GENIUS FORUMS

Cognitive filters in action.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:|read|wrote:

...and attempting to attack their roots. Laird, you recently proposed this as a more effective use of one's time than "propagating wisdom" QRS-style (with the end result that more people simply "drop out" and cease to practically effect the world.) I completely agree.

What are you on about?

Since the words that Sue emboldened - or at least words very, very similar - were originally penned by me, I feel compelled to preempt |read|'s response by first responding myself. What I am "on about" is that QRS philosophy encourages people to renounce paid employment, to generally repudiate active involvement in society and to instead focus on the personal task of gaining wisdom: this to me is "dropping out". The only sense in which QRS adherents can meaningfully be said to practically affect the world is through their stated goal of "propagating wisdom", two of the manifestations of which are this forum and the production of their websites including their online publications. Nat has elsewhere claimed that this is evidence that they are indeed practically affecting the world - I'm paraphrasing but I believe that I've captured the essence of his claim. What practical effect are they really having though? My opinion is that the practical effect of their efforts at proselytisation is the encouragement of more people to think abstract thoughts and to drop out of society too. As far as practical efforts to improve the world rather than to merely pontificate upon its problems though, they are less than useless. Kevin, for example, in our in-person discussions, will occasionally express disdain for the insanity of the world but he seems to be interested not on analysing it with the intent of coming up with workable, sensible solutions but rather merely in thoroughly disparaging the irrationality of other people in order to bolster his own "enlightened sanity". He's shown to me very little interest in meaningful action - meaningful in the sense of the stated purpose of this thread of constructively analysing entrenched problems with the aim of trying to find workable solutions. I suspect that David is likewise more interested in revelling in the insanity of mankind with no particular intent to solve the practical problems of the world. And no, "realising the illusory nature of the self" and "realising the extent of the feminisation of society" don't count as "practical effects" in my book. Dan I have slightly more hope in, but he's still very much a QRS adherent.

Sue wrote:In my post above, I write about how the attachment to love and compassion are direct causes of hate and intolerance.

And in doing so, you reduce yourself to ridiculousness. This is classic QRS double-think. I've commented in the past on the tendency of QRS to make statements akin to the Orwellian "war is peace", and this fits right into the same category: "love is hatred"; "compassion is intolerance". Sue, I don't - I just can't, you give me no option - take you seriously. It's not that there's absolutely nothing of value in what you say, it's just that you take it to an extreme that is so far from reality that I hold the secret (well, it's not much of a secret anymore) suspicion that you are mostly motivated by a desire to shock other people than to promote truth.

[edited twice for grammar]

Nat has elsewhere claimed that this is evidence that they are indeed practically affecting the world - I'm paraphrasing but I believe that I've captured the essence of his claim. What practical effect are they really having though?

People read it. A few who read it might actually think about it to some extent. And when people think about things, their views and values tend to be affected. Usually only to a small degree, but in occasional cases profoundly. When people's views and values change, they way they behave in the world tends to change as well. This is how change happens, one small step at a time.

In my view, a primary reason people deny this is to psychologically relieve themselves of any responsibility for the impact of their own values and lives. They don't want to think about whether they might be making a difference one way or another, so they convince themselves they aren't and can't. In order to justify this conviction to themselves, they also need to deny that others can have any impact.

Whether QRS views and values have a positive effect is debatable, of course. I feel that they do in some regards and may not in others. But that they have an effect, although it may be relatively small, is pretty much beyond question to me. Everything we say and do spreads out into the world to some degree. That's just the way it works.

As far as practical efforts to improve the world rather than to merely pontificate upon its problems though, they are less than useless.

I couldn't disagree more, frankly. Putting aside QRS (simply because the nature and extent of their impact is readily debatable), it should be clear that it isn't the actions of any leader that make the most difference, it is his or her ideas. For example, without looking it up, can anyone here list five specific, concrete actions Martin Luther King took to achieve his aims? Perhaps someone can, but I doubt most could. It wasn't the man's actions that were of primary importance. It was his ideas. While he may have done any number of specific, concrete things to relieve suffering in various ways, these generally don't move and inspire people to think greater and more humane thoughts. It takes the kind of vision and conviction expressed in the "I have a dream" speech to do that.

