GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan R,

First of all I am a student so I don't have a career at the time. If I do have a career it will probably be in Parks, Forestry, Limnology or something. However I am more interested in philosophy at this point.

WW: These statements create danger and suffering? I don't see anything inherently wrong with Hitlers. In fact Nietzsche would probably be happy that Hitler stirred the pot up and created war, which Nietzsche realizes is necessary for the overcoming of humanity -- his goal.

Ryan: Yes, but think of all the soldiers that died defending democracy and freedom from the allied countries.

They died defending a dubious cause: the system that leads to a mediocre society. And they were probably mostly ignorant herd members -- why would a genius like yourself care?

Ryan: Many of them probably could have became much more than just cannon fodder.

That's what human beings are -- cannon fodder. And you are still trying to pull the Christian morality move on me: "oh woe to them they died!" Let me explain something: Life and death happen together. We all die and there is nothing beyond death; no great judgment, heaven, or hell pursues. There is nothing inherently "bad" about dieing. If you don't want to die you can try and prolong it. It is ironic that this morality is so anti-death because none of us could live without killing other organisms. In a very real way life requires death. In the same way there there is nothing inherently bad about death, there is nothing inherently good about prolonging life at all cost, maximizing the number of living people on earth, or WHATEVER. Life is a cycle of chemicals that must constantly be flowing and RECYCLED, thanks to an energy input, to sustain us. It is entirely untenable to think of a world where people didn't die.

Furthermore, it is highly ironic that you think wars are bad because people die fighting in them. Think of how many people died throughout the entire history of humanity so that we can live as we do. Advancement of humanity in all areas requires 'space monkeys' who are sacrificed (in life or death) to that end. So thanks to billions of people dieing in the past you can now live in the state you currently do -- and you are going to sit there complaining about people dying!!!

Ryan: World War II seems like a dark blind movement of ignorance.

Why WW2? Why not just say: "Participating in life seems like a dark blind movement of ignorance!" "Having values other than nihilism is delusional and ignorant!"

Ryan: Yes, many ignorant individuals died, but they took with them many intelligent people who were just trying to restore a peaceful balance.

You claim that intelligent people want a peaceful balance which is NOT INHERENTLY TRUE. Intelligent people who value mediocrity and/or non-suffering want a peaceful balance. Intelligent people who have other values can end up wanting the opposite. The point of me creating this thread was to try and challenge your value of non-suffering.

Ryan: Hitler may have come to some honest conclusions about the general inherent inferiority of certain raches, but his approac was wrong, genocide seems rather barbaric to me. There must be an easier way….

And some more presuppositions.... Barbaric -- How does calling something barbaric count as an argument against it? How was his approach wrong? Would he be better to implement democracy for all?! Clearly he disagreed with you here. What other approach should he have taken in your opinion? Claiming that Hitler took the wrong approach is sheer stupidity as he clearly doesn't share your presuppositions. What you should do is challenge his presuppositions... ... ... in the same way that I am trying to challenge yours.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:The herd only prevails if they are in charge.

they are USUALLY in charge due to their numbers, especially in post-secondary education.

He exists in the Bible and has had a large influence on the last two millenniums. Whether or not he actually lived or is a fictional character is irrelevant.

this idiot is so incoherent. Are you praising Jesus or condemning him???? You sounded like you were praising him before, and now you're condemning Christianity. Existing in the bible isn't existing in real life you malignant sow. yes he has had a large influence alright, being misinterpreted to fit mediocrity and being represented to kill millions. It's not irrelevant at all whether he lived or not, if he did live it shows that someone would actually go to that length and have himself crucified, which I find INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY. You really are a fucking imbecile.

These statements create danger and suffering? I don't see anything inherently wrong with Hitlers. In fact Nietzsche would probably be happy that Hitler stirred the pot up and created war, which Nietzsche realizes is necessary for the overcoming of humanity -- his goal.

Nietzsche would probably NOT be happy about hitler. WTF is the overcoming of humanity???? And war is not doing anything for it, such vague cliches. Nietzsche's overcoming means removing delusions and becoming enlightened.

Defending suffering. I have no career.

science and maths don't defend suffering, on the contrary they improve our lives you malignant sow. You really are a fucking imbecile.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:First of all I am a student so I don't have a career at the time. If I do have a career it will probably be in Parks, Forestry, Limnology or something. However I am more interested in philosophy at this point.

those don't sound like defending suffering. Philosophy consists of suffering because it's hard to keep one's consciousness active in thinking without the ego telling it "ignore ignore! have fun!"

They died defending a dubious cause: the system that leads to a mediocre society. And they were probably mostly ignorant herd members -- why would a genius like yourself care?

they died defending a dubious cause??? So war leads to a mediocre society??? You realize you're contradicting yourself??? You defend war then you say ignorant herd members participated in it???

