GENIUS FORUMS

The truth paper appears to be down...

AgentB and Ras,

Kelly must have taken it down, as she is on a break from the Forum at present.

There are lots of examples of her thinking here on this thread and on others.

Sue

Sue:

[In reference to her quest of pure masculinity] yet I don't think it has anything to do with her being, or not being a lesbian.

Maybe ... I really don't know. It is something Kelly would have to answer for herself. My guess would be that her practice of trying to achieve extreme masculinity might have something, if not a lot, to do with her "confusion".

Ras

Sue:

What do you think of Kelly's Truth Paper?

I read bits and pieces of her Paper a little while ago and have read her postings on the Forum.

Honestly, it doesn't impress me much. Her determination and perserverence though is pretty remarkable. Her desperation and depression is pretty evident in my opinion.

As for her ideas ... Well, it's basically the exact same ideas written down by David Quinn. She has absorbed them well, to her credit. She is definitely determined to end her suffering by taking the concept of cause & effect to its end ... Good luck to her.

Ras

Ras,

I've a similar opinion of her, and of her work. I find her writing difficult to read, as it sounds like she has two or three people in her all fighting over what they want to say - so that the end result is fragmented and unclear. Yes, she has passion for Truth, but it is based on desperation and emotional longing, and not on any clear understanding of Reality.

As you say, she has absorbed a lot of 'her philosophy' from many sources, and we probably haven't heard her voice as yet - but maybe, given time, that voice will arise. Her last post to this thread was quite revealing, as she spoke of her confusion as to how to proceed philosophically. She wants to be perfectly wise, but the way she is going about it may well destroy any chance she has of making any philosophical breakthrough - it may even destroy her.

Your last point about her wanting to use cause and effect to end her suffering is spot on - and exactly why her suffering will not end. Her understanding of cause and effect is limited, which means that any decision she makes based on that understanding, may well be a mistake.

I don't wish her "Good Luck" - I wish for her to remember her true self, and work from that point onwards.

Sue

Since I left the forum some weeks ago, I've done exactly what Sue was talking about. Even though I am an extraordinarily slow learner, it was necessary to get some clarity about what the error is. I'm still clarifying it, because ego is the well-used habit.

This reply doesn't belong in the Brothel, really, although it is from the point of view of someone with a prostitute mentality. It's about accepting that I'm afraid of not coping with philosophy.

This is why my writing is difficult and tight, why I focus so often on my failures and sins, my poor background, and how weak my mind is.

But because focussing on all this fills my mind with depressions and anxiety, I decided it's better to forget it. Forget striving, and accept these sins.

It's an important lesson, for me. Being aloof from all that belittles my sense of self-worth is a very strong habit, creating a deep contempt of people, even hatred of them, because being around them automatically adds to the hurricane of my psyche. Their "faults" quicken the pace of the frenzy. In a dysfunctional family, an aloof and "mature" person controls and keeps some kind of order. But it doesn't work in the chaos of Reality, which naturally creates violence and suffering, equanimity and poise --- so I don't need to seek anything here. Not even testosterone therapy.

Loving prostitutes, the subject of my response, is about living in the world, getting to know people, accept the faults as ultimately perfect, and live alongside the uncontrollable world. At least this humility means my mind is clear(er).

So, an "apology" to whoever I have misrepresented, and caused to falter. It's impossible to know whether people's motivations and thoughts are what I assume they are, so the best response is know what things ultimately are. Then I won't start interpreting in order to feed my ego.

Kelly

Kelly wrote:

It's impossible to know whether people's motivations and thoughts are what I assume they are, so the best response is know what things ultimately are.

Yes. I reckon I have an amusing story to tell along these lines.

