GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin,

Cory: Is Wisdom by definition only applicable to beings who experience emotions, feeling and sensuality?

Kevin: Cows, dogs, and many other animals experience emotions and feelings, but they don't have the capacity for wisdom.

Ok, I'll rephrase my question:

Is wisdom only applicable to beings who both

1) have the requisite masculinity to study/interpret text/language and think abstractly,

&

2) are deluded?

OK there is way too much here for me to catch up on. Oh well, ignore me if I am too far behind.

Cory:

First off,

Do you see passivity, submission, obedience, unconsciousness, and sensuality all as feminine traits?

Passivity is the only trait that I would definitively acknowledge as being feminine. Submissiveness and obedience, these traits are equally male and female. The desire to be a slave or a cow is a simplification of life and therefore both genders desire it equally. Free will is possibly the hardest spiritual, philosophical and moral conundrum a human being will encounter and this is why men and women desire obedience/submission/slavery/cowdum. Sensuality is the opposite of spirituality and again I don’t see how sensuality is a feminine trait in its purest sense. Sensuality as an infatuation with flesh,the senses, and sexuality this is equally present in both men and women. Since you are sexually attracted (biologically speaking) to women you innately see them as sensual, because their physicality is the object of your biological desires. If you were gay on the other hand, you would feel an equal amount of sensuality emanating from masculinity. But I will give you one very strong point that you made (somewhere). Women and femininity are irrational by nature. But if you are basing your conclusions on archetypes from Greek Gods then I think your conclusions are inaccurate and outmoded.

DQ:

As befits the traditional principle of male (active) and female (passive).

And this is the crux of my argument. That life/existence in all of its manifestations and even in the purest sense (the eternal) require a balance of both active and passive, both are equally necessary, both are equally important, and both must be utilized. I consider the ideal state of action as being “effortless” action or Wu Wei (doing by non-doing). Action that is perfectly in tune with nature by being passively aware of the moment, yielding to the energy that is already in place but guiding that energy through action. This is the perfect balance of both passive and active elements and this is the ideal state of the master/sage/genius.

DQ:

Or by heightening one's intelligence, rationality and awareness to such an extent that one can perceive the illusory nature of all things and revel in the sheer freedom of Nature.

This is what I meant when I said:

If you can enter a state similar the womb but with heightened consciousness then I dare say you have reached enlightenment.

And I meant what I said. And if y’all analyze chapter 28 of the Tao Te Ching, you will understand what I mean. No, an enlightened man blowing his load in a woman is not like being dead. That is a clever manipulation, but you are ignoring the core concepts. When you die you return to where you came and join the eternal. An enlightened man has separated his ego and no longer confuses this with his true substance, he is in tune with the eternal, just as a fetus in the womb, but with a heightened awareness/consciousness (or “shin” according to Taoism) and this is what separates a fetus from an enlightened man. When you blow your load you are briefly escaping/freeing yourself from your ego, but this is just a quick fix and has no lasting substance.


Cory wrote:

One begins very vulgar and crude. Ones masculinity and feminity are both crude in the begining. But as ones masculinity becomes more refined, ones femininty becomes more refined and subtle as well.

One must know the masculine, but keep the feminine.

I agree with this sentiment. And it sums up why I feel both are necessary.

Kevin wrote:

That logic can get you to rome, but once you get to rome (via rigorous intellectual work) logic can't be used to justify the manifold magnificence of the experience.

Kevin do you consider years of meditation to be “rigorous intellectual work”, or do you consider pondering philosophical conundrums to be “rigorous intellectual work”, or are you saying that both are necessary? Is there more to this “intellectual work” than the hamster wheel of endless mental problems that our mind (which is only an organ) associates with reality? Do you think that people who live solely through their minds will ever transcend their egos?

Cory:

You see, I am suggesting that feeling is primary, and the intellect is simply employed to align the organism with the greatest sensations and to avoid bad sensations and feelings.

I Agree.

Cory:

For instance, if he decided to start having sex again, he would regress, no? Therefore, he still has preferences, he still prefers particular sensations and feelings, except the ones he now prefers do not involve having his intellect controlled by vulgar emotional whims - --

Does anybody on this forum believe in the spiritual possibilities associated with Taoist and Tantric sexual yoga? At one point, Taoism was divided into two schools, one that believed in celibacy and tapping the eternal within, the other school (which is currently associated with Mantak Chia) utilized outside resources in conjunction with internal techniques and practiced sexual Kung Fu. I have practiced both in my lifetime and I can understand why the two schools are not enemies of thought, but they harmoniously agree because they are both actively cultivating the energy of life. I study Kung Fu and without direct feedback from another human’s energy field (chi) my degree of understanding would be totally stunted. The greatest Kung Fu masters were actually healers. In fact the best way to increase your knowledge of chi (and better your kung fu) is by practicing massage (Tui-Na). So I think direct human contact is an incredible way to get instant feedback about the workings of human energy (the life force but not necessarily the eternal).

