GENIUS FORUMS

Mill: Corey, with you everything is bound up with attachment. Any argument can be refuted by calling your opponent and attachmentian.

Have I used such methods against you? The only thing I've done is pointed out your errors in logic, your contradictions and hypocricies.

Milli: but what if one is attached to disattachment? Is he an elitist?

You know, this isn't about blinding adhering to the belief that one must be non-attatched.

Most of us here are concerned with simply being logical.

In my opinion, being non-attatched is simply an inevitable and incidental by-product of being logical.

Mill: I only mention elitism because it predominates here, especially for those of you who openly toy with the idea of genocide.

Cory: First of all, like I've tried to point out to you on almost every second post - elitism predominates everywhere you go.

Mill: So that makes it ok? "But mom, EVERYBODY'S doing it."

No, my point is: since eltism manifests on every message board on the internet, why don't you go and harass them? Why this board?

Why not go to a christian message board and express your opinions about religion? - - Tell them what you think about the idea of going to hell because you don't believe in Jesus your savior.

You'll get plenty of elitist reactions.

And then why don't you scorn them for being elitist?

Cory: Humans are attatched and thus are elitist by nature.

Mill: but what if one is attached to disattachment? Is he an elitist?

A great deal of what has been written on this particular thread (a bit between me and Quinn, a great deal between me, sue, CP and sapius) has been exploring the idea of being attatched to truth.

I suggest you pay closer attention to the proceedings and maybe even do your best to contribute to the conversations in a calm, reasonable, logical way.

On this thread in particular you havent really been respectfully reading carefully and discussing, instead you seem to settle for merely throwing out the odd oversimplified accusation and demeaning one-liner, while remaining oblivious to the more intelligent responsibility of responding carefully to what is actually being discussed.

Cory Patrick wrote:

First of all, what's your take on Dan Rowden And Kevin Solways (two proffessed lovers of truth) disagreement on the Israel and Hezbolah situation?

They are different men, who have developed philosophically under different circumstances. Dan obviously feels quite passionate about the issue, and Kevin has mostly responded from what I see as a more philosophical position. What they are discussing isn’t the “truth” of the issue: for that is simply that both sides have irrational attachments, which is why they clash. The main point Dan seems to be making is that Western culture is as equally insane as the peoples directly involved in this conflict. Kevin seems to be saying that when all is weighed up, the West is slightly more rational because this forum isn’t banned – well, not yet anyway.

Not too mention Kevin and Quinn both admitted to not completely understanding how to solve the situation, and succombed to some mere speculaton and guesses about how to help humanity move foward.

They have treated the question with the degree of respect it deserves and stated that both parties are irrational, because both are fighting over irrational issues.

The only way that humanity will “move forward” is for it to stop believing in irrational things such as the self, love, hate and free-will.

And that is my take on character, it arises when we turn away from the uncomprehensible abyss of causality and put our energies into what seems relevant to us.

The more refined and subtle our understanding of causality, the more our response to the challenges of life will trivialize and make petty the challenges, and therefore we end challenge.

What would your response be to this issue? How will your response “end challenge”?
-
Sue

Cory Patrick wrote:

I asked you Cory: You mentioned in your post “causality” and “things having no inherent existence” – how does “elitism” fit?

You replied that you had used elitism to illustrate how it and “attachment” are “inherently non-existing things”. This reply only muddles things further.

Are you trying to say that our emotions (attachments) are, due to causality, as empty as every thing else? If that is what you are trying to say, then that would be true.

You also look like your're out for a fight with me over this.

…but given the argumentation surrounding the concept of elitism as of late, I thought I should continue towing it along and see if I could attract more challenges.

And it seems that by doing so, I'm finally provoking a dissenting opinion from someone besides Millipodium.

I’m willing to discuss a point with you, but first you need to put forth a point for us to discuss. So far, you’ve not really said anything significant.

And given that Quinn and Diebert have both spoke in favor of elitism, well, that would make you, Sue, someone who is dissenting below the consensus on this forum

This notion that ideas presented on this forum are considered correct, or incorrect, depending on the “consensus” of a group, is clearly absurd. Where ever you got that idea from, it wasn’t from here. This forum is for individual thinkers – who depend on their own minds to figure out what is true and what is false. There is no group mentality here – each person is out on their own.

