GENIUS FORUMS

A few years back I was inspired by videos on youtube from the channel Menoftheinfinite to pursue a completely new way of thinking. I was previously very limited in perspective -- lacking genuine introspection. I was soon after struck by an image of a person holding their own face turned around looking inside their head, presumably trying to see themselves. This inspired me to make a video under the user name Willfuiignorance. It occurred to me that this would be an infinite regress and began to grasp the nature of mind. However, it was a while yet before I really began to realize the consequences of this view. I started this process of attacking myself, my motives, trying to grasp my own origins introspectively. I question my motives and emotional influences. I can remember thinking I was already unemotional and clear headed, but this has proven to be false. There comes a point when the biting of one's own tail is infinitely unbearable in the most personal manner. One cannot even stop doing it because its inevitable. How could anyone stand to turn away from it is beyond me. The gnawing at the ankles of one's own existence becomes the only thing worth doing and yet is the most unbearable! I've found myself thinking, just thinking about some circumstance and then smirking about my role in it. Finally upon introspection I realize that my smirking was a result of my appearing innocent when I in-fact was not. How dishonest and egoic of me? I caught myself telling lies, they were small lies, but lies none-the-less. The act of becoming true is far more difficult than it would seem by just talking about it and I personally remain skeptical of anyone's claim to have done so given the infinite magnitude of the task. I don't see an easy way out of this, I've considered at times that I was free of egoism but it shows up in peculiar places without forethought. There is a very real and deliberate process of self-denial at play in order to root out this elusive subconscious biases. Even though I think all is one and there is no self so I shouldn't be egoic, it is not that easy to actualize it, to become true without some kind of auroboric self-denial.

It also seems to me that various other thinkers hit upon this in different guises. Jed Mckenna refers to "Spiritual Autolysis" in which a person attempts to write something true about themselves and keeps scrutinizing what they write until they do write something true. Or Soren Kierkegaard refers to the "essentially Christian" as a process of "turning infinitely inward". I have a feeling many here will agree with part or all of this. I have a question that I think is interesting to ask one's self in complete honesty; "Am I being true to what I know?"

You are speaking in very Gurdjieffian / Ouspenskian terms there. Your rap could have been transcribed just about directly from some of the group meetings I attended years ago. Are you familiar with these two teacher/authors?

Carl G wrote:You are speaking in very Gurdjieffian / Ouspenskian terms there. Your rap could have been transcribed just about directly from some of the group meetings I attended years ago. Are you familiar with these two teacher/authors?

No, not at all. I'll check 'em out.

overcoming delusions is very difficult, it is like trying to get an needle out of your eye with the same needle that is in your eye. There are many approaches, and all work to various degrees depending on the personality. There is a strong direct criticism through logical argument, smashing the ego hard. Then there is a more meek gentle criticism, which eventually seeps into ones spirit passed the ego through a sort of slow painful osmosis. And then there is being inspired by works of art or profound works of others, and that passion gained can sometimes cause a jolt in ones spirit in the right direction.

In my experience, when I have had a strong deluded ego, works of art and reading philosophy only went so far for me. My ego needed a good shit kicking from thinkers more logical than myself at that time. The more thick the ego, the harder the punch you need, The ego can read truth on paper, but keep a distant from it, whereas a direct attack is much more immediate, more real, more effective....

Quinn, Cory and Solway probably gave my ego the biggest thrashings over the years. And to a lesser extent Nick, Dan and Diebert (only because I wasn't affected by their writing style as much, and I didn't follow their posts as closely at that particular time)

I'm glad to hear that the men of the infinite youtube channel was effective for uou, it was a great idea, youtube will live on long after the death of logical thinkers here, and since google is one of the more powerful tech companies, I'm sure the videos will survive decades, perhaps even centuries. The wisdom born in this generation on this forum will live on to inspire others to become clear minded. A very whole sort of immortality I believe.
....

.


