GENIUS FORUMS

Sapius,

Cory: Are you not simply trying to say: ‘I prefer to reason’?

Sapius: No, not prefer to reason but I cannot help but reason for I am a thing caused to reason, but what conclusions my/others reasoning’s reach according to my/their over all understanding of existence is a different story.

You are caused to reason, but not caused to conclude? How? Why? I’d appreciate it if you’d explain further.

Sapius: My conclusions conform to MY understanding of existence, that's all.

Why do you separate your conclusions from your ‘understanding of existence’?

What’s the difference between the two?

What comprises your ‘understanding of existence?’ I want to know what makes it (your understanding) different from your conclusions.

Cory: If you say that you can’t help but to prefer, then your action is involuntary, is it not?

Sapius: No, my “actions”, preferences, depend on MY reasoning.

Ok, so your reasoning causes your preferences then.

That beng said, consider this....

That which is 'dependent', by definition, is completely at mercy to the whims of whatever it is the dependant thing is dependent on. In your case, your preferences are dependent and thus are helplessly at mercy to the whims of your reasoning.

You are saying that your preferences are ‘dependent’ upon your reasoning.

And you say that you can't help but to reason.

Therefore your preferences are indeed involuntary, because they are dependent and thus conform to whatever your reasoning does.

And the movement of your reasoning, according to you, is involuntary.

Cory: For instance - Sure, the words ‘fire’ and ‘water’ point to the phenomena of ‘fire’ and ‘water’ but the phenomenon of fire or water ultimately have no particular meaning in themselves - despite we may use signs (words) to point toward them.

The words have meanings yes, but the things that words point to don’t have meaning.

Sapius: You brought up this point earlier too so I would like to understand what you mean by it. Lets clear the meaning of meaning first.

How do words come about?

Do you think that communication between two entities is unique to humans? I’m sure you are aware that under-sea mammals communicate with sound. And ants communicate with chemicals.

So do you think that the communication between ants is significantly different from the communication between humans?

I think the right question is: what were the first creatures to establish a mode of communication, and how did THAT happen?

If you can answer that, then words shouldn’t be too big of a mystery.

I would say that words evolved out of a more simple communication that was already established.

So like I said, most creatures have some sort of communication, whether it is with sounds or chemicals.

I have a very limited and mere speculative explanation for why there are even creatures, let alone creatures who communicate:

Perhaps there is just this blind impersonal will that pervades the universe, and sometimes this will, when given the right circumstances, scitters, crawls, walks, flys and swims.....not only that, but it has an urge to communicate in order to become more secure.

Once communication is established, given the right circumstances, its communication will become increasingly complex.

Cory,

You are caused to reason, but not caused to conclude? How? Why? I’d appreciate it if you’d explain further.

You mean to say explain what you comprehend from what I said? Or explain what I said?

I am caused to reason, and I am caused to conclude, but if you notice, there is an “I” in between any particular reasoning and conclusion, and you and I are NOT one and the same thing. Causation does not make every-thing one and the same thing, and each thing, although caused, posses their own casually created attributes which then become responsible for conclusions emerging from that particular THING.

Why do you separate your conclusions from your ‘understanding of existence’?

What’s the difference between the two?

What comprises your ‘understanding of existence?’ I want to know what makes it (your understanding) different from your conclusions.

Because conclusions are pieces of different truths and understanding is all those truths rolled up in one. I think someone put it this way…

Cory: I think it’s difficult for people to understand how all of the apparent truths can be rolled into one whole and thus be regarded as a singular truth rather than a pluralism of different fragmented truths.

Ok, so your reasoning causes your preferences then.

That beng said, consider this....

That which is 'dependent', by definition, is completely at mercy to the whims of whatever it is the dependant thing is dependent on. In your case, your preferences are dependent and thus are helplessly at mercy to the whims of your reasoning.

You are saying that your preferences are ‘dependent’ upon your reasoning.

And you say that you can't help but to reason.

Therefore your preferences are indeed involuntary, because they are dependent and thus conform to whatever your reasoning does.

And the movement of your reasoning, according to you, is involuntary.

No, I cannot help but reason, but the movement of reasoning is mine, as you appropriate say ‘movement of your reasoning’.

Once communication is established, given the right circumstances, its communication will become increasingly complex.

I understand, but I would still like to know, how do words exactly come about?

Is it the words that have meanings, and not what it points to, or is it a thing that experiences something and is able to express his experiences in words since it is complex enough? Are words in and of it-self being understood, or the meanings that the words convey? Want is being communicated, words or their meanings?

On the other hand, you seem to limit ‘meanings’ to words it-self, whereas animals live in a “meaningful” world too, because they can “meaningfully” (logically) differentiate one thing from another, and survive, reasonably. Do you think animals are not caused to "reason" according to their lesser complexity?

We have our tool of communication and animals have theirs. What do the animals actually communicate? Their grunts and squeaks or what they “mean” by it? So how "meaningless" is their world without words?

