GENIUS FORUMS

Assume that Matter is eternal, universal, permanent and immutable -- it only appears to change from gas to liquid, liquid to solid, and back again; it only appears to present any number of entitative abstractions called "forms." They are all made up of matter, come out of matter, exist in matter, and, when dissolved, all return to matter. All the time nothing but Matter!

Proceed, then, a step further: Can we imagine a time, spot, sphere, or focus, physical or metaphysical, where force is not present and in manifestation? No matter what forms or states or conditions of energy there may be, can we imagine energy other than infinite, unconditioned, eternal, changeless, and that the same state of relativities arises in and resolves itself again in the field of force or energy as we know it does in the field of matter?

Go, now, still further, dear geniuses, and consider Law: Can we imagine a time, spot, sphere, or focus, physical or metaphysical, where Law does not reign? where an apple falls up instead of down? or where you plant an apple and reap a thorn tree? Impossible! Easy enough to see in regard to what we call Law that it is the same as regards what we call Force or Energy, or what we call Matter: all are eternal, immutable, omnipresent, ever-active.

There is, moreover, something behind all of these -- behind Matter, behind Force, behind Law -- and that is Intelligence. Not only Intelligence, but operative Intelligence! We can manipulate matter, we can manipulate energy, we can manipulate law. By so doing, we learn that all forms of matter are just passing images in Matter; that all states and forms of force are but passing manifestations of Energy; that all phenomenal exhibitions of the activity and operation of law are but particularities of Law. Thus we can understand that all moving, encased intelligences are but foci of the Intelligence.

What is Intelligence? A highly refined manifestation of Life. What is Law? The mass action of that Intelligence. What is Force? The energic emission of that Intelligence. What is Matter? The effect of that emission. So, we can resolve all matter into force; all force into will; all will into intelligence; all intelligence into Life. Life, then, is the eternal FACT.

It is only through knowledge that this intelligence becomes known to us. Allows us to understand it. If we choose religious knowledge, our knowledge of intelligence does not evolve, it becomes revelation, doctrine, propaganda, myth. In other words, its ends and beginnings are known and we accept them on ‘faith…’ This kind of knowledge is inferior, primitive, static and reactionary. On the other hand, if we choose scientific knowledge, by so doing we enquire into the nature of ‘intelligence’ itself and of truth, and as we go, refine our understanding of both.

z

This essay is too long, and I didn't read it because you labelled yourself an "atheist". Why would you do something so stupid?

Show some balls, and call yourself a Christian! Learn their vocabulary and rhetor, improve upon it, and show the world that the Christians are actually closet atheists and the atheists are actually closet theists. As your namesake would say, turn all values on their heads.

That would be far more interesting than this shit: perhaps it would even be interesting enough to read.

dickhead....

Ha! So you finally revealed the resentment that hides behind this essay! That "dickhead" comment was -- and I do not use sarcasm -- profound. It revealed more of your character and beliefs than that page of gibberish.

Trev mate, how can you not read something and claim to know what it's about? So, as you can see, 'dickhead' was not used resentfully, in fact, I thought it was quite an appropriate expression. I also considered 'wanker' 'fuckwit' and 'moron' but 'dickhead' seemed to incapsulate all three...You're obviously a 'wanker' because you put your tougue before your thoughts, a 'fuckwit' because you leap before your look, and a 'moron' because you have the intellect of a Hungarian box rat, which, in a dark hole, is known to bang its head against the walls until it collapse into unconsciousness.

have a nice day,
z

What an entertaining read! Keep along those lines of thought, and you'll make excellent headway in philosophy. It always pays to be direct and truthful: my opinion should be inconsequential.

And no, I'm still not reading that first bit. I enjoy insults far more than the most scholarly of thoughts, since insults are by far the more honest of the two.

Trev,
I doubt, all things considered, that you understand anything about pholosophy. You seem to be suffering from a form of delusional psychosis, or perhaps you do have the ability to read minds? Firstly, you tell me what my post is about without having read it, and, secondly, you presume that insults are more honest than philosophy, philosophy per se, being 'dishonest'. You may be more akin to Monster Cock than you'd like to admit. The one thing you do have in common though is this: you are both chronic masturbators...

have a nice day,
z

'the blindness starts in the mind then spreads to the eyes....'

Quote from 'The Golden Pathway to Manhood'

I didn't presume to understand your post! I simply called it gibberish, and not worth my attention. I've long-ago decided that anyone who bothers to call himself an atheist is making a mistake. It is a meaningless label that should add nothing to your understanding of intelligence.

Otherwise, I've had enough of people using mental illness (delusional psychosis) as an argument against an argument. Not even most psychiatrists are so bold as to think that the presence of mental illness disproves a philosophic argument. Only the lowest of the low use psychiatric diagnosis in such a way -- that is to say, philosophically -- since to use psychiatric diagnosis in that way is absolutely, 100% identical to the behaviour of thought police. It is an moral justification for an unjustifiable condemnation of every single one of a person's thoughts. Mental illness simply does not affect a person's thoughts in the way you believe it does, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a person speaks truthfully. It is a social institution designed to prevent undue stress on one's neighbours and family when one is acting against their beliefs as to what constitutes correct behaviour.

