GENIUS FORUMS

Kelly wrote:

The path to enlightenment might involve inflicting intense physical pain, deliberately, on oneself.

Really? I never heard of that. I don't think that the shedding of attachments is painful, if that is what you mean.

Do you mean that one must go hungry and thirsty for enlightenment? That one must cut his throat with a straight razor for enlightenment?

I do not believe your statement.

Faizi

Kelly wrote:

The Ten Commandments have a lot to answer for. The so-called divine law "Thou shalt not murder" is in itself murdering the ability to decide for oneself how one ought to behave.

I never mentioned the Ten Commandments or religion or even an ethical system.

Actually, I do not believe that the Ten Commandments forestalls murder or anything else. If that was the case, there would not be Christians murdering.

I don't give a shit about the Ten Commandments or whatever other religious mumbo-jumbo. I do decide for myself that murder is a heinous act -- to inflict extreme physcial pain and suffering on another. I would not do that and I do not condone that. It is sick. I don't care what son of a bitch Buddha says it's all right.

Faizi

Kelly wrote:

When you described a very masculine thinker like Weininger as "feminine", you actually meant "masculine"?

No, I said feminine.

Weininger could not have known the feminine so well without having eradicated much of femininity from himself. I think his introspective study is evident from his writing.

Faizi

Here is a small sample of masculinity in females.

Please forgive me for writing of my own experience but I do make observances based on my own experience because I cannot make direct observations on the experiences of others.

I will try to be brief.

My seventeen daughter wanted to go for a Sunday drive. We have done this many times. Sometimes, these drives have been quite harrowing. Dirt roads over steep mountains. She had been out recently hunting for coyotes so I should have known but I was not prepared.

We took a road up Garden Mountain. I asked her, "This is not going to be worse than Indian Rock, is it?"

"No, it's nowhere near that bad."

Well, at least, it did not have quite as steep inclines. In fact, it was not bad at all, at first. A typical dirt road up a steep mountain. I could go twenty miles an hour.

But, then, it got kind of rough. The road became not much of a road. Just a dirt path, of sorts -- full of large rocks and boulders that we dodged. I could only go about seven miles an hour. Sheer drops on either side. First gear up and down the inclines. Took about two hours to get back to civilization. Total wilderness. Coyote and bear country.

She said, "Just put it in neutral and drift down."

"I don't think I want to drift, thanks."

Just phenomenal views. Up in the pines on the mountain tops. Wilderness and nothing else. Some clear views thousands of feet down to the river.

My point is that it entails some masculinity to even take such a trek. There were no men involved so we were not showing off our bravado. I know men and women who would have wet their pants on such a trip over such a steep mountain with very little real road -- even dirt road.

I do not mean to compare this to hiking Everest or something. But it was kind of hazardous.

I think the willingness to explore -- to go where many people would not dare to go -- is masculine. I give my daughter that much credit.

The same can be done be done in thought. I think it requires a man to enter into the highest precipices of thought.

But how do you define man?

Are you a man, Sue? Kelly?

At one time, I said that I am a man but that does not seem to fit the bill enitirely. I am biologically female.

Is it possible for a female to be male simultaneously?

Can a biological female be a philosophical male?

Faizi

Beingof1 wrote:Surrender to what is in your heart and your mind will quickly follow suite. The heart will only remain constant in its desire for innocent bliss. It is the projection of belief that creates emotional attachment in the mind.

If the fire of your desire is purified by and through ruthless honesty and absolute humility - the mind becomes the processor and slave of the heart(will and intent). The logic follows the intent as your heart already understands with perfect clarity.

It is the mind that must catch up to the soul, so to speak.

Well, tell me how you think Reality works, then I can see whether this "innocent bliss" is worth my time.


Kelly

Leyla Shen wrote:If it is true that there is no such thing as free will -- no such thing as an "I" that is not at the beck and call of cause and effect -- then there is no such thing as personal responsibility.

True, one cannot claim responsibility for anything, since it is all God. No one thing is causing anything. Nevertheless, purpose and decision-making still occur.

