GENIUS FORUMS

Orenholt wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:

I look forward to your answers... especially about why you insist on being snotty and suggest that Dan give me "the boot".

Yes, I can see why that's the most important thing to you.

Guess what? I'm going to let you suffer that one out.

Well I was just wondering if you had any justification but if you don't feel the need to justify yourself I guess I'll chalk it up to "femininity" in the unconscious sense.

Stop it. Orenholt. It's irresistible!

I love a woman who throws words around as though shey were frilly underwear.

Let's fuck.

(:

Leyla Shen wrote: Let's fuck.

I am bisexual you know.....

Orenholt wrote:The only way that the species can have ego, self interest or satisfaction or dissatisfaction is because each individual does.

It would be fine with me but it seemed you were arguing for something else. The individual just cannot "know" on every level the value of each and every action in relation to survival. At the level of the genes perhaps but also genes do not have ego, self-interest, satisfaction or dissatisfaction like an individual knows them. And yet our behavior is so much defined by the various strategies happening at the cellular level. This is were you need to rethink your take on reward or satisfaction. At which level they do really exist as concept to work with? Neurological, okay. Psychological, okay. Anything else: not so much.

The species does not have goals. Only individuals have goals

Everything is intended by Nature itself.

"Only individuals have goals but everything is intended by Nature".

What's the difference between having goals and intentions? I really think your abuse of words might explain more about your life than any testosterone levels!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It would be fine with me but it seemed you were arguing for something else. The individual just cannot "know" on every level the value of each and every action in relation to survival. At the level of the genes perhaps but also genes do not have ego, self-interest, satisfaction or dissatisfaction like an individual knows them. And yet our behavior is so much defined by the various strategies happening at the cellular level. This is were you need to rethink your take on reward or satisfaction. At which level they do really exist as concept to work with? Neurological, okay. Psychological, okay. Anything else: not so much.

Well it's really hard to discuss a human behavior such as enlightenment without taking neurology and psychology into account.

"Only individuals have goals but everything is intended by Nature".

What's the difference between having goals and intentions?

Goals and intentions are basically the same but the will of Nature is not the same as the will of man.
Nature doesn't make conscious choices about what happens it only causes them to happen in a certain way.
Humans on the other hand do make "choices" about what will happen, or at least what they want to happen.
Sorry if that was confusing.

Orenholt wrote:Well it's really hard to discuss a human behavior such as enlightenment without taking neurology and psychology into account.

But that would mean you have some idea on what "behavior" would fit the enlightened. It would be a bold claim and perhaps you should wonder if your ideas on that behavior are even in the ballpark.

Goals and intentions are basically the same but the will of Nature is not the same as the will of man.
Nature doesn't make conscious choices about what happens it only causes them to happen in a certain way.
Humans on the other hand do make "choices" about what will happen, or at least what they want to happen.
Sorry if that was confusing.

Well, so we have here you presenting:
A difference between choices and "choices".
Will of nature and will of man which are different "wills".
Conscious goals and intentions and unconscious goals and intentions.

So what does your "species does not have goals. Only individuals have goals" mean? And how could you anyone expect to discuss anything with you this way? It's way too blurry.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Orenholt wrote:Well it's really hard to discuss a human behavior such as enlightenment without taking neurology and psychology into account.

But that would mean you have some idea on what "behavior" would fit the enlightened. It would be a bold claim and perhaps you should wonder if your ideas on that behavior are even in the ballpark.

Even if enlightenment itself isn't a behavior getting there is. And the thought processes involved with enlightenment require looking at psychology as well.

Well, so we have here you presenting:
A difference between choices and "choices".
Will of nature and will of man which are different "wills".
Conscious goals and intentions and unconscious goals and intentions.

So what does your "species does not have goals. Only individuals have goals" mean? And how could you anyone expect to discuss anything with you this way? It's way too blurry.

It means that species do not have conscious goals and intentions but individuals do.

Orenholt wrote:It means that species do not have conscious goals and intentions but individuals do.

I think the only thing we've then established is that human individuals have some degree of self-consciousness, meaning they can reflect on their own behavior and being. And on causality.

