GENIUS FORUMS

To realize that there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong" is to also be without desire - the two mind states complement each other interchangeably.

it is to be without a desire for love and morals,but Ego is subsequent to Desire - love for the self.
"I desire" is all of life.they are born of necessity,by sincerity of belief and striving for realization,though always through the fictional supposition from reality.

when you believe that something is right or wrong ,you believe the assumptions in the event/words that express the arguments.such assumptions are often full of holes,but remain most precious to the convinced.

ideas of Self in conflict can not be slain,by resistance they are a reality.

Desire arises from an almost masochistic sense of shame, brought on by a need to pacify a wavering ego.
In reality, there is nothing but the mind. You're a zero, divided into a one. (or 1/1). There's really only what is "good" and what is "bad" - and these adjectives become clearer once desire has been vanquished from the mind.

our obedience to an inherent fatalism hangs on "good and bad" actions which are already commited in past event to some preserved morality(the elemental morality,or fear of displeasing).this gives our expressions of spontaneity and other common behaviours when the chance arises.
so,the majority of our actions is traceable to a subconscious desire (for freedom) in conflict with habit.
the rest is by some traditional moral doctrine partly to time this reactions.of origin,an idea that was then considered good or bad....maximising pleasure by some compromise of choosing to do something about it.
this moral code is a dramatised parody of the conceptive faculty.but it does not allow for change or feeling of perfection.
etC,etc.
get away with your unclear conscience,make room.the centre of belief is love for one's self.

Just experienced your post, bert.

Thanks.

Sapius, furthering our discussion about the emotions, I’m interested to know how you think they arise.

You did write that you thought -

‘emotional feelings’... are a state of mind, because one cannot reason oneself into it; it’s the high value one places over something, be it logical, which creates strong emotional feelings towards it. For example say Truth.

Which suggests firstly that they are out of our control: “one cannot reason oneself into it”, and then secondly that they are under our control: “the high value one places over something…which creates strong emotional feelings towards it”. These two ideas seem to contradict each other – so, which is it – are we in the driver’s seat controlling the emotions, or are we just passengers, and the emotions are driving us?

We were also discussing the “feminine nature” of the emotions. I’d said that conscious people can use the emotions without being reduced to insanity.

You asked:

It is the conscious minded people who define it as a “feminine” trait, so how does its nature change simply by its use by a conscious mind?

Though the emotions are definitely part of the Feminine; that doesn’t make them completely worthless. Someone who is developing philosophically can focus all his emotional desire into that development without falling blindly into those emotions. You can compartmentalize the mind to use those emotions that are necessary to steer you forwards into a closer relationship with Truth, and suppress the other emotions that would have you falter from that path.

You questioned:

How does its basic nature change when (used) directed towards ‘logical or illogical’ purposes? It still remains ‘feminine’ in nature.

Only a conscious person can correctly discriminate whether or not a purpose is “logical or illogical”, for they use as their benchmark their knowledge of Reality. For example, they know that the emotions need an inherently existing self to be able to arise, and that due to causality, such a ‘self’ does not exist.

But Sapius, below, you seem to be implying that conscious individuals are just being vain by stating that they have a very different relationship with the emotions than do unconscious people:

I believe it is the phobia against the word ‘feminine’ that the masculine minded people dread to associate with, otherwise it the strength of both that one needs

This is clearly not the case. The masculine minded person uses the emotions, but he does so consciously. He knows intellectually that without a ‘self’, the emotions have nowhere to call home. So during his development towards Ultimate Enlightenment he continues to experience emotions, but his intellectual understanding of their illusionary nature allows him to suppress them. By doing this, he is able to develop and deepen his thinking, making it easier for him to cut through into his core beliefs of inherently existing things. Once that core has been thoroughly cut away, the emotions are left completely homeless, and do not arise again.

-

So the masculine does need to have a close relationship with the feminine, for he needs to know her through and through to be able to overcome her.

-
Sue

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Though the emotions are definitely part of the Feminine; that doesn’t make them completely worthless. Someone who is developing philosophically can focus all his emotional desire into that development without falling blindly into those emotions. You can compartmentalize the mind to use those emotions that are necessary to steer you forwards into a closer relationship with Truth, and suppress the other emotions that would have you falter from that path.

