GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Mil wrote:

rationality without love has no purpose to serve.

Cory asked:

What kind of love are you talking about Mill?

Even though the question was not directed at Elizabeth, Elizabeth responds anyway because she agreed with Mil's above quote:

"Love" could be considered "strong interest" and what would rationality be if it were not motivated in a direction by something?

Exactly isabelle. You're a real genius, unlike the poseur hate addicts who frequent here most often.

Mill and Eli-Isa

"Love" could be considered "strong interest" and what would rationality be if it were not motivated in a direction by something?

Ok Mill, if you agree with Elizabeths definition, than how is that the frequent posters on this forum don't have love?

What's your point when you say that a person needs love?

who doesnt have a strong interest in something?

Cory asked:
how is that the frequent posters on this forum don't have love?

Denial justified by imprecise semantics.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Mill and Eli-Isa

"Love" could be considered "strong interest" and what would rationality be if it were not motivated in a direction by something?

Ok Mill, if you agree with Elizabeths definition, than how is that the frequent posters on this forum don't have love?

They believe love is an unnecessary attachment, that falsely adheres us to something less than "the global oneness".

What's your point when you say that a person needs love?

I mean to say "people need love". Is that more clear?

who doesnt have a strong interest in something?

WHy have a strong interest in anything, if it's not to facilitate the survival and happiness of those you love?

Let's not get into the "who" aspect of it. That's just looking for a fight, and changing the subject.

millipodium wrote:WHy have a strong interest in anything, if it's not to facilitate the survival and happiness of those you love?

For the survival of wisdom. Truth for the sake of truth.

milli wrote:

They believe love is an unnecessary attachment, that falsely adheres us to something less than "the global oneness".

Wouldn't that be love too?

Pop-quiz for everyone:

Keep in mind the origin of the word "philosophy" when answering this question. A philosopher is a person who is:

a. representative of an oxymoron
b. someone who loves wisdom
c. just a bunny rabbit who is vicious with teeth and claws
d. a misogynist

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:milli wrote:

They believe love is an unnecessary attachment, that falsely adheres us to something less than "the global oneness".

Wouldn't that be love too?

Pop-quiz for everyone:

Keep in mind the origin of the word "philosophy" when answering this question. A philosopher is a person who is:

a. representative of an oxymoron
b. someone who loves wisdom
c. just a bunny rabbit who is vicious with teeth and claws
d. a misogynist

Are you asking if global oneness is a form of love? I don't think so. It's just an abstract notion concocted to get the west in general to lay down it's defense and survival mechanisms, an intellectual trojan horse filled with dr. kevorkians.

Kevin Solway wrote:

millipodium wrote:WHy have a strong interest in anything, if it's not to facilitate the survival and happiness of those you love?

For the survival of wisdom. Truth for the sake of truth.

Wisdom is not alive. It is a concept. It's a word you use to exalt yourself, by pretending you're wise.

Cory, sorry for the delay.

Sapius: So a real thinker, who looks at things from an absolute unbiased view point, detaching himself from his false-ego based thinking, meaning; standing ”outside” of his shoes, will not assume HIS own thinking as having some sort of superiority, for he is absolutely aware of the nature of causality and how HIS thinking comes about, so as do OTHERS. So in that sense, who or what is superior or inferior?

Cory: It depends on what you value. What do you value sapius?

That is what I have been telling you, and here it seems that you know it too, so how come one value is superior than another if any and all values are eventually a product of causality?

As for what I do value is that I am a thing that is capable of valuing through conscious reasoning, and that I am logically aware of it. I value being ME, irrelevant of how un-inherent (impermanent) you may claim my existence to be.

I do understand that you may personally value 'truth' above all, so do I, but so did Gandhi, and so did Hitler so to speak, but looking at it form the point of view of existence, or causality, none of them actually have a more essential or a “superior” value, unless you place the person in question in the picture, nor does that mean that they hold no meaning whatsoever.

Your values come about through your own causal conditions and so do mine, and looking at them as values created through the very same process, that is causality, I don’t see the difference as in superiority. Existence at its core is simply IS, but the drive lies in the strife, irrelevant of what that particular strive or comparativeness may be.

Sapius: The physicist is as earnest in searching the “truth” as is a philosopher.

Cory: Well, I wouldnt go that far. They are functioning in the same way, however, the quality of the philosophers discontent has greater heart, there is greater social interest comprising the philosopher.