Let me explain something: Life and death happen together. We all die and there is nothing beyond death; no great judgment, heaven, or hell pursues. There is nothing inherently "bad" about dieing. If you don't want to die you can try and prolong it. It is ironic that this morality is so anti-death because none of us could live without killing other organisms. In a very real way life requires death. In the same way there there is nothing inherently bad about death, there is nothing inherently good about prolonging life at all cost, maximizing the number of living people on earth, or WHATEVER. Life is a cycle of chemicals that must constantly be flowing and RECYCLED, thanks to an energy input, to sustain us. It is entirely untenable to think of a world where people didn't die.

you're so stupid!!!! There's a difference between dying and actively killing you malignant sow. Maximizing the number of people living on earth??? Sounds like SCIENCE to me, imbecile. There's a difference with dying due to old age, and dying by having artillery crush you in the balls.

Furthermore, it is highly ironic that you think wars are bad because people die fighting in them. Think of how many people died throughout the entire history of humanity so that we can live as we do. Advancement of humanity in all areas requires 'space monkeys' who are sacrificed (in life or death) to that end. So thanks to billions of people dieing in the past you can now live in the state you currently do -- and you are going to sit there complaining about people dying!!!

more imbecile rubbish!!! This idiot sounds like a fucking 15year old. The way we live isn't as a result of 'billions' of people dying as you think. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY have improved the ways we live, and this has NOTHING to do with 'sacrificing' 'space monkeys' (WTF?)

Why WW2? Why not just say: "Participating in life seems like a dark blind movement of ignorance!" "Having values other than nihilism is delusional and ignorant!"

WTF??? You're so incoherent and contradictory it makes me puke. Go back to grade school or something, perhaps you're better off studying your lakes and rambling to the fishies. So now you agree with us that participating in life is a dark blind movement of ignorance????? WW2 is nihilism you retard. You are really a fucking retard. Mindlessly killing people is nihilism.

You claim that intelligent people want a peaceful balance which is NOT INHERENTLY TRUE. Intelligent people who value mediocrity and/or non-suffering want a peaceful balance. Intelligent people who have other values can end up wanting the opposite. The point of me creating this thread was to try and challenge your value of non-suffering.

well you fail, and you're a fucking idiot. Intelligent people want a war-less world because war is useless. War-less world isn't 'mediocrity' you numbskull. mediocrity is participating in the madness of society. What you fail to realize is that philosophers take up philosophical suffering, because it's worth it, whereas societal suffering isn't.

And some more presuppositions.... Barbaric -- How does calling something barbaric count as an argument against it? How was his approach wrong? Would he be better to implement democracy for all?! Clearly he disagreed with you here. What other approach should he have taken in your opinion? Claiming that Hitler took the wrong approach is sheer stupidity as he clearly doesn't share your presuppositions. What you should do is challenge his presuppositions... ... ... in the same way that I am trying to challenge yours.

you're so fucking stupid!!!! Go back to grade school and attending to your parks!!! Hitler was wrong about the Jews being a race, that was a BIG mistake. And if the holocaust did happen, he would have lost many intelligent people. The Nazis didn't like intelligent people like Freud, and others. They burned books, that's totally mediocrity.

WW wrote:

They died defending a dubious cause: the system that leads to a mediocre society. And they were probably mostly ignorant herd members -- why would a genius like yourself care?

Because it is easier for a genius to thrive in a mediocre society than a Nazi Dictatorship. It is all relative. Mediocre democratic societies that are free of war and civil upheaval are much more fertile for the emergence of genius than any other environment that I know of. All I care about is the emergence of wisdom, and if mediocre technological capitalist societies are the best environment then so be it.

WW wrote:

In a very real way life requires death.

But in my view, wise individuals don’t kill to promote their cause, they accept ‘what is’ and go about their day to day business, amongst the ignorant ones. Part of the enlightened path is an acceptance to ‘what is’ without the compulsion to want to change things externally through rebellion, murder and what have you.

WW wrote:

there is nothing inherently good about prolonging life at all cost,

I agree that it doesn’t matter how long you live, but if you have enlightenment potential, a long life might be desirable because it allows you to perfect your mind and daily habits. War does wipe out overpopulated areas of ignorance, but there are much less brutal ways to lower population levels, like lets say educating people on the vices of attachment and letting them know that marriage and children wont make your life better. Perhaps destroying man’s infatuation with women, and destroying the woman’s obsession with romance. Those are much gentler ways to lower the population than things like genocide. The enlightened man wants to find the most humane ways to further his cause, and this is why I was brainstorming possible reform policies that the government could implement that could also lower population levels, and reduce the numbers of inferiors from the genepool.

WW wrote:

You claim that intelligent people want a peaceful balance which is NOT INHERENTLY TRUE. Intelligent people who value mediocrity and/or non-suffering want a peaceful balance. Intelligent people who have other values can end up wanting the opposite. The point of me creating this thread was to try and challenge your value of non-suffering.

You are in the stage of your path, where you have hatred for humanity, and you want to lash out against what you despise by destroying it, but this is only the beginning stages of enlightenment. You are definitely on the right path, as you are intelligent enough to see what is wrong in many cases, but the hatred, the desire for violence, and power need to go from your mind…

To get the truth, one needs to suffer deeply, so it is better to attack people’s ideas and hurt their egos, than to start a war, rebellion or something like that. For instance: there is an atheism movement that is attacking the irrationality of religion, and illustrating which is more intelligent, and hurting a lot of people in the process. This is suffering in its right place. On the other hand, to me, genocide, war, rebellion is inflicting suffering in its wrong place.