...we both live in the same world, Cory, but my over all understanding is different than yours, but not superior according to MY over all understanding, that is, truths rolled into One.

Sapius,

Cory: You are caused to reason, but not caused to conclude? How? Why? I’d appreciate it if you’d explain further.

Sapius: I am caused to reason, and I am caused to conclude, but if you notice, there is an “I” in between any particular reasoning and conclusion

No, you are your reasonings, you are your conclusions, you are your feelings, and so on, and so.

Add infinitum.

You say you are caused, but what is you? You are the thing that (merely seems to be) causing you.

Ultimately, causality is an illusion.

You are only the totality. You can’t say that ‘you’ are caused by this, that and the other. You are all, and the all is nothing. You are nothing, there is only an agglomeration of constituents extending infinitely.

Ultimately you are the totality. And the totality is formless and uncaused. Therefore you are uncaused.

There is nothing causing you, because there is no inherent you.

Sapius: You and I are NOT one and the same thing.

There is no you and I. There is no thing that is inherently a thing.

Sapius: Causation does not make every-thing one and the same thing, and each thing, although caused, posses their own casually created attributes which then become responsible for conclusions emerging from that particular THING.

Each manifestation is the face of the totality, not the effect of it, nor the cause of it.

The totality has no cause - therefore all manifestations have no cause.

Cory: Why do you separate your conclusions from your ‘understanding of existence’? What’s the difference between the two? What comprises your ‘understanding of existence?’ I want to know what makes it (your understanding) different from your conclusions.

Sapius: Because conclusions are pieces of different truths and understanding is all those truths rolled up in one.

To conclude IS to understand. There is false understanding(false concluding) and there is true understanding(true concluding)

There is no meaningful difference between concluding and understanding.

You divide the conclusion from the concluder.

The concluder IS the conclusion.

Sapius: I cannot help but reason for I am a thing caused to reason, but what conclusions my reasoning’s reach according to my over all understanding of existence is a different story.

How is it a different story? Please, tell me the story.

Sapius: My conclusions conform to MY understanding of existence, that's all.

Your conclusions conform to what? Where is the center?

What is it made of?

Conclusions!

Therefore it is meaningless to say: “my conclusions conform to my understanding of existence”.

Your conclusions ARE your understanding of existence.

Consider the logic of the following:

‘The three sides of my triangle conform to my triangle’.

The three sides of the triangle are the triangle!

Cory: Ok, so your reasoning causes your preferences then. That beng said, consider this.... That which is 'dependent', by definition, is completely at mercy to the whims of whatever it is the dependant thing is dependent on. In your case, your preferences are dependent and thus are helplessly at mercy to the whims of your reasoning. You are saying that your preferences are ‘dependent’ upon your reasoning. And you say that you can't help but to reason. Therefore your preferences are indeed involuntary, because they are dependent and thus conform to whatever your reasoning does. And the movement of your reasoning, according to you, is involuntary.

Sapius: No, I cannot help but reason, but the movement of reasoning is mine, as you appropriately say ‘movement of your reasoning’.

So what are you apart from your reasoning? Where are you located?

Cory: Once communication is established, given the right circumstances, its communication will become increasingly complex.


Sapius: I understand, but I would still like to know, how do words exactly come about?

Is it the words that have meaning, and not what they point to?

Yes, that’s right. Water in itself doesn’t inherently mean anything. But if a creature is struggling to survive, its chances of survival increase if it can communicate to its fellow organism about the water’s relationship to other manifestations, such as sharks, or shrimp. So no isolated thing has any inherent meaning. It is only when manifestations are in relationship to each other that one can communicate to others about the manifestations. But this not possible without having values about what is better and what is worse.

For example: Beware, there are sharks in that part of the water. There is food(shrimp) to be caught along that part of the cove.

Sapius: Or is it a thing that experiences something and is able to express his experiences in words since it is complex enough?

To be more specific, it is the experiencing of fear & pain in response to certain manifestations in relationship to the experiencing of pleasure, relief and comfort in response to other manifestations. Such negative and positive experiences give rise to the will to communicate danger and opportunity.

Sapius: Are words in and of them-selves being understood?

No, an isolated word in it-self inherently has no meaning – furthermore, an isolated language, in itself has no inherent meaning. A word only has meaning when it corresponds to a particular manifestation BUT ONLY if

1) That manifestation is threatening (or judged as negative, inferior) and 2) that manifestation is in relationship to a manifestation that is comforting (or judged as positive, superior). And thus a second word for the positive needs to be established in order for the first word (for the negative) to mean anything.

Furthermore, two words cannot mean anything unless you have two manifestations, one good, the other bad.

So duality is necessary for one to establish a sense of meaning.

And so you are right Sapius, one needs meaning in order to fuction.

And meaning is inexorably based on a 'superior/inferior' duality.

You cannot function without acknowledging one things as better and another as worse.

Sapius: What is being communicated, words or their meanings?

Some manifestations are felt to be negative, others positive, and from that foundation of feeling, emotion and fear, words are invented to communicate various things that are felt (and/or judged) to be danger and opportunity.

