GENIUS FORUMS

Ah, my mistake. I'm still so culture shocked from mainstream day-to-day that I assumed you meant some brash, ignorant path rather than, you know, commonsense.

It's curious how this forum is both a breath of fresh air and a punch to the solar plexus, simultaneously. Regardless, I assume that since the source of this oh-so credible survey is a dating site that we're going to point, laugh, then disregard? In that order?

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Do you ever question and challenge your preferences - such as, why you have the sorts of preferences you do, or why even continue having any preferences at all?

Given that preferences invariably lead to things like irritation, anger, fear, misery, etc, is it really worthwhile to continue manufacturing one's own suffering like this?

This really has nothing to do with what we have been discussing, namely, the nature of reality. You are making appeals based on the desire to eliminate suffering. It just tends to confirm my suspicions that eliminating suffering(and therefore preference and emotion) was always a very important motivator and final goal for you and your philosophy. Unfortunately I think that doomed your philosophy.

The elimination of (needless) suffering is an inevitable consequence of understanding the nature of reality. One no longer suffers from chasing, or being attached to, phantoms of the mind.

Being irritated by phantoms seems senseless to me.

We both witnessed the same events with respect to Kevin's behaviour, and yet you were irritated by the spectacle and I was not. What extra element are you bringing to the situation that causes you to be irritated?

Thankfully, my motivations and goal were, and are, more pure.

I'm sure your irritation is very pure as well.

What is your goal exactly? How do you distinguish yourself from the "anything goes" mentality of the average person?

-

804 wrote:It's curious how this forum is both a breath of fresh air and a punch to the solar plexus, simultaneously. Regardless, I assume that since the source of this oh-so credible survey is a dating site that we're going to point, laugh, then disregard? In that order?

Very close. I describe it as point, beat into the ground, then disregard. That seems to be what we do here. Sometimes it's more humane to let a thread slip into oblivion than to add a comment, which just serves to resurrect it to the top of the board to get more beatings.

804 wrote:It's curious how this forum is both a breath of fresh air and a punch to the solar plexus, simultaneously

.
The board's founders believe in practically nothing but the Law of Cause and Effect. I guess a punch to the solar plexus causes you to suck in that breath of fresh air.

We don't even believe in the Law of Cause and Effect.

-

David Quinn wrote:We don't even believe in the Law of Cause and Effect.

-

Yes, it was presumptuous of me to speak for you, you are correct, sir.

But surely you can understand what you have just indicated is my misapprehension?

It appears that a few here still have not come to the realization that the subject lists are in reference to topics of discussion while on a (romantic) date. The sorts of things women (or men) may like/dislike discussing can deviate greatly based on circumstances. I doubt that "how to perform great fellatio" is a favourite topic of anyone exchanging pleasantries during a chance meeting of a neighbour on the street, but it might be for a sexually-liberated, long-term couple on a Saturday night after a bottle of wine. Of course, this is only hearsay (heresy?), as there are no sexually liberated long-term couples within half a universe of this board. Use your imagination. I know there's plenty of that here.

Of course, the above does not address the question of the possible inferiority of women. Whatever women enjoy or dislike as topics of conversation in any venue can easily be picked apart by even the most feminine on this board. As someone pointed out earlier, any list can be spun any way one wants.

Note: By "sexually-liberated", I did not mean "one disentangled from the drudgery of sex".

Kudos to Ryan for "Seventh Sense".

Lydiia Knightjoy

But it might be for a sexually-liberated, long-term couple on a Saturday night after a bottle of wine. Of course, this is only hearsay (heresy?), as there are no sexually liberated long-term couples within half a universe of this board. Use your imagination. I know there's plenty of that here.

It sounds as though you value regular doses of hedonism, but from my experience, most sensual pursuits have their equal dose of negativity. For instance: Alcohol destroys the body and mind, whereas sex naturally causes you to become addicted to and attached to particular types of sensual gratification. Let us not forget that humans are creatures of habit, and some habits destroy the body/mind, while others regenerate it.

However, that’s not to say that I’m totally against all sensuality, I’m not. However, I think sensuality should be experienced in minimalist terms. For instance: how often do you eat a peach or a piece of watermelon? Only when they are in season, and that is how it should be. Moreover, the problem with the human mind is that because we have memory, we can desire to experience things over and over, and our brains become habituated to certain types of gratification.

