GENIUS FORUMS

Kelly Jones wrote:seem to match my own experience of childhood trauma (I had 3rd degree burns as a 4-year-old). It's easier to deal with it, if it was accidental, if you were cared-for reasonably well afterwards, if it recurred or not, and that sort of thing.

I see, well I got a 2nd degree burn on my chest when I was 18 months old, because my mother was stupid enough to let me wobble around after a bath naked, near a heater.

Kelly Jones wrote: The whole point is to go think about it rationally, and not to let it become the bedrock of one's perception of reality --- after all, how likely is it that the nature of reality is based on that event? Zip chance.

Kelly you feeble-minded wench, these events are exactly what shapes the nature of reality. Any fool can reproduce, evolution gave them that, but it doesn't mean that everything will turn out ok. I will point out as another example, that when I was about a year old, I was lunged at and bitten on the face by the pet dog. It was a rogue, and later put down. But the damage was done ( not to my face, but to my psyche)

This is getting off topic, but that seems to be the way of these threads. Hopefully, it can get back on course anon.

This thread is no different from the usual crap you harp on about. It's just your sour grapes about the fact that other women are having such a fabulous time with their young vibrant lives, and you aren't.

prince wrote:I see, well I got a 2nd degree burn on my chest when I was 18 months old, because my mother was stupid enough to let me wobble around after a bath naked, near a heater.

Surely it is only cosmetic. Burn scars don't have direct sensation, so you can't be feeling any pain from it, only some tautness of the skin. Likewise, the bite of your face, is only cosmetic, is it not?

Kelly: The whole point is to go think about it rationally, and not to let it become the bedrock of one's perception of reality --- after all, how likely is it that the nature of reality is based on that event? Zip chance.

prince: Kelly you feeble-minded wench, these events are exactly what shapes the nature of reality. Any fool can reproduce, evolution gave them that, but it doesn't mean that everything will turn out ok.

Firstly, if you continue with gratuitous insults, then I won't be responding. Why not stop feeding that anger habit?

Yes, you're right that evolution is definitely influenced in its course by events, such as childhood accidents or other lucky / unlucky happenings, but the incidents you mention are minor in comparison to your extremely resilient bodily organism. The brain and psyche are quite capable of dealing with them, and getting on with life. I mean, you're not brain-damaged, so ..........

Kelly: This is getting off topic, but that seems to be the way of these threads. Hopefully, it can get back on course anon.

prince: This thread is no different from the usual crap you harp on about. It's just your sour grapes about the fact that other women are having such a fabulous time with their young vibrant lives, and you aren't.

Maybe you've been unable to get over the babyhood trauma because you want to be out there with the women, but you're afraid of their mindlessness, the fact that in their lighthead frivolity, they might not be conscious of how you are wandering around, too close to a "heater"..... ?

.

Kelly I already told you I love you.

What, do you want it on a silver platter?

I already had the best sex of my life, and being binded one on one with said lover, so you are nothing in comparison.

Personally, I think most psychological disorders are in the head. The subject is generally able to solve the problem himself, but just couldn't be bothered. After all, why pass on a perfectly good opportunity to be unconscious? I've suffered numerous traumas all through my life(scolded and beaten by father, burnt by boiling water, had jaundice and typhoid, ligaments/bones broken a dozen times in football matches, assaulted in the testicles by cricket balls, feet and footballs, etc.) Hell, if I lived in the west, I could probably live entirely off social security, and have numerous valid excuses for doing so.

Life brings both good and bad things, but we shouldn't get attached to any of these things. I disagree with people who say that we should undergo suffering to have pleasure. They are so attached to pleasure, that they are willing to undergo suffering to get pleasure. Can something more pathetic be imagined?

Personally, I think most psychological disorders are in the head. The subject is generally able to solve the problem himself, but just couldn't be bothered.

In most cases, that's probably true. But sometimes those disorders are reactions to psychiatric illnesses, which can't be solved. But the two things are likely to enforce each other.

