GENIUS FORUMS

passthrough wrote: . . . do you believe in a soul, a spiritual part of being?

Soul is knowing our connection to the Universe.

Few people have it.

Jesus Christ said: The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

That being said, it would appear that one must figuratively dispose of their own body in effort to gain eternal life.

Jesus is speaking of the deluded, egotistical, or unconscious life. He who loves the deluded, egotistical, or unconscious life, will lose his soul. This has nothing to do with the physical body.

Identifying onself with a physical body which comes into existence and goes out of existence is to be deluded, and is to lose one's soul.

In reality the physical body has neither a beginning nor an end. Understanding this is the essence of soul.

Some believe that when their body dies, so does the mind

The mind changes each and every moment. But at the "death" of the physical body - brain death - it undergoes a more significant change, such that there is no memory of an "I", no "I". Thus, no mind.

and as well it may…but the spiritual part of man [one that cannot be proven but exists while he is alive]

Such things can be proven to a wise person.

The foolish have no ears to hear.

The physical is the spiritual. There is no Infinite apart from finite things.

but one can have all of the things God detests, as long as they place no value in them

God only detests putting false value on things. Soif you have this thing - this thing of putting false value on things - then you be be detestable to God.

You can't have lies and deceits and emotional attachments at the same time as being wise.

would this unconscious being’s life cause others to come to wisdom by his existence?

Would the absence of this unconscious being's life cause others to come to wisdom by his lack of existence? It is for the wise person to decide.

K: A child consumes space and resources that was previously being used by other life. With the coming into existence of the child, other life must die.

Nothing died to create this being.

I don't know what you mean by "creation" in this context. I'm talking about the creation of a child, not merely a fertilzed egg. Although the same principle applies even on that cellular and genetic level.

Human beings are currently in plague proportions on this planet, at the expense of other forms of life.

K: Wise to whoever of us is wise.

Who do you think is wise?

Myself.

Could I be wise in one scenario, while you are not?

Wise people are wise in all scenarios. That's what makes them wise.

If a "wise" person has a blind spot, then he has a major flaw, and isn't so wise.

Before we address when human life begins, do you have children?

Not in the physical sense. At least, not that I know of.

However, I naturally tend to see all people as my children.

Furthermore, I would like to hear your thoughts in this most baffling area.

Have a look at the chapter on Cause and Effect

. . .Think of homeostasis...

Not all things are in homeostasis.

"If the system does not succeed in reestablishing its balance, it may ultimately lead the system to stop functioning."

Many systems stop functioning.

Using the human body as an example, it is not always in perfect balance.

Sometimes the body is not in balance at all, such as when the entire planet is vaporized without warning and the body fails to adapt.

Kevin Solway wrote:You can't have lies and deceits and emotional attachments at the same time as being wise.

Thank you for stating that Kevin; that is very correct. I just gained some respect for you with that statement. Now how about updating your bio so it doesn't look like the only relationship you were ever in with a female was when you were a little kid?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:You can't have lies and deceits and emotional attachments at the same time as being wise.

Thank you for stating that Kevin; that is very correct. I just gained some respect for you with that statement.

Sometimes it is wise to lie, of course. But not to oneself.

Soul is knowing our connection to the Universe. Few people have it.

Universe = God [established definition] ?

To follow is something you stated that I intend to think about for a while. We had discussed a follow-up thread, but this is the heart of all that matters, so there will not be one posted.

In reality the physical body has neither a beginning nor an end. Understanding this is the essence of soul.

The mind changes each and every moment. But at the "death" of the physical body - brain death - it undergoes a more significant change, such that there is no memory of an "I", no "I". Thus, no mind.

The physical is the spiritual. There is no Infinite apart from finite things.

In short, one is nothing, and yet, everything.

Kevin Solway wrote: I don't think so. I think our current society is patriarchal.

All the big decisions are made by men. Take the space program for example. It costs trillions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on helping women, by paying for childcare, or for Phd's in nail manicuring or handbag fashion design. The decision to spend all that money on the space program is a partially conscious decision made almost entirely by men, and which women simply go along with because men are keen to do it.

Of course, it could be argued that all the partially conscious ambitions of men, and all of his genius, is for no other purpose than to impress and please women. All that he does is a sex display, like the colourful tail of a peacock. The purpose of the space program is to eventually provide more material goods for women. In this case woman and unconscious Nature has the upper hand.