WW wrote:

And some more presuppositions.... Barbaric -- How does calling something barbaric count as an argument against it? How was his approach wrong? Would he be better to implement democracy for all?! Clearly he disagreed with you here. What other approach should he have taken in your opinion? Claiming that Hitler took the wrong approach is sheer stupidity as he clearly doesn't share your presuppositions. What you should do is challenge his presuppositions... ... ... in the same way that I am trying to challenge yours.

Hitler didn’t accomplish anything significant, but inflict a lot of suffering on people who were just trying to survive. Ignorant or not, people have basic human rights that need to be honored. They are sentient beings that are capable of severe suffering, and one needs to think of this fact before resorting to any sort of barbarity to try to remove what one believes is inferior.

The radical islamists think just like Hitler did, only they are lashing out with a different idea in their mind. Ideas are like viruses or parasites in the minds of men because they cause men to act out violently in the name of their idea. Hitler and Racial islamists are not all that different in my opinion. Both have lost their sanity by being controlled by an idea, and resorted to insanity, which is violence.

Think about it this way – over 95% of the world population are fairly stupid and ignorant. What are we going to do? Murder most of the world’s population. The intelligent thing to do is to tackle key problems in the system or with human nature, and write works of scientific analysis exploring what is inferior about humans and why.

You change things through spreading greater understanding, and if no one changes, who cares, this is only one tiny planet, among billions, and if life goes extinct because of our collective ignorance then so be it, the earth could heal over thousands of years, and produce another sentient being from the dust, and maybe try again. I don't get emotional over it, it is paradoxically really. On the one hand, I am indifferent as to what happens to myself or this planet, but I also see the importance of supporting the cause of rational thought. .

The key is working on perfecting ones own mind and habits to the best of ones ability, and this includes keeping the violent thoughts in check, yes, males will have thoughts to destroy what they think is inferior through force, as this is part of the masculine drive, which has evolved for thousands of years, but I say it is animalistic, and one must keep those thoughts in check when they arise, and not trust their vitality….

Even a mind that bathes in emptiness has these types of thoughts from time to time, but it seems to me that the origins of these thoughts are in the emotions, and the emotions are always irrational.

Faust13,
You might go find another thread to insult people in as I am going to ignore you here.

Ryan,

Ryan: Because it is easier for a genius to thrive in a mediocre society than a Nazi Dictatorship.

Interesting. I don't know if this is true, but it is certainly true that non-suffering would thrive better in a mediocre democracy than a dictatorship. Perhaps that's what you meant though?

Ryan: But in my view, wise individuals don’t kill to promote their cause, they accept ‘what is’ and go about their day to day business, amongst the ignorant ones.

In your view wise people can have no cause other than spreading wisdom. In my view a wise person will accept "what is" but they will realize that through their own day to day actions they are shaping the future. Thus his day to day actions will reflect his cause -- whatever it is.

WW: there is nothing inherently good about prolonging life at all cost,

Ryan: I agree that it doesn’t matter how long you live, but if you have enlightenment potential, a long life might be desirable because it allows you to perfect your mind and daily habits.

Why does a nihilist want to perfect his mind and daily habits when he realizes that he has no absolute existence? Isn't this like masturbation? Self-vanity?

Ryan: War does wipe out overpopulated areas of ignorance, but there are much less brutal ways to lower population levels, like lets say educating people on the vices of attachment and letting them know that marriage and children wont make your life better. Perhaps destroying man’s infatuation with women, and destroying the woman’s obsession with romance. Those are much gentler ways to lower the population than things like genocide.

Those would take lots of time assuming they are even possible. We have a population crisis. You are partial towards "gentle" methods yet there is no reason that a genius needs to be or should be.

Ryan: The enlightened man wants to find the most humane ways to further his cause

The enlightened man supposedly values truth over Christian morality so I don't see how this could be true.

WW: You claim that intelligent people want a peaceful balance which is NOT INHERENTLY TRUE. Intelligent people who value mediocrity and/or non-suffering want a peaceful balance. Intelligent people who have other values can end up wanting the opposite. The point of me creating this thread was to try and challenge your value of non-suffering.

Ryan: To get the truth, one needs to suffer deeply, so it is better to attack people’s ideas and hurt their egos, than to start a war, rebellion or something like that. For instance: there is an atheism movement that is attacking the irrationality of religion, and illustrating which is more intelligent, and hurting a lot of people in the process. This is suffering in its right place. On the other hand, to me, genocide, war, rebellion is inflicting suffering in its wrong place.

It depends what your end is I guess. If you are aiming towards a society of Buddhas as your goal then I suppose you are right. However this goal would suck IMO. Since everyone would be engaged in non-action there would be no action, no humanity. There would just be a whole bunch of "human beings" who pop into the world, "perfect their mind", maybe have a kid, and die. Boring.... :)

Ryan: Hitler didn’t accomplish anything significant, but inflict a lot of suffering on people who were just trying to survive.

Inflicting suffering on people who are just trying to survive isn't inherently a negative thing. It has only been so since Christian morality took over society.