Sapius: I placed ‘truth’ in inverted commas, meaning, “truth” is what one Values as Truth according to ones own conclusions

Cory: The consequence to valuing something is ‘not valuing’ something else. A man who has values, consequently finds his life to be comprised of a hierarchy of priorities. If you have values, something’s are more important, meaningful (and superior) than others.

Do you think what I just said is clear and logical?

It is clear and logical but it does not have to be necessarily so. If and when one actually comprehends the nature of existence, the only thing left to value is existence itself, which includes my being, and also encompasses All that there is, because without All that there is, my being is not possible (remember the connectedness causality creates).

On the other hand, the consequence of ME valuing something will obviously be ME ‘not valuing’ something else, but that does not mean that it is impossible for me to value the EXISTENCE of either of those attributes itself, and hence resulting in an unbiased worldview at its core. Eventually, the love or hatred of either cancels out, and what remains is an false-ego free view, that considers all views as equal participants in and of the flow of causality, and yet holds on to his original views that led to such a state, for they now become a ‘view’, not ‘value’ as such.

Hence, there remains no ‘Truth’ to be valued once it is known, and that “value” transforms simply into a VIEW, without any added comparative values. The false-ego self rests in peace and a Self with an unbiased, or without a self-serving purpose view replaces that. Example; ‘MY views are superior to another’ holds no essential meaning as such.

Sapius: emphasizing strongly that MY conclusions are ‘superior’ in any way is still standing in ones own shoes, it is a false-ego perspective, which I do not consider ‘wrong’ as such, but it isn’t Absolute in the face of Reality, which includes ALL that there is, that’s all.

Cory: Why is it important to you for something to be ‘absolute in the face of reality’.

…. I’m saying that there is no one thing ABSOLUTE in the face of reality, totality, and you are asking me why is it important to me otherwise??? Saying that truth lies beyond any comparativeness is attributing absoluteness to it, which you are saying, not me. I am saying that comparativeness itself is truth, not that ‘truth’ lies beyond it.

Cory: It depends on what you value. For instance, if I value ‘clear-thinking’, then the casual conditions of a quiet place to sit or lie down are going to be superior to the causal conditions of a noisy and abrasive environment.
If I value ‘good health’ then the casual conditions of healthy food is going to superior to the casual conditions of junk food.

You begin by saying ‘it depends on what YOU value’, (and I have been saying the same from the beginning), but then you continue on by emphasizing what YOU value as superior.

I might also value ‘clear-thinking’, but unlike you, I may be able to do that in a noisy environment. In fact, the best thinking I could ever achieve was when my mind was at its noisiest and in the noisiest of places. So can I say that a noisy environment is superior? Or do you go along with the majority is right?

Similarly, what kind of food creates ‘good health’ need not necessarily be the same for two different individuals. That would depend on how a particular body has adapted to certain kinds of food. For example, I get an upset stomach if I eat all vegetarian food for more than once in a day, and I hear that it is supposed to be very healthy.

Cory: Just because one considers his conclusion to be the truth, doesn’t mean it is the truth.

Voila! Tell me again. Hence “superiority” is in ones head.

Sapius: Other than genetics and environment, the essence, or particular attributes of an individual thing also exists.

Cory: Can you prove it? Tell me more about this essence, tell me about these particular attributes....

Sapius: Sure I can… here… read this…

CORY: Just because everything is determined, doesnt mean we don't live, discuss, explore. Just because i am determined to know that which I do not know now, doesnt mean I should'nt follow through with my curiousities.

Sapius: Need I say more? Who or what is reasoning above?

Cory: You are taking words and appearances too literally.

I say ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘we’ and the like merely for convenience. The noun is an illusion, but a helpful one for communicating and describing the illusion of life and death.

What ever you do, YOU cannot get rid of the “I” that is talking about illusion. You do not use language for “convenience”, but it is Reality. Life and death are exactly what they are defined to be; describing them as “illusion” does not take away their reality as they stand. Life and death, and its cycle included, is reality. Nothing escapes reality, including the description of life and death being an illusion.

Sapius: Does the process of causality NOT bring forth an individual “thing” in and of any given moment of causality?

Cory: I really can't quite picture what your getting at. Are you pushing to believe that the fate of an individual depends on more than just heredity and environment?

- you'll have to give me some clear examples from real life.

Sapius: Sure, for example YOU and ME, unless you believe we have no reality beyond each others “mind”.