-Ryan-
Quinn, Cory and Solway probably gave my ego the biggest thrashings over the years. And to a lesser extent Nick, Dan and Diebert (only because I wasn't affected by their writing style as much, and I didn't follow their posts as closely at that particular time)

-tomas-
David, then Dan finally Kevin, though Kevin's Infinite videos are much better because of his "body language" that draws out the unquestioned inferences that static print cannot convey.


-Ryan-
and since google is one of the more powerful tech companies,

-tomas-
I'm a-hopin' al-Qaeda or the Taliban put an end to google. Too powerful and going too mainstream.


-Ryan-
I'm sure the videos will survive decades, perhaps even centuries.

-tomas-
As long as there are a continuing of logical thinkers in the post-Internet era. What I'm saying is that if people will still be banded together enough to keep the Internet free from government repression. You know, the marching-out of psycho-hysterical mothers who want content restrictions on free-thought.

The QRS type thinker logicician will be the first to go, I'm afraid.


-Ryan-
The wisdom born in this generation on this forum will live on to inspire others to become clear minded. A very whole sort of immortality I believe.

-tomas-
Yes!

Ryan Rudolf wrote:Quinn, Carl and Solway probably gave my ego the biggest thrashings over the years. And to a lesser extent Nick, Dan and Diebert

Glad to be of help, Ryan.

Animus wrote:Even though I think all is one and there is no self so I shouldn't be egoic, it is not that easy to actualize it, to become true without some kind of auroboric self-denial.

This is where meditation in deep thought helps. It's not to be confused with the mindless meditation where you empty your mind of all thoughts, rather the kind of meditation where you think logically and deeply about reality in order to arrive at absolute truth, and when truth is realized think deeply about it's implications. As you follow these implications you will slowly but surely transform your mind, becoming more conscious, and living more in step with what you know to be true. If you arrive at a contradiction, do some back-tracking or start all over again. There is no magic button and there are no short cuts. It's a long arduous process that you may never accomplish in your lifetime. If you get in a rut and feel like you're stuck, allow yourself to reflect on the freedom you've gained, take some time to appreciate how far you've come. Or if it's worldly pleasure you're craving, give in to it because you might need to be reminded now and again about how unsatisfying it is in comparison to the truth. Do whatever it takes to reinvigorate yourself along the way.

Turning infinitely inward has nothing to do with torturing yourself in analysis and speculation about where you motives may or may not come from. It has nothing to do with whether or not you decide to lie to others. It doesn't even have anything to do with your ego, other than recognizing that you DO have one. It DOES have to do with recognizing the full, logical context of what you say and think. Not psychological speculations. Hard, logical facts. And that is all.

THAT is the territory, the true foundation, because it's the one thing that doesn't have worldly context.

OTOH, uncovering our maps of the world, maps that might be logically sound, but are mistaken for objective territory (doesn't exist), or are data-impoverished, or are entirely useless for our goals, is a life-long practice. One that is not difficult to do once the above is taken care of, and doesn't require a lot of intensity (except maybe for the woman delusion). One must know when to STOP thinking, and let the passions free.

mediation has become such a dirty word. Places like India have commercialized mediation and yoga as spiritual practices by stretching your muscles, focusing on objects, repeating mantras, thinking positivitly, consciously attempting to empty your mind of all dark content: all utter garbage!

Reflecting on the quality of your own thoughts by challenging others with logical debate is the best mediation.

If a spiritual teacher is pressuring you to pay money for it, there's a good chance he peddling stupidity/exploitation disguised as wisdom.

One of the more recent problems I've run into is my mouth. I speak up on many subjects, subjects that I feel confident about, having studied them extensively and introspected on them even more. But, the world is not interested in knowledge or wisdom and accuses me of unwarranted loftiness. Consequently, I don't want to speak up, but find so often that there is harm in not speaking. If I am to be punished for arrogance and yet through my speaking prevent harm to others, then invariably I choose to be punished.

