GENIUS FORUMS

It seems that Kevin can not fish the posts out after all - I've seen it done on another phpBB board, but for some reason it can't be done here - so here is a transcript of the relevant posts on the other thread.

I'll delete mine from there to help unhijack the thread, as they are now copied here:
____________________________

Kelly Jones



Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 335
Location: Tasmania

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:18 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Wrath = will to power, from dread of death.

Low self-esteem, certainly ego.



--------

It's interesting to explore the darkest and most extreme areas of psychology with the razor-sharp, clean, relaxed mind of a logical military engineer.

Eradicating all egotistical reactions while "surrounded by wolves".



--------

I'd like to know about memories of the first year of school, of members of the Genius Forum. I'm assuming an age of 4 or 5 years.

In particular, did they interact frequently in the free periods, such as recess and lunch? Were they popular and sociable? Were there many opportunities to experience interacting, and to become skilled in social role-playing?
_________________
Kelly Jones
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

******************
******************
Elizabeth Isabelle



Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 1146
Location: Tampa, FL

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:52 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
Kelly,

Did you mean to start a new thread? This does not seem to be on topic... Oh, well, I know that Kevin is capable of lifting a portion of a thread and making a new thread out of it, so I will reply here.

Quote:
I'd like to know about memories of the first year of school, of members of the Genius Forum. I'm assuming an age of 4 or 5 years.

In particular, did they interact frequently in the free periods, such as recess and lunch? Were they popular and sociable? Were there many opportunities to experience interacting, and to become skilled in social role-playing?


I was usually quite ill through kindergarten and first grade, so I didn't spend much time there. I was raised as an only child, and my parents were older (my father was 50 when I was born, and my mother in her early-mid 40's) so I didn't really fit in with other children. The convent had a couple of dogs, so mostly I played with them or walked through nearby wooded areas or along the seawall away from the noise of the playground.


**************
**************
passthrough



Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 120


New postPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:32 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I attended a private Catholic school for girls. I have very few memories of that time for it was a very long time ago. I do not recall any socialization issues but a fascination with the nun's veils (habits, back then). On one occasion I stepped on the edge of a nun's habit while she was squatting on the floor helping other children. When she stood up, her habit came off. Although an accident, she was very cross about it.

I also recall watching another nun taking a sip of water from the fountain. She had one of the habits that was more like a hat with a veil over it. The water fountain was overreactive and water spurt up and hit the hat. I couldn't help but laugh. Despite my run-ins, I have very fond memories of the nuns. They were very kind, and I was very shy.


*******************
*******************
Katy



Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 122


New postPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Kelly Jones wrote:

I'd like to know about memories of the first year of school, of members of the Genius Forum. I'm assuming an age of 4 or 5 years.

In particular, did they interact frequently in the free periods, such as recess and lunch? Were they popular and sociable? Were there many opportunities to experience interacting, and to become skilled in social role-playing?



Kindergarten I actually had friends and was relatively "normal" but by first grade I had been obviously alienated. I was actually really far ahead of anyone in my class and people made fun of me for it. I tried to pretend I was as dumb as they were by intentionally missing math problems to make myself similar to them. That didn't work, so I decided to get my revenge by being smarter than all of them. Only then I got bored. And destructive.

Actually one of my early memories is going clothes shopping with my mother for back to school clothes. I picked out some bluejeans and tee shirts. My mother on the other hand picked out this hideous neon-pink top with a purple bow tie, and pink checked shorts. She told me "this is what the other kids are wearing now. It will make you fit in." She also picked out shirts with the name of the store printed across the cheast, but I threw a fit and told her I refused to be a "walking billboard" At which point I recognized for the first time that they were all pod-people. And I hated them.
_________________
-Katy

***************
***************

edited to improve format

Please reply to my question in Matt's thread. I wasn't hijacking the thread, Elizabeth.

The question is directly related to Matt's point. I will explain my hypothesis later.

Could you post the replies into that thread? Also, where did Katy's reply go to? Are you Katy?

.

I'm not Katy.