I don't actually know personally many people with psychiatric illnesses, like epilepsy, catatonia, or schizophrenia. I've observed a few in person. My estimation is that in cases of neurological or psychiatric illnesses (something wrong with the "wiring" or severe neurochemical imbalances), the psychological stuff and emotional damage is probably very deeply tied to the management of the psychiatric illness. That is, the person has found a way to deal with the neurological stuff. That psychological reaction may very well be dysfunctional, but because it responds to a very deep kind of dysfunction, it's "functional" by comparison. And that's their lifeline. They won't challenge it. Even though they might otherwise be rational, they can't reason deeply about the psychological stuff, as it'd be too painful.

.

prince wrote:Kelly I already told you I love you.

What, do you want it on a silver platter?

I already had the best sex of my life, and being binded one on one with said lover, so you are nothing in comparison.

I'll repeat it, since you missed it the first time:

You're angry at your mother for being reckless in her care of you as a baby. You're consequently afraid of a woman's recklessness and lack of care. You see women frolicking, and they appear "vibrant" to you, so you are naturally attracted to them. But there is an underlying discomfort and nervousness, because you have a deep belief that women cannot be trusted. So you feel angry and distrustful of them. You transfer this anger onto the Genius Forum, interpreting the ideas of the Forum as anger and distrust of women. You never explore any further, and never realise that the ideas of wise misogyny presented on the forum are in no way connected to your own ideas. You simply believe that this is a place where you feel safe: where women's recklessness is challenged.

However, you still feel attracted to women. So you stay here in the "sanctuary" of the Genius Forum, searching for a woman you can trust, who shows the same "anger and distrust" of women that you have. You are searching for a more mindful and careful one - not a "feeble-minded wench". So you try to chat up females here, including me.

In other words, you're just using the forum to play out issues of your own. It's got nothing to do with us. Like I said, you do need to see a counsellor about this stuff, as this stuff is not what the Genius Forum is for.

.

jupiviv wrote:Personally, I think most psychological disorders are in the head.

Quote of the decade! :)

Kelly Jones wrote:In most cases, that's probably true. But sometimes those disorders are reactions to psychiatric illnesses, which can't be solved. But the two things are likely to enforce each other.

Of course. And ultimately, nobody can actually solve the problems they have by themselves. If they problems are caused to be solved, then they are; if not, then not. But someone who knows that fact can solve all problems.

Dan Rowden wrote:

jupiviv wrote:Personally, I think most psychological disorders are in the head.

Quote of the decade! :)

Now that I read it again, it *is* a great quote, as it points to a number of truths. Firstly, it could mean that instead of attempting to analyse/treat the mind from outside, psychologists should analyse their own minds first("judge not others....") Secondly, it could mean that the cause of our sufferings are really not separate from ourselves, as most people believe.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Some people use the term [romance] closer in meaning to romanticism: with its imaginative, exaggerating colorful expressions. The element in common with your definition would be "unrealistic" in the sense that it does not translate to hard-nosed "facts". Your battle and suffering would not be comparable to the battle of a cancer patient and the "in your face" physical dimension of such condition. And "forever" could then be said to be a term expressing a strong imagination if taken literally, a term more often used in fairy tales than in common speech.

Well, the psychological battle to enlighten oneself is totally physical and is replete with hard-nosed facts. Here's a great example that I really like from Hakuin....

Hakuin's style is another example of Romanticism of course, or closer to some form of art, in its deliberate roughness and ability to shock. In his later life he limited his communication to just painting instead.

To say that the psychological battle is actually physical and factual could be misleading. Spiritual development has a lot to do with redefining and changing our relationship toward everything, including any notions of "the physical". So one actually challenges any assumed demarcations between the psychological and physical.