Far from being "less than useless," those who draw us into the realm of ideas, beliefs, and values are ultimately responsible for all major, cultural-level change in the world. Their contributions, quite frankly, are infinitely greater than those of someone who simply dishes out soup at the local food pantry (although that contribution is of undeniable value in its own way). There are any number of people who can make such basic, "action-level" contributions - and if that is all they can do, they should certainly be doing it. But we simply cannot afford to have those capable of impacting the culture at its roots involved in such tasks. It's a waste of intellectual resources and a deeply counterproductive way to approach the problem.

Due to the profound anti-intellectualism that permeates modern culture, the above will certainly be thought of as elitism, vanity, or worse by some. That is unfortunate, because I consider it nothing more than sensible resource management.

Wow daybrown, thanks for all the information. Quite the history buff, eh? Interesting. What are your sources? I might do some reading. I read that link, and I visited your site, but I find this ANSI stuff hard on the eyes. I can’t change the text size or cut and paste. I vote you display it larger and in plain Courier font, black on white background.

What about me? I'm a big history buff, too. Did you catch my post, in this thread, about extraterrestrials interbreeding with hominids to create the Ralpha Male? I've also posted extensively on the board about Kucha the whore city on the Chinese Dung Road, elucidated the historical benefits of oats and wheat, extirpated about Robert E. Lee, and pontificated about the role of the Roman short sword vis a vis the growth of the Empire. Plus I've interjected interesting tips about life in the Ozarks, such as LSD and mushroom rituals and how to survive when the shit hits the fan. Why, I even throw in potshots at the Nazis.

I'm a regular font of blogging pleasure for the readers here at Genius!

I dunno about anyone else, but I've read your historical expositions with a keen interest, Carl. I was particularly fascinated with the Chinese Dung Road. It brought to mind the enduring wisdom of a certain thinker I happen to know personally, who has revolutionized my thinking with a single word:

POOP.

Laird wrote:

Sue: I write about how the attachment to love and compassion are direct causes of hate and intolerance.

And in doing so, you reduce yourself to ridiculousness. This is classic QRS double-think. I've commented in the past on the tendency of QRS to make statements akin to the Orwellian "war is peace", and this fits right into the same category: "love is hatred"; "compassion is intolerance".

Firstly – I wrote: attachment to love and compassion are direct causes of hate and intolerance. That is not the same as your Orwellian concepts of “‘love is hatred’; ‘compassion is intolerance’”. Love is a cause of hate, for we hate to see that which we love hurt, or taken from us. For example, if your girlfriend is lured away from you by another man, it causes you pain and suffering. You hate the whole circumstance: the other man, your girlfriend, relationships, love, the pain and suffering. But all that changes when you find a new girlfriend. Her love pushes away the pain and suffering, as well as the hateful feeling about relationships and love. But those feelings of hate readily return if she leaves you for another, or dies, or falls out of love with you, or looks at another man, or won’t give you sex when you want it, or she grows fat and ugly, or… .

Most people exist wholly dependent on their emotions. And, because circumstances are continuously changing, those who are in the sway of the emotions cannot predict or control what those emotions will do next. Basically, this means that the world is being controlled not by reason and logic, but by the emotions.

Replace “girlfriend” with country, money, house, car, political party, religion, or any emotional attachment, and you will see that there is the recipe for all the turmoil in the world today, and in the world of the past.

Many people like to believe that the above scenarios are natural and inevitable. And, yes, they are that if you are ignorant of the emotion's true nature. But once you do know, you’re able to cut the strings that had bound you to being their puppet.

