GENIUS FORUMS

kjones wrote:Remembering the Infinite is like a solution to depression, because its opposed to egotism, which is the basis of depression.

As far as I can tell, depression is an acute form of egotism, in that what one sees as the solution to one's egotistical hell is actually the problem. However, there's a tiny opening in depression. All the introspective energy of depression, might actually stimulate awareness of one's backwards-thinking, if one has enough desire to find the solution.

I will think about that.

However, it seems to me that my own depression is mostly (if not entirely) a chemical imbalance or genetic predisposition.

I am not depressed about anything. In a depressed (unmedicated)state, I tend to sit motionless. I am not doing anything and I am not thinking about much.

Thoughts arise that I should do this or that, but there is no energy, the body does not move.

Undermining my ego is a logical response to understanding the nature of Reality. Knowing that the boundaries of me, or of anything, are all caused, it's truthful of me to keep remembering this.

So, truthfulness is about undermining all boundaries (including those labelled as ego) -- what about the boundaries between and of masculinity and femininity?

This is what I understand by spiritual masochism.

I’m not sure I understand you, here. Can you elaborate?

Misogyny is an extension of this, because it counters my instincts to be sexually attractive, which I know is an illogical instinct. It's not about building up a self-image, but remembering how to overcome the preoccupation with self.

Misogyny is an extension of spiritual masochism? So you would consider the elimination of an instinctual urge to be spiritually masochistic? How do you define spiritual?

Regarding intelligence and wisdom -- I shall bear this in mind when speaking with you. I do not consider them one and the same, however. There are many intelligent but unwise people, in my view -- intelligence being defined as quantity of and ability to apply confined, rote knowledge, and; wisdom as the ability to correctly evaluate, assess and influence any given situation toward greater understanding of the nature of reality. Two very different things, very different outcomes, in my view.

Yes, I put a lot of pressure on the wannabe wise man.

One thing that bothers me somewhat -- not a lot -- I am being picky, I know -- is the fact that this thread was announced by Kevin as a SPECIAL thread for discussion of Kelly's truth paper.

Just kind of feels like an old time Hollywood producer debuting his ingenue.

Faizi

DHodges wrote:However, it seems to me that my own depression is mostly (if not entirely) a chemical imbalance or genetic predisposition.

I am not depressed about anything. In a depressed (unmedicated)state, I tend to sit motionless. I am not doing anything and I am not thinking about much.

Thoughts arise that I should do this or that, but there is no energy, the body does not move.

My theory is that depression is caused by a lack of energy, but it's not that there is energy missing, it's that a person's energies are being dissipated by too many concerns. Like a light bulb spraying light in all directions, but none of it is very bright. I think depression can be overcome by merely learning to concentrate. Truth is best to concentrate on, of course, but it doesn't matter what the object is in terms of the depression, as long as the practice is maintained until your mind can stick to the object at will. This will help you forget about the multitude of concerns so you can focus on one single thing and actually get it done. At that point you may feel that your depression has been fully overcome, but you'll be in danger of falling into again if you let your mind go slack. The concentration has to be maintained.

I think this is what the whole phenomenon of religion is about and why it is so popular. It's about making something meaningful so people will have enough faith in it to focus on it. This is enough to allow someone to experience the peace of a concentrated mind, which people mistake for a spiritual state. Some religions do the guilt/redemption thing, but I think their main appeal lies in the concentration.

My theory, anyway.

Marsha wrote:

"I think that she should be careful about becoming a QSR. She should be careful of accepting too much praise and encouragement."

I agree Marsha that Kelly has done a good job with her paper, but I don't think she need fear praise and encouragement. A person, who decides to take up Truth and live by it, is deserving of encouragement. That is not to say that sometimes that encouragement may take the form of criticism.

As to Kelly becoming a QSR - well I think it is way too early to know. I see Kelly more as an apprentice, and like all apprentices she begins by following in the master's footprints. Her work might reflect that of QRS, but that is inevitable when you're starting out. When she matures in her thought she may take a different direction.


"She should be careful about being used as an example."

An example of what?


"I don't think that becoming a man means that one who is born female must by necessity become masculine in appearance."

Perhaps not, but sometimes it may be a natural side effect of not wasting your time on feminine vanities. But I agree that becoming more masculine does not mean growing a penis. If that was the only prerequisite, then I'm not sure what all those men attached to penises are doing out there? Not many of them seem to be interested in wisdom.