And that habituation is attachment, and it has negative affects when you lose it.

Another example: A male buck deer only desires females for a short breeding period in the year, and then he totally forgets and becomes a loner for the rest of the year. Whereas, human men can remember their past, and so they can keep trying to repeat their past into the present, regardless of time, season or what have you. A man's past becomes his karmic enslavement in the present, an enslavement to a desire that never quite satisfies him. That is the danger of sensuality that I see, especially sexuality because it is a very intense experience.

brokenhead wrote:

David Quinn wrote:We don't even believe in the Law of Cause and Effect.

Yes, it was presumptuous of me to speak for you, you are correct, sir.

But surely you can understand what you have just indicated is my misapprehension?

"Many people are afraid to empty their minds lest they plunge into the Void. They do not know that their own Mind is the void. " - Huang Po

"It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" - Jesus

-

Ryan Rudolph

It sounds as though you value regular doses of hedonism, but from my experience, most sensual pursuits have their equal dose of negativity.

I provided an example of different venues lending themselves to different types of conversation. It doesn't necessarily reflect what I practise or what I value. From my experience, most non-sensual pursuits have their equal does of negativity. For instance, delusions of enlightenment can adversely affect both mind and body. Consuming the right kind of alcohol in the right doses can enhance both body and mind. This is indisputable.

If peaches or watermelons were perpetually in season, would you be against their more frequent indulgence? They are in season somewhere almost 365 days of the year. People "overly" concerned with minimalist sensuality bring them to us. But let us not forget that even peaches have a pit that requires a degree of careful nibbling so as not to hurt your mouth. Thank God our minds have memory so that we can seek out watermelons for our enjoyment from season to season!

And that habituation is attachment, and it has negative affects when you lose it.

Some people are not very good at dealing with loss while others are. I don't see the mere possibility of loss as a logical reason to avoid "attachment". In fact, I see it as an unhealthy, psychotic response to a natural thing. At some point we lose our parents, family, friends. Do you feel that such attachments should be avoided/eliminated? What about the attachment many people here have to "spreading their message"?

That is the danger of sensuality that I see, especially sexuality because it is a very intense experience.

The pursuit of enlightenment might be considered an intense experience. I take it you don't believe everything intense is to be avoided.

Lydiia Knightjoy wrote:I don't see the mere possibility of loss as a logical reason to avoid "attachment". In fact, I see it as an unhealthy, psychotic response to a natural thing. At some point we lose our parents, family, friends. Do you feel that such attachments should be avoided/eliminated? What about the attachment many people here have to "spreading their message"?

Non-attachment is not so much about avoiding the pain of loss, but more about realising there isn't anything to possess.

I write here to spread my message. This happens when I know neither me or my message, or the spreading of it, or my knowledge, are existing inherently.

Lydiia Knightjoy,

Some people are not very good at dealing with loss while others are. I don't see the mere possibility of loss as a logical reason to avoid "attachment". In fact, I see it as an unhealthy, psychotic response to a natural thing. At some point we lose our parents, family, friends. Do you feel that such attachments should be avoided/eliminated? What about the attachment many people here have to "spreading their message"?

People shouldn’t treat their family any different than a stranger off the street. Emotional attachment is irrational in its very nature. It assumes that things have some concrete existence, as separate from the self. All things are empty, and should be treated as such.

The pursuit of enlightenment might be considered an intense experience. I take it you don't believe everything intense is to be avoided.

It starts off as intense emotionally, but eventually dies off. An enlightened mind is beyond intense emotional experiences altogether. Basically, emptiness is beyond the intensity of the emotions that the ego seeks.

...

People shouldn’t treat their family any different than a stranger off the street.

If one can achieve such a thing, it should be a snap to allow oneself to experience sex without the attachment you espouse should be avoided.

I have always thought of nature as perfect (or close to it), but even in nature, familial bonds are evident. In fact, few creatures, including humans, would survive more than a few days after birth if not for the attachment a mother feels for her offspring. It seems that only when complex beings create a complex world that such dangerous and destructive (in my opinion) concepts emerge. Perhaps I lack just enough knowledge of philosophy that I'm not, in layman's terms, completely fucked up.

Lydiia Knightjoy,

I have always thought of nature as perfect

Perfect compared to what? Have you ever watched a lion pounce on a young zebra? It will ripe out its intestines and feed on them, while the animal is still partially alive, nature seems quite cruel, indifferent and brutish to me.