Ryan: Ignorant or not, people have basic human rights that need to be honored.

I disagree with this sentiment. A group of people come together and none of them want to suffer so they create some "human rights". These people are ignorant and don't realize that suffering is necessary for overcoming. If they had their way we would all be passive creatures who sit around in happy land all day -- their goal.

Ryan: They are sentient beings that are capable of severe suffering, and one needs to think of this fact before resorting to any sort of barbarity to try to remove what one believes is inferior.

What does suffering matter once they have been removed? They won't remember it. They won't suffer for eternity. The ones still alive will suffer and overcome the suffering and in the process overcome themselves.

Ryan: The radical islamists think just like Hitler did, only they are lashing out with a different idea in their mind. Ideas are like viruses or parasites in the minds of men because they cause men to act out violently in the name of their idea. Hitler and Racial islamists are not all that different in my opinion. Both have lost their sanity by being controlled by an idea, and resorted to insanity, which is violence.

False. Violence is natural. Non-violence and non-action are unnatural. You conclude that ideals (goals/actions) are bad because they cause suffering. Once again we are back to the starting point -- you simply don't want any suffering in this world and I do.

Ryan: Think about it this way – over 95% of the world population are fairly stupid and ignorant. What are we going to do? Murder most of the world’s population. The intelligent thing to do is to tackle key problems in the system or with human nature, and write works of scientific analysis exploring what is inferior about humans and why.

We have no reason to kill all ignorant people. We are all part of humanity. However we might want to, perhaps, lower the population by a few billion so that our environment isn't as strained.

Ryan: You change things through spreading greater understanding, and if no one changes, who cares, this is only one tiny planet, among billions, and if life goes extinct because of our collective ignorance then so be it, the earth could heal over thousands of years, and produce another sentient being from the dust, and maybe try again. I don't get emotional over it, it is paradoxically really. On the one hand, I am indifferent as to what happens to myself or this planet, but I also see the importance of supporting the cause of rational thought. .

Yes that is the paradox of valuing nothing but the spread of passive nihilism.

Ryan: The key is working on perfecting ones own mind and habits to the best of ones ability

Why masturbate? Why not just commit suicide?

WW wrote:

It depends what your end is I guess. If you are aiming towards a society of Buddhas as your goal then I suppose you are right. However this goal would suck IMO. Since everyone would be engaged in non-action there would be no action, no humanity. There would just be a whole bunch of "human beings" who pop into the world, "perfect their mind", maybe have a kid, and die. Boring.... :)

Well, action is overrated, I prefer rational thinking over action, so what is your alternative some sort of ‘Rambo’ style massacre where you kill thousands of humans in a blaze of glory? Sounds a lot like a suicide bomber to me, and my opinion of them isn’t too high…

WW wrote:

False. Violence is natural. Non-violence and non-action are unnatural. You conclude that ideals (goals/actions) are bad because they cause suffering. Once again we are back to the starting point -- you simply don't want any suffering in this world and I do.

Violence maybe natural, but its not necessary, the scope of violence you recommend could never be achieved anyway, and it could only be done through horrific suffering to people. I agree that psychological suffering is necessary, but to inflict bodily suffering on others through murder is an entire different thing. Look of the affect the Halocaust has had on the Jewish race, it has only magnified and exaggerated some of their negative behavior because the people are still traumatized by WW2.

WW wrote:

However we might want to, perhaps, lower the population by a few billion so that our environment isn't as strained.

As countries become more developed, the population levels decrease anyway, plus there are lots of ways in which the population will continue to decrease or at least stabilize, there is an AIDS epidemic in Africa and China, and then there is the political disorder in the middle-east. Nature destroys life, without intervention from individuals who would prefer to see things a different way. Global warming and the upcoming energy crisis will destroy millions of people probably…

Your desire to step in and take action is rooted in a deep emotional discontent, but you need to realize your own limitations as one human being, there is nothing significant you can do is change the external causal circumstances, large acts of violence against humanity just doesn't seem like a viable option to me, it seems like an emotional reaction to 'what is'...

WW wrote:

Why not just commit suicide?

If life becomes too unbearable, I’m not against suicide, but as long as life is manageable, there is no reason to take ones own life. However, if I feel my mind start to decay as I get older, and I can no longer think critically, or take care of my bodily functions on my own, then I will certainly commit suicide.

I think an interesting way to commit suicide would be to drop a few grams of mushrooms, and skydive over the ocean without a parachute, you wouldn’t have to worry about a funeral, or how to dispose of the body or anything, but it would probably be an interesting trip on your way down…

Ryan,

Well, action is overrated, I prefer rational thinking over action,

How do they compare? Action is interacting with the rest of the world. Rational thought is doing something for yourself that should, IMO, only be the precursor to action, otherwise it is completely useless. Only action has an effect.

so what is your alternative some sort of ‘Rambo’ style massacre where you kill thousands of humans in a blaze of glory? Sounds a lot like a suicide bomber to me, and my opinion of them isn’t too high…

We are all suicide bombers in a sense. The only difference is what cause we live and die for -- assuming we have a cause.

Violence maybe natural, but its not necessary, the scope of violence you recommend could never be achieved anyway, and it could only be done through horrific suffering to people.