"You are not a mannequin, Kelly."

A mannequin is something that is all appearance and no substance. From Kelly's work I get the impression that there is a passion in her for Truth, but it needs time to blossom.

What Kelly is trying to do through her Truth Paper is quite extraordinary. The fact that she is a young woman living in a world that worships women, where she could be anything and have everything, but no - there she is shouting to the roof tops that she is prepared to throw all that away for some musty old male nonsense called philosophy. Is she mad? Or are we witnessing a true miracle?
As far as I know there has never been a female philosopher, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be some evolutionary push in that direction and perhaps that is what we are witnessing.
All the best Kelly.

Sue

I think the thread disappearing yesterday was owing to my deleting a repeated post, plus errors with the forum database.


Four main topics seem to be emerging in this thread so far:


1- why sexuality is in opposition to individuality (or to wisdom, intelligence, and understanding the nature of Reality)

2- why emptiness is necessarily the result of rational value-making

3- how depression is caused, and what its ultimate solution is

4- the difference between blind following of cult belief systems and
individual rationality



I rank them in importance from highest to lowest: 2, 1, 4, 3.

2- resolves the other three.

1- and 4- are essentially the same. Overcoming sexual preoccupations is very liberating, and generates a strong capacity for individual rationality.

In my opinion, 3- hangs around because of 1. So I'll respond to Jabbermonkey's post.

jabbermonkey wrote:

You've confused rational valuing with instinctive valuing.

according to your paper, all value--therefore all valuing--is conscious. therefore, there is no such thing as instinctive valuing, so i'm not sure what you meant. despite your unclear language, i think you meant to say that I confused socialized desire with biological instinct, which i didn't.

I did distinguish rational evaluation with instinctive valuing by contrasting higher and lower forms of consciousness. I mention this because, if a person is really keen to keep exploring philosophical truths, then it's important to break with irrational habits, such as fitting into mainstream customs, such as academic trends of thinking.

i did misunderstand your use of the word emptiness. as far as i can estimate what you mean by it, aside from a feeling or intuition, Kant also describes it; however, he uses the word space. we can imagine emptiness (that is, an imaginary room with no content) but we cannot imagine nothingness, which would be the absence of space itself, the absence of the possibility for an object to occupy that which we are imagining.

Emptiness, used to define a finite thing, certainly contrasts with another finite thing (everything else, namely presence).

You're right that it makes no sense to describe Reality in this way, because Reality can't be only a portion of itself.

Used to define everything, ie. the infinite, Emptiness gets its meaning in contrast with the apparently real existence of finite things. "Everything" is being contrasted with "particular things". The only way to understand the nature of Reality is to conceptualise the nature of everything, altogether, as a totality. This cannot be a finite thing with its own nature and properties. It's all possible portions, definitions, and so on. This is what I mean by Emptiness.

when you refer to Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, i hope you understand that they, if they had recognized the logical consequence of their ideas, should also have stopped writing--if, in fact, enlightenment were their goal. i suppose if one wanted to bring others to the river, as it were, before they crossed, then it makes sense. admittedly, i haven't read more than the most superficial parts of their work. i'll read more.

It's odd you write about the Tao and emptiness, yet think that one describing them is perjuring himself. Why do you think enlightenment's a state that precludes ordinary activities like talking or thinking?

if you cannot prove Reality's emptiness, then how do you know it is, in fact, empty? furthermore, even if it is true that it is empty, your inability to prove it would lead one to the silence i just mentioned.

I suppose you'd prove the nature of all things by gathering each artifact in existence, looking for a disproof? Big job, that.

the use of the word Reality to describe a whole and, by describing it creating of it something it is not, seems contrary to your purposes. Reality is unified; in short, we are Reality; Reality is us. We are we, which is to say that we are I and he and all, that is to say, nothing. Therefore, again, silence seems the best course.

Since Reality is everything, why be silent, as if speech isn't part of Reality?

kant's wisdom: the Copernican Revolution of Mind...We may live in a world of chaos where we impose an order that exists only in our minds. Order is a construct of our minds, and not necessarily a component of Reality. This does not mean abandoning reason, because, as human beings, we cannot escape our minds except through suicide; instead, it means recognizing that what we describe through philosophy is not Reality, but the Reality of our minds.

wittgenstein's wisdom: 1) What we cannot think we must pass over in silence. 2) All problems of philosophy are a problem of language. 3) Truth defines the limits of our consciousness, not the limits of reality, which is beyond our consciousness.