So it is values that are being communicated.

Sapius: On the other hand, you seem to limit ‘meanings’ to words it-self, whereas animals live in a “meaningful” world too, because they can “meaningfully” (logically) differentiate one thing from another, and survive, reasonably. Do you think animals are not caused to "reason" according to their lesser complexity?

I would say the lower animals are caused only to sensually feel negative or positive. There is no logical reasoning happening for them. But I think with Dogs, Monkeys, Dolphins, Elephants and other more evolved animals, memory becomes the servant to the more primitive negative and positive sensations/emtions of the animals, thus values and meaning is born - but in the animals case, they are based purely on emotion and sensuality, despite some memory and correlation maping is involved.

Sapius: We have our tool of communication and animals have theirs. What do the animals actually communicate? Their grunts and squeaks or what they “mean” by it? So how "meaningless" is their world without words?

I would say that the animals are having experiences that seem real to them. God knows what an elephant is going through when he returns to the grave of a fallen kin. He is apparently going through some sort of painful mourning and sorrow and attempting to deal with the pain of his absurd perdicament, an absurdity of which he is not conscious enough to realize, but only confusedly dwell upon. The elephant dwells upon the loss of something that once gave him positive feelings, a trajectory. If the source of ones positive feelings gets knocked out, then one is like a planet that gets flung from its star, and thus one drifts aimlessly and painfully through a meaningless black.

I would think that the reality, the meaning of all animals is based on a duality of sensuality and emotion. Therefore, their experiences are ultimately meaningless, but for the animals, there is a simulation happening that seems very real to them. Worth killing for. Worth mourning for. Worth running away in terror for. Worth playing mischievously for.

(I looked out my window the other day and seen 6 deer all prancing around, jumping and bucking, running after each other. They were having fun)

Sapius: we both live in the same world, Cory, but my over all understanding is different than yours, but not superior according to MY over all understanding, that is, truths rolled into One.

Are you sure that there was ever a time when truth was ‘not’ rolled into one?

I say that the truth is only one, was only ever one.

Ultimately, causality is an illusion.

You are only the totality. You can’t say that ‘you’ are caused by this, that and the other. You are all, and the all is nothing. You are nothing, there is only an agglomeration of constituents extending infinitely.

Ultimately you are the totality. And the totality is formless and uncaused. Therefore you are uncaused.

There is nothing causing you, because there is no inherent you.

It might take a while for me to digest this, Cory; but then again, I guess considering the above situation it would make no sense to discuss anything said, would it?

all our integrations stem from our intro-extrovertive ability; a mental breathing - give ,take and remake.

Steven,

Earlier on this thread (Wed Oct 04) you posted the below under the subject title of “Cents”.

Love is a fleeting thing - whose sole purpose is to turn the infinite into the finite.

This line of yours caught my eye. I’m not sure what you mean by it, but I wonder if this is your poetic way of saying that attachment to things (love) prevents us from living in a direct relationship with Truth.

Or is it just more of your whimsy?

Human characteristics, such as "gentleness, being open, being patient, understanding . . ." are good traits.

Whilst I’m here - “good traits” – what does that mean? ‘Good’ for whom?

-
Sue

Love is a fleeting thing - whose sole purpose is to turn the infinite into the finite.

This line of yours caught my eye. I’m not sure what you mean by it, but I wonder if this is your poetic way of saying that attachment to things (love) prevents us from living in a direct relationship with Truth.

:)

Yes, we agree.

Human characteristics, such as "gentleness, being open, being patient, understanding . . ." are good traits.

Whilst I’m here - “good traits” – what does that mean? ‘Good’ for whom?

'Good' as opposed to the emotional 'bad' of love.

To paraphrase you, 'good' for the strong of heart and mind.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I would think that the reality, the meaning of all animals is based on a duality of sensuality and emotion. Therefore, their experiences are ultimately meaningless, but for the animals, there is a simulation happening that seems very real to them. Worth killing for. Worth mourning for. Worth running away in terror for. Worth playing mischievously for.

(I looked out my window the other day and seen 6 deer all prancing around, jumping and bucking, running after each other. They were having fun).

It seems to me that the ability to perceive would contribute to the cycle of sensuality, emotion, and experiences. Last week I was sitting behind my house, listening to the frogs. There had to be over 100 of them. After a little while I noticed they had an actual tune going, a real rhytmic pattern with different frogs taking different parts in the song. After a little while, it changed, and it took a barely perceptable moment for all the frogs to join in on the new rhythm. There were pauses, different rhythms and sounds, and they would return to a particular pattern like a refrain. The frogs were having a full-fledged jam session. It sounded like they were having fun, but they had to perceive how the other frogs were singing in order for them to be in rhythm with each other like that.

