GENIUS FORUMS

Do you remember the human brain has evolved with the ability to learn, and the two sexes have different approaches to learning?

First, both sexes share the natural tendency to copy others, instead of a natural tendency to know and abide by all social laws. It was easier to have the copying tendency embedded in the brain, rather than specific things to copy.

Second, how to copy, ie. how to learn, is different in the sexes, from a very young age. Males are more likely to go search, while females wait.

There are two conclusions:
- men are more likely to learn to develop already intrinsic problem-solving skills, and be more capable of abstract relationships, than women.
- brain-embedded psychology still leaves room for learning new "hows"; so, it is unlikely but possible that passive non-intellectual copiers (women) learn to copy the superficial elements of problem-solvers (e.g. father, brothers, teachers), and become men if they are forced to learn.

...

Kelly,

There are two conclusions:
- men are more likely to learn to develop already intrinsic problem-solving skills, and be more capable of abstract relationships, than women.
- brain-embedded psychology still leaves room for learning new "hows"; so, it is unlikely but possible that passive non-intellectual copiers (women) learn to copy the superficial elements of problem-solvers (e.g. father, brothers, teachers), and become men if they are forced to learn.

Yeah, naturally you're not completely wrong in that, it's just that you would be trying to force people with different brains to perform up to the level of people whose brains are more naturally attuned to those performances, i.e., kind of unfair and a losing proposition.

Although, to some extent, we might be surprised. Women might not need to have the exact same route to the same goals. That has already been shown by brain research, that when men and women perform the same task, they are not necessarily using their brains in the same way.

The idea that men are where we are relative to women because we are horny, strong and willful, to the point that all that energy causes us to think of intelligent way to crack skulls, is a lazy cop out. Its a favourite route for the feminine, applying its consciousness to specious half truths. Liberally doused in emotional appeals to the masculine ego, it has a lot of currency.

I don't think anyone said that. Did you think I said that?
But it is a big part of the picture. Don't negate the power of testosterone.

To what do you attribute the differences then?

Testosterone is the main reason why men have different brains, did you know that? And the different brain is a big cause of the differing interests, differing aptitudes and motivations. Hormones and brain are a system that work together.

Anna wrote:Yeah, naturally you're not completely wrong in that, it's just that you would be trying to force people with different brains to perform up to the level of people whose brains are more naturally attuned to those performances, i.e., kind of unfair and a losing proposition.

It is Nature who has been 'unfair' to women. But speaking of fairness is a bit off. Really, it isn't intentional or designed. So it's not really 'unfair'. It's just the way it is. Nature never intended anyone to be enlightened, or not enlightened. It's all a chance affair.

You wouldn't want the goal to be lowered?

Although, to some extent, we might be surprised. Women might not need to have the exact same route to the same goals. That has already been shown by brain research, that when men and women perform the same task, they are not necessarily using their brains in the same way.

When it comes to enlightenment, everyone has to find their own angle of thinking on the matter.

That doesn't mean that their thinking should be false.

There is just true or false, when it comes to matters like A=A, and all things being causally created. And women as they generally appear to be, can't manage such notions.

You wouldn't want to lower the goal, I hope?

It is Nature who has been 'unfair' to women. But speaking of fairness is a bit off. Really, it isn't intentional or designed. So it's not really 'unfair'. It's just the way it is. Nature never intended anyone to be enlightened, or not enlightened. It's all a chance affair.

You wouldn't want the goal to be lowered?

The goal can't be lowered, whether I will it or no. It is what it is.
But you should remember that not everyone shares your religion. It's a bit rude. If I was a Catholic and spoke of your need to be mindful of your time in purgatory or God's satisfaction of offense via the death of a perfect man as a matter of course, that would be a bit obtuse.

There is just true or false, when it comes to matters like A=A, and all things being causally created.

What has that to do with enlightenment?

The way I see it, is that it's 'rude' to point out errors in a person's ideas, if they're ill. If they're not capable of thinking about the errors.

