GENIUS FORUMS

Kelly Jones wrote: Elizabeth,

I have nothing against music, or enjoying, or humour, or niceness, per se. This opinion came about because i can't stand psychological wrappers, and find nothing so enjoyable as getting to the heart of a matter. I drown unless i know what something truly is. So, i won't apologise for derailing or hijacking superficiality. That's part of my job.

Feel free to pull apart this fault of mine, so you can get at the heart of it. I'd be delighted if you did. Nothing bugs me as much as bullshit.

Psychological wrappers are so OBVIOUS --- the more wrapping --- enthusiasm, chatter, and pleasure --- the greater the chance that, inside, there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Kelly Jones wrote:Elizabeth,

I have nothing against music, or enjoying, or humour, or niceness, per se. This opinion came about because i can't stand psychological wrappers,

Kelly Jones wrote: and find nothing so enjoyable as getting to the heart of a matter. I drown unless i know what something truly is.

Kelly Jones wrote: So, i won't apologise for derailing or hijacking superficiality. That's part of my job.

Kelly Jones wrote:Feel free to pull apart this fault of mine, so you can get at the heart of it. I'd be delighted if you did. Nothing bugs me as much as bullshit.

Kelly Jones wrote:Psychological wrappers are so OBVIOUS --- the more wrapping --- enthusiasm, chatter, and pleasure --- the greater the chance that, inside, there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

I have nothing against music, or enjoying, or humour, or niceness, per se. This opinion came about because i can't stand psychological wrappers,

Kelly: and find nothing so enjoyable as getting to the heart of a matter. I drown unless i know what something truly is.

Elizabeth: Then lets find out what you truly are.

Kelly: So, i won't apologise for derailing or hijacking superficiality. That's part of my job.

Elizabeth: That's part of your job? Do you get good benefits?

Kelly: Psychological wrappers are so OBVIOUS --- the more wrapping --- enthusiasm, chatter, and pleasure --- the greater the chance that, inside, there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Elizabeth: From your capital letters, I suppose this makes you angry.

Why does it make you angry that the more the psychological wrappers, the greater the chance that there is nothing in the wrapping?

Kelly Jones wrote:In view of this, i'd baptise this thread as a Great Ode to Friendlessness, or, a Great Reviling of Friendships.

Kelly: and find nothing so enjoyable as getting to the heart of a matter. I drown unless i know what something truly is.

Elizabeth: Then lets find out what you truly are.

Kelly: I've been going on about it non-stop for weeks. Nothing new.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Kelly: So, i won't apologise for derailing or hijacking superficiality. That's part of my job.

Elizabeth: That's part of your job? Do you get good benefits?

Yes.

Perhaps you personally haven't seen them yet.

Do you recall, several weeks ago now, that i criticised you for not thinking about your purpose (in participating in the Genius Forum), and advised you to take some time off to think about it?

Have some conscience, Elizabeth, don't make everyone else do the hard work for you.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Kelly: Psychological wrappers are so OBVIOUS --- the more wrapping --- enthusiasm, chatter, and pleasure --- the greater the chance that, inside, there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Elizabeth: From your capital letters, I suppose this makes you angry.

False assumption.

Just stimulating thought.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:1. Just for clarification, is English your primary language?

You are baptising the thread

and you seem to be stating above that you have been going on about who you truly are for weeks. What sort of relationship do you have with your ego?

Kelly: So, i won't apologise for derailing or hijacking superficiality. That's part of my job.

Elizabeth: That's part of your job? Do you get good benefits?

Kelly: Yes.

Perhaps you personally haven't seen them yet.

Do you recall, several weeks ago now, that i criticised you for not thinking about your purpose (in participating in the Genius Forum), and advised you to take some time off to think about it?

Have some conscience, Elizabeth, don't make everyone else do the hard work for you.

Elizabeth: I was testing your ability to recognize humor. I knew that you would not find the joke funny, but it was important to see if you could find the joke at all. You could not.

Elizabeth wrote:In standard communication, the general consensus that I have found is that all caps indicates yelling, bold is added for emphasis, italics to stress a word, and underline is similar to a command voice.

3. How much practice have you had communicating over the internet other than what I can see from old threads at GF and your web page?

4. If you have one, what is your goal in philosophy?

5. If you have one, what is your goal in life?

Kelly Jones wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:You are baptising the thread

Just a reminder to myself. Helps me to remember my true friends, my true thoughts.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:and you seem to be stating above that you have been going on about who you truly are for weeks. What sort of relationship do you have with your ego?

The hate sort. I hate the ego, the ego hates me.