I take it you accept these ideas. You obviously never experience any other Reality than whatever you're conscious of. So can you explain why you think Reality exists beyond your consciousness?



-------

MKFaizi wrote:One thing that bothers me somewhat -- not a lot -- I am being picky, I know -- is the fact that this thread was announced by Kevin as a SPECIAL thread for discussion of Kelly's truth paper.

Just kind of feels like an old time Hollywood producer debuting his ingenue.

Faizi

That is also what I think to be the crux of the matter. Nevermind Sue Hindmarsh's vague observations and praise and so on, thats just piffle. A bunch of hot air for the simple purpose of filling up space.

What is the extent of Ksolways influence on Kjones? I would like to hear from both. The paper itself is not that interesting.

Sue,

I will have to wait a day to let what you have said sink into my mind.

One thing that I wonder about, however, is -- where is Dan Rowden?

Faizi

Good question. I haven't seen him or talked to him for a few months now. I think he's rather unmotivated at the moment - at least with the internet. I'm hoping he's writing a book, but that might not be happening either.

-

I had time to think about this:

Sue,

A mannequin is something that is all appearance and no substance. From Kelly's work I get the impression that there is a passion in her for Truth, but it needs time to blossom.

A mannequin is something that is used for display. Kelly definitely displays the vestiges of QSR very well. Even fashion is layered.

I do think she also displays plenty of intelligence and passion for truth. It does need time to blossom.

This thread reminds me somewhat of the thread on the Brothel. The one about the little girl whose parents are selling her prints stretched on canvas for a minimum of fifteen hundred dollars.

Putting out a "SPECIAL" thread introduced by Kevin Solway is kind of like exploiting this little art girl. "SEE HOW WONDERFUL?" "SEE HOW GREAT?"
"SEE HOW GENIUS?"

I read Kelly's posts many times on the forum and on the list. Very intellgent person with good writing skill.

Then, why not allow her to forge her way in the way that the rest of us must forge our way? Why treat her as a savant? Why expect the forum to accept her as a sage? How does she consider herself so wise that she can now offer her wisdom, with or without charge?

From Kevin and, now, from you, she seems to have been given carte blanche as the mannequin of genius.

I reckon I'm cool with that.

But damn. Maybe, Kevin can suggest some forums for me like he did for Donna because I think ya'll genuii might be better left to yourselves.

Faizi

MKFaizi wrote:One thing that bothers me somewhat -- not a lot -- I am being picky, I know -- is the fact that this thread was announced by Kevin as a SPECIAL thread for discussion of Kelly's truth paper.

Just kind of feels like an old time Hollywood producer debuting his ingenue.

The discussion of Kelly's Truth Paper began in another thread, and it didn't belong there, so I started a new thread for it. But I think it deserves its own thread anyway.

Kelly has been influenced by quite a number of people, including Rhett Hamilton, but I think she is capable of forming her own thoughts.

I am lazy. What other thread?

Faizi

What's with Rhett Hamilton?

I always thought he kind of stunk.

Faizi

I wonder about Dan's lack of motivation. I think it may have more substance than just nothing. He may well be rather more than fed up. Quite understandable. I don't think it is disgust with the internet.

I doubt that I am the only one who misses his insight.

Faizi

It wasn't that irrelevant.

It first appeared on the Sim Stuff thread posted by Kelly. I replied in that thread directly on some of the material in the paper.

Who the heck is sue hindmarsh?

I have respect for Sue Hindmarsh.

You could go to the old Minefield page for more information.

Faizi

Sue is a long-time friend of ours, and the mother of my thirteen year old son. She appeared in a couple of our old radio shows - e.g. Sexual Fantasy.

-

Marsha wrote:

I wonder about Dan's lack of motivation. I think it may have more substance than just nothing. He may well be rather more than fed up. Quite understandable. I don't think it is disgust with the internet.

Possibly. But it may be that he is just taking a hiatus. I suppose I should visit him one day and see how he's doing.

I doubt that I am the only one who misses his insight.

Yeah, it would be good to see him firing up again. I did spy him on the Ponderers Guild a few weeks ago.

-

David Hodge wrote:

Other people here have also found ways to avoid working. Do you think that is necessary? Why?

