GENIUS FORUMS

James,


I've started a new thread because the discussion was getting fragmented. Feel free to ignore the first quote, which just provides some context.

Kelly wrote: Laird,

Your posts in this thread have been nothing but garbage. Your reckless and wasteful attitude to philosophy has absolutely no place on the Genius Forum.

I think that, you should leave for a while, to get your thinking together. Then, when you have some firm idea of Reality, and can actually contribute to discussions, you can return. Say, in six months' time, or a year.

If you don't take this advice on board, then I think it's fair for you to be banned.

And please use email to whinny at the mares.

Schmaltz-Assassin-Bot.



Elizabeth: Wow - even David has not given suspensions that long, and he's actually an administrator on this site.



Kelly: I think it's precedented, actually. But precedents aside, Laird needs a good six months - a year if he takes some women out ...

Many years more for the mares.



James: Kelly is neurotic. She is too one-sided, and this ultra-one-sideness has been (partly) caused by the same fundamentalism promoted by the QRS. Personally I think her absolute desire for a masculine-only mind will cause her to suicide, somewhere down the track, as it is an impossible goal. While masculinity is required for growth, with masculinity alone, no lasting growth towards a yin/yang centre can occur, so she will always feel a desire to be more than she presently is.



Kelly: I am interested in what I see as a very marked difference between willing and willingness. While most people see willingness as masculine, I see willing as masculine.

Willingness is the will to power. It is a feeling of great pleasure when decisions reflect back a masterful, dominating, powerful self-identity. A being that prevents the chaos of the world from threatening one's imagined existence. To me, this is feminine, because it is completely enslaved by the ego. It's feminine because submits unquestioningly.

Willing is making decisions to go upstream, against the force of the ego's desires. That sort of masculinity is patient, still, reflective, determined, and consciously sustained and planned. It is masculine, because it is conscious, and involves a very subtle form of creativity, and of humour. Perhaps one can call this centrality feminine.

The problem with calling it feminine, for the most part, is that most people are deathly afraid to live without women smiling at them.


-


James: After a quick look, it is hard to tell [if Bryan McGilly is "masculinely one-sided"]. Definately masculine - short statements, to the point and so on - but not aggressive, so not overtly masculine (or perhaps not uncomfortable with your masculinity and thus not caused to be aggressive). I wonder if agressives are folks who have more of a constent tug of war struggle with masculinity over feminity -who knows! I'm hoping Kelly and Sue respond because they are overtly masculine females.



Kelly: I can't recall Jim, your response to my explanation of the difference between willing and willingness. It amounts to, what you see as masculinity, I see as femininity (aggressiveness and hot-temperedness). Is this not an adequate response?



James: Well I did have an attempt to reply to the willing/willingness post, but didn't get anywhere. I also had some reticence about what I originally said.

------------

Kelly: [My post] amounts to, what you see as masculinity, I see as femininity (aggressiveness and hot-temperedness).


James: Well it all depends on where in the circle of plausible attributes one decides to place their perspective in regard to the cognitive generalisation of the term masculinity. You have formed an positive attachment to the QRS version of the term, whereas I have formed a negative attachment to their definition. I reject it because it is not a balanced reflection of reality. The properties they ascribe to it, as shown by the way they use the term, are all positive, completely ignoring the negative.

What are your thoughts on the following....?


"I am interested in what I see as a very marked difference between willing and willingness. While most people see willingness as masculine, I see willing as masculine.

Willingness is the will to power. It is a feeling of great pleasure when decisions reflect back a masterful, dominating, powerful self-identity. A being that prevents the chaos of the world from threatening one's imagined existence. To me, this is feminine, because it is completely enslaved by the ego. It's feminine because submits unquestioningly.

Willing is making decisions to go upstream, against the force of the ego's desires. That sort of masculinity is patient, still, reflective, determined, and consciously sustained and planned. It is masculine, because it is conscious, and involves a very subtle form of creativity, and of humour. Perhaps one can call this centrality feminine.

