GENIUS FORUMS

Sapius wrote:I am simply aware of such things due to extensive traveling, and that I’m naturally curious, and very glad to share the little knowledge I acquire.

That is good. Now will you answer the question, please?

Sir Laird-a-lot:

Satire is of its nature multi-layered, [snip]

Yes.

…and my "camouflage" was a pointer that might have softened a harsh critique. Was that critique the result of an attachment of the form that the subject (a philosophy) of the satire ostensibly decries?

Maybe. But more likely only to some, and much less than you expect, I suspect!--so what’s it worth? That is the question which sets the witch ablaze on the stake!

Might then that attachment be weakened by considering a less threatening perspective from which my words might be approached?

No. How could it be when it requires x-ray vision to see beneath the layers?

Rip the skirt to shreds and mark her with a swift and cutting “Z”, I say!

Love, Shenevere.

x

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Sapius wrote:I am simply aware of such things due to extensive traveling, and that I’m naturally curious, and very glad to share the little knowledge I acquire.

That is good. Now will you answer the question, please?

Can you please repeat it?

Leyla of Graceful Poetry and Poetic Grace,

Leyla Shen wrote:so what’s it worth?

At the very least, a new perspective - and the more perspectives that we're aware of, the closer we are to divinity (this path leads first through the forest of confusion).

Laird: Might then that attachment be weakened by considering a less threatening perspective from which my words might be approached?

Leyla: No. How could it be when it requires x-ray vision to see beneath the layers?

But I provided the x-ray photograph of the relevant layer!

And what might be found beneath all layers? "Pure" intention? Does such a thing exist? I submit that "pure" intention is nothing more than the overlay of that at each layer; that beneath it all is nothing of meaning beyond restful emptiness.

Leyla Shen wrote:Rip the skirt to shreds and mark her with a swift and cutting “Z”, I say!

Unfortunately the significance of the "Z" escapes me... "Z" for "Zen"? "Z" as the final letter; ultimate understanding beyond philosophy and gender?

I must admit that the first half of the sentence left me inescapably (mentally) aroused, which I suspect was (in one layer) your intention... unfortunately your purpose in so doing again escapes me, unless it was for the pure pleasure of it.

Your knight in armour a-fiery-blaze,
Laird

--
Elizabeth, Sapius - replies in progress

Sapius wrote:For example there is a single word for ones father’s elder brothers wife, and a different word for the father’s younger brothers wife ...

Very interesting - as far as I know the languages of the Australian Aborigines are likewise very rich in their descriptions of relationships. The contrast with western languages provides an insight into the first world's preoccupation with the nuclear family, with the attendant isolation and pressure that such a preoccupation breeds.

Sapius wrote:May be, but not exactly built upon tiny bits of duality; but that consciousness is duality itself since they are inseparable. Consciousness is but the reflection (awareness) of all that it is not, operating at different levels dependant on the bounded complexity of things.

I don't see that duality is a necessary component of consciousness. I'll provide a hypothetical scenario to illuminate my viewpoint. I know that I've shared this scenario with Kev by email but can't recall if I've shared it on this forum - if so, then I apologise for the repetition.

The scenario is that of a universe in which there is no matter or energy of the form that we know it, but rather pure reflexive awareness - in other words the entire state and nature of the universe could be summed up as "I am aware(ness)".

This would be a consciousness that exists without duality - it is aware not of "other" but only of "self" (that self being awareness itself).

Sapius wrote:Now you have to explain to me exactly what you mean by ‘inhabitation’? As far as I know, it is the continued memory of such perspective that gives us a sense of inhabitation. “My” consciousness and “I” are one and the same thing; “my” perspective and “me” are the one and the same thing.

I believe that awareness can exist independently of memory. For example, when coming around from a general anaesthetic I have little to no memory, but I am still self-aware - I just have little conception of the usual complexities of that self.

To inhabitation: I can, for example, theorise about what it feels like to be in your particular perspective, and to some extent I might be able to replicate it in my mind. But knowing Sapius and being Sapius are two different things. It is this beingness that I can't imagine as reducible to a product of dualistic processes of energy and matter as we know them. I look out from my perspective; you look out from yours. What are these I's and you's that look out? I find it, as well, extremely difficult to conceive of them as reducing to the emptiness that the rational infinitists like to promote.

