GENIUS FORUMS

PART 1

(subsequent parts to be added by editing this post at a later date/s)


The “I”

Defn, I: point of self/individual origin.

1. “I” can only exist in the past since one can only be conscious of any self as a point of origin in retrospect and/or in analysis.

2. The span of time between past and a present moment of consciousness of it is a construct (conscious or otherwise) of the present.

3. Therefore, an “I” said to exist in the present is immediately an “I” not in the present moment but in a construct of that moment.

4. In any present moment of the Totality as discerned by consciousness, what is later to be known as “I” is the effect point of that causal environment: of the Totality.


Belief in Self

5. Therefore, the “I” lacks inherent existence in the present and can only be said to exist inherently in or as something of the past (a construct within every present moment, ie: the past cannot objectively exist in the present).

[Inserted 7/6/06, 12:22 a.m.]

6. Corollary: “I” as an effect point in the present, and a point of origin in the past (by way of a construct in the present necessitated by the Totality and all other things as part of the Totality) manifests as the experience of time and memory as personal “I.”

Defn, personal I: the “individual” (that conception/identity which is not divided by time/change in consideration of a present [effect-point] moment): continuity of experience through change and by identity (association)/differentiation (disassociation).

Defn, other: an opposing and/or alternate point of origin in relation to personal I.

Defn, otherness: the quality and experience of an other (per definition above) as part of yet separate to personal I.

7. The existence of personal I is necessarily dependent upon the existence of an other/s. That is, it can only have (zag’s fundamentalist brand of) inherent existence insofar as it lacks it (duh) otherwise it could not possibly exist.

[Inserted 8/06/06, 1.30 a.m.]

8. Empirical forms are three- and four-dimensional objects.

9. One- and two-dimensional objects are not empirical forms: that is, they are a priori and can not exist as empirical forms/a posteriori.

10. The a priori one- and two-dimensions are logically necessary to the human experience of three- and four-dimensional objects, even though such objects -- 1 and 2D -- literally cannot be experienced as empirical objects (only as a priori, ie via pure logic).

11. Therefore, the nature of a priori knowledge is pure logic itself.

12. Therefore, it is possible to prove or disprove a priori knowledge through pure reason alone: by definition.

(to be continued)

PART 1

(subsequent parts to be added by editing this post at a later date/s)

The “I”

Defn, I: point of self/individual origin.

1. “I” can only exist in the past since one can only be conscious of any self as a point of origin in retrospect and/or in analysis.

No, since all past precludes the present from which it is perceived.

2. The span of time between past and a present moment of consciousness of it is a construct (conscious or otherwise) of the present.

3. Therefore, an “I” said to exist in the present is immediately an “I” not in the present moment but in a construct of that moment.

Said to? What stops something that is said under the understanding that it is ongoing, to be ongoing? Nothing.

4. In any present moment of the Totality as discerned by consciousness, what is later to be known as “I” is the effect point of that causal environment: of the Totality.

you should add--..."as discerned by consciousness"

Belief in Self

5. Therefore, the “I” lacks inherent existence in the present and can only be said to exist inherently in or as something of the past (a construct within every present moment, ie: the past cannot objectively exist in the present).

(to be continued)

What can be said of inherent existence is ultimately irrelevant. The self inherently exists in the momentary.

zag,

L: Defn, I: point of self/individual origin.

1. “I” can only exist in the past since one can only be conscious of any self as a point of origin in retrospect and/or in analysis.

S: No, since all past precludes the present from which it is perceived.

No it doesn't. By definition, it precludes "I," which I know you hate to hear. Care to offer a different definition and set of propositions?

What can be said of inherent existence is ultimately irrelevant. The self inherently exists in the momentary.

OK. So I’ll ignore you since your statement is something said of inherent existence and, thus, “ultimately” irrelevant. Which brings me to another question: I recall, not too far back, you had a go at David for qualifying the word philosophy -- he said something like “wise philosophy.” Yet here you say “ultimately” irrelevant. Have you had yet a change of heart (since you obviously abhor disclosing your reasoning)?

