GENIUS FORUMS

Well, now. That's clear evidence of an unintelligent question... Still, my tired imaginings of telepathic or psychic communication was a good demonstration of how to override superstitious fantasies. So it wasn't a totally ugly experience.

Kelly: This is how the Universe, or the Infinite, is. There is no sense of talking of causation when there is only one. It is not causing itself, because it has never come into existence.

dejavu: It has always been coming into existence. What do you think motion is?

Absolutely everything is the Infinite. The Infinite is not-finite. "Motion" is a finite notion, short of "motionless". Therefore motion doesn't apply to the Infinite. We perceive motion in contrast to motionlessness. We contrast something that seems to be staying still, with something that is moving. Thus, motion only exists relatively.

The bound mind: one that believes in boundaries

Destroying all boundaries, you eliminate the need for things. Things having disappeared, change is seen to be unreal. Once change is gone you are rid of movement. Unmoving, there ceases to be time. Gone is time; - and purpose is now eliminated. No purpose means no enlightenment, and thus all things are free to follow their natural course.

- David Quinn (Poison for the Heart, The Way)

Similarly, "coming into existence" means that there is "not coming into existence" - more boundedness.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Anna may have regressed, or I've progressed, or maybe both. I tend to think of Anna as "BirdofHermes", a creature with a sense of humour, and a relatively free thought. Pye, by contrast, seems fragile, perhaps because Anna's doing some combination of the Mother and Butterfly and Pye, in her transition, seems fragile by comparison. Of course, this is all speculation..... but it is interesting to think about psychology.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A brilliant quote from Weininger that I've just stumbled across:

“Souls, individuals, are not the ultimately real; they, too, are still the expression of vanity, the attachment of worth to the person. Only the Good, which contains all individual elements within it, is of the highest reality.”

(Good, in the sense that "God alone is Good.")

You mean, your discernment of them as individuals is grounded more in their monikers than the essential substance of their thought available in what they produce on this forum?

No, just the reverse. Anna, as BirdofHermes in 2004 and earlier, was in my recollection less loving of waftiness and superstition, and more interested in really working things out in a rational, observant way. She wasn't as dreamy. However, I should add that people, being spirit, are difficult to speak of as fixed things.

(In case it has some relevance I've not considered with this statement, I indicate here that I have not yet checked out your link and reserve the right to comment later should I find it useful to do so.)

It's relevant to an understanding of feminine psychology. It's the third chapter of my essay, entitled "Atheist Memoirs (my views on women)".

This chapter is a colourful yet accurate psychological account of the main personalities that the feminine mind has. It's based on my understanding that the ego plays the domination/submission game in order to connect with others.


KJ

Kelly Jones wrote:Thanks for answering my question, dejavu.

dejavu: A thing is inseparable from its existence certainly, which is why its existence is inherent.

Kelly: I think all you are saying is that things exist. When people say things inherently exist, their usual meaning is that things exist on their own, completely independent of any causes. I take it you're not saying that?

dejavu: No I'm not saying that. I'm saying the whole of existence is self-caused, in other words, inherent. The idea which you brought up, namely that the universe is caused by what it is not, can safely be dropped I think, or dashed to the floor, it's up to you :)

The issue I'm spotting in your line of thinking is in imagining all things to be separate to the Universe, dejavu.

Imagine a pie, fresh out of the oven in all its aromatic glory. It hasn't been cut up yet. No slices, no bites, no mental divisions. This is an analogy for absolutely everything - the Universe, the Infinite. This is how Reality always is. Lots of interesting 'stuff' in the pie, if you like, but it is whole and undivided.

Now, if we imagine or actually cut a slice out, then there is that slice, and the rest of the pie. Now we have "thing" and "rest of pie". Now we have causal relationships. But it would not be accurate to say that the slice of pie causes the whole pie, nor that the pie causes the slice. Only when the pie is cut up into pieces, are there actual pieces.

This is how the Universe, or the Infinite, is. There is no sense of talking of causation when there is only one. It is not causing itself, because it has never come into existence. Existence is a relative notion, you see. A thing exists relative to something else.

However, when there are things, then there is causation.

I've been spotting it too~
The underwear in the drawer haven't any causal effect on my thinking. I think we're all just bored trying to fix an oxymoronic base. Somewhat controversal effect. My sweat has it's own thought. It just keeps coming back like logic.

dejavu wrote:Kelly: This is how the Universe, or the Infinite, is. There is no sense of talking of causation when there is only one. It is not causing itself, because it has never come into existence.

dejavu: It has always been coming into existence. What do you think motion is?