Work takes me to the heart of the city nowadays. I drive half the journey and train the other half. It's been such a long time since I have caught a train -- especially at peak hour. Standing room only by the time I got on. Ahead of me sat a woman in her mid- to late-twenties, I'd say. She was knitting. It's been even longer since I've seen anyone knit, I reckon. So, I watched her knit. Not too long later, she looked up at me. I looked back. Now, I know there's this kind of unspoken law that you're not supposed to look people in the eye. But, well, I don't see why not, really. I wasn't pulling any faces. Just there, ya know? So, there we were, just looking at eachother until she got nasty [laughs]. You know, she kinda frowned a bit and looked sharply away from me back at her knitting. A few moments later, she rolled her eyes upward to check. I was still looking. In a huff, she stuffed her knitting in her knitting bag and took out a book, rolling her eyes upwards a couple more times before a hoarde of fresh commuters boarded the train and blocked our line of sight. She took out her knitting again. Toward the end of the journey when the train was almost empty and our line of sight duly restored, she looked at me again. I caught her in my peripheral vision and looked back. Man, did she get pissed off. She got up and stormed by, sitting somewhere behind me with a grunt.

I have no idea what she was thinking. Though, it did make me wonder for a moment what she thought was wrong with knitting.

Jason wrote:Anyways, one time I was sitting in a relatively empty carriage and there was a young woman sitting face me about ten meters from me. I locked my eyes onto her eyes, and she locked hers onto mine.

This happened to me, years ago. My eyes locked with a woman's. She stared back at me, in a mocking or daring manner. I smiled. She panicked. Who knows what she was thinking. I was just playing.

Leyla wrote:Though, it did make me wonder for a moment what she thought was wrong with knitting.

I wonder what she told her knitting club.

I think I've always had a habit of breaking that unspoken law of looking people in the eye on trains. It's one of my various "challenging animalistic instincts" projects. Anyways, one time I was sitting in a relatively empty carriage and there was a young woman sitting face me about ten meters from me. I locked my eyes onto her eyes, and she locked hers onto mine. So for the next five minutes we sat there blankly staring each other in the eyes, I eventually looked away due to my eyes getting teary, and just after that she got off the train. My interpretation was that we were having a staring battle for the fun of it, she seemed pleased when I lost.

(Dave, I'm impressed with your skills of premonition, by answering my post before it was actually posted.)

DHodges wrote:

Leyla wrote:Though, it did make me wonder for a moment what she thought was wrong with knitting.

I wonder what she told her knitting club.

"I knit on the train precisely so I won't have to make eye-contact with strangers! But it doesn't work goddamit! That's it I'm quitting the club and buying a pair of sunglasses instead! I'm allergic to wool anyway! Goodbye![door slam]"?

Jason wrote:(Dave, I'm impressed with your skills of premonition, by answering my post before it was actually posted.)

I'm cool like that.

DHodges wrote: I'm cool like that.

You don't have to tell me. With those sunglasses and that bandanna you'd be cool doing just about anything.

Jason wrote:

DHodges wrote: I'm cool like that.

You don't have to tell me. With those sunglasses and that bandanna you'd be cool doing just about anything.

Here's the whole picture. What I'm doing there is playing bass in front of a flower shop.

Leyla, Jason, Dave,

This is a bit ironic. Clearly, you cannot know what a person is thinking, only what they are appearing as (expressing). Someone expressing emotional upset may be acting, and someone who is not may also be acting.

That said, the probability that someone is continually expressing faulty reasoning because they're an excellent actor, whose intention is to undermine your attachment to reasoning, is very small. It's possible. It's more possible in the Genius Forum than anywhere else. It's reasonable that millions of existences that express faulty reasoning aren't all be focussed on just one of them. Therefore, the continual or frequent expression of faulty reasoning, in general, is most likely owing to lack of wisdom.

It would be more reasonable to respond to expressions of irrationality as what they appear to be - but accept the uncertainty of that estimation. Who knows, you could be in the office of Zonny Whoop's employer, within Zonny Whoop's office on a galactic cruise ? The definitions for any particular circumstance are infinite, so why waste time on the subtleties of these things, when it's reasonable to assume that most people don't have the conceptual vocabulary to even get a grasp of the basics of Reality.


Kelly

Jason is right about the animalism of staring. Where I live, the bullying nature of cows, sheep, dogs and cats (not human forms of) is expressed by harrassing using sounds, and physically pushing each other around. Some more animalistic humans do this, shouting and hitting each other. Staring means one has been noticed, which is a prerequisite for being harrassed.