Ksolway:

For the same reason that a computer functions - because it is programmed to do so. The sage is like a robot.

Whoa. You are describing the opposite of enlightenment here (unless I am misunderstanding you). A Nihilist intellectual is like a robot, an enlightened sage is effervescent with energy and life. They radiate like a golden flower. (Has anyone on this forum read Thomas Cleary’s translation of “The Secret of the Golden Flower”, if so I would love to discuss).

Ksolway:

Why does a tree grow?

DQ:

For example, a sage might look at a flower and experience the colour red. His experience of red, in the moment, is neither rational nor un-rational in nature - it is simply what it is. At the same time, there isn't a single aspect of this redness, or this experience of redness, which cannot be logically analyzed by him.

Have you ever heard the Buddhist parable (that I am going to paraphrase and possibly bastardize here). When an average human looks at a tree he immediately draws upon an image that he has filed away in his brain (since childhood and the first time he discovered a tree). So when an average person looks at a tree he actually doesn’t see the tree, he sees the preconceived image in his head and recognizes/labels the tree as a tree without even seeing it (sort of like a robot or a computer). When an enlightened man sees a tree he can actually see the energy and life that emanates from the tree, because he has stripped away the robotic impulses of the mind.

Cory:

I say that the sage is a program that is written to maintain deep and vast perception, feeling, and sensation.

If he is not programmed for this purpose, if he is absolutely cold and unfeeling – just numb,

You are right Cory. Deep and vast perception, feeling and sensation are all characteristic of someone with a keen awareness of the energy of life (and the void/eternal). This is the farthest thing from being “cold, unfeeling, numb and programmed”.

Ksolway:

Diogenes used to say that there was no difference between life and death, so someone asked him, "So why don't you kill yourself?" "Because there's no difference", replied Diogenes.

I would say “Because I am alive”. Death is inevitable, it is our only guarantee, why rush it?

I am going to start a new thread and continue this discourse.

There must be a reason we chose, as spirits, to inhabit a human body.

Yes and if reincarnation is in fact true, then for my next life I will either break from the cycle (which is why I will never marry or have children) if I cannot break from the cycle then I would like to be a tree.

How do marriage and children influence the reincarnation cycle, and on what do you base that answer?

What kind of a tree would you be, and why?

Marriage and children keep you connected to the physical world, if you die and you still have binding connection to the physical world (the Homosapien world in particular) or if you have left something unfulfilled or incomplete, then you can't break from the cycle.
I base this answer on wild speculation. Reincarnation is a nice concept but it is not a definitive proof.

In Japan they have tee shirts with nonsensical English words and sentences (for example “count the breathless infallibility of toasted pleasure”). We have the same thing here with our tattoos and tee shirts that say nonsensical things in Kanji (or Mandarin). But one time I saw this student in Japan wearing a tee shirt that said “This just in! The trees know everything”. I really like that tee shirt. Every once in a while a broken clock tells the correct time of day and in this case the random nonsensical English actually made sense. Trees live by cultivating stillness, by the energy of life, by biological and chemical reactions, and by a supreme brand of wisdom. I have reached some interesting levels of consciousness through meditation and I think I have a vague idea of what tree consciousness is like. And no I am not a mystical hippie who just hit a three-foot glass bong. This is all fantastical speculation on my part. I don’t care what kind of tree, how long I live, and in what environment.

Do y'all remember that posting by Ryan under the name Cosmic Prostitute where he used a tree as a metaphor (and how the roots where grounded in the dark, un-rational abyss of the unknown or something like that)? That was a underrated sleeper hit! This forum lost out on not posting 6 pages on that topic.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Is wisdom only applicable to beings who both

1) have the requisite masculinity to study/interpret text/language and think abstractly,
&
2) are deluded?

Yes, it is something that we can usefully attribute to such beings.

[PS. It is also applicable to people who aren't deluded]

AlyOshA wrote:

That logic can get you to rome, but once you get to rome (via rigorous intellectual work) logic can't be used to justify the manifold magnificence of the experience.

I think it was David who said what you quoted.

Kevin do you consider years of meditation to be “rigorous intellectual work”

It depends what you mean by "meditation". If the meditation involved well-founded, sharp and significant thinking about what is real and what is not real, then it would be "rigorous intellectual work."

By contrast, meditation involving the observation of the breath, or chanting mantras, or visualizing things, is not rigorous intellectual work.

Is there more to this “intellectual work” than the hamster wheel of endless mental problems that our mind (which is only an organ) associates with reality?

I can't relate to what you say about "our mind". My mind knows there are solutions, seeks those solutions, and finds them quickly. And once I know the solution I don't have to re-seek it.

If a person is going around in circles with their thinking then they are not thinking properly.

Do you think that people who live solely through their minds will ever transcend their egos?

I think it is wrong to divide the intellect and the "heart", which I think you are doing. They are never separate, not even in the most deluded of people.