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing against anything you wrote, all quite on the spot actually, here and in your starting post. My aim is to discuss the reaction you received, and other thinkers here as well, about sounding overly dramatic or scriptural. Which then is called romantic or idealistic, all in a time were ideals and depth of perception have become rather flattened, perhaps by a supersaturation of signs and stories.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Hakuin's style is another example of Romanticism of course, or closer to some form of art, in its deliberate roughness and ability to shock.

Are you talking from your own perspective, or what? Personally I was shocked to realise how obvious introspective meditation is, as a technique. It's just "locking on" to reality in a very realistic way. E.g. "my lower abdomen is the absolute, inexpressible truth, and the source of the Dharma" may sound shocking. Personally I was shocked to realise I was so foolish as to think it's not literally true.

To say that the psychological battle is actually physical and factual could be misleading. Spiritual development has a lot to do with redefining and changing our relationship toward everything, including any notions of "the physical". So one actually challenges any assumed demarcations between the psychological and physical.

I dunno about that. To me it's not about "redefining and changing," or "challenging any assumed demarcations," or other forms of academic wanking. It's telling the truth. Just finding out what's really the case.

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing against anything you wrote, all quite on the spot actually, here and in your starting post. My aim is to discuss the reaction you received, and other thinkers here as well, about sounding overly dramatic or scriptural. Which then is called romantic or idealistic, all in a time were ideals and depth of perception have become rather flattened, perhaps by a supersaturation of signs and stories.

Yes, that's the direction I'd agree with. Lacking any clear ideas or principles, or having a supersaturation of dreamy, unrealistic, mediocre, flattened non-ideas and non-principles, creates the false illusion that anything different is far-fetched, unrealistic, and overly dramatic.

The thing is, creativity is a lost art. It's literally something out of "Brazil", where people sit down to an expensive restaurant meal, and la carte is flourished by a sophisticatedly attired waiter, who reads it with an apparently genuine "european" accent; the clientele make their selections; the dishes are concocted in the mysterious caverns of the chef who hoards all gastronomical secrets; the time for the restoration approaches: voila! three platters of brown identical lumps.

Fantasy!

.

the lady is a bomb

Steven, when are you going to explode? Your powder seems like three-days' old porridge.

it was me eating at your brazilian restaurant!

So that's why all your comments are brown identical lumps?

it's just mine... with all types of ganja

I believe it was deja vu who said a while ago that upon seeing kelly jone's videos on youtube, his first compulsion was to give her a hug cause she reeked of emptiness. I felt a similar reaction.

Kelly is criticising romance now without ever knowing it, talk about shooting yourself in the cinderella slipper.

http://www.lyricsreg.com/lyrics/lady+gaga/Bad+Romance/

So you smoke a lot of pot? It would explain the short attention span and extremely repetitive "self-tickling" style. You're like a fella sitting in the corner, masturbating quietly and giggling to himself. It's a bit juvenile, dontcha think.

.

nope. oxy-cotin.

always gonna be a scared tomcat, fearful of drains and push-up bras?

or maybe it is just a banana milkshake.

Steven, seriously, get off the drugs. Your comments aren't intelligible to anyone but yourself.



prince,

I believe it was deja vu who said a while ago that upon seeing kelly jone's videos on youtube, his first compulsion was to give her a hug cause she reeked of emptiness. I felt a similar reaction.

Kelly is criticising romance now without ever knowing it, talk about shooting yourself in the cinderella slipper.

I have been criticising romance explicitly. How in the name of Cthulu could anyone imagine otherwise? That you assume my post was not a critique, but that I'm somehow trying to garner sexual interest, or apotheosise myself, is laughable. Even a half-wit would see it's on the difference between idealism and egotistical dreaminess (i.e. romance), and therefore by inviting thought, it does destroy dreaminess and romance. Only those who are total morons - like yourself who cannot understand the difference - would think otherwise.

By the way, can you edit your post to include just a link to the Ga-ga lyric? Posting the whole thing is a little too mind-numbing.

.

kell!

You gotta love Kell!

I reckon she'd be a wild cat in bed. ;)

Kunga wrote:

Anders Schlander wrote:Ideals are reasonable ideals, with a bigger perspective, contains greater depth.