Otherwise, it's a good thing to help them out. It's not religious to think or promote thinking, not in my view.

Pointing out that women are thick, rather than intelligent as most people believe, is an excellent way of promoting thinking, since women really are thick. This is a very helpful thing to do.

Kelly: There is just true or false, when it comes to matters like A=A, and all things being causally created.

Anna: What has that to do with enlightenment?

Enlightenment, as I view it, is about seeing what is absolutely true about everything.

A=A is an absolute truth, applicable to everything. It reveals that everything is 'A'. There is no not-A, since 'not-A = not-A' (another expression of A). Seeing all things as causes is another way of realising the meaning of 'A'.

When one can actually experience the meaning of this, and it isn't just an intellectual notion, that's the beginning of enlightenment.

Kelly,

You're selling yourself short, brandishing sweeping generalizations in hopes of gaining bias for diminishing returns. You know Anna, not to mention most, isn't real keen with that. You end up in a tape loop reconnoissance parade.

One thing that you might be overlooking, Steve, is that thinking is a lot like breathing. One has to keep flushing one's brains with fresh air, again and again. It may seem repetitious, but it's vital. Every day, thinking, thinking, thinking.

Thinking deeper, repeating the same idea.

Same words, again and again.

But as the thinking mind grows, the words change in meaning.

Woman, what does that mean? Why is it so important to understand Woman? What is Woman? Thinking, thinking, thinking.
Reality, what is it? How does understanding Woman relate to understanding Reality? Is there really a diametrical opposition? If there is, then how to understand those opposites? Thinking, thinking, thinking.

"Really, it isn't intentional or designed. So it's not really 'unfair'. It's just the way it is. Nature never intended anyone to be enlightened, or not enlightened. It's all a chance affair."

Are you aware that you give a monodimensional defintion to 'enlightenment'? That you make it sound like one, solid state? I think this is a rather destructive habit, because it doesn't really present 'enlightenment' whatever the heck you mean by that (not an easy definition to get to with you or QRS: you fucking REALLY have to work at it), as sort of One Thing, which you possess.

This 'enlightened mind' comes in many different flavors and inflections, and is not one thing.

Some people who speak about 'enlightenment' do not seem to feel it is so wrapped up in thinking thinking thinking. Other say being being being.

Why in the holy fuck do y'all seem to possess the fucking word, for Christsakes?

;-)

Kelly,

The way I see it, is that it's 'rude' to point out errors in a person's ideas, if they're ill. If they're not capable of thinking about the errors.

Otherwise, it's a good thing to help them out. It's not religious to think or promote thinking, not in my view.

Yes, I agree. By religion, I meant the faith of Darwinism. I meant this:

It is Nature who has been 'unfair' to women. But speaking of fairness is a bit off. Really, it isn't intentional or designed. So it's not really 'unfair'. It's just the way it is. Nature never intended anyone to be enlightened, or not enlightened. It's all a chance affair.

It's just another assumption taken on faith. I like Socrates. He was stickler for not thinking you know what you don't know.

Pointing out that women are thick, rather than intelligent as most people believe, is an excellent way of promoting thinking, since women really are thick. This is a very helpful thing to do.

You've been giving them more hope than I have. At least, of being like men.

Enlightenment, as I view it, is about seeing what is absolutely true about everything.

Hmm...sounds like wishful thinking.

A=A is an absolute truth, applicable to everything. It reveals that everything is 'A'. There is no not-A, since 'not-A = not-A' (another expression of A). Seeing all things as causes is another way of realising the meaning of 'A'.

Yeah, A does equal A, and I guess it's pretty cool although it seems fairly obvious really. I'm not sure how helpful it is toward enlightenment though.

When one can actually experience the meaning of this, and it isn't just an intellectual notion, that's the beginning of enlightenment.

Well, what is it like to experience the meaning of this, cuz it doesn't sound like enlightenment particularly to me. Now, I have heard enlightenment described as abiding nondual awareness.