In contrast, a few mornings later when I was out for a walk, I saw an armadillo nosing around a mailbox. I couldn't figure out what he was doing out in the daylight. I walked right up to him (or her) and it did not notice me. I was crouched down looking it right in the face from about two feet away before it noticed me and ran off. At night I can't walk up to an armadillo like that - if I'm 15 - 25 feet away and head up to one, it runs off. If I'm standing still and there are two of them (paying more attention to each other than to what's going on around them) they might run by me within 5 - 10 feet, but that is it.

Is there really less reality for the armadillo in the daylight just because he can not see as much of the world, and therefore does not experience the emotion of it? No. Is there more reality for the frogs that can jam in a band of 100 than there is for 6 deer? The world may seem more real to the human who experiences emotions than the one who has conquered emotions, but the reality and the meaning are the same. It is only the perception that differs.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Ultimately, causality is an illusion.

You are only the totality. You can’t say that ‘you’ are caused by this, that and the other. You are all, and the all is nothing. You are nothing, there is only an agglomeration of constituents extending infinitely.

Ultimately you are the totality. And the totality is formless and uncaused. Therefore you are uncaused.

There is nothing causing you, because there is no inherent you.

I've been trying to make sense out of what you're saying here. Sorry, I'm no genuis or anything so it just seems rather bleak to me. So you=everything=nothing? So because humans are made up of cells, cells aren't really anything at all because they are just parts that make up a human? Causality is an illusion? How is that helpful? Show me this illusion? What is not an illusion, the totality? How would you know that this totality isn't an illusion? How would I know what you are even talking about without words. If there is no I or no you, why are we trying to communicate to each other? And how would we perceive the I or the you. Are we not different parts of the totality? I mean, my ego thinks it understands what your ego is getting at, but it would seem pretty difficult to function if my ego couldn't distinguish itself from the rest of the world. I guess that's why we have are egos in the first place. So I would like to think there is an I and a you. Of course there is more to you that I can understand. What I perceive to be you, isn't really what you perceive yourself to be. But I have to call you something don't I? What I am calling you has a cause. What I call myself has a cause. What I call this universe has a cause. So I must assume that other universes have causes as well. I don't feel the need to take that through into infinity. Do I know if existence has a cause? I feel that I have enough information to think that there is usefulness in thinking that causes are real. So tell me what the usefulness of thinking a cause is an illusion. I'd rather think that all causes originate from the same source. Did that source cause itself or had no cause? I can only think that I call it the source without really knowing it's origin. That's why I call it the source. Everything seems to come from something. If everything came from the same something so they are just different manifestations of that something, then wouldn't it be more useful to distinguish the difference between the manifestations while understanding that they all come from the same source so still retain a unity about them?

And what is meant by this totality that is really nothing. If there was ever nonexistence, than what did existence come from? Whatever I call the ultimate reality, I know it is not really the ultimate reality. It's the greatest reality that my mind can understand. I like to think of the Ultimate reality as existence in all its forms. I label it to communicate my ideas to others, but is the meaning I attach to the label acccurate. I mean, can I really understand existence in all its forms. I believe that my human mind limits what I can understand about it. So I'm kind of just labeling a psychological process. For me, this procees results in the prohibition of the ego from seperating an external world from itself. It's like a method that I use to connect to the world around me, and a feeling of unity with this world washes over me. So I might recognize this unity, but I also understand why there is an I and you. If you are one wheel of the bike and I am the other, together with the other parts of the bike, we are the bike, but that doesn't mean we are the same wheel. We represent the same part of the bike, but we are different wheels. I'm sorry for such a long rant. I'm not really trying to argue with you as much as I'm trying to express why I am confused. So I'm just trying to show you where I am coming from so maybe you can see where my logic is failing me. I have some poor communication skills in comparison to the rest of you. I'm probably not as educated as the rest of you are on the subject. So I am here more to learn and discuss rather than to debate.

Hello Bird,

Bird: I've been trying to make sense out of what you're saying here. Sorry, I'm no genuis or anything so it just seems rather bleak to me.

I was told that money would grow from a certain tree and I both believed it and was happy about the possibilities that the tree would grant me. Then the time came when I realized the truth of how the tree really functions, and hence the truth seemed really bleak to me.

The same goes with woman. If I have a very lovely image of woman, if I see her as an oasis, a promise of happiness – then it is going to seem very bleak to me to realize the truth of her.

So, bleakness can only be if there is a false construct of sweetness, or goodness.

You take away the fanciful construct - then you take away the bleakness.

Bird: So you=everything=nothing? So because humans are made up of cells, cells aren't really anything at all because they are just parts that make up a human? Causality is an illusion? How is that helpful?

It is helpful because the stranglehold of emotions, of fear, guilt and sorrow can loosen (and perhaps be totally eradicated) if you become comfortable with these truths. The world is stupid because of emotions, and some men by nature strive for superior intelligence, meaning, understanding, clarity, for perfection and justice. Some men, because they desire to be superior are driven to attain intelligence and clarity, and that is because they can’t help but find stupidity unacceptable.

Causality is an illusion? Show me this illusion? What is not an illusion, the totality?