Cory: I don’t see the anything in particular as having ‘a reality’. Reality is an illusion.

Your reply is too heavy for me, philosophically speaking. Could you define ‘Reality’ in this context?

Sapius: Are WE one and the same thing? Or, because of causally connected infinite causes are WE one and the same THING?

Cory: Reducing it down to 'you' and 'me' is too limited.

Actually it is not, but however… lets see…

Cory: The best way I am capable of describing it is:

A huge crowd of humans gathered together and looked at from a plane appear to be one big undivided mass, but that mass is both an individual constituent of something greater AND within that mass are individual humans. One individual human appears to be one whole mass, and it also appears to be a part of a greater whole of, but within that human there are individual cells - -but these individual cells are crowded together appearing as say an organ, but within that individual organ there appear to be individual cells, and if you go into an individual cell you will another myriad of continuents and within the constituents, myriads.

The problem I see is that you first assume that there is a ONE whole and then look INTO it, but try looking out of it as well, and you shall see that there is no end to it, so the question of ONE WHOLE does not arise at all due to its infiniteness. What you see as wholes are temporary, say halts, that are detected by other temporary halts. The only permanency possible is the cycle of creation and destruction of impermanent things itself, and this cycle or process is not God, nor one can call this the Ultimate truth either, for it would not exist without things being around, hence the cycle in turn also depends on the things too, and those impermanent things are most assuredly things with their own individually defined form, as and when held in that form in any given causal condition.

Cory: The individual IS the whole community in this sense, and the whole community IS an individual.

A result of the above thinking I would say. So, in your opinion, the Totality is one with you and you one with Totality?

Cory: Likewise, tragedy can be looked at as comedy and vice versa.

Something cold, is relatively warm, and something warm is relatively cool.

In other words, EVERYTHING is relative.

Cory: You, know the whole 'duality is illusion' thing.

Meaning doesnt inherently exist.

Yes I know what they say, but it depends on what ‘doesn’t inherently exist’ mean to you. To me it means that IT, or any thing at all, does not exist permanently or indefinitely and is subject to exist and not exist as according to any given causal conditions, which does not make their individual existence as and when casually created a literal illusion. Neither are things an illusion in that sense nor is causality.

Just because we have come to establish by sensing the process of causality that things are necessarily impermanent, we attribute things to have an illusory quality like a mirage, where we consider the REAL thing being reflected in a mirage as REAL, hence, with this mentality, we look for something REAL behind the “illusion” of things. One does not and mostly cannot comprehend the nature of existence and hence accept that as far a Totality, Reality, or Existence is concerned, a mirage itself is a REAL causality created condition.

As far as Existence is concerned, it encompasses literally every thing, and hence there cannot be a ‘beyond’ in any sense. When you say ‘beyond’, that too is necessarily encompassed by existence, and existence is immune to a comparativeness of any kind, for it has no boundaries as a whole that it can be compared to anything at all.

If duality is literally an illusion, then either of us has no reason to take each other seriously, and since there is no other way that consciousness could possibly work other than duality, show me how one could be aware of anything unless he is he and not anything else in any given moment?

Thinking conceptually of Oneness is not the same as being ONE in any sense, for ONE cannot experience the sense of Oneness; It takes TWO for consciousness to be around and conceptualize a Oneness. Without literal duality, even a conceptualized Oneness cannot exist.

Sapius: Does causality render OUR individuality redundant?

Cory: I think what you mean is, does being a part of greater and lesser wholes render our individuality redundant?

I would say that realizing one is dependent upon greater and lesser wholes renders our individuality as well as what we appear to belong to as illusionary.

And you can only clearly realize that by valuing individuality.

I value individuality, however, from an absolute perspective; I see individuality AND thus even community as illusionary.

No, I am asking that how much of an illusion is the difference between YOU and ME? And how much real is the WHOLE? All that exists is infinite comparativeness, that is, if you can imagine what ‘infinite’ means, and hence ultimately no WHOLE as such. On the other hand, even a speck of dust is a whole according to and on its own space/temporal causal level. Just as you are a whole as YOU, so is any cell. They live and die within a causality created thing, (you), which is a world in its-self for each and every cell without any awareness of a whole as YOU.

Simply because we experience and think that logically ever higher level has to be contained at some point, we think in terms of a whole and cannot accept an open ended infinity, either way, from any point, in or out.

