GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Actually, regarding the multi-page threads, much of the time several topics get covered in one thread. People do not start a new thread when the topic changes often enough.

This is a good point, but I don't think there's any easy solution to it. Threads do tend to meander and get complicated. It's one of those things that boards have to put up with to some extent. But when a thread goes off on a tangent it can be a good idea to start a new one to cover the new topic. Or, alternatively, it's also possible to reignite a topic that has died but contains that tangent. But it's a hard thing to expect from people because posters just get caught up in the dynamic of a thread and the momentum just has a life of its own.

Ideas are welcome, however.

Dan wrote:

the place lacks a certain "edge" that is indicative of the fire that a person needs to make progress spiritually.

So, people basically need spend more time feeding their inner fire, and express more from that place, with brevity and succinctness. Capital. Now, how to encourage it in ourselves and others, over time.

Dan wrote:

I'd prefer for people to look at how they communicate and make their own judgements.

I think the QRS should make the suggested, but not enforced rule that posters should only dedicate their time to roughly 3-4 threads per week. This way a poster can dedicate all their energy to thinking about a topic long and hard, taking their time before responding. Hopefully this will prevent the many posters on here that continue to ignorantly and pleasurably pump out wishy-washy brain flatulence straight from their conditioned memories.

We need to encourage quality, and not quantity on this forum. For instance: many on here get a little carried away with the frequency of their posts. So I say to the forum: Don’t be so trigger happy with the ‘Post Reply’ button, spend more time thinking long and hard about one post, rather than quickly responding to many posts.

Ryan,

How about you out and say it - philosophy is not for discussing, and should never have been brought to a message board format. It should be invitation only to a select few biological males.
.

Elizabeth,

I don't think your defensiveness is the kind of fire and edge we're talking about reviving.

Elizabeth wrote:

How about you out and say it - philosophy is not for discussing, and should never have been brought to a message board format. It should be invitation only to a select few biological males.

It is for discussing, but there is an efficient, concise, minimal, and more effective way of doing it. And then there is an inefficient, sloppy, greedy and excessive way of doing it.

I am openly declaring that as truth seekers, we should be striving to achieve the former rather than the latter. Sometimes I spend hours, or even days thinking about a topic before I post or respond. It is the mark of a careful thinker.

Have you ever watched a western movie Elizabeth? Do you notice that the outlaws always run in prematurely shooting their guns in every direction, they lack order and harmony, while the sheriff slowly walks out, slowly loads his gun, looks around at all the chaos without flinching a single muscle, points at one target in the commotion, aims carefully, making sure that he finds the exact position that he wants to hit, and then he fires...

And guess what? more times than not, he hits the outlaw fatally right in the heart everytime.

That's the movies Ryan.

Thanks for your honesty in this thread Dan. I'm ashamed that I need reminding.

I don't like eulogies. Criticism is for the living.

"Marsha made statements about her understanding of Ultimate Truth, and then refused to explain her reasoning. That's all I have to say about her."

"Dan uses all kinds of examples from his personal life to point to how the sage should behave or think. But rarely that of the woman he lives with. Is he ashamed to?"

"Kelly is easily distracted and still living in the shallows."

-

Elizabeth wrote:

That's the movies Ryan.

Ah, but you’re incorrect. The American filmmakers have unconsciously created a metaphorical figure that resembles the enlightened man. Namely the American western hero is always a quiet, reserved, calm, intelligent and he is an efficient killer because he can kill without being affected emotionally. And he is notorious for his precision and accuracy when he fires his weapon.

The sage is similar in all respects. He is quiet and meek naturally. He is an efficient truth speaker because he doesn’t allow emotions to affect his judgments, and he is incredibly accurate and precise because he is a master of language and a master of his own mind.

He speaks with few words, but those words are deadly to the emotions of the ego.

Watch the video below Elizabeth, and pay close attention to the amount of time the gunfighters spend studying each other’s faces, movements and so on before they actually draw their pistols.

Click here.

Ryan,

The American filmmakers have unconsciously created a metaphorical figure that resembles the enlightened man.

The footage you posted came from a spaghetti western which--as you can probably imagine--were made by Italians. I'll admit, though, that Clint Eastwood plays a serious badass in the three flicks he made with Leone. I wasn't aware that being enlightened was similar to being a hardcore mofo gunslinger, but I guess I can buy it...

An unfortunate side effect of threads having so many posts per day is that it is difficult to participate in them if you do take the time to think about it. By the time you decide what you want to say on a point, it's 3 pages later, so you either jump in with what you think you want to say, or don't say it at all. Gets a bit cyclical, really.

To add my two cents worth, I think that Dan and Marsha are both projecting. As far as I can see, the "fire" is still very much alive on this board, certainly no less so than in previous years.

Marsha was palpably jaded in the months leading up to her departure and Dan has admitted that he has also been feeling jaded. This is bound to impact on their vision.