Yes, that's a good example---even though the space program is nothing compared to what it was in the early 1970s, right before "space exploration" was basically scrapped in favour of electronic skateboards jammed into cheap probes sent to collect mineral samples every decade---but I don't see how that's anything more than possibly a patriarchal element. I think that's evidence that civilization-as-matriarchy has many stations still dominated by men (politics, business to some extent, and science), but that's not evidence of a patriarchy (the "system" described as men ruling as a class, or as men ruling human civilization through mini-dictatorships within families). How much power do these scientists have in Nasa?

As David below states, the space program is still meagerly funded, and essentially have to beg to get money for stuff. I remember someone arguing that we could not send a manned mission to Mars because of the cost (they estimated trillions), but I researched it and find out that, first, there is no real demand for a manned mission (geologists are in control of the entire Mars deal; biologists---especially exo-biologists---are the red-headed step-child of Nasa), and, second, it wouldn't cost that much (there and back in under a decade). With those who say we can go there (many scientists in Russia and Japan agree), they propose it would cost roughly the same as three months of war in Iraq. (At the time, the US was spending something like 30 billion a month on the war, or more.)

Anyway, if there is "patriarchy" in Nasa, it is a "geologist patriarchy" which by definition would not be "male rule" but rather "geologist rule"---a geololigarchy...?---but a guy looking at silicon under a microscope in a lab is hardly a "patriarch." The guy in charge of Nasa would be as much of a patriarch as any corporation CEO.

(Would that make Bill Gates the model of male power? How many men make big decisions, and for whom does that percentage of businessmen and politicians ultimately make them?)

Which definition of "patriarchy" do you use?

Kevin Solway wrote:The consciousness is hobbled and enslaved, without the freedom to express its pure nature - put to the service of an unconscious master.

Yeah. It seems that most of our masters are lurking about in the unconscious-subconscious mind. At times even being aware of who your master is (knowing, being conscious, of what's driving and motivating you through your life) is not enough to have full self-control.

Kevin Solway wrote: I find that women's power and control is too automatic to be called conscious.

For example, a woman might think, "If I wear make-up and sexy clothing, then I will be able to manipulate a man to serve me." That's about as far as it goes in my experience.

If that can be called conscious at all then it is only on the absolute lowest level. Really, I don't think that women have to think about it at all, or ever have, but do it out of animal instinct.

Hmm. I think that's misleading because at some point, for most women, it was a conscious decision to buy lipstick and eye-liner and other goop, practice putting it on, look in magazines and talk to friends for tips...are they conscious of what exact effect they're set to make and what reaction to expect? I doubt it...not all of them. Some are very aware; others, it is more automatic... recognizing the results of their at least partially conscious, or semi-conscious, effort is where the awareness began for them. The opposite of being conscious of consequences...

Yet it's really tough to say, prove, one way or another---eventually, doing the same tasks everyday numbs consciousness; it becomes routine and they stop thinking about it, conditioned---mainly because women are rarely honest about the things they do, or really don't know themselves, or both. Something a person does frequently becomes habit, and after a while awareness of it fades as it becomes instinct. Seems to me that young girls are far more conscious than older women, whose lifetime of repetitions seem to create a social or cultural instinct and large-scale conscious stagnation (phrenic atrophy?).

At any rate, I think it's semi-conscious overall, but it varies among women.

Kevin Solway wrote: It is conscious to the degree that it is reasoned, and the long-term consequences carefully considered.

Okay. What if the short term consequences are only considered? Or what if they are considered subconsciously?

There seems to be many levels of consciousness---someone is not either "conscious" or "not conscious," of course. If solid black is unconsciousness and solid white is (ultra-super) consciousness, then no human has ever been or ever will be all one or all the other (unless a fetus is solid black). Most likely, we'd be viewing a spectrum of many grey shades, with the vast majority darker in youth and getting brighter as they age...?

Kevin Solway wrote: I think once a man has given his life over to being a slave - once he is older than about 24 and entered full-time employment - then he has largely sacrificed any potential for consciousness he might have had.

Before that time there is sometimes a hope that he might become his own person.

I agree.

Kevin Solway wrote: I wonder how conscious it is, or whether it is an animal behaviour that is coded in the genes in some way. The more we learn about genetics, the more we realize that it determines our behaviour.

Yes, it's possible. But it's nearly impossible to properly attribute genetic reasons for behaviour (again, we mess up when looking for factors concerning natural environments).