People always follow their hearts - in the sense of what they deeply desire - and this is the reason they can't think properly. If a person is lost in intellectual problems it is because that is where their heart has led them. They are where they want to be. The problem is with their "heart". Namely, they have lost their heart, and consequently their mind as well - because they are not separate.

By the same token, a person who is lost in "love" and all other kinds of emotions and non-intellectual things, have also lost their heart, and mind.

The true heart is the pure mind, the undistorted intellect.

The sage is like a robot.

Whoa. You are describing the opposite of enlightenment here (unless I am misunderstanding you). A Nihilist intellectual is like a robot

All the nihilist intellectuals I know are very emotional and irrational. They fall in and out of love regularly. Many are very egotistical. They are very concerned about how other people see them. None of those things are very robot-like.

an enlightened sage is effervescent with energy and life. They radiate like a golden flower.

A flower is like a robot as well.

When an enlightened man sees a tree he can actually see the energy and life that emanates from the tree, because he has stripped away the robotic impulses of the mind.

I think you are underestimating "robots". Robots are no different to trees. When you look at a robot, you probably label it "robot", and cut-off its true nature. But the wise person (the unemotional "robot") sees the energy and life that emanates from it, and sees its eternal nature.

Ksolway:

If the meditation involved well-founded, sharp and significant thinking about what is real and what is not real, then it would be "rigorous intellectual work."

Hmmm. Maybe you can reply to the posting I made earlier in this thread.

AlyOshA:

When people talk about escaping reality, I ask what is reality, and how do you escape from it? Is working your 9-5 reality? Is playing videogames and watching TV reality? Is meditating reality? Is shooting heroin reality? Is exercising reality? Is masturbating reality? Is sitting around all day contemplating reality a reality? How is working a 9-5 any more real than cleaning a house and maintaining a family?

Ksolway:

By contrast, meditation involving the observation of the breath, or chanting mantras, or visualizing things, is not rigorous intellectual work.

Ok so now I know that what you consider enlightenment is vastly different than what nearly every sage and every religion/spiritual philosophy postulates. Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism, Muslim, all of these spiritual philosophies and most all of the sages attached to them practice “meditation involving the observation of the breath, or chanting mantras, or visualizing things” in one-way or another. I am sorry Kevin but I have lost respect for your views of enlightenment. I am not advocating this type of meditation as a full time practice, but those who have studied this type of meditation for upwards of 7 years plainly understands the implications of this practice, how it helps focus the “other” type of “rigorous intellectual work” that you value, and also the scientifically proven health benefits. If you are discrediting this practice as a means for obtainment, then I think you should very much reconsider what type of enlightenment you think you have found and what type of “reality” you think you live in.

Ksolway:

“I can't relate to what you say about "our mind". My mind knows there are solutions, seeks those solutions, and finds them quickly. And once I know the solution I don't have to re-seek it.”

This sounds like a very practical solution for day-to-day living in material existence. I do this as well. But have you solved all the philosophical questions of mankind. When you experienced the eternal did you experience it by intellectually solving a problem/grasping a concept? I will ask you the same question David has asked me and I have answered twice (once on this thread). What do you consider enlightenment and what makes you think you have obtained it?

Ksolway:

If a person is going around in circles with their thinking then they are not thinking properly.

So you are saying that when you have a thought, you do not have one thought that analyzes that thought and labels it, another thought that contradicts or second-guesses that thought, and yet a third thought that decides whether the original thought and the second-guessing are valid. You do not believe in the “silent observer” method? Every thought you have is singular, clear, definitive, and resolute without any skepticism or second-guessing? Because this is what I consider “going around in circles” and those who don’t go around in circles with their thinking are probably singular, clear, and resolute about things like Jihad.

Ksolway:

I think it is wrong to divide the intellect and the "heart", which I think you are doing. They are never separate, not even in the most deluded of people.

The intellect and the “heart”/life force/soul are as different as fire and water. In the big picture they are all the same because they are all necessary puzzle pieces forming a totality and originating from the eternal. But if you cannot first separate and understand the nature and differences between the intellect, the body, the life force/energy/chi/soul, and the void/eternal, then you will never learn how to unify them. I agree that the mind and the “heart” must be cohesively unified and not in contradiction with each other, and the same is true of the body and the eternal, but you also must acknowledge these elements as separate entities that serve differing functions. So if you only live through your mind you are most likely living through your ego. If you never practice the art of “silently observing” the mind, then you will prevent yourself from understanding your mind and how it differs from your life force, body, and the eternal, just as fire differs from water. When I meditate I do so to strengthen my chi, explore the eternal, or “download” the mind (The mind is non-stop like a hamster in a hamster wheel. Downloading is an incredibly useful way to focus, refresh, and harness the mind to its utmost efficiency). Similarly I exercise and eat healthy food to maintain my body/vessel. All of these practices are necessary and anyone who believes otherwise is surely deluded.

