GENIUS FORUMS

More absent logic.

Steven, really, try -- I mean really TRY -- thinking about it.

Wow, telepathic women really are exhausting!

I did.

You were using logic with some cleverness.

As was I, with some history.

I know myself very well, Steven.

And I have an excellent memory.

No need for telepathy.

Or, your mindless assertions on a philosophy forum dedicated to reason and logic!

So, carry on as you will.

More editing!

[shakes her head]

I think I will give you a break.

How shall I prove to Leyla Shen my own enlightenment?

Is there really a need to?

Could she perceive it?

Will she leave me alone as a result?

Probably not.

Yes, I do enjoy reason and logic, Leyla. Been working on myself more than anything lately, though. What fail to catch that?

Leyla loves you, she wants a hand in your enlightenment R! And another on your..er..your err!

:D

She'd never admit it!

Her hand is a greedy one.

Causation:

Q: Why don’t flying pink elephants just pop into existence – right now?

A: The causes for them to come into existence are not present. But if I take a hallucinogenic drug and then a flying pink elephant comes into view, I’ll know that one of the causes for flying pink elephants is my taking that drug.

Would this be correct?

Sue

You two boys having fun taking comfort in each other and your fantasies involving me?

Mrs Coyle: Yes, I do enjoy reason and logic, Leyla. Been working on myself more than anything lately, though. What fail to catch that?

Um, yes. Is there something recent that you have said you feel demonstrates it?

Please, feel free to bring it to my attention.

But I think you are failing, Steven, as is evidenced by all your idiotic “contributions” to this forum and the ideals it means to promote. In fact, you are constantly in direct opposition to them. Being womanly, though, one cannot expect otherwise.

Madam zag: Leyla loves you, she wants a hand in your enlightenment R! And another on your..er..your err!

Naturally, those of us who are rational have all come to expect this sort of thing from you.

It does remind me of a discussion between Sue and I on an aspect of her philosophy. The idea of Woman -- the egoid, as I called it. I said to Sue that I did not have to, as a female, subject myself to such stupid fantasies. Sue replied with something on the order of: men would have to let me go before I could be free of Her. I still disagreed.

But, you know what? You guys are a fine example of the truth in her words as is evidenced by your own. The “boys” getting together in the pub having a good ol’ laugh over the insatiable slut to comfort their own egos. Until they find a real Woman: the “enlightened” Woman who will stroke their egos, sending their minds to death.

She is so right. I do not have to subject myself to such fantasies. There are plenty of “men” like you willing to do it for me.

Steven the purple flower girly-man wrote:

How shall I prove to Leyla Shen my own enlightenment?

Is there really a need to?

No. You have proven time and time again your lack of enlightenment and love of femininity!

Could she perceive it?

Absolutely. You ain’t got it.

Will she leave me alone as a result?

Why would being “left alone” be a problem?

Yes, I do enjoy reason and logic, Leyla. Been working on myself more than anything lately, though. What fail to catch that?

No, you fail to demonstrate it. If you have been working on yourself, so far it has been demonstrably fruitless.

You could start by explaining -- with clear reason and logic -- how it is one can attain enlightenment through 3D objects. I mean simple, plain real logic and reason. Not the "profound" kind like, “you have no idea what you’re talking about, Leyla.”

Too hard?

Quote: Zagreus:
I understand nothing at all as a 'god'.

Sapius:Sure, that was for those that do, and in a way, you point to it by saying Universe “causes itself”, at least that is how most will understand it, where as I see that it could never have, and all seemingly present past and future exist Now in infinity, a.k.a., Universe, Existence, All that there is, Totality, etc., etc.,

Zag: What you're saying here is that it cannot cause itself, because it causes itself infinitely.

And I'm saying that's why.

Ah! I see. You say that since you experience infinite causes causing themselves, you know what infinity is. Correct?

.