The problem with calling it feminine, for the most part, is that most people are deathly afraid to live without women smiling at them."


Do you see anything positive in willingness, and anything negative in willing?

James: Lol, guess what the ultimate definition of masculinity is!

Expansion.

Think for a moment about what an ultimate definition is.

It has to be the final definition, unsurpassable, non-relative, non-dependent.

Absolute, not relative.

Can expansion be absolute if it depends on contraction?

James: In an imaginary circle representing all human attributes, draw a vertical line down the centre and a horizontal line through the centre. The top left hand quadrant represents positive masculine attributes and the right hand quadrant negative traits, the bottom half represents all traits to which feminine definitions could be ascribed to in their respective positive and negative quadrants. The diagram now is top left masculine-positive, top right masculine negative, bottom left feminine-positive and bottom left feminine-negative.

Your total value-definition of masculinity would be placed somewhere in the top left near the rim and your total value-definition of femininity would be in the opposite quadrant. Draw a line between the two points.

What you and the QRS have done here is skew the definition to one side, based on your value systems.

Well, I suppose the first question I should ask is: what is positive, and what is negative? Is there some underlying aim here? Or are you saying that positive things and negative things inherently exist in nature?

The second question is the same as that in the first paragraph after the context bit: do you see any positive elements in willingness, or any negative elements in willing?

See, it all depends on your underlying aim. What is that, James?

If you're talking about balance, is that balance absolute and intrinsic in Reality? Or is it a type of balance that is used to reach a certain aim?

So, is your circle an absolutist one, in which the positive is not a value that is relative to some other aim?

James: You might suggest that the combination of all plausible human attributes to which masculinity and femininity could be attached to, are not equal in total effect, so it would be unreasonable to dissect the circle between positive and negative, into equal halves, as masculine traits appear more valuable to most individuals here - but you would be wrong.

Yes, this doesn't matter, because it's a truth by definition thing.

The universe is an almost zero-sum game.

What does that mean?

James: Everything is ultimately dualistic.

What you seem to be getting at here, is that to be true to Reality, one ought to have no bias in one's own psyche towards masculinity or to femininity, or to anything relative.

The problem is, that this approach is biased against taking a preference for one type of character traits over another. It is still relative.

James: To the totality, causes act in an equal and opposite manner.

Does it get you anywhere to say that an orange is equal to everything that is not an orange?

Or to say that an apple is a part of the opposite of an orange?

James: Masculine and feminine in their broadest possible definition refer to opposite actions of the universe, they are the opposite ways in which causes reveal themselves.

If that's how you want to define masculinity and femininity, go ahead.

But dualism is a logical construct, it doesn't actually exist.

This kind of attachment to "balance" sounds very much like pining for an ideal partner.

As if Reality has embedded sexual traits.

James: Masculine is activity in an expansionary sense (the action starts from within and flows outward) and feminine is activity in an contractionary sense (the action starts from out and flows inward). The interaction of these two absolutes are the process of cause and effect.

Since this is a repeat of another post of yours, I'll repeat my response,

(which you didn't reply to)

James: in order for things to be changeable, then ultimate reality must also be changeable. Without some form of change at the fundamental level no thing could arise.



Kelly: A core essence of change, creates a static part outside the core. So then there would be no changing appearances. Which is not the case.

The logical reasoning behind the unchangeableness of Reality is that it doesn't have any nature --- any relativity.

What is constructed as change is really "our minds moving" --- our purposes. Our fundamental belief about Reality. I'm not saying Reality appears as a static thing, when our fundamental belief about Reality comes from the stillness of a Truth-oriented purpose, rather I'm saying the unchanging boundlessness of Reality then appears.



-----
James: The manner in which Causes change is by continuously being what they are.



Kelly: There are no non-continuing "external" causes by which to measure continuation of "internal" causes.