For example a man can be conscious of his reactions to the presence of an attractive woman and even have thoughts of wanting to "do" her. But is it now "his conscious goal"? It's just one of the many impulses and considerations passing. It depends on various other goals in place or like selective criteria, social order, fear, opportunity, conscience and so on, not all of which he was born with or he invented himself. But the process is often hardly conscious and its influence is relative to other "goals" in place. And values and principles are crucial in affirming and strengthening the evaluation.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: I think the only thing we've then established is that human individuals have some degree of self-consciousness, meaning they can reflect on their own behavior and being. And on causality.

For example a man can be conscious of his reactions to the presence of an attractive woman and even have thoughts of wanting to "do" her. But is it now "his conscious goal"? It's just one of the many impulses and considerations passing. It depends on various other goals in place or like selective criteria, social order, fear, opportunity, conscience and so on, not all of which he was born with or he invented himself. But the process is often hardly conscious and its influence is relative to other "goals" in place. And values and principles are crucial in affirming and strengthening the evaluation.

Yeah I would agree with all that.

Apparently sexual activity that does not lead to reproduction of the species is prompted by an imperative to perpetuate self-concept, rather than a biological imperative to perpetuate the species.

This is not an insignificant imperative, since preservation of self-concept through defense and assertion of self-concept often takes precedence over preservation of the body. Depending on the situation this tendency can either be vilified or extolled, according to the self-image that has been instilled into the individual psychology by society. Example: The soldier who throws his body on a live grenade to save his buddies is maintaining his self-image of hero, and because this self-image aligns with the definition of his culture, he gets a medal. The Guardian of a seed bank who starves to death rather than eat the seeds may die unknown, but his self-concept is preserved until the end, along with the seeds.

Awakening reveals the transience of self-concept, but the body may not survive a self-concept that is protected by the resources of a powerfully rationalizing intellect that cannot make empirical evidence fit into the mold of the ideal, although the intellect's tendency to pick and choose only evidence that conforms to a concept can be astonishingly stubborn.

Ego, superego, alter ego, conscience, call it what you will, self-concept appears to be the dominant motive force and limitation for people. Drop that and the remaining emptiness is revealed, if the body survives the initial shock.

Desire never speaks and is always directed at other.
shhh, stealth.

It can be 'heard' in every action.

It's attenedant upon lack and the dynamics are understood.

Orenholt wrote:Ignorance of course. But having desires doesn't necessarily mean that you're ignorant.

What is the source of ignorance, and can we eradicate this source?

Cahoot wrote:Apparently sexual activity that does not lead to reproduction of the species is prompted by an imperative to perpetuate self-concept, rather than a biological imperative to perpetuate the species.

This is not an insignificant imperative, since preservation of self-concept through defense and assertion of self-concept often takes precedence over preservation of the body. Depending on the situation this tendency can either be vilified or extolled, according to the self-image that has been instilled into the individual psychology by society. Example: The soldier who throws his body on a live grenade to save his buddies is maintaining his self-image of hero, and because this self-image aligns with the definition of his culture, he gets a medal. The Guardian of a seed bank who starves to death rather than eat the seeds may die unknown, but his self-concept is preserved until the end, along with the seeds.

Awakening reveals the transience of self-concept, but the body may not survive a self-concept that is protected by the resources of a powerfully rationalizing intellect that cannot make empirical evidence fit into the mold of the ideal, although the intellect's tendency to pick and choose only evidence that conforms to a concept can be astonishingly stubborn.

Ego, superego, alter ego, conscience, call it what you will, self-concept appears to be the dominant motive force and limitation for people. Drop that and the remaining emptiness is revealed, if the body survives the initial shock.

I would agree with most of that but some people don't place as much importance on their self concept as they do their actual life, though if they do have a self concept and sacrifice it they often suffer horribly for it. Either that or they have a poor self concept and so they don't care much if they do things that are deemed socially wrong.

Russell wrote:

Orenholt wrote:Ignorance of course. But having desires doesn't necessarily mean that you're ignorant.

