GENIUS FORUMS

I thought this page was profound.

http://infinite.futurephilosophy.org/index.html

Kely wrote:

I think you're worried about sustainability, because you feel somewhat guilty for not working to meet your own needs. This is a symptom of social coercion.

On the contrary Kelly, I am wondering what is the ideal environment to foster genius. There are already sustainable communities in existence and they are much less enslaving than what the masses must endure to sustain life in the cities.

Minimal housing, sustainable farming and minimal energy use is key.

Not to mention working outdoors close to nature allows one to develop an aesthetic sensitivity to nature, which I feel is vitally important.

We have severed our connection from the outward world.

You just can’t give someone a tiny cubicle and tell them to become wise, they’ll grow to be lopsided.

A genius needs an intimate connection with the natural world.

And the best way to do this is to get them working to sustain the biological organism. Small-scale organic farming is actually very little labour, a few hours a day.

But one needs to understand certain scienific principles to be able to implement such a thing.

Essentially one must understand the physical sciences.

Kelly Jones wrote:

bert wrote:I believe in the eternity of Ego whatever its fluctuations.

question is: are you free or not?
He who entirely loves himself produces self-love only.

purity and innocence is simplicity,happiness is wisdom.
what is simple has no duality.

I'm assuming that you think it is wise to be egotistical, and that you believe that there is no such thing as non-wisdom (in your scheme this would be egolessness).

Am I right in this assumption?

no.

simplicity is the source of wisdom.are not the most simple things in the world the most pure,innocent,and their properties the most wonderful?pleasuring my self in love,without excuse.Is this not perfection?actions would appear uncapable to penetrate and incomprehensible,they don't fall away from the great purpose.
freedom from the necessity of law,realisation by the very wish,is the ultimate goal.
law depends on two,two is millions.law is complicated.the first did not view in all its aspects,the second did not put to conclusion.
...
is this a moral doctrine?yes,this is a moral doctrine.why wouldn't it be?
the value of the moral doctrine lies in its freedom for transgression.
and the criterion of action is freedom of movement,timeliness of expression,pleasuring.


I would counsel closed ears for those who contain the great Ideas have no opinions.
what one knows of what one's subconscious contains is still less then his own arcana.
the wise allow their operation by silence.

the Ego plays a dual role.
i've tried to explain this several times before but no one gives a damn.
thanks for the read...

Kelly Jones wrote:

Steven Coyle wrote:What do you consider 'perfect wisdom'?

The ongoing consciousness of "normal everyday life", in which no egotism, or attachment-bound experiences, whatsoever, arises.

What is wisdom without these things?

I am wondering what is the ideal environment to foster genius.

An environment where there aren't people toting the idea that destroying the progress of the modern world is conducive to genius.

I'm serious. With people that have these types of ideas you have stupidity, and where there's stupidity there's less conductivity for genius. If you instead immersed yourself in truth, then you would be fostering genius.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:A genius needs an intimate connection with the natural world.

No one can ever not be intimately connected with Nature. The difference between a genius and an ignorant social slave is that the genius has decided to spend his limited life-time being conscious of Nature.

And the best way to do this is to get them working to sustain the biological organism. Small-scale organic farming is actually very little labour, a few hours a day.

In the middle of an intense struggle with an attachment, where the ego is railing with all its might against Truth, the sound of hungry animals appears. The mind is suddenly overcome by a list of tasks:

"Must feed goats, chickens and rabbits; milk goats; make cheese and yoghurt; plant seedlings; water garden; collect wood; arrange to use co-op car for trip to town; get the pump going; check the fences and dam walls; do a chop-and-drop in the food forest; oh - and have to prepare another sour-dough loaf so I'd better get the yeast ready blah blah blah."

Oh, if only I could have time to think, and didn't have all these tasks to do, one thinks, every day for years. Eventually, one dies, and has a neat little headstone in the village cemetery. It reads: "Loved by all."

Steven Coyle wrote:Steven: What do you consider 'perfect wisdom'?

The ongoing consciousness of "normal everyday life", in which no egotism, or attachment-bound experiences, whatsoever, arises.

Steven: What is wisdom without these things?

If one is experiencing attachment then egotism is present. To grow out of the attachment, one can consider exploring it with an understanding of causes. Willlingly and consciously creating an attachment to Truth is a logical step, since it helps to starve egotism which doesn't like learning anything new.

