‘totality’ or ‘god’ is an abstraction, an idea inside your own mind. The idea of the totality is used to map reality, but the reality out there is actually an empty void, which is the same reality inside your own mind.

Wait a minute, the Totality is only an idea inside my own mind? Then, this empty void that you speak of that is everything, is it imperfect? Because if it is, then it stands to reason that all of what's going on in the world today is perfect, in an ultimate sense, because, you know, we are all part of that One Thing, whatever we wish to name it.

Do you think the Buddha would have supported this "expectations" idea of yours? Are expectations really part and parcel with wisdom and enlightenment?

It is the only way we can make a better world for ourselves and not expect more of the same. We are conscious, while nature is not, and that is why nature must be manipulated according to our values.

Okay, number one, you haven't answered my question about your expectations. Would Buddha support the idea of a person having expectations? Is having expectations compatible with a quest for one's enlightenment? And number two, why do I get the idea that you are mixing your own personal dogma or religion in with what should be a logical exposition? For instance, is it logical to say that "we are conscious and nature is not, and that is why nature must be manipulated according to our values?"

Carl,

Wait a minute, the Totality is only an idea inside my own mind? Then, this empty void that you speak of that is everything, is it imperfect? Because if it is, then it stands to reason that all of what's going on in the world today is perfect, in an ultimate sense, because, you know, we are all part of that One Thing, whatever we wish to name it.

The void, which creates conscious experience and the world around us is limited by the biology of the organism. For instance: my glands could suddenly flare up, causing me to become angry or violent. That is the imperfection that I speak of. Or the world itself with all its problems is imperfection. The empty void is a slave to the present causal conditions, and that is why ‘consciousness’ is not a permanent phenomenon, and that is why the world is not perfect. That is why it is the responsibility of the individual to provide the best environments that allow the empty void to emerge as much as possible. For instance: there could be genetic configurations that always give raise to the empty void, and based on this knowledge, we should be engineering humans according to a more perfect template.

Would Buddha support the idea of a person having expectations? Is having expectations compatible with a quest for one's enlightenment? And number two, why do I get the idea that you are mixing your own personal dogma or religion in with what should be a logical exposition?

I think the Buddha did have expectations. For instance: he created a body of work that he expected to cause some individuals of the future to become wise because he could see the imperfection in the design. He could see the absence of the empty void operating in the world. You need to have ideals, goals, expectations for the future, but the key is that you don't become upset if your goal is never reached. There is very little emotional investment in your plans. you see them as important, vital and necessary, but the emotions that usually would be invested in those ideas have totally been dissolved.

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:This really has nothing to do with what we have been discussing, namely, the nature of reality. You are making appeals based on the desire to eliminate suffering. It just tends to confirm my suspicions that eliminating suffering(and therefore preference and emotion) was always a very important motivator and final goal for you and your philosophy. Unfortunately I think that doomed your philosophy.

The elimination of (needless) suffering is an inevitable consequence of understanding the nature of reality. One no longer suffers from chasing, or being attached to, phantoms of the mind.

Being irritated by phantoms seems senseless to me.

How are they phantoms?

Anything which misleads the mind is a phantom.

-

Ok, so tell me how I am being misled.

Ryan:
A lion that rips the intestines out of a live zebra to consume them is just about as perfect an example of perfection as you can find. The lion requires meat for sustenance, he and his family's attachment ensure he grows healthy and learns how to secure the food he needs, and he is completely oblivious to the zebra's suffering. Which part of this is not perfect?

If any part of nature is not perfect, it would have to be man's place in it. I could ramble on for some time about it, and I'm sure you would agree with much of it, but suffice to say that man has turned the natural concept of healthy competition into a vile, disgusting, decidedly imperfect thing.

Anything which misleads the mind is a phantom.

That would be just about everything...including the mind.

Lydiia Knightjoy wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:People shouldn’t treat their family any different than a stranger off the street.

If one can achieve such a thing, it should be a snap to allow oneself to experience sex without the attachment you espouse should be avoided.

What an awkwardly-written sentence, Lydiia.