Tell me, when is a qualification superfluous and when is one necessary -- when you demand it is so, right?

In fact, the more I go over your replies to my post the more I see it is way over your head. And, if you don’t contribute something positive to it, I will personally request you be banned for the sake of form alone. If that does not occur and you continue this kind of idiocy, I will remove myself from the utterly feminine environment this forum has become, of late. No hard feelings, you understand. I see your kind of behaviour every day. And, personally, I do not come here for the purpose of making friends.

Leyla wrote:

The “I”

Defn, I: point of self/individual origin.

1. “I” can only exist in the past since one can only be conscious of any self as a point of origin in retrospect and/or in analysis.

When I think of ‘I’ in the past, this memory is occurring in the present moment. I cannot know for sure that I existed in the past, as I may have just been brought into existence and the ‘memories’ I possess been planted in my mind. Therefore, even though I may believe I did experience a past, there is no way to be certain of this.

2. The span of time between past and a present moment of consciousness of it is a construct (conscious or otherwise) of the present.

Even if my memories of ‘I’ in the past have been planted in my mind and I didn’t actually experience them, I am none the less shaped by them. That is, I experience this moment coloured by memories of the past ‘I’. This is what gives one a sense of an ongoing ‘I’ or a ‘self’.

3. Therefore, an “I” said to exist in the present is immediately an “I” not in the present moment but in a construct of that moment.

Yes, when I try to capture this present ‘I’, it immediately becomes a memory: an ‘I’ of the past.

4. In any present moment of the Totality as discerned by consciousness, what is later to be known as “I” is the effect point of that causal environment: of the Totality.

Like everything in the Totality, the ‘I’ depends on the Totality for its existence. It cannot exist in any other way. Therefore, the ‘I’ is no more, or no less, than the Totality itself.

Belief in Self

5. Therefore, the “I” lacks inherent existence in the present and can only be said to exist inherently in or as something of the past (a construct within every present moment, ie: the past cannot objectively exist in the present).

The ‘I’ can never be captured, because it is always changing. The ‘I’ of a moment ago is not the ‘I’ of this moment, or this one, or this one… I possess memories of an ‘I’ in the past, but since it is impossible for me to leave my mind, to take a look outside of it, I cannot know for certain that the past really happened. In the same way, I cannot predict what my future will be. What I can be certain about is that the ‘I’ is always in flux and is totally dependent on, and cannot be separated from its environment – the Totality.

Sue

zag,

Quote:
L: Defn, I: point of self/individual origin.

1. “I” can only exist in the past since one can only be conscious of any self as a point of origin in retrospect and/or in analysis.

S: No, since all past precludes the present from which it is perceived.

L:No it doesn't. By definition, it precludes "I," which I know you hate to hear. Care to offer a different definition and set of propositions?

Why would I hate to hear it?!

s:
What can be said of inherent existence is ultimately irrelevant. The self inherently exists in the momentary.

l:OK. So I’ll ignore you since your statement is something said of inherent existence and, thus, “ultimately” irrelevant. Which brings me to another question: I recall, not too far back, you had a go at David for qualifying the word philosophy -- he said something like “wise philosophy.” Yet here you say “ultimately” irrelevant. Have you had yet a change of heart (since you obviously abhor disclosing your reasoning)?[/quote]

It can be relevant if you want!

Tell me, when is a qualification superfluous and when is one necessary -- when you demand it is so, right?

A qualification is only superfluous when it isn't.

In fact, the more I go over your replies to my post the more I see it is way over your head. And, if you don’t contribute something positive to it, I will personally request you be banned for the sake of form alone. If that does not occur and you continue this kind of idiocy, I will remove myself from the utterly feminine environment this forum has become, of late. No hard feelings, you understand. I see your kind of behaviour every day. And, personally, I do not come here for the purpose of making friends.