Ksolway:

I think you are underestimating "robots". Robots are no different to trees. When you look at a robot, you probably label it "robot", and cut-off its true nature. But the wise person (the unemotional "robot") sees the energy and life that emanates from it, and sees its eternal nature.

I agree that a rock contains energy and life in itself but this is a vastly different type of energy than what emanates from a tree. The life force emanating from a tree is something that our life force (as human beings) can readily relate to, and this type of energy manifests itself in different ways than that of a rock or a robot. It is Ok to see the totality and understand the unifying connectedness of all manifestations but it is also important to see how fire differs from water and to acknowledge your particular manifestation as a human being.

Cory: Is wisdom only applicable to beings who both

1) have the requisite masculinity to study/interpret text/language and think abstractly,
&
2) are deluded?


Yes, it is something that we can usefully attribute to such beings.

[PS. It is also applicable to people who aren't deluded]

People who arent deluded would already be wise by definition, therefore I don't understand why you are concered with the survival of wisdom.

Are you concerned about the survival of an elite minority of individuals who have the potential to be wise?

Do you define wisdom as existing apart from an organism, or do you define wisdom as something that depends on an organism?

I'm curious why you are concerned with the survival of wisdom, but not the survival of the human race.

What's the good of wisdom if there is no human race?

AlyOshA wrote:

By contrast, meditation involving the observation of the breath, or chanting mantras, or visualizing things, is not rigorous intellectual work.

Ok so now I know that what you consider enlightenment is vastly different than what nearly every sage and every religion/spiritual philosophy postulates.

No. People like the Zen Master Hakuin would say the same things about meditation that I do. That's why Hakuin developed the koan, to stimulate people's brains and wake them up from the sleep of concentrating on things like their breath or their mantra. He tried to force people to think instead of just sitting.

If you are discrediting this practice as a means for obtainment

I've never seen a person become wise by practicing traditional mindless meditation techniques. I've seen people become more relaxed, contented, and physically healthy, but not wise.

“I can't relate to what you say about "our mind". My mind knows there are solutions, seeks those solutions, and finds them quickly. And once I know the solution I don't have to re-seek it.”

This sounds like a very practical solution for day-to-day living in material existence. I do this as well. But have you solved all the philosophical questions of mankind.

Yes.

When you experienced the eternal did you experience it by intellectually solving a problem/grasping a concept?

I experienced it by intellectually solving a problem and then embracing the answer. Sacrificing myself to the answer.

The process is exactly the same in everyday life if we are to succeed. For example, if you discover that your house in on fire it's no good pretending that it's not on fire. You must put the fire out.

What do you consider enlightenment and what makes you think you have obtained it?

Enlightenment is the state of being without delusions about the nature of existence. I think I have obtained it because I understand everything. I experience the essence of all things - the essence of which I am a part.

If a person is going around in circles with their thinking then they are not thinking properly.

So you are saying that when you have a thought, you do not have one thought that analyzes that thought and labels it, another thought that contradicts or second-guesses that thought, and yet a third thought that decides whether the original thought and the second-guessing are valid.

Nope. If I reason, say, that 1 + 1 = 2, or A = A, then that's it over and done with. The problem is solved eternally.

Cory Duchesne wrote:People who arent deluded would already be wise by definition, therefore I don't understand why you are concered with the survival of wisdom.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I want to spread wisdom as far and wide as possible because that's what I'm programmed to do.

Are you concerned about the survival of an elite minority of individuals who have the potential to be wise?

Yes, I'm concerned about all those who have potential to be wise.

Do you define wisdom as existing apart from an organism, or do you define wisdom as something that depends on an organism?

It depends on some kind of consciousness, and you could call that an "organism". If there were no consciousness in the Universe, there would be no wisdom.

I'm curious why you are concerned with the survival of wisdom, but not the survival of the human race.

What's the good of wisdom if there is no human race?

You will remember I said previously that I am concerned about the human race only as a vehicle for wisdom. Wisdom needs a vehicle (ie, consciousness).

Let's say we met an alien race of beings who were far more spiritually wise than we are, and had a lot more potential for wisdom. In that case my preference would be with them.

Cory: I'm curious why you are concerned with the survival of wisdom, but not the survival of the human race.

What's the good of wisdom if there is no human race?

Kevin: You will remember I said previously that I am concerned about the human race only as a vehicle for wisdom. Wisdom needs a vehicle (ie, consciousness).

Let's say we met an alien race of beings who were far more spiritually wise than we are, and had a lot more potential for wisdom. In that case my preference would be with them.

When do you forsee the earliest meeting between us and 'spiritually more-wise' extraterestrials?

Cory Duchesne wrote:When do you forsee the earliest meeting between us and 'spiritually more-wise' extraterestrials?

Sometime in the next billion years.

Cory: I'm curious why you are concerned with the survival of wisdom, but not the survival of the human race.

What's the good of wisdom if there is no human race?

