GENIUS FORUMS

"Mu!"

...was causality, A=A, some totality, and emptiness, wrapped in a tea leaf...

Ataraxia,

Thanks. I'll check out that paper later on. Nice screen name, BTW. Pyrrho kicks ass.

Faust13 wrote:

Sue: I have listened to Victor, but his thinking is severely limited due to him having so many attachments (wife, children, career and status) to protect. These attachments create in his mind huge mental-blocks, thereby reducing his potential for philosophical development.

Sue, why do you think that a simple philosophical conversation about the nature of reality and Truth create mental-blocks due to simple things such as a wife and kids?

I hope you don’t go about telling your wife (or girlfriend) that she is “simple”. ; )

Truth and Wife stand in opposition to one another. They are eternal enemies. Wife has no connection to Truth, for her power base is ignorance. Seeped in ignorance, she fosters ignorance by supporting falsehoods, which inturn support her continuing existence. Truth, on the other hand, naturally exposes Wife‘s true nature - and poof, all her mystery is blown away, and she is no longer.

what is the substance of these mental blocks? And why are these 'attachments'?

We naturally block out stuff that doesn’t fit our worldview. Our attachments to certain things prevent other things getting a foot hold in our mind. A simple example is the one above about Wife verses Truth - the concept ‘wife’ is totally dependent on falsehoods for its existence. One of those falsehoods is that love and coupling is imperative for our existence as individuals, and as a species. Truth comes along and exposes that love and coupling are suicide for the individual, and dehumanizing for our species - thereby pulling the proverbial mat out from under Wife’s feet.

What is the nature of Truth that it causes to create mental blocks to these attachments?

It is the ego that creates mental blocks to protect itself from any possibility of being deleted - for an ego ceases to exist without attachments.

Attachment to anything other than truth creates the situation where you are unable to look closely at your attachments, because of the fear that you may lose them. When your only attachment is truth, you fear losing nothing - even truth - because that would be the truth.

Sue,

Truth and Wife stand in opposition to one another. They are eternal enemies. Wife has no connection to Truth, for her power base is ignorance. Seeped in ignorance, she fosters ignorance by supporting falsehoods, which inturn support her continuing existence.

Even if this were true, just for the sake of argument, what difference would it make? Has no one here heard of overcoming obstacles? The whole world is opposed to any kind of insight, if you come right down to it. And in being opposed, it actually creates the conditions for insight to occur. Has it ever dawned on you guys that the challenges offered by conventional values are necessary in order to realize the worth of unconventional ones?

It doesn't appear to have. For you guys, it seems that if there are women around, one is hopelessly screwed and might as well not even try. I find that a strange view. It indicates to me that some people must not have much fortitude.

We naturally block out stuff that doesn’t fit our worldview. Our attachments to certain things prevent other things getting a foot hold in our mind. A simple example is the one above about Wife verses Truth - the concept ‘wife’ is totally dependent on falsehoods for its existence. One of those falsehoods is that love and coupling is imperative for our existence as individuals, and as a species.

Really? I'm in a long-term relationship and I have no such belief. "Love and coupling" are not "imperative" for anything. Where is this supposed "imperative" coming from?

QRS are always treating critics as if they just got on the whole Zen boat yesterday. They fail to realize that one can be critical of QRS views without necessarily subscribing to all sorts of basic and obvious attachments.

It is the ego that creates mental blocks to protect itself from any possibility of being deleted - for an ego ceases to exist without attachments.

How would you know? You're attached to all sorts of concepts, such as "ego," "wisdom," "truth," "enlightenment," "non-attachment," etc. The ego has no better refuge than in claims of egolessness.

Attachment to anything other than truth creates the situation where you are unable to look closely at your attachments, because of the fear that you may lose them.

Attachment to the concept of "truth" creates a situation where the ego is focused along a single line of expression and is free to expand to infinite size. This occurs constantly in "guru figures."

When your only attachment is truth, you fear losing nothing - even truth - because that would be the truth.