The totality isn’t any particular form, or thing. Whereas, any manifestation within the totality, has no inherent existence of its own, including you. To believe that a particular thing can give you happiness, security, etc is to enslave animals, breed woman to be the way she is, initiate and/or participate in wars, chase mirages, live in fear, sorrow, etc.

To believe that the goal of happiness is achieved through attainment of things will only lead to a foolish life and one will most likely die in fear, confusion and regret.

Perhaps some humans, they die with pride and no regret, despite their life was a deluded one, I dont know.

Bird: How would you know that this totality isn't an illusion?

Facts need not be proven, only implied. The fact is, that there is the sensation of existence, the sensation of there being manifestations, appearances. It may or may not be a dream. Regardless, there are appearances that stretch far and wide. That there is a totality is implied in the fact that there is irrefutably experience, manifestation, seeing, and thought.

Bird: How would I know what you are even talking about without words.

For you to know what I mean, we would both have to share the same communication, whether it is through words, or other means.

Bird: If there is no I or no you, why are we trying to communicate to each other?

Because we both desire to become greater, clearer, more free, more superior. The desire is involuntary.

Bird: How would we perceive the I or the you.

How would I perceive myself? How would I perceive you? How would you perceive yourself?

Try it. Try to perceive yourself. Who are you? What are you? How could you answer such a question? Certainly it doesnt stop at what you see in the mirror, certainly it is not merely that bundle of memories and emotion. Any answer you give would be a lie unless you said you were the totality. What is the totality? Everything yet nothing. However, the nothing that I am referring to is not a void, but rather it is just a formless plenum that has no thingness to it. You are boundless energy. Conceptions of causality, because they are inherently limited, stifle and dilute this uncaused, boundless and supreme energy.

Bird: Are we not each different parts of the totality? I mean, my ego thinks it understands what your ego is getting at, but it would seem pretty difficult to function if my ego couldn't distinguish itself from the rest of the world.

You certainly wouldn’t want to abandon your brains ability to see things broken up in distinctions and in terms of causality – but for most people life is an effort, a misery, a bore, a frightening thing, a great anxiety, a sorrow, a guilt. To live life as if there is no difference between life and death – that is what it means to be free. To be free is to live without effort and fear, and to live without effort is to live with supreme clarity. Supreme clarity is what it is because it runs through the brain of an organism that has both died to the world, given up, has risen above it, yet is the leafy cannopy, a tree, with its roots being the world that it looms over.

Personally, I have some work to do. But I feel I’ve made enough progress to speak about this subject of enlightenment in way that might be helpful.

The bird: I guess that's why we have egos in the first place.

Sure, an ego is necessary. Planning for the future is neccesary.

Bird: So I would like to think there is an I and a you. Of course there is more to you that I can understand. What I perceive to be you, isn't really what you perceive yourself to be.

And what do I perceive myself to be? What do you perceive yourself to be? I perceive myself to be the relationship I have to life. I am as good as the people I depend on and interact with. That is why a spiritual friend is in a sense your greatest enemy. He knocks out all supports that one grips to. A spiritual friend sees you as a part of himself, so he attacks what is false about you, in order to improve himself. A sage really has no friends because two sages both identify themselves as the truth, and there is only one truth. The truth has no friend, it stands alone. Two sages are the same truth.

Bird: But I have to call you something don't I?

Yes, but that is only superficial, it is a trifle.

What I am calling you has a cause. What I call myself has a cause. What I call this universe has a cause.

You can only call me as you see me. You merely describe an appearance. The universe has no single cause.

So I must assume that other universes have causes as well. I don't feel the need to take that through into infinity. Do I know if existence has a cause? I feel that I have enough information to think that there is usefulness in thinking that causes are real. So tell me what the usefulness of thinking a cause is an illusion.

Let us take the phenomenon of becoming. To look at something like an addiction in a non-causal way is interesting.

To become addicted to something like nicotine is to, in a sense, to become (in part) the nicotine. Nicotine becomes a part of you. Nicotine has come to replace an old part of you with itself. So you have, in part, become nicotine. And you feel craving to smoke because that which is without itself, is dying. So the nicotine brain needs to be fed, or else it is dying. It is like this with any drug. And when any organ within you breaks-down, you break down. And when the world goes, you go. You are the world.

When it comes to freeing oneself from suffering, anxiety – one cannot do so through addition, adding. People think: “I will attain this and that will make me (cause me to be) secure. Or I will buy this, or achieve this, or do this, and that will cause me to be better, safe, happy. I will win her affection, and possess her, then I will be ok”

No, there is no particular cause that will free you. Freedom comes through subtraction, not addition. If you subtract enough, and think rationally enough (which is to think negatively) you reach the ground of all being, which has no cause. To be in this state is to beat death – this is despite the fact that your consciousness, your memories will probably perish with your brain at physical death. But maybe they won’t. This world might be a word processor and the information of your life might be saved on a hard drive of another dimension, I don’t know. But I am secure knowing that my consciousness will be extinguished, because I identify myself with the quality of my relatioinship to life which will carry on after the physical body breaks down.