Sapius: I have my own environment and you yours, and we are a part of each others environment, but for any reasoned and logical communication to take place there must necessarily be a YOU as much as there has to be an I.

Cory: Logical communication is a map - - and the map is not the actual territory.

And am I supposed to swallow that? Logical communication necessarily needs TWO individuals to begin with, and the communication is the actual territory. By calling it a map, you are assuming that there lies some actual territory out there beyond the mind.

Sapius: It would then stand to reason that the ones that DO NOT desire greater truths do so also due to genetics and environment, but yet want greatness and conquest.

Cory: Yes, all humans are driven by the desire for superiority, greatness, conquest. There is just a spectrum of values.

Sapius: And once you realize just that, what do you make of “value” itself then?

Cory: I say that values are both the effect and cause of consciounsess.

Values arise as a consequence to consciousness, and consciouness arises as a consequence to values.

So be it; looking at it in this light too, once again I ask, what is more valuable now? Consciousness or Values?

Cory: I would say the truth stands on its own, it does not depend on un-truth.

Really? Give me one Truth where you, a non-inherent thing, is not involved? Even causality “depends” on “it” being sensed.

Cory: Good question Sapius.

But I’m not sure if causality depends on being sensed….

Sorry, why do you feel that it does?

In this context, causality could not have been know if there were not some conscious thing capable of sensing the process, logically speaking.

Cory: The sun is dependent only upon distance from other stars, everything else is trivial.

I really don’t understand where we are going with this sun and shadow thing? If the sun does not depend on the shadow, it is quite clear that the sun itself depends on other things, and those other things on others things, infinitely; so what is your point?

Cory: A whole galaxy is like a star. The galaxy when viewed from the outside has no shadows being cast within it. It is only when you are positioned and limited to certain angles that you see shadows.

All that you are saying is that things are relative; so?

Cory: the truth does not need untruth to be perfect.

Sapius: I don’t see how any-thing could stand without that which is not it being around, and that includes ‘perfection’. Existence includes both aspects of any opposites, and existence itself is neither perfect nor imperfect. It cannot be thought of in such terms.

Cory: I meant perfect as in - - beyond shortcomings, incompletion, polarity and duality. You can argue between North, South, West, or East, between tragedy and comedy – but the whole includes all of these opposing points of view. The truth is not the opposite of a lie. A lie can only be the opposite of an opposing lie. To be beyond, but not the opposite of – is what the truth is.

A lie can only be the opposite of an opposing lie? Could you please explain that?

Sapius, you quoted me as saying:

Cory: Hence that which lies beyond “space/time”, containment, or Duality, is Truth and Reality?

Cory: Sapius, Why don’t you use my actual quotes instead of writing something I didn’t even say?

I may have typed in your name by mistake since I was in a hurry to travel then, but isn’t it obvious from the context that that is a question that I am asking you?

Cory: All I’m saying is that, saying a thing has ‘thingness’ is just redundancy. A thing has no inherent locality. A thing has no essence. That’s all I have ever emphasized.

And I am questioning how redundant is your thing-ness, your temporarily created essence, a thing that can think, communicate, with logic and reason?

Your words are your thing-ness, should I consider all that you say redundant?

Sapius: If the illusion is REAL, then how un-real is your experience of it?

Cory: My experience is unreal to the degree that I don’t realize it’s an illusion. My experience is unreal to the degree that I am attached and emotionally involved in an illusion.

In response to the above, let me go back a bit…

Sapius: It is just to be understood and realized, and even then the “I” still remains an I - but is now without any quotation marks.

Cory: What do the quotation marks represent?

You can say the attachments to a false-ego, in which I initially believed that I exist, then I logically deduced that an “I” is illusory, and when further deduced, one realizes that it was always the I battling it self, and the I becomes as REAL as any-THING else in and of any given moment of causality, absolutely, hence I literally exist, so do all other things, otherwise I wouldn't be able to detect or define THEM.

Cory: I see what you mean here, and I agree. The illusion is real, however, each thing has no inherent existence of its own.

Sapius: Hey, when and where do I fail to express that things do not exist permanently that you have to necessarily remind me of that? Yes, things are non-permanent, yes they are dependant; don’t you know by now that I know that? All I want to show is that THAT does not take away the THINGNESS of any thing that necessarily has to EXIST, how ever temporarily that it may be for ANYTHING to be actually happening.