Sophistry which impersonates real Zen. I know the difference.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Truth and Wife stand in opposition to one another. They are eternal enemies.

Truth has no opposition. It is all that is. Where "Wife" is, there is Truth.

Truth is not abstract. It is the essence of everyone and everything. There is no "untruth" that Truth needs to root out. Every experience is chosen in Truth, and it is chosen now, constantly.

We naturally block out stuff that doesn’t fit our worldview. Our attachments to certain things prevent other things getting a foot hold in our mind. A simple example is the one above about Wife verses Truth - the concept ‘wife’ is totally dependent on falsehoods for its existence. One of those falsehoods is that love and coupling is imperative for our existence as individuals, and as a species. Truth comes along and exposes that love and coupling are suicide for the individual, and dehumanizing for our species - thereby pulling the proverbial mat out from under Wife’s feet.

It is true that attachments hinder growth, but your example is not conducive to this. Partnership is a choice, and it is not detrimental in the slightest. If anything, it is a benefit because it mirrors to yourself the type of energy that you are projecting. You attract what you put out, and as it is difficult to cross your eyes to see yourself, having a way to see what you might rather not see about yourself is very helpful.

Attachment to anything other than truth creates the situation where you are unable to look closely at your attachments, because of the fear that you may lose them. When your only attachment is truth, you fear losing nothing - even truth - because that would be the truth.

You cannot actually attach to truth if it is Truth, because Truth is what you are. If you are attached to what you are, then it's not actually what you are! You cannot attach to yourself.

...

xerox wrote:Masculinty and feminity do not arise independently. They are inter-dependent and co-depedent. They arise out of each other and require each to maintain their perceptual existence.

I don't know about "requiring" each other to exist. If we know what femininity is, can we not choose to become masculine for the rest of our lives? Although we initially needed femininity to know what masculinity was, now that we know it, it's not necessary to have the opposite in "existence" in order to have its opposite in existence.

The dualistic basis of gender is illusory, thus false.

There is only one.

are you saying that masculinity and femininity have the same qualities?

...

Men and women are very different from one another both psychologically, and physically. If they were not very different, they would not be as attractive to one another. One example of this is that human females are less hairy than males, and often have a slighter build than them. This evolutionary change helped us to distinguish males from females - which even to this day helps in the mating game.

Another example is that of Japanese males. They are usually slight of build and passive in their manners. Both these characteristics are usually associated with females. This has meant that Japanese women have had to become more passive and petit in their manners than the males.

A third example is that of Western females. Though they have most, if not all of the same rights and benefits of their male counterparts, they still persist in wearing make-up and painted nails, having their hair styled, removing hair from their body so as to look more childlike, wearing colourful tight fitting clothes that show off their breasts and legs, carrying handbags, and wearing high-healed shoes. They also still expect males to treat them as females and not males. So even when females are given the opportunity to be free from activities that so obviously belittles them, they instead continue to embrace those activities so as to remain clearly 'female', and thereby remain in the mating game.

The first example shows the evolutionary pressures that brought about some of the physical differences we see in males and females. The second two examples show how strong the need is for males and females to continue to make clear to each other that they are very different from one another.

Of course, these surface differences are only the tip of the iceberg. Underneath lies two very different psychologies driving those surface differences.

...

Unidian wrote:

Sue: Truth and Wife stand in opposition to one another. They are eternal enemies. Wife has no connection to Truth, for her power base is ignorance. Seeped in ignorance, she fosters ignorance by supporting falsehoods, which inturn support her continuing existence.

Even if this were true, just for the sake of argument, what difference would it make?

The difference is a matter of life and death.

Has no one here heard of overcoming obstacles?

This forum is not dedicated to relationship counseling - but it is dedicated to the development of the individual by encouraging people to remain uncoupled, or to become uncoupled, thereby allowing those individuals to experience true freedom of thought.