Last night I had a brief conversation with my brother about philosophy and he asked "What do I have to gain from it?" and stated "I just don't see the point in thinking about all this.". My response was adequate I thought, I stated that looking for some eternal prize or worldly reward in the process was the wrong way and could only lead to delusion and falsehoods. I said "Philosophers do philosophy because they love wisdom". He didn't accept my answer or any of the analogies I gave and insisted that it was all a waste of time. My brother is fairly preoccupied with his self-image, either basking in his superiority or groveling in inferiority and will not undertake anything unless he can glean a reward from it. Finally I said to him "You have to do it, to understand what I am saying. You can't approach this from a distance, you have to live it.". At this my brother became very defensive: "So you think you are superior?", "You think that you get it and the rest of us don't?", "You think you've walked the path and can now draw others to it?". I didn't want to re-affirm his belief that I was hoisting myself up to loftiness, but at the same time I know what I said to be true. So I responded "No.. I don't think I've 'walked' the path, but I am walking it and I can see that it is important.". Now, my brother sunk in silence and I realized the conversation (if one can call it that) had ended and we parted ways.

I do not want to be the one who others think is a zealot or an arrogant man, and at the same time I do not care what they think insofar as it only affects me, but my aim is not to be a martyr for truth, but to bring the vision to others. Yet, in all my discourses I find myself plunged into this role of preacher or zealot. So often the result is that no one hears me but only become aware of an apparent arrogance which I do not even want to have. But how am I to blame? I've only put in the time and effort to fully grasp the subject matter and done so for thirst of wisdom and knowledge and not for status. I'm content with being hated and ridiculed and living in such lowliness, but this does my cause no forseeable good.

Animus,

I'm suspect that philosophers are born, not made. That has been my experience anyway. Almost all people in my immediate surrounding have absolutely no inkling for deeper thought at all.

I'm changed a few opinions of family members, but nothing drastic. My father still cannot fathom how evolution could be true, yet he doesn't believe creationsim either. Most people are content in a world view and way of thinking that doesn't make much sense, which doesn't make sense to me of course.

Because even after high school, when I read the definition of what philosophy was I can remember thinking: wow, this is the holy grail of thinking, if I can understand this, I can understand anything and everything. Of course I was quite deluded at the time, and many of my motivations were very animal, as I thought power and fame would come with supreme understanding, and with that, my own harem of beautiful women...

Truth has a way of undermining your deluded motivations as you go, and continually replacing them with more whole ones until finally your entire being is one motivation of sorts.

I still find it alarming sometimes when I think about how the majority of people on this planet are not mentally equipped to seek after the most important thing in life...How so very unfortunate!

Animus wrote:I do not want to be the one who others think is a zealot or an arrogant man, and at the same time I do not care what they think insofar as it only affects me, but my aim is not to be a martyr for truth, but to bring the vision to others. Yet, in all my discourses I find myself plunged into this role of preacher or zealot. So often the result is that no one hears me but only become aware of an apparent arrogance which I do not even want to have. But how am I to blame? I've only put in the time and effort to fully grasp the subject matter and done so for thirst of wisdom and knowledge and not for status. I'm content with being hated and ridiculed and living in such lowliness, but this does my cause no forseeable good.

Most people are not familiar with any genuine thinkers, and when people aren't used to something they usually don't like it. If you are a true thinker, people are much more likely to fear you, hate you, or ignore you. You might as well get used to it. In my attempts to directly confront people with truth I have been completely unsuccessful in getting them to understand what I'm actually talking about. I've found that if you want to positively impact people it's best to be subtle. Lead by example and don't give them any positive reinforcement when they behave in a delusional manner. If you're lucky enough to catch a person showing signs of genuine thought, give them some positive encouragement. Dealing with people in this manner is kind of like dealing with a bunch of self absorbed children. You're not going to turn them into Buddhas, but at least you'll be doing some kind of karmic-damage control.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I'm suspect that philosophers are born, not made. That has been my experience anyway. Almost all people in my immediate surrounding have absolutely no inkling for deeper thought at all.