Or have you ever attempted to walk into a garden to pick fresh vegetables? But you must come inside because you are being swarmed by bugs that are programmed to pinch your flesh, and feed off the blood inside.

Moreover, family bonds are only necessary because the world is so imperfect, meaning the more perfect humans make the world, the less family bonds will be necessary. It is a biological adaptation - family attachment. It is the selfish gene extending its hand to another copy of itself, and protecting it so that it will be passed on to the next generation. That is all it amounts to.

Kelly said,

I write here to spread my message. This happens when I know neither me or my message, or the spreading of it, or my knowledge, are existing inherently.

I could say the same about my sensual actions. I don't have a boyfriend, but if I did, I would enjoy his company. This happens when I know that neither me nor my boyfriend, nor what we do together, are existing inherently.

You seem to be implying that this knowledge would tend to stop someone.

-

Another example: A male buck deer only desires females for a short breeding period in the year, and then he totally forgets and becomes a loner for the rest of the year. Whereas, human men can remember their past, and so they can keep trying to repeat their past into the present, regardless of time, season or what have you.

If the deer cannot remember sex, it's a wonder they remember to eat every day.

It might not be the male human's memory that keeps him interested in sex, but rather the fact that our species is different, especially the human female, who unlike all other animals, is not tied to a strict estrus cycle.

But you, and the practitioners of female genital mutilation, would like to return the human female to the animal kingdom, making a breeder of her.

People shouldn’t treat their family any different than a stranger off the street.

Problem is, you couldn't raise a baby that way, therefore the idea is antilife and antisanity, and should be discarded as false.

Iolaus,

Problem is, you couldn't raise a baby that way, therefore the idea is antilife and antisanity, and should be discarded as false.

Don't you see this as a fundamental freedom issue for women? She has been stunted mentally because she has evolved over thousands of years to provide emotional support for infants. Why not liberate women from her adaptation to cater to children's minds, and program robots to behave like women, while at the same time modifying women's genes to be more like men, that way women could be liberated from the evolutionary bondage of child rearing.

That is what a true feminist would want anyway. Original feminist philosophy was aimed at the total liberation of women, meaning they would be totally liberated from their expectation to sacrifice their entire mental lives for the sake of child and husband.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Lydiia Knightjoy,

I have always thought of nature as perfect

Perfect compared to what?

This is like asking, "the Totality compared to what?" Perfection is an absolute term.

Have you ever watched a lion pounce on a young zebra? It will ripe out its intestines and feed on them, while the animal is still partially alive,

There is no such thing as partially alive.

nature seems quite cruel, indifferent and brutish to me.

This does not contradict perfection.

And, what "seems" to you is not part of the equation.

Or have you ever attempted to walk into a garden to pick fresh vegetables? But you must come inside because you are being swarmed by bugs that are programmed to pinch your flesh, and feed off the blood inside.

In what way is this not perfect?

Moreover, family bonds are only necessary because the world is so imperfect, meaning the more perfect humans make the world, the less family bonds will be necessary. It is a biological adaptation - family attachment. It is the selfish gene extending its hand to another copy of itself, and protecting it so that it will be passed on to the next generation. That is all it amounts to.

Here we have some personal theorizing stated as universal truth. Perfection, also, nonetheless.

FOOTHOLDS, Part 2, eh Sher?

Kelly: I write here to spread my message. This happens when I know neither me or my message, or the spreading of it, or my knowledge, are existing inherently.

Sharazad: I could say the same about my sensual actions. I don't have a boyfriend, but if I did, I would enjoy his company. This happens when I know that neither me nor my boyfriend, nor what we do together, are existing inherently. You seem to be implying that this knowledge would tend to stop someone.

One can have a certain amount of awareness that things don't inherently exist. But if there isn't much faith in it, and if reasoning hasn't become a whole-of-your-life habit, then feelings like desire and loneliness, offendedness and pride, and so forth, will still arise. They'll keep arising because of greater trust in knowledge that's in direct contradiction.

Kelly,

Oh, so now I know what I was doing wrong. Believing is not enough -- what I need is deep faith. Then these feeling of loneliness will no longer arise.

I totally get it.

-

Carl,

Perfection is an absolute term.

Perfection is dependent on how it is defined, it is dependent on expectations and values.