The whole world is opposed to any kind of insight, if you come right down to it. And in being opposed, it actually creates the conditions for insight to occur. Has it ever dawned on you guys that the challenges offered by conventional values are necessary in order to realize the worth of unconventional ones?

Yes, lies can be useful in highlighting their opposite truths, but you can’t imagine for one minute that I, or anyone else who is dedicated to living truthfully, would wish to see those lies continue to be propagated for that reason. For you to think that lies are essential for the expression of truth only goes to show that you have no connection or knowledge of what truth is.

It doesn't appear to have. For you guys, it seems that if there are women around, one is hopelessly screwed and might as well not even try. I find that a strange view. It indicates to me that some people must not have much fortitude.

Kierkegaard wrote:
There is many a man who has become a genius through a woman, many a one a hero, many a one a poet, many a one even a saint; but he did not become a genius through the woman he married, for through her he only became a privy councillor; he did not become a hero through the woman he married, for through her he only became a general; he did not become a poet through the woman he married, for through her he only became a father; he did not become a saint through the woman he married, for he did not marry, and would have married but one -- the one whom he did not marry; just as the others became a genius, became a hero, became a poet through the help of the woman they did not marry.

It takes no courage at all to marry (coupling), for all you’re doing is going along with the social norm. That requires no intelligence, and no backbone - but it does require the mindlessness of a rock.

Sue: We naturally block out stuff that doesn’t fit our worldview. Our attachments to certain things prevent other things getting a foot hold in our mind. A simple example is the one above about Wife verses Truth - the concept ‘wife’ is totally dependent on falsehoods for its existence. One of those falsehoods is that love and coupling is imperative for our existence as individuals, and as a species.

Really? I'm in a long-term relationship and I have no such belief. "Love and coupling" are not "imperative" for anything. Where is this supposed "imperative" coming from?

Open your eyes and look around you . Marriage (coupling) is the template for the whole of society. From the dawn of time, males and females have been joining together, making a family, and thereby becoming part of the community of couples and their children called 'Society'.

QRS are always treating critics as if they just got on the whole Zen boat yesterday. They fail to realize that one can be critical of QRS views without necessarily subscribing to all sorts of basic and obvious attachments.

Again you show that you have no knowledge of what the nature of truth is. This is made only too clear by your deeply held attachment to falsehoods. For example, you would not be critical of my discussion of Wife if you truly understood the non-inherent nature of the self. But you obviously do not, and because you continue to remain blind, deaf and dumb to that truth, it is impossible for you to develop your mind so as to become a true philosopher. But not surprising, such blind,deaf and dumbness does make you completely suitable to become a husband - which, as you state, you already are!

Sue: It is the ego that creates mental blocks to protect itself from any possibility of being deleted - for an ego ceases to exist without attachments.

How would you know? You're attached to all sorts of concepts, such as "ego," "wisdom," "truth," "enlightenment," "non-attachment," etc. The ego has no better refuge than in claims of egolessness.

You appear to be quite attached to these concepts yourself, Unidian. The difference between you and I - and it is a huge difference - is that I have faith that my attachment to these things will inevitably allow all attachments to fall away, whereas your attachments are all that support you, thereby making it impossible for you to question them in any real way.

Sue: Attachment to anything other than truth creates the situation where you are unable to look closely at your attachments, because of the fear that you may lose them.

Attachment to the concept of "truth" creates a situation where the ego is focused along a single line of expression and is free to expand to infinite size. This occurs constantly in "guru figures."

Yes, but only if they consider truth to be a wizened decrepit deformed thing, for only then is truth made suitable for those with the mind of a follower.

Sue: When your only attachment is truth, you fear losing nothing - even truth - because that would be the truth.

Sophistry which impersonates real Zen. I know the difference.

Well then, you’ll be quite happy to be given the opportunity to explain that difference in a sentence or two.

Divine wrote:

Partnership is a choice, and it is not detrimental in the slightest.