Nietzsche once remarked that to the pure all things are pure, while to the swine all things are swinish. Perhaps we can add to this by saying: To the jaded all things are jaded.

-

I swore to myself to stop posting to genius for the time being(I still read it), but here goes. I thought the best period of genius(genius-l back then) was about 1997 to ~2001. Now this was also during the same time that I was going through my own most philosophically powerful period - to date(and I was a teenager, so was probably even more passionate and fiery). So there's a reasonable case to made that I might be projecting here.

It was also the start of genius, so the core posters and QSR(although Kevin didn't seem to post all that much from memory.) may have been fresher. I also stopped reading for a while when genius moved to that ugly online board(after topica I think) so I don't know what went on during that period.

What I think I perceive now is less variety in those who are here. In some of the earlier days there were different camps composed of multiple posters, you had the QSR types, the mystics, the scientists, the postmodernists, the downright nutters, the christians, the buddhists, the nihilists, and so on. Now it seems more homogenous, with posters generally closer to agreement with the QSR core tenents. A dissenter of the likes of unwise was less of the exception in the past.

It seems to me there used to be more forceful and prolonged disagreements between QSR and their opponents. Now it seems I continously read "cause this, cause that", and there appears to be a sort of assumed belief by the posters of this material that these matters are not going to be challenged - the majority is in general agreement. There used to be many heated arguments about QSR being mysognists, now their "Woman" views are more widely accepted just like causation.

QSR started genius, at least partly I assume, with the purpose of trying to spread their views, and thus I suppose it can only be expected that over time like-minded individuals would start to congregate here. So essentially I see that their plan is working, they have managed to attract more and more people who are in agreement with them. However, as more like-minded people converge on this place, the intensity, depth and frequency of disagreements and debate seems to dimish - as anyone would assume it would. Instead, in general, I believe a lot of the discussion has come down to simply working out the finer points.

I thought the banning of that guy during the last year who was intent on proclaiming the good in marriage and women and such was a bit of a bad move. The best philosophy always thrived on freedom, and I didn't think he did anything inherently wrong in terms of board conduct, all it did was increase the pace of the march towards uniformity. In my opinion banning should be highly restrained, the lawless-nothing-is-sacred nature of genius is one of the ingredients that gave it its spark. Banning has been overused recently I'd say.

My subjective perception is also that genius has become less personal and less agressive. In the past there seemed to be more severe judgements thrown around about other posters, more personal attacks, more attempts at ripping up peoples egos instead of just discussing concepts. It might have become more civil and diplomatic. That may have been down to some of the posters who tended to go for that - like Marsha. There is something to be said for making harsh judgements and analysis of the real lives and minds of posters rather than simply skipping straight into the abstract and sometimes safe world of concepts and philosophical constructs.

I reckon the truth is more like, when folks with a modicum of intelligence realised how personal philosophy is, as it is presented by the likes of David Quinn and co., they ran screaming for the hills. Generally they just do it faster now, because there is a slight increase in the number of committed philosophers writing. Less bullshit is accommodated.

That you come back to whinge shows you have a bit of courage in you than the cowards who've left. More than someone like James Jonathan, Mitchell Porter, or Andrew Wiseman. That's not to say that the current membership are courageous. By and large, they're not.

Jason wrote:intensity, depth and frequency of disagreements and debate seems to dimish - as anyone would assume it would. Instead, in general, I believe a lot of the discussion has come down to simply working out the finer points.

Occasionally this happens. Typically though, there is a lot of waffling and thick blanketing thrown around Truth. Current diehards are more or less in the phase of preparing for the journey, and haven't gotten around to being ready to start walking.

This is completely acceptable, as it's a demanding journey.

If you have a journey of one day, you take a small lunch. A journey of three days, you have to grind some grain the evening before you leave.


-

I don't think Genius Forum should be an ongoing interest for anyone, except the creators of it. It has a purpose, a limited but very important one. It's up to the individual to get all they can out of it, and move on.

It was a lot more interesting and stimulating in the years 1999-2002. In that period, certain events happened which had a huge influence on public perception and psyche, September 11 being the most prominent.The effects of it are still resonating, spinning-out to the furthest corners of the earth. It is the single most significant day in human history, as far as human beings on a global-scale getting a wake-up call.

How can a true thinker, philosopher understand these kind of things? Not that several thousand people died in the act, but what drove the mechanism in the first place. How did it get that way, so out of hand, to the point where people are left in ruins, not having the slightest idea about what the fuck these "enemies" want to harm them for. It again boils down to ignorance, the average joe riding in his SUV and burning up gas, polluting the air, doesnt know what he is doing in the broader scheme of things. He just wants to get home
through the traffic, to see his kids for a few hours, kiss his wife, feed his belly, so he can get up and do it all over again tommorrow.

GF now is the domain of the Elizabeth Isabelles, the Kelly Jones, the Ryans and Trevors.