I wonder then if it is possible for computers and machines to ever come to understand Ultimate Reality the way an enlightened human being would, since emotions tend to light the fire of men, pushing them towards their goals. If machines continue to be designed as nothing more than super calculators, it seems they would lack that initial emotional discontentment required to push them along to loftier heights. Unless humans delibaretely designed a program that caused the machine to experience emotion similiar to that of men then I don't see them ever being able to surpass a human's understanding of Ultimate Reality. At best the only answer a super machine could give us to a question such as, "What is reality?" would be a sideways 8.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:For example, they know that the emotions need an inherently existing self to be able to arise, and that due to causality, such a ‘self’ does not exist.

Emotions don't necessarilly need an inherently existing self to be able to rise. I experience emotions and I observe emotions in others without any inherently existing self(s). Certainly once one realizes that there isn't anything that inherently exists many emotions will cease. But this doesn't change the fact that emotions existed prior to this realization without an inherent self.

I think it would be more accurate to say that emotions require a false belief in an inherently existing self in order to arise. Although even after one does realize there is no inherently existing self he may still experience emotions. He may not lose himself to them, but he feels them. I think the more deeply one connects with the ideal that there is no inherently existing self, the less likely he is to buy into emotions and lose himself to them.

Nick Treklis wrote:Emotions don't necessarilly need an inherently existing self to be able to rise.

True. When an individual walks into a room or a crowd of people where there is a predominant emotion, that person is likely to experience that emotion to some extent as well with no "individual" reason, and usually without knowing the reason that the group is experiencing the emotion.

Elizabeth,

We can never know with any certainty what other people are experiencing, for we are unable to go outside of our own minds and take a look. They could well be experiencing some emotion, or as you say, a room of people could be emitting an emotion – but always it is one’s own mind that is creating this experience, so we can’t be 100% sure that our interpretation is correct.

-
Sue

Nick wrote:

I wonder then if it is possible for computers and machines to ever come to understand Ultimate Reality the way an enlightened human being would, since emotions tend to light the fire of men, pushing them towards their goals. If machines continue to be designed as nothing more than super calculators, it seems they would lack that initial emotional discontentment required to push them along to loftier heights. Unless humans delibaretely designed a program that caused the machine to experience emotion similiar to that of men then I don't see them ever being able to surpass a human's understanding of Ultimate Reality. At best the only answer a super machine could give us to a question such as, "What is reality?" would be a sideways 8.

It is interesting to consider the thought that we are all “computers and machines” that Nature has programmed – some of us are to know its wondrous glories, others will not.

Sue: For example, they know that the emotions need an inherently existing self to be able to arise, and that due to causality, such a ‘self’ does not exist.

Emotions don't necessarilly need an inherently existing self to be able to rise. I experience emotions and I observe emotions in others without any inherently existing self(s). Certainly once one realizes that there isn't anything that inherently exists many emotions will cease. But this doesn't change the fact that emotions existed prior to this realization without an inherent self.

As you say, even though you have an intellectual understanding of the fact that no ‘self’ exists inherently, your deeper core attachment to inherently existing things remains. Of course ‘you’ are not ‘experiencing’ emotions, nor are ‘others’. Neither ‘you’, nor ‘others’ exist inherently to experience anything.

I think it would be more accurate to say that emotions require a false belief in an inherently existing self in order to arise. Although even after one does realize there is no inherently existing self he may still experience emotions. He may not lose himself to them, but he feels them. I think the more deeply one connects with the ideal that there is no inherently existing self, the less likely he is to buy into emotions and lose himself to them.

The more deeply you know that things have no inherent existence, the less you are under the sway of the emotions. Destroy completely those core delusions, and there is no ‘self’ for the emotions to cling to.

-
Sue

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Elizabeth,

We can never know with any certainty what other people are experiencing, for we are unable to go outside of our own minds and take a look. They could well be experiencing some emotion, or as you say, a room of people could be emitting an emotion – but always it is one’s own mind that is creating this experience, so we can’t be 100% sure that our interpretation is correct.

-
Sue

That is correct. I was generalizing.

Sue,

As I read along your post I had my views and explanations on your questions, but then I read down to your reply to Nick, and just as before I have to ask you again to clear your mind on a certain issue, which is… Is all literally an illusion? Does saying non-inherent (non-permanent) mean that nothing exits in whatsoever form in and of any causally created moment?

Sapius, furthering our discussion about the emotions, I’m interested to know how you think they arise.

And how would that really matter to an un-experiencing self?

You wrote to Nick…

Of course ‘you’ are not ‘experiencing’ emotions, nor are ‘others’. Neither ‘you’, nor ‘others’ exist inherently to experience anything.

Then why should I bother talking to a thing that does not experience? I take it you include YOURSELF in the above.

