GENIUS FORUMS

passthrough wrote:he cannot reproduce without a woman.

With the progress of genetic engineering, it will be possible to reproduce without women.

I am not quite sure why you favor the masculine when it is not whole without the feminine. They are equalizers.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Imagine there as a community of spiritual, scientific men living happily on the moon, and reproducing through genetic engineering. Why would they not be "whole"? Why do you think they will inherently fail?

It is humanity that screws around with the perfect nature of this wholeness.

Nature is changing all the time. Species become extinct and new ones regularly take their place. There's no such thing as "perfection" or "balance". Things just are what they are.

In this mating [that should be for life]

It is extremely unlikely that humans evolved for monogamy.

What I cannot seem to understand is the successful male, who marries, has two children, raises these children into adulthood

Successful in whose eyes, his wife's?

So far as Nature is concerned, the successful male is the one who can impregnate hundreds of young and healthy women and have other men sacrifice their lives to pay for and rear his children - in the manner of the cuckoo.

Business is a kind of war in which men go out and kill for the sake of being attractive to women.

I don’t agree with this at all. Masculinity, by definition, is ambitious, competitive and goal oriented.

Men are machines which are programmed to be this way so they can attract a mate for breeding.

I also find it interesting how men lose their masculine nature as they age

This is because their testosterone levels are diminished.

.

Kevin writes:

Women approve of killing others at least as much as men do, but women are able to tell men to go and do the killing for them.

Men are told to go kill -- under threat of punishment -- from that self-same patriarchy that considers them expendable competitors in the main activity of securing breeding & property. These are "acceptable losses," knocking out a bit of the breeding competition so the system can stay in place for the remaining benefactors (and all the objects - women - are still safe). This is patriarchal ordering, and who "tells" young men to go fight and die are dudes in suits and ties, dudes in turbans, dudes with epaulettes, dudes in boardrooms, oval offices, and the chieftain's hut, all across history, dudes one and all, and with the fire-power and law to see that it is carried out. Yeah, okay, there's been a patriarchal queen or two expending these infinitely expendable males.

Patriarchy, like religion, must have been useful like training wheels for tottering into humanity, but the losers in it now are 100% of the women and 99% of the men. I am often astonished at males not understanding the disservice the dregs of this system provide them, whilst it secures for a select few their epaulettes and their boardrooms where they can chess-piece people at their will and for their own gains. And in the process, keep the god-almighty family and family values in place by dangling the carrots of breeding rights and property in front of all males as their ultimate projects in life. And if each of these males in their turn do not gain the carrot of wife, family, property (or even if he does), he has on the side easy access to breeding behaviour with brothels and babes wherever he looks. Keeping you drunk on bread and circuses.

David writes:

But I can't really think of this as a "patriarchy", mainly because the laws and agreements were reactionary in nature and didn't issue forth out of a deep-sighted, masculine intelligence . . . .
In short, the term "patriarchy" implies a level of consciousness and discipline in men which isn't really there.

David, apparently your love of men takes you to the point of connecting high consciousness with any word involving males. But okay, if you want more consciousness attached to the persistence of patriarchy, you need only look at the countries and governments of history; the laws and codes; the corporate boardrooms and the watchful pulpits to see the fruits of men's activity about this business of breeding and territory. It's very involved; it's everywhere in evidence; the cornerstone and drive of so much male activity. But frankly, I rather like staying on the less-conscious side for this, too, because the consciousness is so low on this phenomenon that most men are not aware that it exists. But that's how it is with deeply embedded things.

David:

A lot women these days are attached to the ideal of the "goddess". Many of them become New Agey and seek to "worship the goddess inside them". And indeed, almost all women are slaves to their conception of what a perfect woman should be, a conception that resembles the traditional goddess ideal. Are you saying women have unwittingly absorbed this conception from men and are worshiping what is, in effect, a foreign ideal?

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - encouraging for women (or men) in this scenario. It's the same old thing that all patriarchy brings about in compensatory goddess culture. It's the same object-desire; the same placation and de-humanization, only in this women are doing their own mouthpiecing, instead of waiting around for males to canonize them. There is nothing about what you guys call the "feminization" of the universe that has anything whatsoever to do in support of autonomous females. Nothing about it is working "on her side," or, "putting her in control." There is nothing in these goddessy things that encourages the personhood of the women who soak in it, or the men who soak in her. It's the thing folded back on itself; another way to pander to a singular value standard for and to women, based on the desires of the motive men. I don't know how one could take a look at any form of pseudo-religious pandering and suggest that it's a benefit to the human who sports it or that any real power therein lies. That's just, I don't know, hard to believe any one, at least here, would think that. Such a need, such a behavior, bespeaks of and to humans in the least vital of conditions.


.

Kevin,

That doesn't matter really because business isn't necessarily a kind of war. It can rightly be considered a form of cooperation. I specialize in oats and you specialize in cheese. Let's do business.

beebuddy wrote:That doesn't matter really because business isn't necessarily a kind of war. It can rightly be considered a form of cooperation. I specialize in oats and you specialize in cheese. Let's do business.

The production of oats and the cheese might be destroying the environment as effectively as nuclear fallout.

Also you will have competitors who are trying to steal your business (say, in oats), just as you are trying to defend your own business against them and also trying to steal at least some of theirs.

There is life and death in business just as in war.

These things might not be happening consciously, but they are happening.

That's inane. All of it. It's hard to tell where to begin, so I won't.

Pye wrote:Patriarchy, like religion, must have been useful like training wheels for tottering into humanity, but the losers in it now are 100% of the women and 99% of the men. I am often astonished at males not understanding the disservice the dregs of this system provide them, whilst it secures for a select few their epaulettes and their boardrooms where they can chess-piece people at their will and for their own gains.

I'm mostly with you there, Pye. There are an elite few who dominate.

But if there is a 1% of males who benefit from it, is there not also at least a 1% of females that benefit from it - their wives, for instance? I think it would be hard to argue that a Melinda Gates or a Hillary Clinton is oppressed (compared to the average man).