If the illusion is REAL, then how un-real is your experience of it? The illusion is NOT an ILLUSION as in having NO REALITY. In other words, the “Illusion” is all that there is and NOTHING lies under it that can be considered as TRUTH or Reality other than the experience of what you are already actually experiencing.

And then again you say…

Cory: My experience is unreal to the degree that I don’t realize it’s an illusion.

Now, once you KNOW that the illusion is REAL, how wise is it to still keep considering it as ILLUSION? Since there is no other reality other that what we consider as illusory, so how illusory is it eventually?

Cory: The illusion is all there is, but experience is always limited. Truth is not limited to what I am presently experiencing because what I am experiencing is by definition limited.

Are you saying that what I experience is anything but reality? I may not experience all that there possibly is to experience, but how does that make my present experience not reality?

Cory: The sea appears to exist, and is differentiated from other things that appear to exist. If I were to go further than that I would simply apply causality in order to understand that the sea, like anything else, doesn’t ‘inherently’ exist.

So does “appears to exist” mean that it has no existence whatsoever? In my opinion, applying causality shows the non-inherent (NON-permanent) nature of ALL things, and the same causality shows the existence of any given thing in any given causal moment as well.

Cory: As you might have heard, the word isnt the thing. The signifier is not the signified.

Sapius: Yes I have, but I understand it differently, because I also know that that does not mean that the MEANING, which the words represents, do not exist, otherwise that sentence itself would mean nothing!

Cory: The word and the sentence inherently has no meaning, only from a point of view, only in a particular relationship do they mean something.

So what about the word ‘truth’?

Cory: Sorry, what makes you think that I am implying that something ‘underlies’ causality?

That Truth lies beyond any comparative realm, and stands on its own.

Cory: Hatred arises due to attachment.

Are you attached to truth? Do you hate un-truth?

Jason wrote:Sapius,

Jason wrote: How are you defining "non-permanent", and do you think that all things are non-permanent?

Sapius wrote: What do you mean, Jason?

It's pretty straightforward: do you think that all things are impermanent? If so, why are all things impermanent? How do you know, for example, that some rock somewhere will not last forever?

Sapius wrote: Things are always in motion even if they seem motionless from our relative perspective, and the same applies to transformations too, which at times may not be detected due to our relative time frame, but are continuously transforming nonetheless.

So you are happy to make assumptions about unseen and hidden things? I was under the (possibly wrong) impression that you believed the only certainties were things which were directly perceived.

What you wrote in the above quote also seems to disagree with what you wrote here:

Sapius wrote:In MY opinion, what lies “beyond” could only be conjecture; All that there IS, is right HERE and NOW, and there is no elusive Reality or Truth beyond that.

Wouldn't you say that motion which is not detected is elusive, and beyond the here and now?

Here and Now encompasses logical deduction and what we experience as past present and future. And awareness cannot exist without things being in motion. On the other hand, if you know that things are but a bunch of atoms held together by forces other than what it is, then how motionless or permanent are they? How motionless is a rock sitting on a frantically spinning planet? If I know that a planet will not last forever, what about the rock that sits on it?Or are you talking about floating in space without any referential point?

By “beyond” I mean what others imply as being beyond duality, which I consider existence itself, so what could lie beyond existence?

To claim that something lies beyond duality is impossible. And further more, even that though is encompassed by existence too. Realizing this, leaves one free of a false-ego, but one does not go beyond a Self in any way. One simply realizes the nature of existence, including ones own, remaining an individual Self.

Regarding direct perceptions; understanding the nature of existence leaves nothing as non-direct perceptions. I don't know how else to say it.

sapius

How does the way one has adopted to “help” OTHERS really matter? Is it not a result of ones own conclusions? Wouldn’t one have to come to a conclusion as to WHAT IS an “ugly” state in the first palace? Say ‘femininity’ for example, which IS a very UGLY state to be in according to quite a few here. I may agree to all its philosophical descriptions, but why should I hate or call it “ugly” if I know what it is and opt to be otherwise? If I detest it, I necessarily do not understand IT, and hence am afraid of it.

i decided to read this whole thread and just about the time i was wondering why i came across this gem

sapius

If i detest it it, I necessarily do not understand IT and hence i am afraid of it

does it deserve a hallelujah - maybe - but at least a

hello sapius


btw could you explain to me what a mystical genius is in the context of here

here seems to have alternate meaning(s)

truth seems to qualify as an alternate reality to maya existence

so please define mystical genius

and hello sapius very nice to encounter you

Hi again Sapius,

Sapius: So a real thinker, who looks at things from an absolute unbiased view point, detaching himself from his false-ego based thinking, meaning; standing ”outside” of his shoes, will not assume HIS own thinking as having some sort of superiority, for he is absolutely aware of the nature of causality and how HIS thinking comes about, so as do OTHERS. So in that sense, who or what is superior or inferior?