Some people think that if they look away, they don't exist for you, and are therefore not to be noticed and harrassed. This is the same as physically hiding or being hermitic.

This is also why people like to stupify their own ability to notice things, e.g. drugs, daydreaming, music, social events --- even reasoning about Reality. It enables one to hide from one's own ability to be self-harrassed.

If one accepted there was nothing to hide from, because no subject/object division, there'd be no staring. The information focussed within a field would not be being fixed.


Kelly

Jason wrote:

I think I've always had a habit of breaking that unspoken law of looking people in the eye on trains. It's one of my various "challenging animalistic instincts" projects. Anyways, one time I was sitting in a relatively empty carriage and there was a young woman sitting face me about ten meters from me. I locked my eyes onto her eyes, and she locked hers onto mine. So for the next five minutes we sat there blankly staring each other in the eyes, I eventually looked away due to my eyes getting teary, and just after that she got off the train. My interpretation was that we were having a staring battle for the fun of it, she seemed pleased when I lost.

What about staring into the eyes of a large, psychotic-looking bloke covered in biker's tattoos? Done that much?


-

It’s funny how we think other people exist. We can’t know for sure that they do, because it’s impossible to get outside of our own minds to take a look. Of course, it is plausible that there are other people – my mind exists, so therefore other minds could exist - it’s just impossible to know for sure. I could be dreaming that other people exist, and so could they. I hear, feel, taste and have all sorts of interactions with these ‘others’, but are they really there?

Since we can’t know for sure, I suppose all we can do is consider them as extensions of our own selves, of our own minds. Accept that we are making them, along with everything else in the world up as we go along – or more correctly - Nature is making everything up.

* * *
Some days, it isn't that easy to remember that other people are you, especially when they seemily want to cause you all sorts of grief and turmoil - but I suppose that's just the way I see it.

Sue

DavidQuinn000 wrote: What about staring into the eyes of a large, psychotic-looking bloke covered in biker's tattoos? Done that much?

Nope.

Jason is right about the animalism of staring.

I think both staring and averting the eyes from contact can be linked to what might be call animalistic instincts. The main point for me is that it seems most people just want to keep following unquestioned unspoken rules without tring to find out if they are actually reasonable or beneficial rules. Animals do many stupid things because they are incapable of analyzing their instincts to see if alternative ways of acting would be better overall. Also, I'm not even convinced these rules are instinctual, they may just be rules inherited from past generations, which have no basis in instinct. If they are merely cultural constructs, and maybe irrational ones at that, not following them wouldn't even have a negative impact in terms of us supressing what our natural instincts made us feel deep down in our gut we have to do.

kjones wrote:Some people think that if they look away, they don't exist for you, and are therefore not to be noticed and harrassed. This is the same as physically hiding or being hermitic.

This is also why people like to stupify their own ability to notice things, e.g. drugs, daydreaming, music, social events --- even reasoning about Reality. It enables one to hide from one's own ability to be self-harrassed.
Kelly

I think there are a variety of potential reasons people often don't like being stared at. One reason may be that staring activates an instinctual place in the brain that signals a potential threat: such as the stare between predator and prey.

Another reason may be that the normal process of being raised by parents is to have a parent control the child's actions. This is largley achieved by the parent watching the child and then intervening when they want to alter the childs actions. As this process continues the child will tend to internalize the authority of the parent, so that the childs actions will become self-regulated after a while. Staring can thus put adults back into the frame of thinking that they are being judged, just as they were by their parents as children. That then makes them self-concious about what they are doing: "Someone's looking at me. Am I doing things right?". I think this may be the self-harassing you re talking about Kelly. People often don't like feeling judged or self-conscious (for many other reasons I wont get into).

I've read that staring is not considered bad manners or a faux paus in India, which I find very interesting. It never ceases to amaze me how much culture can shape people. It's also interesting that you can stare at a young child(say 3 years old) and they will show no negative reaction to it, in fact they tend to stare themselves.