Pye wrote:

Patriarchy, like religion, must have been useful like training wheels for tottering into humanity, but the losers in it now are 100% of the women and 99% of the men. I am often astonished at males not understanding the disservice the dregs of this system provide them, whilst it secures for a select few their epaulettes and their boardrooms where they can chess-piece people at their will and for their own gains.

Unfortunately, it is probably genetically ingrained in us. Our evolution as a species over the past few million years has depended on the male successfully playing the protector/warrior role. The male collective protecting the tribe (which is essentially what "patriarchy" is) has been critical to our survival as a species.

Because Western society currently seems well-established and prosperous, it is easy to fall into the illusion that patriarchy is an out-dated system which is no longer needed. Yet all it takes is a sufficient threat to our way of life for it to suddenly revert to how it was before. Indeed, we are already seeing signs of this with the emerging Islamic terrorist threat. The West is already becoming more old-fashioned, right-winged and conservative in response.

Still, it's all driven by feminine interests. That fact never changes.

DQ: But I can't really think of this as a "patriarchy", mainly because the laws and agreements were reactionary in nature and didn't issue forth out of a deep-sighted, masculine intelligence . . . .
In short, the term "patriarchy" implies a level of consciousness and discipline in men which isn't really there.

P: David, apparently your love of men takes you to the point of connecting high consciousness with any word involving males.
But okay, if you want more consciousness attached to the persistence of patriarchy, you need only look at the countries and governments of history; the laws and codes; the corporate boardrooms and the watchful pulpits to see the fruits of men's activity about this business of breeding and territory. It's very involved; it's everywhere in evidence; the cornerstone and drive of so much male activity. But frankly, I rather like staying on the less-conscious side for this, too, because the consciousness is so low on this phenomenon that most men are not aware that it exists. But that's how it is with deeply embedded things.

Yes, it's essentially animal cunning driven by feminine aims. The only reason we have laws is to try and minimize the destructive consequences of our animal cunning.

"Laws are designed to minimize the harmful consequences of revenge", as I heard it put recently.

DQ: A lot women these days are attached to the ideal of the "goddess". Many of them become New Agey and seek to "worship the goddess inside them". And indeed, almost all women are slaves to their conception of what a perfect woman should be, a conception that resembles the traditional goddess ideal. Are you saying women have unwittingly absorbed this conception from men and are worshiping what is, in effect, a foreign ideal?

P: There is nothing - absolutely nothing - encouraging for women (or men) in this scenario. It's the same old thing that all patriarchy brings about in compensatory goddess culture. It's the same object-desire; the same placation and de-humanization, only in this women are doing their own mouthpiecing, instead of waiting around for males to canonize them. There is nothing about what you guys call the "feminization" of the universe that has anything whatsoever to do in support of autonomous females. Nothing about it is working "on her side," or, "putting her in control." There is nothing in these goddessy things that encourages the personhood of the women who soak in it, or the men who soak in her. It's the thing folded back on itself; another way to pander to a singular value standard for and to women, based on the desires of the motive men. I don't know how one could take a look at any form of pseudo-religious pandering and suggest that it's a benefit to the human who sports it or that any real power therein lies. That's just, I don't know, hard to believe any one, at least here, would think that. Such a need, such a behavior, bespeaks of and to humans in the least vital of conditions.

How do you propose that women give up their attachment to the goddess ideal? It would surely have to involve a radical change in their psychology, for it would mean women having to give up competing with each other in the feminine perfection stakes. Given that this competition easily comprises 99% of women's lives, this would be a massive undertaking. It would probably require extensive genetic tinkering.

-

Kevin:

Imagine there as a community of spiritual, scientific men living happily on the moon, and reproducing through genetic engineering.

Playing God? Do you seriously believe what you are stating? What a trick to be played on women. In their desperate attempt to conceive a child [if they are barren] or the perfect child [if they are obsessive], they are playing with the devil…their own demise. I wonder if they have considered the possibilities. What a coup for men, Kevin, no more nagging or guilt trips.

Genetic engineering is quite a sketchy issue over here in the States, but is slip-sliding in favor of the medical achievements it purports to extol. There exists a fine line to me between medical achievements and playing God, your idea crosses that line.

passthrough wrote:

Imagine there as a community of spiritual, scientific men living happily on the moon, and reproducing through genetic engineering.

Playing God?

If a couple decide to have a child in the normal way, or if they decide not to have a child, or if they decide not to decide anything, are they not also playing God?

Anyone who thinks is playing God. And that is precisely what we should all be doing.

We need more God. More thinking. More conscious activity.

Not everyone who does genetic engineering can do so wisely. But nor is everyone who has children in the normal way doing so wisely. Only wise people can do things wisely.

Genetic engineering is quite a sketchy issue over here in the States

When a woman decides that she will sleep with one man but not another she is doing genetic engineering. Similarly if she decides not to sleep with anyone.

Anyone who thinks is playing God. And that is precisely what we should all be doing.

We need more God. More thinking. More conscious activity.

I haven't heard god expressed in this fashion before - although I've long been aware that everyone is their own god. Worth rewording into a quote.

K: Imagine there as a community of spiritual, scientific men living happily on the moon, and reproducing through genetic engineering.

P: Playing God?

K: If a couple decide to have a child in the normal way, or if they decide not to have a child, or if they decide not to decide anything, are they not also playing God?

First of all, you are not talking about a couple [assuming you mean male and female] reproducing in a natural way, but males reproducing through genetic engineering. There is a big difference, at least in my mind’s eye.

Second of all, couple’s make decisions about having children or not having children all the time, and take measures, some more reliable than others, to prevent it from being so.

Are these decisions playing God? Perhaps so, but is their decision always final? The answer is…No. Sometimes those not wanting children, find themselves pregnant in any case, do you not agree? “Accident” babies happen all the time. This uncertainty lends itself to the fact that some decisions are beyond their control and that playing God doesn’t always work in their favor.

Reproducing a human being through genetic engineering is equally making a decision…one that may be deemed playing God. If the circumstances of the uncertainty in the above example were prevalent in this case scenario, it could be that men might fail in their efforts to produce a thriving being, or produce a thriving being that was a mutant, thus quickly ending this happy community of spiritual, scientific men.