What is the source of ignorance, and can we eradicate this source?

Inexperience is the source of ignorance. It can only be eradicated by gaining experience and insight of some kind.
This doesn't mean that it all has to be hands on experience. It can be a simple discussion that can count as an experience to reveal Truth.

It is a strange thing to have done something thousands of times but barely be able to remember any of it as you do it again, every day. Especially strange with people. Knowing is a sort of madness not spoken of. We cling to life because we don't have a choice, and there are no other options.

Inexperience in what exactly? Philosophy? We need to be clear about this. By your current set of definitions, there's no clear cut reason or cause of our ignorance. Telling someone they're merely inexperienced gives them nothing as far as guiding them to wisdom (something you've all but admitted is of no more than secondary importance). They might just join a useless academic course for "experience", or start a business for "experience." Enlightenment can't be reached by mere "experience."

Presuming that things (including self) has it's own uncaused existence beyond all other is the source of ignorance/delusion. Most philosophers refer to this presumption of self as "ego." But this unsettles you.. you can't help but butcher the word into something that is less than the defined word, into something more acceptable.

Everything is caused by nature, including the appearance of free will. Realizing ultimate truths such as how causation forms our consciousness reveals the ego's delusional nature. The ego rebels against this realization as it values and seeks to reinforce our sense of free will, and thus deludes our thoughts about reality. Therefore the two, enlightenment and egotism, cannot mix. You can't serve God and your ego at the same time.

Russell wrote:Inexperience in what exactly? Philosophy? We need to be clear about this. By your current set of definitions, there's no clear cut reason or cause of our ignorance. Telling someone they're merely inexperienced gives them nothing as far as guiding them to wisdom (something you've all but admitted is of no more than secondary importance). They might just join a useless academic course for "experience", or start a business for "experience." Enlightenment can't be reached by mere "experience."

Yes, experience in philosophy. Though really the post I made can apply to any kind of ignorance and experience.

Presuming that things (including self) has it's own uncaused existence beyond all other is the source of ignorance/delusion. Most philosophers refer to this presumption of self as "ego." But this unsettles you.. you can't help but butcher the word into something that is less than the defined word, into something more acceptable.

What kind of silly person would think that they're not caused to exist? Did they think that their parents are just put there to look nice? And yes, I know it extends beyond that but if someone doesn't understand that they are caused in that sense they ARE hopelessly deluded. I don't see what that has to do with desire though.

Everything is caused by nature, including the appearance of free will. Realizing ultimate truths such as how causation forms our consciousness reveals the ego's delusional nature. The ego rebels against this realization as it values and seeks to reinforce our sense of free will, and thus deludes our thoughts about reality. Therefore the two, enlightenment and egotism, cannot mix. You can't serve God and your ego at the same time.

It's not Ego vs God. They are really one and the same just most people don't realize it. The ego is just a part of god, just a cell in a greater being.

Russell:

Everything is caused by nature, including the appearance of free will. Realizing ultimate truths such as how causation forms our consciousness reveals the ego's delusional nature.

You mean, like this:

You can't serve God and your ego at the same time.

?

Orenholt, please note that I've been talking about egotistical desire. There is a difference. Egotistical desire deals with the conception of self and the assumption of its states.

Orenholt wrote:What kind of silly person would think that they're not caused to exist? Did they think that their parents are just put there to look nice? And yes, I know it extends beyond that but if someone doesn't understand that they are caused in that sense they ARE hopelessly deluded. I don't see what that has to do with desire though.

The egotist is unaware of their presuming of an inherent self (ignorance). For example, when we experience sadness (desire for happiness), there is a blind assumption of a sort of state of unfulfillment. When we take into light that nature provides all things in perfection, sadness/happiness are found out to be perceptual illusions that clouds our consciousness. Egotistical desires are an antithesis of sorts to the realization of the perfection of nature.

It's not Ego vs God. They are really one and the same just most people don't realize it. The ego is just a part of god, just a cell in a greater being.

Ego may be part of God, but it nonetheless prevents one from realizing God. As long as the ego remains as the basis for one's thinking, delusion and ignorance will continue to plague one's thinking.