I will assume that you did not read my arguments against average in the other forum, so I'll let this misuse of language pass. It is generosity on my part to assume that you have nothing in common with the worst kind of censorship body that exists.

By the way (before I forget): fuck you.

Argue? You never argue mate...all you do is put shit on everyone. You need to presume a little less and think a little more. What philosophical argument? You offer nothing but invective. Didn't you just dismiss my thoughts as gibberish? Without even reading them? What does this say about you? From my experience you are neither interested in nor capable of philosophical argument. You act on presumptions: you leap before you look. Because someone doesn't believe in god - you dismiss them! Ha! Come on...your psychosis has nothing to do with the thought police but with your own delusional state of mind.

z

Stop telling me what to do, you arrogant jackass. I'm not reading your shit, because I know it's shit before even reading it.

Quite frankly, I'm not interested in philosophic debate with you because you are terrible at philosophy, and I don't do the teacher thing. Right now, I'm only interested in dismantling this gigantic ego of yours.

Anyway: atheism has nothing to do with how well you understand intelligence. Your title, unless ironic, is retarded. And, considering how fervently you are defending yourself, I would bet every dime in my bank that it was not ironic.

Anyway, you know jack shit about mental illness. Don't play the fucktard.

Now I'm telling you what to do? Dah...what? You bend spoons too? Geez...
z

What medication are you on?

z:

You need to presume a little less and think a little more.

It's not surprising you didn't notice yourself saying this, since you have completely bypassed your nervous system and are now talking solely out of your ass.

An interesting philosophical perspective:

'I'm not reading your shit because I know its shit before even reading it...'

z

Interesting, eh? I can use the topic of a thread to make a judgement call as to whether or not the content will be worthwhile!

In this case, I realized that "atheism" has absolutely nothing to do with "understanding intelligence", so I realized you were going to say something stupid.

I realized I was an an atheist when confronted with the unanswerable questions of existance - the paradoxes. I also experienced science as a way of knowing: a little light in the darkness. I then resolved not to believe in abstract entities i.e. in the existance of beings whose existance cannot be proved, in other words, I decided to love life more than its meaning. I mean who designed Darwin's "soup" anyway? Nobody knows how it got to be -- that's the point!! You can't say "impossible" when you don't have the answer! Of course, you might think you do, which proves nothing...

z

So, are you telling me that there is a relationship between atheism and intelligence that I'm not seeing? Should I ... read what you wrote?

you have a choice...

z

z,

If we choose religious knowledge, our knowledge of intelligence does not evolve, it becomes revelation, doctrine, propaganda, myth. In other words, its ends and beginnings are known and we accept them on ‘faith…’ This kind of knowledge is inferior, primitive, static and reactionary. On the other hand, if we choose scientific knowledge, by so doing we enquire into the nature of ‘intelligence’ itself and of truth, and as we go, refine our understanding of both.

If this is false, then your argument collapses.

There is not enough evidence presented here that religious knowledge is inferior, primitive, static, or reactionary. In fact, I might claim that the words of Buddha and Christ, and the works of theologians such as Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, were progressive -- and even today, the knowledge provided in religious texts is superior in many regards to that presented in a university textbook. It deals with wisdom, which is not covered by any syllabus.

When reading Saint Augustine for myself, I was startled to discover that he wrote in layers. As a master of rhetor, he would always provide two different interpretations: one would be a genuine philosophic argument that was reminiscent of the Cynicism of Diogenes, and the other would mask this intention behind a veil of fantastical thinking. This mastery of religious language allowed him to present his writing to a huge audience. A well-trained philosopher would easily spot the inner meaning of the text, which is not at all mystical. A non-thinker would have fantasy notions that would correspond to a righteous ethic. Since I actually agree with most of Saint Augustine's philosophic conclusions, this double-speak is not as terrifyingly perverse as double-speak can often be today. He was genuinely concerned about the future well-being of Christians, since members of this cult were being universally blamed for the fall of Rome. It is a survival textbook: how not to offend others when you are held in disrepute. The Negros could have benefitted from a work of that sort, since it would have carried them through slavery with a lot less suffering.

So: you will need to provide a sturdier argument.

I think it was Nietzsche who wrote 'WISDOM is inspired by the smell of carrion...' When Socrates pontificated before the noble court in Spata, the warriors - who were physically fit, youthful and beautiful - thought he was 'amusing' good for a laugh and disserving of pity: this scrawny, bald, overweight old man who presumed so much...The poet Keats once wrote that 'truth is beauty, beauty truth, all else is folly...' Do you believe that?

Religious knowledge is based on the premise 'god exists...' What does Augustine's side show add to this? Can he prove it?

Think you might like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zlqMmK19S0

z