Oh, PS: Further, there comes a time where a man puts Her up as the ideal so completely that he really does lose himself to and in her: he becomes Her.

Frank,

David without someone to fix?

Will not exist, I understand, but to tell you the truth, I’m quite sure that he knows that there is actually nothing to fix, but I assume he forgets that from time to time since he admits to not being perfect as yet, may be that’s what he means by not being perfect, forgetting it from time to time, and letting irritation set in. But in my opinion, after all that brain thumping that one already has (a great deal in case of David), how is it that one does not realize that everything is already perfect, which should create a permanently “smiling” tranquil mind, and know that chasing any more perfection is delusional?

If one already realizes the perfection in and of All that there is, then how can one still yearn for some further individual-self-perfection? Which bothers David all the time; false ego perhaps? That there remains nothing actually to be perfected, this understanding itself is perfect in its self, making the very person accept who or what he is, and get along with expressing whatever he thinks without actually letting anything bothering him ever again, including, still yearning to achieve further perfection. I can only guess at that then… that he is caused or not caused to… to whatever… and has no choice perhaps.

Well… so be it. Good luck to all that yearn for further self perfection on the path of understanding existence, especially when they understand and yet don’t realize the perfection in and of existence, which leads to nothing more than the death of a false ego.

BTW, in my opinion, irrelevant of what opinion QRS or others may have, I find your self to be quite at peace with your self. Live it! Nice to know... that’s all. Ah! And make sure you enjoy this thread, the infinitely diverse expression of reality. Wow! There is much to learn for a keen eye. :)

.

Sapius:

Ah! I see. You say that since you experience infinite causes causing themselves, you know what infinity is. Correct?

Infinity causes itself because it is infinite, ie. finite in itself.


Leyla:

You two boys having fun taking comfort in each other and your fantasies involving me?

I'm alight in the flame of your truth Leyla :D Put me out already.

zag: Leyla loves you, she wants a hand in your enlightenment R! And another on your..er..your err!

Leyla: Naturally, those of us who are rational have all come to expect this sort of thing from you. It does remind me of a discussion between Sue and I on an aspect of her philosophy. The idea of Woman -- the egoid, as I called it. I said to Sue that I did not have to, as a female, subject myself to such stupid fantasies. Sue replied with something on the order of: men would have to let me go before I could be free of Her. I still disagreed.
But, you know what? You guys are a fine example of the truth in her words as is evidenced by your own. The “boys” getting together in the pub having a good ol’ laugh over the insatiable slut to comfort their own egos. Until they find a real Woman: the “enlightened” Woman who will stroke their egos, sending their minds to death. She is so right. I do not have to subject myself to such fantasies. There are plenty of “men” like you willing to do it for me.

You're insatiable, but not a slut at all. I can't help teasing those I love.
It could really mean that I am a boy forever. Man and Woman are real. I would have them ultimately free to eachother. I'm close to the edge.

You could start by explaining -- with clear reason and logic -- how it is one can attain enlightenment through 3D objects. I mean simple, plain real logic and reason. Not the "profound" kind like, “you have no idea what you’re talking about, Leyla.”

Leyla,

The mind uses 3D objects to gather information. When the mind no longer views 3D objects as separate, but realizes that in fact nothing exists, but the mind, then enlightenment is near.

Sapius wrote:Will not exist, I understand, but to tell you the truth, I’m quite sure that he knows that there is actually nothing to fix, but I assume he forgets that from time to time since he admits to not being perfect as yet, may be that’s what he means by not being perfect, forgetting it from time to time, and letting irritation set in. But in my opinion, after all that brain thumping that one already has (a great deal in case of David), how is it that one does not realize that everything is already perfect, which should create a permanently “smiling” tranquil mind, and know that chasing any more perfection is delusional?

If one already realizes the perfection in and of All that there is, then how can one still yearn for some further individual-self-perfection?