Kevin: You will remember I said previously that I am concerned about the human race only as a vehicle for wisdom. Wisdom needs a vehicle (ie, consciousness).

Let's say we met an alien race of beings who were far more spiritually wise than we are, and had a lot more potential for wisdom. In that case my preference would be with them.

Do you envision 'first contact' occuring via a visitation?

And if so, do you think they would call first and ask if it was ok......you know give some time to prepare?

Or do you think they would just show up?

Cory Duchesne wrote:Or do you think they would just show up?

Don't know.

Adam wrote:

one thought that analyzes that thought and labels it, another thought that contradicts or second-guesses that thought, and yet a third thought that decides whether the original thought and the second-guessing are valid

I agree that meta-cognitions are good.

Ksolway:

No. People like the Zen Master Hakuin would say the same things about meditation that I do. That's why Hakuin developed the koan, to stimulate people's brains and wake them up from the sleep of concentrating on things like their breath or their mantra. He tried to force people to think instead of just sitting.

Well that is just one Zen Master out of many, many, many. Buddha, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and Jesus Christ would all disagree with you on this issue. Your way is useful, but it needs to be balanced and enhanced by the way I am suggesting.

Ksolway:

I've never seen a person become wise by practicing traditional mindless meditation techniques. I've seen people become more relaxed, contented, and physically healthy, but not wise.

How many wise people have you seen? What are they like? Where do you live and what type of people do you interact with? You will have to forgive me if I am initially skeptical about your empirical evidence. I have been fortunate enough to meet many wise people in my life and would be more than willing to share those experiences with you.

Ksolway:

I experienced it by intellectually solving a problem and then embracing the answer. Sacrificing myself to the answer.

Enlightenment is the state of being without delusions about the nature of existence. I think I have obtained it because I understand everything. I experience the essence of all things - the essence of which I am a part.

It's that easy huh? Ok then maybe you would be willing to play 20 questions with me. I am not asking you to prove my point (although I think it does prove my point) I am really curious about your particular opinions (key word opinions) and perspectives.

How was life created in our Solar system?

What is your purpose in life and why are you here (I am asking about the big picture not something simple like Mr. And Mrs. Solway screwed hence little Kevey was born).

What do you contribute to this existence?

What happens after you die? What is it like?

What is eternal? What is the eternal like? Why is it eternal?

Can you create or destroy energy?

What is the nature of fate and to what extent is it predetermined?

Are psychic abilities possible? Why or Why not? Do you believe in Remote Viewing and the proven evidence that supports it? How do explain this evidence?

Do you believe that life has a type of energy beyond chemical reactions? What is the nature of life force? Can you cultivate, manipulate, and harness this energy?

What is real? What isn’t real?

How do you know that you exist? How do you know that you're are not a butterfly dreaming to be Kevin Solway?

What makes you think your can trust your mind and your mind ONLY?

What is tree consciousness like? How do you know that you are more valuable than a tree (in the big picture)? Why is your consciousness better than tree consciousness? Would this world be a better world if trees all had your type of consciousness?

How do we solve the problems in the Middle East?

Will violence and war ever end? Why or why not?

Was the Holocaust necessary? How do you rationalize it?

How do we cure Cancer and why does Cancer exist?

Do you believe in ghosts? Why or why not and what is your proof either way?

Do you believe in the branch of science called Psychoneuroimmunology?

What is the nature of the Absolute/Totality? What is it like? Why is it Absolute/Totality?

What is the shape of our Universe? What is our Universe like and how does it function?

The list goes on and on Kevin. I would love to see how you can answer all of these questions with your 1 + 1 = 2 and A=A logic.

AlyOshA wrote:Well that is just one Zen Master out of many, many, many. Buddha, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and Jesus Christ would all disagree with you on this issue.

I don't agree with you. All wise people agree that thinking and understanding is primary. It's what separates us from other animals and is the tool by which we can become enlightened.

I've never seen a person become wise by practicing traditional mindless meditation techniques. I've seen people become more relaxed, contented, and physically healthy, but not wise.

How many wise people have you seen?

Very few indeed.

I am initially skeptical about your empirical evidence. I have been fortunate enough to meet many wise people

We have different standards of what we would consider to be "wise".

If a person says one foolish thing, they reveal themselves to be a fool. The Dalai Lama, for example, says a great many very foolish things, and so he reveals himself as a fool very clearly.

I experienced it by intellectually solving a problem and then embracing the answer. Sacrificing myself to the answer.

It's that easy huh?

Yes. There can be no other way.

Ok then maybe you would be willing to play 20 questions with me.

All questions can be answered using simple logic.

How was life created in our Solar system?

By cause and effect.

What is your purpose in life and why are you here.

My purpose is the surival of wisdom. I am here because I am caused to be here.

What do you contribute to this existence?

My existence.

What happens after you die?

The same thing.

What is it like?

Like before you were born.

What is eternal? What is the eternal like? Why is it eternal?