If you take it one step further, what if this group of men decided to terminate these non-thinker’s lives because they are of no value and have no consciousness…like they did with women. I am already questioning their true spirituality because of their desire to control nature rather than be a part thereof by eliminating women, but even further questioning that spirituality if they decide to terminate that which is a living…but [in their estimation] less than perfect being.

Anyone who thinks is playing God. And that is precisely what we should all be doing. We need more God. More thinking. More conscious activity.

How do you define God? This is important for me to understand so that we will not go down the path of arguing oranges and apples.

And just so you don’t think I am trying to extract something from you that I am not willing to define myself, here goes:

As it is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, God is the substance from which all things evolved. He is the universe of all there is both seen and unseen, both sensorial and spiritual. Because of choice, God is both truth and falsity. He plays a hand in man’s destiny only if man is willing to agree to his nature and yield to it. This nature being truth principles [working on these]. Everything else is but cause and effect. Our bodies are transient in nature but that part of us that is a spiritual being is infinite and is part of nature, a part of God…however, if man fails to acknowledge and live by these certain truth principles, man fails to acknowledge God and therefore his spirit is nothing but an absence of God.

Of course there is no proof, other than experience of following false principles to meet ends of chaos. Nature, to me, is perfect and ordered…but man tinkered away with it in efforts to make it more perfect…thus causing chaos. If you look at nature as perfect in its purest form, this is where you will find the truth principles…no chaos, but beauty, rightness, wholeness. It is only man’s complicating issues that change nature from what it was meant to be…but when man loses all of these notions and reflects on how nature was meant to be, here is the moment of spiritual growth and understanding – moments of true wisdom

Jesus Christ acknowledged God in the purest form. He expressed these truth principles to other human beings in order for them to acknowledge them and understand, but his route was not always direct and clear. Unfortunately, it was also the beginning of Christendom, an entity for which I am almost certain, Christ never had in mind. The notion of the Holy Spirit is that which is the Divine Spirit of God, that part of which we visit and inherently return when our bodies die. While alive if we would just once we let go of all things that divide us from God, we will have moments of clarity to all that is truth.

It is ambiguous, but it’s what I understand of truth thus far.

Not everyone who does genetic engineering can do so wisely. But nor is everyone who has children in the normal way doing so wisely. Only wise people can do things wisely.

How do you define wise? Are there levels of wisdom? Who is the determiner of what is wise…or wise enough?

People can only become wise in a physical sense by trial and error and wise in a spiritual sense if they let go of the physical and have that Divine experience. Letting go is a difficult thing to do…therefore, is anyone truly wise enough to do anything wisely? I think not, and because I think not, I don’t think this happy group of spiritual scientists could ever get it right enough.

P: Genetic engineering is quite a sketchy issue over here in the States

K: When a woman decides that she will sleep with one man but not another she is doing genetic engineering. Similarly if she decides not to sleep with anyone.

You have me on that one. However, I was referring to the procreation of human beings through means other than the standard that has been in place for eons. Still the product of a woman hoping to have a child prodigy if she has sex with a genius in the natural way is a crap shoot. Genetic engineering is much more calculated.

I still would like someone to explain what David meant by this statement:

A=A is a logical principle which goes to the heart of existence, perception and logic, but you shouldn't confuse it with the spiritual knowledge of Ultimate Truth which is enjoyed by enlightened people. To reach that kind of knowledge you have to, among other things, refine your thinking until it reflects the principle of A=A perfectly - that is, refine it until it becomes perfectly consistent and rational from top to bottom. At root, people are ignorant of the nature of Reality because of contradictions in their thinking.

He is referring to a “spiritual knowledge” of Ultimate Truth, inferring that there exists another type of knowledge of Ultimate Truth…sensorial knowledge, perhaps. I would like to know how the two reconcile, for it seems that one would have to completely abandon all sensorial knowledge to attain that which is spiritual. To abandon all logic and rationality because of the limitations of the mind and senses….and perhaps the falseness that can be created if they are misled.

Yes, I have read WOTI. I am taking a class this Spring, and I intend to read it again either before, during or after. I don't know if David will read this post and respond, but some people's meditation and reflection on works such as this may not work the same way it does for you. I read the whole thing through, thought about it, talked about it, put it aside and I intend to read it again and again until I understand your truth. You are correct in that what you wrote does take some bit of digestion, and it helps that you participate in discussion. Until each one of us can understand the other, our truths are individualistic and not universal...something I'm trying to resolve.

If a couple decide to have a child in the normal way, or if they decide not to have a child, or if they decide not to decide anything, are they not also playing God?

First of all, you are not talking about a couple [assuming you mean male and female] reproducing in a natural way, but males reproducing through genetic engineering. There is a big difference, at least in my mind’s eye.

I don't see any difference. Even with the so-called natural way of reproduction people decide whether to go through with it or not. And in the case where they don't decide anything then they are normally deciding not to decide anything - at least to some degree. For example, they may decide not to use contraception, or they may decide not to even think about whether they should use contraception.

Are these decisions playing God? Perhaps so, but is their decision always final? The answer is…No.

Whatever decision anyone makes, there is no guarantee that we will get our own way.

“Accident” babies happen all the time.

To the degree that people make decisions that facilitate these accidents, people are playing God.

I am already questioning their true spirituality because of their desire to control nature rather than be a part thereof

Simply by living in houses we are controlling nature. We are creating artificial environments for ourselves. Whenever we make a conscious decision we are seeking to control nature.

Anyone who thinks is playing God. And that is precisely what we should all be doing. We need more God. More thinking. More conscious activity.

How do you define God?

God is Truth, or Reality, and this can only realized by consciousness. Consciousness involves making conscious decisions.

So wherever there are conscious decisions being made, there is God.

By contrast, when people just "go with the flow", and do not think or question or discriminate or value, then there is only darkness.

As it is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, God is the substance from which all things evolved. He is the universe of all there is both seen and unseen, both sensorial and spiritual.

Yes, I would define God as the All. For this reason God can never increase nor decrease, and is everywhere and everywhen.

However, consciousness of God is an entirely different thing. God can only be said to be in a person's life when he is fully conscious of God.

Nature, to me, is perfect and ordered…but man tinkered away with it in efforts to make it more perfect…thus causing chaos.