------
James: In the Ultimate Void this change is not expressed. The void is infinite so it has no dimensions, no size, no boundary to prevent it from changing.



Kelly: Ach, you're pulling my leg now. Thar she blows --- the Great Contradiction.



-----
James: One can however say that the contracting causal force resides inside of the expansionary force - except this is not in a dimensional sense, merely a causal sense- one surrounds the other causally.



Kelly: Sire, I have no need of such a hypothesis.



------
James: The expression of this continuous causal change occurs by transferral of causal growth into the finite world. This action is not a form of growth into nothingness, but it is the void in its dualistic form growing inside itself, which allows for the realm of infinite finite existence between an infinite causal exosphere of expansion and an infinite causal nucleus of contraction. While at any time the physical universe is finite (not all there ultimately is), it is infinite in the sense that TO ANY OBSERVOR it will continuously get larger and larger (as the expansionary force expands), as the finite parts within get smaller and smaller (as the contractionary force contracts). This is an illusion however, as believe it or not even the physical world is ultimately non-dimensional – we are only ever seeing common versus non-common relativities that cause the appearance of dimensions.

Sure, I have uncertainties about just how accurate what I’ve said above is, but it is better than saying the logical untruth that Ultimate Reality is not fundamentally changeable. It has to be be changeable in one way (it entire nature is change) and not changeable in another (its process of change never changes).



Kelly: Expansion and contraction require an unmoving perspective of time and space. Guess where that perspective resides?


------

Continuing:

James: In the circle of human attributes the ultimate definition of masculinity could be represented by placing an "aura" of arrows pointing out from the centre of the circle, and femininity by placing arrows pointing to the centre. Only in this way could one represent the duality involved in all human attributes. In terms of one's value system, then on each individual attribute, they should try and position themselves somewhere on or nearby the lines previously drawn. For each positive masculine action, there will be negative aspects to take into account, but so to will be the case for feminine actions (which too many intrinsically feminine folks ignore).

Do you actually distinguish masculinity from femininity in any significant way?

What exactly is this "centre"?

Do you actually believe the Universe has a centre?

James: Now all the above just relates to the skewing of the definition of the sex terms. It doesn’t fully apply to an individual. All things at times have an imbalance between masculine action and feminine action. A child, a star, all things, may only grow if they have a greater degree of masculinity than the things that surround them.

So, is a black hole masculine or feminine?

Do you think an asexual alien with no reproductive instincts would perceive the Universe as sexualised?

James: I'm not for a second suggesting that one can achieve a knowledge of reality without strong masculine drives. It seems to be essential. However, I am suggesting that these drives must settle by combining them with feminine attributes, otherwise the masculinity will always cause striving, which will cause suffering.

Why not just take the striving in the context of a particular goal, such that when it is attained, and only then, that it is, like the bridge used to cross a river, no longer necessary?

James: One must reform a balance, otherwise one can become a bad philosopher like virtually all those most respected by the QRS - and they are bad only because they take masculinity to extremes, and then expect this extreme level to be sustainable. It isn’t in my book, and unless one has an ego whose main goal is to become some sort of "hero", extreme masculine one-sidedness seems detrimental, over the long term.

So what are your reasons for believing that any potential Buddha, striving for Buddhahood, will never be successful, and/or that Buddhahood cannot by definition be sustained?

James: Can you see how the QRS have settled into passitivity, a feminine trait, but the thing to note is that they have settled into this at a higher level because they have used masculinity to build their mind.

No, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Perhaps if you gave some examples.



-

Ekk! A dreaded time consuming post to respond to.

Look Kelly I'll respond when I feel like a bit of a ramble, which could be anytime or never. Your points do look like ones I could respond to, so I suspect I'll give it a try.

All my points are responses to your own ideas, so there's nothing you can't handle.

-

Well I've made start, and I know Kelly ain't around at present.

James: Everything is ultimately dualistic.
Kelly: What you seem to be getting at here, is that to be true to Reality, one ought to have no bias in one's own psyche towards masculinity or to femininity, or to anything relative.