Feel free to pick up the thread and re-paste it back onto Matt's thread. I have no idea how you are going to be able to relate all that into a joke theme thread, but hey - go for it.

That's odd. You posted a reply from Katy, and there's none in the original thread. Not even "Deleted".

I wonder what happened.

If you're the last person to post, you can delete the post without a trace. I emailed both Katy and passthrough after I moved the posts to a new thread to ask for their help in unhijacking the other thread by deleting their posts as I had deleted mine. Katy was here and was nice enough to help clean up.

I think it's too bad we lost the joke thread. It would have been nice to get more contributions of what the people here think is funny. It's hopelessly derailed now, but - whatever.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation.

However, you moved a little too fast. Have patience, and all will be revealed.

I'm not sure Matt was joking. That is, using humour to make a serious point about the superstitious mentalities drifting around the forum lately.

Perhaps my point will be a joke also.

Kelly Jones wrote:I'm not sure Matt was joking. That is, using humour to make a serious point about the superstitious mentalities drifting around the forum lately.

What do you consider a superstitious mentality...a mentality that does not follow a certain recipe?

The whole pleasure of this board, as opposed to others, is that it is so varied and free...or it seemed to be. I have tried other philosophy boards and found them severely lacking in the candor, wisdom and honesty here.

With a few exceptions, I find this audience much more mature in thought than the typical twenty-something who is a Christian-basher and atheist only because it is what would terrify their parents the most or at mid-life finding some "flavor of the month" religion to pick up because it is better than facing the reality of their life.

I can think of one recent example of someone who posted an unusual viewpoint...but there were those members here who actually engaged in conversation even if to just understand this person's point.

If tolerance of views cannot be allowed and arguments made without condescending to these levels, then this board becomes close-minded, self-centric and a waste of time. In short, it means that people are not really trying to think and understand but listen to themselves pontificate.

It's extremely common, and takes all kinds of forms, which makes it rather hard to see sometimes.

A superstitious mentality boils down to the attitude that one inherently exists, as a free agent with free will.

The effect of this mentality is to imagine other inherently existing things that can diminish this self's power. And this in turn generates the need for a big powerful being (a God-type entity)that protects and supports one's life.

If tolerance of views cannot be allowed and arguments made without condescending to these levels, then this board becomes close-minded, self-centric and a waste of time. In short, it means that people are not really trying to think and understand but listen to themselves pontificate.

Pontificating for its own sake is the same as tolerance of views for its own sake. Pretty pointless, really.

I definitely prefer conflict, arrogance, and debate. Spirited examination forces the core of an idea, or ideas, to the surface. Then it's possible to have a good gawk and decide whether to toss it or not.

Kelly Jones wrote:I definitely prefer conflict, arrogance, and debate.

No kidding. Can you see that sometimes a softer approach is called for?

Many people do not want to share their views to just get them shot down. A lot of people are open to a gentle exploration, and few are willing to have their ideas pummelled regardless of if they are good or bad ideas. Some don't mind, or even prefer, straight shooters who will tell you up front if they think your idea is good or bad - but that is far different from running up to everyone's ideas and taking a swing at them to see if they fall down.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:I definitely prefer conflict, arrogance, and debate.

No kidding. Can you see that sometimes a softer approach is called for?

What's a softer approach? Communing with the tribal spirit?

Many people do not want to share their views to just get them shot down. A lot of people are open to a gentle exploration, and few are willing to have their ideas pummelled regardless of if they are good or bad ideas. Some don't mind, or even prefer, straight shooters who will tell you up front if they think your idea is good or bad - but that is far different from running up to everyone's ideas and taking a swing at them to see if they fall down.

A verbatim reminder seems timely.



Welcome to Genius Forum, the forum for Dangerous Thinkers.