You've lost me there. Nature is simply the functioning of cause and effect. So, to me, it is neither ordered nor chaotic. It is just what it is. Sometimes it appears ordered and sometimes it appears chaotic.

"The balance of nature" is a myth. In nature, everything is changing all the time. This solar system, or indeed this galaxy, could be wiped-out in an instant.

Jesus Christ acknowledged God in the purest form.

"What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight." Luke 16: 15

Now what do people value most highly? Love, sex, family, children, happiness, peace, a home, etc. Yet, from the perspective of God, these are all "detestable".

Do you agree with that? Just so we're on the same page.

Not everyone who does genetic engineering can do so wisely. But nor is everyone who has children in the normal way doing so wisely. Only wise people can do things wisely.

How do you define wise?

Wisdom is consciousness of Truth. Or, in short, just consciousness.

Are there levels of wisdom?

Yes and no.

A person is either conscious or they aren't. But people can slip into and out of consciousness for differing amounts of time. Most people never slip into consciousness for even a moment.

Who is the determiner of what is wise…or wise enough?

Only a wise determiner can determine wisely.

Letting go is a difficult thing to do…therefore, is anyone truly wise enough to do anything wisely?

It's not difficult for someone who is caused to become wise. For them, it's their only option. There's no question of doing otherwise.

Genetic engineering is much more calculated.

It's only a matter of degree.

I still would like someone to explain what David meant by this statement:

A=A is a logical principle which goes to the heart of existence, perception and logic, but you shouldn't confuse it with the spiritual knowledge of Ultimate Truth which is enjoyed by enlightened people. To reach that kind of knowledge you have to, among other things, refine your thinking until it reflects the principle of A=A perfectly - that is, refine it until it becomes perfectly consistent and rational from top to bottom. At root, people are ignorant of the nature of Reality because of contradictions in their thinking.

The sage sees things for what they are, and the fool for what they are not.

He is referring to a “spiritual knowledge” of Ultimate Truth, inferring that there exists another type of knowledge of Ultimate Truth…sensorial knowledge, perhaps. I would like to know how the two reconcile, for it seems that one would have to completely abandon all sensorial knowledge to attain that which is spiritual.

Ramakrishna used to say, "There is no Infinite apart from finite things".

There is no "All", no God, without "things".

This is why Jesus used to say that the Kingdom of God is all around you.

When you understand what physical things really are, they are spiritual things.

But ignorant people do not see things for what they are, so do not experience either the physical or the spiritual. They experience madness and nothingness. Hell and animality.

I don't know if David will read this post and respond

If he does, he might give you a different spin to myself.

Or they might decide to be raped or they might decide it's not technically rape but nevertheless the result of this might be a child.


But none of this is anything like 'playing God' it's more like being the plaything of God, if you believe God 'plays'.

Women approve of killing others at least as much as men do, but women are able to tell men to go and do the killing for them.

Oh yes, certainly they're able, but normally they're not inclined to do so. Generally the possessive nature of the male will impell him to defend his ownership, as far as even death.

You could say in the traditional family structure there is an unspoken command for the strong to defend onto death the weak. But this structure is crumbling. Nobody wants to be weak anymore except some gay men.

cheers

K: I don't see any difference.

Ok, let me try to see this from your point of view…creation of life occurs if it is done the natural way or done in a test tube. True.

Either way, they are making decisions to create life, and playing God, so to speak. True.

Either way, nature can stand in the way of the desire to create life by not allowing it to be so. True.

I still think there is something truly wrong with creating a life in a test tube…call me crazy.

One of my comments you did not make a response:

If you take it one step further, what if this group of men decided to terminate these non-thinker’s lives because they are of no value and have no consciousness…like they did with women.

If you take on creating a human life like a science experiment and the experiment goes wrong, it could be easy to discard the raw materials because you do not look at it the same way as something that grew inside of you, was a part of you. Yes, yes, I know…people do all sorts of horrible things to fetuses pre-birth when they find out they are less than perfect, but it doesn’t make it any more right.

If you think that your world would be better off without women for some of the reasons you and others have stated, then you wouldn’t have any qualms in being one of those who would discard a science experiment gone awry. For this very reason, genetic engineering is something like the chaos I describe below. People live and die, but I cannot think that they are disposable.

I have found your book, and read the introduction and a couple of the first sections. Some of the things you wrote about were so true, I smiled. Some of them were so true, that I could feel the pang inside. I cannot see you as someone who believes the truth about the moon and the happy community. Perhaps I need to read more of your truths to understand why you do believe in it.

Simply by living in houses we are controlling nature. We are creating artificial environments for ourselves. Whenever we make a conscious decision we are seeking to control nature.

Although it seems quite ridiculous to state such a thing, but just because we are where we are today in our houses, does that mean that it was a good decision? We try and try to yield nature to our will and, yet nature will always win. We can either choose to acknowledge it, become wise, and be a part thereof or fight it and die without ever knowing the truth.

God is Truth, or Reality, and this can only realized by consciousness. Consciousness involves making conscious decisions. So wherever there are conscious decisions being made, there is God. By contrast, when people just "go with the flow", and do not think or question or discriminate or value, then there is only darkness.

Again, does just “making these conscious decisions” mean we are right? I don’t think so because each conscious decision has an effect. I agree that one should not “go with the flow” because that is not acknowledging God.

Yes, I would define God as the All. For this reason God can never increase nor decrease, and is everywhere and everywhen. However, consciousness of God is an entirely different thing. God can only be said to be in a person's life when he is fully conscious of God.

I think we agree here.

You've lost me there. Nature is simply the functioning of cause and effect. So, to me, it is neither ordered nor chaotic. It is just what it is. Sometimes it appears ordered and sometimes it appears chaotic. "The balance of nature" is a myth. In nature, everything is changing all the time. This solar system, or indeed this galaxy, could be wiped-out in an instant.

And yet, there is a rhythm to nature, the seasons, the tides, even the chaotic hurricanes are timed and tied to a particular time of year. And, while I am no scientist, if indeed the galaxy could be wiped out in an instant, would this not be in a pattern if looked at in the course of infinity?