Kelly Jones wrote:It was a really low grade of humour. The kind that loves to make fun of lofty ideals.

Generally don't like that kind.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:In standard communication, the general consensus that I have found is that all caps indicates yelling, bold is added for emphasis, italics to stress a word, and underline is similar to a command voice.

Don't go in for consensus, either.

Elizabeth: 3. How much practice have you had communicating over the internet other than what I can see from old threads at GF and your web page?

Kelly: The correct question is:

How much experience do you have of thinking freely?

Kelly Jones wrote:Both you and Passthrough have the same queer idea that truth is found through consensus.

Kelly Jones wrote:Have you ever thought how abusive to individual intelligence such an idea is?

Kelly Jones wrote:

4. If you have one, what is your goal in philosophy?

There is only one goal in philosophy.

5. If you have one, what is your goal in life?

The same as above.

The only emotion stronger than love is hate.

Truth cannot be altered to accommodate the world. The moment Truth is compromised it ceases to exist. Therefore the world must bow to Truth.



An intensely strong motivation, deep disgust, and a yearning desire is required to transcend this world, which can be difficult to generate in the sleepy dales of the countryside. This is why the city is so useful: it reminds one of the Devil, and therefore of God also.



Spiritual growth too, demands that we abandon false brain-pathways, and start out anew, striving headlong into the wild and untamed country. After many years of effort, a new way will take shape --- the highway to Enlightenment.



Each time you re-tread an old way, it is refreshed, and becomes all the more attractive to travellers like yourself.



It is not sex that keeps one from God, but love, its attendant emotions, and the lifestyle that supports it.



With our romantic love we are like a dog chasing a car. There is much thrill in the chase, but what to do with the car when you catch it? We are more animal than we give ourselves credit for.



We poor fools seem to find our identity in how others perceive us. We need their approval before we can do anything! Men especially need the approval of women. Perhaps this is a legacy from childhood, and the wish to please the mother.

The wise are altogether different. They know themselves as individuals; that is, separate from the world, where praise or hatred cannot touch them. They are mere robots, and God is the programmer; and robots do not seek approval as they go about their business. The sun needs approval from no-one, and it shines. The wind need approval from no-one, and it blows.



Who, when faced with the terrifying rawness of true thought, would approve? If the wise man ever meets with the approval of a woman, it is because she has not confronted his thought.



Break the chain of karma, or you will remain a fool who believes in death.



If you wish to be rid of a weed, you must pull it out by the roots.



There is nothing more repulsive to me than the effeminate submissiveness found in Christianity, nothing worse than their "love", "kindness", "peace", and "equality", which are all part of their plot designed to turn everything into a children's fairy-tale.



"Compassion" is one of those sweet, sugar-coated words, along with "love", "devotion" and "peace", which pander to the pleasant dreams of Christians. But each one of these words is a time bomb, capable of destroying humankind! Each bears within itthe seeds of hatred, violence, greed, and war, which will inevitably come to fruit. Yet Christians do not concern themselves with consequences or responsibility; they see only the "peace", and not the war that lies within its thin shell.



Jesus was definitely not a Christian, and it is a crime to suggest he has anything do to with such a farce. Jesus was more of a man than the most manly of men, for he had gone beyond both the masculine and the feminine, beyond fear, love, and compassion.



Truth hurts, so it is not popular. It follows that nor is a truthful man popular. He is hated as much as death itself.



Let no priest sympathise with my truths! Let him renounce his Christianity before he seeks my companionship.



The ego does not really exist, therefore its death is unsurprising. The spirit is eternal, so its birth is a certainty.



The death we fear is the death of happiness. We see the loss of a happy life as the loss of life itself. To add to our troubles, these deaths are happening all the time. Whenever we perceive that we have lost something, we experience a death. Again, we are not afraid of death, but of the thought of loss.



I warn you that as your God consciousness expands, so does your ego. Do not underestimate the power of the ego! It will remain strong and powerful beneath your deepest thoughts, ready to pounce at every opportunity, until the final ember of desire has grown cold.




A mind bathed in spirit is not within time, but time is within it. A boat is meant to go into water, but the water must not get into the boat. In the same way, we are meant to be in the world, but the world must not get into us.



God cannot draw you to Him when your mind is laden with the rust of material desires, and when the dust of sensual craving sits heavily upon you.



You must will to die to the world. If you are uncertain whether to be truthful or not, how can you possibly live in truth?



I do not criticise people, but their habits, motivations, and thoughts. I do not see people as self-existing entities, but as the results of causes. "People" do not exist in the way you think they do.