Is it genetic behaviour the reason a dog chases a ball? Of course, but the "ball" is obviously representational to the dog as "prey." His instinct is to chase prey, like a cat's is to try to claw at something moving quickly through its visual proximity; the dog chased rabbits and mice and things when it was wild, long ago, but since domestication it has been adapted to a new environment, with very little prey (it's real food of course is dumped in a plastic dish now), so it chases around a ball, instead. The need (damn near compulsive need in many dogs) to chase a ball or prey is genetic, core, but because it's domesticated, its behaviour is essentially "unnatural" (meaning that its adaptations are not the results of its natural environment.)

Women have been wearing greasy masks on their faces for 8000 years, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence to support that they've always done that. And really, that makes sense; back when woman was plucking berries, living only 35 years, being pregnant four or five times, where we she find the time to stare at her reflection in a pond and think of what areas of her face to make more appealing somehow? Why would she need to? All the women must have looked pretty plain; the shaggy, smelly, hide-wearing men out hunting in groups were hardly picky...

It would stand to reason that women wearing things like make-up coincided with the dawn of civilization---whenever it was that men invented the basic tools of her vanity and materials for her masquerades. So, yeah---eight millennia is plenty of time for a species to develop new (maybe superficial) instincts, and for humans even a century is enough time to socially engineer ourselves (creating our own natures).

Our cultures determine our social behaviour, too, but I'm uncertain how much it overrides genetic tendencies; would a domesticated dog left in the wild---if it survived---become a wolf automatically? If so, that is only its genetic behaviour. If not, was it raised by wolves or bears, or nothing? Would it matter if it was a puppy or a young male when this happened? And what about humans?

Going by the "Tarzan factor," he would have become a far different human had he been a 6-year-old boy raised by apes (he would have been smarter in many ways right from the start, for instance, but he would have human memories and experiences, moral precepts, et cetera).

Genetics plays a part, but I'm uncertain how much.

Kevin Solway wrote: Consciousness is only "superior" as a personal preference of my own, since I choose to value it.

Sure (myself, I value it as well; in my mid-20s, I envisioned it as a tool---or an interconnected multi, Swiss-Army-type, tool---but now I view it as a sharpening stone for many other tools).

Kevin Solway wrote:Even though consciousness is superior, it can be wiped-out by unconsciousness Nature in a moment - eg, hit by a bolt of lightning or destroyed when a space-goat devours the solar system while grazing.

Heh.

Yes, true enough.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:How is was a feminine thing?

Because feminine greed is a feminine thing, and greed causes war.

Look at America: females have the vote, the majority of the population, seven times the shelf space in stores, make up the largest consumer "minority," have the majority of the personal wealth, and make up the bulk of purchasing power of the entire nation. What does that mean? It means female greed fuels corporate colonialism and political imperialism (as it always has).

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: It seems to me that war is of the male world - most little boys will turn anything into a gun or sword as most little girls will turn anything into a babydoll.

War has nothing to do with the "male world." The "warrior" is a perversion or mutation of the "hunter," which is base. The "soldier" is a modern civilized version of the "warrior" archtype.

Yes, girls are given dolls (which they unconsciously train with to manipulate people later in life) to play with---play is what prepares us for adulthood (or that's how it is naturally). Boys are given balls, tiny construction vehicles, and guns and other toys to play with (which they unconsciously train with to manipulate things---primarily for women---later in life). In both of these cases, it's cultural. Is it "male culture?"

In the States, half of all boys grow up without dads and in a school system dominated by 85% white female teachers---is this where "male culture" takes roots?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Wars have been started and mostly fought by men throughout history. Women fight, but in their natural state women fight much differently than men fight.

Crap.

A soldier starts a war? Please. His colonel? No. His general? Maybe...if he has permission. War has as much to do with men as a hamburger has to do with a cow. (Some females in history have fought, but long ago, before civilization, it was discouraged because the women were far more vicious and lacked "good judgement," and only certain types could handle it physically. And many female rulers have had no problem starting wars.)

So, the president, the king, gives the order. Who elects, appoints, the president? Whose values in congress are being considered when they vote in favour of going to war?

How many millions of men have been fed through a grinder to make women's lives more comfortable using only Sumer, Babylon, and Rome as examples? How many male deaths from hazardous jobs (still nearly 99% male-dominated) and scientific and medical experiments through the Industrialization period? How many trillions of male lives were sacrificed for female greed over the last 10,000 years? Who benefitted? Men?