Yes [except for "or to anything relative"], although it is probably impossible not to have a bias due to hormonal differerntiations - but the aim should be to be become detached from desiring either of the poles as a kind of ultimate acheievment, which does not mean that one should not use either where necessary.

Kelly: The problem is, that this approach is biased against taking a preference for one type of character traits over another. It is still relative.

The preference is like choosing a hammer (masculine) or glue (feminine) to make X woodwork. Use whichever one best suits the situation.

Kelly: Do you actually distinguish masculinity from femininity in any significant way?

Sure, I do, but more as temporary choices for action/non action, rather than as effects.

What exactly is this "centre"? [referring to the physical picture of maculinity/feminity I tried to outline]

The point of non-attachment, to which one can move in any direction into the circle of attachments.

Kelly: Do you actually believe the Universe has a centre?

I guess I do, it is just not one that is locatable. It is the contracting force in its pure form.

James: Now all the above just relates to the skewing of the definition of the sex terms. It doesn’t fully apply to an individual. All things at times have an imbalance between masculine action and feminine action. A child, a star, all things, may only grow if they have a greater degree of masculinity than the things that surround them.
Kelly: So, is a black hole masculine or feminine?

Gravity is feminine in the physical sense. A black holes centre is almost perfectly feminine, in that it takes in from outside with massive power, however the further from this centre one gets the higher the ratio of the masculine expansionary force will be found.

Kelly: Do you think an asexual alien with no reproductive instincts would perceive the Universe as sexualised?

Too hypothetical.

James: I'm not for a second suggesting that one can achieve a knowledge of reality without strong masculine drives. It seems to be essential. However, I am suggesting that these drives must settle by combining them with feminine attributes, otherwise the masculinity will always cause striving, which will cause suffering.

Kelly: Why not just take the striving in the context of a particular goal, such that when it is attained, and only then, that it is, like the bridge used to cross a river, no longer necessary?

Sure, but don't pick up the bridge and carry it just in case you come across another river. When soldiers travel through unknown territory, it is more practical have the ability to create a temporary bridge, rather than carry a whole brigde across terrain. Carry the tools of masculinity with you, but be careful of the weight of what you are carrying over long distances. Better to be light and nimble, and to have options to use a shield or a spear, or both.

James: To the totality, causes act in an equal and opposite manner.
Kelly: Does it get you anywhere to say that an orange is equal to everything that is not an orange? Or to say that an apple is a part of the opposite of an orange?

No, but I am not saying that. You are sort of talking about appearances, whereas I am talking about what happens at the fundamental level, the force level, and has no consideration to form (other than the fundamental forms of expansion and contraction). At this level, the words force and cause are interchangeable. I'm just restating Newtons ideas that forces never get "used up", the total power of a causal event flows on in things forever (it may however eventually flow out of finite existence back into the void from which it arose, by somehow returning to a (relatively) unbounded state, which in the case of the void, is a non-spatial state of existence). Nothing is lost because no force is lost in the action of that force causing the form of things to change.

Does it get you anywhere to say that an orange is equal to everything that is not an orange?

An orange is equal to the causal content of that orange, it is not equal to everything that is not that orange (though in non-dualistic terms it is, as its existence is caused by everything it is not). The orange grew on the tree because of the merging of causal opposites from within the tree with what was external to the tree. A thing can only grow via the accumulation of symmetric unities of causal opposites. If what is directly outside the tree is not opposite to the causal patterns of the tree, then the tree cannot use it, however if it is something like sunlight, water or minerals, the tree has evolved patterns of activity capable of uniting these with parts of the tree, so it is capable of growth.

James: Masculine and feminine in their broadest possible definition refer to opposite actions of the universe, they are the opposite ways in which causes reveal themselves.
Kelly: But dualism is a logical construct, it doesn't actually exist.