Secondly – Orwell’s “doublethink” came about because of his disgust with government propaganda, and their use of euphemisms and half-truths. His book Nineteen Eighty-Four shows that saying one thing and meaning another - usually its opposite – is easily accepted by the majority of people, as they have no desire to think for themselves. And his cautionary tale is a useful one; for politicians, and the newspapers that support them continue to feed the populous what they are to think and believe.

Note that neither QRS, nor I are interested in spin-doctoring truth to make it more palatable to the masses. When I write, my aim is to always write clearly, simply and directly about the truth of any issue. And if someone does understand my ideas, it isn’t that I’ve taught them to understand, or bludgeoned them to understand - it’s that they themselves already possessed the prerequisites for that knowledge. It is actually their knowledge that they are considering.

Sue, contrary to my usual experience, I was able to take you seriously in this post. It had some sense in it. I didn't agree with everything that you wrote but I don't care to express those specific disagreements - rather, I'd like to cut to the chase:

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Many people like to believe that the above scenarios are natural and inevitable. And, yes, they are that if you are ignorant of the emotion's true nature. But once you do know, you’re able to cut the strings that had bound you to being their puppet.

Please explain then the emotion's true nature.

Sue H. wrote: Love is a cause of hate

Just as birth is a "cause" of death. You say nothing new or profound, but you say it well.

Birth is a cause of death.

Love is a cause of hate.

If these are not profound, what is?

And what does being new have to do with anything?

Carl G wrote:Birth is a cause of death.

Love is a cause of hate.

If these are not profound, what is?

And what does being new have to do with anything?

There are many things that I find to be profound, Carl. But something tells me they'd be lost on you.

And about "being new." You can take the view that there is nothing new under the sun. That is probably true. Yet I don't pretend that I know everything there is to know. There are things, therefore, that are new to me. That is, truths I have not heard nor have I thought of on my own. I believe everyone can still learn something. That is just a belief, but it's a firm one; I certainly have never encountered anyone whom I consider to be omniscient, all-wise, or infallible. Someone could come up to me and say, "Shit stinks." I would not learn anything from it. That is, it "is nothing new." You may very well be one of those people that can hear "Shit stinks" a million times and not get tired of it. I'm not.

Laird wrote:

Sue: Love is a cause of hate, for we hate to see that which we love hurt, or taken from us. For example, if your girlfriend is lured away from you by another man, it causes you pain and suffering. You hate the whole circumstance: the other man, your girlfriend, relationships, love, the pain and suffering. But all that changes when you find a new girlfriend. Her love pushes away the pain and suffering, as well as the hateful feeling about relationships and love. But those feelings of hate readily return if she leaves you for another, or dies, or falls out of love with you, or looks at another man, or won’t give you sex when you want it, or she grows fat and ugly, or… .

Please explain then the emotion's true nature.

As I described in the above paragraph, the emotions do not act independently of each other. They affect each other and the circumstances that arise. They colour how we see people, events, views, happenings – everything! We are literally their puppets – for whilst they are in charge, we act according to their whims.

What may at first appear odd is that to understand the character of the emotions, you first use them to propel your thinking toward uncovering the truth. And, as you may now gather, a strong mind is a necessary prerequisite for the job. But once you arrive at the knowledge of the interdependent nature of all things, you naturally become loosened from the emotions, and thereby act not solely according to them, but more and more according to the truth.

Sue H. wrote:They [emotions] colour how we see people, events, views, happenings – everything! We are literally their puppets – for whilst they are in charge, we act according to their whims.

Who is this "we"? You are describing how two-year-olds behave. How can an emotion have a whim? That is investing the emotion with consciousness of some sort. Do you mean to say you actually know adults who "literally" act as puppets to their emotions? Where do you see such people? And what makes you think you know what their emotions are?

brokenhead wrote:

Sue: They [emotions] colour how we see people, events, views, happenings – everything! We are literally their puppets – for whilst they are in charge, we act according to their whims.

Who is this "we"?

99.999% of the world’s population.