Another thing… you wrote to Nick…

As you say, even though you have an intellectual understanding of the fact that no ‘self’ exists inherently, your deeper core attachment to inherently existing things remains.

You wrote to Elizabeth…

We can never know with any certainty what other people are experiencing, for we are unable to go outside of our own minds and take a look.

And yet you KNOW the deeper core attachments of Nick… ? I don't think you have any idea of what he is talking about on emotions.

The more deeply you know that things have no inherent existence, the less you are under the sway of the emotions. Destroy completely those core delusions, and there is no ‘self’ for the emotions to cling to.

And hence, so would your logic and reasoning have no ‘self’ to cling to either. So what do they cling to?

For example, they know that the emotions need an inherently existing self to be able to arise, and that due to causality, such a ‘self’ does not exist.

And I know that the same causality creates an individual self. On the other hand, if what you say is true, and you know for sure that things do not inherently exist, then how come you see emotions around and question it? If emotions need an inherently existing self, and you say that things do not inherently exit, then emotions don’t either. I mean, why bother questioning about them…

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:Emotions don't necessarilly need an inherently existing self to be able to rise.

True. When an individual walks into a room or a crowd of people where there is a predominant emotion, that person is likely to experience that emotion to some extent as well with no "individual" reason, and usually without knowing the reason that the group is experiencing the emotion.

How could you say there is no individual reason? If a person isn't consciously aware of the reason, does that mean there is no reason? Couldn't they be picking up on the groups body language and his or her empathetic tendency could be the reason why they are experienceing that emotion. I just don't get this, now emotions aren't real either? How am I suspose to determine what is real and what is not real? And how does nonexistence exist for us to call it nonexistence? What is this nonexistence? Something that doesn't exist? Then how did we think about it? How does Totality equate nothing? If Totality equated nothing, than what is the point of talking about nothing? I'm sorry, can someone please explain this stuff to a Newbie.

the bird wrote:How could you say there is no individual reason? If a person isn't consciously aware of the reason, does that mean there is no reason?

You left out the quotation marks I put around the term "individual" and I could have phrased that more clearly (although I thought that referencing Nick's quote about not needing an inherently existing self would have sufficiently defined what I meant by "individual" reason.

By "no 'individual' reason," I did mean as you said:

Couldn't they be picking up on the groups body language and his or her empathetic tendency

meaning the emotion manifesting in the individual was part of a group response, rather than the individual having his or her own independant emotion resulting from a reason originating in that individual's life experience.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

the bird wrote:How could you say there is no individual reason? If a person isn't consciously aware of the reason, does that mean there is no reason?

You left out the quotation marks I put around the term "individual" and I could have phrased that more clearly (although I thought that referencing Nick's quote about not needing an inherently existing self would have sufficiently defined what I meant by "individual" reason.

By "no 'individual' reason," I did mean as you said:

Couldn't they be picking up on the groups body language and his or her empathetic tendency

meaning the emotion manifesting in the individual was part of a group response, rather than the individual having his or her own independant emotion resulting from a reason originating in that individual's life experience.

It just seems to me like it would be that the person responded to the group which produced the emotion. So that person did have their own independent emotion resulting from a reason that originated in that individual's life experience. So without the person's individual sensory perceptions, how would that person even realize that there was a group? That person might not share the same reason that others are feeling that emotion. He could just feel what he thinks the others are feeling. How do you even know they are all experiencing the same emotion? I would think that it would be logical to assume that person was empathizing with the group which results in the individual feeling the emotion that he or she percieves the group to be experiencing.

This seems to be more of a communication challenge than a disagreement. If you wish, exchage the word "individual" with "primary" because I am trying to communicate a concept using only words, and the connotations and denotations may differ slightly between the writer and the reader.

Let me try an illustrative story:

Joe was out on a business trip on Wednesday, and unreachable Wednesday night. Wednesday afternoon, Alan (Joe's coworker and good friend) had a fatal heart attack at work. Joe drove to the office on Thursday, and because he is a positive sort of fellow (a very "individual" emotion because that is his individual basic nature), he glad to be back to his usual routine.
(here, Joe is having an "individual" emotion)

Joe opens the door and immediatly does not feel glad anymore. He does not see anything unusual, but he is getting a growing sensation of uneasiness.
(here, he is having a sensation that is not "individual," but he is having the feeling himself despite not having any cues he conciously is aware of. There may be subtle cues, like a different level of background noise, that his subconcious is aware of - or maybe it's just an intuitive/psychic sense)

Mary and Jack walk around the corner and see Joe, and Joe sees them. Their expressions tell Joe that something is indeed wrong.
(their expressions are not really enough to [IMO] effect a direct emotional experience, but it could produce an indirect emotional experience. This could be considered semi-individual, because Joe could interpret their expressions as something that could possibly have something to do with him.)