You could call this the process of perfecting wisdom, including perfecting one's understanding of Truth.

Right on time.

Thanks, Kelly.

Bert,

When you stop contradicting yourself, it might be possible to reason with you. Here are you definitions:

Ego = eternal but fluctuates, plays a dual role

Wisdom (a.k.a. freedom, the eternal, perfection, non-duality) = happiness, purity, innocence, simplicity, pleasuring self in love, lawlessness

You define wisdom to be non-duality (which is necessarily eternal, since it never is not), but define the Ego as dual AND eternal. You can't define a thing to be itself AND what it isn't. This is plainly illogical.

Kelly Jones wrote:Bert,

When you stop contradicting yourself, it might be possible to reason with you. Here are you definitions:

Ego = eternal but fluctuates, plays a dual role

Wisdom (a.k.a. freedom, the eternal, perfection, non-duality) = happiness, purity, innocence, simplicity, pleasuring self in love, lawlessness

You define wisdom to be non-duality (which is necessarily eternal, since it never is not), but define the Ego as dual AND eternal. You can't define a thing to be itself AND what it isn't. This is plainly illogical.

you got it right.now you only have to accurately relate them.but it takes a book to do that.
he who is free knows that the freedom of ego is in the light of the Ego(Mind)
the absolute freedom which being free is mighty enough to be "reality" and free at any time.

my time ends here

Farmer Jones wrote:

In the middle of an intense struggle with an attachment, where the ego is railing with all its might against Truth, the sound of hungry animals appears. The mind is suddenly overcome by a list of tasks:

"Must feed goats, chickens and rabbits; milk goats; make cheese and yoghurt; plant seedlings; water garden; collect wood; arrange to use co-op car for trip to town; get the pump going; check the fences and dam walls; do a chop-and-drop in the food forest; oh - and have to prepare another sour-dough loaf so I'd better get the yeast ready blah blah blah."

Oh, if only I could have time to think, and didn't have all these tasks to do, one thinks, every day for years. Eventually, one dies, and has a neat little headstone in the village cemetery. It reads: "Loved by all."

Kelly, you’re idea of what a sustainable system entails is quite conventional, depressing and overall very ignorant of the possibilities.

This isn’t grandma’s farm! It’s a sustainable system, it is constructed in way to be incredibly minimal/efficient/not labour intensive.

The body doesn’t need meat so all your livestocks tasks go out the window…

You only need to plant seedlings for a couple days of the season and nature does the rest…
If one plants an apple tree, it will produce large amounts of fruit with no labour. Fruit trees are key.

One can contemplate when they are carrying wood. This is not an either-or.

Even if one is working five hours a day, this still leaves seven hours of contemplation time.

You are being overly melodramatic here Kelly…

You have an exaggerated idea of what agriculture entails, because you are basing your knowledge on the crude evolution of the ignorant man’s farm.

Like I said before one needs to understand the radical agricultural movements that have happened in the last one hundred years.

These agricultural movements have maximized yield, efficiency while reducing labour drastically.

cosmic_prostitute,

All about me, people endorse the easy and comfortable life, as well as living it --- why? If there is so much talk about how decent and worthwhile the easy life is, then surely they are all feeling restless and dissatisfied.

This phrase I wrote earlier, about the easy and comfortable life, is about egotism. This goes a lot deeper than the permaculture idea of pollution, i.e cradle-to-grave processes.

You asked me to provide sound reasoning to indicate why sustainable agriculture is not absolutely vital to genius. I did that, but you ignored it. It is you who are polluting, by producing far more ignorance than you need.

Even if you are living in an urban organic cooperative, growing dwarf fruit trees in an abandoned warehouse, recycling poo and bicycles, and know the life first-hand, you have not demonstrated any wisdom at all to me. You don't seem to realise how much effort it takes to grow out of comfortable and easy intellectual habits.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:In the middle of an intense struggle with an attachment, where the ego is railing with all its might against Truth, the sound of hungry animals appears.

cosmic_prostitute: Kelly, you’re idea of what a sustainable system entails is quite conventional, depressing and overall very ignorant of the possibilities....These agricultural movements have maximized yield, efficiency while reducing labour drastically.

As I said earlier, the main reason I abandoned the Thinkers Shed project was because of the intellectual labour involved in philosophy. This decision was based on my karma.