You must realize that there is nothing wrong with "horrific suffering to people". It is an emotional claim otherwise, not a rational one.

As countries become more developed, the population levels decrease anyway, plus there are lots of ways in which the population will continue to decrease or at least stabilize, there is an AIDS epidemic in Africa and China, and then there is the political disorder in the middle-east. Nature destroys life, without intervention from individuals who would prefer to see things a different way. Global warming and the upcoming energy crisis will destroy millions of people probably…

I agree that nature will limit us -- hopefully. My hope is that we don't push the equilibrium too far and suddenly see an extinction of higher life on earth. This would stem out of the same things we see in society today -- wishing to remove suffering and prolong life and quality of life. I also hope we don't go towards some stagnant state: everyone may be happy/content and there may be no suffering but it would get extremely boring.

Your desire to step in and take action is rooted in a deep emotional discontent, but you need to realize your own limitations as one human being, there is nothing significant you can do is change the external causal circumstances, large acts of violence against humanity just doesn't seem like a viable option to me, it seems like an emotional reaction to 'what is'...

There are countless people in history who we could name that have, despite being 1 person, made a difference. I'm not going to become a mass murderer but I might promote someone who is better suited for the task.

If life becomes too unbearable, I’m not against suicide,

Here is the irony. You have already effectively committed suicide so that life will not become unbearable! If a man lives and dies in the forest and nobody sees him did he live? In the sense of leaving some impact he had might as well not have because his impact is almost nothing to the rest of nature -- at least he never suffered though right? He had might as well have gone into the bush and committed suicide.

WW wrote:

How do they compare? Action is interacting with the rest of the world. Rational thought is doing something for yourself that should, IMO, only be the precursor to action, otherwise it is completely useless. Only action has an effect.

The rational thinking is the action, and the consequences of rational thinking is the affect.

WW wrote:

We are all suicide bombers in a sense. The only difference is what cause we live and die for -- assuming we have a cause.

Yes, I have a cause, and it is to promote wise contemplation over harsh emotional reactions to ugly circumstances. I am not a suicide bomber because I’m not willing to kill myself or another to justify my cause.

WW wrote:

You must realize that there is nothing wrong with "horrific suffering to people". It is an emotional claim otherwise, not a rational one

You must realize that your idea to murder humans is an emotional claim as well.

WW wrote:

My hope is that we don't push the equilibrium too far and suddenly see an extinction of higher life on earth.

Don’t worry about higher life, natural selection will keep producing new interesting creatures for you to look at. The tiger is no more important than the maggot as far as natural selection is concerned, the question is which one will be able to survive humanity’s alternations to the environment? A loss of species is inevitable, but evolution is not a stagnant process, it will go on. perhaps you may even see robotic species merging with biological ones, but it is all natural. Who knows what is possible..

In geologic history, large percentages of species have been totally wiped off the planet through natural processes, and new interesting species came back, the earth is able to regenerate after incredible forms of destruction. Actually, in a sense, the ice ages act as cleansing processes, and the global warming that we are now seeing could be a natural phenomenon leading up to the next ice age, the next cleansing process.

WW wrote:

everyone may be happy/content and there may be no suffering but it would get extremely boring.

Do you find suffering and drama exciting? You might want to ask why you prefer misery on the planet over calm and peace? You are in contradiction because on the one hand you want to inflict suffering on others to relieve yourself of suffering, but you don't want others to be free from suffering because that would be boring. There is a state of emptiness that one can tap into where there is no boredom and anxiety.

WW wrote:

I'm not going to become a mass murderer but I might promote someone who is better suited for the task.

So who are you going to promote? And what task is he suited for?

WW wrote:

You have already effectively committed suicide so that life will not become unbearable! If a man lives and dies in the forest and nobody sees him did he live? In the sense of leaving some impact he had might as well not have because his impact is almost nothing to the rest of nature -- at least he never suffered though right? He had might as well have gone into the bush and committed suicide.

You are obsessed with leaving a legacy, and achieving immortality through your personal actions, but you need to ask the question of whether this is sane or not. Remember, the Asian fellow you shot a bunch of students in Virginia tech, he was also concerned with leaving a legacy, and what sort of difference has he made?

This conversation is making a difference, two individuals reasoning out humanities problems, why do you want more than that?

WW: You have already effectively committed suicide so that life will not become unbearable! If a man lives and dies in the forest and nobody sees him did he live? In the sense of leaving some impact he had might as well not have because his impact is almost nothing to the rest of nature -- at least he never suffered though right? He had might as well have gone into the bush and committed suicide.

RR: You are obsessed with leaving a legacy, and achieving immortality through your personal actions, but you need to ask the question of whether this is sane or not. Remember, the Asian fellow you shot a bunch of students in Virginia tech, he was also concerned with leaving a legacy, and what sort of difference has he made?

Realizing your immortal nature, and having your thought and action guided by a consideration of your immortal nature is perfectly logical.

But there is a big difference between that, and craving to witness yourself take part in a radical action which you hope will be remembered as great.

A sage plods along sowing seeds, doing small things.