…by having an intimation or direct confrontation with complexity, we are compelled to turn our gaze away and establish character. And character is 'always' elitist.

It is true that the budding philosopher has to draw himself up to the challenge of facing the truth about his own existence. It takes character to see that what you once considered your own self, and your own life, doesn’t exist except for the grace of the Infinite. It also takes character to see that you have not now, nor ever did have any control over anything in your life – and that again, it is all the Infinites doing. Most people upon confronting these thoughts want to collapse into the fetal position and cry “mummy”. But if you have the strength to accept these truths, you're reliance on character becomes diminished – for now you have faith.

-
Sue

Cory Patrick questioned:

A good understanding of cause and effect is all that is needed to investigate and understand everything?

Without it, you are lost forever in the dark.

It is strange hearing this from someone who has quoted Jesus as many times on this forum as you have, Sue.

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

Without a good understanding of cause and effect, Jesus’ words are meaningless.

For instance, I really don't think the problem with scientists is that they lack the mind for having a good understanding of cause and effect. I think the problem with scientists is that they lack the passionate desire (root meaning of passion; suffering) to take cause and effect and investigation so far as to become wholly unemotional and indifferent to matters pertaining to family, marriage, career, children, etc, etc.

The scientist has those base attachments because he doesn’t have a good understanding of cause and effect.

Sue, are you sure that 'understanding everything' has nothing to do with discontent, hatred and pain caused by your old conditions and values?

No. With a good understanding of cause and effect, every thing is known for what it is.
-
Sue

Cory Patrick wrote:

Cory: Based on what you read, do you think I love truth?

Sue: Well, Meister Eckhart said: "The kingdom of God is for none but the thoroughly dead".

To which I am left to query: how dead are you?

'How' dead am I? Tough to measure I daresay.

The reason I quoted Meister Eckhart was because he clearly stated what the “measure” is.

But you do go on to give a description of how you see your life:

Am I an outgoing, excitable, warm, enthusiastic, lively socializer?

No, I would say I seem dead to many people who know me. I think enthusiasm is shallow and stupid.

And I think many people who I am in relationship to (family and people at work) are seriously starting to think there is something wrong with me.

I am not very responsive, excitable or enthusiastic about anything.

Lately at work everyone is excited about the rollingstones coming to play here in halifax, or they are excited to talk about what happened on their favorite reality show.

They are rather uncomfortable to acknowledge my indifference, and even more uncomfortable to notice the 'genius' written in big letters on my computer monitor.

I am a bit uncomfortable about this too. It's depressing really.

Not quite dead yet, but close I daresay.

But then also ask me:

Maybe you can tell me how dead you are, then I'll have something to gauge by.

Not ever being born, and therefore never to die, places the ego in twirl – as it depends on these things to define its existence. Some days I rest easy in Nature’s embrace; other days, I am like a naughty child who ignores its parents tempered guidance by running off to play in the mud with the other naughty children. Either way – I am doing the best I can under the circumstances.
-
Sue

Cory Patrick asked:

Why is there a body of causality at all?

Do you agree with me when I say that the body of causality has no cause?

If so, then tell me, why is there something rather than nothing?

The first and third questions are basically asking the same thing – so my answer is the same for both of them.

The concept “something” depends on the concept “nothing” for its existence, and vice versa. These two mental constructs arose from other mental constructs, which arose from other mental constructs, etc. Even consciousness itself is a mental construct depending on other mental constructs for its existence. So this shows that every thing depends on other things for existence – which makes causation the fundamental principle of all creation. It is therefore illogical to ask of a fundamental principle “why it exists?”

Question two’s answer is: Yes, I agree that “the body of causality has no cause”, because any “cause” of causality would necessarily be part of causality.

-
Sue

Cory: Maybe you can tell me how dead you are,
then I'll have something to gauge by.

Sue: Not ever being born, and therefore never to die, places the ego in a twirl – as it depends on these things to define its existence.

Some days I rest easy in Nature’s embrace; other days, I am like a naughty child who ignores its parents tempered guidance by running off to play in the mud with the other naughty children.