Kelly: "Motion" is a finite notion, short of "motionless". Therefore motion doesn't apply to the Infinite.

dejavu: Motion is more than a "notion".

I am assuming that you can define motion. That definition is what I'm calling on you to think about here, in relation to the Totality.

Kelly: We perceive motion in contrast to motionlessness. We contrast something that seems to be staying still, with something that is moving. Thus, motion only exists relatively.

dejavu: What seems to be staying still, yes, but nothing is still. Motion exists no matter that our measurement of it must remain relative.

What I'd like you to do is imagine, if you will, everything as one 'thing' - the totality of all things. The "Totality" is absolutely everything, there is nothing outside it or beyond it.

Now, since you are saying that absolutely everything is moving, therefore, the Totality itself would have to be moving. For it to move, it would have to move to some 'place' else. But this contradicts its identity, since it includes everything, including all places. Thus, the Totality itself cannot move.


KJ

dejavu,

The universe is singularly infinite. It has itself in which to move, forever.

You are making a mistake of identity (contradicting A=A), both here and in your use of the word "inherent".

If the Universe is moving inside itself, then it is two parts, not one. It is an exterior Universe (motionless) and another Universe inside (moving).

To say these two are identical is false.

eg. the word inherent.

A reminder: "Inherent" means "existing in something as a permanent and inseparable element of; infixed; innate".

Note the clause "inseparable element of". It is of. This is a possessive.

So, if I were to unpack the definition, so that you can see the two parts:

"A is existing in something B, as a permanent and inseparable element of B."

Or, to take your earlier notion of the Universe:

"Universe A is existing within Universe B, as a permanent and inseparable element of Universe B."

Do you see that A=A and B=B, but A<>B ?


KJ

Dejavu,

There is no such thing as minus or non-existence.

I did not say non-existence. I don't believe non-existence is possible.
Minus existence does not signify no existence, it signifies a causal existence that is totally obvious, namely gravity (and I don’t differentiate it further into stuff like strong and weak nuclear forces crap).

Can you deny gravity? Don’t look for a scientific explanation for gravity, that is not necessary, just take it as what it does and that it is a factor of all things.

I will say however that existence is possible only as a dualistic effect. We only know about existence due to duality, in consciousnesses case this is the many to one, one to many dualistic arrangement. We can observe because our senses can split one into two, that immediately dualistically reforms into two different forms. We could not know light unless that very light was altered in some manner by the mechanisms of our eyes - we take away from that light and mix what is taken away with a corresponding opposite form from our own body - the two new different oneness's we create is an electrical current for our nervous system (a flat form of existence), and this same occurrence releases electromagnetism (a wave form of existence).

Why should it fit logically?

Because logically all things must be caused. If something is caused, that means that a process has taken place. If there is a single entity, a process can never occur. Existence cannot just be, it must be caused.

Why should the universe require an opposite?

Because there is differentiation. These days I pay little regard to anyone who considers non-duality as the ultimate explanation as they never attempt to logically explain the cause of differentiation in the Totality.



Not for the sake of logic surely?! :D That the universe is its own cause will never meet our logic, except in this very fact!

Yes, absolutely for the sake of logic. Logic is reason. Ultimately, the nature of reason, deconstructed, is that based purely on binary processes. To not believe in logic, is to not truly believe in cause and effect. To not believe in cause and effect, is to make into randomness every single thing you might believe in, consciously or subconsciously. Our brains work exactly the same way as every other part of the totality - a cause will cause change to the degree that cause is given the freedom to cause. This freedom to be able to be take in causal influx requires a form of existence that can take in. We fucking humans really only tend to conceptualise causal action as those causes "that push", but we don't see that in order for something to actually push that an equal decrease in boundedness must occur at the same instance.

Quote:
Time is the speed of changing form measured against the fundamental Stillness.

Isn't it rather space measured in relation to itself against the immutable constant of motion?

The inherency of infinity is bound to the reality that nothing is still.

Trueish, but that is where the partial falsity of the concept of "physical" comes into play. Mind you one cannot deny that stillness within the universe must be essential. Parts of the universe have different speeds. Stillness is that which is wholely bound, and space is wholely bound, though the form space is caused take, is not. Form is the manifestation of spatial relativity.

Play God, and take a thing and divide it infinity by progressively drilling down into one side of each divided part. As God this is possible because you have an infinite amount of time into which to conduct the divisions. In this infinity against infinity situation, you will come to a point where there is no thing left to divide, there is not even any space at all. But how can this be? It can only be, because space itself is caused, and at the absolute level, to divide this space would be to divide infinity into two parts, and in doing so you would completely take away the inbetweenness of fundamental duality, which is the very thing that space is in the first place.

