GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin Wrote:

Whether a person becomes conscious is not at all through their own doing - since an unconscious person can't "do" anything, as such. It is a matter of fate whether Nature has determined they will become conscious.

How do you define Nature? Is it simply a combination of the ideal genetic and environmental factors? However, are both factors evenly weighted or is one factor a stronger determining force than the other?

Ryan Rudolph wrote:How do you define Nature? Is it simply a combination of the ideal genetic and environmental factors?

Yes. It just means the rest of the Universe.

However, are both factors evenly weighted or is one factor a stronger determining force than the other?

Ultimately, genetic factors are environmental, since they are part of the environment which leads to our developing consciousness.

Kevin,

By Nature, do you mean the truth of Nature? Otherwise defining it as "the rest of the Universe" doesn't make sense.

Similarly, we know the truth of the Hidden Void, which is the Hidden Void, only because of consciousness. But with this approach, the Hidden Void causes Nature, and Nature causes the Hidden Void. I would have thought Nature includes both, consciousness being one aspect, and the Hidden Void the other.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Kevin wrote: . . . whether Nature has determined they will become conscious.

By Nature, do you mean the truth of Nature? Otherwise defining it as "the rest of the Universe" doesn't make sense.

I don't know any truth of Nature apart from Nature itself.

In the context in which I used it, "Nature" simply means the rest of the Universe - meaning everything except the individual in question.

Similarly, we know the truth of the Hidden Void, which is the Hidden Void, only because of consciousness.

Again, I don't know any truth of a Hidden Void apart from the Hidden Void itself.

But with this approach, the Hidden Void causes Nature, and Nature causes the Hidden Void.

I don't know of any Hidden Void apart from Nature. They are one and the same thing.

I think you're creating far too many categories.

Ryan,

Nature is not causality. Nature doesn't cause anything. Causality is a fiction. Are you man enough for this truth or not?

Man enough

Or are you only man enough to be her man?

Dan Rowden wrote:Ryan,

Nature is not causality. Nature doesn't cause anything. Causality is a fiction. Are you man enough for this truth or not?

Does causality is a fiction mean that cause and effect is fiction, or is there some distinction between the two I'm unaware of?

Cory wrote:Man enough

Or are you only man enough to be her man?

I've always thought that song was a bit sick...
--I think I had conveniently deleted it from my brain.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Man enough

Or are you only man enough to be her man?

Cheryl Crow is a whinging, whining bitch. Her music disgusts me totally.

katy wrote:
I've always thought that song was a bit sick...
--I think I had conveniently deleted it from my brain.

One day, after soaking up the content of the many personalities on this forum for months - - the lyrics to that song (actually the lyrics to just the chorus), which I hadnt heard in years, just popped in my head.

With my new greater consciousness, I actually experienced the song for the first time. I was shocked in disbelief, filled with mocking laughter, and a more distinct sense of purpose.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

katy wrote: With my new greater consciousness, I actually experienced the song for the first time. I was shocked in disbelief, filled with mocking laughter, and a more distinct sense of purpose.

When I first heard the song I was disgusted by her. Now I'm disgusted by her, but more so by the fact that the song was popular.

Kevin wrote:

Ultimately, genetic factors are environmental, since they are part of the environment which leads to our developing consciousness.

Why do you feel the need to lump these two together? A division can be made between environmental conditions and genetic conditions for the sake of argument. Does the outer environment only change the inner psyche in a negative way in weak individuals? Aren't strong individuals gifted from the outset and therefore are the ones that contribute to the change of the environment in a positive way? What is the material explanation as to why these individuals are gifted from the outset?

Dan wrote:

Nature is not causality. Nature doesn't cause anything. Causality is a fiction. Are you man enough for this truth or not?

Yes Dan, but there are material conditions that favor a non-causal mind coming into being in the first place, the right material conditions need to be established from the outset in order for a non-causal mind to be born, and I am simply inquiring into this preliminary material process.

For instance, using a purely material explanation, why is it less likely for a black female to become enlightened compared to a white male?

Moreover, Living in a democratic country with access to unlimited information is what I consider a favorable environment, but this ideal environment doesn’t guarantee a wise individual if one is genetically weak from the outset.