I’ll leave it to Professor Henry Higgins of My Fair Lady fame to reply to your bit of whimsy:


Well after all, Pickering, I'm an ordinary man,
Who desires nothing more than an ordinary chance,
to live exactly as he likes, and do precisely what he wants...
An average man am I, of no eccentric whim,
Who likes to live his life, free of strife,
doing whatever he thinks is best, for him,
Well... just an ordinary man...
BUT, Let a woman in your life and your serenity is through,
she'll redecorate your home, from the cellar to the dome,
and then go on to the enthralling fun of overhauling you...
Let a woman in your life, and you're up against a wall,
make a plan and you will find,
that she has something else in mind,
and so rather than do either you do something else
that neither likes at all
You want to talk of Keats and Milton,
she only wants to talk of love,
You go to see a play or ballet, and spend it searching
for her glove,
Let a woman in your life
and you invite eternal strife,
Let them buy their wedding bands for those anxious little hands...
I'd be equally as willing for a dentist to be drilling
than to ever let a woman in my life,
I'm a very gentle man,
even tempered and good natured
who you never hear complain,
Who has the milk of human kindness
by the quart in every vein,
A patient man am I, down to my fingertips,
the sort who never could, ever would,
let an insulting remark escape his lips
Very gentle man...
But, Let a woman in your life,
and patience hasn't got a chance,
she will beg you for advice, your reply will be concise,
and she will listen very nicely, and then go out
and do exactly what she wants!!!
You are a man of grace and polish,
who never spoke above a hush,
all at once you're using language that would make
a sailor blush,
Let a woman in your life,
and you're plunging in a knife,
Let the others of my sex, tie the knot around their necks,
I prefer a new edition of the Spanish Inquisition
than to ever let a woman in my life
I'm a quiet living man,
who prefers to spend the evening in the silence of his room,
who likes an atmosphere as restful as
an undiscovered tomb,
A pensive man am I, of philosophical joys,
who likes to meditate, contemplate,
far for humanities mad inhuman noise,
Quiet living man....
But, let a woman in your life, and your sabbatical is through,
in a line that never ends comes an army of her friends,
come to jabber and to chatter
and to tell her what the matter is with YOU!,
she'll have a booming boisterous family,
who will descend on you en mass,
she'll have a large wagnarian mother,
with a voice that shatters glass,
Let a woman in your life,
Let a woman in your life,
Let a woman in your life I shall never let a woman in my life.

The Kreutzer Sonata
______________________________________________

"What you dislike is being a man. You are at least next door to hating humanity, for you pity humanity because it is human."

---GK Chesterton, commentary to Tolstoy.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Open your eyes and look around you . Marriage (coupling) is the template for the whole of society. From the dawn of time, males and females have been joining together, making a family, and thereby becoming part of the community of couples and their children called 'Society'.

You seem to be against beliefs as if they were the enemy of Truth. I know it is hard to understand, but Truth is all-inclusive. Belief systems are a part of physical life, and they cannot be eliminated. There is no need to change any aspect of belief systems for the sake of change, or for the sake of Rightness. All that is needed is an acceptance of one's self and one's own belief systems; all beliefs are then appreciable, if not actually "liked." You can dislike any belief, such as one of partnership, and still appreciate its value, since it exists. It could not be without value.

Sue,

The difference is a matter of life and death.

Drama queen?

This forum is not dedicated to relationship counseling - but it is dedicated to the development of the individual by encouraging people to remain uncoupled, or to become uncoupled, thereby allowing those individuals to experience true freedom of thought.

Yes, of course, because "true freedom of thought" is impossible if one is in a relationship.

Gimme a break. This would be no more sensible than if I were to claim that freedom of thought is impossible for people who have jobs. More challenging, yes. But certainly not impossible. Obstacles can be overcome, you know.

Yes, lies can be useful in highlighting their opposite truths, but you can’t imagine for one minute that I, or anyone else who is dedicated to living truthfully, would wish to see those lies continue to be propagated for that reason. For you to think that lies are essential for the expression of truth only goes to show that you have no connection or knowledge of what truth is.