The Totality, the All, is eternal. It is like nothing other than itself. It is eternal because it contains everything, including time.

Can you create or destroy energy?

Depends on how you define "energy".

What is the nature of fate and to what extent is it predetermined?

All things are caused and therefore fully predetermined. However we can't know what is predetermined ahead of time.

Are psychic abilities possible? Why or Why not?

I presume you mean "abilities of the psyche". Yes, these are possible.

Do you believe in Remote Viewing and the proven evidence that supports it? How do explain this evidence?

I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this.

If it were true then people who have this skill would be priceless as international or corporate spies.

Do you believe that life has a type of energy beyond chemical reactions?

There's light, magnetism, gravity, etc.

What is the nature of life force? Can you cultivate, manipulate, and harness this energy?

It depends on how you define "life force". Does a rock have "life force"?

One thing is no more alive than any other.

What is real? What isn’t real?

That which is imagined by a deluded consciousness isn't real.

How do you know that you exist?

Because I think it.

How do you know that you're are not a butterfly dreaming to be Kevin Solway?

I don't know, but it doesn't matter if I am.

What makes you think your can trust your mind and your mind ONLY?

My mind is wise, so I can trust it.

I would trust other people's minds if I knew they were wise. But I can't know other people's minds as well as I know my own mind. In fact I can't know other people's minds at all - not with 100% certainty.

What is tree consciousness like?

We can only guess.

And we guess that it is minimal.

How do you know that you are more valuable than a tree (in the big picture)?

The Totality doesn't have values, but individuals do.

Why is your consciousness better than tree consciousness? Would this world be a better world if trees all had your type of consciousness?

Human consciousness is better than tree consciousness if you value the survival of wisdom.

How do we solve the problems in the Middle East?

Allow the problems to solve themselves.

Will violence and war ever end? Why or why not?

Never. Since there will always be violent people (or beings) and competition for limited resources.

Was the Holocaust necessary? How do you rationalize it?

It was inevitable given the causes which led to it.

It happens because of a primal urge in human beings to destroy the competition. It is the reason we exist today.

How do we cure Cancer and why does Cancer exist?

Cancer exists because it is caused to exist. I haven't yet found a perfect cure for it.

Do you believe in ghosts?

It depends how you define "ghosts".

I see and feel "spirits" everywhere and in all things.

Why or why not and what is your proof either way?

I haven't seen any evidence for the continued existence of a person in conscious form after they have died.

Do you believe in the branch of science called Psychoneuroimmunology?

Yes, I certainly believe in the placebo effect. It is a proven fact.

What is the nature of the Absolute/Totality? What is it like?

It is like everything that is around you.

Why is it Absolute/Totality?

It is absolute and total because there is nothing beyond it, by definition.

Q: What is real? What isn’t real?

Kevin: That which is imagined by a deluded consciousness isn't real.

This is the only wrong answer from the above. The imaginations/thoughts of a deluded consciousness are as real and SUBJECTIVELY rational as any other. The thing that makes them deluded or "unrealistic" are other people's subjective assessments of their statements and predictions.

Everything is real, but not everything is realistic. Realistic is an word that exists because it conceptually always includes an emotional end purpose, goal or desired outcome, whereas the word Real does not necessarily do so (in the context of philosophy anyway).

Jamesh wrote:

Q: What is real? What isn’t real?

Kevin: That which is imagined by a deluded consciousness isn't real.

This is the only wrong answer from the above. The imaginations/thoughts of a deluded consciousness are as real and SUBJECTIVELY rational as any other.

A deluded person, by definition, is lost in illusions. Therefore, they are unable to judge correctly whether things are real, or not.

The thing that makes them deluded or "unrealistic" are other people's subjective assessments of their statements and predictions.

A person who is not deluded can do a “subjective assessment” of another person’s “statements and predictions”, and correctly judge them to be deluded, or not deluded. A deluded person hasn’t this same ability.

Everything is real, but not everything is realistic. Realistic is an word that exists because it conceptually always includes an emotional end purpose, goal or desired outcome, whereas the word Real does not necessarily do so (in the context of philosophy anyway).

It’s not clear what point you are trying to raise here.

-
Sue

Thank you for indulging me in my 20 questions. Please allow me to be critical of your responses.

Jamesh:
Q: What is real? What isn’t real?

Kevin: That which is imagined by a deluded consciousness isn't real.

This is the only wrong answer from the above.

Unfortunately, this is not the only wrong answer from above. These answers are incredibly vague and leave the true answer just as obscure and mysterious as the question. This is a convenient way to avoid answering the questions and therefore deluding yourself into thinking you have all the answers.

Quote:
How was life created in our Solar system?

By cause and effect.

What cause created the effect of life (in the form of single cells) appearing from non-life (or “rock” life as you like to postulate)? How is this possible and how did this happen? I really want you to answer the question not just offer a blanket generalization that could encompass any question I might ask, because with these vague all encompassing statements you are really answering absolutely nothing. For instance if I were to ask, “what is God” you could answer, “God is God”. A true answer in itself but what have you really answered? Nothing. A=A answers nothing. Cause and Effect is true but it answers nothing. I want to know what is the cause and how did it form that particular effect.