A child with potential as far as enlightenment is concerned will show certain signs from a young age. He will be overly sensitive to suffering, he will be open-minded, emotionally strong, and inquisitive, he will question the irrationality of women from a young age, and so on. Sometimes his naïve nature causes him to believe things that are false, but by nature he is not content with answers like the common man, so his delusions are never as deeply emotionally rooted. He has a rare flexibility to be able to change what he thinks through realizing he is in error without being overly devastated by it.

This child has been blessed from the outset. How do we explain an individual being blessed from the outset?

Ryan,

This child has been blessed from the outset. How do we explain an individual being blessed from the outset?

He isn't. He's a big bundle of cultural memes like the rest of us blessed bastards. Nobodies special in an essential manner. All validation happens in the minds of human beings. Divine standards are dead.

E, Ironic wrote:

He's a big bundle of cultural memes like the rest of us blessed bastards. Nobodies special in an essential manner. All validation happens in the minds of human beings. Divine standards are dead.

Why are some children able to refute stupid memes from a young age whereas other children are easily assimilated by them?

Why do some children actively seek intelligent memes, while others have no desire to seek anything higher at all?

Why is it so incredibly easy for some and so incredibly difficult for others?

Ryan,

A complex set of circumstances. What are you fishing for here?

E, Ironic wrote:

A complex set of circumstances. What are you fishing for here?

I’m probing carefully into this area of thought to see if the predetermination argument has any truth to it.

Ryan

Just curious, why do you think it matters one way or another?"

If you conclude its pre-determination that is true, will you live your life differently than if you realize that free will is true?

If so, why?

Cory wrote:

Just curious, why do you think it matters one way or another?"

I’m trying to determine whether or not teaching someone is futile. For instance – if the only wise ones at Genius Forum are the ones that are predetermined to be wise anyway, then there is nothing to do, teaching is a waste of energy.

Personally, I’d like to believe that it isn’t true because believing otherwise makes one feel that there is lots of work to do, but honestly I haven’t seen any of the deluded ones change all that much since I begin posting here over a year ago.

And the deluded ones that are here represent the strongest of the deluded.

I'd prefer to be wrong on this, because there is despair associated with the idea that there is an eternity of having no practical use, there is the desire to be useful, however it is almost impossible in the present civilization, and if predetermination is true then that only adds to the fact of not being useful.

Perhaps Sartre was correct when he stated that humanity is condemned to freedom.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Cory wrote:

Just curious, why do you think it matters one way or another?"

I’m trying to determine whether or not teaching someone is futile. For instance – if the only wise ones at Genius Forum are the ones that are predetermined to be wise anyway, then there is nothing to do, teaching is a waste of energy.

So are you saying that a potentially wise person as a child, teenager, or young adult has no need to read books or have discussions with people?

I don't think anyone is born clear and wise, some are born with temperments more ideal for engendering wisdom, but I think a period of being emersed in an ideal environment for learning is neccesary. That is why all great philosophers and teachings emerged in fairly developed civilizations.

I can look at my earliest writings on this forum and I can see that this forum has influenced me quite a bit, for the better judging by the fact that I am no longer neurotically pre-occupied with my own personal immortality in another dimenision following death. Clearly a human being is stronger if he doesnt rely on such fancies. I feel that, by being around people who are also interested in wisdom, I'm learning more about myself that way, or I am challenged to not resist certain painful realities, and so I owe my freedom to learn in part to the sort of environment that a forum like this one creates. Even the university is a help.

Being around cynical and corrupted friends and being around my parents is not a help. Some environments are a hinderance.

Personally, I’d like to believe that it isn’t true because believing otherwise makes one feel that there is lots of work to do, but honestly I haven’t seen any of the deluded ones change all that much since I begin posting here over a year ago.

There's a difference between those who have a drive to further improve, and those who are incorrigably smug. There are indeed those who are pre-determined to be smug.

Are you unsure about whether or not you are one of them? Do you prefer to be smug? Most do.

Ryan wrote: I'd prefer to be wrong on this, because there is despair associated with the idea that there is an eternity of having no practical use, there is the desire to be useful, however it is almost impossible [to be of practical use] in the present civilization, and if predetermination is true then that only adds to the fact of not being useful.

The bolded part in the tail end seems especially irrational. It seems reasonable that we are pre-determined to learn from others and likewise pre-determined to say things that help others. Just because pre-determination is true, doesnt mean that some of us are not pre-determined to emerse ourselves in superior environments for consciousness and help create superior environments for consciousness.

Perhaps Sartre was correct when he stated that humanity is condemned to freedom

I think we are pre-determined to be what we are.