I'm not talking about "lies," lol. You projected that into the discussion. I'm talking about values and relationships.

Lies would be statements like "true freedom of thought is impossible in a relationship."

It takes no courage at all to marry (coupling), for all you’re doing is going along with the social norm. That requires no intelligence, and no backbone - but it does require the mindlessness of a rock.

What requires "no intelligence, no backbone, and the mindlessnesses of a rock" in my view is to reflexively oppose social norms just because they are social norms. It's what 14 year old kids with crazy haircuts and bad attitudes do. Mature, thoughtful adults realize that some social norms are harmful and others are useful.

Open your eyes and look around you . Marriage (coupling) is the template for the whole of society. From the dawn of time, males and females have been joining together, making a family, and thereby becoming part of the community of couples and their children called 'Society'.

Yeah, ya think? Maybe that's because there's this magical thing called "reproduction" and a biological drive to perpetuate the species. But I guess you'd prefer to view it in terms of "everybody's deluded."

I guess you and David wouldn't know anything about that whole overwhelming biological drive to perpetuate the species, eh?

Again you show that you have no knowledge of what the nature of truth is. This is made only too clear by your deeply held attachment to falsehoods. For example, you would not be critical of my discussion of Wife if you truly understood the non-inherent nature of the self. But you obviously do not, and because you continue to remain blind, deaf and dumb to that truth, it is impossible for you to develop your mind so as to become a true philosopher.

Yadda yadaa yadda, here comes the fatwa denouncing me as an infidel to truth, a fool, knowing nothing, etc.

The "non-inherent nature of the self" has nothing to do with this, although I understand why you have to pretend it does in order to elevate yourself on a conceptual platform from which to denounce all challengers. And as for "becoming a true philosopher," I can see that it's much like becoming a "true Scotsman." There are no true Scotsmen except the one you happen to be arguing with.

But not surprising, such blind,deaf and dumbness does make you completely suitable to become a husband - which, as you state, you already are!

Actually, I'm not married, but don't let that stop you from spewing this eminently amusing polemic.

You appear to be quite attached to these concepts yourself, Unidian. The difference between you and I - and it is a huge difference - is that I have faith that my attachment to these things will inevitably allow all attachments to fall away, whereas your attachments are all that support you, thereby making it impossible for you to question them in any real way.

Mmh-hmm. I've been silly enough to argue argue "more non-attached than thou" with a Quinnologist for the last time. Not gonna happen again, so imagine what you want. Like all religious faithful, you will anyway.

Well then, you’ll be quite happy to be given the opportunity to explain that difference in a sentence or two.

The difference between QRS and real Zen? No thanks. I'd rather chop wood and carry water than wear my fingers down at a task as pointless as that.

So, tell me, is all of this lofty philosophical enlightenment and verbose anti-Woman chauvinism doing the trick as far as keeping David involved in you and your kid's lives? I know a woman will do just about anything for the welfare of her child, and one would hate to think you sold your soul and rejected your own gender and humanity for nothing.

Keep the faith, Sue. It's a matter of life and death.

divine focus wrote:There is no need to change any aspect of belief systems for the sake of change, or for the sake of Rightness. All that is needed is an acceptance of one's self and one's own belief systems; all beliefs are then appreciable, if not actually "liked." You can dislike any belief, such as one of partnership, and still appreciate its value, since it exists. It could not be without value.

I think there is very much to this observation, thanks for making it, d.f.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Seeped in ignorance, she fosters ignorance by supporting falsehoods, which inturn support her continuing existence. Truth, on the other hand, naturally exposes Wife‘s true nature - and poof, all her mystery is blown away, and she is no longer.

what are these specific falsehoods? What are these specific Truths that expose her true nature? What is her true nature?

Truth comes along and exposes that love and coupling are suicide for the individual, and dehumanizing for our species

in what way? Can you have an unattached relationship?