God is creating our conscious, rational decisions and purposes. When we are aware of this, and decide to take God-consciousness as our purpose, then we are God's personal responsibility.


Kelly

Leyla Shen wrote:There may not be anything to fix, but it appears that there is something to idealise, and there is -- even in this -- an assigned point from which that ideal emanates.

From where do ideals and reason come if not from the perception of the mechanics of emotion? Not a single thing can be done without it -- not even the channelled pursuit of an ideal.

To separate them so diametrcially is to once again cloak reality in dualism.

So, where's the delusion?

Like Sue said, Perfection doesn't need fixing. Both God-consciousness and delusion both work perfectly.

The process of reasoning about causality and how to respond can create God-consciousness and not create delusion.

When Truth is not perfectly clear, ie. how God works, there is some engagement of belief in illusion (delusion), and emotion arises. Then, there is struggle in the battle to resuscitate ideals.

But regardless of idealism, or lack of it, Reality appears to consciousness with apparent separations. It is impossible not to create illusions, dualistically. It just so happens God can know itself through the logical constructions of dualism, and illusion clearly known for what it is.


Kelly

I just have one question at this point, aside from apparently being both men and women -- are you and Sue both eachother as well?

I wrote, and Marsha responded thus:

The path to enlightenment might involve inflicting intense physical pain, deliberately, on oneself.
Really? I never heard of that. I don't think that the shedding of attachments is painful, if that is what you mean. Do you mean that one must go hungry and thirsty for enlightenment? That one must cut his throat with a straight razor for enlightenment? I do not believe your statement.

There's a strong relationship between physical pain, and spiritual pain. Both pains are from fear of losing the power of the ego, of the finite self that is imagined to be really separate from everything else. Sloughing off these fearful habits of egotism does involve some degree of pain, because it involves a battle to remember the Infinite, using the finite. This is spiritually painful, just like exercising muscles one hasn't got much of.

Marsha wrote:I do decide for myself that murder is a heinous act -- to inflict extreme physcial pain and suffering on another. I would not do that and I do not condone that. It is sick. I don't care what son of a bitch Buddha says it's all right.

There are many situations where both murder, and inflicting extreme physical pain and suffering on another, is a logical act, devoid of psychopathic and malicious intent. I agree it is difficult to judge the likelihood of the desired consequences arising, but if such a scenario arose, it would be illogical not to.
For instance, you might be rock-climbing with three people, and one gets tangled in rope high up a cliff. Cutting this person's rope, allowing them to die, may be the only way to save the other two lives. Wars, for instance, are often necessary to enable people to survive. If there was an invasion of hyper-sensitive yet highly unintelligent aliens, who happened to infect humans with fatal viruses, it would be necessary to decide which species should be culled, to avoid unnecessary suffering.

Weininger could not have known the feminine so well without having eradicated much of femininity from himself. I think his introspective study is evident from his writing.

Having eradicated much of femininity from himself means Weininger is more masculine than feminine, and certainly not feminine.

I think the willingness to explore -- to go where many people would not dare to go -- is masculine. I give my daughter that much credit. The same can be done be done in thought. I think it requires a man to enter into the highest precipices of thought.

This involves murdering the feminine, that is, to deliberately inflict intense or extreme pain on oneself, in order to eradicate it.

But how do you define man?

It depends on one's purpose. It's an excellent contrast to use it to describe one who lives fully conscious of the Infinite. This shows up virtually all people as women.

Are you a man, Sue? Kelly? At one time, I said that I am a man but that does not seem to fit the bill enitirely. I am biologically female. Is it possible for a female to be male simultaneously? Can a biological female be a philosophical male?

Given my usage of "man", virtually all biological humans are heavily into womanhood. This means that regardless of one's biological sex, having a philosophically male character exacts a huge toll on anyone. It is impossible to be simultaneously of a philosophically male and female character.

I am not yet a man, but just slightly more male than most people. This is really nothing, however, and far from enough.



Kelly

Leyla Shen wrote:I just have one question at this point, aside from apparently being both men and women -- are you and Sue both eachother as well?

I answered this in my previous post.