Cory: It depends on what you value.


Sapius: That is what I have been telling you, and here it seems that you know it too, so how come one value is superior than another if any and all values are eventually a product of causality?

Do you value having values?

Is it better for humans to have no values or to have values?

Sapius wrote:
That is what I have been telling you, and here it seems that you know it too, so how come one value is superior than another if any and all values are eventually a product of causality?

Where humans intersect with causality, when things happen to us which serve as a stimulus, the behavior we exhibit is based on the stimulus PLUS OUR VALUES.

One person may steal when faced with an economic crisis. Another may work harder. Two drastically different behaviors stemming from the same stimulus. And those drastically different behaviors cause two vastly different sets of causal chains.

saying values are a product of causality, is just another way of talking about learning. Values are distilliations of knowledge gained from many individual causal experiences over time.

Why do values matter if they're a product of a causality? Because our values will modulate our behavior in response to stimulus as we go through life, and some paths lead to ruin. Keeping people from ruinous paths is valuable, which is way I say the moral relativism and all that hooha is just a trojan horse filled with nihilistic doctor kevorkians.

The burden is upon sapius to explain how being a product of causality devalues.. um .. values. He's right,but... so?

Mill wrote

Our values will modulate our behavior in response to stimulus as we go through life, and some paths lead to ruin. Keeping people from ruinous paths is valuable

So having values (modulated behavior) is superior to having no values (paths to ruin) ?

This is what I've been saying all along. Not only that, but some values are superior than others.

To believe otherwise is to be either

a) A hypocrite

or

b) An exploited and ruined human being

Cory Duchesne wrote: Not only that, but some values are superior than others.

This truth has been bastardized by the enemies of freedom as such a politically incorrect hate crime so much so that otherwise life affirming people vote for democrats to "be culturally aware".

For instance. RE: The war on terror, a 20 yr old going to a "good school" will say, "But who are we to say our way is better?"

"Look bitch, do you want your clit scraped off with glass and be gang raped for wearing your burkha crooked?"

Mill wrote:

This truth has been bastardized by the enemies of freedom as such a politically incorrect hate crime so much so that otherwise life affirming people vote for democrats to "be culturally aware".

For instance. RE: The war on terror, a 20 yr old going to a "good school" will say, "But who are we to say our way is better?"

Superstition, faith in the contradictory, tribalism, vulgarity, brutality, invention of boundaries and limitation, emotionalism - all of these are obviously inferior qualities.

The superior qualities are:

'faith in what makes sense to reason, sophistication, gentleness, acknowledgement of unity and infinity, respect for all forms of life, patience.

a 20 yr old going to a "good school" will say, "But who are we to say our way is better?"

This person needs to realize: "despite there are somethings about our way that is better, we can do even better ourselves".

One must ever be looking down upon oneself. There is always room for improvement.

In other words, there is always something that one can do without.

The qualities that makes another person an enemy, despite we are better than our enemy, are within us as well.

Hello Sky, and welcome.

btw could you explain to me what a mystical genius is in the context of here

I’m sorry, I did not read much of this thread other than my discussion with Cory. May be Milli, who started this thread, can help.

As far as I go, I don’t find anything “mystical” as such, and the word ‘genius’ breeds in pride, strengthening a false ego, so I prefer to stay away from it.

truth seems to qualify as an alternate reality to maya existence

Yes it does, but it shouldn’t be, and this is one of the greatest problems I see that afflicts the most “logical” of minds.

Once the concept of Maya (All is illusory) sets in, it is rather quite difficult to reconcile this though with the fact that it is logically impossible to be otherwise. One thinks that it has to necessarily follow that there must be something that is NOT illusory, hence there must be the one great Truth, which in essence means that Maya is a lie.

If Maya cannot do without the truth, then so can truth not do without Maya. They would necessarily be interdependent. So how absolute can any truth be on its “own”? and how can there be two alternate realities when both are here and Now?