The fool searches for his roots, but is perplexed when they keep branching into other species.



It takes a lifetime to build up a secure dream, a dream that can justify one's loves and relationships. And when it is done, there is great comfort. Then God enters the picture! And when he has taken the dream apart, it is impossible to put it back together again. God is fatal.



One has only to drop everything with a devoted love of God and in a moment you have cast off your burden and become a Buddha. Suddenly you are no longer the doer, but God is the doer, and He takes all responsibilities.



The fool, blinded by his hurt, is too busy worrying about the rude invasion of his privacy to think of removing the arrow, and save his own life.



You fools think you can learn all that is false while you merrily bathe in falsity like pigs in swill. Your whole world is false: you can only relate your falsities to other falsities. Consequently, even your falsities are false.



Speak always of non-attachment, and with disgust for all things petty --- and watch them run for cover - purely for self survival!



God is found --- only at the expense of others.



Imagine a bond between all people, an elastic bond. THe more highly you develop spiritually, the greater is the force pulling you back down. The mre you must depend on the grace of God to counteract the increasing pull from below.

And as much as the weight of the world pulls you down . . . you pull the entire world up with you as you go.




The authority of the sage does not come from any scriptures or any grand historic tradition, but is his own, and is absolute.



How can others be so different from me? Am i not human?



The void is a deep and dark ocean. If you as much as generate a single deluded thought, great and furious currents well into being. When this hapens, the fabric of reality itself is disturbed.

Therefore be still and unmoving, like an uncarved block of wood. Return to what you were before your mother and father were born.



Lust itself vanishes with even a single breath of the true joyful wisdom.



My happiness is more different than you think. While your happiness is the cause of suffering, and your suffering is the cause of happiness, my happiness, and my future, is beyond both happiness and suffering. My future is the wreckless, extravagant and ruthless joy of Nature Herself; a timeless romp across Universes; the creation and destruction of gods and men; playing iwth the sands of time. It is the joy... the joy that i couldn't be born, even if i wanted to.




Those who are truly human will overflow with joy when you show them their own ugliness, and they will beg you to reveal more --- others will blink.



Only the individual, thinking with his whole being, sees the true and ugly face of love. Then love, for him, becomes impossible. However, this is not the end of it, for he will be swept up by a vast wind, and a new love, that will carry him beyond desire. He will discover Truth, and Love is Truth, and True Love is being truthful. No longer will he wander aimlessly through the cruel mystery of love, life, and suffering. No longer will he be love's slave, and his life a juggling act with contradictory opposites. He will be free.



It is not by chance i entitled this collection of writings "Poison for the heart".



If i created the illusion of an elephant floating in mid-air, would the elephant really exist? The illusion certainly exists, but the elephant is not a reality. As soon as i stop creating the causes for the illusion, it immediately ceases. So it is with the ego.

Elizabeth wrote: You still have a very strong attachment to your ego.

Kelly Jones wrote:It was a really low grade of humour. The kind that loves to make fun of lofty ideals.

Generally don't like that kind.

Elizabeth: Saying that you don't like that kind implies that there is another kind of humor that you like. I thought you probably did not like humor at all. What kind of humor do you like?

consensus is required for communication.

A consensus was reached that this things was to be called an apple. This is the basis of communication. Had one insisted "apple" and the other insisted "poo" to the point that no consensus was reached (even the consensus of one calling it apple and the other calling it poo), communication would not be possible.

Do you see the difference between being a nonconformist, and not being herdly?

Kelly: Both you and Passthrough have the same queer idea that truth is found through consensus.

Elizabeth: You are incorrect.

Kelly: Have you ever thought how abusive to individual intelligence such an idea is?

Elizabeth: You use the word "abuse" a great deal. When a word is used too often, it tends to lose meaning. A better way to phrase that would be "Have you ever realized how opinions by consensus make minds lazy?"

Elizabeth: If you have one, what is your goal in philosophy?

Kelly: There is only one goal in philosophy.

Elizabeth: Would you articulate your perception of what that goal is in one complete sentance, please?

Kelly Jones wrote:unlike the person who is unconscious of what the ego is, i am conscious of the ego, and use it consciously.

Kelly Jones wrote:I have no idea what anyone means by what they say. I only know what i mean. Yet i have no difficulty making sense and communicating.

On being able to see the difference between being a nonconformist and being herdly, Kelly Jones wrote:Depends how you define them.

Kelly Jones wrote:Pardon me, but your second-to-last statement above, regarding dialogue, indicates that you believe truth is arrived at through consensus.