A power hungry vanity makes plans to do one particular thing, that if he were to do, would leave him a miserable slave to his very lunge at greatness. He would be left fogged and unable to live his remaining moments with a clear awareness of his immortal nature.

Cory wrote:

Realizing your immortal nature, and having your thought and action guided by a consideration of your immortal nature is perfectly logical.

I wouldn’t call it a realization of ones immortal nature, I would just say that one simply realizes that his words, thoughts and actions matter to a certain degree because he is able to influence a small minority of people who are able to understand what the hell he is talking about.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Cory wrote:

Realizing your immortal nature, and having your thought and action guided by a consideration of your immortal nature is perfectly logical.

I wouldn’t call it a realization of ones immortal nature, I would just say that one simply realizes that his words, thoughts and actions matter to a certain degree because he is able to influence a small minority of people who are able to understand what the hell he is talking about.

The division between the influencer and the influenced isn't really there. To realize this is to realize one's immortal nature. Everyone is immortal in this sense, but few people are able to live with this awareness sustained, for if they did, it would radically alter their lifestyle.

Cory wrote:

The division between the influencer and the influenced isn't really there. To realize this is to realize one's immortal nature. Everyone is immortal in this sense, but few people are able to live with this awareness sustained, for if they did, it would radically alter their lifestyle.

Yes, but people are still influenced by the thinking of other thinkers. To say anything about the world we need to divide it up and use logical divisions like the thinker and the listener, or the speaker and the listener.

I wouldn’t call it an immortal nature because it sounds like an exaggeration of ‘what is’ There is absolutely nothing there at the core of ones being, nothing. No immortal nature, not even a nature, let alone an immortal one.

Yes, but people are still influenced by the thinking of other thinkers.

And I'm saying from another perspective, the two people are two parts comprising a sameness.

To say anything about the world we need to divide it up and use logical divisions like the thinker and the listener, or the speaker and the listener.

Did I say we don't or that we shouldn't?

I wouldn’t call it an immortal nature because it sounds like an exaggeration of ‘what is’ There is absolutely nothing there at the core of ones being, nothing.

You're assertion that there is a 'core' to one's being, is a false one.

Ryan,

WW: How do they compare? Action is interacting with the rest of the world. Rational thought is doing something for yourself that should, IMO, only be the precursor to action, otherwise it is completely useless. Only action has an effect.

RR: The rational thinking is the action, and the consequences of rational thinking is the affect.

Thinking is somethingthat has no effect on the rest of the world UNLESS it alters how you interact with the rest of the world, which it is supposed to do. If you are not going to interact with the rest of the world either way there is zero reason why you should think or "perfect your mind". It is pure masturbation that has no effect outside your brain which is going to die and rot.

WW: You must realize that there is nothing wrong with "horrific suffering to people". It is an emotional claim otherwise, not a rational one

RR: You must realize that your idea to murder humans is an emotional claim as well.

I have no emotional craving for murder. I suffer from being raised into the Christian morality as well. I am just trying to argue that a wise person doesn't always side with Christian moral values and you are refusing to back up your position that he does but instead avoiding the topic by talking about my supposed emotional problems.

WW: My hope is that we don't push the equilibrium too far and suddenly see an extinction of higher life on earth.

RR: Don’t worry about higher life, natural selection will keep producing new interesting creatures for you to look at. The tiger is no more important than the maggot as far as natural selection is concerned, the question is which one will be able to survive humanity’s alternations to the environment? A loss of species is inevitable, but evolution is not a stagnant process, it will go on. perhaps you may even see robotic species merging with biological ones, but it is all natural. Who knows what is possible..

In geologic history, large percentages of species have been totally wiped off the planet through natural processes, and new interesting species came back, the earth is able to regenerate after incredible forms of destruction. Actually, in a sense, the ice ages act as cleansing processes, and the global warming that we are now seeing could be a natural phenomenon leading up to the next ice age, the next cleansing process.

By higher animals I mainly meant human beings. I am not in favor of the process starting all over. It seems like a waste of time and energy.

WW: everyone may be happy/content and there may be no suffering but it would get extremely boring.

RR: Do you find suffering and drama exciting? You might want to ask why you prefer misery on the planet over calm and peace? You are in contradiction because on the one hand you want to inflict suffering on others to relieve yourself of suffering, but you don't want others to be free from suffering because that would be boring. There is a state of emptiness that one can tap into where there is no boredom and anxiety.

Try imagining being an enlightened person in a world full of enlightened people who don't do anything. The society is completely stagnant and there is no suffering. Wouldn't you be a little bored? Wouldn't you regret in the slightest that your passive nihilistic teachings have halted humanity?

WW: I'm not going to become a mass murderer but I might promote someone who is better suited for the task.

RR: So who are you going to promote? And what task is he suited for?

Try reading again to see if you understand.

RR: You are obsessed with leaving a legacy, and achieving immortality through your personal actions, but you need to ask the question of whether this is sane or not. Remember, the Asian fellow you shot a bunch of students in Virginia tech, he was also concerned with leaving a legacy, and what sort of difference has he made?

Why do you assume that I want to leave some legacy? I know full well that my actions are all ultimately due to cause and effect so there is no "me" who will be looked back upon as a legacy. Perhaps I just want to shape the future by doing something great (having great effects in the rest of the world due to my actions).