There is no such thing as partially alive.

Let me stab you slowly in the neck then, and watch you bleed to death.

This does not contradict perfection.

A perfect world would be a compassionate world, and this world is clearly not, it is indifferent to the suffering of human beings, this world is one ruled by the indifference of nature. The will to survive reins supreme in this animal circus, and such an arrangement is not perfect by any means

In what way is this not perfect?

It is annoying, painful and unpleasant. I define perfection according to my own expectations of how I’d prefer life to be, I’d prefer not to be born into a world that is so hellish and demonic, a world that I’m pressured to enslave myself to just to secure basic necessities, a world with not so much friction and problems.

I'm using the word perfection as it pertains to what I'd define a utopia to look like, and this world is far from my expectations.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl,

Perfection is an absolute term.

Perfection is dependent on how it is defined, it is dependent on expectations and values.

Okay, I concede this. I define it as "what is."

There is no such thing as partially alive.

Let me stab you slowly in the neck then, and watch you bleed to death.

Do it as slowly as you wish. I am still alive at one point, and dead at another. There is no partially.

This does not contradict perfection.

A perfect world would be a compassionate world, and this world is clearly not, it is indifferent to the suffering of human beings, this world is one ruled by the indifference of nature. The will to survive reins supreme in this animal circus, and such an arrangement is not perfect by any means

Okay, it is perfect to me, but not to you. Question: Do you regard God (the Totality) as imperfect?

In what way is this not perfect?

It is annoying, painful and unpleasant. I define perfection according to my own expectations of how I’d prefer life to be, I’d prefer not to be born into a world that is so hellish and demonic, a world that I’m pressured to enslave myself to just to secure basic necessities, a world with not so much friction and problems.

I'm using the word perfection as it pertains to what I'd define a utopia to look like, and this world is far from my expectations.

Do you think the Buddha would have supported this "expectations" idea of yours? Are expectations really part and parcel with wisdom and enlightenment?

Carl,

Okay, I concede this. I define it as "what is."

That is not how I’m defining perfection, although I agree that ‘what is’ cannot be anything other than it is, so we should be emotionally bothered by it. However, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn't prefer a different future from the present. And we can work towards that ideal with a different notion of perfection.

Do it as slowly as you wish. I am still alive at one point, and dead at another. There is no partially.

It is a matter of opinion. I bet you will feel yourself dying. For instance: you will feel your lungs fill up with blood, you will feel the blood not traveling to your body and brain, which eventually cause you to become light headed, dizzy, and eventually unconscious, or semi-unconscious. It is very close to being dead, but slightly still alive. I would define that transition period as partially alive, and it is probably quite unpleasant to experience. I don’t recommend it – if you have to die, make it quick.

Okay, it is perfect to me, but not to you. Question: Do you regard God (the Totality) as imperfect?

I regard the world as presently imperfect. The ‘totality’ or ‘god’ is an abstraction, an idea inside your own mind. The idea of the totality is used to map reality, but the reality out there is actually an empty void, which is the same reality inside your own mind.

Do you think the Buddha would have supported this "expectations" idea of yours? Are expectations really part and parcel with wisdom and enlightenment?

It is the only way we can make a better world for ourselves and not expect more of the same. We are conscious, while nature is not, and that is why nature must be manipulated according to our values.

Shahrazad wrote:Kelly,

Oh, so now I know what I was doing wrong. Believing is not enough -- what I need is deep faith. Then these feeling of loneliness will no longer arise.

I totally get it.

That faith that one exists inherently is an extremely deep one, wouldn't you agree? There's a feeling that this self, me, doesn't have what it needs to be happy. It needs that comforting, interesting, amazingly good-humoured friend. It's not happy by itself - this is the truth that dwells deep in the mind. That's a very strong belief.

If a person finds that loneliness is getting a strong foothold in the mind, then there's no room for reasoning. They have to make room. They need to take control of the situation, instead of letting those crazy thoughts burn on and on. Otherwise, what do you think will happen?

I do have pity for women in this situation. My mother is like this. She has the foggiest thoughts. She gets teary-eyed in her lost feelings, dreaming for a nice man to be her companion and make life interesting. She can't make life interesting for herself, and waits around trying to make herself attractive for that special man. It's a very sad situation.

How people let themselves become fools like this, is hard to understand. They've lost what the child had: that curiosity and freedom to explore the world as a single person.