Leyla, not sure what you're getting at.

I'm wondering, Russell, if your last statement (quoted in my post above) is an example of this:

The ego rebels against this realization as it values and seeks to reinforce our sense of free will, and thus deludes our thoughts about reality.

Is there no measure of delusion in the notion of serving God if everything is already caused by "Him"?

Russell wrote:Orenholt, please note that I've been talking about egotistical desire. There is a difference. Egotistical desire deals with the conception of self and the assumption of its states.

What would be a desire that isn't egotistical? Aren't all desires self serving in some way?

The egotist is unaware of their presuming of an inherent self (ignorance). For example, when we experience sadness (desire for happiness), there is a blind assumption of a sort of state of unfulfillment. When we take into light that nature provides all things in perfection, sadness/happiness are found out to be perceptual illusions that clouds our consciousness. Egotistical desires are an antithesis of sorts to the realization of the perfection of nature.

Perfection is a subjective term though. All values are subjective to the ego so how can you be sure of Nature's perfection if not through the ego?

Ego may be part of God, but it nonetheless prevents one from realizing God. As long as the ego remains as the basis for one's thinking, delusion and ignorance will continue to plague one's thinking.

It only stops silly people. You can realize God and still have an ego if you're intelligent enough. Just because a cell realizes that it's part of a body doesn't mean that it stops existing and functioning.

Leyla Shen wrote:Is there no measure of delusion in the notion of serving God if everything is already caused by "Him"?

By "serving God" I meant becoming one with one's knowledge of Truth, assuming one has accurate knowledge of course.
_____

Orenholt wrote:What would be a desire that isn't egotistical? Aren't all desires self serving in some way?

Yes they are, but egotistical desires deals with the perception of imbalance in one's own psyche, or state of consciousness. Otherwise, normal desiring (such as for food or sleep) isn't any different than a river "desiring" to flow downhill.

Perfection is a subjective term though. All values are subjective to the ego so how can you be sure of Nature's perfection if not through the ego?

All values are subjective to the individual, not just the ego. The ego is an abstract side effect of human consciousness, not a biological necessity as you would have us believe. The ego represents a confliction of the values that arise within subjective consciousness.

Furthermore, the fact that you finally admit that values are subjective should show you that there is no 'value system' in Nature as a whole. The ego obviously conflicts with this fact as well.

Yes they are, but egotistical desires deals with the perception of imbalance in one's own psyche, or state of consciousness. Otherwise, normal desiring (such as for food or sleep) isn't any different than a river "desiring" to flow downhill.

I just don't see the point in dividing desire into "normal" and "egotistical" categories.

All values are subjective to the individual, not just the ego.

Isn't the ego what tells us that we like or dislike something?

Furthermore, the fact that you finally admit that values are subjective should show you that there is no 'value system' in Nature as a whole.

What do you mean by "there is no value system"? Doesn't everything like what gives it pleasure or avoids the pain? That seems like a value system even if the pain and pleasure are subjective.

Orenholt wrote:I just don't see the point in dividing desire into "normal" and "egotistical" categories.

I make the division because you think that our "desire" for food is the same as the egotistical desire for a certain states of consciousness. This has caused a great mess in your understanding, which no one has been able to make a budge towards correction at this point, it seems.

Isn't the ego what tells us that we like or dislike something?

Indeed it does, but again..when the ego acts as the basis of our thoughts, ignorance and delusion run amuck.

What do you mean by "there is no value system"? Doesn't everything like what gives it pleasure or avoids the pain? That seems like a value system even if the pain and pleasure are subjective.

Now you're mixing subjective with the Ultimate. Nature doesn't discriminate who or what experiences pleasure or pain. It dishes them both out to perfection. More truthfully, in Nature there is no "pleasure/pain". Such a dual concept only exists within the conception of a subjective consciousness.

Without separate selves there couldn't be Buddha's and ordinary people.

A Buddha desires the release of all beings from samsara.

none of it is God's business.

despite all that shit,
the flowers you love fall and the weeds you hate prosper.