GENIUS FORUMS

"Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it".

It means there's a subject and a predicate on offer.

guest_of_logic wrote:

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:...because it's most reasonable to believe that other people really exist and really matter, and because our experience of reality is (mostly) consistent, it's most responsible to base our decisions on the (admittedly doubtable) knowledge that we can abstract out of this consistency.

...

The Lao Tzu quote is more extreme than I'm comfortable with. It implies (to my uneducated-in-Eastern-philosophy ear) that knowledge is not even useful (that it is a "disease"). I think that view is irresponsible.

The Confucius and Socrates quotes I accept as expressions of scepticism, although in the case of the Socrates quote, they make too big a deal out of it, and are pretty blatantly self-aggrandizing: for practical purposes, (even doubtable) knowledge is indispensable, and the mere acceptance of scepticism isn't enough to make one "the wisest man alive". I mean, come on. :-).

What if I told you, that it is a big deal, and that they aren't using empty phrases?

That they aren't over exaggerating, even when using extreme words like "all", "nothing", or, "disease".

What if it was also the most practical knowledge?



Also, the consistency you are running into is actually only consistency between sensual experiences, and exists only as a consistency of limited and particular manifestations (which are infinite and eternal and hence the consistency your finding doesn't truly exist), the only real constant being change.

It's only psychologically impossible if the philosophy goes beyond the borders of what is known, to be skeptical you have to remove everything unknown, leaving the only "true knowledge".

It also really sucks to hear you don't have much interest in eastern philosophy, that should change, especially if you like paradoxes.


"The Master leads
by emptying people's minds
and filling their cores,
by weakening their ambition
and toughening their resolve.
He helps people lose everything
they know, everything they desire,
and creates confusion
in those who think that they know.

Practice not-doing,
and everything will fall into place"
- Lao Tzu

What if I told you I was sure this wasn't a step down, but the final step up?



D the menace, tell him you are sure too, if you are of course.

Seems there's a game of "explain that grammar" going on, and, well, surely it would be rude not to join in.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, in the question, "What does that makes you?", "does" is the auxiliary verb, and "makes" is the main verb. The reason that "makes" should properly be "make" is due to the rule that, in English questions, when there is an auxiliary verb, the main verb is in the infinitive form.

John,

I don't want to offend, but some of your views I just can't accept, and I've tried to explain why on different occasions (including this one), but my explanations don't seem to affect you at all. For example, you've just responded with rhetorical questions and observations/assertions that don't address the points I put to you.

"What if I told you, that it is a big deal, and that they aren't using empty phrases?"

"What if it was also the most practical knowledge?"

"What if I told you I was sure this wasn't a step down, but the final step up?"

Well, if you told me these things, I'd want you to give me good reasons to believe that they are true in the face of the views I've expressed to you, and since you haven't been able to do that until now despite your many posts, I'm curious to know what you've been holding back.

I'm not a big fan of the Tao Te Ching, although it's been some time since I last read it in any depth.

'don't know' specifically means,

no longer 'knowing' worldhood as inherently existing in and of itself.

'don't know' in that way 'knows' Worldhood as nonsubstantial appearance.

in the bible they say 'if you bite that apple pal you will know good and evil'.
so, if we 'don't know' good and evil as inherently existing and 'know' it as dependently arising or conditional we're going OK.

'knowing' Worldhood' as nonsubstantial appearance doesn't put an end to it.

What is disclosed is possibilities
for being and the play of causality and a desire to generate possibilities that make a difference in getting a handle on suffering.
In that possibility, Inquiry is enlisted and education enrolled in.

To walk the mighty road together in fine spirit.
'hail fellow, well met'.

Which is what Laird is probably trying to get at when he says 'taking responsibility' or being attuned to consequences.

little boys can wear Mighty Mouse suits and 'play' needy girls into getting their knickers off I s'pose but it ain't worth much.

guest_of_logic wrote: Well, if you told me these things, I'd want you to give me good reasons to believe that they are true in the face of the views I've expressed to you, and since you haven't been able to do that until now despite your many posts, I'm curious to know what you've been holding back.

I'm not a big fan of the Tao Te Ching, although it's been some time since I last read it in any depth.

Alrighty, you want me to give good reasons to show you why not-knowing is true knowledge: the reason is because knowing is an illusion.

How is it possible to show some one that's knowing that their knowledge is actually delusion? Not sure, I'll try.

You have to see it in yourself, questions must be asked, first, tell me everything you know about water, while observing your thoughts and mental formations as you do so.