Sapius wrote:Consciousness always is, will be, and it was never that it was not; same goes for duality.

My thoughts, beliefs and speculations run along lines suggestive of that understanding too.

Sapius wrote:Each individual consciousness is absolutely unique due to its own causal chain irrelevant of the operating principle being exactly the same

Right, to me what you're describing there is the unique state of a conscious process, but to me, the state of consciousness and consciousness itself (awareness) are two distinct concepts.

Sapius wrote:namely, recognition through differentiation and thence reaction, which necessarily requires duality, hence is inseparable.

Again, you describe part of the process of consciousness, but I believe in the (more abstract?) idea of consciousness itself which is an inhabiting force, affected by and affecting the process of consciousness.

Laird: Is there in your opinion any aspect of consciousness that is not related to duality?

Sapius: Which aspect do you have in mind?

Awareness.

Laird: But would you agree that, if consciousness is purely emergent, then a dream must be explained as being *mostly* generated by the physical brain?

Sapius: I can agree to that. The point being?

Before making my point I must assume that your answer to the question "Would you agree that the design and implementation of the physical brain's structure and workings is explained purely as a product of Darwinian evolution?" is, likewise, "I can agree to that."

If so, then my point is that many types of dreams in my opinion can *not* be explained in terms of any survival advantage that they might impart to the evolving individual of the human species. As I wrote earlier, of what survival value is an incredibly realistic imagination that is invoked merely during sleep, where it has little effect (and hence no survival value by which its existence might be explained), and not in waking states, where it might strongly advantage an individual by providing that individual with very useful predictions of the way in which a situation might develop?

So my contention then is that, given that dreams are an aspect of consciousness that cannot be sensibly explained as an emergent phenomenon based in Darwinian evolution, it is reasonable to suggest that consciousness itself is more than a purely emergent phenomenon.

Sapius wrote:Third person perspective is more common than one might think, but the problem is generally we do not pay attention to the perspective of the dream; when we wake up we just think that ‘hey’ I was there’. More than half of the dreams are in colour, and rest is shades of blues and grays.

These are details that I am not aware of upon waking. I'll try to be more aware of colour in my dreams, and of perspective.

Sapius wrote:Not enough information to know what the "consciousness was pulled apart" really was

I heard an authoritative, powerful and somehow familiar voice assert: "This is your Creator. You have used up your last chance." As those words resonated and began to fade, I felt my mind being stretched outwards in all directions, as though it were a lego model being picked apart. There was no pain, just a feeling of the components of my identity being reclaimed by the One who owns them due to my personal failure.

Sapius wrote:I mentioned this somewhere before I think; In a dream; How come just the memory of light is more than enough to light up objects never ever seen before, whereas otherwise light is necessary to see objects from which it bounces off. Do we have a lighted bulb in our skulls?

Is "imagination" too simplistic/unrealistic an answer for you?

Laird: "I" is (am) an aspect of God; God is the highest power and deserves the respect of capitalisation, as does His personal aspect. What do you think of that reasoning?

Elizabeth: Yes, You are. So is He, She, It, They, and Them - amongst Others. But it's pretty inconvenient to hit the shift key all that often. It is wrongly egotistical to go out of one's way to emphasize one's importance.

The difference between "I" and "others" though is that "I" experience(s) consciousness directly, whereas it must be inferred indirectly that "he", "she" and all of the "others" experience it. It's reasonable in my opinion to consider this personal experience as particularly special and deserving of respect.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Just watch me, and see if you like it.

I'll observe then, but I really prefer the Spivak (new) variants as described in the Wikipedia article that Shardrol first linked to:
Ey laughs. I hit em. Eir face bled. I am eirs. Ey shaves emself.

These are already in use by some people, and to me it's preferable to join a worthy revolution than to start a new and (in my opinion) less sensible one.