Do you occasionally become a naughty little child due to your less than perfect understanding of cause and effect?

Cory,

Only by understanding causation can you know when you are living truthfully, and when you are not.

-
Sue

Cory Patrick wrote:

Do you occasionally become a naughty little child due to your less than perfect understanding of cause and effect?

I agree, emotional awareness is primary. Not one’s limited conceptual understandings.

If one is rooted completely in death then naughty behavior isn’t even an option.

Unfortunately for most of us there is still a degree of emotional imperfection: a degree to which we haven’t fully faced death so we misbehave; so a conceptual understanding of causality will never take us there.

Actually developing and modifying one's conceptual understanding can actually be delaying a complete death.

cosmic_prostitute,

Cause and effect is the only way you can understand what things really are. Trying to curb your emotions only exercises them more, and they grow stronger because of it. Using cause and effect to lay them bare, completely destroys their power.

-
Sue

Sue wrote:

Cause and effect is the only way you can understand what things really are. Trying to curb your emotions only exercises them more, and they grow stronger because of it. Using cause and effect to lay them bare, completely destroys their power.

then why do you still misbehave? isnt ones conceptual understanding incredily limited/shallow?

Using cause and effect to lay them bare hasnt done a thing for you, you still misbehave. There are still emotional blunders, what has causality done for you besides become a new attachment?

I maintain that reality cannot be ultimately known through any limited conception because there is no experiencer there to know reality in the first place.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:I maintain that reality cannot be ultimately known through any limited conception because there is no experiencer there to know reality in the first place.

Cause and effect is how Reality manifests itself. Although saying Reality manifests, isn't a proper description, because that might imply reality has an objective. Reality, in all its infinte formlessness, simply, Is.

Also, what's this insane rambling about there being no experiencer? All I ever do is experience. If you don't think you are experiencing anything, then what are you doing?

Cause and effect is how Reality manifests itself.

That is how the intellect believes reality manifests itself, but the description/understanding never suffices for what is described. The intellect cannot capture the essence of reality...

An unknowing irrational emptiness is primary, conceptual understandings are secondary; and they are incredibly limited.

A conceptual understanding of causality becomes knowledge and knowledge is a dead thing.

Our knowledge becomes the new attachment; it becomes what we believe reality is, we think we actually ulimately understand everything, but I question that.

Nick wrote:

Also, what's this insane rambling about there being no experiencer? All I ever do is experience. If you don't think you are experiencing anything, then what are you doing?

An experiencer implies an “I” that is aware of what he is experiencing, but without having knowledge of what you are experiencing, you have no idea what’s there. If knowledge falls into the background, you don’t know what you are experiencing.

We take our limited knowledge/understanding of causality and superimpose that over reality and we believe that we are actually experiencing reality, but it is just the “I” that is welding knowledge thinking there is something there.

Thought divides by its very nature, and then becomes attached to what it has divided reality up into.

Its not a problem unless we believe we actually possess some sort of ultimate understanding using "thought" which I dont believe exists.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:

Cause and effect is how Reality manifests itself.

That is how the intellect believes reality manifests itself, but the description/understanding never suffices for what is described. The intellect cannot capture the essence of reality...

An unknowing irrational emptiness is primary, conceptual understandings are secondary; and they are incredibly limited.

A conceptual understanding of causality becomes knowledge and knowledge is a dead thing.

Our knowledge becomes the new attachment; it becomes what we believe reality is, we think we actually ulimately understand everything, but I question that.

Did you miss the rest of my statement that goes along with what you have quoted? You have taken what I said out of context so you can continue your ramblings as you see fit.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:An experiencer implies an “I” that is aware of what he is experiencing, but without having knowledge of what you are experiencing, you have no idea what’s there. If knowledge falls into the background, you don’t know what you are experiencing.

"I" do contain knowledge which I have gained from experience. How else could knowledge, which is gained through experience, "fall into the background" unless it was at one time or another, in the foreground.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:We take our limited knowledge/understanding of causality and superimpose that over reality and we believe that we are actually experiencing reality, but it is just the “I” that is welding knowledge thinking there is something there.

There are no limitations on my understanding and knowledge of causality. In fact, I understand it perfectly. Again this is an understanding and knowledge which I have gained through my experiences. Experiences dealt to me through cause and effect.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Thought divides by its very nature, and then becomes attached to what it has divided reality up into.