Russia, probably more than any other nation in recent history, has sacrificed untold millions of young men from 1900 to 1960---and today no developed nation has a lower life expectency for men (an average man in Russia right now is lucky to make it past 65).

In the last hundred years, from the end of WWI (1920), female life expectency has climbed over 600% above that of men (on average women only lived one year longer back then---now it's 7 to 8 years longer); is that where men collectively benefitted? Healthier, less stressful lives? The Vietnam Vets (a large percent of American homeless are Vets, and 85% of all homeless are men) got spat on and had flashbacks. They were pawns of rich men and rich women serving feminine values and female demands.

Is the fact that males commit suicide five times as often as females (when fifty years ago it was only about twice as much) another indication of how men have benefitted?

I kept hearing "Bush bombs for oil profits," and I thought, yeah, maybe the momma's boy does, but who is he doing that for? A bit for the country? Maybe a bit. His family and friends, a bunch of old oil bankers and such? Who are they doing it for? Their families? Thier wives' lifestyles and children's futures? Most likely. War is about money, and spreading culture to make more money. But what is money about? Spending? What else does one do with money other than stash it? Who spends the most as a group on this planet? Women. By far. Who gets spent on the most?---what's that saying about diamonds being a girl's best friend? Yep.

Anyway, of course war is caused by female greed, as well as defending female values, and defending females themselves (what man actually regards his social role as protector---from volunteer firefighter to average Joe who pulls an old lady out of a car during a flood to a guy sticking up for his mother or sister or girlfriend---as something he should be paid to do?---doesn't every man in society, and is shamed if he does not, assume responsibility for the role of protector, especially in a crisis?).

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Packing up a bunch of people with a bunch of supplies to go kill and maybe be killed is more the male way.

Based on what evidence?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Females would be more likely to call up the other side and give them an earfull, and if that didn't work, go with embargos and propaganda, and only as a last resort go for the kill - but at that only go for the responsible leader(s) with sugical precision.

Okay, you're saying that women employ many different methods in order to get what they want before using violence? (I think you're right...right up until the "before using violence" bit.)

Why, then, do studies and surveys of domestic violence indicate that the abuse is equal---in some cases females are more violent---and overwhelmingly they initiate the hostilities?

Why have children been abused more by mothers than fathers?

Why are the murderers of children and babies (not fetuses) women 94% of the time? Surely, a little baby awards an adult parent many other possibilities other than simply killing it, no?

But that's interesting---it fits with the numerous relationships and numerous of my experiences with females:

1. Verbal "earful."

[It really is an assault---generation after generation of yappy left-brained women (speaking 210,000 words a month) verbally abusing the quiet right-brained men (speaking only on average 60,000 words a month)---what men have to put up with. In a "man's world," too much talking would be a crime.]

2. Embargo---deny something valuable, like relationship currency: praise, love, and especially sex. (Or else offer, bribe, with these.)

3. Propaganda. Dazzle with horseshit. (I think threats fit here, too.)

4. Last resort, "go for the kill." Often, women kill by getting another to kill for them (such as another lover).

I wouldn't say these were in any particular order though.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Relationships are the key to woman’s power, for it is only through her relationships that she exists. Therefore, society is truly the domain of the feminine, for within it there is near endless opportunity for her to form new relationships – and thereby strengthen and develop her impact on what society values. For example, love and coupling are highly prized, as are children and money. It is due to these feminine values being highly prized by society that the feminine – the unconscious – lords over the masculine (the conscious).

-
Sue

Makes sense.

Kevin wrote:

Consciousness is meaningful only if the conscious person believes it to be meaningful.

“Things just are what they are” – Do you believe this statement to be meaningful? Or do you meaningfully know it to be true?

S: If consciousness is realized through meaningfulness . . .

K: This statement doesn't mean anything to me.

Meaning is a characteristic of consciousness.

Yes, so? I take it that we are talking about Human consciousness here, and if so, how does one know, or realize that one is ‘conscious’ if not through ‘meanings’.

I do realize that your definition of ‘consciousness’ is limited to may be a handful of masculine humans, and all rest is unconscious. Is that right?

Sapius wrote:

Consciousness is meaningful only if the conscious person believes it to be meaningful.

“Things just are what they are” – Do you believe this statement to be meaningful? Or do you meaningfully know it to be true?

Yes both times. I'm not sure what your point is.

S: If consciousness is realized through meaningfulness . . .

K: This statement doesn't mean anything to me.