Behaves is much, much easier to change than thoughts and values. The thinking and values drive the behaviour. So it is not so much a 'snap' to change behaviour as you believe.

few creatures, including humans, would survive more than a few days after birth if not for the attachment a mother feels for her offspring.

No, not true. If a parent understands the survival needs of a child, and wishes the child to grow to adulthood successfully, there is no reason why emotional attachment need play a role. I can't speak from personal experience, however. It is a tricky thing. The child needs to trust, so it has to bond emotionally with its carer. The carer, in turn, has to demonstrate trustworthiness, and let the child bond to it. Does this mean the carer bonds? Not necessarily; it could well act the part.

It is just like what I am doing here.

It seems that only when complex beings create a complex world that such dangerous and destructive (in my opinion) concepts emerge. Perhaps I lack just enough knowledge of philosophy that I'm not, in layman's terms, completely fucked up.

Do you mean, the more a person thinks, the less they can understand what is true?

Hope not.

Jason wrote:Ok, so tell me how I am being misled.

Experiencing perfection as imperfection and becoming irritated as a result is an example. The phantom of imperfection, or injury, or lack.

-

Lydiia Knightjoy wrote:

Anything which misleads the mind is a phantom.

That would be just about everything...including the mind.

Not true thoughts, though.

-

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:Ok, so tell me how I am being misled.

Experiencing perfection as imperfection and becoming irritated as a result is an example.

Although I wouldn't normally phrase it like this, and what I'm about to say could be a little bit misleading: I don't think that anything is "imperfect" in a fundamental, philosophical sense.

My irritation is not caused by seeing things as being fundamentally imperfect, rather, I am irritated by a specific event not conforming to my specific preferences. That's a completely different thing.

So, my irritation is perfect itself in a fundamental sense. My preferences are also perfect in a fundamental sense. You're missing this unusual twist that occurs when literally everything is seen as a perfect expression of reality.

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:Ok, so tell me how I am being misled.

Experiencing perfection as imperfection and becoming irritated as a result is an example.

Although I wouldn't normally phrase it like this, and what I'm about to say could be a little bit misleading: I don't think that anything is "imperfect" in a fundamental, philosophical sense.

My irritation is not caused by seeing things as being fundamentally imperfect, rather, I am irritated by a specific event not conforming to my specific preferences. That's a completely different thing.

So, my irritation is perfect itself in a fundamental sense. My preferences are also perfect in a fundamental sense. You're missing this unusual twist that occurs when literally everything is seen as a perfect expression of reality.

The problem is that during the moment when you are irritated by the specific event, you have lost consciousness of the perfection of reality. Granted, it is easy to look back afterwards and interpret one's irritation as an expression of perfect reality, but it doesn't alter the reality that a loss of consciousness was involved during that moment of irritation.

-

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:My irritation is not caused by seeing things as being fundamentally imperfect, rather, I am irritated by a specific event not conforming to my specific preferences. That's a completely different thing.

So, my irritation is perfect itself in a fundamental sense. My preferences are also perfect in a fundamental sense. You're missing this unusual twist that occurs when literally everything is seen as a perfect expression of reality.

The problem is that during the moment when you are irritated by the specific event, you have lost consciousness of the perfection of reality.

No, like I said, my irritation is not caused by me viewing reality as being fundamentally imperfect.

Or do you mean that in order to have a perfect understanding you need to have a continuously repeating internal dialogue of "reality is perfect, reality is perfect, reality is perfect, reality is perfect...." every second of every day?

Ideally, it should just come naturally to you. No need for mantras or mental reminders - just an effortless awareness of reality's perfection, such that nothing could ever possibly disturb it.

-

David Quinn wrote:Ideally, it should just come naturally to you. No need for mantras or mental reminders - just an effortless awareness of reality's perfection, such that nothing could ever possibly disturb it.

Yet mere irritation disturbs this awareness for you.

Behaves is much, much easier to change than thoughts and values. The thinking and values drive the behaviour. So it is not so much a 'snap' to change behaviour as you believe.

What an awkwardly-written sentence, Kelly.

You start by saying behaviour is easier to change than thoughts and values and end by saying behaviour is not so easy to change. If one can alter his values to the point of treating strangers as well (as badly?) as his own family, it should not be too difficult to enjoy sex without attachment. In both cases, it is the value of attachment that is altered.