Space has no base so to speak.

It has a dualistic causal base, but no self-base. It is formed by the most absolutely simple causal process, it is neither "A", nor "Not A", but purely in that there is an A and a Not A, then automatically there will be both the set of "A and Not A" as well as the differentiation between A and Not A.


I really enjoyed this post Jamesh, and the pointy end of infinity cracked me up :D

Well, "the pointy end of infinity" is relevant to an observer, but of course not applicable in an absolute fundamental sense. An observer can neither see what might be smallest and what might be largest, and not just because neither exists, but also due to the fact an consciousness itself is a finite centre within infinity.

You will not accept that the universe is its own cause.

The universe is its own cause when considered as an entity, which by default means it is divisible. I accept the universe as being of a singular causal process, but that process is dualistic, so it is not its own cause. Only what comes before what manifests is its own cause, as causality is the entirety of what each is, its just the form of causality is different, and being different at the absolute fundamental level can only mean to be 100% opposite in nature.

I'm just being pedantic, and should remove this part of my response, nah I'll carry on…

The Totality of all there is, in leaving no outside, then AS A WHOLE logically must be self-causal. I just think the physical realm is a more qualified form of infinity, a lesser infinity, a set within a truer infinity -so I like to conceptualise reality as being to two totalities - the caused physical realm and the self-causing infinite realm. To me the physical realm is a bounded realm on more than one front (it is bounded at all times by both preceding causes, which effect-wise makes it bounded by space and time), whereas, a form of existence that has the power of expansion and a form with the power of contraction are bounded solely by each other (and this boundedness is only that the existence of each is bounded by requiring the existence of the other, they are bounded by having to be referentially causal).

What is your explanation for differentiation?

dejavu,

You will not accept that the universe is its own cause. You accept being but not becoming in order to hold the universe in your mind as one thing, but this is not necessary if you admit infinity into the equation.

You seem to be using the scientific notion of the known Universe, or "infinity". That is, something that is infinitely expanding. Is that the case?

If not, you really do mean that "infinity" is absolutely everything, and including all possible universes. If so, this is the Totality of all things. It is "one" because there is logically nothing besides it.

The thought of ones own eternity scares most people, I've found.

I am deeply afraid of lying, and of not knowing when I am lying. I wish I were more able to pass on this holy terror!


KJ

Kelly,

Does it also seem reasonable to you that the human female's need to connect with others is a more fundamental psychological trait than, and therefore what influences most, her love of babies and babylike things?

I'm not really sure what you're saying. I think that their brains are the main reason for this so-called psychological difference. Men see structure better than women, women see entity better than men.

De ja vu,

dejavu: There would be no point to consciousness without a body. There would be no reason for its continuation

Anna: Well, that is certainly an odd take on things. I don't believe I have heard it before. It still would not mean souls don't leave bodies - they can reincarnate.

Can you explain this to me?

You said there is not point to existence without a body. But the Hindus believe that there are several subtle 'bodies' like a soul body and a mental body.

The thought of ones own eternity scares most people, I've found.

It might be a reason to incarnate, to dull the awareness.

James H,

very fine post @ Aug 1, 1205 am.

Because there is differentiation. These days I pay little regard to anyone who considers non-duality as the ultimate explanation as they never attempt to logically explain the cause of differentiation in the Totality.

Existence becomes aware of itself. The one becomes two.

Anna wrote:Kelly: Does it also seem reasonable to you that the human female's need to connect with others is a more fundamental psychological trait than, and therefore what influences most, her love of babies and babylike things?

Anna: I'm not really sure what you're saying.

I'll put it this way.

Which would seem less womanly to you: a serial killer or a person with no maternal sensibilities ?

dejavu wrote:

Jamesh: The Totality of all there is, in leaving no outside, then AS A WHOLE logically must be self-causal.

Yes.

The problem with the idea of the Totality being self-caused is that it creates the impression that the Totality is up against a disintegrating force of some kind and has to battle in each moment to sustain its existence. Such a force, in opposition to the Totality, cannot exist, by definition.

This is just another way of saying that the Totality doesn't really have a self to begin with, there being no "other" to act as a contrast. So the idea of a self-caused Totality doesn't really mean anything.

Jamesh wrote:Because there is differentiation. These days I pay little regard to anyone who considers non-duality as the ultimate explanation as they never attempt to logically explain the cause of differentiation in the Totality.

No explanation is possible because whatever one might care to use to explain differentiation will itself be a differentiation.

Differentiation is timeless. Even time itself is a product of differentiation.

-

Kelly,

I'll put it this way.