You are describing how two-year-olds behave.

Most people are mentally "two-year olds", sharing a similar mentality as dogs and cats due to their undeveloped consciousness.

How can an emotion have a whim? That is investing the emotion with consciousness of some sort.

When you are not conscious enough to know your own mind, you are at the mercy of anything and everything – especially the emotions.

Do you mean to say you actually know adults who "literally" act as puppets to their emotions? Where do you see such people?

Yes, 99.999% of the world’s population.

And what makes you think you know what their emotions are?

Their emotions are made evident through their thoughts and actions.

brokenhead,

There are many things that I find to be profound, Carl. But something tells me they'd be lost on you.

What is the "something" that tells you this?

Carl G wrote:brokenhead,

There are many things that I find to be profound, Carl. But something tells me they'd be lost on you.

What is the "something" that tells you this?

It's a hunch, OK? You seem to think "birth is a cause of death" is profound. I find that as an insight, it is massively underwhelming. So I'm just thinking "pearls before swine" here. Feel free to disagree with me about which one of us is the swine.

brokenhead wrote:

Carl G wrote:brokenhead,

There are many things that I find to be profound, Carl. But something tells me they'd be lost on you.

What is the "something" that tells you this?

It's a hunch, OK? You seem to think "birth is a cause of death" is profound. I find that as an insight, it is massively underwhelming. So I'm just thinking "pearls before swine" here. Feel free to disagree with me about which one of us is the swine.

If profound is defined as intellectually deep or penetrating, how does "birth is a cause of death," not qualify? It is definitely a step or two above the average train of thought.

As for your appraisal of me, let's just say your intuition serves you poorly.

Sue: They [emotions] colour how we see people, events, views, happenings – everything! We are literally their puppets – for whilst they are in charge, we act according to their whims.
brokenhead: Who is this "we"?
Sue: 99.999% of the world’s population.

Ah. You've done a survey.

brokenhead: You are describing how two-year-olds behave.
Sue: Most people are mentally "two-year olds", sharing a similar mentality as dogs and cats due to their undeveloped consciousness.

Let me get this straight. Two-year-olds have the same mentality as dogs and cats. And most people are mental two-year-olds. So then your survey was scientific.

brokenhead: How can an emotion have a whim? That is investing the emotion with consciousness of some sort.
Sue: When you are not conscious enough to know your own mind, you are at the mercy of anything and everything – especially the emotions.

This taken as an independent statement on its own happens to be true, although it does not answer the question.

brokenhead: Do you mean to say you actually know adults who "literally" act as puppets to their emotions? Where do you see such people?
Sue: Yes, 99.999% of the world’s population.

Right. The scientific survey. Let's ask DHodges if he ever saw a survey of any kind yield 99.999% as a statistic.

brokenhead: And what makes you think you know what their emotions are?
Sue: Their emotions are made evident through their thoughts and actions.

And how would you know what other people's thoughts are, Sue?

As I have said, you are not a clear thinker. You parrot concepts which you have not processed. You can do better. You do not know what other people's emotions are, nor do you know their thoughts. You make inferrals through their words and actions, perhaps, but those inferrals lack any kind of compelling validity. You are merely giving your opinion. Actually, you are paraphrasing other people's opinions.

Yet what you are saying has some truth in it, of course. It is counterproductive for people to let their emotions run their lives. Stating it plainly without the hyperbole makes it far less dramatic, I get that. It also makes it more palatable.

I take it you would not be one of those people who can make the distinction between letting emotions run your life and following your heart. It's an enormously worthwhile distinction. Wake up, Sue. Pay attention.

Carl G. wrote:If profound is defined as intellectually deep or penetrating, how does "birth is a cause of death," not qualify? It is definitely a step or two above the average train of thought.

Yes, it is a step or two above the average train of thought, if we're assuming the average train of thought is holy shit do I have to take a piss.