Jack tells Joe that Alan died. Joe is grief-striken.
(Joe is now having an "individual" emotional reaction.)

That afternoon, Bob returns from his training session. Bob notes that everyone in the office is sad or gruff. Mary explains that Alan died. Bob met Alan on Monday, and had found him to be a rather unpleasant man (Alan had not been feeling like himself for a few days prior to his heart attack). Bob states "Oh, I'm sorry to hear that." Everyone behaves professionally to Bob, yet by the end of the day, Bob feels drained.
(Bob is having an emotional reaction because of being in the group, it is nothing that originated within Bob)

IMO, we are all like cells of the same body. If you stub your toe, you only hit the end of your toe, yet the areas adjacent to the end of your toe also hurt. This is kind of like empathy. If you stubbed your toe well enough to break it, you will feel nauseous. You did not injure your stomache, but an individual part can effect the whole body. It is the same with the Totality.

the bird wrote:How do you even know they are all experiencing the same emotion?

They might not be, but the group emotion can change the emotion that the individual is feeling. The change is what i was looking at, not the exact emotion.

the bird wrote:So without the person's individual sensory perceptions, how would that person even realize that there was a group?

They wouldn't. As I said to Sue, I was generalizing.

Well, I now have a better understanding of what you meant. I wouldn't call it a disagreement, but I still don't feel that there is sufficient evidence to support that whatever emotions are felt by a person are not caused by their individual or primary life experiences. You see, I would like to think that what we are consciously aware of, is like a spot light. Our brain is still processing the darkness whether we are aware of it or not. So did Joe have some telepathic connection to the group, or did his brain process something in the background of his conscious awareness? Did he see the faces, and postures of his coworkers and recognize a change. Did he hear something in the tone of their voices as he approached the door? I can't really know what produced that emotion in him. But it would seem that either of those experiences is an individual experience that results in his feeling an emotion. I just think there was somekind of communication between him and the group. This communication could be his primary individual reason for experiencing the emotion. So I hope that clarifies what I was getting at.

the bird wrote:So did Joe have some telepathic connection to the group, or did his brain process something in the background of his conscious awareness?

It does not matter. The experience was what it was, whatever the method of perception.

the bird wrote:This communication could be his primary individual reason for experiencing the emotion. So I hope that clarifies what I was getting at.

I think we are saying the same thing, but it is only a matter of semantics on how it is coming out. Like breaking a toe and getting an upset stomache from the broken bone. It is the stomache that is upset, but it is the toe that is broken - and the stomache would not be upset had the bone not broken. The semantics are not important because however we regard, label, or define the experience, it does not materially change anything.

An effect still is, even though it would not have been had it not been for the cause.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

the bird wrote:So did Joe have some telepathic connection to the group, or did his brain process something in the background of his conscious awareness?

It does not matter. The experience was what it was, whatever the method of perception.

the bird wrote:This communication could be his primary individual reason for experiencing the emotion. So I hope that clarifies what I was getting at.

I think we are saying the same thing, but it is only a matter of semantics on how it is coming out. Like breaking a toe and getting an upset stomache from the broken bone. It is the stomache that is upset, but it is the toe that is broken - and the stomache would not be upset had the bone not broken. The semantics are not important because however we regard, label, or define the experience, it does not materially change anything.

An effect still is, even though it would not have been had it not been for the cause.
.

Of course, but what I'm saying is that there is a difference between what caused the breaking in the toe, and what caused the aching in the stomach. You see when you say "individual" or "stomach", you are distinguishing one part from the whole. So you it is logical to assume that there is an idividual reason why the stomach is aching and why the toe is hurting. It's like a pathway of cause and effect, the toe is at the beginning of that chain so it will have a more direct reason for being affected. Together the toe and the stomach share the same collective reason for being affected, but they also have their own idividual reason as well because they are at different parts of the pathway. Do you see the difference in what I'm saying? Or is there only a difference because I'm not interpreting what you say accurately? You see, if there was a breakdown in the communication between the stomach and the toe, there would be no stomach ache. So the individual cause of the stomach ache was actually the communication with the broken toe and not the breaking of the toe.