Alex Jacob wrote:"Really, it isn't intentional or designed. So it's not really 'unfair'. It's just the way it is. Nature never intended anyone to be enlightened, or not enlightened. It's all a chance affair."

Alex: Are you aware that you give a monodimensional defintion to 'enlightenment'? That you make it sound like one, solid state? I think this is a rather destructive habit, because it doesn't really present 'enlightenment' whatever the heck you mean by that (not an easy definition to get to with you or QRS: you fucking REALLY have to work at it), as sort of One Thing, which you possess.

Yes, one does have to work at this understanding, but it's not so hard.

It's all about seeing what is true for everything, and seeing that it is true right now. That is not something one can possess, because one isn't apart from it.

This is why I keep talking about A=A. It's not a single dimension idea. It's universally applicable - so is free of dimensional or state constraints.

This 'enlightened mind' comes in many different flavors and inflections,

It does not.

and is not one thing.

It is everything, therefore it has no form or flavour of its own.

Some people who speak about 'enlightenment' do not seem to feel it is so wrapped up in thinking thinking thinking. Other say being being being.

Without thinking consciously, there is only guesswork, and emotional hunches, like you are experiencing.

Why in the holy fuck do y'all seem to possess the fucking word, for Christsakes?

I like thinking. It works.


KJ

Communion with Nature

One can very well eat lettuce before its heart has been formed; still, the delicate crispness of the heart and its lovely frizz are something altogether different from the leaves. It is the same in the world of the spirit. Being too busy has this result: that an individual very, very rarely is permitted to form a heart; on the other hand, the thinker, the poet, or the religious personality who actually has formed his heart, will never be popular, not because he is difficult, but because it demands quiet and prolonged working with oneself and intimate knowledge of oneself as well as a certain isolation. Even if, in a full-toned voice, I could say something that would please each and every one, if it were of a religious nature I would not say it, because it is already a kind of religious indecency that it should be necessary to make an outcry about it; on the contrary, religious things have to do with a softly murmured soliloquy with oneself. Alas, things are so topsy-turvy that, instead of having to do with each individual going alone into his secret closet to commune quietly with himself, people believe that religion is a matter for very loud talk.

— Soren Kierkegaard

Iolaus wrote:

The way I see it, is that it's 'rude' to point out errors in a person's ideas, if they're ill. If they're not capable of thinking about the errors. Otherwise, it's a good thing to help them out. It's not religious to think or promote thinking, not in my view.

Yes, I agree. By religion, I meant the faith of Darwinism. I meant this: It is Nature who has been 'unfair' to women. But speaking of fairness is a bit off. Really, it isn't intentional or designed. So it's not really 'unfair'. It's just the way it is. Nature never intended anyone to be enlightened, or not enlightened. It's all a chance affair. It's just another assumption taken on faith.

It isn't taken on faith. There is no evidence of a conscious and intentional design behind human psychology.

I like Socrates. He was stickler for not thinking you know what you don't know.

Try it sometime.

Kelly: Pointing out that women are thick, rather than intelligent as most people believe, is an excellent way of promoting thinking, since women really are thick. This is a very helpful thing to do.

Anna: You've been giving them more hope than I have. At least, of being like men.

The problem is really that women are so gullible. I think Sue is the only other female I've met who has a heart, meaning, she doesn't let herself be pushed around by her emotional needs. But I don't think either Sue or myself are really whole-hearted.

So I don't know about giving women hope of becoming masculine; it's too soon to tell.

Kelly: Enlightenment, as I view it, is about seeing what is absolutely true about everything.

Anna: Hmm...sounds like wishful thinking.

If it were, then how would you prove it?

Kelly: A=A is an absolute truth, applicable to everything. It reveals that everything is 'A'. There is no not-A, since 'not-A = not-A' (another expression of A). Seeing all things as causes is another way of realising the meaning of 'A'.

Anna: Yeah, A does equal A, and I guess it's pretty cool although it seems fairly obvious really. I'm not sure how helpful it is toward enlightenment though.