But on its own, it is a sophistry. Birth precedes death in one's life and is therefore a "cause" of it. It yields no wisdom, no further insight, no new understanding. (Oh, that's right, I forgot: what does "new" have to do with anything.) By this same reasoning, every breath I take is killing me. Am I enlightened yet?

As it addresses the subject of cause and effect it is a block in the foundation of wisdom.

Carl G wrote:As it addresses the subject of cause and effect it is a block in the foundation of wisdom.

If you say so. To me, you are elevating it because it (the statement that "birth is a cause of death") contains the words birth and death. To me, it conveys nothing of particular import. It has no ramifications. I already understood that I am a mortal being. I was born, therefore I shall die.

I it helps you keep your own mortality in perspective, then I will concede it is more profound for you than it is for me. To me it is merely a piece of knowledge, a simple fact. All truths contribute to wisdom if they assist you to act in a more rational manner.

Let me solve the problem for you both, birth is not necessarily a cause of death. You don't die because you were born. You are born because you die.. no, that's not quite it. Let me think about it for another minute or two.

brokenhead wrote:

Carl G wrote:As it addresses the subject of cause and effect it is a block in the foundation of wisdom.

If you say so. To me, you are elevating it because it (the statement that "birth is a cause of death") contains the words birth and death.

Actually, I was lowering it (into the foundation) because it contains the concept of cause.

To me, it conveys nothing of particular import. It has no ramifications.

The import is that it suggests that each beginning contains in it the seed for its end. And that things can beget their opposite, like, love can and often does beget hate. That's a significant insight into the possible ramifications of one's actions.

I already understood that I am a mortal being. I was born, therefore I shall die.

The fact of one's mortality isn't the point.

I it helps you keep your own mortality in perspective, then I will concede it is more profound for you than it is for me.

It is not about mortality, it is about understanding the concept of cause and effect.

To me it is merely a piece of knowledge, a simple fact.

Then you miss the greater fruit.

All truths contribute to wisdom if they assist you to act in a more rational manner.

I said this particular piece is a block in the foundation of wisdom. Now you agree with me.

But you contradict yourself. You first said "it is merely a piece of knowledge." Merely. Before that you said "it has no ramifications." Now you said it contributes to wisdom.

Carl G wrote:Then you miss the greater fruit.

Then what is that fruit? And please don't say "The law of cause and effect." You seem to think that there is something profound about it that I am missing. I understand the law of cause and effect. I have always understood it. And I understand it better as I get older. I do not need to repeat it as some kind of mantra.

I said this particular piece is a block in the foundation of wisdom. Now you agree with me.

OK, OK, you win. Call it what you want. If the metaphor of wisdom being a construction requiring a foundation is important to you, have at it. To me, there is nothing particularly enlightening about understanding the law of cause and effect, as it is simply the way the world works. Deriving meaning from things takes work. Endlessly obsessing about the law of cause and effect is counter-productive to that work, IMHO. It has negative results, including bestowing a "me vs. the herd" mentality to the one doing the obsessing. I see it all over these forums. Who is and who is not a sage. Who cares, really? I flinch every time I read the word wisdom in these threads. Which makes it difficult to type the damn word with all that flinching going on. I can't help feeling that if these dialectics were finally to cease, the feathers were to stop flying, and all the dust were to settle, GF would be there, online, no TCP or UDP packets coming or going, just the occasional ICMP pinging, signifying nothing.

see it all over these forums. Who is and who is not a sage. Who cares, really? I flinch every time I read the word wisdom in these threads.

Same here. There are so many ego dynamics going on here that otherwise promising threads almost always end up in the toilet, at least from my perspective.

I can't help feeling that if these dialectics were finally to cease, the feathers were to stop flying, and all the dust were to settle, GF would be there, online, no TCP or UDP packets coming or going, just the occasional ICMP pinging, signifying nothing.

I'd have to agree. I don't see how it could really exist without "sage vs sage" aspect. It's called "Genius Forum," for heaven's sake. That should be a clue.