As you pointed out, it takes up your free time. It also requires sticking to routines, and saying and doing what people want, e.g. clothes, transport, smiling, socialising, talking about the latest trivia, and having money to start with. But I think the biggest factor against work is the expectation that a worker is automatically doing the right thing. It is as if employment is a sign of wisdom, when it's largely a total waste of time.

I'm not saying that the spiritual path doesn't include hard work. It does, but it shouldn't be for an egotistical reward. That's the ideal, anyway.


Marsha wrote:

I think that it is great that she does not need to work for a living.

I think my life is very hard work. I'm almost constantly at work.

I think that she should be careful about becoming a QSR. She should be careful of accepting too much praise and encouragement. She should be careful about being used as an example. I don't think that becoming a man means that one who is born female must by necessity become masculine in appearance. You are not a mannequin, Kelly.

I frequently have to overcome the urge to flee to a secret hermitage, Marsha. It's based on wanting to be pure, but it's really a lower form of purity. My output does show Rhett, Kevin and David's influence, but I am not ashamed of this, as I can clearly see my own sweat and blood in it, as well as my own conclusions.

Staying low to protect one's individual self-image is actually against wisdom, since there's nothing really there. No matter what one does, people will use the example. So avoiding the mudslinging is cowardly, and miserly. Being truthful in everything is really painful, but what else can I do?

As for being masculine in appearance, that's natural for me. My personal habits haven't changed much at all. I shower less, have fewer clothes and possessions. As for testosterone therapy, that's only if my moods interfere too much. I'd have no use for cosmetic surgery.

Kevin's direct influence on you is easily discerned. With your shaved head, you do kind of look like a disciple.

Now I'm confused. Should I shave or not? Or a beer in hand? Perhaps i should start learning computer programming - oh wait, I already had...

Ras866 wrote:

If the Truth is so damn Great, and Masculinity is so goddamned Great, why is it that its followers look and feel like a sack of shit?

Happiness is Great, of course.

Thank you. I'll check the link out.

Marsha wrote:

From Kevin and, now, from you, she seems to have been given carte blanche as the mannequin of genius.

Why Kelly? Well the only answer I can give is that she is a little different from most women – not much different, but that small difference makes her interesting.

It is so very difficult to get onto the philosophical path that I am always astounded when someone tries. Like I said before, Kelly is a young woman, with the world at her feet, yet she wants to get into philosophy. It just sounds too weird.

Women do not need philosophy in any shape or form. For a woman to think that philosophy could be something she could give her life to seems at odds with nature. Kelly has dipped her little toe in the pool of thought and seems to have decided that the water isn’t too cold. Whether she plunges head first into that pool is another thing entirely.

The overall impression I get of Kelly is of someone struggling to get a grip on truth. That struggle, whether she succeeds in it or not, is of great value in a world that values everything, and therefore nothing.


Sue

Why don't you just shut the fuck up? you are so full of shit. She's doing something, you are not.

I think Faizi is far more masculine and objective than you.

Prince wrote:

Why don't you just shut the fuck up? you are so full of shit. She's doing something, you are not.

I think Faizi is far more masculine and objective than you.

Yes, Kelly is “doing something” and it just so happens to be something that interests me. Therefore my input on this matter may be of interest to her, or even to others on the list.

Marsha has been working long and hard on this forum and I agree with you that she is quite masculine, as well as being quite objective. I always find her posts lively and full of wit. She is definitely an asset to this forum.

Sue

Or are we witnessing a true miracle?

A miracle? That's a bit romantic, ain't it? Nah -- think I prefer plain ol' cause and effect.

I can see a lot of benefit in rewriting parts of The Truth Paper's first issue. Explaining my reasoning more simply and fully, including definitions, would make it easier for readers to follow the discussions about sexuality/depression and so on, in relation to egotism, and then up to the icy peaks of emptiness.

Another benefit in rewriting for greater simplicity, would be to free me from habits regarding my individual purpose and direction, that too closely overlaps that of others.

Leyla Shen wrote:It wasn't that irrelevant.

It first appeared on the Sim Stuff thread posted by Kelly. I replied in that thread directly on some of the material in the paper.

Actually, Greg Shantz posted it. Now to your questions. The answer isn't complicated, but I'll take a bit more time to explain, because it's unpopular.

The reason I think life isn't intrinsically sexual is because life is everything. Why restrict the definition for life?