Since you request I leave, I will. I'm not feeling so positive.
:(

Leyla wrote:
In fact, the more I go over your replies to my post the more I see it is way over your head. And, if you don’t contribute something positive to it, I will personally request you be banned for the sake of form alone. If that does not occur and you continue this kind of idiocy, I will remove myself from the utterly feminine environment this forum has become, of late. No hard feelings, you understand. I see your kind of behaviour every day. And, personally, I do not come here for the purpose of making friends.

Apparently the ultimate insult that can be parlayed here is 'You are a Sissy!'

I haven't come across this since Grade 1 primary school...it's astonishing that it has become a property of Genius...
Couldn't the Act of it, the parlaying of it, be construed as feminine behaviour?...

The projection of 'Sissy' on another with the attached assumption that the slanderer is free of such a thing is the idiocy...

A Masculine viewpoint would have a person withdrawing such a projection...admitting it to be a part of Oneself and thereby understanding it properly...making what is unconconscious, concscious.

You simply can't project Shadow elsewhere without holding it within yourself..

As much as you'd prefer to deny Ego...you won't get rid of it...but you can integrate it.

frank

Good thread. The understanding of 'I' is at the heart of enlightenment.

That is, I experience this moment colored by memories of the past ‘I’. This is what gives one a sense of an ongoing ‘I’ or a ‘self’.

You don't even need memories to have a sense of 'I.' If you suddenly awake from sleep or an accident or surgery, you may have no memory content at all. You may not even know who you are or where you are or what time it is or who the president is.....still, you know 'I'. I exist. And, you see that a world exists. 'I' and 'world' are both real and always appear together even in dream.

Yes, all things in perception are necessarily in the past as perception has to be worked through the nervous system. But these impressions are constantly being fed to consciousness in the present. Wherever there is perception of consciousness, there is 'I.' In the present. Perception of consciousness as 'I' IS the present. It perceives an object of the senses, categorizes it into duality, and presents the picture to 'I am.' 'I am' in its purest form is in a state of the total present so that it no longer even understands time (samadhi).

But 'I am' is only possible to perceive with a brain. Therefore, the brain and the world must also be real (prikriti) - even-though our perceptions of them is constantly delayed.

A Masculine viewpoint would have a person withdrawing such a projection...admitting it to be a part of Oneself and thereby understanding it properly...making what is unconconscious, conscious.

You simply can't project Shadow elsewhere without holding it within yourself..

Really, Frank, you are impressive. Excellent point. On the other hand, I am free to call people names because I am also that which I make fun of. It is perfectly clear to me that I am Hitler and a drag queen and a hardened Marine Seal. I am all of those things, so I certainly understand all those qualities when I see them 'outside.'

Shen is recognizing that part of herself that is not philosophical and striking out at it in the form of Suergaz. This is OK as long as she is aware of the fact.

If I call someone a 'sissy' or 'gay' it is because I want them to stop being so professorial and aloof. There is not a person here who is different from me.

leyla:

Ego: the belief in "I"

when the I comes into the Self,the Ego becomes the absolute.

Therefore, the “I” lacks inherent existence in the present and can only be said to exist inherently in or as something of the past (a construct within every present moment, ie: the past cannot objectively exist in the present).

The continuity of "I" relies on memory of itself [as a point of origin] to actualize itself into existence - defining itself as a construct of the Totality.

unwise wrote:
On the other hand, I am free to call people names because I am also that which I make fun of. It is perfectly clear to me that I am Hitler and a drag queen and a hardened Marine Seal. I am all of those things, so I certainly understand all those qualities when I see them 'outside.'

I am That which I seek to disown and condemn.

Funny isn't it?

frank

I am That which I seek to disown and condemn.

Funny isn't it?

I am really serious about it. It would make a great thread. Let me give you another example. I make fun of Bush all the time. He's not only unable to talk, but he is quite sinister and cruel. He very much knows what he wants to do - and is getting away with nearly all of it.

HOWEVER, I most certainly understand him totally because I feel him inside of me. I KNOW him. I feel the part of me that is exactly like him - that would be doing the exact same thing in his circumstances and viewpoint. I get this feeling with everyone I see. To me, everyone looks like a projection of myself.