Kelly Jones wrote:i won't be rephrasing my use of "abuse". I don't wish to alienate people unnecessarily, but i think it's important to confront it.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Do you believe that concious use of attachments is better than non-attachment?

Kelly Jones wrote:I have no idea what anyone means by what they say. I only know what i mean. Yet i have no difficulty making sense and communicating.

Elizabeth: It is not possible to have good communication skills with others and not have any idea what others mean by what they say.

Since you know what you mean, you are probably communicating fine with yourself, but you are not in good communication with others.

As for making sense, perhaps you make sense to yourself, but often you do not make sense to me. That is the motivation for these and previously asked questions.

A nonconformist is one who refuses to conform. Not being herdly is not doing things just because the herd is doing them. One could be non-herdly and still do what the herd is doing but for their own logical reasons, whereas a nonconformist will do things jsut to be different from the herd - whether these things are to their ultimate benefit or not.

Kelly Jones wrote:Pardon me, but your second-to-last statement above, regarding dialogue, indicates that you believe truth is arrived at through consensus.

Elizabeth: You said above that you had no idea what anyone means by what they say. It is obvious in this that you have no idea what I meant, yet now you are insisting that you do know - and your "knowledge" is incorrect.

In Ft. Pierce where I grew up, somebody shot the ice cream man. At first there were over 20 witnesses. After a week or so, all of the witnesses had decided that nobody had seen anything after all. I would not say that was the truth, even though it was the consensus.

Kelly Jones wrote:i won't be rephrasing my use of "abuse". I don't wish to alienate people unnecessarily, but i think it's important to confront it.

Elizabeth: I don't feel alienated. I think that your using the word "abuse" like you do makes you sound silly and naive, but it doesn't alienate me. For a little while I was wishing that someone would physically explain to you what abuse really is, as sometimes that is the only way to get the concept across -

and all they would have to do is bring a copy of your posts about "why women like abuse" and they would legally be off the hook,

but this would be an instance where it is better to not have an attachment to truth.

I accept that you may have to remain ignorant of the true nature of abuse, and simply think that you are being abused.

I find it a tragedy that you think you are being abused by seeing people hold hands and other things of that nature, but some people like tragedies. You may be one of them.

Kelly Jones wrote:The truth or falsehood of any statement is not arrived at through consensus, for the reason that no one can know what anyone else means by their statements.

The belief that people can know the thoughts and meanings of other consciousnesses, by somehow leaping outside of their own mind, and therefore arrive at truth "by consensus" is unrealistic.

Matt Gregory wrote:Kelly:The truth or falsehood of any statement is not arrived at through consensus, for the reason that no one can know what anyone else means by their statements.

Matt: That's not really the reason. The reason is because truth and falsehood can only determined with logic. Whether consensus can or can't be arrived at has nothing to do with it.

Kelly: The belief that people can know the thoughts and meanings of other consciousnesses, by somehow leaping outside of their own mind, and therefore arrive at truth "by consensus" is unrealistic.

Matt: We might not be able to know what someone means with certainty, but we can know it well enough for practical purposes if we're careful enough.

Kelly Jones wrote:The truth or falsehood of any statement is not arrived at through consensus;

the reason consensus does not enable truth or falsehood to be arrived at is because no one can know what anyone else means by their statements.

However, i should add that consensus does exist, in the form of agreement between one's own meanings.

This type of consensus does enables the truth or falsehood of any statement to be arrived at.

Kelly: The belief that people can know the thoughts and meanings of other consciousnesses, by somehow leaping outside of their own mind, and therefore arrive at truth "by consensus" is unrealistic.

Matt: We might not be able to know what someone means with certainty, but we can know it well enough for practical purposes if we're careful enough.

You're joking, aren't you?

"Someone other than me" doesn't have any other reality other than what is experienced in my mind.

So, one can never know with certainty because one can never know at all.

Or are you trying to say something different to this?

Matt Gregory wrote:
K: the reason consensus does not enable truth or falsehood to be arrived at is because no one can know what anyone else means by their statements.

M: No, the reason is because consensus is not logic and logic is the only thing that enables us to arrive at truth.

K: The belief that people can know the thoughts and meanings of other consciousnesses, by somehow leaping outside of their own mind, and therefore arrive at truth "by consensus" is unrealistic.

M: We might not be able to know what someone means with certainty, but we can know it well enough for practical purposes if we're careful enough.

K: "Someone other than me" doesn't have any other reality other than what is experienced in my mind.

M: So then why are you talking to me right now? You're saying one thing and doing another.

K: So, one can never know with certainty because one can never know at all.

Or are you trying to say something different to this?