Genius is a discussion forum that is passionately dedicated to the nature of Genius, Wisdom and Ultimate Reality and to the total annihilation of false values. It is an unconventional discussion forum suitable only for the bravehearted. It is for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous. That is to say, it is a forum intended solely for men - of either sex. It is sometimes said that genius is "the infinite capacity for giving pain." This is very apt. If one is not deliberately causing pain to the ego, both in oneself and in others, then what is the good of one's life? One might as well not exist at all. It is by challenging and overturning our cosy assumptions, habitual thought-processes, psychological refuges and mental blocks that our minds can be opened up that little bit more to the wisdom of the Infinite.

We hope you find this forum stimulating and challenging......



.

K:
It's extremely common, and takes all kinds of forms, which makes it rather hard to see sometimes.

A superstitious mentality boils down to the attitude that one inherently exists, as a free agent with free will.

The effect of this mentality is to imagine other inherently existing things that can diminish this self's power. And this in turn generates the need for a big powerful being (a God-type entity)that protects and supports one's life.

I responded to your “God is Good Alone” thread. I am assuming that I am one of those for which you speak based on my ties to Christianity. If you do not answer the post, then I will assume you do not have the answers to some of the issues I raised about your view of Reality, making it less than iron clad of an argument against others.

Pontificating for its own sake is the same as tolerance of views for its own sake. Pretty pointless, really.

I suppose I deserved that one, a bit dramatic, but the point remains that if we are not mature enough to look at views from others and find ways to help them see the truth, myself included, humiliating them into submission is not indicative of a wise person. However, just because I say this does not mean that I will change my mind. If you are into proof, then you need to show me your proof. In life, I do not accept another’s position other than my own unless and until they can prove me wrong. Again, my post is waiting.

I definitely prefer conflict, arrogance, and debate. Spirited examination forces the core of an idea, or ideas, to the surface. Then it's possible to have a good gawk and decide whether to toss it or not.

I agree and believe me Sue Hindmarsh has been one of my toughest critics. It is good, but sometimes I wonder if those who are so sure of themselves (and I don’t mean you, or her for that matter, because you both have made an effort to some degree to engage) lash out at those with different views because they are not so sure of their own. To me arrogance is not a sign of humility.

EI:
No kidding. Can you see that sometimes a softer approach is called for?

Elizabeth, you are the person, and perhaps the only one (I don’t have time right now to look it up) who did and always takes the softer approach, and for that I made note. Reason being is that through your “softer approach” you showed that you actually read what is written, thought it through and followed through…to me, a sign of a mature thinker. When Kevin and David are on here, they too, have presence of mind…I find their skills remarkable.

Kelly:
What's a softer approach? Communing with the tribal spirit?

You had it when you stopped to consider my views that you said you had let roll past and took the time to reread, copy and paste into a wonderful discussion worthy of answer.

We hope you find this forum stimulating and challenging......

Yes, it is and I hope it stays that way.

Kelly,

Think of a person as a hard boiled egg, and their delusions are their shell. To peel off their shell, you do have to hit the egg hard enough to crack their shell, but if you hit is too hard, you just end up with a smooshed egg with bits of shell imbedded in it. If you hit it just right, you crack their shell and can get under the skin and peel off their delusions.

Just as you wouldn't want to eat a rotten hard-boiled egg, if someone's beliefs are terrible, there's no option but to pulverize them into compost. Then they can start afresh with a new batch.

It happens often that people leave Genius forum for a period, and then return with vastly improved thoughts. Their old models died in their first visit, collapsing under the weight of criticism, and were replaced the only way that they truly can be: independently.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Just as you wouldn't want to eat a rotten hard-boiled egg, if someone's beliefs are terrible, there's no option but to pulverize them into compost. Then they can start afresh with a new batch.

However, one cannot discern a rotten hard-boiled egg from a good one if the shell remains. If you pulverize before you peel, you either find you have a rotten or a good, but nonetheless, "smooshed" egg. Perhaps you prefer your eggs scrambled?