If you believe you have the ability, by yourself, to create and carry off the project you have in mind, AND give yourself 100% to philosophy, then good luck to you.

Incidentally, I did a permaculture design certificate in 2002 with Geoff Lawton at the Permaculture Research Institute, and went on to create a permaculture community garden in inner Sydney. Around the same time I was a director of an organic food co-op, and one of the key organisers in the Sydney Critical Mass, the urban bicycling movement. I lived in rundown and dirty industrial warehouses, using dumpster-diving from the supermarkets to supplement my diet as the community garden developed.

I dumped the lot in 2004 because my psychological state became unbearable because of feeling compelled to defend my "endangered ideology".

bert,

If you believe in the eternity of the Ego, then it's a bit odd, to say the least, to say "my time ends here".

I define nonduality to mean that which is everything, neither a particular thing nor separate from any thing. Wisdom is based on understanding this. Wisdom is of non-duality, but is itself a particular thing, being consciousness of the Infinite that can stop arising.

If you agree that wisdom is of Mind (everything, the Totality), then why do you equate Mind and Ego when you state the Ego is dual in nature? The Mind is not dual, it is nonduality.

Or are you saying that, since the wise-consciousness is finite, and the deluded-consciousness is finite, that they are exactly the same thing?

By the way, I strongly dislike your usage of Ego, as it is very easy to avoid consciousness of the delusional reality of egotism, and consequently believe oneself "absolutely free" of delusion.



-

Kelly wrote:

Incidentally, I did a permaculture design certificate in 2002 with Geoff Lawton at the Permaculture Research Institute, and went on to create a permaculture community garden in inner Sydney. Around the same time I was a director of an organic food co-op, and one of the key organisers in the Sydney Critical Mass, the urban bicycling movement. I lived in rundown and dirty industrial warehouses, using dumpster-diving from the supermarkets to supplement my diet as the community garden developed.

I dumped the lot in 2004 because my psychological state became unbearable because of feeling compelled to defend my "endangered ideology".

yes, well if you were not born into a lucky position, it makes such a vision difficult to accomplish. Permaculture like any ideology is dangerous due to the amount of emotional attachment that can come with it.

I have been careful not to be overly attached to these sustainable visions, but no emotional investment is impossible.

As soon as you see an activity as significant to the wellbeing of humanity/species/oneself then emotional investment comes with that.

I guess the challenge to to value a certain outcome, but also be in a state of mind where you're indifferent to whether it ever happens/onfolds the way you prefer.

cosmic prostitute,

But do you see that science-based ideologies, such as permaculture, or psychology, have nothing whatsoever to do with wisdom and genius?

It's only through thinking logically about the Absolute that one can understand anything's true nature. Any other method will never reveal what attachment is.

It's no good trying not to be "overly attached" or "indifferent" to things. That's fake. You'll just be pretending you're not attached, and get nowhere at all.

That's why I suggest a baby philosopher - one with bodhicitta - become more attached to Truth than anything else. Then he can settle into a routine which will inevitably alter his karmic attachments.

So, forget fruit trees. If they truly were the key to genius, then orchardists would be the wisest of all. It's laughable.

I am back...

I've been doing a lot of reading lately, and now I find that already reading books is a waste of my time(didn't mean to shift away from the subject). I understand that you all must be verocious readers and that you are certified geniuses. Or, are you all certified geniuses???
I don't understand how reading books or whatever can make a person smarter. It seems like the more I am indulging myself into the books, the more I become a faker person. It seems as if the whole world just became a simple platinum.
I don't really have much to say, because my roomate and his girlfriend are having a generous time next door.
So...can I predict something? I am going to predict an apocolypse, or end of the world.
Christians are already talking about the return of the spiritual dark ages. Which basically means we're fucked-according to the bible. Has anyone ever wondered what the "666" symbol stands for?.. It's the number of the Beast who won't need to be obligated the factor of time. So, he chose this number to mark us humans who are still in the factor of time to remind us that our time is up. You know, like the dinosoars, except for that was millions of years ago...

Kelly,

you wrote:

But do you see that science-based ideologies, such as permaculture, or psychology, have nothing whatsoever to do with wisdom and genius?