I'm also happy to be referred to with a gender-specific pronoun - it is useful information for readers/listeners. I'd rather that the non-specific pronoun was saved for situations where my gender is unknown, or for very formal occasions where one's deeds are being celebrated/recognised and where it is helpful to de-emphasise gender to provide inspiration that both men and women can aspire to greatness.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:i see that Laird is an indigo, too

Elizabeth, I like being your ally. I would like to be allied with as many different people as reasonably possible. I've not heard of the term "indigo" before though so I checked out the webpage The INDIGO Evolution and took the survey linked to from that page as though I were the child that I was supposed to be surveying. I came up with a score of six where the baseline is five. So perhaps I am a "minor" Indigo.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Now before I get shot for calling Laird and myself more evolved

Well I'm not pulling out a gun - more like a kiddy's water pistol that surprises you with a gentle spray of humility. I have the same concern about exaggerating your and my self-importance as I have about making the distinctions between levels of consciousness that the rational infinitists like to make. Even if it were true, I would rather that we keep it to ourselves - actions speak louder than words as the saying goes and the most likely effect of revealing a belief in one's superiority is to raise the hackles of the reader/listener and diminish the opportunities for finding allies.

Sapius wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:That is good. Now will you answer the question, please?

Can you please repeat it?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:What do you do if you have no idea if you are addressing a male or female?

Sapius wrote:You use logic. (...) And what does one do otherwsie....? ask, and hopefully expect the truth.

On the other hand, in person, things are much apparent; but if one is still in doubt, and the ambiguous grammatical structure of the language doesn’t help,

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I suspect that [edit - Arabic] language does not have a way of addressing such things because gender is such an important distinction in [edit - Arabic] culture. That is my point - when gender is irrelevant, why address it?

Laird wrote:Leyla of Graceful Poetry and Poetic Grace,

Laird: Might then that attachment be weakened by considering a less threatening perspective from which my words might be approached?

Leyla: No. How could it be when it requires x-ray vision to see beneath the layers?

But I provided the x-ray photograph of the relevant layer!

Ohhh, the relevant layer! What do you think is wrong with the x-ray, since in all the multi-layered satire of it all, I (for one) apparently didn’t see it? Is that like the layer that’s purer than all the other layers?

Laird wrote:And what might be found beneath all layers? "Pure" intention? Does such a thing exist?

Good question. I’d like to explore it.

Laird wrote:I submit that "pure" intention is nothing more than the overlay of that at each layer; that beneath it all is nothing of meaning beyond restful emptiness.

I see. So, what’s this all about, then:

Laird wrote:…unfortunately your purpose in so doing again escapes me, unless it was for the pure pleasure of it.

Is it possible to have pure pleasure but not pure intention, or are you simply exercising poetic license for -- "pure" nothing? I would say, Laird, that this "restful emptiness" is indeed brimming with life and meaning. In fact, I suggest that emptiness is the very fabric of meaning itself. I don't think it needs the adjective "restful," though. That makes it appear to be something it is not.

Laird,

I don't see that duality is a necessary component of consciousness. I'll provide a hypothetical scenario to illuminate my viewpoint

The scenario is that of a universe in which there is no matter or energy of the form that we know it, but rather pure reflexive awareness - in other words the entire state and nature of the universe could be summed up as "I am aware(ness)".

Firstly, for “I” am aware(ness), there has to necessarily be something other than the self to be aware of. If I am all Black, I cannot be aware of Black at all, hence no awareness, unless there is white, against which I will KNOW my Blackness. Without at least TWO things being around, awareness cannot arise, be it even an “internal” distinction.

This would be a consciousness that exists without duality - it is aware not of "other" but only of "self" (that self being awareness itself).

Say even if it is only the “self” that is not aware of “another”, it has to necessarily be comprised of more than one thing for awareness to arise within, and that has to necessarily be a dynamic process within, otherwise nothing can be happening at all. There is an element of time-flow to be considered, and memory too, because a “self” has to necessarily maintain the sense of “self” through this time-flow, and to all evidence in and of existence, there is nothing that points to anything being static, otherwise that would translate into absolutely nothing happening at all, including aware(NESS), which is impossible.

In my opinion, the “ultimate” quantum particle would still be subject to further divisions, just like we previously though that atom was the ultimate, and yet we discovered divisions beyond that. At every level of compounded and bounded atoms (or quarks), which forms a thing, that thing has a sense of “self” working from within, because it is not an absolutely solid single thing, and even a quark at the quantum level could be comprised of multiple particles yet undiscovered. Then on a certain level, when the things become more and more complex, for example humans, this internal consciousness that already existed at certain bunch of quantum particle level, now is capable of abstract thinking and questioning WHY? Including logically recognizing one-self as distinct from another, and then has a sense of a conceptualized “I”, whereas, that sense of “I” already existed in it as a quantum particle, and each and every particle that makes him up.