As a matter of fact, this feeling was so strong in me I made a comment about it to my Russian girlfriend before I was enlightened. I just thought it was strange - like I was a million years old. Like I'd played all the roles. I really didn't know what to make of it.

Well, I'm feeling much more positive today! :D Go make your personal requests to have me banned you hurt people! I still love you! You're not inherently injurious. I can't really be sorry for myself, but I'm sorry you may not like me.

Everything inherently exists, nothing is an illusion.

If you don't have the courage for this realization, sink into your metaphysics if you must, but question yourselves if you find yourself arguing for them.

Now there is a nice, straightforward post. You are correct. Everything does exist; it is all god. There is a ball, an eye to perceive the ball, and a brain to produce consciousness. How can there be consciousness without these parts? If consciousness is real, these things are also real. How can god go away or not be real? Just because god is dancing does not mean god does not exist.

To pretend otherwise is to misunderstand the sages. It is a mental strategy. What would be the purpose of life if you intend to ignore it and pretend it (and yourself) do not exist?

unwise wrote:
I am really serious about it. It would make a great thread. Let me give you another example. I make fun of Bush all the time. He's not only unable to talk, but he is quite sinister and cruel. He very much knows what he wants to do - and is getting away with nearly all of it.

HOWEVER, I most certainly understand him totally because I feel him inside of me. I KNOW him. I feel the part of me that is exactly like him - that would be doing the exact same thing in his circumstances and viewpoint. I get this feeling with everyone I see. To me, everyone looks like a projection of myself.

As a matter of fact, this feeling was so strong in me I made a comment about it to my Russian girlfriend before I was enlightened. I just thought it was strange - like I was a million years old. Like I'd played all the roles. I really didn't know what to make of it.

The Shadow is supposed to be a hang up from the Judeo/Christian thing of a Judgemental/Punishing God that's running a program called the 'fight between Good and Evil'...
We're busy denying and suppressing our own tendencies of malevolence which leads us to project it onto others..
Emotionally attached to Good/Bad...

It would be nice to discover the inherency or lack thereof of the Russian Girlfriend...as a distraction of course..hehe

frank

It would be nice to discover the inherency or lack thereof of the Russian Girlfriend...as a distraction of course..hehe

Oh, she was real all right. hehe. In fact my connection to her is a very very interesting story. She had a very unusual human history, but I believe her to also be my own personal deity. --God making an actual appearance.

When I met her, I walked into a coffee shop I never go into. She was a waitress there. Someone said my name and I turned and she was looking at me with these big beautiful eyes. I asked her if she had said something. No one had. Love at first sight. She spoke like a gangster woman - like Natasha from Bullwinkle because her family had moved from Russia to Chicago. Too cute. And she had spent five years in New York meditating at an ashram, but she was completely normal and sensual. She treated me like a god. Weirdly kind, authentic and honest.

Making love to her was like some sort of spiritual experience. I had NO interest in Hindu mumbo jumbo or spirituality or religion. I was interested in Carl Jung. She didn't talk about Hinduism at all, but she would say that touching me put her in an alternated state that she had only felt a couple times. I found the experience to be highly positive.

But what was really happening was that I was receiving HER darshan - the personal presence of god. About a month after being around her I woke up one day feeling bliss. Hard to explain. --But a palpable spiritual presence that lasted a couple days where I could feel nothing but extreme happiness and peace as if all my sins were wiped out. Then this went away and I then became very interested in Indian gurus and obsessed with reading their writings.

This later lead to a complete 'glimpse' of Purusha.

And so, it was the 'Russian Girl' who came into my life at the precise moment to make all of these things occur. When it was all completed she 'disappeared' and had to go back to the East Coast. Now she is present behind the scenes. If I want anything I obtain it; if I curse anything it is cursed.

That's a great experience right there unwise...that's the Tantric style Initiation into the Mysteries delivered by the savvy female to the male....

The idea is the male can get 'too far into his head' and the gal can
'bring him to his Senses'...or Satori.