You'll need to work that out for yourself. All I can do is offer my reasoning as a catalyst for your own thinking.

Kelly: When one can actually experience the meaning of this, and it isn't just an intellectual notion, that's the beginning of enlightenment.

Anna: Well, what is it like to experience the meaning of this, cuz it doesn't sound like enlightenment particularly to me. Now, I have heard enlightenment described as abiding nondual awareness.

Forget all that. Stop holding onto something, and just work out what is absolutely true for all things.

Then you will know what is unsurpassable, and unfalsifiable.

Start with this: are all things causes?

Then, think about how boundaries are created.

If you don't do this now, and attain a correct understanding of the matter, then what knowledge can you offer to say that the ideas presented to you are "wishful thinking"? None, for you will remain ignorant.


KJ

I understand the fire Woman can conjure, destroying the minds of her devotees. Her mind, an unconscious labyrinth. She speaks in bad poetry, real evil at times. But, I enjoy playing chess with her vernacular - spitting verbatim back from metaphor.

I was commenting on your approach... you over-generalized. And got a little pompous, too.

I admire your stout heart and ambition. One day maybe I'll scuff up some dirt and travel that route. For now I'm busy unearthing Buddha-wizardry. Hakuin wasn't lying about those Zen depths!

Steven wrote:you over-generalized.

Are you talking about this:

Pointing out that women are thick, rather than intelligent as most people believe, is an excellent way of promoting thinking, since women really are thick. This is a very helpful thing to do.

?

Yeah.. though out of context it don't sound as bad.

Kelly,

It isn't taken on faith. There is no evidence of a conscious and intentional design behind human psychology.

Well, of course there is, so much evidence that to discount it requires faith. People are credulous and gullible. You imagine yourself an exception, but you don't even know what the issues are.
Of course, you use the word psychology, which makes me a little uncomfortable, as its meaning isn't clear and I don't limit my comments to human psychology, but to the whole shebang.

If it were, then how would you prove it?

Well, you have taken on David's style of making grand pronouncements that seem pregnant with huge possibility, but not terribly clear. Enlightenment is about seeing what is absolutely true about everything, you say. And apparently, the true thing is that A=A, which it does, and that all things are caused, and are also causing. The main advantage of the latter is realizing that all things lack inherent existence, which does seem pretty profound and yet, didn't we really always know that? Alright, so it may or may not mean that I do not inherently exist, but this is debatable, because there is something which inherently exists, and all things partake of it. I find this topic quite important, but is it enlightenment? And I ask you how does this help you to feel enlightened and you ask me to prove you wrong.

By the way, do you claim to be enlightened?

You'll need to work that out for yourself. All I can do is offer my reasoning as a catalyst for your own thinking.

I'll need to work out for myself how A=A leads to enlightenment? What reasoning have you offered?

Start with this: are all things causes?

Yes, but not all are effects.

Then, think about how boundaries are created.

The question is too broad, and I don't know what you're driving at.

Kelly, I said that enlightenment comes in different flavors, because if there is 'enlightenment' it is enlightenment of a person. Enlightenment is not like the Holy Spirit that descends on them, giving them a uniform glow of 'enlightenment'. Every person who is 'enlightened' lives and dies, and in ther life they do, think, feel different things, things peculiar to persons. One enlightened person smiles all the time, one is serious and grave. You get the idea. If there is 'enlightenment', it is something that happens to a person.

You have to work at understanding the QRS position because it is logically inconsistant but it claims to be bsed in logic and reasoning. This position---unlike any other position I have ever heard or can even imagine---puts the Buddha, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Jesus in the same little boat, all speaking of the same thing, all knowing the same thing. It is simply not that way.

In order to talk about 'enlightenment', you have to operate in that platform, you have to be enlightened. You can't sell a product you've never possessed.

Iolaus wrote:

It isn't taken on faith. There is no evidence of a conscious and intentional design behind human psychology.