I believe that awareness can exist independently of memory. For example, when coming around from a general anaesthetic I have little to no memory, but I am still self-aware - I just have little conception of the usual complexities of that self.

It depends how you define memory, and I can't see how some sort of memory is not necessary. In what kind of memory bank do you think is the information that triggers puberty held? How does a DNA strand remember what to do next? How are genetic mutations transferred to the next generation? Your memory is not only what you remember as a recollection, or your verbally conceptualized beliefs, but your brain automatically remembers a billions of things that your “self” is not aware of even as awake, and does billions of calculations for you to take a single step, every time you take a step. Coming back from unconsciousness would need intricate neurological triggers to regain awake consciousness, including memories held within.

To inhabitation: I can, for example, theorise about what it feels like to be in your particular perspective, and to some extent I might be able to replicate it in my mind. But knowing Sapius and being Sapius are two different things. It is this beingness that I can't imagine as reducible to a product of dualistic processes of energy and matter as we know them. I look out from my perspective; you look out from yours. What are these I's and you's that look out? I find it, as well, extremely difficult to conceive of them as reducing to the emptiness that the rational infinitists like to promote.

There is no such thing as “emptiness”. There is absolutely no thing that is “empty”. A thing is necessarily what it is and is real according to its dimensional properties, otherwise we can throw out all logical reasoning’s, abstract concepts, and definitions on which such reasoning’s and conclusions are based on.

The I’s and you’s that are capable of “looking out” is but logically reasoned responses of things that are complex enough to use tools such as language, reasoning, conceptualization, reflective thought, that a not-so-complex cow cannot, but studies show that a chimp can to a certain extant.

S: Consciousness always is, will be, and it was never that it was not; same goes for duality.

L: My thoughts, beliefs and speculations run along lines suggestive of that understanding too.

OK, but I have a high degree of certainty than your expression seems to suggest, but that could be because of my personal experiences.

S: namely, recognition through differentiation and thence reaction, which necessarily requires duality, hence is inseparable

L: Again, you describe part of the process of consciousness, but I believe in the (more abstract?) idea of consciousness itself which is an inhabiting force, affected by and affecting the process of consciousness.

No, it is not “part” of the process; it is the process itself, and that is what the process detects as consciousness, and it is due to its capability of abstract thinking that it names itself ‘consciousness’. There is no other “entity” working within, or affecting from afar.

L: Is there in your opinion any aspect of consciousness that is not related to duality?

S: Which aspect do you have in mind?

L: Awareness.

Not possible - Awareness cannot exist unless there is something aware of something else, by definition. Be it within; as I described above.

If so, then my point is that many types of dreams in my opinion can *not* be explained in terms of any survival advantage that they might impart to the evolving individual of the human species.

Are you now saying that there is no mental evolution happening (as I think you mentioned earlier and are of that mind)? From what I said above you should by now gather that Consciousness is an evolving thing from a quark kind to ours, and what makes you think that Consciousness has reached its pinnacle of evolutionary level? Dreams if nothing else fire our imaginations, and without them no invention would be possible. Other than necessity, one needs creative imaginations. What about our artistic capabilities?

On the other hand, dreams are but a kindergarten glimpse of things yet to come that is necessary for consciousness to survive and move on to a different dimensional level. They are akin to a baby frog trying to jump, but is not strong enough to make the leap due to its weak undeveloped muscles. Similarly, dreams are but a product of weak muscles so to speak, where the muscles of dreams are determination, strong emotional convictions, and those are further strengthened by logical and well balanced reasoning, taking consciousness a level further.

So my contention then is that, given that dreams are an aspect of consciousness that cannot be sensibly explained as an emergent phenomenon based in Darwinian evolution, it is reasonable to suggest that consciousness itself is more than a purely emergent phenomenon.

In my opinion it is an emergent phenomenon, only that we don’t have enough knowledge to see the connections, but that will surely change in time.

I heard an authoritative, powerful and somehow familiar voice assert: "This is your Creator. You have used up your last chance." As those words resonated and began to fade, I felt my mind being stretched outwards in all directions, as though it were a lego model being picked apart. There was no pain, just a feeling of the components of my identity being reclaimed by the One who owns them due to my personal failure.