RR: This conversation is making a difference, two individuals reasoning out humanities problems, why do you want more than that?

For the same reason that I don't go commit suicide right now.

Cory,

Realizing your immortal nature, and having your thought and action guided by a consideration of your immortal nature is perfectly logical.

How about realizing your immortal nature, having thought guided by it, but refusing to participate in life (action) in any way other than to spread your exact state of mind to others? This seems amazingly similar to a VIRUS to me!

But there is a big difference between that, and craving to witness yourself take part in a radical action which you hope will be remembered as great.

How about craving to express your wisdom and values in the future of humanity through your actions without caring about having your name remembered as a legacy?

A sage plods along sowing seeds, doing small things.

He who wants SMALL results does SMALL things. He who wants GREAT results does GREAT things. Assuming those seeds lead to small results and what you say about the 'sage' is true, I don't want to be one.

A power hungry vanity makes plans to do one particular thing, that if he were to do, would leave him a miserable slave to his very lunge at greatness. He would be left fogged and unable to live his remaining moments with a clear awareness of his immortal nature.

The step that you guys take that I fail to see is where understanding life inhibits you from participating in it.

This guy is a total nutcase. There's a population crisis? HOw the fuck do you know? When will there NOT be a population crisis for you?? 5 billion? 3? 1? 500 million???? the whole 'overpopulation' fad on this forum is pure arbitrary bullshit guided by emotional dislike and not at all backed by any science or evidence whatsoever. The same goes for 'global warming'. Idiots here think they have some authority in claiming that there's a population crisis so conclude that some people need to die.

As for WhorlyWelk, this guy is just confused about what enlightenment really is and does not know the nature or power of it, much less know how to get it, meanwhile, he thinks that slaughtering random people is going to change things for the better somehow. He himself fails to do anything of his own that will affect the future in a good way.

There's a population crisis?

I say there is a population crisis because humans are at the stage where we are using more energy than is sustainable (more than is entering our system) largely due to an exponential population growth and the facts are that the human population is still booming and that progress in reducing energy demand is going very slow. Scientifically speaking we can't claim overpopulation until the environment corrects it which is a little too late for my liking.

As for WhorlyWelk, this guy is just confused about what enlightenment really is and does not know the nature or power of it, much less know how to get it, meanwhile, he thinks that slaughtering random people is going to change things for the better somehow.

I sense great anger and impatience in you. Join me and I shall teach you how to funnel your contempt into mass destruction! MUHAHAHA....

WW wrote:

If you are not going to interact with the rest of the world either way there is zero reason why you should think or "perfect your mind".

I’m interacting with the rest of the world as I write this, and the clearer my mind is, the more sane the interaction will be.

WW wrote:

I am just trying to argue that a wise person doesn't always side with Christian moral values and you are refusing to back up your position that he does but instead avoiding the topic by talking about my supposed emotional problems.

Here is my argument – when ones mind is totally clear, there is absolutely no reason to kill another through some planned attack, that desire only arises when one is emotional.

WW wrote:

I am not in favor of the process starting all over. It seems like a waste of time and energy.

What does it matter to you? It’s not going to be your time and energy, its nature’s energy, and its not even energy at all, it’s an effortless process that no one is even conscious of as its happening. ‘Time’ and ‘Energy’ imply an observer that feels, one who is aware of his surrounding, but if humans wipe themselves out, and it takes the earth a billion years to create more life, there is nothing there to struggle anyway.

WW wrote:

Join me and I shall teach you how to funnel your contempt into mass destruction!

Do you realize that you are programmed to think this way? It is conditioned masculinity in its wrong place because your masculine fantasy is governed by the emotions, and not reality. Don’t believe the fantasy...

Masculine destructive acts happen in small observations of ones own mind, or the mind’s of others. That is masculinity in its right place, masculinity in its wrong place is fantasies to do destructive acts externally to appease emotional contempt.

It’s the same phenomenon that is happening with the Iranian government who fantasize about destroying Israel. Here is the formula – Contempt on object + fantasy to destroy object with Big boom = ignorance.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:Cory,

Realizing your immortal nature, and having your thought and action guided by a consideration of your immortal nature is perfectly logical.

How about realizing your immortal nature, having thought guided by it, but refusing to participate in life (action) in any way other than to spread your exact state of mind to others? This seems amazingly similar to a VIRUS to me!

What makes you different? For instance, if you were to plan a killing, would you want to kill people who were similar to you, or different from you?

But there is a big difference between that, and craving to witness yourself take part in a radical action which you hope will be remembered as great.

How about craving to express your wisdom and values in the future of humanity through your actions without caring about having your name remembered as a legacy?

A sage plods along sowing seeds, doing small things.

He who wants SMALL results does SMALL things. He who wants GREAT results does GREAT things.

Can't a life of invisible deeds be heroic, growing quite great over time? And can't an attempt at a great deed, although very visible, grow very laughable and pathetic over time? That's my point. It takes just as much or, I'd say more courage to work on changing yourself, then it does to plan some violent act that will change the world. But really, if you settle for the former, you will realize that it's demands are really quite akin to the later.