Which would seem less womanly to you: a serial killer or a person with no maternal sensibilities ?

You have further lost me. The topic was, something or other about a woman's trait of requiring connection, and her maternal sensibilities, as it relates to psychology of men and women. And I said, of course the two are related, and it is embedded in the female brain, so while it might be somewhat modifiable through culture, not much.

David,

The problem with the idea of the Totality being self-caused is that it creates the impression that the Totality is up against a disintegrating force of some kind and has to battle in each moment to sustain its existence. Such a force, in opposition to the Totality, cannot exist, by definition.

David, this is truly a surprise! I have never thought any such thing. On the contrary, the fact that the Totality exists proves that there is no alternative to existence.

This is just another way of saying that the Totality doesn't really have a self to begin with, there being no "other" to act as a contrast. So the idea of a self-caused Totality doesn't really mean anything.

But the use of the word self, in this context, does not mean the same thing as self when I refer to myself. It simply means, not caused by an other.

Iolaus wrote:

This is just another way of saying that the Totality doesn't really have a self to begin with, there being no "other" to act as a contrast. So the idea of a self-caused Totality doesn't really mean anything.

But the use of the word self, in this context, does not mean the same thing as self when I refer to myself. It simply means, not caused by an other.

Okay, so this means it is timeless - i.e. there was never a time when it came into being. The Totality stretches back forever.

Agree?

-

Anna wrote:Kelly: Which would seem less womanly to you: a serial killer or a person with no maternal sensibilities ?

Anna: You have further lost me. The topic was, something or other about a woman's trait of requiring connection, and her maternal sensibilities, as it relates to psychology of men and women.

Yes, we're still talking about female psychology. And, of course, collecting some prime samples of feminine-mindedness as we go along.

And I said, of course the two are related, and it is embedded in the female brain, so while it might be somewhat modifiable through culture, not much.

Yes, but let's try to explore your view that women are inclined to love babies and babylike things. Do you believe that it goes deeper than a need for a connection with others? Or is it more superficial? Would a person who had no maternal sensibilities be womanly, in your opinion? Would a person who was a serial killer be womanly? Which of the two would have a greater degree of womanliness?


KJ

Okay, so this means it is timeless - i.e. there was never a time when it came into being. The Totality stretches back forever.

It cannot have come into being in time. Yes. I do not know if the word forever even applies. I also doubt whether there must at all times be a manifest universe - with stars and all that - but the cause of them is timeless.

Kelly,

Yes, we're still talking about female psychology. And, of course, collecting some prime samples of feminine-mindedness as we go along.

Thank you. I'll take what compliments I can get.

Yes, but let's try to explore your view that women are inclined to love babies and babylike things. Do you believe that it goes deeper than a need for a connection with others? Or is it more superficial?

Yes, I think it goes deeper but it is also related to it. Some women, though, aren't very maternal but are still more or less as interested in connection as other women.

Would a person who had no maternal sensibilities be womanly, in your opinion?

A lot of times women don't want children, but their maternal feelings come out in other ways. And some don't want children of their own, but still love children. A person with no maternal feelings would be a bit rare, I think, and most of the time it would probably be a sign of neurosis, or some other abnormality. But lots of people are pretty abnormal, and still live lives full of meaning and learning. I guess I would say such a woman might not be very womanly. But I don't feel able to make a good judgement without that I have a real woman before me.

Would a person who was a serial killer be womanly? Which of the two would have a greater degree of womanliness?

Very few serial killers have been women. One or two were women, but they were queens determined to get or maintain power, and they killed off rival relatives. They may have been maternal, who knows. They could be very determined, even murderous, and still be womanly.
As to which of the two is more womanly, I just don't see the point of the question, and I don't think it is answerable. Which serial killer. Which nonmaternal woman? They might not all be the same, and even if they were, I have a vanishingly small sample population that I know of.

Can you imagine a female serial killer, who is not a queen, as easily as you can imagine a female with no maternal sensibilities?

No

I can't wait to see where this is going.

Those girls that participated in the Charles Manson murders, they were serial killers, and they were normal women.

Anna wrote:I can't wait to see where this is going.

This discussion reminds me of the movie with Adam Sandler, "50 First Dates", where a deranged woman has to be brought up to date every morning, with her past life.

Shahrazad wrote:Those girls that participated in the Charles Manson murders, they were serial killers, and they were normal women.

They were definitely not normal women. There were roughly twenty of them in Manson's cult-like harem.

The reason why there are no lone female serial killers, is because feminine psychology is dead-set against the deep disconnection from others that it requires.