Kelly

kjones wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:Surrender to what is in your heart and your mind will quickly follow suite. The heart will only remain constant in its desire for innocent bliss. It is the projection of belief that creates emotional attachment in the mind.

If the fire of your desire is purified by and through ruthless honesty and absolute humility - the mind becomes the processor and slave of the heart(will and intent). The logic follows the intent as your heart already understands with perfect clarity.

It is the mind that must catch up to the soul, so to speak.

Well, tell me how you think Reality works, then I can see whether this "innocent bliss" is worth my time.


Kelly

What do you want more than anything?

kjones wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:If it is true that there is no such thing as free will -- no such thing as an "I" that is not at the beck and call of cause and effect -- then there is no such thing as personal responsibility.

True, one cannot claim responsibility for anything, since it is all God. No one thing is causing anything. Nevertheless, purpose and decision-making still occur.

God is creating our conscious, rational decisions and purposes. When we are aware of this, and decide to take God-consciousness as our purpose, then we are God's personal responsibility.

Kelly

Whose responsibility are we when God is creating our irrational, unconscious decisions and purposes?

The fundamental difference between this God and His purpose as you have described above and the Christian God is what, exactly, Kelly?

All you have done is made Satan a cross-dresser and multiplied him by the number of Earth’s population.

That’s what I call religion, not philosophy -- politics, at best.

When Truth is not perfectly clear, ie. how God works, there is some engagement of belief in illusion (delusion), and emotion arises. Then, there is struggle in the battle to resuscitate ideals.

It is impossible not to create illusions, dualistically. It just so happens God can know itself through the logical constructions of dualism, and illusion clearly known for what it is.

That's a beauty. I hope to get to it soon.

From above
Weininger could not have known the feminine so well without having eradicated much of femininity from himself. I think his introspective study is evident from his writing.

Having eradicated much of femininity from himself means Weininger is more masculine than feminine, and certainly not feminine.

I don't like placing values on masculinity and femininity. In my opinion the definitions are biased and shouldn't really be used that much in discussion of philosophical issues relating to the ultimate.

I am not talking of some political correctness issue, but I am against the emotional picture they paint as concepts. I find they are too heavily biased towards the positive and it produces an inflated viewpoint of masculinity. It does not include the characteristics of males that causes destruction and harm, so it is not a true description of the whole range of masculine traits.

Just look at the list of masculinity synonyms: adulthood, boldness, bravery, chivalry, courage, daring, determination, firmness, forcefulness, fortitude, gallantry, hardihood, honor, machismo, manfulness, manliness, masculinity, mettle, nobility, potency, resoluteness, resolution, self-reliance, spirit, sturdiness, tenacity, valor, virility.

Femininity synonyms: delicacy, docility, effeminateness, feminality, femineity, feminineness, gentleness, kindness, muliebrity, softness, womanhood, womanliness

Some bias is warranted due to masculinity being an active, controlling, changing force but that is like glorifying evolution because it leads to advances in life forms. It ignores the fact that masculinity must have something to mold for it to have any such value, which immediately makes both sides of equal value.

In emotional terms I have come to the conclusion that men are more emotional than women, but that’s another story.

When Truth is not perfectly clear, ie. how God works, there is some engagement of belief in illusion (delusion), and emotion arises. Then, there is struggle in the battle to resuscitate ideals.

So, to believe that masculinity can exist separately and without femininity is to be deluded and to cause emotion to arise and thus ensues a struggle in the battle to resuscitate the masculine ideal, for example.

And, to understand that without femininity there can be no masculinity (illusion) no emotion arises and thus there is no struggle in the battle to resuscitate masculinity over femininity, again for example.

It is impossible not to create illusions, dualistically. It just so happens God can know itself through the logical constructions of dualism, and illusion clearly known for what it is.

This translates thus to me:

God (causality, right?), who creates illusions through logical, dualistic constructs can know Himself (??) and illusion for what it is.

What on earth is the meaning of this?

There's a strong relationship between physical pain, and spiritual pain. Both pains are from fear of losing the power of the ego, of the finite self that is imagined to be really separate from everything else. Sloughing off these fearful habits of egotism does involve some degree of pain, because it involves a battle to remember the Infinite, using the finite. This is spiritually painful, just like exercising muscles one hasn't got much of.