Attachment to anything other than truth creates the situation where you are unable to look closely at your attachments, because of the fear that you may lose them. When your only attachment is truth, you fear losing nothing - even truth - because that would be the truth.

and what is this specific Truth?

Faust13, to Sue H., wrote:and what is this specific Truth?

Good luck with that one. Sue's intent on telling us she pursues the Truth doggedly. I'm curious if any of her posts do not have the word "Truth" in them. Yet just what it is that has her undivided fealty is less clear.

Good luck with that one. Sue's intent on telling us she pursues the Truth doggedly. I'm curious if any of her posts do not have the word "Truth" in them. Yet just what it is that has her undivided fealty is less clear.

It's just another self-serving religious fiction. One could replace all instances of "Truth" with "Jesus," "Allah," Zeus," or "Time Cube" and nothing significant would change. The faithful around the world use different words for their object of religious worship, but the approach is always the same. They are the knowers of some special knowledge, and any challenge or criticism is simply a reflection of a fallen and depraved world mired in evil and unwilling to accept their precious and selflessly-offered pearls of wisdom. It's a matter of life and death!

Unidian, you didn't reply to my earlier refutations of your belittling of Causality. I don't wholly subscribe to your notion of "truth" being religious. The pervading Causality in our lives is a large part of knowing Truth.

Which alleged "refutations" do you have in mind? Keep it brief, because this sort of thing is pretty pointless.

Unidian wrote:Which alleged "refutations" do you have in mind? Keep it brief, because this sort of thing is pretty pointless.

viewtopic.php?p=71633#p71633

quantum physics hasn't refuted causality, in quantum the particles still need to interact in the environment, they aren't isolated.

As far as we can tell, the behavior of quantum particles is fundamentally uncaused. And the behavior of quantum particles is actually the basis of all physical existence. Causality is relevant only at the everyday macroscopic level. It is merely an approximation made necessary by the inaccessibility of fundamental data.

Regardless of infinite regress causality is still happening everywhere all the time right now, and Hume didn't deny causes, he denied our ability to find those specific causes.

You can't just hand-wave infinite regress away with a "regardless." It's like saying "regardless of science, Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe in 6 days." Your regardlessness is reckless. Infinite regress simply moves the problem of giving causality a basis perpetually one step back.

It's not about fearing determined actions but issues of responsbility. Determinism shows how real causality is, despite assumptions of its abscence in quantum physics.

That's the first time I've ever heard it suggested that someone is afraid of determinism because of "responsibility." That's usually the argument given to explain why determinists are afraid of free will.

no because causality atleast exists overwhelmingly in human life

So does the illusion that a computer desk is a solid and substantial object, but in reality it is mostly empty space.

Unidian wrote, first this:

As far as we can tell, the behavior of quantum particles is fundamentally uncaused. And the behavior of quantum particles is actually the basis of all physical existence.

Then this:

Causality is relevant only at the everyday macroscopic level. It is merely an approximation made necessary by the inaccessibility of fundamental data.

You're now juggling two fundamental bases for reality:"fundamentally uncaused" and "caused". You're going to have to drop one of them, for, by definition, there can only be one 'fundamental' base to reality.

Of course, the fundamental base of reality is causality. The quantum level cannot logically operate on a different level than the rest of reality - for as you say, Unidian, "quantum particles are the basis of all physical existence". This knowledge alone tells us that causality is fundamental.

-

From your work here at GF, Unidian, I know that you have a large mental block when it comes to Causality. You've not as yet described, in a sentence or two, what you imagine an uncaused reality appears like. It can't be one where I depend on other things like food, water, air and sunshine to continue existing - because they are all causes. So what's it like?

Nat,

It's just another self-serving religious fiction. One could replace all instances of "Truth" with "Jesus," "Allah," Zeus," or "Time Cube" and nothing significant would change.

Actually, no replacement is necessary. Long time ago when I was a Christian, the church I went to also glorified the word Truth. They were the only ones who knew the Truth, and all others were lost.

Just a technicality that you may not be aware of since you have never been truly religious.

-