You can only become attached to "things" unless you lose sight of the fact that they are all finite and abstract mental constructs. I divide Reality up into many "things" all the time, but I still know they are just temporary mental images that can only exist through my consciousness.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Its not a problem unless we believe we actually possess some sort of ultimate understanding using "thought" which I dont believe exists.

More insane rambling. If we don't have thought, then what do we have? Unthought?

sue hindmarsh wrote:cosmic_prostitute,

Cause and effect is the only way you can understand what things really are. Trying to curb your emotions only exercises them more, and they grow stronger because of it. Using cause and effect to lay them bare, completely destroys their power.

-
Sue

Awesome. I nominate sue for genius of the month.

Cory Patrick wrote:

Mill: Corey, with you everything is bound up with attachment. Any argument can be refuted by calling your opponent and attachmentian.

Have I used such methods against you? The only thing I've done is pointed out your errors in logic, your contradictions and hypocricies.

Milli: but what if one is attached to disattachment? Is he an elitist?

You know, this isn't about blinding adhering to the belief that one must be non-attatched.

Oh. So you mentioning attachment in every other post is all in my mind? I don't think so, erkle.

Most of us here are concerned with simply being logical.

No. You're concerned with Zen Buddhism, mostly.

In my opinion, being non-attatched is simply an inevitable and incidental by-product of being logical.

Wrong. I think being non-attached is due to a repeated experience of emotional pain.

Mill: I only mention elitism because it predominates here, especially for those of you who openly toy with the idea of genocide.

Cory: First of all, like I've tried to point out to you on almost every second post - elitism predominates everywhere you go.

Mill: So that makes it ok? "But mom, EVERYBODY'S doing it."

No, my point is: since eltism manifests on every message board on the internet, why don't you go and harass them? Why this board?

You people are most dangerous.

Why not go to a christian message board and express your opinions about religion? - - Tell them what you think about the idea of going to hell because you don't believe in Jesus your savior.

You'll get plenty of elitist reactions.

And then why don't you scorn them for being elitist?

Cory: Humans are attatched and thus are elitist by nature.

Mill: but what if one is attached to disattachment? Is he an elitist?

A great deal of what has been written on this particular thread (a bit between me and Quinn, a great deal between me, sue, CP and sapius) has been exploring the idea of being attatched to truth.

Hey. Remember when you were asking if attachment to truth made truth less true? That was funny.

I suggest you pay closer attention to the proceedings and maybe even do your best to contribute to the conversations in a calm, reasonable, logical way.

Calm, reason, logic? All of these are alien to you, Mystical Zen Warrior.

On this thread in particular you havent really been respectfully reading carefully and discussing, instead you seem to settle for merely throwing out the odd oversimplified accusation and demeaning one-liner, while remaining oblivious to the more intelligent responsibility of responding carefully to what is actually being discussed.

I agree. This entire thread was designed to humiliate those who believe destruction of rationality is intelligence, the mystical geniuses. I've got your number so bad it's making you mental.

Cory: Do you occasionally become a naughty little child due to your less than perfect understanding of cause and effect?

Sue: Only by understanding causation can you know when you are living truthfully, and when you are not.

Sue,

1) what causes you to become a naughty little child?

and

2) Do you, or do you not have a perfect understanding of cause and effect?

Cory: No, my point is: since eltism manifests on every message board on the internet, why don't you go and harass them? Why this board?

Milli: You people are most dangerous.

I'd be curious to hear how you think a message board with less then 50 regular visitors is going to negatively effect the economy.

And I'm thinking that this is all about the economy of america isnt it?

Or is it not?

Why don't you explain your outlook as clearing as possible to me?

Who knows, you might actually make me change my mind.

Milli wrote: This entire thread was designed to humiliate those who believe destruction of rationality is intelligence, the mystical geniuses.

So Mill, you must agree that the proponents of this forum are not 'consciously' believing that they are initiating the destruction of rational intelligence, despite the fact that they perhaps are.

According to your logic - the proponents of this forum are unconcious about their inherent inferiority.

Is this your take?