You may think that no decision is wrong or right, it just is. But, if you look back on your life, think of the times that you made a decision that led you, as you put it “into the bush”…and the decision you made had a consequence that was less than desirable, did you learn from it? Do you go back to that well-worn path? You might, but you also may decide to try a different route in the wild that leads you to a consequence that is desirable. No attachments here just where you end up in the moment.

I understand that God encompasses both chaos and order, but if you acknowledge God, your decisions will lead you to order, to reason, to wisdom. Chaos is a stern teacher.

"What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight." Luke 16: 15

Now what do people value most highly? Love, sex, family, children, happiness, peace, a home, etc. Yet, from the perspective of God, these are all "detestable".

Do you agree with that? Just so we're on the same page.

Absolutely, however, agreeing and letting go of these false values is difficult. Now, I know what you are going to say next, so I will liken it to your well-worn path…it becomes so engrained that it becomes your truth, though so very false it is. It is why I say I fear I am a coward to this truth. It is dashing aside everything you have ever known in your life for something unknown…

Wisdom is consciousness of Truth. Or, in short, just consciousness.

Define Truth. I am sorry but all these capital letter words can really get a person confused. If Truth is God, then ok…but I think there is truth in Truth…it is like a dual nature.

P: Who is the determiner of what is wise…or wise enough?

K: Only a wise determiner can determine wisely.

Who is a wise determiner?

passthrough wrote: One of my comments you did not make a response:

If you take it one step further, what if this group of men decided to terminate these non-thinker’s lives because they are of no value and have no consciousness…like they did with women.

If you take on creating a human life like a science experiment and the experiment goes wrong, it could be easy to discard the raw materials because you do not look at it the same way as something that grew inside of you, was a part of you. Yes, yes, I know…people do all sorts of horrible things to fetuses pre-birth when they find out they are less than perfect, but it doesn’t make it any more right.

I'm not sure what your point is here, so I can't really respond.

Everything we do creates life and death. A wise person does so wisely, and an unwise person does so unwisely.

People live and die, but I cannot think that they are disposable.

I would need to know what your reasons are.

When we put a murderer in jail for life, we are essentially disposing of their life. This is normal. It's only a small step further to physically kill that person.

When we build a house we are killing everything that occupied that space previously. Similarly if we create a new human being by whatever means.

just because we are where we are today in our houses, does that mean that it was a good decision?

Sometimes it is. When we go into space we do so in spaceships, which are a kind of housing to protect us from space. It's a good decision to use such protection.

Again, does just “making these conscious decisions” mean we are right?

If they are truly conscious then they will be right.

If a person is "conscious" of seeing thing "B" when in fact thing "A" is appearing before him, then I don't think it is sensible to speak of that person as being conscious.

A person is conscious when they are right.

Sometimes wise people have to make guesses, but when they do so they are right to make a guess.

Nature is simply the functioning of cause and effect. So, to me, it is neither ordered nor chaotic. It is just what it is. Sometimes it appears ordered and sometimes it appears chaotic.

And yet, there is a rhythm to nature, the seasons, the tides, even the chaotic hurricanes are timed and tied to a particular time of year.

As I say, some things appear to be ordered, while others appear to be chaotic. That which appears ordered can all of a sudden become chaotic.

And, while I am no scientist, if indeed the galaxy could be wiped out in an instant, would this not be in a pattern if looked at in the course of infinity?

It might be, or it might appear as part of a whole chaos of things going on. That is, there may be no apparent reason or pattern to the disappearance of the galaxy, other than the pattern of a random occurence.

We could say that all things are ordered in the sense that all things are caused, but being caused doesn't mean the same as being "balanced".

For example, a set of scales that is caused to have a heavy weight on once side and nothing on the other side, is not balanced.

And the population of a species that is caused to become extinct is not balanced.

I understand that God encompasses both chaos and order, but if you acknowledge God, your decisions will lead you to order

I would agree with that so long as by "order" we mean cause and effect.

Wisdom is consciousness of Truth. Or, in short, just consciousness.

Define Truth. I am sorry but all these capital letter words can really get a person confused. If Truth is God, then ok…but I think there is truth in Truth…it is like a dual nature.

Truth, or Reality is another name for God.

Who is a wise determiner?

The wise person.

.

David writes:

Still, it's all driven by feminine interests. That fact never changes.

It's funny how differently we see this. You look ultimately at the crooked and beckoning female finger, and I look ultimately at the by-hook-or-by-crook desiring male.

I also look at this as conditions. The conditions humans have configured for themselves are those loosely called patriarchal. And these conditions were set in response to the acquisition/survival game -- how humans acquire food, property, mating -- and these conditions were set by those to whom it most concerns most violently: desiring and aggressive males. Not only were women not permitted participation in the acquisition game; they were considered a portion of the booty: not subjects, participating; but objects, won or lost.

Let's just say human civilization is, oh, 10,000 years old or so. The patriarchal configuration for human societies is the [naturally developed] rule during this time (and probably for many years before). We would be generous in giving women the last 300 years of that time to begin being unrestricted participants in the acquisition game. From the french revolution onward, slow erosion of social and lawful mores enabled women property owners; women-petitioned divorce (and women-decided marriages); women represented in government; women themselves in some positions in government; women business owners; and women doctors for women instead of hysterical misunderstanding knife-happy men; women educators; women property heirs; and in 97% of countries, women are still allowed to keep their genitalia and do not have to cover up. So all-in-all, in the patriarchal acquisition game of breeding rights and property, females have only been self-standing acquisitors for .03 of civilization, and they are still a long way from having subjecthood status in their current and persistent position of objecthood in patriarchy.

(It is also interesting to note that any "independence" historically afforded to individual females was achieved through the conditions of patriarchy itself: the mistress, the concubine, the courtesan, the prostitute -- all usually had their own property and could escape marriage laws and still function, relatively unharrassed, in society. What's interesting to note is that it has taken sexual service to men to achieve this half-life. This is often the case with married women as well, who think there is nothing for them outside of the home and that their husbands are their only interface to being an accepted female in society.)