Meaning is a characteristic of consciousness.

Yes, so?

Consciousness itself is realization.

To "realize" consciousness is to be consciously aware of something called consciousness. This doesn't particularly require any alottment of meanings. It is simply an observation of what appears to exist.

I take it that we are talking about Human consciousness here, and if so, how does one know, or realize that one is ‘conscious’ if not through ‘meanings’.

In the same way that you observe something and it appears to be whatever it appears to be. Things don't always appear to have a meaning.

I do realize that your definition of ‘consciousness’ is limited to may be a handful of masculine humans, and all rest is unconscious. Is that right?

All people are conscious to some degree, but their clarity of consciousness is generally extremely poor.

Kevin wrote,

K: Consciousness is meaningful only if the conscious person believes it to be meaningful.

S: “Things just are what they are” – Do you believe this statement to be meaningful? Or do you meaningfully know it to be true?

K: Yes both times. I'm not sure what your point is.

Well, let me put it this way then…

Consciousness is not meaningful if a conscious person believes it not be meaningful?

Consciousness itself is realization.

(and)

All people are conscious to some degree, but their clarity of consciousness is generally extremely poor.

If consciousness itself is realization, then what is the need of “clarity of consciousness”? What does ‘clarity of consciousness’ actually achieve? Isn't gaining more 'clarity of consciousness' through meaningful reasoning a gradual process towards realization? Or is simply consciousness = realization?

To "realize" consciousness is to be consciously aware of something called consciousness. This doesn't particularly require any alottment of meanings. It is simply an observation of what appears to exist.

What do you mean by consciousness? Reading your posts on other threads it seems to have different definitions at different times.

Are animals conscious to any degree? Has the word conscious got anything to do with the word consciousness in your books?

Sapius wrote:Consciousness is not meaningful if a conscious person believes it not be meaningful?

That's right. All meaning is assigned by consciousness.

Consciousness itself is realization.

(and)

All people are conscious to some degree, but their clarity of consciousness is generally extremely poor.

If consciousness itself is realization, then what is the need of “clarity of consciousness”? What does ‘clarity of consciousness’ actually achieve?

There is only a need of clarity of conscousness if a person feels a need for it. Clarity of consciousness achieves nothing except clarity of consciousness. This includes awareness of truth, ability to think logically in all circumstances, etc.

Isn't gaining more 'clarity of consciousness' through meaningful reasoning a gradual process towards realization? Or is simply consciousness = realization?

Yes, it happens gradually, but also in quantum leaps.

Unless a person reasons in the right manner and about the right things, their consciousness won't become any clearer.

To "realize" consciousness is to be consciously aware of something called consciousness. This doesn't particularly require any alottment of meanings. It is simply an observation of what appears to exist.

What do you mean by consciousness?

The recognition that a thing is itself and not something else. (eg, A=A)

Literally all errors in logic can be attributed to a lack of ability to recognize that a thing is itself and not something else.

Are animals conscious to any degree? Has the word conscious got anything to do with the word consciousness in your books?

We are most certainly animals, and our level of consciousness is not all that superior to that of dogs and cows.

Understanding this helps to explain everything happening in our world today.

All of our problems, including overpopulation, diseases like AIDS, pollution and climate change, the madness of religion and war, love and murder, etc, are the direct result of our lack of consciousness.

Kevin wrote;

All meaning is assigned by consciousness.

Agreed, so how meaningful is consciousness to you?

There is only a need of clarity of consciousness if a person feels a need for it.

Why do you say ‘a person feels a need’? Can’t one be logically inclined towards it? Is thinking logically, a ‘feeling’?

Clarity of consciousness achieves nothing except clarity of consciousness. This includes awareness of truth, ability to think logically in all circumstances, etc.

Wouldn’t approaching it logically in the first place create the clarity?

S: Isn't gaining more 'clarity of consciousness' through meaningful reasoning a gradual process towards realization? Or is simply consciousness = realization?

K: Yes, it happens gradually, but also in quantum leaps.

So, consciousness does not automatically mean realization, but comes in gradually or in quantum leaps through meaningful understandings.

S: What do you mean by consciousness?

K: The recognition that a thing is itself and not something else. (eg, A=A)

Literally all errors in logic can be attributed to a lack of ability to recognize that a thing is itself and not something else.

As in a tree is a tree and not something else? Ones definition has to be absolutely confused to not recognize that. In my experience, animals operate without definitions and yet find no difficulty in recognizing a thing for what it is. So is it that the ability to define creates confusions rather than clarity?