I can agree that the circumstances that often precede the sloughing off of emotional attachments cause emotional pain. But I never suffered physical pain. Never had to go to the doctor or anything. Physical pain with a pathological cause has nothing to do with fear. I see a fair number of people suffering heart attacks, for example. I never suffered physical pain from the emotion attached to the circumstances that preceded the letting go of attachments. I cannot imagine such a thing -- more than a headache or something.

Plus, you wrote that it is sometimes necessary for one who desires enlightenment to INFLICT physical suffering upon himself. That makes no sense to me. Also, I think considering that you are offering truth that you should take care in your wording. There are those people who would interpret your words to mean that it may become necessary for them to slash their own throats.

Even given the fact that you believe that there are circumstances in which it is logically reasonable to kill - other than in self defense - I find it hard to believe that you could want to have any responsibility for anyone slashing himself.

I think you are quite caught up in the romance of enlightenment at the moment and I understand that. Like a handsome man, the whole idea can sweep you off your feet, especially when you have enjoyed such encouragement.

But I hope that you might think more carefully about your words. Words are dangerous, especially when you proclaim yourself in possession of truth. Believe it or not -- lol -- there was a time when I used truth for shock value, too. I no longer have that need and I did not suffer physical pain when I shed that attachment.

The desire to shock is feminine. You are fairly brilliant, Kelly, so I think you should be aware of your feminine desires and work toward curbing them. You will, whether you will admit that you need to do so now or not.

Only a matter of time.

I am not shocked by your diatribe on the logic of killing babies or others. It is the same sort of delusional logic used by the likes of Dick Cheney or George Bush or Pol Pot. I am not shocked by the logic that produces piles of human bones. I am disgusted by it. God knows, that piss ant logic is human, all too human. I would be more shocked by the antithesis.

Any asshole can kill. The desire to kill is delusion -- even when one deludes himself that one is doing it for a logical reason. Charlie Manson had a logical reason for killing. He convinced a lot of people -- mostly women -- that he was some divine enlightened being. He was a fuck head -- still is a fuck head.

One observation that I make of you -- since you are in the business of truth -- you need to stop following so closely. By that, I do not mean that you should stop following QSR. Not in the least. I don't give a shit that you are a Solite. I give a shit that you are purveying truth while you yet do not know it.

You speak to me of the enlightenment of Jesus and, yet, you think that killing is all right in some logical circumstances. I think that is delusional.

There are many situations where both murder, and inflicting extreme physical pain and suffering on another, is a logical act, devoid of psychopathic and malicious intent. I agree it is difficult to judge the likelihood of the desired consequences arising, but if such a scenario arose, it would be illogical not to.

For instance, you might be rock-climbing with three people, and one gets tangled in rope high up a cliff. Cutting this person's rope, allowing them to die, may be the only way to save the other two lives. Wars, for instance, are often necessary to enable people to survive. If there was an invasion of hyper-sensitive yet highly unintelligent aliens, who happened to infect humans with fatal viruses, it would be necessary to decide which species should be culled, to avoid unnecessary suffering.

But that is not killing. That is survival. Very nasty choices and I would have a hard time living with that choice after the fact. In fact, I would probably prefer to be the one killed than the one who "survived."

In prior discussion, you never mentioned the idea of survival as the premise for your "logical killing." That is another discussion enitirely.

Interesting how you make the twist. I thought you were in the business of truth. I think you are back-tracking. Kind of like singing a song in one key and switching to another key when your voice can no longer carry the tune in the way you set out to carry it.

I think that you have a lot of potential, Kelly. You are a good writer, a good thinker.

Give it a few years.

Faizi

Kelly:

Having eradicated much of femininity from himself means Weininger is more masculine than feminine, and certainly not feminine.

He was a total cunt. How else could he have written so accurately about the feminine?

God forbid that Wieninger could have been a bitch! Say it ain't so!

Even Tupac Shakur was a 'ho. You don't get to be a pimp without being a 'ho.