Empirically, it appears to me that environment makes a difference in how the entities with their genes express themselves. I don't see anything more rational to do than to emerse myself in superior environments, come to my best guess of what a superior environment/relationship to life is, and if I ever manage to muster the consistency and power, help expand and refine such an environment in some way. (simply posting on forums seems to help) Perhaps it may involve preaching the importance of genetic engineering, and stem cell research. People will not be open to that sort of thing unless you give them clear enough reasons for why it might be worthwhile.

I'll just do the best I can do according to how 'best' appears to me. This involves emersing myself in the apparently best environments, and avoiding the worst ones.

Cory wrote:

So are you saying that a potentially wise person as a child, teenager, or young adult has no need to read books or have discussions with people?

Yes, there is a need in the beginning, but there comes a time when we no longer need to read books or have discussions with others as a means to improve and grow. Growth has a limit. Once we reach our limit, what is our motivation for coming? Discontent with others?

Cory wrote:

Are you unsure about whether or not you are one of them? Do you prefer to be smug? Most do.

I think of myself as being realistic, not smug. I understand what is in my power to do and not do. I realize what imperfections I cannot change in myself and in others.

Cory wrote:

Just because pre-determination is true, doesn’t mean that some of us are not pre-determined to emerse ourselves in superior environments for consciousness and help create superior environments for consciousness.

What is the driving force that keeps you energized to work away at this environment for consciousness? Is it the emotional reward caused by observing human weakness and responding with an intelligent response that boasts your sense of purpose and self esteem? What if there was an environment even more superior to this one where this sort of parasitism wasn’t available?

What would you do if you found yourself in an environment where there were no deluded people around you? And you could no longer keep yourself emotionally up through picking out the weaknesses of others? How would you occupy yourself in a superior environment like this one?

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Cory wrote:

So are you saying that a potentially wise person as a child, teenager, or young adult has no need to read books or have discussions with people?

Yes, there is a need in the beginning, but there comes a time when we no longer need to read books or have discussions with others as a means to improve and grow. Growth has a limit. Once we reach our limit, what is our motivation for coming? Discontent with others?

You are making the mistake of dividing the self from others. You are other people. Discontent with other people is discontent with yourself, and vice versa. As long as there are suffering, frightened, imperfect being around, there will be discontent in those who are closer to perfection, just as there will be discontent in those who are farther from perfection.

Cory: Just because pre-determination is true, doesn’t mean that some of us are not pre-determined to emerse ourselves in superior environments for consciousness and help create superior environments for consciousness.

Ryan: What is the driving force that keeps you energized to work away at this environment for consciousness?

I'm not so much focused on improving the environment directly - if I have anything to do with that, well than that is an indirect by-product. The main thing that I am focused on now is becoming clearer individually. This involves discontent with others just as much as with the self, in fact, as mentioned previously, the self is understood as, in part, others.

Ryan wrote: Is it the emotional reward caused by observing human weakness and responding with an intelligent response that boasts your sense of purpose and self esteem?

I don't know about you, but I don't particularly enjoy 'not making sense'. And I don't enjoy sharing my life with people who don't make sense. I don't think they enjoy themselves much either. That's why they get married and have families. To escape from their dread of themselves. Now that's parasitism!

Ryan wrote: What if there was an environment even more superior to this one where this sort of parasitism wasn’t available? What would you do if you found yourself in an environment where there were no deluded people around you? And you could no longer keep yourself emotionally up through picking out the weaknesses of others?

I would continue working on myself similarly to how I am working now. I would probably be better off because there would be less distractions and more enlightening people to be around. I assume that I would be on the recieving end of very intelligent guidance from these beings, but I wouldnt have much to give them, and I wouldnt mind that. I imagine they would have some sort of work routine worked out and they would probably find a job for me to do suited for my level of understanding. They might politely suggest that I keep to myself and not interfere too much.

There genetic engineering might be so advanced that they could actually perfect me while I was still alive.

They would probably do everything in their power to help my mind become as straight as possible. But my own initiative would still be important, and if they seen that I was wasting away, refusing to work on myself, wasting time and resources, well then they would probably refuse to extend my life with their life-extension technology.

Ryan wrote: How would you occupy yourself in a superior environment like this one?

Again, I would continue striving to rid myself of delusion, listen to their potentially enlightening words and I would cooperate with whatever technologies they had available to perfect me.