Assuming those seeds lead to small results

The right seeds grow into very strong and powerful trees.

A power hungry vanity makes plans to do one particular thing, that if he were to do, would leave him a miserable slave to his very lunge at greatness. He would be left fogged and unable to live his remaining moments with a clear awareness of his immortal nature.

The step that you guys take that I fail to see is where understanding life inhibits you from participating in it.

I am not participating in a way that supports your ideal. Participation is unavoidable. It's how you participate that matters.

Cory,

Can't a life of invisible deeds be heroic, growing quite great over time? And can't an attempt at a great deed, although very visible, grow very laughable and pathetic over time? That's my point.

Agreed.

It takes just as much or, I'd say more courage to work on changing yourself, then it does to plan some violent act that will change the world.

It takes more courage than either of these to perfect yourself and then act based on that perfection, even if the whole world is against you.

I am not participating in a way that supports your ideal. Participation is unavoidable. It's how you participate that matters.

Of course participation is unavoidable. However if you go live and die alone in the bush, for example, your 'participation' is limited to the bush and the animals you affect. Your participation barely even touches human beings so in this sense you are participating the least you can by detaching from everything. Your mind may be perfect but if you don't put it towards some actions towards its end perfecting it was masturbation.

Ryan,

WW: I am just trying to argue that a wise person doesn't always side with Christian moral values and you are refusing to back up your position that he does but instead avoiding the topic by talking about my supposed emotional problems.

RR: Here is my argument – when ones mind is totally clear, there is absolutely no reason to kill another through some planned attack, that desire only arises when one is emotional.

When you say "ones mind is totally clear" what do you mean by "totally clear"? Do you mean that one values nothing?

WW: I am not in favor of the process starting all over. It seems like a waste of time and energy.

RR: What does it matter to you? It’s not going to be your time and energy, its nature’s energy, and its not even energy at all, it’s an effortless process that no one is even conscious of as its happening. ‘Time’ and ‘Energy’ imply an observer that feels, one who is aware of his surrounding, but if humans wipe themselves out, and it takes the earth a billion years to create more life, there is nothing there to struggle anyway.

I fancy the idea of humans escaping our solar system before the sun goes. Is there some problem with me wanting to influence this through my actions? Is it deluded to you to act as though there can be any purpose to your life?

Contempt on object + fantasy to destroy object with Big boom = ignorance.

And this formula also holds about as well as yours:
Contempt on object + fantasy to improve object with Big wisdom = ignorance.

Your version of "truth" is that being partial in any way (though you paradoxically exclude being partial towards truth) is ignorance or delusion.

Your ideal would be a virtual suicide where you can continue to observe life and perfect your "mind" though you have no body.

It takes just as much or, I'd say more courage to work on changing yourself, then it does to plan some violent act that will change the world.

It takes more courage than either of these to perfect yourself and then act based on that perfection, even if the whole world is against you.

Are you perfect?

I am not participating in a way that supports your ideal. Participation is unavoidable. It's how you participate that matters.

Of course participation is unavoidable. However if you go live and die alone in the bush, for example, your 'participation' is limited to the bush and the animals you affect.

Yes, I agree that such a life is undesirable.

Your participation barely even touches human beings so in this sense you are participating the least you can by detaching from everything.

Agreed.

Your mind may be perfect but if you don't put it towards some actions towards its end perfecting it was masturbation.

In my experience, one is surrounded by people, and some are interested in finding truth or spirituality. Just the other day I met up with an old friend who just came back from some retreats and he was eager to talk about his spiritual ideas. We had a lively debate. There are other people from my past who I'm sure I'll run into again in the near future, and their will be new people I meet. Perfecting myself both in solitude and in my discussions with others really is what I do, aside from university and doing labor (landscaping work for now) That's my participation. It's far from living in the Bush.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Are you perfect?

Only in the sense that we all. I'm not aiming at any ideal though.

Cory Duchesne wrote:In my experience, one is surrounded by people, and some are interested in finding truth or spirituality. Just the other day I met up with an old friend who just came back from some retreats and he was eager to talk about his spiritual ideas. We had a lively debate. There are other people from my past who I'm sure I'll run into again in the near future, and their will be new people I meet. Perfecting myself both in solitude and in my discussions with others really is what I do, aside from university and doing labor (landscaping work for now) That's my participation. It's far from living in the Bush.

I understand.

WW wrote:

I fancy the idea of humans escaping our solar system before the sun goes. Is there some problem with me wanting to influence this through my actions? Is it deluded to you to act as though there can be any purpose to your life?

And do you think violence will increase the chances of this taking place? One of the reasons America is able to put so much research and money into organizations like Nasa is because it has been relatively peaceful and calm within the country for so many decades, which lead to steady economic growth, and this is much different to the chaos in many other countries. Civil upheaval tends to slow down economic progress, and a country usually loses decades of growth because of its senseless destruction. Do you agree that economic stability, steady growth and peace are necessary conditions to further the cause of space exploration?

WhorlyWhelk wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Are you perfect?

Only in the sense that we all are. I'm not aiming at any ideal though.

If we're all perfect, then why are you concerned about changing humanity (it's population and otherwise) with your will?