I can understand such an experience happening, but what you describe is riddled with preconceived beliefs. You could “hear” a voice, (internally, but not that it comes from some other entity), and you could feel being stretched, (not “your” mind as such, because “you” and the “mind” is one and the same thing), but the last part is specially a wishful thinking that there is some higher authority trying to take over. And the “personal failure” part may be a reflection of your guilt, that you have not lived up to your-self, and you take it very seriously. Which in my opinion is a good thing since it will drive you further down the alley of consciousness.

S: How come just the memory of light is more than enough to light up objects never ever seen before, whereas otherwise light is necessary to see objects from which it bounces off. Do we have a lighted bulb in our skulls?

L: Is "imagination" too simplistic/unrealistic an answer for you?

What do you think? Do I look like a person who can be convinced by a lullaby? Would such a reply be good enough for you? :D

Elizabeth, I really don’t know what you expect me to answer on a subject that doesn’t really matter to me at all.

What do you do if you have no idea if you are addressing a male or female?

You are asking the wrong person, and on the wrong site for that matter. Gender doesn’t really matter to either of us. Neither this site, nor me. For all I care, you could be an ‘it’; as long as your responses have substance, and that interests me, it is fine :)

You use logic. (...) And what does one do otherwsie....? ask, and hopefully expect the truth

If the gender really matters to you, then ask, but the other person has the right to his/her privacy, and that you will never know if the person is lying about his/her gender if on the Internet.

On the other hand, in person, things (the gender) are much apparent; but if one is still in doubt, (since the person is all derssed up) and the ambiguous grammatical structure of the language doesn’t help, (since he/she for instance speaks English)…

You want me to elaborate a joke? Well, look at the bold, and I continued to say …"ask the person to undress". So you can be certain about the truth, if that is important to YOU.

I suspect that [edit - Arabic] language does not have a way of addressing such things because gender is such an important distinction in [edit - Arabic] culture. That is my point - when gender is irrelevant, why address it?

The above makes no sense to me. What issues does Arabic not address? Arabic is a highly gender orientated language; hence it is obvious that they must have found gender distinction very important. In fact, gender is so highly regarded, especially the female kind, that if they could they would marry every week to say the least :)

Gender is irrelevant when discussing philosophy; but not in general conversations, and surely not when courting, even to a guy or a lesbian.

???

Laird wrote:To what extent do our thoughts and our needs affect reality?

Do the effects of thoughts extend even beyond the electromagnetic and into a spiritual/psychic realm where they draw to us situations appropriate to our current mental state?

What suggestive experiences have you had?

What have you read that sheds light on this topic?

I haven't got the time nor the energy to read though all of the posts on this thread, so I hope what I say here isn't too out of context or inappropriate.

I read into this subject a little. The term "psi" seems to be becoming more popular for describing phenomena such as telepathy, clairvoyance, telekinesis, etc. My interest in it was sparked when I discovered that there is a "psi" research centre at my own university. I discovered, in contrast to what Dan said here earlier, that there is in fact much scientific research that indicates the existence of psi phenomena.

There are several research studies which show with odds against chance in excess of 10 million to 1 that by force of will, we can affect the results of random events at a distance (in time and in space). This has been shown to be a small effect (as you might expect), but nonetheless very close to certainly real.

I will cite examples when I get access to the book I was reading which is called "Explaining the Unexplained" by H. J. Eysenck and Carl Sargent.

It seems that in order to intentionally affect reality in this way, merely willing something to happen will not have an effect. What is also needed is a genuine belief that it will occur. This is extremely difficult. Throughout our lives we have been consistently proven wrong if we have been suspicious that faith has an affect. What we have failed to notice however is that even though we are unsuccessful in many cases, we are nonetheless successful in more cases than those in which we are unsuccessful. - This might explain part of why unlucky, or pessimistic people, actually do tend to miss out a lot. The belief that it will not go their way will actually be having a slight real effect on the outcome. Likewise, those who are sceptical of what I am saying here may will for something to happen, but secretly expect to be proven wrong and so have the effect of undermining their own desire. This would certainly explain why confidence (true belief that it will go your way) is so crucial within sport.

As far as personal experiences go... ever since reading about this I seem to have verified it time and time again. I have actually been quite astounded at the number of situations where I have managed to bring myself to the state of really believing something will happen - and it has done exactly so. I would expect that the main reason why I (unlike most people) am capable of *really* believing that something will happen, is because I have become convinced that my faith will actually have a real effect. Without this trust, it would be extremely difficult to believe, as opposed to just hope.