Jason wrote:I've read that staring is not considered bad manners or a faux paus in India

There is the culture of the so-called "Evil eye" in India.

Indian parents sometimes paint the child's "third eye" in the middle of their forehead, to ward off the evil eye.

Jason wrote:

J: I think I've always had a habit of breaking that unspoken law of looking people in the eye on trains. It's one of my various "challenging animalistic instincts" projects. Anyways, one time I was sitting in a relatively empty carriage and there was a young woman sitting face me about ten meters from me. I locked my eyes onto her eyes, and she locked hers onto mine. So for the next five minutes we sat there blankly staring each other in the eyes, I eventually looked away due to my eyes getting teary, and just after that she got off the train. My interpretation was that we were having a staring battle for the fun of it, she seemed pleased when I lost.

DQ: What about staring into the eyes of a large, psychotic-looking bloke covered in biker's tattoos? Done that much?

J: Nope.

Why not? Why should this fellow be spared the benefits of your challenge to convention and social conditioning?

-

DQ: What about staring into the eyes of a large, psychotic-looking bloke covered in biker's tattoos? Done that much?

J: Nope.

DQ:Why not? Why should this fellow be spared the benefits of your challenge to convention and social conditioning?

Firstly, I'm not really sure that anyone else does benefit from me challenging this particular social conditioning. The one thing I do know is that I am challenging my own social conditioning to do this, and that is part of my aim.

As for the psychotic-looking biker, that is actually a hypothetical question, because I have never found myself in such a situation. But my response is: I choose my battles David. Just as I might not engage a poster on this forum because they seem to be beyond hope, I make decisions about who I challenge in this other way too. I would probably decide the chance of getting attacked outweighed the chance of gaining anything for myself or him. So overall I would assess it to be a net negative action, and I wouldn't do it.

Fair enough. But then, I suppose the girl who looks away when a strange, large male, such as yourself, stares at her on the train might be acting from the same motives. She might decide that the chances of getting attacked outweigh any positive gain she could gain from further interactions with you. Her looking away might not be a result of social conditioning, after all.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Fair enough. But then, I suppose the girl who looks away when a strange, large male, such as yourself, stares at her on the train might be acting from the same motives. She might decide that the chances of getting attacked outweigh any positive gain she could gain from further interactions with you. Her looking away might not be a result of social conditioning, after all. -

That is true. I don't want to be dogmatic about these issues, there is room for different interpretations and assumptions and a lot of room for specific instances of such behaviour that may not fall within these generalizations etc. But I think just about everyone will agree that at least some part of it is just that staring is a faux paus, "It's rude to stare." is a one common saying. Or as Leyla said it is just an unspoken law.

Kevin mentioned the idea of an evil-eye which some cultures believe in. Most people here would agree that the evil-eye is rubbish, illogical superstition which overall causes more harm than good. So get rid of the god damn thing, don't just keep on unquestionably doing it. I consider my investigations into staring in Wesern culture to be sort of like examining the Western version of the evil-eye. Just like the evil-eye: is the staring faux paus based almost on a sort of superstition passed down from generation to generation without question? Does it have any reasonable basis for existing? Does suppressing staring ultimately cause more harm than good? If it does then get rid of this unspoken anti-staring rule.

What interests me is the expectation that something has to happen as a consequence of "staring." The reason I put that in quotations marks is that when I was looking at this woman, that's all I was doing -- looking. Course, I have done the staring thing, too. But not this time.

When you are just looking, your eyeballs -- for instance -- don't dry out. You're comfortable. You're able to blink.

Turks have the evil-eye superstition, too. It is combatted not with a dot on the forehead, but with a blue eye made out of plastic or glass hanging off a chain, safety pin (on babies clothing) or set in a pair of earrings.

Probably just because looking at people introverts them (makes them "self" conscious), at which point they stop looking outwards and are more likely to do silly things like trip over their own feet or walk into a lamp post. Or, in the case of someone more aggressively inclined, punch you in the nose. Either way, there's a painful lesson to be learned, it seems.