Some gals can deliver it as easy as other people can deliver pizza.

In Jung speak it's anima integration ...blasting thru' the Ego's Head Trip..it's Language Game of conceptual cobweb spinning...and connecting up to that deeper sense of Self where clarity and Joy reside...the Cosmic Self, if you like..

Celtic MythMakers referred to this type of savvy female as the Grail or Gift and the Male as the Quest or Quester...

Interpreters think that Feminism Rising is basically a Role Switch where the females are now getting into the Questing and it's a possibility for savvy males to initiate...
There's millions of career gals out there...too far into their heads...in their black, black, black business suits...crying out for intimacy, initiation...

The Gift has been passed to you unwise...the Satori...

It's a possibility for you to pass it along now.

Someone's gotta be Roling the Gift and someone's gotta be Roling the Quest....

QRS feel they have a Gift for the Questers..

Beautiful isn't it?

frank

There's millions of career gals out there...too far into their heads...in their black, black, black business suits...crying out for intimacy, initiation...

lol

Infinity is for the professorial, it's true!

I want eternity!


:D

I want eternity!

I want it NOW!

hehe

frank

Frank, you really nailed it. That is exactly what happened.

There is a lot I could say about tantra and this whole process. I certainly speak for the androgenous aspect of things. I have that balance in myself now, that integration that I could not create in myself from my will. It is the result of grace and realization. It was not always thus.

Viraja was the first beautiful androgynous being I had met. She seemed from a different planet or age - very balanced - a sweet combination of male and female aspects. A unique product of nature and destiny. I was less so at the time. All in my head just as you say.

It is like a being comes along who has this amazing integration, and, if you are lucky, you can get near that person and begin to resonate with her (or him). This is most perfectly done through relaxed and easy association, deep attraction, love and sexual intercourse. This is what 'darshan' really is. Look around, it is what nature is constantly trying to achieve with all this sex fever.

I was forced to undergo an internal change of control center. This new center is at the heart of enlightenment - which is nothing more than a psychic integration - an integration that can take a year or more once it begins.

Cats have a great integration of male and female tendencies. They follow me around wherever I go. Really, you should see it. I take a walk at night and cats will come out of alleys and porches and lie down in front of me or just come out to say 'hi.' They are very intuitive - much more than the human who is caught up in his head with his bullshit. They sense that my control center is different and more like their own. We talk.

Androgyny is not only the integration of male and female characteristics, but an integration or reconciliation of good and evil and other polarities. It puts one in bed with the paradoxes of reality. Am I male? Yes and no. Am I female? Yes and no. Am I good? yes and no. Am I bad? Yes and no. Am I harmless? Yes and no. Am I dangerous? Yes and no. etc. etc.

Had I come to this forum many years ago I suppose the intellectual austerity here would have impressed me. It is a lot like a Hollywood version of 'monky' business. I would have believed as others here do that sex and pleasure was the chief impediment to my quest - and that I needed to isolate myself from attachments and relationships.

How ironic that this is the OPPOSITE of the correct path! But look how easy it can be misunderstood? Even in the 'libertine' there is usually a hidden desire for integration and meaning.

I would have posted very heady and scholarly sounding horseshit also. Seeking enlightenment through relationship and sex is sort of counter-intuitive to fuddy duddies. But the romantic life is also what Persig describes as 'quality' in his book 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.'

Yes, enlightenment through romance. What, no takers?

Yes, enlightenment through romance. What, no takers?

Shhhh! You've got to understand I'm trying not to get banned!

unwise wrote:Yes, enlightenment through romance. What, no takers?

Romance is a strong attachment. People in love do crazy, irrational things.

You can find a kind of spiritual feeling through love and sex, but I don't think that is enlightenment. Love and sex are not about truth, they are about constructing an image of another person - and constructing an image of you within that person - which is necessarily and deliberately false.

But the romantic life is also what Persig describes as 'quality' in his book 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.'