If literally everything is perfect(that seems to be what you're saying), then yearning for individual self-perfection is perfect too. Not having a "smiling tranquil mind" is also perfect. If everything is perfect why do you suggest/favour a particular outcome? No matter what outcome occurs it will still be perfect. Even delusion would be perfect.

I'm not criticizing you, I just want to see what your reasons for holding these views are. We may have similar ideas, but I wouldn't say everything is perfect, I would say: everything is just as it is.

Sapius wrote:Which bothers David all the time; false ego perhaps? That there remains nothing actually to be perfected, this understanding itself is perfect in its self, making the very person accept who or what he is, and get along with expressing whatever he thinks without actually letting anything bothering him ever again, including, still yearning to achieve further perfection.

My previous points make this obvious, but I just want to respond to what you've written here too: if everything is perfect, then not accepting who you are is perfect, and being bothered by things is perfect too.

Leyla,

I deal with facts.

Are you upset that you will no longer be able to use me as a tool for your sadistic pleasure?

Will you grow some maturity, and face yourself?

Jason wrote:

I'm not criticizing you

Of course not, and don't worry about such things as far as I'm concerned.

I would say: everything is just as it is.

At times I express it in similar terms too, as in, existence is just IS. ‘Perfection’ is what a realized mind sees and attributes it to this IS; an expression of tranquility and peace acquired after battling myriads of mental turmoil’s and chaos, and at last, clarity, since now he knows, things could not possibly be otherwise. And after realizing that, I don’t see how one could really get irritated as such. Getting irritated and hence reacting accordingly is a sure sign of quite a healthy false ego, which the person claims has been removed form realizing reality and its perfection. I’m talking about the kind of reaction of such a person, not that he not react at all.

Ultimately, perfect existence even encompasses the craving for perfection, but I don’t expect that form a person who has achieved such clarity of mind and logic. Yes, likes and dislikes would remain, but essentially, they should hold no real values for him, hence no real yearnings or hate. Yearnings or hate should be automatically unimaginable for such a person.

I’m told that one cannot speak about such things unless he has a doctorate in enlightenment himself, hence I say, this is only in my humble opinion.

Sapius wrote:
Will not exist, I understand, but to tell you the truth, I’m quite sure that he knows that there is actually nothing to fix, but I assume he forgets that from time to time since he admits to not being perfect as yet, may be that’s what he means by not being perfect, forgetting it from time to time, and letting irritation set in. But in my opinion, after all that brain thumping that one already has (a great deal in case of David), how is it that one does not realize that everything is already perfect, which should create a permanently “smiling” tranquil mind, and know that chasing any more perfection is delusional?

If one already realizes the perfection in and of All that there is, then how can one still yearn for some further individual-self-perfection? Which bothers David all the time; false ego perhaps? That there remains nothing actually to be perfected, this understanding itself is perfect in its self, making the very person accept who or what he is, and get along with expressing whatever he thinks without actually letting anything bothering him ever again, including, still yearning to achieve further perfection. I can only guess at that then… that he is caused or not caused to… to whatever… and has no choice perhaps.

My hunch is that David has been caused to take the Boddhisattva Role...the Role laid out in Mahayana Buddhism...the Greater Vehicle...that of, once having got yourself 'over the line' or enlightened then the next step is to assist Others in their progress...

In Theravada Buddhism one gets 'over the line' and that's it.

Of course if you're going to 'go back' and get Others you've landed yourself smack bang in the Drama/Samsara again...you have to put your enlightenment aside somewhat to see precisely where the Other is in their thinking......to get the Idea of what the next best thing to say is to have them take the next step...

Getting oneself enlightened is one Game.

Assisting Others is a brand new Game...one demanding great skill...my feeling is that Dave is passionate about learning and acquiring this skill...it takes time to learn...if we make him 'work' we all benefit...he's in the deep end.

frank

.