We are most certainly animals, and our level of consciousness is not all that superior to that of dogs and cows.

You mean that in a U.G.Krishnamurti sense? I do not agree to that part at all, neither would I consider any awareness to be “superior” to another, just different according to its own causality created conditions. Doesn’t the fact that you are able to meaningfully convey the message in your above sentence make you any different that a dog or a cow? Or is that a very minor difference?

However, I see that you do believe in levels of consciousness.

Understanding this (your above quote) helps to explain everything happening in our world today.

All of our problems, including overpopulation, diseases like AIDS, pollution and climate change, the madness of religion and war, love and murder, etc, are the direct result of our lack of consciousness.

In other words, recognizing that a thing is itself and not something else. (eg, A=A)?

Or do you mean understanding that our level of consciousness is not all that superior to animals explains our animal behavior? But they do not seem to have any such problems, so how animalistic is our behavior?

Sapius wrote:so how meaningful is consciousness to you?

Since my purpose is wisdom, consciousness means a great deal.

There is only a need of clarity of consciousness if a person feels a need for it.

Why do you say ‘a person feels a need’? Can’t one be logically inclined towards it? Is thinking logically, a ‘feeling’?

There is no logical reason why you should think logically. A person is drawn to it through feeling, or a tendency of thought.

Clarity of consciousness achieves nothing except clarity of consciousness. This includes awareness of truth, ability to think logically in all circumstances, etc.

Wouldn’t approaching it logically in the first place create the clarity?

A person cannot be properly logical until they achieve perfect clarity of consciousness. Until that time their logical ideas are somewhat confused, distorted, and unconnected - and to that extent are untrue.

A person will only tend to be logical in the first place if their feeling leads them in that direction.

Yes, it happens gradually, but also in quantum leaps.

So, consciousness does not automatically mean realization, but comes in gradually or in quantum leaps through meaningful understandings.

Clear consciousness means realization.

A dog, for example, probably has no consciousness that even remotely approaches clarity, and for that reason would have no realization at all.

S: What do you mean by consciousness?

K: The recognition that a thing is itself and not something else. (eg, A=A)

Literally all errors in logic can be attributed to a lack of ability to recognize that a thing is itself and not something else.

As in a tree is a tree and not something else?

Yes.

Ones definition has to be absolutely confused to not recognize that.

Yes, the definition is either confused or not made at all.

In my experience, animals operate without definitions and yet find no difficulty in recognizing a thing for what it is.

Animals recognize things but they don't do so consciously.

They perceive "A", but not "A=A".

Likewise with most humans, which explains why so many people are unable to perform even basic logic.

For example, a Christian might experience some kind of pleasant feeling while at Church, and call what they experienced "God", in a very direct, immediate sense. But in fact they have no real idea what this "God" is - which leads to many gross irrationalities.

Similarly with things like "love" and "family", etc.

So is it that the ability to define creates confusions rather than clarity?

Animals have a clarity and an immediacy, but they have a clarity and immediacy of unconsciousness. When we start making definitions - the beginning of consciousness - we lose our clarity. But when we become enlightened we gain it again, but this time in consciousness.

We are most certainly animals, and our level of consciousness is not all that superior to that of dogs and cows.

You mean that in a U.G.Krishnamurti sense?

I can't remember in what sense he talks about it.

Doesn’t the fact that you are able to meaningfully convey the message in your above sentence make you any different that a dog or a cow? Or is that a very minor difference?

Compared to enlightenment - full consciousness - the small amount of consciousness people generally have is not much different to dogs and cows. Their lives are ruled by food, sex, status squabbles, etc.

They have lots of fancy words and sentences, but don't actually say anything.

All of our problems, including overpopulation, diseases like AIDS, pollution and climate change, the madness of religion and war, love and murder, etc, are the direct result of our lack of consciousness.

In other words, recognizing that a thing is itself and not something else. (eg, A=A)?

Yes. All those problems are caused by our lack of ability to consciously recognize the existence of things.

Or do you mean understanding that our level of consciousness is not all that superior to animals explains our animal behavior? But they do not seem to have any such problems, so how animalistic is our behavior?

You can't have any problems if you aren't conscious. That's why so many people prefer that option.

Take cows for example. We have bred them over centuries to be more and more passive. Our aim has been to take all the fight out of them. And being unconscious, they can't do anything to fight back.