Quote:
What is your purpose in life and why are you here.


My purpose is the surival of wisdom. I am here because I am caused to be here.

The simplicity of your logic mirrors the “unconscious” simplicity of “mindless meditation”. Do you really consider this “rigorous intellectual work”? I am caused to be here? What caused you to be here? Answer the question. The survival of wisdom? What is wisdom exactly and how are you sustaining its existence?

Quote:
What do you contribute to this existence?


My existence.

I accept this answer.

Quote:
What happens after you die?


The same thing.

So are you saying that you exist when you die? If so in what form do you exist and what is this existence like? Or are you saying that you cease to exist when you die? If this is the case then what is the nature of non-existence?

Quote:
What is it like?


Like before you were born.

I accept this answer. But what was it like before you were born? What is this state?

Quote:
What is eternal? What is the eternal like? Why is it eternal?


The Totality, the All, is eternal. It is like nothing other than itself. It is eternal because it contains everything, including time.

How is the totality or “the all” eternal (because everything I’ve observed in the totality has a beginning and an end)? What created the totality? What created the creator of the totality? What existed prior to the totality and what will succeed the totality?

Quote:
Can you create or destroy energy?


Depends on how you define "energy".

In the same way that Einstein defines “energy”. Einstein was quoted as saying that you cannot create or destroy energy. Do you agree with this statement?

Quote:
What is the nature of fate and to what extent is it predetermined?


All things are caused and therefore fully predetermined. However we can't know what is predetermined ahead of time.

So you are saying that it is impossible for human consciousness to have glimpses of the future? What validation do you have that supports this claim? How do you explain intuition and presentiment (the most elementary forms of fortune telling)? Are you saying that you have never predicted an outcome by going outside of the mathematical calculations of various causes and effects. You have never predicted a future outcome by actually seeing the unfolding of effects? If the human mind and consciousness are evolving, then what are the possible advancements that you foresee?

Quote:
Are psychic abilities possible? Why or Why not?


I presume you mean "abilities of the psyche". Yes, these are possible.

No I mean people who have the capabilities to transcend time and space and see occurrences from locations and times outside of the here and now. Is this possible? If not why do you say it is impossible and what evidence do you have to support this claim?

Quote:
Do you believe in Remote Viewing and the proven evidence that supports it? How do explain this evidence?


I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this.

If it were true then people who have this skill would be priceless as international or corporate spies.

I am afraid that you haven’t inquired on this subject in the slightest. There is scientifically sound validation that Remote Viewing is viable and accurate. And since you haven’t researched this subject I will inform you that the United States government instituted Remote Viewing by using the scientific method for the purpose of creating “priceless international and corporate spies”.

Quote:
Do you believe that life has a type of energy beyond chemical reactions?


There's light, magnetism, gravity, etc.

Yes and what about the life force of a tree or a human. Is there a type of energy that drives these types of “organic” life forces beyond simple chemical reactions? Is there energy beyond gravity, light, magnetism? Do you believe in a soul? Do you believe that energy can exist on other wavelengths than what your elementary, material observations can deduce?

Quote:
What is the nature of life force? Can you cultivate, manipulate, and harness this energy?


It depends on how you define "life force". Does a rock have "life force"?

One thing is no more alive than any other.

This is where I cannot understand your character. All of your other answers are rudimentary, material rationales, except this answer. A rock does have a life force, but anyone who observes this phenomenon would more fit in the category of a mystic or transcendental type of thinker as opposed to a materialist rationalist. I do think a rock has a “life force” in the context of the universal or totality. But this life force is vastly different than the life force of a tiger or a human when you acknowledge the specific or particular parts of the totality. Since we are humans and our life force (by scientific standards) is in a category that does not include rocks or other inorganic materials.

Life is the characteristic state of organisms. Properties common to terrestrial organisms (plants, animals, fungi, protists and bacteria) are that they are cellular, carbon-and-water-based with complex organization, having a metabolism, a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and—through natural selection—adapt

So I think in advanced stages of enlightenment one could see that even a rock has life force, but I don’t see how this is conducive to your simplified 1 + 1 = 2 brand of “robot” logic. I think that the human brain is very much like a computer or a robot. If you live as though this organ “the human brain” was your only substance or your “true” substance then I can see why you equate yourself to a computer or a robot. But I don’t see how you equate this to true consciousness as opposed to unconsciousness. I think that a rock, a robot, and a computer are essentially unconscious; where as a human who has separated himself from his ego (or “brain identity”) is truly conscious.

Quote:
How do you know that you exist?


Because I think it.

Here you are using the logic of Rene Descartes. Rene Descartes was clearly deluded and his observations and conclusions were egregiously false (do you really agree with Rene Descartes). If you would like me to logically disprove this sentiment then I will do so on the Rene Descartes thread.