Weininger may have become masculine but not without killing off a lot of the feminine. There was a lot of femininity to eradicate. He was very womanish. More womanish than some women. He had a lot to overcome.

When you wrote that it is necessary to inflict physical harm on oneself to go toward truth; enlightenment, I wonder how much you had Weininger's suicide in mind.

I consider his suicide to have been his one last womanish act -- on the order of Christ dying on the so called cross.

Weininger was much like the masculine woman -- filled with conflict.

I think that, if you are truthful, Kelly, you can attest to that.

I used to say that I am a man because I ventured to such heights. But, having been to hazardous mountain tops many times and yet to grow a penis, I am not convinced that I must define myself as male to attain enlightenment.

I am not a woman in the conventional sense but I am not a man in the conventional sense either. A penis does not define a man more than a vagina defines a woman -- when one ventures introspectively in philosophy.

I accept neither conscript. I do not define thought by sex.

I think the division of gender is a necessary step in discussion. Man is clearly superior. But I do not think that it follows that one with a penis is superior. I am surrounded by people with penises.

I am not impressed.

Do you have a penis?

Faizi

Many moons ago...

There lived wise women. Yes, many of them. Though, they were often forced to inhabit lands filled with foolish and stubborn creatures. Even among these brave and virtuous women, there existed confusion. For they had yet to remove their own fears from each other. Eventually this led to a cycle of subtle delusions. But it was written inside a garden grove, that a day would soon come, where their wisdom would rise again, inside open eyes.

Faizi, you are just folding in on your own problems, and projecting them onto Kelly.

Your bitterness and cynicism achieves nothing. She is younger than you, therefore inherently more ignorant, however, she does not need to go down the same path as you.

If what you are saying is so profound, she won't get it anyway, right? how can it traverse 2 decades of experience?

Kelly wrote:

When Truth is not perfectly clear, ie. how God works, there is some engagement of belief in illusion (delusion), and emotion arises. Then, there is struggle in the battle to resuscitate ideals.

Leyla Shen wrote in reply:

So, to believe that masculinity can exist separately and without femininity is to be deluded and to cause emotion to arise and thus ensues a struggle in the battle to resuscitate the masculine ideal, for example.

And, to understand that without femininity there can be no masculinity (illusion) no emotion arises and thus there is no struggle in the battle to resuscitate masculinity over femininity, again for example.

I'm not sure if I understand your point, Leyla? Are you making a point? Or is it a joke? If it is - it is kinda funny. Point or joke -
I'll throw my two cents in:

The Masculine can exist separately from the feminine, because it is conscious. The feminine cannot exist separately from the masculine, because it is not conscious. So it is through these two concepts, ‘conscious’ and ‘not conscious’, that masculinity and femininity are understood.

Being masculine, and therefore conscious; means you have the potential to know yourself. Self awareness can lead to an understanding of everything, i.e. The Ultimate. The feminine, lacking consciousness, and therefore unable to have any insights into its own reality, or for that matter, any other things reality; can never know Ultimate Reality.

So when Kelly writes, “Truth is not perfectly clear...”, I understand this to mean - when the masculine is not fully developed, the feminine can still arise to distract the masculine from its conscious efforts to be rid of the feminine. Once distracted, the masculine must fasten onto its knowledge of God (Ultimate Reality), to lessen the hold of the feminine.


Kelly wrote:

It is impossible not to create illusions, dualistically. It just so happens God can know itself through the logical constructions of dualism, and illusion clearly known for what it is.

Leyla Shen wrote:

This translates thus to me:

God (causality, right?), who creates illusions through logical, dualistic constructs can know Himself (??) and illusion for what it is.

What on earth is the meaning of this?

I see it this way:

We discriminate between things because it's natural for our discriminating-minds to do so. Then, when we have an understanding of cause and effect, we come to see that things can’t be separated from each other and that all things are really one. From this ‘one’, we realize that all things have come; so that we then understand that finite and infinite are also one.

Sue

Sue:

At this point, only having really read the part of your reply that asks me if I'm joking, I feel compelled to note the following as I am indeed intensely amused:

There it is again. I speak to Sue, Kelly answers; I speak to Kelly, Sue answers.