Yes...i think it's reasonable to aspire to higher ideals, such as world peace & love. Without having high goals, how can we evolve ?

Anders Schlander wrote:becoming attached to the Guru as a father figure

or falling in love with the Guru because he is pure and innocent...unlike a man that is interested or consumed by sex with her. I find that the man that sees the woman as a sexual object is repulsive (unless feelings are mutual...rare is it that a man can love without lust. Ironically i am sexually attracted to men that are not womanizers. I feel they can be trusted. The bond of love is broken with infidelity (at least with me).

Also bonding is a chemical/hormone thing (pheromones) . Mother Nature has a one track mind.

dont know what it is with my writing, but you're the only one replying, and i disagree with you on basically everything, atleast it will make a contrast.

World peace and love is not a high goal, world peace doesn't make sense because people aren't enlightened, they can't recognize that things are essentially part of other things. There will always be trouble over emotions. The goal of love, love being an emotion, is a the goal of extinction because it breeds hate and stupidity, it breeds hate by losing the things you love, and it is a narrow minded perspective to worry about love and hate, it leads into all the terrible acts that people do, and if we base our lives around love we won't be going anywhere but further down the toilet...

You're attracted to the more advanced sort of man that is warm, knowledgable and friendly. But if a man enters into love with a woman he will quickly lose perspective and turn into a sex-hungry person, either way you cut it, you're looking for somebody that can't possibly exist because he can't both be innocent and pure, and love you at the same time, if he wants to stay pure and innocent he can't fall into romance with with things.

Even if the man isnt fucking other women he still loves other things, and wants to spend time with friends, hobbies, Television, Cars, Computers, which to an effect is shifting his love onto something other than the woman... there is always the threat of infidelity imo, and purity and innocence is the opposite of feeling a need or being possessive and jealous, which are the products of love. I'm afraid you're not getting the message, the ideal that i want promoted is essentially wisdom, since i recognize the state that foolishness, or the lack of wisdom, carries with it. The ego consumes everybody.

prince, what would you call a hetero male who, maybe once every couple of months, dreams that he bangs silly-headed blondes, who are all alike, all silly and mindless, but otherwise never has sex?

.

Kelly Jones wrote:E.g. "my lower abdomen is the absolute, inexpressible truth, and the source of the Dharma" may sound shocking. Personally I was shocked to realise I was so foolish as to think it's not literally true.

I find this interesting. I wrote a post a while ago called Feeling not Thinking, and in it I explained some of my experiences of balancing the feelings in my body.

In general, I've noticed that if I stay thinking in down time too long my muscles and feelings start to contract and contort, as if they're trying to express themselves but can't find an outlet. And I've found that the most fulfilling release seems to be aggression or sexuality. And further, I've noticed that the painful contortions of my feelings were from trying to unconsciously restrict and block the aggression and sexual feelings already there, and that flow up from my lower abdomen and lower spine.

It seems I feel much better and actually can think more consistently when I don't block this power. Anyway, that's how I relate to your quote, but otherwise I'm not sure how your lower abdomen has anything to do with truth. Might be too 'zen' for me. What exactly to you get out of it?

It sounds to me like your thoughts contain various emotional drives. So your glands release the chemicals that gear your body up to act. If you didn't have those drives (to act out something with aggression, or with lust), then you wouldn't feel a sense of fulfilment or relief on acting them out. I'd suggest that you do some daily vigorous exercise, and regularly burn the chemicals off. But this will only create a vicious cycle unless you are also meditating daily and you have insight into the nature of Reality. During meditation, work-out what's going on with those emotional drives, and challenge them, so that the chemicals don't arise so much. That is precisely the kind of thing Hakuin meant by introspective meditation.

The reason Hakuin located the Dharma in his lower abdomen, was because he needed to "ground himself", and bring his intellectual understanding into harmony with his everyday life. That's all. It wasn't anything sexual.

.