I am wondering if Leyla and Steven can see that the intensity and repetitiveness of their public debate does not match any substance an outsider can find in it. Something is very big and dramatic and twisting to the two of you, but privately. No matter how many times either of you use the words "enlightenment" and "reason" and wrangle with the apparent gravity of what's at stake, you still aren't doing any philosophy. Not enough to counterweight this personally charged clutter.

Here is one time, were I a moderator, that I would have stepped in -- and long ago -- to ask that you either turn the debate away from its public privacy, or, take this high-cholesterol drama elsewhere altogether. Out of all the things considered deadweight or counter-productive on these boards, where are those reactive moderators for this one.

jesus h. christ.

.

You're wondering?

Boy, did you get wrapped up in the drama.

Luckily you don't have a gavel, you heavy-handed vixen!

I did write a reply to one of your latest posts regarding "self," which I would have much preferred to hear your philosophy about than to have been part in causing your necessary "involvement" here.

Steven whinged:

I deal with facts.

No, you deal with feelings. My argument discerns reason from feeling. You, on the other hand, simply want to merge all of human existence into one big feeling.

Naturally, if you feel that way, you will feel “enlightened.”

I see no “facts.”

Are you upset that you will no longer be able to use me as a tool for your sadistic pleasure?

Unlike your openly proclaimed desire to seek and feel personal pleasure from my existence, I am only interested in truth, thought, reason.

Will you grow some maturity, and face yourself?

It is clear even in your own philosophy that everything necessarily comes down to feelings with you. Hence, I find you are and thereby will be eternally immature, philosophically -- not feeling-wise, that is; you apparently have much maturity there. On the other hand, if I were one big, throbbing cunt -- I think I’d find you extremely mature.

All this, and you think you’re an idealist? Not on your life.

Give up this thoughtless, materialist doctrine. You may then attain your goal of becoming a better philosopher.

Why do I say all this?

Steven wrote:

The mind uses 3D objects to gather information. When the mind no longer views 3D objects as separate, but realizes that in fact nothing exists, but the mind, then enlightenment is near.

You insist enlightenment can be attained by and through objects as an object (by your objection to my statement that it cannot) yet, here you state enlightenment is near when the mind realises that nothing exists other than itself.

Self-contradiction momentarily notwithstanding, how exactly is that a fact, Steven?

I’ll post my logic here for the philosophical benefit of this thread (and to aid your memory). Perhaps you can approach my question by logically disproving the assumptions.

On the subject of 3D objects and enlightenment, I wrote:

I used to offer up the same argument. I wondered about its efficacy toward the stated goals of the forum. Thing is, when you observe those particular qualities -- masculinity (which would be the capacity for truth, wisdom and the ability to reason) -- predominantly in conjunction with males, then you can logically call them “masculine,” notwithstanding the fact that most males, on the same basis, can be observed to exhibit their opposite qualities, ie “femininity.”

The absolute male and the absolute female are hypothetical. It is from this hypothesis alone that one can define and analyse such characteristics. Seeking for the existence of an absolute male/female would be like trying to find a 2-dimensional object to experience. But, in the same vein as every other object can be experienced, the qualities can be observed in the nature and manifestation (appearances) of objects that are experienced/perceived (if you are masculine enough, that is).

The idea that wisdom and enlightenment can be attained by or through the personal experience of objects as an object is, therefore, utterly deluded.

.

Steven, get honest.

What's obvious is for the life of you, you cannot construct a logical argument. It's really that simple.

You say, "let's leave each other alone" and then you proceed to comment, without the requested logical argument.

I am asking you for philosophy. If can not, or will not be honest enough to admit the truth of the situation, I can not -- being on a philosophy forum -- leave you alone.

You are claiming to have an interest in something and then when someone shows you interest, grants that you are being honest about your intentions and have some ability for it, you try and pull out.

Tell me, in the above paragraph, which of my assumptions about you is erroneous and why?

I see you changed your mind again, deleting your last post.

I shall give you some time.

I beg you, put aside that ego and address my thinking.