Quote:
How do you know that you’re not a butterfly dreaming to be Kevin Solway?


I don't know, but it doesn't matter if I am.

A very nice, genuine, and honest answer.

Quote:
What makes you think your can trust your mind and your mind ONLY?


My mind is wise, so I can trust it.

I would trust other people's minds if I knew they were wise. But I can't know other people's minds as well as I know my own mind. In fact I can't know other people's minds at all - not with 100% certainty.

I agree with you here but this is not exactly what I was trying to ask you. What I was trying to ask is whether you acknowledge that the mind, the body, and the soul/life force/chi/core energy, are separate but cohesive properties. Do you not agree that the fallacy of unenlightened consciousness is the tendency to live through just the “brain identity/personality” or the ego? Do you acknowledge that the brain is only an organ like your stomach or your heart?

Quote:
Why is your consciousness better than tree consciousness? Would this world be a better world if trees all had your type of consciousness?


Human consciousness is better than tree consciousness if you value the survival of wisdom.

And the only wisdom you value is human consciousness? Do you think human consciousness is capable of destroying our planet? Do you think our planet is in better shape since the advancement of human consciousness and the evolution of the human race (think about global warming, deforestation, and the adverse effects of nuclear technology)? In what way has human consciousness bettered the condition of our planet (as opposed to tree consciousness)?

Quote:
How do we solve the problems in the Middle East?


Allow the problems to solve themselves.

Does this logic apply to all the problems one might face in life? For instance Kevin is trapped in a hole, what does he do, does he just sit and wait allowing “the problems to solve themselves”. I don’t accept this answer and somehow I don’t think that you do either.

Quote:
Why or why not and what is your proof either way?


I haven't seen any evidence for the continued existence of a person in conscious form after they have died.

I accept this answer. But are you also concluding that this “continued existence” is impossible?

Quote:
Do you believe in the branch of science called Psychoneuroimmunology?


Yes, I certainly believe in the placebo effect. It is a proven fact.

Here you are wearing your lack of research on your sleeve. The placebo effect barely scratches the surface of current research on psychoneuroimmunology. I was referring to the validated evidence where meditation and visualization techniques from 1000s of years ago have been proven to be just as effective for Cancer treatment as any of the forms of chemotherapy and radiation treatment. I was referring to the validated evidence that the mind, the nervous system, and the immune system are all intrinsically connected with complex interactions. Understanding these interactions is a crucial component of current medicine. The placebo effect is passé research and has since found profound advancements. I don’t understand why you are closing your mind to this type of meditation.

I've seen people become more relaxed, contented, and physically healthy, but not wise.

How many wise people have you seen?

Very few indeed.

I have to agree with you that you have not met very many wise people. You have only read about them in books. But you can’t validate this wisdom by reading books. It requires experience. You might read the puffed up, romantic, and ubermasculine words of Nietzsche but when you meet the pale, anti-social, sickly, little creature in person you might reconsider those words. Wise people are generally a proponent of “being more relaxed, contented, and physically healthy”. These characteristics go hand in hand with wisdom; those who don’t follow this path are most likely deluded and unwise. Mind, body, and spirit: three equally essential components of every human being, do you agree?

You didn’t answer my favorite question, probably because I asked it after the fact.

What is the shape of our Universe? What is our Universe like and how does it function?

I think I understand where you are coming from Kevin. I follow the same path that you follow but I condition, enhance, and obtain more wisdom by meditating. I can only conclude that have never successfully meditated. It takes hard work and will power, without which you will not understand and will never be successful. I don't discredit you for not having the will power/desire to learn more about meditation, but I do discredit you for disregarding meditation because lack of understanding and lack of experience, especially if you are a proponent of Buddhism. If you were to tell me that you were a successful practitioner and could invalidate its effectiveness because of experienced knowledge, then I would readily accept your reasoning (and this discourse would take on a whole new dynamic).

http://skepdic.com/randi.html

If remote viewing were true, the million dollar prize would have been gobbled up by now. No?

People for the most part are unhappy and the easiest way to deal with unhappiness is to escape into fantasy and hopes of magic. Unfortunately, by doing so, we excarberate our inner poverty.

Generally, people either become 'the providers of psuedo-magic-science' or the 'consumers of psuedo-magic-science'.

Ingo Swaan is one of the providers.

He is not beyond good and evil. He enjoys holding back the human race (and his own development) by feeding the fire of their 'hope' (and his own 'hope') that things are more magical than they really are. He feeds the fire of their fear.

As do chumps like Uri Geller.

Feminine Rising, Ingo Swann

That is why Kierkguaard emphasized suffering so much in his lifes work.

It hurts to let go of ones desire to be exalted via wishful magical-narcisistic thinking and face up to the fact that one was spoiled by ones mother.

The goal is to live beyond the hope and the childish desire for gaining control of reality by means of accessing magical powers.