Jason wrote:

In some of the earlier days there were different camps composed of multiple posters, you had the QSR types, the mystics, the scientists, the postmodernists, the downright nutters, the christians, the buddhists, the nihilists, and so on. Now it seems more homogenous, with posters generally closer to agreement with the QSR core tenents. A dissenter of the likes of unwise was less of the exception in the past.

Expanding on what Kelly is saying:

There is more resonance in terms of intelligence now at GF, which is a positive development. In the past it sounds as if there was a wider range of deluded individuals all trying to spread their ideologies, and therefore it wasn’t as threatening to any particular individual because there was such a variety of delusion. There was more cover to hide by the sounds of it.

It sounds as if GF has definitely evolved in a positive direction. Think of the past GF as a school of fish, with a couple of sharks coming into the herd and attacking at will. The difference now is that there are less fish because they were either eaten or scared away, and there are more sharks that are hunting together as one harmonious unit.

It is rarer for a Christian or some other nut to enter GF now because if they observe the activity on here beforehand, they sense the danger before they even open their mouth. And by the way, those types of posters aren’t the type that we want on GF anyway because they are hopefully incorrigible, they are a waste of energy to respond to.

The major difference is that the present GF isn’t as exciting because it doesn’t provide the wide open feeding frenzy like in the past.

However, the function of GF is not to be an exciting and entertaining atmosphere for those who are simply looking for some cheap thrills through sadistically laughing at ideological confrontations, its function is to single out rare individuals that have the potential for greatness, and help cultivate that through the attack of delusions and imperfections.

Dan Rowden wrote:Oh, I entirely agree. I don't for a second divorce myself from the observation. Something definitely blew out my pilot light and I'm having a hard time getting it lit again.

It's remarkable to me that David Quinn has had the patience to go over the same ground, over and over again, for years on end. It seems to me very natural to want to move on, look at something different. Once you've been through the same argument several times with several different people, continuing to do it seems a waste of time - although it might be helpful for the other person.

I wasn't sure what the point of the Noam Chomsky video was. At first I didn't get very far into it and I thought, ah, a couple of overly-intellectual eggheads talking bullshit about things that have nothing to do with the real world. Yeah, there is certainly plenty of that.

But then I watched the whole thing and came to a different conclusion: Buckley is a total dick. And it's amazing how little the world has changed since 1969. The issues are the same.

Marsha was arguing something like Chomsky's point. All governments are kleptocracies. All wars are wars to gain some economic end - i.e., taking something by force; theft. The Government is just the biggest gang around. It's not that power corrupts, but that power attracts those who are easily corruptable - some very eager for corruption.

Thug Life.

If I had to divide up this board into five major groups it would be, people who generally agree and strive to live by the ideology of this board, intellectual types, hippies, post-modernists, and people who generally agree with the philosophy of the board but are weighted down by their attachments so they choose to keep the philosophy at a distance so it doesn't get too personal.

Personally I see a lot of fire on this board and I see a lot of hot air being blown around as well, which is to be expected on a public internet forum. I just depends on which of these aspects you choose to focus on.

edited to add a fifth group, e.g. hippies

Dan Rowden wrote:the board has become very waffly and lacking in fire and energy - i.e. of a philosophic type, not an emotional type.

What I don't have in fire, I make up for in verve.

Some of us want to stop trying to make the world into our own idea of what it should be, rather than broadly accepting it as it is. Arguing on a forum is an attempt to change the world to be more to our liking and when we find arguing repeatedly doesn't work we become jaded.

Duality and nihilism also make one quite jaded. I see no way that truths of reality could not lead one into nihilism as all one's once absolute meanings about the finite get taken away and replaced with the uncertainties that stem from a mental accommodation of dualism.

IMO, the QRS more often than not, refuse to discuss the finer points, believing their own points to be the finest of all. I want them to be more imaginative philosophers and do more speculation, rather than trot out the same old truths all the time.

Of course the big sticker is novelty of topic. Without novelty then everything becomes humdrum to minds that have got into the habit of finding something new and exciting most times they visit forums.

Also there is the underlying loss of faith in society.

Right, and then there's a sixth category of poster ---- Jamesh.

Kidding aside, Nick, I'm not sure it's possible to define posters so easily. For instance, there's a big difference between people who have time to practically live on this board, and those who can only post in limited spare time -- they will naturally be able to write with somewhat less depth, or at least detail, and may therefore come across as shallower people.

That said, I don't think your categories are accurate. For the heck of it, would slice the postership in this way:

1. Those living on the righteous path.

2. Those trying to live on the righteous path (although some may differ in their definition of the path and its destination).

3. Those who have no concept and/or interest in the path (though some may think they do) and mainly enjoy posting and hanging with the Enlightenment crowd.

4. Those whose chief mission in posting is to challenge the QRS views.

I don't really want to argue about my groupings in comparison to anybody elses, it's just a quick take on my personal perspective of the board. I could care less if anyone agrees with them or thinks they have a better perspective on it.