Bird: I'd rather think that all causes originate from the same source. Did that source cause itself or had it no cause?

There is no source, no beginning, and no end. Aquinas and Augustine were big on the first cause. Those two were crazy birds. If you postulate a first cause, then you run into the problem of explaining that first cause. But that is the way with humans, they would rather live with problems and bewilderments, rather than end them once and for all.

Bird: I can only think that I call it the source without really knowing its origin. That's why I call it the source. Everything seems to come from something.

That’s right. But if you postulate a first cause, then you find yourself in contradiction. First you say: “everything has a beginning, a source” but then you say: “everything seems to come from something” Does this source come from something? If not, then your former statement becomes invalided. If so, then your former statement becomes invalidated.

The contradiction is resolved when you see that ‘beginning and end’ are merely mental constructions that have no actual existence.

then wouldn't it be more useful to distinguish the difference between the manifestations while understanding that they all come from the same source so still retain a unity about them?

But I dont think they come from a source.

Whatever I call the ultimate reality, I know it is not really the ultimate reality. It's the greatest reality that my mind can understand. I like to think of the Ultimate reality as existence in all its forms. I label it to communicate my ideas to others, but is the meaning I attach to the label acccurate. I mean, can I really understand existence in all its forms? I believe that my human mind limits what I can understand about it. So I'm kind of just labeling a psychological process. For me, this procees results in the prohibition of the ego from seperating an external world from itself. It's like a method that I use to connect to the world around me, and a feeling of unity with this world washes over me. So I might recognize this unity, but I also understand why there is an I and you. If you are one wheel of the bike and I am the other, together with the other parts of the bike, we are the bike,

Yes, you and I are the same thing.

But that doesn't mean we are the same wheel.

Exactly.

We represent the same part of the bike, but we are different wheels. I'm sorry for such a long rant. I'm not really trying to argue with you as much as I'm trying to express why I am confused. So I'm just trying to show you where I am coming from so maybe you can see where my logic is failing me. I have some poor communication skills in comparison to the rest of you. I'm probably not as educated as the rest of you are on the subject. So I am here more to learn and discuss rather than to debate.

I think you have done rather well. When I first came on this board, my posts were very long too. I have learned that it’s better to keep it short. Long posts are the imprints of strong emotion. Which is necessary at first. Its good to be passionate as long as the object is truth. Such passion is eventually consumed by the nature of the activity it fuels.

Just to bring things down to earth a bit, I'll tell you a bit about a particular bewilderment I have. I am sometimes tempted to indulge in the pleasure of writing in a way that makes me seem like a guy with all the answers. It wouldnt take much for someone to study all the wise books and then just learn all the right scripts to speal. That's not to say that everything I written on this post or entire thread is just a bunch of parroting intended to charm and mystifiy.

What I'm getting at is:

I find it irrational that there is a totality at all.

I know that some philosophers have resolved this problem by saying: "there is nothing to begin with". "All there ever was, was something".

But still, I just can't get my head around it.

Why is there anything? Seems illogical.

But postulating a first cause makes it even more illogical if you ask me.

Cory wrote:

A sage really has no friends because two sages both identify themselves as the truth, and there is only one truth. The truth has no friend, it stands alone. Two sages are the same truth.

Why couldn't the two sages be friends? They would be the same truth. Doesn't Truth like Itself?

Elise: Why couldn't the two sages be friends? They would be the same truth. Doesn't Truth like Itself?

When you say; 'like' - - that sounds to me like an emotion, a feeling of pleasure for a particular thing - and I'm not satisfied with that.

The sage:

Prick him with a pin, and he pulls back. Shout an obcenity at him, and he is unmoved. Sprinkle him with flattery and he is unmoved. However, he has his program, his purpose in life and he carries on doing what he is programed to do.

A sage I think would treat things, people and situations differently depending on what he judges the thing to be, and like and dislike for the object would have no influence over him.

Is that the way I function? Maybe sometimes. But often I feel irritaiton, anxiety, hatred and fear, and thus I desire someone to depend on, to escape from my shoddy self into. But the program I am running on is stronger than my emotional longings. So the negative state eventually drops away and I carry on with my thinking and watching.


I think that one, in the begining, needs to enjoy the truth, love it, and pursue it, feel joy before revelations. Not only that, but I think one needs to be in relationship to those who behave similarly. So yes, such is friendship. Friendship is neccesary.

But the similarity is never so strong that the friendship is not without its pains and strife. And that is why, ultimately, one goes beyond like and dislike totally. In this state, one cannot be said to be anything to anybody.

Cory wrote:

But the similarity is never so strong that the friendship is not without its pains and strife.

I would go so far as to say that, since none of us is perfect, in humans the more similar two people are, the more intense the pains and strife when they do occur. I considered that advanced enough sages would be past the pont of pains and strife.