M: Yeah, I'm saying you can't defeat an empirical reality with a philosophical argument. It's true we can't be certain of other people's meanings, but that doesn't mean we can no longer know them as empirical knowledge.

The point of that argument is to direct us towards pure logical knowledge that's over and above the already existing limitations of empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge doesn't need to be dismantled or anything like that.

But anyway, even if we were 100% certain about other people's meanings and were able to reach a certain consensus, that still isn't enough to enable us to arrive at truth because figuring out what is true is something only logic can do.

Kelly Jones wrote:Hey Matt,

I was planning to have several days' break from the computer. My explanations will be better that way. So, this is the last one for a while.

Matt Gregory wrote:
K: the reason consensus does not enable truth or falsehood to be arrived at is because no one can know what anyone else means by their statements.

M: No, the reason is because consensus is not logic and logic is the only thing that enables us to arrive at truth.

K: Yes, i agree. But we're saying the same thing.

A consensus is an agreement between two "things" that another thing is true.

In the case of a so-called consensus between two people, there are two selves that each say that one thing is true

(and this one thing seems to be the same one thing).

In the case of a consensus in one's own mind, there are two different things that the function of logic equates. Since the self is this function (namely, the ability to remember and relate), those two different things are essentially two "awarenesses" that are equated. There is truly consensus, because the self remembers each awareness and equates them.

This is the only way that truth can be arrived at, through a thing being known as itself. So consensus (as defined here) is logic.

K: The belief that people can know the thoughts and meanings of other consciousnesses, by somehow leaping outside of their own mind, and therefore arrive at truth "by consensus" is unrealistic.

M: We might not be able to know what someone means with certainty, but we can know it well enough for practical purposes if we're careful enough.

K: "Someone other than me" doesn't have any other reality other than what is experienced in my mind.

M: So then why are you talking to me right now? You're saying one thing and doing another.

K: You exist in my mind, and so does this discussion.

K: So, one can never know with certainty because one can never know at all.

Or are you trying to say something different to this?

M: Yeah, I'm saying you can't defeat an empirical reality with a philosophical argument. It's true we can't be certain of other people's meanings, but that doesn't mean we can no longer know them as empirical knowledge.

K: Appearances aren't empirical. They're certain. What specific identity they are given is not certain.

So the appearance of someone, or a discussion, is not an empirical reality. It's not really a someone or a discussion. It's just whatever it appears to be.

M: The point of that argument is to direct us towards pure logical knowledge that's over and above the already existing limitations of empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge doesn't need to be dismantled or anything like that.

K: I don't know what argument you're talking about.

K: I'm not saying that the meaning of someone else's words, that they give to them, is empirical. Rather, i'm saying that's unknowable because it doesn't present any appearance at all.

Any meaning that does appear, such as "what that person means" is the meaning i give to words.

K: The meaning i give to anything is certainly what it is, but whether it is a truthful interpretation of any particular appearance is uncertain.

M: But anyway, even if we were 100% certain about other people's meanings and were able to reach a certain consensus, that still isn't enough to enable us to arrive at truth because figuring out what is true is something only logic can do.

K: No, being 100% certain is the same as arriving at truth. It cannot happen without logic.

The only way we could be 100% certain about what someone else was thinking (which is logically impossible, since consciousness is consciousness, and can never be divided up into "my" and "not-my" --- regardless of what Spock did) is to use logic.

How much experience do you have of thinking freely?

Both you and Passthrough have the same queer idea that truth is found through consensus. The truth or falsehood of any statement is not arrived at through consensus, for the reason that no one can know what anyone else means by their statements. The belief that people can know the thoughts and meanings of other consciousnesses, by somehow leaping outside of their own mind, and therefore arrive at truth "by consensus" is unrealistic.

Have you ever thought how abusive to individual intelligence such an idea is?

Hi Passthrough, It's hard to remember who you are with that name!

I'll try to reply to your post in the "God alone is good" thread soon, and the one above. On second thoughts, i'm not going to start writing to the forum again. Too much real work to do.

I find it interesting how, one can struggle for ages with a dense blockage --- a wedge between one and God ---- and make no real progress at all.

But, all that struggle has the effect of chipping slowly away. Just one sharp small blow, even when thoroughly sick and tired of it all, and wholly enervated and being on the verge of defiance, has the desperation enough for a resolution. And there is justice eventually.

Perhaps the desperation is a kind of honesty, to say, "I can't go on, but i'm damned if i give up" ---- so one goes on.

There's a tiny hole in the cage, and it may get a bit bigger.

Good Luck