(The exercise is in an attempt to show you that your knowledge of what water is goes only so far as your seeing of water, that you don't know more about it outside of your experiencing of it and the senses)

Or if that seems too simple for you, you can substitute the question for: Tell me what your reasons are for thinking your sensual experiences correlate to, and are derived from, a physical world external to and independent of your consciousness? (Your reasons for thinking "this" is "more real" then an imaginative experience or a dream, that the objects have inherit existence outside of experience)

(This exercise is in an attempt to show you that valid reasons for this don't exist, although if you can provide some do so)

Also forgot a quote when I was listing them, Dennis reminded me, "Don't eat from the tree of knowledge" or you will be kicked from paradise.

Dennis Mahar wrote:'don't know' specifically means,

no longer 'knowing' worldhood as inherently existing in and of itself.

And the implications of this on presumed knowledge are endless.

Something Socrates wrote, a story about him wandering around trying to find wise men, but only running in to people who thought they knew:

"Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, "Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest." Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him."

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Alrighty, you want me to give good reasons to show you why not-knowing is true knowledge

John, it's pointless. You utterly contradict yourself. If you weren't utilising the knowledge that there is a keyboard in front of you that will communicate with your PC when you press its keys, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation in which you deny the utility of knowledge. Forgive me, but it's a waste of time arguing this with you.

Lol, but you know how silly the point you just made was, it is getting rid of false knowledge and delusion, pretending to know things you don't, not obvious truths such as there is a laptop.

I guess Lao Tzu forgot there was paper in front of him when he was writing the Tao Te Ching?

Socrates wasn't aware he could speak either, while he was speaking. You know the point you made was irrelevant.

I'm trying to yell at you a deep truth like 5 separate sages did, all of which you completely ignored, consider it more until you find it's truth.

John,
Laird doesn't 'get' dependent origination.

Zhuangzi contributed an ornery piece of logic.

if you tell a dreamer he's dreamin',
your dreamin'.

what are you looking for 'wake in fright'.
the dreamer is engrossed in his mock up and groovin the groove.

conditions are suchness and when the conditions are so.

haha, I know but you have to dream the unlikely before it can happen.

This, frustratingly, can't be explained in words, hence, "No one frees us but ourselves, no one can and no one may, we ourselves must walk the path"... "the Buddha's only point the way, it is for you to swelter to the task" - Buddha


He was wondering why Socrates was "the wisest man alive" and how he could possibly know this at the same time as admitting he knew nothing?

Answer: Once you know you know nothing, that's as far as it can go, all wisdom is yours. He was the wisest man alive for even if people were at his level, it was impossible for anyone to be of greater wisdom, there is only so much you can unlearn.


We have looked into the darkness and found shape in it. This in conjuction with the end of all questions is one in a million.

I saw a post on facebook by a page with hundreds of thousands of likes, "12 signs of spiritual awakening" was the post, as a consequence of the page being so famous, 2,000 people liked it.

Something even worse than the unlikeliness of enlightenment is occurring, instead of no one being enlightened, now it's going to be everyone, hence the death of truth. How do you get a proper wake in fright?

How do you get a proper wake in fright?

Hide a crocodile in a girls moneymaker.

haha, that might convince someone

I don't really have anything to say, or any complaints, but how have you managed this whole time, being without worry, surrounded by people hurrying and hastening? Surely you felt like bitch slapping a few people and telling them it's ok? I have a girlfriend who hurries and hastens and worries, it doesn't concern me at all, but it still happens all the time and if I could get rid of it to end the suffering I would, hardly possible, anyway that's the end of the story, I'm only typing because it's in front of me, old habits of speaking.

Definitely the most seemingly dreadful part is the cessation of feeling involved in conversation or a situation, the dullness. The old habits make me want to spread the word, while the truth tells me it's a waste of time typing to the dream screen, luckily everything is a waste of time. What am I to do?

It's not like you can answer a pointless question I know has no answer, but I still feel inclined to ask someone who has been with this for years and years.

"Just be", I know, woo.

Many people are very nice, very good, kindly, taking care of each other.
chop wood carry water.
don't exploit them.
Say hello.
Develop poise.

They are nice, I'm nice to them, irrelevant, I was talking of my own disinterest, is there a way to get around it besides just being, I guess I'm hoping the enthusiasm comes back in some new way, doubt it, I'm clearly not spending enough time in meditation, not a good thing in combination with spending so much time being wakeful and contemplating.

"The Master leads
by emptying people's minds
and filling their cores,
by weakening their ambition
and toughening their resolve.
He helps people lose everything
they know, everything they desire,
and creates confusion
in those who think that they know."

The object of Zen training (to place this quote in a context of use) is to cause a disassociation within a person's mental structure, the structure of their self. A great deal in this master-disciple relationship can be seen as coercive in the extreme. It is when the disciple 'surrenders' and essentially give up or gives over his sovereign personality to the Master that the discipleship has achieved its purpose. All of this can be examined and thought about. But to think 'critically' about it, naturally, is not and would never be allowed (in that 'spiritual' context).