It happens often that people leave Genius forum for a period, and then return with vastly improved thoughts. Their old models died in their first visit, collapsing under the weight of criticism, and were replaced the only way that they truly can be: independently

I'm reading a fiction book by Walker Percy entitled "The Second Coming", in it he writes: Lives are lines of force which ordinarily run parallel and do not connect...Lifelines are bent...Perhaps, he thought, even God will manifest himself when you are bent far enough out of your everyday lifeline. Although this book is a satire of the "hero's" awakening, there is something very true about what he said.

While it is assured I will leave here one day, it may be that I never return...that what I needed to learn was learned and the lines unbend and run parallel to infinity. The whole of life is a continual journey toward the Truth, inevitably...one way or another, we will find Truth if we search it out.

However, Truth is not found in humiliation and submission. If there is one thing I take away from this place, evidenced by a dialogue between David Quinn and some other board which he has linked on his site, is Quinn's ability to remain unflustered and stay his course despite the sputterings and condescending attitudes of his adversary...and Kevin Solway's remarkable insight in Poison of the Heart and discussion. I'm not saying I completely agree with them, but their manner of handling discussion is something many could stand to learn.

The person on the stairs to hell wrote:

However, one cannot discern a rotten hard-boiled egg from a good one if the shell remains. If you pulverize before you peel, you either find you have a rotten or a good, but nonetheless, "smooshed" egg. Perhaps you prefer your eggs scrambled?

I for one don’t give a fuck about your insipid Christian morality.

Like a mother hen, I can tell a good egg from a bad one.

You stink.

Get a backbone. You’re going to need it for truth.

There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold
And she's buying a stairway to heaven
And when she gets there she knows if the stores are closed
With a word she can get what she came for...

.

Hi passthrough,

passthrough wrote:I responded to your “God is Good Alone” thread. I am assuming that I am one of those for which you speak based on my ties to Christianity. If you do not answer the post, then I will assume you do not have the answers to some of the issues I raised about your view of Reality, making it less than iron clad of an argument against others.

I hadn't forgotten your post. I take my time to think though things.

My replies relate to assisting the life of Genius. While this broadens the scope of my thinking, it also means there are lots more things to take into consideration. So, i tend to take longer.

I'll get to your post as soon as i can, as i think it's important.


.

Leyla: I for one don’t give a fuck about your insipid Christian morality.

What is important to you?

Leyla: Like a mother hen, I can tell a good egg from a bad one. You stink.

Instead of making broad statements that have no substance, tell me why I stink.

Leyla: Get a backbone. You’re going to need it for truth.

I’m here. Tell me the truth.

Kelly:
I hadn't forgotten your post. I take my time to think though things.

My replies relate to assisting the life of Genius. While this broadens the scope of my thinking, it also means there are lots more things to take into consideration. So, i tend to take longer.

I'll get to your post as soon as i can, as i think it's important.

In some ways, Leyla is correct, I still flinch sometimes when the fist is headed my direction…although, I tire of her angry tongue lashings. I appreciate you thinking things through for trying to understand your thoughts and views is important to me.

Passthrough wrote:

To me arrogance is not a sign of humility.

I'm automatically suspicious of politeness and measured words. It's a smug form of arrogance, yet devoid of honesty.

Humility is the same as enlightenment, and is so rare as to be in non-existence.

Enlightenment can never be pretended.

So, go all out with honesty and tell reality how you see it, passion included. That sort of energy is vital to bring out any intellectual delusions, into the open light, where they can be dealt with plainly.


.

passthrough:

What is important to you?

Truth, of course.

Instead of making broad statements that have no substance, tell me why I stink.

You mean the specific instances that provide the substance for the broad statement? I would give you a recent one, but I can’t remember the name of the thread wherein you gave me a reply on the question of God!

The really stinky bit came after the proclamation “Jesus existed” with an equally amazing implication…

I decided it wasn’t the best use of the time I have on here.

I’m here. Tell me the truth.

You may wish to read and comment on other contributions I make to the forum.

I tire of her angry tongue lashings.

My “tongue lashings” are not angry, passthrough. I simply and genuinely don’t give a fuck about your Christian morality.

.

Quote:
What is important to you?

Truth, of course.