If they were conscious it would be a problem for them.

Similarly, we are currently depleting all the fish stocks of the oceans. That would be a problem for them if they knew about it.

Kevin wrote;

There is no logical reason why you should think logically.

How about, I am caused to think? At its core the basic requirement for thinking is logic, however, different reasonings result in different conclusions.

K: Clarity of consciousness achieves nothing except clarity of consciousness. This includes awareness of truth, ability to think logically in all circumstances, etc.

S: Wouldn’t approaching it logically in the first place create the clarity?

K: A person cannot be properly logical until they achieve perfect clarity of consciousness.

Have you said something there or am I just blind? So, how does one go about acquiring that clarity?

A person will only tend to be logical in the first place if their feeling leads them in that direction.

What feelings? The “feeling” that organized religion seems doubtful?

Clear consciousness means realization.

A dog, for example, probably has no consciousness that even remotely approaches clarity, and for that reason would have no realization at all.

That makes much sense in contrast to what you said earlier, ie, consciousness IS realization.

Animals recognize things but they don't do so consciously.

They perceive "A", but not "A=A".

I don’t think so. If they cannot perceive a thing for what it is, according to their own level of consciousness, they wouldn’t be able to interact with their environment in a coherent manner. It is only we who can define what we perceive, but essentially, A=A is a core ingredient of consciousness itself, but is not directly responsible for any individuals reasoning powers. Egotistical likes and dislikes hamper clear reasoning.

Likewise with most humans, which explains why so many people are unable to perform even basic logic.

For example, a Christian might experience some kind of pleasant feeling while at Church, and call what they experienced "God", in a very direct, immediate sense. But in fact they have no real idea what this "God" is - which leads to many gross irrationalities.

So is something wrong with logic? Or reasoning?

S: You mean that in a U.G.Krishnamurti sense?

K: I can't remember in what sense he talks about it.

Never mind then. Not that important.

Kevin Solway wrote: All of our problems, including overpopulation, diseases like AIDS, pollution and climate change, the madness of religion and war, love and murder, etc, are the direct result of our lack of consciousness.

I dunno boss, this is kind of a non sequitur. First off, there is no way to test the hypothesis. Secondly, even if there were it seems like an unattainable ideal, one of those "everything will be all right when {fill in the blank}". These are practical considerations for sure but not trivial. On a fundamental level, the Universe is readily observed to be a chaotic place with the cycle of birth and death in continuous action. Both are messy. It seems that conflict is woven into the basic fabric, so no matter how enlightened you are your life is sustained by the life of something else which may have wanted to keep it.

IMHO we Westerners take the universe much too personally. A bit of Asian fatalism has practical as well as spiritual benefits.

...

Xerox,

She understands from her experience of reality as a mother that the baby RULES. It rules from beneath. It has less 'physical' power but massive, over-bearing, uhm, 'reality' power. By which l mean the base power of the instinct to survive. Survival is utterly essential to existence, as we know it. l guess, it is existence, in its essence.

This is kind of a wild tangent, but I don't think survival is at all a factor in an individual organism's decisions. Evolution takes care of all that and the way it causes the individual to feign care about survival is through trickery and illusion.

For example, when we're hungry, we don't feel like we're going to die, we just feel pain and the desire to relieve it. The pain is caused by some chemical, some hormone or protein or something affecting the brain and "tricking" it into feeling pain. The feeling that we're going to die can only come after we've learned that hunger can kill us, otherwise there's just pain, which is meaningless in itself.

Just a thought.

xerox writes:

The male has greater body strength. He produces viable gametes into old age. The female has less strength and the clock is running. Quality of gametes deteriorates with age in both sexes along different curves. The females gametes bottom out at zero upon menopause (middle age). A mans might never hit zero until his death bed. Physical stuff which effects experience and mental programming.

You might be making the same species of mistake here as did Augustine, who thought that sperm were actually little people. Sexual reductionism never really makes it all the way to the heart of things. It commands for a distance, a time, but prior to it and 'after,' the human living thing is busy with its immediate ontology, its self, its identity, i.e. position in the greatest possible scheme of things (including how it secures this or fails). This activity occupies the wondering, sleepless child, as it does the disappointed adult, or the lifelong philosophical. One's juxtaposition to all other is as much, more, the fruited needs of the physical human as is its mating drives. Whilst life drives life, it also spends time in each its living, long before, and long after re-creation.

xerox:

What follows is... patriarchy is an illusion, weilded by the matriarchy, from beneath.