This is perhaps not all that amazing however, because the situations where I will believe fairly strongly that something will happen, will only be events where the outcome has at least a fair chance of occurring anyway. It is difficult to tell in all these things whether or not it is the belief that causes the outcome (telekinesis), or if its actually the outcome that causes the belief (precognition) or actually that neither causes neither and its all just coincidence. (The experiments I mentioned at the start of this would seem to rule out this last possibility).

As examples, I have on occasion watched things blowing about in the wind, and willed/believed it to be blown one direction as opposed to the other, and witnessed it doing exactly as I intended. I have hoped against chance that my row of seats on an airline would actually be empty... In that case, the row was full, but I found my seat was broken and I ended up getting moved to an empty row. I have willed against chance many times that my bus will get to its destination earlier than usual and found it to occur. I could give many more examples, but I realise that no number of examples would disarm a sceptic (as I certainly used to be on this subject). In each case one would want to check all the conditions and variables. All I can say is that my experience *seems* to verify the research I mentioned. But if you are looking to be convinced, read the research itself.

If you have read some of my other recent posts, this ties in with my suspicion that consciousness is tied in to "physical reality" in a way far more intimately than is currently understood.

Concerning apparent coincidences where the outcome was not specifically willed (an example being the electrician appearing at the door), they may in fact be caused not by a belief that an electrician will appear at the door, but another belief, perhaps one of "the light will be fixed in time for X" or "I will be able to read my book at night in the room this evening". But I think that in many cases it really is nothing other than coincidence.

There are so many things which go on in our lives - there are vastly more non-coincidences than coincidences. We just tend to focus on the "weird" things and assume that there is some reason to them. I do believe that there is a small degree of reason in everything that happens (concerning the psi effect) but I believe that it is just that - small. Most coincidences require favourable chance conditions more than they require the psi effect. Thus, while you can read a little into anything that happens, I think taking coincidences *mainly* as just coincidences is the most reasonable way to approach it.

What I know is based mainly on the book I mentioned and several hours of reading various sources on the Internet. I'm very interested to learn more about it and would suggest that people here not dismiss the subject lightly.

Andrew

Laird,

I did not say we were any more or less important than anyone else - hence the mutant comment.

Sapius,

No, I did not want you to elaborate on a joke. Perhaps my question could have been left as a rhetorical question, so I apologize for pushing for an answer. The answer I was looking for from you was "There is no need."

Sapius,

No, I did not want you to elaborate on a joke. Perhaps my question could have been left as a rhetorical question, so I apologize for pushing for an answer. The answer I was looking for from you was "There is no need."

Sorry to disappoint you... I took this...

E: Now will you answer the question, please?

...to be a straightforward question... my bad, then.

Elizabeth, by calling people 'e' (instead of he or she), is actually calling everyone by her own name: "e" for short. Very interesting psychology there.

By the way, E, I didn't respond your response to me on the previous page, about the Indigos, because, basically I don't agree with your take on history and evolution, or world peace, for that matter, or your condescending attitude that repeatedly suggests I (and others, at different times) need to hit the books (so we can catch up to you, and share your way of "thinking"). You're really a piece of work. "Whatever" indeed.

Carl G wrote:By the way, E, I didn't respond your response to me on the previous page, about the Indigos, because, basically I don't agree with your take on history and evolution, or world peace, for that matter, or your condescending attitude that repeatedly suggests I (and others, at different times) need to hit the books (so we can catch up to you, and share your way of "thinking"). You're really a piece of work. "Whatever" indeed.

I don't mean to be condescending. Please call me on that specifically every time i do it to teach me how to not sound that way. I need help in that area, and I do mean that i need that help. If that flaw in me does not get fixed, i could easily get killed for it, and it could blow some of my attempts to help others. I want to help. I do, many times, see answers that others do not. That does not make me "better" - but just in a position to be of more help if people will only take it. People are less likely to take it if they are offended. Please get this last bit of offensiveness out of me. I can't do it on my own.

You don't have to agree with my perception of evolution. That's what I mean by "whatever." It doesn't really matter to me if you are a creationist or any other kind of "ist." I still need to state my perspective out of service to Truth. I agree that it is just my perspective. If my explanation is not sufficient, then that's the way it is. I do not claim to be perfect; in fact I know that I am not perfect. At any time, I could be wrong - and I want people to be strong enough to tell me that I am wrong when that is the way they see it - but I want the debate to come from logic and be received with open ears on both sides.