I remember that even when I was a young child I had a desire to get to the bottom of things that nobody else seemed to have. When I was 6 years old I thought that religion had the answers to life's mysteries, so I read the children's bible and told my parents I wanted to become a priest. How many 6 year olds say that? So yeah, I agree that under the circumstances, if one is to become a philosopher, you have to be born with the natural desire and ability to become one. This can be changed though. Children have very flexible minds and are open to many different ideas. I believe that if we taught our children from a young age about things like logic and causality and how it relates to reality we could make huge strides in creating a wiser population. Until then only the exceptional individuals will have a shot at true wisdom and enlightenment.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I still find it alarming sometimes when I think about how the majority of people on this planet are not mentally equipped to seek after the most important thing in life...How so very unfortunate!

When I'm out in public I sometimes feel like I'm surrounded by the living dead, On the surface they look like they are alive with real thoughts going on in their heads, but I know they are more or less lifeless drones operating on auto-pilot with nobody at the controls. It's very scary when you think about the fact that nuclear bombs and other WMDs exist in a world with so little consciousness.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Of course I was quite deluded at the time, and many of my motivations were very animal, as I thought power and fame would come with supreme understanding, and with that, my own harem of beautiful women...

Truth has a way of undermining your deluded motivations as you go, and continually replacing them with more whole ones until finally your entire being is one motivation of sorts.

I still find it alarming sometimes when I think about how the majority of people on this planet are not mentally equipped to seek after the most important thing in life...How so very unfortunate!

I think in the end, all motivations are animal. Once a person has full consciousness of their use of logic, there is still an animal left, but a more conscious animal. It would make sense him to get more worldly power so that he can play less by other's rules, more by his own, and get more of what he wants out of life.

I don't think a person should live life under the principle that he should theoretically be a robot because he understands logic and objectivity. The fact is we are all animal, our egos are huge and we do in fact have needs built into us. I choose not to deny these things. I choose to understand not what I think I should value, but what I actually value. I choose happiness. The whole notion of denying worldly things is maybe the worst most harmful advice I could possibly imagine. The goal of philosophy is as I stated in the above post: fully understanding how logic works and knowing and practicing science's place in it to get what you already want. So the goal is to be smart, not passionless.

For a quick example, my family just got a labrador retriever puppy. We had terriers for years and for the life of me I couldn't teach them to fetch. The very first time I threw a toy this lab brought it back to me. It is WIRED to retrieve. The terriers we had were wired for independence and hunting small vermin. We are like dogs but with a logical brain built on top. Logically there's no reason to like women, but we do. Logically there's no reason to do much of ANYTHING, but we do. You cannot overwrite your truly natural inclinations. Remember that you ARE a monkey.

There are in fact inherent, a priori values based on your biology. Actually, women are getting hit hard on this. The more feminist and masculine they become though cultural evolution, the less ability they have to enjoy sex and their natural feminine energy (because the biology hasn't changed). This is bad new for me too, because women really don't make for very good men, there are fewer really good men around because of it, and fewer truly sexual and romantically affectionate women around because of it. Time to take back the whip, guys.

Anyway, to sum up I think it's important to understand logic. Really, you're an idiot if you don't. But value what you really value. Forget this anti-worldly BULLSHIT!!!! :)

skipair wrote:I don't think a person should live life under the principle that he should theoretically be a robot because he understands logic and objectivity. The fact is we are all animal, our egos are huge and we do in fact have needs built into us. I choose not to deny these things. I choose to understand not what I think I should value, but what I actually value. I choose happiness. The whole notion of denying worldly things is maybe the worst most harmful advice I could possibly imagine. The goal of philosophy is as I stated in the above post: fully understanding how logic works and knowing and practicing science's place in it to get what you already want. So the goal is to be smart, not passionless.

I don't recall anyone saying we should deny ourselves any worldly pleasure. Abstinence has it's place in preparing one for a life more aligned with the truth, but it is not a necessity, and can only be considered spiritual training wheels at best. It's just a matter of fact that some of us happen to have a deep desire to get to the very bottom of things, or maybe it's the reverse and we have a deep-seated fear of being in the wrong. Either way only the absolute can satisfy us, and this has implications whether we choose to accept them or not. When only the truth is satisfying enough, you're going to become wiser and more conscious, and you begin to see worldly pleasures as things which distract us from the ever important truth, so it's completely natural to speak out against them as desires born of delusion because that's what they are! I want others to be wise, I want others to become enlightened, and I know that on an unrealized, subconscious level everyone else "wants" to be wise. I know this because if everyone else on the planet knew the things that I knew, they would have the same values and think almost exactly like me. For me consciousness is broken unless it realizes the absolute.