For all or just you? If for all, at all costs? Do the means justify the end?

You mean the specific instances that provide the substance for the broad statement? I would give you a recent one, but I can’t remember the name of the thread wherein you gave me a reply on the question of God!

I suppose you mean in this thread that began by you stating:

The religious mind is involved with the reconciliation of emotion.

You can see the religious mind in dialogue on any and every subject, including science, religion and philosophy.

Statements are doctrines to be worshipped, revered--held onto as a matter of life and death--and are offered precisely as such. There is no flow of ideas; no understanding. Just a sequence of sentences that surface upon some ineffable feeling or “intuition.”

Logical connections are expressed not as a flow of ideas but as complete sentences.

Thinking becomes preaching or a form of emotional self-analysis. An appeal of and to the emotions.

Meaning and truth are nothing more than a rock-solid word, like “God.”

The religious mind is utterly lost to all that it proclaims to represent.

You were egging any Christian on, and I was the fool. Only one other person took the bait and that was short-lived.

Let me ask you what I tried to get Reed to answer (as did Carl for that matter), why do you hate Christianity so much…now make the distinction between Christianity and Christendom and to go further taking Christianity as if the point of Jesus Christ being real or not real was irrelevant. What is so distasteful about his teachings to you?

Kelly took the time and translated the Sermon on the Mount into her language and did a great job. The Sermon on the Mount is the pinnacle of Jesus Christ’s teachings. I had only a few comments and requests for further explanation, the rest was crystal clear. It is in the post “God is good alone”.

If you are serious about finding the Truth, it won’t be a waste of your time, she worked very hard to put it together.

I decided it wasn’t the best use of the time I have on here.

Then you are not in search for the Truth but searching for someone to justify your own thoughts.

You may wish to read and comment on other contributions I make to the forum.

I will make an attempt to find two or three and work on them with a response.

My “tongue lashings” are not angry, passthrough. I simply and genuinely don’t give a fuck about your Christian morality.

Then why do you waste your time and mine posting replies? Certainly your caustic remarks add nothing to the discussion other than to move it off track…and you are angry.

If you are the age I think you to be, your whole generation is angry – I can understand why. You guys have been subjected to so much crap in life [media overload to be precise, and abuse (even if you're a good guy) from frightened teachers, who grew up in a different world, that are just trying to get through the day without being shot] that you all have become numb. Anger isn't even recognized as an emotion but an instinct. If one doesn't act tough one will get the shit beat out of them either physically or mentally.

So, go all out with honesty and tell reality how you see it, passion included. That sort of energy is vital to bring out any intellectual delusions, into the open light, where they can be dealt with plainly.

With a qualification:

Think before you think.


.

passthrough:

p: What is important to you?

L: Truth, of course.

p: For all or just you? If for all, at all costs?

For truth, which is for the truthful. Christian morality is not truthful.

Do the means justify the end?

Yes, when the means is truth then so is the end.

I suppose you mean in this thread [Literalism and the religious mind] that began by you stating: [snip]

No, that’s not the one. There is a lengthy reply from you on Genius proper somewhere…

You were egging any Christian on, and I was the fool. Only one other person took the bait and that was short-lived.

I was stating a truth about the religious mind, which is why you felt I was “egging” you (“any Christian”) on.

Thinking becomes preaching or a form of emotional self-analysis. An appeal of and to the emotions.

Meaning and truth are nothing more than a rock-solid word, like “God” [or “Christian”].

The religious mind is utterly lost to all that it proclaims to represent.

p: Let me ask you what I tried to get Reed to answer (as did Carl for that matter), why do you hate Christianity so much…now make the distinction between Christianity and Christendom and to go further taking Christianity as if the point of Jesus Christ being real or not real was irrelevant. What is so distasteful about his teachings to you?

Again, I am interested in truth and do not subscribe to any such false distinction. Jesus was not a disciple. You cannot become Christ-like if he is always outside of you.