Cory Patrick wrote:

Milli wrote: This entire thread was designed to humiliate those who believe destruction of rationality is intelligence, the mystical geniuses.

So Mill, you must agree that the proponents of this forum are not 'consciously' believing that they are initiating the destruction of rational intelligence, despite the fact that they perhaps are.

According to your logic - the proponents of this forum are unconcious about their inherent inferiority.

Is this your take?

It's not inherent inferiority ,it's just being wrong on one issue: the issue of whether detaching from even rationality itself is the highest form of rationality; it's not. It's a buddhist add-on. it's religious zealotry.

Mill: wrote: This entire thread was designed to humiliate those who believe destruction of rationality is intelligence, the mystical geniuses.

Cory: So Mill, you must agree that the proponents of this forum are not 'consciously' believing that they are initiating the destruction of rational intelligence, despite the fact that they perhaps are.

According to your logic - the proponents of this forum are unconcious about their inherent inferiority.

Is this your take?

Mill: It's not inherent inferiority it's just being wrong on one issue: The issue of whether detaching from even rationality itself is the highest form of rationality; it's not. It's a buddhist add-on; it's religious zealotry.

Me using the word 'inherent' was uneccesary.

But do you agree that being wrong is being flawed, and having a flaw that Mill doesnt have is being inferior to Mill?

Mill: detaching from even rationality itself is the highest form of rationality; it's not. It's a buddhist add-on; it's religious zealotry

Detatching from rationality as a means to be even more rational. Where did you get that idea from?

Cory Patrick wrote:

Mill: wrote: This entire thread was designed to humiliate those who believe destruction of rationality is intelligence, the mystical geniuses.

Cory: So Mill, you must agree that the proponents of this forum are not 'consciously' believing that they are initiating the destruction of rational intelligence, despite the fact that they perhaps are.

According to your logic - the proponents of this forum are unconcious about their inherent inferiority.

Is this your take?

Mill: It's not inherent inferiority it's just being wrong on one issue: The issue of whether detaching from even rationality itself is the highest form of rationality; it's not. It's a buddhist add-on; it's religious zealotry.

Me using the word 'inherent' was uneccesary.

But do you agree that being wrong is being flawed, and having a flaw that Mill doesnt have is being inferior to Mill?

Please use the first person when speaking directly to me, okay golum?

And I wouldn't say this one bit of wrong makes one INFERIOR really, just wrong on the issue, but maybe a swell person in other ways.

Mill: detaching from even rationality itself is the highest form of rationality; it's not. It's a buddhist add-on; it's religious zealotry

Detatching from rationality as a means to be even more rational. Where did you get that idea from?

Ummmm. you. You're a buddhist zealot, not a committed thinker.

Mill: And I wouldn't say this one bit of wrong makes one INFERIOR really, just wrong on the issue, but maybe a swell person in other ways.

You're a buddhist zealot, not a committed thinker.

I think you're a really swell mud-slinging euphemist.

And I wish you the best of luck in your quest to save Amercia from the dangers of wisdom.

Cory Patrick wrote:

Mill: And I wouldn't say this one bit of wrong makes one INFERIOR really, just wrong on the issue, but maybe a swell person in other ways.

You're a buddhist zealot, not a committed thinker.

I think you're a really swell mud-slinging euphemist.

And I wish you the best of luck in your quest to save Amercia from the dangers of wisdom.

I'm saving the world from those who consider nihilism the highest form of consciousness, like you, and others.

Where in all my writings have I asserted that nihilism is the highest form of consciousness?

The most absurd thing about you mill is that you think you know the person you are talking to based on few of his posts.

I am concerned with the survival and education of the whole human race.

I see some activities as conductive to the surival of the human race (good) whereas I see other activities as bad.

Considering the intelligence that went into your attempt at being didactic using an excerpt from the trainspotting script, I would say that you are not neccesarly a huge impediment to humanities survival, but you're definitely not a big help.

What are your opinions on agriculture? Do you, like me, think that the conventional amercian/western agriculture is bad?

Are you like me, and thus see and work towards the possibility that humanity can overcome nationalism/tribalism?

If you actually get to know me Mill, you'll see how absurd it is not call me a nihilist.

As if nihilism is actually possible!