The fact that nothing can inherently exists means that nothing can exist in a non-causual way that is some how seperate from everything else. No matter how you slice and dice reality, it still remains one totality. It's simply convenient for us to divide up reality in order to express ourselves and interact more efficiently with the rest of the totality. The problem is that most people make the irrational decision to become emotionally attached to these illusions, or pieces of the totality. This emotional attachment helped our ancestors survive, but we are now capable of raising our consciousness beyond the animal realms. Still, it is easier said than done...

Sapius,

You say that:

causality creates an individual self

But then you shut your mind down and will not look at the consequences of this fact.

If emotions need an inherently existing self, and you say that things do not inherently exit, then emotions don’t either. I mean, why bother questioning about them…

Things are causally created: that is, they depend on everything else for their existence. For example, ‘mind’ is nothing if it is separated from all those things that cause it to be ‘mind’. Therefore, the ‘mind’ doesn’t just need a brain, a nervous system, and a body – it is these things. Also, it doesn’t just need oxygen, sunlight, gravity, food and water – it is these things. Everything it hears, feels, says, knows, sees, questions, tastes and smells is not just a part of it – these are also ‘mind’. And all those things: oxygen, food, hearing, etc, are also dependent on ‘mind’ for their existence – meaning that ‘mind’ and these things are one and the same thing. We are also caused to divide the world into separate things: chair, cat, water, etc – but that doesn’t mean that any of these things are truly separate – for if they were, the mind and these things, would not be able to interact with each other.

All this, you say you know - for you say, “causality creates” – yet you cannot accept that things have no inherent existence? Then what do you think the consequences of causality are?

-
Sue

sschaula, you said:

Because the illusory self is the one applying. A fire can't extinguish itself.

Sometimes the best way to stop a fire is to create another (back) fire. Paradoxes are often self-referential, but "truth" can sometimes be extracted from them; in fact they often expose nearness to potential breakthroughs such as paradigm shifts; isn't this one of Douglas Hofstadter's concepts in "Goedel, Escher, Bach"?

Nick Treklis wrote:The fact that nothing can inherently exists means that nothing can exist in a non-causual way that is some how seperate from everything else. No matter how you slice and dice reality, it still remains one totality. It's simply convenient for us to divide up reality in order to express ourselves and interact more efficiently with the rest of the totality. The problem is that most people make the irrational decision to become emotionally attached to these illusions, or pieces of the totality. This emotional attachment helped our ancestors survive, but we are now capable of raising our consciousness beyond the animal realms. Still, it is easier said than done...

So why is it irrational to become emotional attached to what you call an illusion. What makes you think you are not deluded in thinking that you can understand this Totality that you speak of? What makes you think that the we are above or beyond the animal realms? I thought the idea is that we are all the totality. So how are you above anyone or anything if we are all totality? So you are detaching yourself from your human nature in hopes of becoming something beyond. Why not live life appreciating the human experience? It is short lived, and you will always exist as the totality. So is the idea to detach yourself from all desire? Is that possible? If not, where do you draw the line. Are trying to induce a coma? How would you overcome the desire to eat, sleep, or breath? Are you attached to the concept of your Totality?

Sue,

All this, you say you know - for you say, “causality creates” – yet you cannot accept that things have no inherent existence? Then what do you think the consequences of causality are?

‘Things have no inherent existence’ for me does not mean things do not exist in whatsoever form at the same time. The consequences of causality are not only one sided from which you prefer to operate, hence you often see contradictions. One will always see a contradiction if one cannot see things from both the sides.

Things are causally created: that is, they depend on everything else for their existence.

Yes, things DEPEND on other THINGS for their existence.

For example, ‘mind’ is nothing if it is separated from all those things that cause it to be ‘mind’.

What do you mean by separated? Things are separate but not disconnected. If you mean disconnected, then sure, but so would be any thing for that matter.

Therefore, the ‘mind’ doesn’t just need a brain, a nervous system, and a body – it is these things.

Hold on a minute! How did you jump from dependency of things to them being the same thing as what we define as ‘mind’? Can you define mind? What exactly is ‘mind’ according to you?

Also, it doesn’t just need oxygen, sunlight, gravity, food and water – it is these things.
Everything it hears, feels, says, knows, sees, questions, tastes and smells is not just a part of it – these are also ‘mind’.

So is ‘mind’ some sort of a spiritual entity? Universal Consciousness?

And all those things: oxygen, food, hearing, etc, are also dependent on ‘mind’ for their existence – meaning that ‘mind’ and these things are one and the same thing.