Essentially---and I seriously challenge any reader here to find a 'positive' use of these ideas---this style of thinking and the absolute assertions of these 'facts' (about not-knowing, mindlessness, etc.) are CLEARLY used as a means to undermine knowing, but they are clearly used as part of a general game of use of power, and they ALWAYS conceal the power-player who seeks self-aggrandizement and a position as 'final arbiter'. Dennis shows himself the undisputed king of this game but now has a strong competitor in Swami Sock-It-To-Me.

When young folk get hold of these (sic) 'ideas' it infiltrates their idea-structure, it 'infects' them and begins a process of undermining which, obviously, can never be complete for that would result in silence and simply abandoning the field. These ideas function like an acid but in the case of our young Masters the 'acid' never gets to their egoic wills which in fact go into a form of over-drive. They will 'prove' their points at any cost.

The chief effect of all this is to undermine connectedness with self and also, essentially, to the epistemological possibilities of Western rationalism. And as those are eaten away (but always partially, to end up distorted, half-eaten, half torn-down) what remains is essentially an afflicted person in whom one sees predominantly his power-trips.

I'm clearly not spending enough time in meditation, not a good thing in combination with spending so much time being wakeful and contemplating.

See, you know.

Do any of you smoke cigarettes?

:)

Yes it's about causing this disassociation within a person's structure of their self, but also with all their previous knowledge and associations, ridding them of pretending to know about things they don't.

You've clearly misunderstood both of us, your trying to find the same reasoning you can find in almost any person, except your doing it for people that don't care, it doesn't work the same way, your finding things that aren't there, it's expected, it is very uncommon to find people that aren't bullshitting themselves.

But you can keep believing that we have taken this unassailable position for other reasons and ignore the real reason, it's the unassailable truth.

I can see that I'm in the middle of a "dream" Alex, do you know how dumb it is to tell someone that can see it that it isn't?

It is, and hence your knowledge about particular manifestations and topics is only made up of illusions, accept it so you can see for yourself.

Dennis,

I know.

You're becoming more and more incoherent, John.

I had this one black kid dish me the ball on the basket- ball court-almost-as if he felt sorry for me-I'm thinking to myself ten years later- what an egocentric fool he was to just disown the b-ball by having it thrown into my hands. Think about it. Black kid. Jersey. Tossing me a free shot to the basket.

It was readable, I'm talking as if you aren't clueless

"You've clearly misunderstood both of us, your trying to find the same reasoning you can find in almost any person, except your doing it for people that don't care, it doesn't work the same way, your finding things that aren't there, it's expected, it is very uncommon to find people that aren't bullshitting themselves."

You have clearly misunderstood both of us, you are trying to use the same reasoning that you would normally use,(in regards to understanding the psychology of posters), except you are trying to do it on people like us, that won't work as we don't "care" the same way, we aren't bullshitting ourselves.

Was that clear enough to read? If not, let me know.

Somehow, in an extreme fit of loving your self, you have decided we are telling you that you don't know out of a power play.

You are an idiot if you think that. I'm telling you it's a like-dream and all your knowledge is bullshit, because it's exactly like a dream and all of what your spouting is bullshit.

Is that clear enough to read? If not, let me know.

It's not anything personal, for example I was telling jufa that what he was spouting was bullshit when he was writing whole posts using only the words BREATH, LIGHT and SPIRIT and purposefully obscuring/ over-complicating what he had to say. Hiding behind over-complication like you do.

* "My personal view is that a woman is something that one should consciously decide to 'control'."

"I am lying and manipulating, but I'm being honest about it" - Alex T Jacob, bullshit

Understanding yet??

Laird wrote: "Alex, just briefly, having recently awoken from a day sleep: I actually don't take serious issue with metis as you describe it, I even think it has merits, with one (big) qualification, that it be practised within ethical boundaries. So, when you list "stratagems of war, frauds, deceits", I'm wary, because I would only consider any of those to be potentially ethical when used defensively i.e. I would never (at least I can't think of a scenario off the top of my head) consider it ethical to start a war, be it under the guise of metis or any other. It is for ethical reasons too that I reject the metis of the story of your opening post: in my view, life is inviolate; I do even not support others in their terminations of life in the womb, let alone consider practising them myself. I don't consider aggressive fraud and deceit - to profit at the expense of another - to be ethical either, but sure, if someone's out to defraud or deceive you, and you can thwart that through otherwise ethical like counter-measures, then that seems reasonable to me. I know that you think I'm excessively idealistic, probably you are even being charitable with your choice of words there, but that's the type of honor that I value, not the honor that is glory in warfare or some other bloody destructiveness."