The level of "like" I was referring to would be similar to "is satisfied with" but would have an emotional connotation of positive regard. I believe the Totality would include emotions, and positive emotions would be included in Goodness.

often I feel irritaiton, anxiety, hatred and fear, and thus I desire someone to depend on,

I have found that there is no one I can depend on, and it is the depenence on someone else that leads to further and worse irritaiton, anxiety, hatred and fear. Any kind of expectation of others, even if the expectation is just that others will behave in accordance with what was assumed to be mutual moral standards, can lead to disappointment, anger, irritaiton, anxiety, hatred, grief and fear. I am forced to depend on myself, so even that dependence leads to some of the above emotions.

Acceptance rather than dependence removes the unpleasant emotions. By only accepting morality, one does open one's self up to possibilities of pain.

to escape from my shoddy self into.

Disposing of the shoddiness removes the need to escape. It also increases the quality of all relationships. Why would someone want to be too close to a shoddy person? The healthiest of relationships are between the healthiest of people. None of us is perfect, so accepting another person despite shortcomings is as Nature intended. Politely mentioning some shortcoming that one believes the other might not have realized was there, or gently helping to correct each other's shortcomings is a loving thing to do if the help is wanted, but the removing of shoddiness is only the responsibility of the individual. That is another danger of escaping one's shoddy self into another person - the one then sees his shoddiness in the other person, and tries to remove his shoddiness from the other person. That doesn't work; it only leads to resentment.

But the similarity is never so strong that the friendship is not without its pains and strife. And that is why, ultimately, one goes beyond like and dislike totally.

I love all people, so in that way I have gone beyond like and dislike of people (as opposed to behaviors), but I can also particularly like people when they are showing a pattern of admirable behaviors and do not display unlovable behaviors. Anhedonia, not liking or disliking anything, is a possible reaction to a person's spirit becoming broken, not sage-like.

it is the depenence on someone else that leads to further and worse irritaiton, anxiety, hatred and fear.

Okay, so dependence on someone else isn't the only thing that causes fear. Someone just came up to the door claiming to need to get into the back yard to do a survey. Who for? the neighbor...What company? the guy in the football jersey finally gave me a name. I looked online to verify - nope, couldn't find a company by that name. Told him to leave - twice, and why. He threatens to call the police if I don't let him in. I tell him I'll do that for him. While I'm on the phone, he and his buddy come back with a shovel. The buddy with the shovel starts yelling at me. Yes, I was scared. Eventually the neighbor came over and verified that they really were surveyors.

Okay, there are a variety of things that cause unpleasant emotions.

You can only call me as you see me. You merely describe an appearance. The universe has no single cause.

There is no source, no beginning, and no end. Aquinas and Augustine were big on the first cause. Those two were crazy birds. If you postulate a first cause, then you run into the problem of explaining that first cause. But that is the way with humans, they would rather live with problems and bewilderments, rather than end them once and for all.


That’s right. But if you postulate a first cause, then you find yourself in contradiction. First you say: “everything has a beginning, a source” but then you say: “everything seems to come from something” Does this source come from something? If not, then your former statement becomes invalided. If so, then your former statement becomes invalidated.

The contradiction is resolved when you see that ‘beginning and end’ are merely mental constructions that have no actual existence.


What I'm getting at is:

I find it irrational that there is a totality at all.

I know that some philosophers have resolved this problem by saying: "there is nothing to begin with". "All there ever was, was something".

But still, I just can't get my head around it.

Why is there anything? Seems illogical.

But postulating a first cause makes it even more illogical if you ask me.

Thank you for such an insightful response. I understand that it is illogical to assume that there was a first cause. I wasn't really talking about a first cause to existence. It's hard to explain really. It's like that question, why does anything exist at all? When I say the source, I guess it's meant more for me to feel comfortable with a mystery. I don't think I can solve this mystery so I end my chase for it. I'm not saying the source is the first cause, but the source for all causes the source of any natural law. It's more of a way of communicating my concept of god than it is to explain the origin of existence. I believe the first cause of this universe was the Big Bang. This universe was probably caused by the collision of other universes, who knows? But what could I know about the other universes? I don't know, I just have thought about what god is for a long time, and I had this impulse of what God is that I couldn't really accurately put into words or thoughts. I thought for many years building this impulse into concepts. I still think the impulse is more accurate. When I started learning about different religions, I found philosophies that I related to. So I've been calling it the source since I learned about Brahman, the ultimate underlying source. I have many questions, but few answers. I greatly appreciate your response, I will think on it further. You have been really helpful.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

it is the depenence on someone else that leads to further and worse irritaiton, anxiety, hatred and fear.

Okay, so dependence on someone else isn't the only thing that causes fear. Someone just came up to the door claiming to need to get into the back yard to do a survey. Who for? the neighbor...What company? the guy in the football jersey finally gave me a name. I looked online to verify - nope, couldn't find a company by that name. Told him to leave - twice, and why. He threatens to call the police if I don't let him in. I tell him I'll do that for him. While I'm on the phone, he and his buddy come back with a shovel. The buddy with the shovel starts yelling at me. Yes, I was scared. Eventually the neighbor came over and verified that they really were surveyors.