So it doesn't mean a whole lot to me because we both get boner when a girl grabs our dick, what does matter to me is knowing the truth and nothing even else comes close.

I think, in your case Skip, truth just isn't that important to you, at least not compared to other things. I also don't think you've spent much time thinking of the truth and really understanding it's implications because you know it doesn't lead to wealth, status, and women. So it's really no surprise to hear you talk about how our basic animal impulses are inescapable, or that we have no choice but to live as subjects to delusion, because unfortunately this is what you are most familiar with, it's the only home you've ever known.

Nick Treklis wrote:I think, in your case Skip, truth just isn't that important to you, at least not compared to other things. I also don't think you've spent much time thinking of the truth and really understanding it's implications because you know it doesn't lead to wealth, status, and women. So it's really no surprise to hear you talk about how our basic animal impulses are inescapable, or that we have no choice but to live as subjects to delusion, because unfortunately this is what you are most familiar with, it's the only home you've ever known.

Truth be told, truth is almost all that I do know. It borders on being a weakness because I can barely comprehend how most people think differently, though I know they probably do. I almost can't even explain it, because I have nothing to compare it to. The thing is Nick, I have essentially completed thinking. There's nothing left in philosophy that is that interesting to think about. Once the tool of objectivity is discovered and applied to all beliefs philosophy is over. I have already explained in an earlier thread how logic has no morality for further implications to follow. I have moved on because I AM BEYOND. Not that it isn't important, I wouldn't be who I am today, I really wouldn't have it any other way, and I strongly suggest people do more of it. But there is literally nothing more for me to work with.

To me it's like you've just taken a small slice of the truth and built a self-worshiping temple out of it. An excuse to do all those things you were afraid of doing before.

To me it's like you're worshiping a dead horse. You grew up with it, your rode it around, explored and discovered many things until there was nothing left to discover, and the horse died. Now you look at the horse lying there, look back on all you learned, the whole process. Yes, it WAS amazing. Complete consciousness overhaul. It's also over. I am looking forward now.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I'm suspect that philosophers are born, not made. That has been my experience anyway. Almost all people in my immediate surrounding have absolutely no inkling for deeper thought at all.

And I know this! I've discovered that people punch through the layers at different rates and there are ways to be subtle. I, however, am not very tolerant, even though I try to be compassionate as I find that helps to see the truth of the situation and stay focused. I figure this is something of a meditation which will develop over time. That's the idea, but its still a struggle. A kind of jihad al-nafs.

Is it wrong to beat someone up a bit to try to jar their thinking? I'm inclined to think it is if the person is engrossed by delusion and also not very productive. But I mean, recently I told a "friend" that if they don't completely research a particular substance they are giving their baby they are being irresponsible parents. I suggested they were giving their child "alternative" medicine for purely irrational reasons while not actually knowing anything about the substance. This is the kind of trouble I get myself into and quite frequently it has an immediately negative effect on the situation. But then again, who is to say it doesn't have a profound effect on the future? Perhaps it does act as a seed or catalyst for some subconscious process. Either way this is what I've done and I'm not being a "know-it-all" the truth is I didn't know anything about the substance either. However, I spent a few hours researching it on respectable websites (e.g. National Institute of Health). To show that one need not be ignorant about such things and it doesn't take much. I'm not even a parent, but I find human development fascinating and I have concern for introducing toxic substances into the process. Particularly during childhood and adolescents and of critical importance infancy. In some ways I think I can be more concerned about a child than the child's own parent, while the child's parent is chasing their own dreams and ignoring me 'cause I'm not a parent. Worst of all this is that I keep lamenting the facts I already know. That is the point, the point of wanting to change the world and knowing that it can't be achieved in the ways desired, that its like being tangled up in some respect.