Maya according to me is neither separate from nor a “manifestation” of something that is not Maya. Causality is more than sufficient to understand the workings of Maya itself, which is logically apparent. Somehow this process is taken to be more real than that which is being processes, failing to recognize that in an infinite environment there can be no real difference between the process and the processed, because the processed itself is what drives the process in turn. Each and every effect is the cause of the next effect, isn’t it?

Since we think in terms of ‘what came first’, we always express causality as ‘cause and effect’, never as ‘Effect and Cause’, because we think that a cause has to necessarily come BEFORE an Effect, but generally we forget the first lesson of causality, that causality has no beginning, hence neither can be considered in any “logically” preferential sequence, hence an effect is as much responsible for a cause as much as a cause is responsible for an effect; it is self run and needs no alternate reality to explain its “illusoriness”.

This "all is illusory" maya crap is what I'm referring to as the nihilism here. This is nihilism. You guys condemn any and all acts designed to promote existence as vain worship of the illusory. Maybe you don't like the word "nihilist". It doesn't sound nice.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Hi again Sapius,

Sapius: So a real thinker, who looks at things from an absolute unbiased view point, detaching himself from his false-ego based thinking, meaning; standing ”outside” of his shoes, will not assume HIS own thinking as having some sort of superiority, for he is absolutely aware of the nature of causality and how HIS thinking comes about, so as do OTHERS. So in that sense, who or what is superior or inferior?

Cory: It depends on what you value.


Sapius: That is what I have been telling you, and here it seems that you know it too, so how come one value is superior than another if any and all values are eventually a product of causality?

Do you value having values?

Is it better for humans to have no values or to have values?

As a conscious thing, each and every reaction is necessarily a value judgment.

Simply understanding this overwhelms me. Could I ever be otherwise even if I wanted to?

So, if I say that I do not value values, you think that that would not be a value judgment?

I am talking form the perspective of A=A which is entrenched in consciousness itself, not personal preferential values as compared to another.

What is more valuable than being a logically conscious thing capable of valuing among other things? I value the conscious ‘I’.

That’s what I value; the rest is superficial, but has its own logical comparative “values”, which is a different subject and cannot be taken lightly either.

Sapius wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Hi again Sapius,

Sapius: So a real thinker, who looks at things from an absolute unbiased view point, detaching himself from his false-ego based thinking, meaning; standing ”outside” of his shoes, will not assume HIS own thinking as having some sort of superiority, for he is absolutely aware of the nature of causality and how HIS thinking comes about, so as do OTHERS. So in that sense, who or what is superior or inferior?

Cory: It depends on what you value.


Sapius: That is what I have been telling you, and here it seems that you know it too, so how come one value is superior than another if any and all values are eventually a product of causality?

Do you value having values?

Is it better for humans to have no values or to have values?

As a conscious thing, each and every reaction is necessarily a value judgment.

Simply understanding this overwhelms me. Could I ever be otherwise even if I wanted to?

So, if I say that I do not value values, you think that that would not be a value judgment?

I am talking form the perspective of A=A which is entrenched in consciousness itself, not personal preferential values as compared to another.

What is more valuable than being a logically conscious thing capable of valuing among other things? I value the conscious ‘I’.

That’s what I value; the rest is superficial, but has its own logical comparative “values”, which is a different subject and cannot be taken lightly either.

SO you value valuelessness, therfore DO have values. And superior ones. What were we fighting about?

So typical on this site. Indicative of atrophy of critical thought through fundamentalist buddho/mystic/nihilo/enlightment.

Milli,

Sapius: That is what I have been telling you, and here it seems that you know it too, so how come one value is superior than another if any and all values are eventually a product of causality?

Milli: Where humans intersect with causality, when things happen to us which serve as a stimulus, the behavior we exhibit is based on the stimulus PLUS OUR VALUES.

Humans intersect with causality? Is causality an external thing? Sorry, I don’t understand this.

On the other hand, isn’t mind itself a product of causality?

One person may steal when faced with an economic crisis. Another may work harder. Two drastically different behaviors stemming from the same stimulus. And those drastically different behaviors cause two vastly different sets of causal chains.

Sure, free-will, so what?

saying values are a product of causality, is just another way of talking about learning.

I don’t get this?

Values are distilliations of knowledge gained from many individual causal experiences over time.

Yes. So what?

Why do values matter if they're a product of a causality?