Examine this list of 'female serial killers', and you will find that most were:
- nurses or mothers with a depraved notion of being "Angels of mercy" (sort of euthanasist, using poison), or
- had a male master-mind, or
- were causing illnesses as a retarded way of drawing attention to their own illness.

Bathory is an unusual case, but like the Lainz women, was a cult sadist with accomplices; Amelia Dyer used the mother role to exploit the vulnerable; the Gonzalez sisters were basically running a business preying on the vulnerable. Note, they all tend to kill babies, children, prostitutes or serving girls, trusting family members, or elderly women - all vulnerable types.

None were genuine serial killers. A serial killer is totally alone against the entire society, and has no claim on the legal, physical, and emotional security that social belonging provides. It (he) is an outcast, who cannot complain and has no relief. Moreover, he has chosen it to be this way, and he knows it - so he is able to play two roles, and hold these two opposing realities against each other in his mind, without having to believe one is true and the other false. Women typically cannot do this (see Jegado). Not only is feminine psychology incapable of providing a woman with the capacity to endure that dialectical strength, or the severe degree of isolation and vulnerability, but it does not help her to create and sustain using strength of mind and imagination, a scheme against society. The feminine need for connection is, I would say, not a biological need like breathing or food, but it is the equivalent of a psychological need, just as primal.

Perhaps the closest to a female serial killer is Valerie Solanas, although she only killed once, because she was capable of explaining her motives, unlike most murderers on the Wikipedia list. I should add that I find a psychological reading of serial killers sad, but being who I am, I can appreciate better the true criminal mind - which is necessarily male, because of that dialectical depth. I don't find the female killers interesting. They are typically persons with very disturbed upbringings, and their behaviour came from that darkened, hopeless consciousness. I didn't get past "K" actually, as it was becoming somewhat harrowing.

Compared to the fact that there are no female serial killers (read past "K" if you wish to prove me wrong), there are numerous females who have no children, nor surrogate children, nor any obvious maternal sensibilities, because the need for babylike things or to love babies, can be easily discarded when things hang in the balance. In fact, I don't know that there is such a thing as a love for babies. Instead, I believe it is a kind of profiteering on the vulnerability of a baby; a sense of being powerful and alive when able to dominate.

For instance, the nuns in Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity organisation do not choose to look after someone else's unwanted children for the love of it. They do it because they really believe they are being helpful as Missionaries of Charity. Also, Mother Teresa was quick to stifle any challenges to her authority (which she thought was divine). Extracts here on "The Missionary Position" by Christopher Hitchens - a very interesting little book.


KJ

I just realised - Mother Teresa fits in the Wikipedia's list of female serial killers. She let countless people die from illnesses she refused to treat properly.

But she doesn't fit in my list (still empty, except maybe for Bathory and Solanas), because she plied the "Angle of Mercy" role, and was actually just trying to get sick people to last as long as possible without proper treatment - so she could feed on the 'beautiful' image of suffering and hardship they displayed.

What a sick mind. Dull, uncreative, stupid.

Iolaus wrote:

Okay, so this means it is timeless - i.e. there was never a time when it came into being. The Totality stretches back forever.

It cannot have come into being in time. Yes. I do not know if the word forever even applies.
I also doubt whether there must at all times be a manifest universe - with stars and all that - but the cause of them is timeless.

What reasons do you have for entertaining this doubt?

-

Dejavu, you haven't answered this question yet:

dejavu: You will not accept that the universe is its own cause. You accept being but not becoming in order to hold the universe in your mind as one thing, but this is not necessary if you admit infinity into the equation.

Kelly: You seem to be using the scientific notion of the known Universe, or "infinity". That is, something that is infinitely expanding. Is that the case?

dejavu wrote:

David Quinn wrote:This is just another way of saying that the Totality doesn't really have a self to begin with, there being no "other" to act as a contrast. So the idea of a self-caused Totality doesn't really mean anything.

This amounts to saying: "The universe is all there is, therefore it isn't, as there is nothing by which it may be contrasted."

Correct, it certainly lies beyond any notion of existence and non-existence.

The word infinity better describes the universe than the word totality.

Both terms suffice though the word in-finite already contains in itself a dualistic conceptualization. It's also used a lot for regression and endless sequences. As such, the word totality has the benefit of being more rounded and universal, it hints more at timelessness.

Ah, I see. You thought "the one that includes all things", being a number, would be insufficient to include all possible things.

No wonder you've been disagreeing with me.

If you look at the number 1, and then see that there are an infinite number of other numbers (or things), naturally you'd conclude that that 1 is not everything.

But if you look at the meaning "there is one Everything, which includes all numbers and all things", then naturally you'd conclude that that one is everything.