I think of the putting off of worldly desires as a method for realizing an auroboric self-denial. Because the person wants to do something but also doesn't want to do it and has to practice self-control to that extent. Sexual desire is a good target because of its being rooted so deep in the psyche. Really the point is to illustrate this dynamic and to get comfortable with it. But its not exclusively applied to any thing, as much as its a habit of thinking for attaining clarity and truth.

skipair wrote:To me it's like you're worshiping a dead horse. You grew up with it, your rode it around, explored and discovered many things until there was nothing left to discover, and the horse died. Now you look at the horse lying there, look back on all you learned, the whole process.

By worshiping a dead horse I assume you mean talking about truth. Is this really a fair analogy considering how an incredibly small amount of people actually know and understand truth? Maybe if a majority of people were enlightened I could see your point, but that's obviously not the case. Plus when talking about truth, it helps me gain greater clarity by embedding it deeper into my mind which enhances my own consciousness. I'm not going to sit here and say truth is always on my mind, but it helps to practice thinking about it as often as I'm able to, and I enjoy doing it. Just like anything else, if we want to stay on top of our game, there is no point at which we can say we are "done". It works this way with any type of practice. Perhaps you just have an amazing mind where you only need to think about something for a short time and it manages to to firmly stick without any added effort for the rest of your life. Either that or you are not seeing the whole picture, and you don't care to. Namely that by understanding all the logical implications of truth, we do not have to be a slave to delusion, e.g. the ego.

If you want to have a solid understanding, or grounding in truth, you must necessarily understand the delusional nature of so many of the things we think and do. So if I decide to remain conscious while doing something which would otherwise bolster my ego, it's not going to be as fun or interesting, and I probably wont bother doing it in the first place. I have to allow myself to buy into the delusion. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, good or bad, but lets at least admit the delusional nature of it. I suspect you and I might lead similar lives, using the "tool of objectivity" to get what we want in an egotistical sense. It's just that I think that I'm aware that there is a state of consciousness beyond even this relatively heightened state, and you have yet to discover it.

skipair wrote:Yes, it WAS amazing. Complete consciousness overhaul. It's also over. I am looking forward now.

Nobody is saying not to look forward. The point is to look forward with clarity. Are you certain you're looking forward with clarity?

dejavu wrote:

But I mean, recently I told a "friend" that if they don't completely research a particular substance they are giving their baby they are being irresponsible parents.

What was the substance?

Gentian Violet

Skipair,

I believe that some of our animal urges and drives are hardwired, but what is not hardwired is most men's decision to sacrifice all freedom and peace of mind of spirit for a family life. Men work long hours of jobs they hate so that they can spread their genes, and the whole nasty process repeats, with each generation wasting their possible freedom, and wasting their chance to develop as thinkers.

The problem is when our animal desires run so rapid that they effect our entire thinking structure to the extent that we are subjugated to a system of finite desires, rather than to something much more concrete and timeless.

And then continually satisfying our finite desires becomes the most important thing - those habits erode the soul over time, and leave us weak fools, attached to addictive stimulus. That is the danger of thinking in the manner you do. It justifies complacency, and a fall into hell.

Nick Treklis wrote:It's just that I think that I'm aware that there is a state of consciousness beyond even this relatively heightened state, and you have yet to discover it.

Talk about this. I'll say up front that I suspect it will come down to living by a particular morality, one that's different than mine.

Are you certain you're looking forward with clarity?

If we're talking logic and philosophy, yes. But there are many things in the emotional world I'm not very quick with.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:That is the danger of thinking in the manner you do.

The manner of thinking I do is conscious. If you have different morals than me, that'd be no surprise.

I am much more Dionysian than y'all hermity-type people. Nothing against your style, but it ain't the only one in the books.

You're right though. It is dangerous. That's why I like it. Riding the line.

Point out your figure of speech. The object of thought is that of a unique state- a unique being. Mind is a being, body is an object.