Kelly took the time and translated the Sermon on the Mount into her language and did a great job. The Sermon on the Mount is the pinnacle of Jesus Christ’s teachings. I had only a few comments and requests for further explanation, the rest was crystal clear. It is in the post “God is good alone”.

Kelly is wasting her time, insofar as you may be concerned. Here is the evidence:

If you are serious about finding the Truth, it won’t be a waste of your time, she worked very hard to put it together.

What about you? Even after all Kelly has done, I see no hard work from your direction.

L: I decided it wasn’t the best use of the time I have on here.

p: Then you are not in search for the Truth but searching for someone to justify your own thoughts.

You are in no position to make any qualified judgment. Your “intuition” betrays you most blatantly, here, where you go off on a completely inaccurate, irrelevant and useless pop-psych ramble:

If you are the age I think you to be, your whole generation is angry – I can understand why. You guys have been subjected to so much crap in life [media overload to be precise, and abuse (even if you're a good guy) from frightened teachers, who grew up in a different world, that are just trying to get through the day without being shot] that you all have become numb. Anger isn't even recognized as an emotion but an instinct. If one doesn't act tough one will get the shit beat out of them either physically or mentally.

p: I will make an attempt to find two or three and work on them with a response.

For me? Wow, how noble of you. :)

L: My “tongue lashings” are not angry, passthrough. I simply and genuinely don’t give a fuck about your Christian morality.

p: Then why do you waste your time and mine posting replies? Certainly your caustic remarks add nothing to the discussion other than to move it off track…and you are angry.

I don’t waste my time. I reply when and in the manner I see appropriate--in the name of Truth! It is impossible for me to waste your time. This comment of yours merely represents how easily distracted you are from meaningful dialogue--and I am not angry; would you like to keep fighting over it? Here, I’ll give you further justification for your end:

I for one don’t give a fuck, passthrough, about your insipid Christian morality.

p: I will make an attempt to find two or three and work on them with a response.

You realise you’re playing with the devil, right?

If the truths of which I have spoken had no meaning to you before this, what makes you think anything has changed?

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Jesus was not a disciple. You cannot become Christ-like if he is always outside of you.

I like this point, and Jesus did teach that people should think for themselves, but Christianity teaches quite the opposite.

Leyla: You may wish to read and comment on other contributions I make to the forum.

p: I will make an attempt to find two or three and work on them with a response.

Leyla: For me? Wow, how noble of you. :)

Asked and Answered.

Leyla: You realise you’re playing with the devil, right?

As you wish.

Kelly: I'm automatically suspicious of politeness and measured words. It's a smug form of arrogance, yet devoid of honesty.

Be suspicious, time will prove whether I am insincere and dishonest. One cannot keep up a ruse for long...

Leyla: Jesus was not a disciple. You cannot become Christ-like if he is always outside of you.

Now that is truth.

From the "God is good alone" thread:

Passthrough: If someone accepts Christ because that is the only way they can obtain eternal life, then it is meaningless. Jesus Christ taught a way of life, he intended people to follow this way of life...to open their eyes and see that Heaven is before them. The notion of accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior and then doing as they please is meaningless. It is not truth.

AND

Jesus Christ was both finite and infinite. He was the Messiah foretold in prophecy. We are not the finite Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but part of the Infinite Jesus Christ through the Spirit…as I am with you.

John 1: 11-13 ~ Quote:
He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.


Mark 3:31-35~Quote:
Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."


But unless one understands this, though he be a finite thing within the Infinite, the Infinite is meaningless to him…it simply does not exist.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:Jesus was not a disciple. You cannot become Christ-like if he is always outside of you.

I like this point, and Jesus did teach that people should think for themselves, but Christianity teaches quite the opposite.

Jesus was not a disciple.

Unknown. We do not know if he was a disciple or not. I tend to think yes.

You cannot become Christ-like if he is always outside of you.

True.

Jesus did teach that people should think for themselves,

Yes.

but Christianity teaches quite the opposite.

The bastardized, satanized institutions maybe, but true Christianity does not. True Christianity stresses thinking for oneself and testing for oneself everything .