With males generally controlling the territory, property, hence food, breeding rights and general safety (or not) of the whole, females are in a secondary position to this. They cannot get to the food, through the territory, or married to the bed of their choice without the male interface. What on earth is the big deal about feminine arts arising out of this? It's a "duh" result of conditions, and the manifestation of her own human needs to acquire. I cannot get the things myself, but through him. A penny for everytime a female pandered sexually to a male with a different aim for herself than sex in mind. In extreme cases, one gives out of life or death; food, in others, for the right to shelter, in all, for access to the objects of acquisition that have been historically interfaced by males. Don't blame me if both genders have taken the object-acquisitioning to these modern levels of disgust. Both parties are working it; both are working it in a societal configuration that is still designed under the idea of acquisition -- that one human can say "This is mine" to the exclusion of another, and how to go about it. It's been a long time that this is all we've been about.

Yeah, yeah, women can't see what they're doing in all this (anymore than men). But again, it only takes about one hour in a room full of them for them to become fully aware. It is unconscionably easy. And there's no turning back. Indeed, there should be some time given to counterbalance the other .97 of civilization under which all of us have been conditioned.


.

Pye wrote:Not only were women not permitted participation in the acquisition game; they were considered a portion of the booty: not subjects, participating; but objects, won or lost.

Just curious, Pye, as to whether you consider this something perpetrated on women (by men), or something women actively participated in.

Certainly there were advantages to being the object rather than the subject - although those advantages might be irrelevant today.

I see the construction of gender roles as something participated in by both sexes, in response to the condition in which they find themselves. It seems reasonable that both sexes would attempt to construct them to their own advantage.

So all-in-all, in the patriarchal acquisition game of breeding rights and property, females have only been self-standing acquisitors for .03 of civilization, and they are still a long way from having subjecthood status in their current and persistent position of objecthood in patriarchy.

Do you see construction of gender roles as something purely social, or do you think there is also a biological component?

K: Everything we do creates life and death. A wise person does so wisely, and an unwise person does so unwisely.

This is clear. The point I was trying to make is this:

In this forum, is a notion that the word “woman” is not only a definition for a gender but an ideal - similar to the confusing nature of capital letters for various words. I suppose I will have to clarify my point by delineating between gender and ideal. I will not introduce the possibility of men who are the woman-ideal, the feminine, or women who are the men-ideal or masculine, in an effort not to clutter up the argument any worse than it is.

In posting, you and the other guys find women-gender & ideal, frivolous to the thinking world as they are seldom conscious, if ever. When you state that what could be better than a group of men on the moon reproducing by genetic engineering…it could lead one to believe that you mean this literally, as in only men.

If these men would think, why do I need a woman if I can replicate men-gender at will with genetic engineering? Then all of the world would be a happy conscious place to live in. Women then become disposable.

So, while these men are experimenting with procreation in a test tube, what if something goes amiss? What if they produce a mutant being that is anything but conscious, in their estimation? Would they dispose of their own creation?

You see, the problem with this genetic engineering issue and even the thought process we have gone through to agree at least part of the way, lacks an essence to it. It is logic, not wisdom. Wisdom, to me, has soul, has conscience not just consciousness…and with it comes a love for all beings not in the way one might ordinarily define “love”, but as one defines truth within Truth. Love does not necessarily involve attachment, although certain types of love do. The love in truth is that which Jesus Christ tried to explain, but few understand.

K: When we put a murderer in jail for life, we are essentially disposing of their life. This is normal. It’s only a small step further to physically kill that person.

In jail, no you are not…they still exist, but live with, in their estimation, a chaotic consequence for making and continually making choices against nature. Some people do great things while in jail, however, sadly most just learn how to be more criminal. It doesn’t have to be this way, but it is their choice. I am against capital punishment, so I cannot rationalize the killing.

K: When we build a house we are killing everything that occupied the space previously. Similarly, if we create a new human being by whatever means.

Yes, but not by whatever means. I can understand your rational line of thinking on the house as it compares to the test tube, but not by whatever means. When a couple has a child, whether wanted, not wanted, or not even considered, what are they killing? They are taking a living substance from one being and combining it with a living substance of another.

In stem cell research, they are suggesting using aborted fetuses and/or live embryos, which I consider human life. In order to cause these things to happen, the embryo would die. I read a couple of things regarding human cloning and/or human organ regeneration through embryonic transplant, and cannot bear to read anymore. It is too horrible to think about. Don’t even try to say that the scientist is taking a living substance and combining it with another living substance in order to create, because it is not the same thing…a death has occurred. The only thing I could even come close to agreement on is naturally aborted fetuses, as in miscarriages, or placenta research. So, we may just have to agree to disagree.

P: Again, does just “making these conscious decisions” mean we are right?

K: If they are truly conscious then they will be right. A person is conscious when they are right. Sometimes wise people have to make guesses, but when they do so they are right to make that guess…

And then you said:

K: If a person is “conscious” of seeing thing “B” when in fact thing “A” is appearing before him, then I don’t think it is sensible to speak of that person as being conscious.

P: Who is the wise determiner?

K: The wise person

Wise to you or to me? Conscious to you or me?

If a person is color blind, they will insist that the only chair in the room is green when it is indeed red. Does this make them unconscious?

If a person has lived in the jungles all of their life and is placed in a room empty of all except a computer tower, you ask them what is in the room, and they reply a glowing rock, are they not conscious?

If you think that using live embryos for genetic engineering is a good thing, I will say you are unwise, but you may think yourself wise for thinking about using these embryos. So, who is right? I am right in my mind and you are right in your mind, but someone isn’t right…which means someone isn’t conscious…which means someone isn’t wise. Who determines the toss up?

K: We could say that all things are ordered in the sense that all things are caused, but being caused doesn’t mean the same as being “balanced”.

And…

K: I would agree with that so long as by “order” we mean cause and effect.

With these two statements, then I take it you mean that cause and effect is not balanced.

I can see this as true if you cause something to happen and the ripple effect is greater or less than what you thought would happen, but it is by your own estimation that it is imbalanced, perhaps because you did not have the prerequisite knowledge to have seen far enough into the cause to note potential effects. So this imbalance is only in your own mind, and perhaps the true effect is balanced in the bigger picture, which you cannot see.

What about a species that goes extinct in order for another one to thrive? If you think of that scale, place food on one side and animals on the other. If the animals procreate at a pace faster than the food can grow, there exists an imbalance in nature, so survival of the fittest takes over, thus putting balance back in place.