Patriarchy is that first great handshake system amongst early men to operate and ensure mating rights/patrimony without having to kill one another. It is the beginning of "civilized" man. and, what "matriarchy"?

Whenever I hear the intimation of the "feminized" age in which we live, I cannot help but think parallels to the genealogy of morals and the great transvaluation. In the situational position, jews as a group put against physical power the only thing with any potential to do any damage to it - cunning/ressentiment - and their very condition of weakness/meekness becomes the replacement value for base strength. For it is not the individual jew who is meek or weak: he too imagines himself king.

So too with women. Sub-ordinated to the affairs and concerns of base strength, cunning/ressentiment is the only effective parry, and in its most successful re-formation, the actual condition of the oppressed becomes the kind of values and qualities you really want to have. They too imagine themselves . . . . kings. Such is the sashay of power between the two-party dynamic (master/slave) with which humanity has not thought its way past. We assume that in all exchanges, there will be this doer and this done-to; this commander and commanded; the lover and the beloved. And in every case, there will be this individual sovereigncy sought - if not strong enough alone, then through the group. Such is the way "weak" and "strong" reveal themselves as partners of strange equality/dependency.

I take that will-to-power to underwrite more than the procreative compulsion. It, too, is the immediate ontology that concerns every living human from first to last - one's position in the scheme of things; one's power of effect upon same.

.

Interesting conversation, I hope to be able to read it more thoroughly later. Some of it remeinds me of an odd idea I heard from some Hindu religionist: that looked at through the lens of their metaphysical system the earth is known as a 'devi-loka'*, an essentially female place. I can't remember much of what he said and haven't found any decent links to anyone who develops the idea (which is outlandish and sort of loaded from the start), but the gist is that, here, there is no truly independent male energy or organism, as all beings and processes serve the ongoing processes of Nature. Of course in his view, and the view of this religious system, freedom is sought in 'breaking free' of this 'enslavement' to the female, to the woman, and the only way this is done is through spiritual life. In his view, like it or not, accept it or not, all men serve the female of the species even if they apear to overrule her, control her, direct her, decide for her and limit her choices and activities. In this view, like it or not, he is a servant of the female. This man was from the Vaishnava religion (worshipper of Vishnu and Vishnu's incarnation) and so in this system the way out of this cycle would be to directly worship Vishnu, avoid or renounce reproduction, and sort of re-engineer oneself out of this 'loka' or sphere.

Some of this sounds sort of like some of the stuff some people on this list are talking about, fantasizing about.

(Now, last I heard my informant, Mr Gopal-Krishna of New Dehli, had left his post at university and was touring Western Europe and the Near East on a hopped-up Norton. My question: Is he roaring down those back roads with a beautiful girl on the back? It would seem relevant).
_______________________________________

*A 'loka' is a 'sphere', a 'world' or planet among many different worlds and planets, or a world of a specific degree of either 'spiritual' or 'material' nature. For instance in that system there are dense 'material' planets, and finer 'spiritual planets'. Deva means presiding spirit, and devi is the female gender of the same. According to this view femininity is the norm, masculinity the exception.

...

Dworkin says,

Dworkin stops being female in this book and suggests that all women must begin to stop being women as constructed by men, for their integrity and survival.

stops being female eh? suggests that all women must stop being women as constructed by men eh? Sooo... women are originally passive and without form?

The subjects in this thread are covered quite extensively in the most recent Reasoning Show episode. I'm sure some of you would get a lot out of it.

-

Herr Faust,

I posted the link because I get the impression 'round these parts that some seem to want to break with the 'female' (which becomes such a broad category, aesthetic and almost metaphysical, as well as just 'the girl next door') that I am reminded of people on the other side like Dworkin, whose paranoia and projection reaches mystical proportions. She is a radical lesbian anti-men feminist, and so what is there on the other pole, I ask? Anti-female adolescents who have problems with the very existence of the pussy and, like gays, sort of shun female company and strut around in highly polished knee-high boots with chrome buckles, and develop all this metaphysic against 'the female', and conflate all disturbing things in our world with women. These are two poles of absurdity, no?

All these problems were of course worked out so long ago by Captain Pissgums and his Pervert Pirates...

http://pjdonovan.tripod.com/comics/captpg.htm

It requires exegesis of course that I will happily provide.

Faust, what are your thoughts on pussy, if you don't mind me asking? Like it, hate it. indifferent?