Again, how does dependency of thing(s) make them one and the same thing?

We are also caused to divide the world into separate things: chair, cat, water, etc – but that doesn’t mean that any of these things are truly separate

No, WE are not caused to separate things, WE are caused to detect that which is separate, (individual by definition), and realize through caused reasoning that all things have the same basic nature, which we see through causality, but are NOT one and the same thing, by definition.

for if they were, (separated), the mind and these things, would not be able to interact with each other.

The Causal RELATIONSHIP facilitates interaction of causally created individual THINGS. IF they were NOT separated as causally created individual things, what would be interacting then?

(spelling)

the bird wrote:So why is it irrational to become emotional attached to what you call an illusion.

Because they are in fact illusions. There's just simply nothing there to get all emotional about, making it irrational.

the bird wrote:What makes you think you are not deluded in thinking that you can understand this Totality that you speak of?

It's not so much about merely thinking you can understand the Totality, it's about actually knowing the Totality. The simplest way to explain it would be A=A.

the bird wrote:What makes you think that the we are above or beyond the animal realms?

Well I wouldn't say I'm certain we are above the animals realms, I can only be certain about whether I am above the animal realms.

the bird wrote:I thought the idea is that we are all the totality. So how are you above anyone or anything if we are all totality?

Well it depends what you mean by "above". When I'm saying we can rise above the animal realms it's simply stating that we can attain a deeper consciosness capable of realizing the Truth. In no way does this violate the fact that we are part of the totality.

the bird wrote:So you are detaching yourself from your human nature in hopes of becoming something beyond.

No I'm detaching myself from my animal nature with the intention of becoming what it truly means to be human.

the bird wrote:Why not live life appreciating the human experience?

That's exactly what I'm doing, which is why it is necessary to expose the "animal experiences" for the ignorant behavior it is.

the bird wrote:It is short lived, and you will always exist as the totality. So is the idea to detach yourself from all desire? Is that possible? If not, where do you draw the line. Are trying to induce a coma? How would you overcome the desire to eat, sleep, or breath?

I'm not attempting to detach myself from desire, I am only seeking the Truth in order to eliminate ignorance. In the process it will eliminate certain desires, simply because these desires were rooted in ignorance.

the bird wrote:Are you attached to the concept of your Totality?

Emotionally no, logically yes. I'm attached to it in the same way I am attached the the number 2 being the correct answer to the equation 1+1. Although I don't think attached would be the best word to describe it, because all I am doing is recognizing and accepting a logical Truth simply for what it is, a fact.

Because they are in fact illusions. There's just simply nothing there to get all emotional about, making it irrational.

You aren't very clear when explaining your logic are you? So are you saying that it is irrational to think of oneself as an individual? Is perception always an illusion? What is not an illusion? How do you know for a fact it is not a illusion? Please don't tell me because it's a fact. That doesn't help me any. So if someone murdered your entire family, there would be nothing for you to get emotional about?

It's not so much about merely thinking you can understand the Totality, it's about actually knowing the Totality. The simplest way to explain it would be A=A.

What makes you certain that you know this totality? A=A huh? Sometimes the simplist way to explain things isn't always the most effective.

Well I wouldn't say I'm certain we are above the animals realms, I can only be certain about whether I am above the animal realms.

What makes you certain of this? Why does it seem that you think that this truth you are seeking is going to make you any more superior than anything else?

Well it depends what you mean by "above". When I'm saying we can rise above the animal realms it's simply stating that we can attain a deeper consciosness capable of realizing the Truth. In no way does this violate the fact that we are part of the totality.

So to dig deeper, you must rise above? hmm. You like to use the word fact. What does it take for you to consider something a fact?

No I'm detaching myself from my animal nature with the intention of becoming what it truly means to be human.

How do you know what it truly means to be human?

That's exactly what I'm doing, which is why it is necessary to expose the "animal experiences" for the ignorant behavior it is.

So feeling emotions is ignorant? I do see a benefit of understanding behavior. I just think it is an illusion for you to think that you can always be in control of your "animal experiences".

Emotionally no, logically yes. I'm attached to it in the same way I am attached the the number 2 being the correct answer to the equation 1+1. Although I don't think attached would be the best word to describe it, because all I am doing is recognizing and accepting a logical Truth simply for what it is, a fact.

What is this fact about totality?

Bird, I appreciate your questions and I wall attend to them ASAP. In the mean time I have to tend to some work and I will continue this discussion at the most convenient time.