Carl G wrote:Elizabeth, by calling people 'e' (instead of he or she), is actually calling everyone by her own name: "e" for short. Very interesting psychology there.

That is a coincidence. If Expectantly Ironic had another name or hadn't joined here, I'd still be EI. But we are all the same Being, so that is pretty funny.

Jesus got killed for his holier-than-thou attitude, and I'd like to help more people than He did. Men and their "useful fiction" stuff - yeah, he got a lot of attention by using sleight-of-hand magic tricks, hypnotism, and a few other things to get other people to give him more credence, and he did get a lot of attention for it - but Truth needs better than that - it needs truth to be at its best. We all have that together, but it can only be useful if we all get together and share it to make it work. Help me.

Laird,

Your posts in this thread have been nothing but garbage. Your reckless and wasteful attitude to philosophy has absolutely no place on the Genius Forum.

I think that, you should leave for a while, to get your thinking together. Then, when you have some firm idea of Reality, and can actually contribute to discussions, you can return. Say, in six months' time, or a year.

If you don't take this advice on board, then I think it's fair for you to be banned.

And please use email to whinny at the mares.



Schmaltz-Assassin-Bot.

Wow - even David has not given suspensions that long, and he's actually an administrator on this site.

I think it's precedented, actually. But precedents aside, Laird needs a good six months - a year if he takes some women out ...

Many years more for the mares.


-

There should be a rule. If you don't know something, and can't be bothered thinking up something, then don't post with waffle and try to bluff your way out.

Kelly is neurotic. She is too one-sided, and this ultra-one-sideness has been (partly) caused by the same fundamentalism promoted by the QRS. Personally I think her absolute desire for a masculine-only mind will cause her to suicide, somewhere down the track, as it is an impossible goal. While masculinity is required for growth, with masculinity alone, no lasting growth towards a yin/yang centre can occur, so she will always feel a desire to be more than she presently is.

That was just a plain nasty post. And if anything should be banned, that should.

Hi Jamesh,


I am interested in what I see as a very marked difference between willing and willingness. While most people see willingness as masculine, I see willing as masculine.

Willingness is the will to power. It is a feeling of great pleasure when decisions reflect back a masterful, dominating, powerful self-identity. A being that prevents the chaos of the world from threatening one's imagined existence. To me, this is feminine, because it is completely enslaved by the ego. It's feminine because submits unquestioningly.

Willing is making decisions to go upstream, against the force of the ego's desires. That sort of masculinity is patient, still, reflective, determined, and consciously sustained and planned. It is masculine, because it is conscious, and involves a very subtle form of creativity, and of humour. Perhaps one can call this centrality feminine.

The problem with calling it feminine, for the most part, is that most people are deathly afraid to live without women smiling at them.


-

Bilby wrote:There should be a rule. If you don't know something, and can't be bothered thinking up something, then don't post with waffle and try to bluff your way out.

There kind of is, and the penalty for breaking that rule is that the members will verbally attack you for it (which is what Kelly did). James is right about the method she chose for attack, and i agree with Bilby that Kelly's post was just plain nasty and if anything should be banned, that post should - but i think the usual penalty of verbally attacking the offender should be the actual response.

Laird needs to work on thinking some more, but (a) he is doing the best he can and (b) Leyla is being constructive in her tutelage of him. Kelly just can not see that because she is too blinded by the Woman philosophy to see the usefulness of some things that the QRS deem "feminine." I say there are a number of things that are feminine and good, but it is only illogical attachment that is bad. I also deem some things logically useful emotions (I have gone into that elsewhere, so i won't elaborate here).

Go ahead and point out what is wrong with Kelly's post, and with Kelly's thinking. It is good to help try to correct that. It is only that in our attacks, make sure that what we are attacking is illogic, unreasonableness, and evil - not the person that these evil things have gotten hold of. Kelly is a good person, but she is possessed by some evils. These evils in her thinking are apparent to us, but not to her. It is our job as warriors for Truth to cast out the evils of darkness in Kelly to help enlighten her. Please help save this good person by attacking the evil ignorance that has gotten hold of her.