What a curious observation.

Prince,

I re-read my words and I can honestly say that there is no bitterness in them. Trust me -- I know how to be bitter. In fact, I am pretty expert at that sort of thing. No bitterness whatsoever in my words to Kelly. They certainly were not hateful words.

As for projecting my problems onto Kelly, that simply is not the case. In fact, I do not believe that Kelly has anywhere for me to project what you call my problems. I think she is doing quite well. She will refine her thinking as she goes -- without my help or anyone else's help, really.

I think I put forth some fairly interesting ideas for discussion and thought and I reckon Kelly will respond to them when she is ready.

Perhaps, you are projecting your own bitterness on me.

I recommend that you give up the amateur psychology.

Thanks.

Faizi

Prince,

I neglected to address this:

If what you are saying is so profound, she won't get it anyway, right? how can it traverse 2 decades of experience?

Certainly, she will get it. What's not to get? I don't think that I wrote anything so profound.

Yes, it can traverse two decades of experience. Her comparative youth is an asset to her, not a detriment. It is partially because of her youth that she has such potential. She has a good twenty or thirty years to refine her thought. She has, therefore, far more potential than myself. I am ten years behind her.

Faizi

Leyla Shen wrote:

From where do ideals and reason come if not from the perception of the mechanics of emotion? Not a single thing can be done without it -- not even the channelled pursuit of an ideal.

The emotions influence ideals and reason by first focusing the mind onto the ideal. Then, if you are rational enough to apply reason to that ideal, reason takes control and the emotions are given a smaller role.

The difference between the emotions and the ability to reason is: whereas reason can bring you to understand both the ideal and its associated emotions; an ideal based on emotions alone, can only bring about more emotions, making the ideal exceedingly vague.

Even more important, is the fact that reason can look upon itself and check its progress in discovering and applying the ideal. The emotions don't have this ability, and are instead lost in their own meanderings, with no point of reference - so that any ideal proposed by emotion alone, is a deformed, haphazard thing.

Sue

Absolutely, sue hindmarsh.

Beingof1 wrote:What do you want more than anything?

To be free from error. Now, I'll ask again: tell me how you think Reality works, so I can see whether this innocent bliss of yours has any real value. Or was your question your answer?

Leyla wrote:Whose responsibility are we when God is creating our irrational, unconscious decisions and purposes?

God is still responsible, but naturally there's no consciousness of this.

The fundamental difference between this God and His purpose as you have described above and the Christian God is what, exactly, Kelly?

Really only one: one's absolute, the other's not. One has real purpose, having no purpose whatsoever, the other has no purpose, having a purpose - to "love and save the lost".

All you have done is made Satan a cross-dresser and multiplied him by the number of Earth's population.

Satan is ignorance and hatred of truth in all its guises, so Satan is a cross-dresser, much flaunted in the masses. Why do you call these ideas religious, or political?

Jamesh wrote:I don't like placing values on masculinity and femininity. In my opinion the definitions are biased and shouldn't really be used that much in discussion of philosophical issues relating to the ultimate.

I am not talking of some political correctness issue, but I am against the emotional picture they paint as concepts. I find they are too heavily biased towards the positive and it produces an inflated viewpoint of masculinity. It does not include the characteristics of males that causes destruction and harm, so it is not a true description of the whole range of masculine traits.

I am not talking about men and women, but about the character that nurtures wisdom. Masculinity is thus defined to lift one's eyes to a further horizon not often viewed these days. It is, and has always been, known by a few unusual males. This type is at one of the two extreme ends of masculine achievement, the one opposite to criminality.


I'd rewrite your synonym lists this way:

Masculinity: adulthood (and yet childhood also), aggression, boldness, compassion, consciousness, courage, cunning, daring, delicacy, determination, firmness, forcefulness, foresight, fortitude, genius, gentleness, hardihood, honor, imagination, individuality, innocence, integrity, intelligence, kindness, mettle, nobility, potency, rationality, resoluteness, self-reliance, simplicity, spirit, sturdiness, tenacity, valor, virility, vision

Femininity: addictiveness, animalism, docility, slavishness, extravagance, flowieness, hysteria, immediacy, indecisiveness, irresponsibility, irrationality, irritability, jealousy, passivity, poor memory, submissiveness, temperamentalism, unconsciousness, unreliability, vagueness, weakness

I left out some of your terms, as they were tautologous, e.g. muliebrity. Others I switched lists. Femininity and masculinity, as I mentioned earlier, are related to consciousness, and therefore to character.