Well, of course there is, so much evidence that to discount it requires faith. People are credulous and gullible. You imagine yourself an exception, but you don't even know what the issues are. Of course, you use the word psychology, which makes me a little uncomfortable, as its meaning isn't clear and I don't limit my comments to human psychology, but to the whole shebang.

I bolded your response. Now, as they say, "put up or shut up".

Well, you have taken on David's style of making grand pronouncements that seem pregnant with huge possibility, but not terribly clear.

My statements are perfectly clear to me.

Enlightenment is about seeing what is absolutely true about everything, you say. And apparently, the true thing is that A=A, which it does, and that all things are caused, and are also causing. The main advantage of the latter is realizing that all things lack inherent existence, which does seem pretty profound and yet, didn't we really always know that?

No.

Alright, so it may or may not mean that I do not inherently exist,

It definitely means no things inherently exist, including me and you.

but this is debatable,

Not by rational persons.

because there is something which inherently exists, and all things partake of it.

Compared to what does it inherently exist? Non-inherent existence? Does that inherently exist too?

I find this topic quite important, but is it enlightenment?

It depends who is experiencing it.

And I ask you how does this help you to feel enlightened and you ask me to prove you wrong.

Feelings don't help a person judge enlightenment.

By the way, do you claim to be enlightened?

For this discussion, enlightenment means having a virtually perfect understanding of Reality. So I am claiming enlightenment.

Kelly: You'll need to work that out for yourself. All I can do is offer my reasoning as a catalyst for your own thinking.

Anna: I'll need to work out for myself how A=A leads to enlightenment? What reasoning have you offered?

Everything I offer is my reasoning.

Kelly: Start with this: are all things causes?

Anna: Yes, but not all are effects.

Are effects not also causes? Therefore, causation is present in all things.

Kelly: Then, think about how boundaries are created.

Anna: The question is too broad, and I don't know what you're driving at.

Boundaries are the imaginary lines we draw to differentiate things from each other.

Think about how boundaries are created. Are not boundaries things? Are not all things causally created? Therefore, boundaries are also causes, and are also lacking inherent existence.

What is left?

Alex Jacob wrote:Kelly, I said that enlightenment comes in different flavors, because if there is 'enlightenment' it is enlightenment of a person.

Is not every person a thing? Do you disagree that Ultimate Reality is present in all things?

Therefore, enlightenment, which is understanding the nature of Ultimate Reality, is uniform. The meaning - Truth - is the same for all things.

Truth has no form of its own. It is not one thing, and not another.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Iolaus wrote:Alright, so it may or may not mean that I do not inherently exist,

It definitely means no things inherently exist, including me and you.

All "non-inherent existence" means, in QSR philosophy, is that a thing can't exist entirely on its own. Which means that the self is not the only thing that exists in the universe. Hardly revelatory. Is there any human who actually believes that the self is the only thing that exists in the universe?

kelly,

I bolded your response. Now, as they say, "put up or shut up".

In fact, I'm not sure you have any more right to speak in such terms than I do. It was you who said that there was no evidence for intelligent design in nature. So you can put up or shut up too. But you needn't, as I'm pretty familiar with the whole debate. The thing is, if you were truly interested, and very, very few people are, you would avidly read all about it. But to try to simply explain something quite complex and that has been a bit of a hobby of mine for 3 or 4 years, well, it's just hard to do it justice. I could recommend a few books and websites. I don't necessarily expect to engage in that type of argument here as it is somewhat futile, but mostly it is just way too hard to cover that kind of ground in this type of discussion. Quite a lot of investigation would be required of you, and most people just don't care. I don't necessarily expect to make book length defenses of my position, but I am personally satisfied that Darwinist ideas are nonsense of the first degree, that Big Bang is false, and that the universe is not expanding, and that special and general relativity are dead ends.