Okay, there are a variety of things that cause unpleasant emotions.

Whats an Indigo?

the bird wrote:What's an Indigo?

The best resource is The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived by Lee Carroll and Jan Tober. There are very few Indigos my age, most of us are much younger.

Here are some free articles:
index to Indigo articles

and a list of characteristics: (scroll down after window opens)
adult indigo characteristics

The site isn't as good as the book, but it will give you some idea.

I love all people, so in that way I have gone beyond like and dislike of people (as opposed to behaviors), but I can also particularly like people when they are showing a pattern of admirable behaviors and do not display unlovable behaviors.

So? What is the function of your 'like'? What is the good of your liking certain behaviors?

Anhedonia, not liking or disliking anything, is a possible reaction to a person's spirit becoming broken, not sage-like.

The problem I have with 'liking' particular people and things is that, looking around at the world, it seems to be the root of all exploitation, of all evil. .

Cory Duchesne wrote: What is the function of your 'like'? What is the good of your liking certain behaviors?

How deep do you want me to go with that one? It's circularly positive reinforcement for my mission in life and it is the reason for my mission in life.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
The problem I have with 'liking' particular people and things is that, looking around at the world, it seems to be the root of all exploitation, of all evil.

It can be, and that is unfortunate. It does not have to be, and that is what I'm working on showing people. It is possible to like and love another without exploiting the other person. One can like without coveting.

Love is very powerful. When evil grabs hold of love, it is a terrible and terrifying weapon. Loving with purity and strength is the most beautiful of all things. Only love can create the Nirvana we seek, but love abused can just as easily turn all we know into Hades. Immature children have been playing with the biggest power-tool Reality has to offer, and those are the results you have seen Cory. Liking, as well as loving, with the maturity of reason, rationality, and responsibility is beautiful.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

the bird wrote:What's an Indigo?

The best resource is The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived by Lee Carroll and Jan Tober. There are very few Indigos my age, most of us are much younger.

Here are some free articles:
index to Indigo articles

and a list of characteristics: (scroll down after window opens)
adult indigo characteristics

The site isn't as good as the book, but it will give you some idea.

Hmm, interesting. So I don't have ADD after all? I don't know if I'm buying it, I guess I'll have to read the book.

Some people do actually have ADD, but some do not. How reliable have your psychic experiences been? Have you had really unusual experiences with electicity (one time a co-worker ordered me to not go near anything electrical for the rest of the day... other stuff where it obviously wasn't just my perception that something weird was happening), what's your IQ (Indigos have higher IQs), what other ways do you think you may be an Indigo? Just inattentiveness, defiance, and not fitting into a structure well do not make an Indigo.

Actually, I don't think I'm defiant, but those who feel insecure in their authority may think I am.

Oh my god. THis indigo stuff is a bunch of new age hooey. Well, also as old as time. The Eye of Horus? Come on.

These indigo kids just need to be hit once and put in time out.

I'm sorry, sometimes that ass needs to be smacked.

millipodium wrote:These indigo kids just need to be hit once and put in time out.

I'm sorry, sometimes that ass needs to be smacked.

I think the phrase my father said to me the most was "I'll knock you into next Tuesday" while shaking his fist at me. I was as perfect as I could be as a child. Despite his abuse, I took care of him single-handedly while working and putting myself through school for the last nine years of his life.

I allowed everyone to push me around most of my life. When I was a kid, every time I went to a new school, my mother would make sure to announce either in front of the class or across the playground "Remember, Jesus said to always turn the other cheek, so no matter what they do to you, always turn the other cheek." Sometimes she'd even tell one of the kids that if I tried to hit anyone back, to let her know. One time I did try to defend myself, and one of the guys beating me up told my mother, so I got it even worse at home. I had to endure weeks of the choir boys standing in a circle around me, beating me with their bookbags. At least it was better than what I got at home.

And what was my "crime" that I should be beaten like that? I asked, and the most I was ever told was that I was "different" How? I asked...because I told jokes that only the teacher understood. There were other differences that i have since realized, but that was the most that the other kids could tell me at the time.

After both of my parents were dead, people still took advantage of me. I was raised to believe that because I was a female, I was worthless except maybe for sex and to take care of men. Because I was taken advantage of so much, I grew to believe it. Eventually I got married, and I didn't even notice I was being abused until it got so bad that I nearly didn't get out alive.

Although it has only been a few years since I have learned to stand up for myself, I am done being walked all over, and I'm not going to let anyone else get walked on if I can help it either. Do you think I should be smacked for that? My name and address are to the left of the post; you could find me if you want "millipodium" and I wouldn't have the first clue it was you.

Indigo Powers Activate!

Form of: An Ice hammock!

Shape Of: An indignant feminist!

Quiz.

when your toddler runs wantonly into the street for the first time, does ass get smacked?

Hint: There's only one humane answer.