One more example, let’s take the guy who murders someone, he is convicted of the crime, and goes to jail. And while jail may one person’s chaos, it may be another person’s order.

Chaos and order exist as much as truth and falsity. One cannot be without the other…and it is in a delicate balance that it exists. It is we who determine each for ourselves which path we choose. To me, choosing falsely, even if it seemed the right decision at the time, will lead to chaos, while choosing truth, will lead to order. Not all people see it this way.

We just may look at things differently.

passthrough wrote:If these men would think, why do I need a woman if I can replicate men-gender at will with genetic engineering? Then all of the world would be a happy conscious place to live in. Women then become disposable.

All things are disposable if we don't need them.

However, it wouldn't make sense to dispose of all unconscious things. It fact it wouldn't be possible since conscious things are made of unconscious things. For example, a conscious mind is made of unconscious cells and atoms.

So, while these men are experimenting with procreation in a test tube, what if something goes amiss? What if they produce a mutant being that is anything but conscious, in their estimation? Would they dispose of their own creation?

If would be no different to what happens in traditional procreation. When a child is born that is too mutated, the medical staff generally decide the let the child die rather than try to keep the child alive.

. . . and with it comes a love for all beings

The wise person tries to eliminate ignorance, yet he has a love for it (in the wise sense) at the same time. "Love" in the sense of understanding, respect and personal identification.

When a couple has a child, whether wanted, not wanted, or not even considered, what are they killing?

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.

P: Who is the wise determiner?

K: The wise person

Wise to you or to me?

Wise to whoever of us is wise.

If a person is color blind, they will insist that the only chair in the room is green when it is indeed red. Does this make them unconscious?

No - not by the definition I gave above. A green chair is appearing to them, and that is what they think is there.

If they saw what appeared to be a a green chair and they thought it was red, then they would be unconscious.

If a person has lived in the jungles all of their life and is placed in a room empty of all except a computer tower, you ask them what is in the room, and they reply a glowing rock, are they not conscious?

They would be conscious, if what they saw appeared to be a glowing rock.

However, if they said "There's nothing here" then they would be unconscious.

If you think that using live embryos for genetic engineering is a good thing, I will say you are unwise

It comes down to how you define human life.

Different people draw the line in different places, and have good reasons for doing so. That is, different people have different definitions of life.

Personally, I don't accept that human life begins at conception, nor prior to that.

A discussion about when human life begins might be useful, if you want to start another thread to discuss it.

I take it you mean that cause and effect is not balanced.

Balanced compared to what?

I just don't think "balance" is a very useful term when it comes to talking about cause and effect.

Our planet earth can be hit by a large comet and instantly vaporised, along with all the life it contains. I don't think "balance" is a very useful term in that circumstance, even though we could say there is a "balance" of cause (the collision) and effect (vaporisation).

.

DHodges writes:

Just curious, Pye, as to whether you consider this something perpetrated on women (by men), or something women actively participated in.

I consider it something that has happened and would shy away from both the word "perpetrated" and the words "actively participated in" because both imply a level of consciousness different to the one we are operating at right now. It's not blameworthy until one is conscious of it, but does nothing with their higher selves to transform it.

DHodges:

Certainly there were advantages to being the object rather than the subject - although those advantages might be irrelevant today.

And I agree that each did as he or she could for the same things, however these rules of acquisition have settled in. In nowise, however, can or does objective existence for humans match the subjective experience of consciousness for which we are equipped. To assume one-half of us entitled to this and one half of us incapable of this is still one of our longest running errors. Humans are a part of the cause-and-effect of their own condition-setting. If we continue to set conditions that assume one thing for men, one thing for women, we will continue to produce women with atrophied reasoning skills and men entirely dependent upon that in order to acquire. It's no compliment to either of us.

DHodges:

I see the construction of gender roles as something participated in by both sexes, in response to the condition in which they find themselves. It seems reasonable that both sexes would attempt to construct them to their own advantage.

This has to be an "unplugged" version of "participated." I'm fine with all of that, genealogically speaking. From my consciousness of it forward, however, is a different thing.

DHodges:

Do you see construction of gender roles as something purely social, or do you think there is also a biological component?

More than what ratios or exclusions we decide upon in the nature/nurture debate, is what we think or do about it.

For instance, I am biologically disposed to eliminate waste, but my "humanity" does not rest in this. My humanity rests in not squatting it in the streets letting go whenever I feel like it. I'd otherwise be called an animal.

I do see gender roles as deeply (not purely) social, but they are not based upon thin air. So yes, there is a biological component. But like the example above, THAT a woman is the one who gives birth or THAT a man produces sperm all day long are less a matter of consciousness than what we think or do about these things.

One thing I do think I know is that we are incredibly malleable, mimetic creatures. If we do not like the way we are modeling roles and behaviour for one another -- are conscious of it -- we can model something else. In the historic case of patriarchal conditioning, there is loads to be done, for men and women alike.

As an aside, I read a student-supplied article over the summer from The Nation magazine that was trying to explain the resurgence of conservative, patriarchal structures - in america specifically, but worldwide as well. The article claimed that communities, countries and governments that construct themselves around the more deeply patriarchal notions always produce greater populations and are better equipped for war-making. This was the writer's defense of the persistent family-values conservatism in american ethos. In turn, countries that loosen patriarchal strictures and ideology tend to experience stable if not slightly reduced populations and are less inclined to war-making. I guess it's a matter of which world you prefer living in.

Thanks for the questions, Dave.


.

Kevin wrote:

Nature is changing all the time. Species become extinct and new ones regularly take their place. There's no such thing as "perfection" or "balance".

Couldn’t change itself be described as ‘perfect’ or ‘balanced’; giving rise to a perfectly infinite balanced moment, in and of the now?

Things just are what they are.

Sure, and hence, even “perfection” or “balance” is exactly what they are, unless one considers definitions to be meaningless.

Sapius wrote:Couldn’t change itself be described as ‘perfect’ or ‘balanced’; giving rise to a perfectly infinite balanced moment, in and of the now?