It's pretty funny really. I mean, the human situation. And while I am at it, I'd like to say that while yes, women have stayed out of the fray, and have not contributed to it, therein lies a feminine wisdom, a wisdom that is hard to put into words, but in which women sense that the men are making shit up, which they are, and that they are out of their league, which they are, and that things just aren't likely to be correctly solved at last in whatever moment in history the women happen to be in, with their men. Yesterday it was the phlogiston and epicycles, today the items mentioned above. Many a detour with a lot of fanfare and high intelligence and arguments that appear good on the surface.

My statements are perfectly clear to me.

Why, yes, I imagine they are. But were you talking to yourself?

No.

No, you are right, I do remember, altho it seems long ago, reading the Buddhist arguments on this forum, about the noninherency of things, how they are all contingent. My question was a bit rhetorical really, just musing, because it seems like deep down, we must have known, since once it is pointed out you can't really deny it.

Compared to what does it inherently exist? Non-inherent existence? Does that inherently exist too?

Kelly, obviously something inherently exists, or we could not have existence. You can call it the totality or nature if you like. I tend to call it God, or the Absolute, perhaps Vishnu. The Tao.

It depends who is experiencing it.

(inherent versus noninherent existence)
You might be right. I have hopes for my conversation with Jehu. But again, it is all well and good to know intellectually that something must be true - but to make it yours is something else again.

Kelly: Enlightenment, as I view it, is about seeing what is absolutely true about everything.

Anna: Hmm...sounds like wishful thinking.

K If it were, then how would you prove it?

K Feelings don't help a person judge enlightenment.

Never mind that I used the word feeling. What do you mean by seeing what is true about everything.

For this discussion, enlightenment means having a virtually perfect understanding of Reality. So I am claiming enlightenment.

You mean, enlightenment might mean something different in a different discussion?

Everything I offer is my reasoning.

Yes, but sometimes you have to tie things together a bit, perhaps you could keep a few saved documents on your computer, and trot them out from time to time.

Are effects not also causes? Therefore, causation is present in all things.

But what I said was not all causes are also effects. In other words, there is something causeless.

Think about how boundaries are created. Are not boundaries things? Are not all things causally created? Therefore, boundaries are also causes, and are also lacking inherent existence.

Boundaries have some reality to them, but not inherent reality. So your point was-?

Jason wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:

Iolaus wrote:Alright, so it may or may not mean that I do not inherently exist,

It definitely means no things inherently exist, including me and you.

All "non-inherent existence" means, in QSR philosophy, is that a thing can't exist entirely on its own. Which means that the self is not the only thing that exists in the universe. Hardly revelatory. Is there any human who actually believes that the self is the only thing that exists in the universe?

More specifically, non-inherent existence means that a thing is interdependent with other things. A thing is dependent on causes. And just as a candleflame is extinguished as soon as you cut-off its oxygen supply, so is human life extinguished.

Many humans believe that they will not be extinguished, because they believe that they somehow exist apart from the rest of the Universe which might extinguish them.

Anna,

If human psychology is the result of a designer or designers having planned it so, there would be evidence of those originator/s themselves, or at least something reasonably interpretable as the plans. Kevin's already gone through this idea.

Kelly: Compared to what does it inherently exist? Non-inherent existence? Does that inherently exist too?

Anna: Kelly, obviously something inherently exists, or we could not have existence. You can call it the totality or nature if you like. I tend to call it God, or the Absolute, perhaps Vishnu. The Tao.

Define existence.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Jason wrote:All "non-inherent existence" means, in QSR philosophy, is that a thing can't exist entirely on its own. Which means that the self is not the only thing that exists in the universe. Hardly revelatory. Is there any human who actually believes that the self is the only thing that exists in the universe?

More specifically, non-inherent existence means that a thing is interdependent with other things. A thing is dependent on causes. And just as a candleflame is extinguished as soon as you cut-off its oxygen supply, so is human life extinguished.

Many humans believe that they will not be extinguished, because they believe that they somehow exist apart from the rest of the Universe which might extinguish them.

Be that as it may, my point stands: virtually no one believes that their self is the only thing that exists in the universe, thus they don't believe that their self inherently exists.