If you make this statement then surely you can explain to me what this is so. My whole point is that dualism is all that exists. It is an absolute truth that everything is relative, therefore, ipso facto, everything is dualistic.

Non-dualism is actually the logical construct. Absolute non-dualism is The Totality (of all that exists in any form, manner or whatever). To me however there is a logical conflict between the concept of infinity and the concept of a Totality of this infinity. If that which is infinite cannot be totalled and is unbounded in all possible ways, the idea that we can legitimately call something The Totality is a logical construct (if that is the right term?).

Kelly: This kind of attachment to "balance" sounds very much like pining for an ideal partner. As if Reality has embedded sexual traits.

The universe is entirely sexual, though not as an embedded trait but as its very nature. It is the very reason things form without any need for a God. Expansion and contraction are in a continual state of fucking, a procreationary state. Two original entities act in concert to form one new entity, while the original entity remains almost unchanged. This new entity is not perfect, it is not non-dualistic, it contains a higher ratio of one of the original two causal forces that formed it, lets call it THING1 with the single characteristic of being marginally expansionary. The original two act to form another one, but this time this second one has a higher probability of being an opposite ratio to the first, it becomes a Marginally Contracting THING2. [This layer of existence could very well be the missing dark matter].

Why is an opposite formed? Well it has to do with relativity and the path of least resistance. What is born from the dualistic void will be relative to the reverse casual effect the physical universe has on the void. If a spatial area is dominated by the contracting force, as in the case of a star, then the void will find lesser resistance in birthing the expansionary force. It is this birth of expansionary force that drives nuclear reactions, and the heat in earth core.

Now just like the dualistic void, these two newly formed THINGS are capable of fucking each other, and some do just that. If they do then something different is created, what is created will be another dualistic layer, another THING. Some of the whole of this THING will be in balance because the action of the expansionary force equalises with the action of the contracting force, and a temporary unity has formed, but what is not in balance will divide away from what is in balance and this portion will be free to merge with some other THING, created by the same process. Eventually all these interactions of unities and non-unities will evolve into recognisable things as the synergistic and non-synergistic patterns of causal relativity, gradually grow more complex interrelationships. This is where all our action related definitions stem from, including our definitions of masculine and feminine. Our ancestors observed what was in reality and named specific portions of it according to what purpose they could use those portions for. In male dominated societies, masculinity being a more expansionary type of person, due to testosterone or whatever, then it naturally was defined far more positively, with the positive feminine traits being restricted to what males found useful to males.

James: in order for things to be changeable, then ultimate reality must also be changeable. Without some form of change at the fundamental level no thing could arise.

Kelly: A core essence of change, creates a static part outside the core. So then there would be no changing appearances. Which is not the case.

The void is not separate is from any part of the physical universe, drill down into anything from any point to any degree and one will be in direct connection to the void from start to finish. Essentially the universe is layered versions of the void. Layers that pop into existence when opposite causes oppose each other in an manner that is synergistic overall. The void is the void because space is a layer of existence that is opposite to the void, and thus it is unobservable, except via logic. To be opposite to the void logically means it is non-spatial. To be non-spatial and still exist, means it is everywhere while being no-where.

This is the reason no finite point or particle has been, or will ever be, found. Each time science invents a better microscope, they find a higher ratio of space relative to size, between the things microscopes don't have the power to magnify into. They also find these things have greater speed, which, imo, indicates time flowing faster. Greater speed of Time signifies that the expansionary force is dominant.

Space [meaning dimensions, spatial qualities], is the initial or first-born effect that permanently stems from this layering. Space is therefore the "most perfect or pure" physical thing. It is simply that portion of the dualistic causal nature of the void that is perfectly balanced. There is no outside of the void if it is conceived of as a non-duality, everything then becomes the void. To me as a dualist though, the expansionary force is "outside" the contracting force, whether in the void or not, the expansionary force will always surround the contracting force.

Kelly: The logical reasoning behind the unchangeableness of Reality is that it doesn't have any nature --- any relativity.