No, not true. If a parent understands the survival needs of a child, and wishes the child to grow to adulthood successfully, there is no reason why emotional attachment need play a role. I can't speak from personal experience, however. It is a tricky thing. The child needs to trust, so it has to bond emotionally with its carer. The carer, in turn, has to demonstrate trustworthiness, and let the child bond to it. Does this mean the carer bonds? Not necessarily; it could well act the part.

For what other reason would a parent nurture their offspring other than emotional attachment? It may be possible as you suggest, but I can speak from experience that emotional attachment simply is. It is nature's perfect way of propagating the species. Surrogates tend not to work so well. You need not look any further than the record of foster homes, step-parents and orphanages.

Do you mean, the more a person thinks, the less they can understand what is true?

I'm suggesting that over-analysis of philosophical questions can lead many people to arrive at odd and sometimes dangerous conclusions. And the victims are almost exclusively highly-intelligent, albeit equally as often, poorly-functioning persons. They tend to be lonely people looking for relief of it and whatever other "phantoms" persist in their lives. Ever notice how few philosophers are CEO's with a spouse, children, many friends, a few cars and a summer home? Of course, an "enlightened" person rejects the notion of wealth. But the vast majority of the time, it is wealth who has first rejected him.

LK,

Ever notice how few philosophers are CEO's with a spouse, children, many friends, a few cars and a summer home?

Ever notice how few CEOs have any principles at all? You don't get to be a CEO without making unethical choices along the way.

-

And, poetic as it sounds wealth cannot actually reject anyone. Wealth is not a being or a force, rather it is an accumulation.

Lydiia Knightjoy wrote: Ever notice how few philosophers are CEO's with a spouse, children, many friends, a few cars and a summer home? Of course, an "enlightened" person rejects the notion of wealth. But the vast majority of the time, it is wealth who has first rejected him.

Shahrazad wrote:LK,

Ever notice how few philosophers are CEO's with a spouse, children, many friends, a few cars and a summer home?

Ever notice how few CEOs have any principles at all? You don't get to be a CEO without making unethical choices along the way.

-

I don't know about not having any ethics at all, but your point is made. Regardless, it doesn't negate my point. People who seek enlightenment tend to be people who weren't very successful at all. You may argue that they weren't particularly successful because they were too principled, to which I would say that strict principles don't necessarily stand in the way of at least moderate success. Seekers of Truth tend to be people who have become disheartened by their apparent place in the world who look for fulfilment of a different nature. Others, content with their lot in life--comfortable life style, close-knit family, emotionally stimulating career, etc. do not look to redefine the meaning of their life.

David Quinn wrote:

Lydiia Knightjoy wrote:

Anything which misleads the mind is a phantom.

That would be just about everything...including the mind.

Not true thoughts, though.

-

You concede that the mind may mislead, but then say "not true thoughts, though. You don't give the mind enough credit, sir. If you did, you'd see that it's not always possible to discern true thoughts from deceptive thoughts. Of course, you can always play the "sage card" and say "By definition, an enlightened person has no deceptive thoughts". Ironically enough (or not), this is the same "babble" that a compete psychopath might also spout, convinced of his superiority over mere beings.

And, poetic as it sounds wealth cannot actually reject anyone. Wealth is not a being or a force, rather it is an accumulation.

Did you really not understand or are you being trite? Thanks for the compliment, though--poetic is exactly what I was going for.

Lydia,

Did you really not understand or are you being trite?

I didn't understand. What do you mean by, "it is wealth who has first rejected him"?

Lydiia Knightjoy wrote:

Behaves is much, much easier to change than thoughts and values. The thinking and values drive the behaviour. So it is not so much a 'snap' to change behaviour as you believe.

What an awkwardly-written sentence, Kelly.

Yes, I've been noticing more spelling mistakes lately in my writing. I'm less pedantic than I used to be about small details. But the thinking and structure of the sentences is clearer, which is what matters.

You start by saying behaviour is easier to change than thoughts and values and end by saying behaviour is not so easy to change.

Think about it. There's a lot of behaviour that apparently changes, yet the underlying thoughts and values are the same - so the behaviour has not really changed.