Because causality creates individual things with their own particular attributes, and the capability of reasoning being one of the attributes of humans, makes him necessarily responsible for it, irrelevant of how just or unjust he may be.

Because our values will modulate our behavior in response to stimulus as we go through life, and some paths lead to ruin. Keeping people from ruinous paths is valuable, which is way I say the moral relativism and all that hooha is just a trojan horse filled with nihilistic doctor kevorkians.

I don’t understand this self-answering of yours either.

The burden is upon sapius to explain how being a product of causality devalues.. um .. values. He's right, but... so?

I do think you might need some more clarifications, if so, please…

Sapius wrote:Milli,

Sapius: That is what I have been telling you, and here it seems that you know it too, so how come one value is superior than another if any and all values are eventually a product of causality?

Milli: Where humans intersect with causality, when things happen to us which serve as a stimulus, the behavior we exhibit is based on the stimulus PLUS OUR VALUES.

Humans intersect with causality? Is causality an external thing? Sorry, I don’t understand this.

We're part of the chain of causality. things impact on us, CAUSE us to do things. Our values modulate our reaction, thoughts and subsequent actions, which thus continue the chain of causality. You might say values modulate our impact on the chain of causality, of which we are a part. This is very simple.

On the other hand, isn’t mind itself a product of causality?

So what? That has nothing to do with the impact and importance of values.

One person may steal when faced with an economic crisis. Another may work harder. Two drastically different behaviors stemming from the same stimulus. And those drastically different behaviors cause two vastly different sets of causal chains.

Sure, free-will, so what?

So values matter.

saying values are a product of causality, is just another way of talking about learning.

I don’t get this?

Values come about through learning, on an individual and social level.

Values are distilliations of knowledge gained from many individual causal experiences over time.

Yes. So what?

So saying they're a product of causality i.e "learned" does nothing to make them less valuable.

Why do values matter if they're a product of a causality?

Because causality creates individual things with their own particular attributes, and the capability of reasoning being one of the attributes of humans, makes him necessarily responsible for it, irrelevant of how just or unjust he may be.

So people are responsible for what they cause. Yes. And what they DO in fact end up causing is highly dependant upon the values they hold internally. Values still matter. Calling them a product of causality is still not as actually dismissive as you seem to think.

Because our values will modulate our behavior in response to stimulus as we go through life, and some paths lead to ruin. Keeping people from ruinous paths is valuable, which is way I say the moral relativism and all that hooha is just a trojan horse filled with nihilistic doctor kevorkians.

I don’t understand this self-answering of yours either.

It's quite simple. Im saying all this moral relativism is just a way of getting us to abandon the values we have learned over time through observances of the chain of causality, as you would probably agree. It's a memetic cultural stupidizer.

The burden is upon sapius to explain how being a product of causality devalues.. um .. values. He's right, but... so?

I do think you might need some more clarifications, if so, please…

All this, and you still have lost.

Milli.

M: Why do values matter if they're a product of a causality?

S: Because causality creates individual things with their own particular attributes, and the capability of reasoning being one of the attributes of humans, makes him necessarily responsible for it, irrelevant of how just or unjust he may be.

M: So people are responsible for what they cause. Yes.

Yes, that’s what I said.

And what they DO in fact end up causing is highly dependant upon the values they hold internally.

Sure.

Values still matter.

Of course, they do.

Calling them a product of causality is still not as actually dismissive as you seem to think.

Calling them a product of causality in fact affirms the reality of any and all values and a real responsibility without a heavenly authority dictating it. Actually I’m not dismissive in the way YOU seem to think. I’m looking at values for what they are, not what they do.

The point was which value is Superior? And if so, according to whom?

All this, and you still have lost.

Hey, you can take the medal home... :)

BTW, I was ROTFL :D hahahahha.....

So typical on this site. Indicative of atrophy of critical thought through fundamentalist buddho/mystic/nihilo/enlightment.

What a tongue twister.. hehehehehhe.....

Sapius wrote:I’m looking at values for what they are, not what they do.

Perhaps my results oriented mindset stems from my can-do, yankee attitude. Color me guilty!

Milli,

Let me break it down, bro.

"Why is millipodium so quick to denounce all as nihilistic?"

Well, it's right there in his name.

milli-podium: a conflict of values.

milli: small

"podium": grand

-

Now, "all is illusion" -- because the void is your mind.

Or, language forms conceptual worlds.

Love thyself.