Persig did talk about that 'quality' thing quite a bit, but he seemed to me to be talking about qualia, and also (to some extent) talking about his own alienation from mass-produced culture, prefering the quality of the hand-made by artisans over the mass produced by machines (made in much larger quantity).

I didn't make any connection between that and romance.

DH:

Persig did talk about that 'quality' thing quite a bit, but he seemed to me to be talking about qualia, and also (to some extent) talking about his own alienation from mass-produced culture, prefering the quality of the hand-made by artisans over the mass produced by machines (made in much larger quantity).

I didn't make any connection between that and romance.

The type of joy or satisfaction one feels in looking at or handling an item that is a thoughtful and artistic blend of form and function SHOULD stimulate the QUAL called 'quality.' - according to Persig. This image is not constructed.

Persig says that the modern culture has lost its ability to appreciate the qual of quality. If one has never tasted good coffee, one can never know what the idea means no matter how elaborate the explanations. It is private and intrinsic - only known by tasting. There is a way in which one may perceive everything and all objects and relations to those objects that provokes, in me, the qual 'romance.'

It is not simply sexual contact or relations with other people, but a way of seeing everything. This is 'romance' to me. Romance, to me, in terms of the usual sexual relationship has the potential to alter both individuals in ways that cannot be achieved alone. It has the potential of tantric enlightenment and the canceling of polarity and psychic rigidity.

unwise wrote:It is like a being comes along who has this amazing integration, and, if you are lucky, you can get near that person and begin to resonate with her (or him). This is most perfectly done through relaxed and easy association, deep attraction, love and sexual intercourse. This is what 'darshan' really is. Look around, it is what nature is constantly trying to achieve with all this sex fever.

I was forced to undergo an internal change of control center. This new center is at the heart of enlightenment - which is nothing more than a psychic integration - an integration that can take a year or more once it begins.

Cats have a great integration of male and female tendencies. They follow me around wherever I go. Really, you should see it. I take a walk at night and cats will come out of alleys and porches and lie down in front of me or just come out to say 'hi.' They are very intuitive - much more than the human who is caught up in his head with his bullshit. They sense that my control center is different and more like their own. We talk.

What's your sexual orientation Unwise? What are your thoughts on engaging in bestiality and pedophilia in order to integrate human/animal and adult/child characteristics?

unwise wrote:I have that balance in myself now, that integration that I could not create in myself from my will. It is the result of grace and realization. It was not always thus.

Cats ... sense that my control center is different and more like their own. We talk.

There are two types, or phases perhaps, of integration.

Dabrowski categorized them as following in a common sequence:

- Unilevel integration, the animal, social level
- Disintegration
- Further disintegration (spontaneous)
- Even further disintegration (organized)
- Higher integration

What happens is that many are somewhere in this process, as consciousness has the tendency to give us some 'offset', and find themselves in a certain state of disintegration, distanced from life, neurotic and so on. The 'solution' exists in two directions.

Since nobody really wants further levels of disintegration unless there's an overarching love for truth, what most often happens is that people find through therapy, some philosophy, life experience (like romance) or other states of mind, the way back to more or less unilevel integration.

But they didn't actually advance at all. But they feel perfectly integrated and balanced. Animals love it. Society loves it.

Higher integration is way more rare and has certain distinct qualities that some of the current 'Geniuses' around here don't seem to display. It has to do with being "strongly autonomous", resulting in "higher levels of mental functions, higher cognitive, moral, social, and aesthetic values and the development of a clear hierarchy in accordance with ones own authentic ideal".

The ideal of enlightenment is only an exaggerated version of this age old process, although Dabrowski only hinted at this.

Unwise, you had some promise at some point but you didn't move forward and then bought the Big Mistake which is quite common in spirituality, especially today: you found your way back home but not by completing your journey. You just followed your tracks back. The proof is in your pudding. Since you have no reason to believe anything I just wrote I guess one could call you a hopeless case. You'd never go again on the road of disintegration. There's nothing to drive you toward it anymore. Once burned twice shy. A pity. Enjoy.