If one can alter his values to the point of treating strangers as well (as badly?) as his own family, it should not be too difficult to enjoy sex without attachment. In both cases, it is the value of attachment that is altered.

Enjoyment indicates attachment.

Kelly: If a parent understands the survival needs of a child, and wishes the child to grow to adulthood successfully, there is no reason why emotional attachment need play a role. I can't speak from personal experience, however. It is a tricky thing. The child needs to trust, so it has to bond emotionally with its carer. The carer, in turn, has to demonstrate trustworthiness, and let the child bond to it. Does this mean the carer bonds? Not necessarily; it could well act the part.

Lydiia: For what other reason would a parent nurture their offspring other than emotional attachment?

The only reason to look after children well: so they can grow to become sane adults.

It may be possible as you suggest, but I can speak from experience that emotional attachment simply is.

I can speak from experience that emotional attachment isn't always present, and can fade or grow. So who of us is telling the truth? How can we know?

It is nature's perfect way of propagating the species.

It's perfect in the sense that it is Nature. It's imperfect in the sense that it's delusional.

Surrogates tend not to work so well. You need not look any further than the record of foster homes, step-parents and orphanages.

Hatred is an inescapable part of attachment. Where there is love, there is hate.

Kelly: Do you mean, the more a person thinks, the less they can understand what is true?

Lydiia: I'm suggesting that over-analysis of philosophical questions can lead many people to arrive at odd and sometimes dangerous conclusions.

What about thinking and arriving at truthful conclusions? Is that possible in your book?

And the victims are almost exclusively highly-intelligent, albeit equally as often, poorly-functioning persons. They tend to be lonely people looking for relief of it and whatever other "phantoms" persist in their lives. Ever notice how few philosophers are CEO's with a spouse, children, many friends, a few cars and a summer home? Of course, an "enlightened" person rejects the notion of wealth. But the vast majority of the time, it is wealth who has first rejected him.

Laird isn't a philosopher, Lydiia. He's a lonely person with a mental illness.

Anyone who desires wealth (social power) is not a philosopher, but a person seeking happiness foremost. By the same notion, most thinking persons are poor because they reject society as it is. There are a few exceptions, who are celebrity thinkers, but they work very hard on the lecturing circuit and give most of their ideas away for free.

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Ideally, it should just come naturally to you. No need for mantras or mental reminders - just an effortless awareness of reality's perfection, such that nothing could ever possibly disturb it.

Yet mere irritation disturbs this awareness for you.

It does for those who haven't yet mastered the knack of maintaining perfect awareness.

-

Lydiia Knightjoy wrote:

DQ: Anything which misleads the mind is a phantom.

LK: That would be just about everything...including the mind.

DQ: Not true thoughts, though.

You concede that the mind may mislead, but then say "not true thoughts, though. You don't give the mind enough credit, sir. If you did, you'd see that it's not always possible to discern true thoughts from deceptive thoughts.

True, this is known as "ignorance".

Of course, you can always play the "sage card" and say "By definition, an enlightened person has no deceptive thoughts". Ironically enough (or not), this is the same "babble" that a compete psychopath might also spout, convinced of his superiority over mere beings.

Indeed. If he doesn't experience true thoughts, and cannot distinguish between true thoughts and false thoughts, then he would be deluding himself.

-

Lydiia's idea of wealth is her feminine allure - distorting her conceptions, etc. Though, its good to see her faith in humanity via her inquiry into what constitutes values being supported - her own Buddha-Nature in action.

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Ideally, it should just come naturally to you. No need for mantras or mental reminders - just an effortless awareness of reality's perfection, such that nothing could ever possibly disturb it.

Yet mere irritation disturbs this awareness for you.

It does for those who haven't yet mastered the knack of maintaining perfect awareness.

Irritation is not the real problem then, it's your personal inability to maintain perfect awareness whilst being irritated that's the problem.

Lydiia Knightjoy wrote:Thanks for the compliment, though--poetic is exactly what I was going for.

Jason wrote:Irritation is not the real problem then, it's your personal inability to maintain perfect awareness whilst being irritated that's the problem.

Poetry is irritating.