Some bias is warranted due to masculinity being an active, controlling, changing force but that is like glorifying evolution

Yes, it's a stupendous feat of Nature, to have created something aware of itself out of the murk of unconsciousness. Nature, in the conscious creativity of man, is suddenly aware of itself.

Femininity has not created this. Femininity vanishes like the dark when a light is turned on.

Leyla wrote:

When Truth is not perfectly clear, ie. how God works, there is some engagement of belief in illusion (Delusion), and emotion arises. Then, there is struggle in the battle to resuscitate ideals.

So, to believe that masculinity can exist separately and without femininity is to be deluded

Femininity is not the sole cause of masculinity.

...and to cause emotion to arise and thus ensues a struggle in the battle to resuscitate the masculine ideal, for example. And to understand that without femininity there can be no masculinity (illusion) no emotion arises and thus there is no struggle in the battle to resuscitate masculinity over femininity, again for example.

I'm glad you can perceive neither as inherently necessary. But there is an obvious leap from 100% unconsciousness to 100% consciousness. Creating definitions with crystal clarity is the essence of logic. So, in reality, an individual exists somewhere along the spectrum of consciousness at any one time.

When the glass of water is empty, there is no water in it.

It is impossible not to create illusions, dualistically. It just so happens God can know itself through the logical constructions of dualism, and illusion clearly known for what it is.

What on earth is the meaning of this?

Sue unpacked it:

"We discriminate between things because it's natural for our discriminating-minds to do so. Then, when we have an understanding of cause and effect, we come to see that things can't be separated from each other and that all things are really one. From this 'one', we realise that all things have come; so that we then understand that finite and infinite are also one."

Marsha wrote:you wrote that it is sometimes necessary for one who desires enlightenment to INFLICT physical suffering upon himself.

No, I wrote such an individual might do so. It would be a natural part of his explorations, activating his vow to be perfectly Truthful in all things. He'd find that pain is certainly not to be feared, or hated. He might do something highly pleasurable, for the same reason (not to fear or hate enjoyment, but simply to be the Truth).

I find it hard to believe that you could want to have any responsibility for anyone slashing himself.

I'll have been effective, even if it ended in suicide, if I helped someone open their mind up just a little to the Infinite.

I think you are quite caught up in the romance of enlightenment

I'm not perfect. I still try to love God for pleasure, but I suffer for it.


Now, I'd like you to examine these two quotes:

Words are dangerous, especially when you proclaim yourself in possession of truth.

I give a shit that you are purveying truth while you yet do not know it.

Are you proclaiming yourself in possession of Truth?


Also, my "diatribe on the logic of killing babies or others", was a response to Leyla, who said a Buddha that would fuck a baby for wisdom is attached to wisdom. I was explaining it wasn't necessarily the case. Wisdom is diagnosed with certainty based on the understanding of Truth, but psychopathy can never be diagnosed with total certainty, since only the psychopathic individual could know for sure (but this is an impossibility, given their state of mind, unless they recover sanity and memory).

Thus, it is erroneous to judge any action as certainly psychopathic, unless one is totally sane (wise), having experienced psychopathy.

In prior discussion, you never mentioned the idea of survival as the premise for your "logical killing".

On the contrary, the activities of the Buddha in view of his purpose, has been quite clearly my premise all along.

When you wrote that it is necessary to inflict physical harm on oneself to go toward truth; enlightenment, I wonder how much you had Weininger's suicide in mind.

Not at all.

Weininger was much like the masculine woman -- filled with conflict.

Rather, he was a highly logical individual, whose existence was far more harmoniously rational, than 99.99% of humans who have ever lived.

I do not define thought by sex

Do you have a penis?

Why did you ask (again)?



Kelly