Rationality isn't intrinsically sexual either. It's masculine only when what is rational is typically male. Far into the future, the rational will probably be robotic, so there'd be no need for irrational robots, or other feminine traits. So the distinction between masculine and feminine wouldn't be useful. But I wouldn't jettison that distinction as long as there's a strong irrational reluctance to use it.

In the present, any particular man can survive without womanly effects or women, but any particular woman cannot survive without manly effects or men. By womanly effects, I mean nicely made food/clothes, manners, being well-dressed and groomed, signs of approval, well-cleaned and decorated environments, entertainment, and emotionally stimulating conversations and arguments, as well as sex. By manly effects, I mean navigation, abstract projection of the angle of hunting missiles, social organisation, survival strategems such as murdering the weak, structures for shelter, tools and weaponry. Extrapolating this to the ultra masculine, pure intelligence is devoid of femininity and therefore of the sexual distinction.

The reason I keep using the distinction so strongly, is because of the obvious link to wisdom. Yet people don't like masculinity and don't want it. Truth is arrived at using reasoning, and rationality is a masculine quality, so the love of femininity is thoroughly evil. It's mind-numbing. So I don't mind emphasising the distinction, and more so because I'm biologically female, not thoroughly enlightened, and most importantly because a woman attempting philosophy has so much further to go but thinks she has less. It's meaningless to compare a woman's progress to others without recognising the absolute, and thus criticise a woman's natural egotism. Women don't have more genius because of the difficulty.

I notice that I instinctively use being a woman as an excuse for not venturing to be utterly truthful. I also notice that woman like to talk about philosophy but rarely take it personally. Nor do they venture to live it. They seem to think they don't have to. Or perhaps they're intuitively conscious that they don't trust their own integrity. Or want to. Most people on the forum don't really care about the truth, a small number are really struggling to give up their attachment to being socially acceptable (coupling, employment), and a few are pushing themselves to live by reason --- but none of the women on the forum, apart from Sue Hindmarsh and myself, have decided to get their teeth into philosophy and let it change their lives. Although only a few men have, there are more of them than women. I think this is why it is a "true miracle" (causes conscious of God) when any woman takes on philosophy, since women aren't suited to philosophy.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:The fact that she is a young woman living in a world that worships women, where she could be anything and have everything, but no...

This would be true if i really wanted to be a woman, ie. to use my wisdom for egotistical purposes. This is how corrupt teachers develop. But to be a typical woman, I'd whinge my life away. That's not an appealing future.

As to Kelly becoming a QSR - well I think it is way too early to know.

I agree. It's important to remember there's no security in the spiritual life. It's a life task.

On another note, QSR as I see it, stands for a type of person who depend on a mutual bond developed to protect the members from guruism or backsliding. I don't see an independent thinker as having QSR tendencies, but is his own agent. A support group is dangerous at all stages of a person's spiritual development, because it attacks the ability to be consciously alone in relation to the Infinite. Any serious student of Reality prefers a tightly reasoned statement about Reality, over against praise and encouragement which indicate he lacks the ability to reason for himself. As he develops further, socialising can be humiliating enough to break through egotistical boundaries.



David H,

I agree with Matt's theory. There's some information on abulia in Otto Weininger's Sex and Character, the chapter on The Nature of Women and Her Significance in the Universe. I recommend it. Weininger talks of will (the ability to decide) as the whole I together, and of abulia as the opposite, most marked in hysteria.

You might find that your girlfriend probably sucked up your will and attention, and was a major cause in your depression. At any rate, you'll have more mental freedom to examine emptiness in greater depth.

Here's the link to the Willis translation:
http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/geschlecht.pdf
(go to chapter 12)



Kelly Jones

My fucking god, you really are a woman.

Actually, Greg Shantz posted it.

Beg your pardon, ma'am, I had intended to refer to your link rather than the thread itself. Lazy grammar.

Rationality isn't intrinsically sexual either. It's masculine only when what is rational is typically male. Far into the future, the rational will probably be robotic, so there'd be no need for irrational robots, or other feminine traits.

Truth is arrived at using reasoning, and rationality is a masculine quality,...

You seem to be contradicting yourself left, right and centre. I am having a very difficult time having a meanigful discussion with you, quite frankly. I shall try and persevere.

Is masculinity -- right now -- a sexual trait or not?