To discuss broad ideas requires a good deal of preparation. All the things that I am speaking about are connected to my original posts and the thread is titled 'Women, Freedom, Entrapment, Strategy'. We haven't yet gotten to the issue of ethics in the sense of seeing how it all fits together. What I desire to establish is that there are really no 'ethics' in Nature and everything that you detest and resent about 'impositions' are a constant in Nature. I don't think I need to make lists to demonstrate this truth. I would also like to suggest that in the human dynamic, and most certainly in the male-female dynamic, that Nature is still there, is still very much there, and that this cannot be denied.

The specific 'ethical and moral' decision about the situation I cited (women surreptitiously plans pregnancy, man surreptitiously ends it) can indeed be pondered but I am really not so sure that is the point. If there is a point it is that a man (since I am taking this position vis-a-vis women and 'woman') needs to have the intelligence to think with 'metis' about his situation. Let us suppose that he decides to act, insofar as he can, 'ethically' in most situations. The question still arises in respect to his defensive posture in relation to 'the world'. And in the case that I mentioned, specifically toward women. But I also think Life is actually composed of a whole myriad of grey areas and I will cite the first example that came to mind: Let us suppose you are a country real estate investor. At the courthouse, they tell you and your competitor that there is an auction going on that is about to close and if either of you get there quickly and put in an offer, you will be able to buy the property for very little money. You both start off. But you know a shortcut and you take it, arrive 10 minutes before the other fellow, put in the bid, and the auction closes. You smile (devilishly) as your competitor straggles in late. And going further, the house you bought for $20,000.00 is worth $100,000.00 and you sell it, giving part of it to an 'underprivileged child's education fund' and the rest for your own child's university education. Craft, skill, knowledge and also a form of deception enabled this. You get ahead in life, you use your advantages for productive purposes, and so it goes.

In this sense I suggest that a great deal about this life has to do with the liminal areas.

As to 'strategems of war, frauds, deceits', I would again suggest that 'we' (humankind) function within derivative natural systems. The notion of 'stratagem' will certainly be applied in a literal war situation, and war as Sun Tzu says is part and parcel of any organized state, so war will always be with us in one form or another (this is simply a statement of fact). But there are an infinity of situations where the war-model is still very much prevalent and necessary. It is simply a fact of life. Now, in a significant sense you are completely out of the whole 'game of life' because you receive a check from the State, and you can certainly sit in the Cat Bird's seat and decide all matters from that (lofty) perch, but at the first step into the world, and especially in any place that is not in the highly structured First World, you will soon see that a whole other level of game is played. I will also suggest that as it concerns paternity, the State-supported position of women generally, and a world of imposed 'politically correct thinking' in relation to women and 'female culture' generally, that there are clandestine and dangerous currents very much in operation. As I said (though it is utterly irrelevant to those of you who have nothing in this world and will never have anything!), one false move and a woman, and her lawyer, can take away everything you have. And it happens all the time. And not only that: in business, without necessary protections (insurance, contractual thoroughness and pre-planning) it happens that businesses are decimated. It is quite possible too, and totally prevalent, that entities use the system 'legally' to wipe out a competitor by, say, bringing a lawsuit at an early point as the business is up-and-coming.

I know that none of this has any relevance to people who 1) don't work and may never work, 2) who get a check from their beloved State or 3) who are walking the 'sages road' to Immortality and Enlightenment, but in the 'real world' just on the other side of the window glass it is indeed another reality altogether.

I know that you think I'm excessively idealistic, probably you are even being charitable with your choice of words there, but that's the type of honour that I value, not the honour that is glory in warfare or some other bloody destructiveness.

You are certainly 'excessively idealistic' but that is also not exactly the point. The point is not so much yourself as the moral point here but an accurate description of the world and 'reality'. I also honor honor, but I see it is a value-system that exists, say, between friends or those who operate within a defined and agreed-upon ethical system. A woman's 'ethical system' is not the same as a man's and this is part of my point. Her goals and objects are distinct. That is one thing. I guarantee you that actually dealing in real time with women generally requires another sort of system! And as I say you have the perfect position in this world from which you can judge all things of this world: all you have to do is deposit your check! How the State got that money will not even be thought about and your own 'complicity' never analyzed. David and Dan also have that 'luxury'. But the minute that you forewent that privilege, you'd find yourself squarely in 'another world'. And your ideas might change. I write for those who are squarely 'in the real (sic!) world' not for those who exist on a gorgeous cloud floating over the landscape. (You might think this is a jab directed personally at you but it isn't. I think much of the 'philosophy' of this forum occurs in a 'false' world of childish inexperience).

I also think something like this: When a person actually decides to 'come into the world', the 'real' world and not his imagined or idealistic world (an imposition on the world), he immediately becomes complicit in the world and in its irrationality. That is the protoplasmic world, the world of 'the body', and is also (as I define it) the 'female world'. To really, really be in that world is a radical project! Our local Swamis and Gurus do not live in that world but rather in a facsimile of it. You also don't live in a real world and it is important to say this. Do you agree?