What is constructed as change is really "our minds moving" --- our purposes. Our fundamental belief about Reality. I'm not saying Reality appears as a static thing, when our fundamental belief about Reality comes from the stillness of a Truth-oriented purpose, rather I'm saying the unchanging boundlessness of Reality then appears.

IMO this QRS teaching is false. Unless you can explain to me how the universe can change form without itself changing in some regard I'll pay no positive attention to this comment.

The totality is unchangeable as a process, but its form is constantly changing. The only part of the totality that does not change is that the fundamental causes in being what they are automatically permanently cause exactly the same change. Every part of everything is bounded in some manner because each of the two "parts" of that which is fundamental is bounded by its dualistic opposite. In the same way that the addition of boundaries [layers of relativity] creates increasing complex forms of existence, [reverse this idea as if drilling back down to the fundamental], so to does the very existence and permanency of the totality depend upon some form of boundedness. Degrees of boundedness create existence in all its forms or appearances. An ultimate dualistic boundary, where all that exists is A and B and they bind and thus create each other, is the only thing I can imagine that can possibly create permanent existence, otherwise the only alternative is that some sort of self-powered God Totality has always existed. Such a God makes zero logical sense.

James: The manner in which Causes change is by continuously being what they are.
Kelly: There are no non-continuing "external" causes by which to measure continuation of "internal" causes.

That sounds true, though I don't get the relationship to my comment. Without further explanation I'll have to pass on this. I will of course admit, that everything I am saying in relation to the creative ability of the void is a theory. To me though it is a beautiful theory, as the logic is gradually becoming quite structurally coherent, and only fails when I'm asked to "show proof", which your use of the word "measure" implies.

James: In the Ultimate Void this change is not expressed. The void is infinite so it has no dimensions, no size, no boundary to prevent it from changing.
Kelly: Ach, you're pulling my leg now. Thar she blows --- the Great Contradiction.

These comments all come from my examination of what possibilities are open to the word "infinite".

Lately I have been referring to the nature of the expansionary and contracting forces as just being opposite forms of time, one instantaneous time and the other no-time, and things are everything in between. Perhaps, I should have raised this aspect of the forces into what I wrote in my ramblings above [and I did in a later edit].

Time is the only thing that can be utterly infinite (excluding the non-thing we call the totality). My reasoning is simple - Time is the only thing that cannot possibly be caused. Now here I am not referring to the non-variable time that is involved when we notice time passing, where time appears as something resulting from the interaction of things, but to the fact that for things to have the capacity to change at all, and to not change instantly, that this change can only occur over time. Time exists prior to the change, and allows the change, and not as an outcome of change in the manner we observe the flow of time.

As there cannot logically be a first cause for the existence of the Totality, then time must always have existed. As time has always existed then it could not be caused to exist.

Space is not like time, although space has always existed, it is something for which I can find a causal explanation. Also space is not completely invisible whereas time is. The very invisibility of space together with the dimensions that space occupies, is what makes it visible.

Kelly: Expansion and contraction require an unmoving perspective of time and space. Guess where that perspective resides?

Sure it resides or occurs in our mind, but what causes this categorisation of reality in the mind is not soley caused by the mind, but by the interaction of the mind with reality. So just like all concepts used to describe reality or otherwise, those terms are mere symbols and I am just pointing to the nature of these forces, in the only way possible, namely as they appear in things. Nothing changes without expanding or contracting (except time), and all things change (except maybe space), so all things are in the process of expanding or contracting. Most of the other terms one can apply across physical processes, are merely different names for expanding or contracting that we humans have developed that specifically apply to certain appearances - ie positive or negative can't directly be cognitively applied to all things. That I make Time and Space exceptions above, is simply due to their fundamental place in the hierarchy of the evolvement of thingness; of increased existence. Time has no boundary and Space has at least one boundary (proven simply by the logic that it cannot be described as being everything).