If every moment and every event is perfect and balanced then the terms don't mean very much.

K: However, it wouldn’t make sense to dispose of all unconscious things, In fact, it wouldn’t be possible since conscious things are made of unconscious things. For example, a conscious mind is made of unconscious cells and atoms.

Which is proving your first statement:

K: All things are disposable if we don’t need them.

Obviously, you need your body to contain your mind…but then do you believe in a soul, a spiritual part of being?

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. Some believe that when their body dies, so does the mind, and as well it may…but the spiritual part of man [one that cannot be proven but exists while he is alive] lives for eternity. Unless, man never seeks his own spirituality.

Why am I banking on that? Jesus Christ is full of truths. The one you quoted the other day about what God detests, I truly came to understand a few years ago. It ties in with the God and mammon quote as well. As in all translation, there exists the literal translation and the message. There are people who literally give up all they have and live in a cloistered existence, but I don’t believe that the literal translation was what was meant here. Granted, taking the literal translation, would also be living the letter of that truth, but one can have all of the things God detests, as long as they place no value in them…as long as they value God above all else, including hearth, home and family. I struggle with this daily, for I know what the truth is but living it can be difficult when the path is well worn.

A wise man is like a wealthy man, who when he loses everything, will have truly lost nothing at all. Wealthy may be defined in many more ways than just monetarily. Job is a good study in man’s struggle with this issue.

All these unconscious things were created for use not as a curse. You even said yourself that the physical things become spiritual things in the eyes of a wise man. I agree with this…the odd thing is that one of those articles I was reading yesterday concerning genetic engineering spoke of the profits that could be derived in such activities…was this what God had in mind?

K: It would be no different to what happens in traditional procreation. When a child is born that is too mutated, the medical staff generally decide to let the child die rather than trying to keep the child alive.

If the child would die on its own because its lungs were not functional or whatever, fine, but if the child is viable enough to live a full life but will not ever understand what is right or wrong, is it ok to dispose of it? It will never be conscious in the ways you discuss.

Again, I want to interject what you said about physical things becoming spiritual things…would this unconscious being’s life cause others to come to wisdom by his existence? What about women’s unconsciousness? I don’t think anything is quite disposable.

K: The wise person tries to eliminate ignorance, yet he has a love for it (in the wise sense) at the same time. “Love” in the sense of understanding, respect and personal identification.

Love, in this definition, is hard for people to grasp because many people have been through a lot in their life and have allowed these experiences to cloud their thinking. Therefore, they turn on the objects that have hurt them and hate them…rather than understanding that it is all a process. Suffering and pain builds character. I do not always agree with everything in the Pauline epistles, but Romans 5:1-5 is something I do think is true.

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. Something may have died to allow this being to exist once created, but this is the balancing act of nature.

K: Wise to whoever of us is wise.

Who do you think is wise? Could I be wise in one scenario, while you are not?

Before we address when human life begins, do you have children? This is a personal question and one you do not have to answer, but it would be helpful to understand your experience with children of your own before we talk too much about it. Although, I've been jumping around in your book because you don't have to really read it from start to finish...each statement you make is solid on its own without building a basis, especially the chicken pecking the egg. Lately, I have found this statement to hold a lot of truth too.

If you really wish to continue, I'll start one, however, it may get into issues such as children and parenting for I think that would be entirely relevent. Furthermore, I would like to hear your thoughts in this most baffling area. Give me a day or so to gather my thoughts together on it in a comprehensible form...I'll call it Pecking the Egg.

K: Balanced compared to what? I just don’t think “balance” is a very useful term when it comes to talking about cause and effect…even though we could say there is a “balance” of cause (the collision) and effect (vaporization).

and...

Kevin Solway wrote:

Sapius wrote:Couldn’t change itself be described as ‘perfect’ or ‘balanced’; giving rise to a perfectly infinite balanced moment, in and of the now?

If every moment and every event is perfect and balanced then the terms don't mean very much.

I cannot imagine that every event is perfect and balanced in every moment. It is its nature to be. Think of homeostasis...

Borrowed from wikipedia:

The term is most often used in the sense of biological homeostasis. Multicellular organisms require a homeostatic internal environment, in order to live; some ecologists believe this principle also applies to the global environment. Many ecological, biological, and social systems are homeostatic. They oppose change to maintain equilibrium. If the system does not succeed in reestablishing its balance, it may ultimately lead the system to stop functioning.
Complex systems, such as a human body, must have homeostasis to maintain stability and to survive. These systems do not only have to endure to survive; they must adapt themselves and evolve to modifications of the environment.

Using the human body as an example, it is not always in perfect balance. If a bacteria invades, it is imbalanced until the body can fight the foreign object and reject it from its system. So there exists periodic states of flux where the body is not in balance, therefore, the terms do have value.

If matter is neither created nor destroyed…that is your scale of measure. If you cause something, there will be an equal effect. I will remind you that I am not a scientist, but this much is just simple logic based on those principles. Though Earth has been destroyed, something has been created in its place. If you have light how do you know you have light unless you have darkness to compare it to? If it confusing the issue, punt.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Sapius wrote:Couldn’t change itself be described as ‘perfect’ or ‘balanced’; giving rise to a perfectly infinite balanced moment, in and of the now?

If every moment and every event is perfect and balanced then the terms don't mean very much.

Yes, they do, including every word one utters, otherwise consciousness wouldn’t mean much either. Would it?

If consciousness is realized through meaningfulness, then how meaningless is any thing at all. Unless, one thinks that meaningfulness plays no part in and of reality some how, which would be absurd.

Sapius wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:If every moment and every event is perfect and balanced then the terms don't mean very much.

Yes, they do, including every word one utters, otherwise consciousness wouldn’t mean much either. Would it?

I'm not sure I know what you are talking about here.

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

If all things are "balanced" then it follows that there is nothing that is unbalanced. In which case the term "balanced" doesn't mean anything.

If consciousness is realized through meaningfulness . . .

This statement doesn't mean anything to me.

Meaning is a characteristic of consciousness.

. . . then how meaningless is any thing at all. Unless, one thinks that meaningfulness plays no part in and of reality some how, which would be absurd.

I can't make sense of what you are saying here. You might want to try rewording it.