I have a different definition of genius – it includes a holistic understanding of science that can be applied to one’s daily affairs. I believe the genius should be able to take care of himself minimally using the most update methods as possible. And he can derive much satisfaction out of these activities.

Kelly wrote:

It's only through thinking logically about the Absolute that one can understand anything's true nature. Any other method will never reveal what attachment is.

What do you mean thinking logically about the absolute? If one is suffering or confused about something, he goes into in the moment as a means to clear his mind, surely this is all there is. Suffering is not a choice, neither is wonder or discontent so one does not have to set time to logically think about the absolute (whatever that means) because it happens on its own.

Kelly wrote:

It's no good trying not to be "overly attached" or "indifferent" to things. That's fake. You'll just be pretending you're not attached, and get nowhere at all.

The key is whether one is suffering because of what they believe, Moreover personally because there is very little emotional conflict associated with this belief, I don’t see a problem in valuing permaculture/sustainable agriculture especially if it is something that civilization drastically needs.

Kelly wrote:

That's why I suggest a baby philosopher - one with bodhicitta - become more attached to Truth than anything else. Then he can settle into a routine which will inevitably alter his karmic attachments.

Is this idea of truth that you are attached to justified? Do you worship an abstraction?

Kelly wrote:

So, forget fruit trees. If they truly were the key to genius, then orchardists would be the wisest of all. It's laughable.

This isn’t an either-or situation. One can dedicate themselves to many activities as a means to be whole. And understanding the nature of the psyche is one of those activities.

One should never abandon their scientific knowledge/pursuits of the natural world, its laughable.

Such an understanding makes life easier, it is of the highest practicality.

You seem to be stuck in this either-or mentality, but I believe one can study the natural sciences and apply it to their daily affairs while still dedicating much of their time choicelessly to the absolute truth.

one doesnt need to cultivate an attachment to the absolute as you say because it all happens choicelessly agaisnt ones will anyhow.

If one is living the truth then there is nothing to be attached to because one "is" the truth. There is nothing to cling onto here.

cultivating an attachment to truth implies effort, but I make an effort not be put an effort into anything...

One's understanding always comes through an effortless process....

Here is a quite sophisticated metaphor for you to analyze: when you are sitting down on the toilet urinating Kelly, have you ever noticed that if you push really hard and work those muscles that nothing happens except for the fact that you end up with all sorts of contorted expressions on your face?

The key is to relax and let the body do its thing effortlessly….

So let that urine flow Kelly… let that urine flow…

Best wishes,
CP

cosmic_prostitute wrote:I have a different definition of genius – it includes a holistic understanding of science that can be applied to one’s daily affairs. I believe the genius should be able to take care of himself minimally using the most update methods as possible. And he can derive much satisfaction out of these activities.

Behold, the Marching Morons.

It's only through thinking logically about the Absolute that one can understand anything's true nature. Any other method will never reveal what attachment is.

cosmic_prostitute: What do you mean thinking logically about the absolute?

Reasoning about what is absolutely true.

Suffering is not a choice, neither is wonder or discontent so one does not have to set time to logically think about the absolute (whatever that means) because it happens on its own.

Suffering is self-inflicted, even if a person is hardly conscious of choosing to do so.

It's no good trying not to be "overly attached" or "indifferent" to things. That's fake. You'll just be pretending you're not attached, and get nowhere at all.

cp: The key is whether one is suffering because of what they believe

Can you imagine the possibility of no suffering?

cp: Moreover personally because there is very little emotional conflict associated with this belief, I don’t see a problem in valuing permaculture/sustainable agriculture especially if it is something that civilization drastically needs.

Since you have no interest in philosophy, I'm sure you won't mind perpetuating the suffering of humans.

That's why I suggest a baby philosopher - one with bodhicitta - become more attached to Truth than anything else. Then he can settle into a routine which will inevitably alter his karmic attachments.

cp: Is this idea of truth that you are attached to justified? Do you worship an abstraction?

By showing the nature of everything, it reveals what is delusional. What's the problem?

One should never abandon their scientific knowledge/pursuits of the natural world, its laughable.

Such an understanding makes life easier, it is of the highest practicality.

Yes, one can't help but rely on observations to decide how to behave. I never said abandon scientific knowledge. Just to recognise that theories based on empirical evidence are uncertain, whereas reasoning about what is absolutely true is certain.

Genius makes life harder, and is extremely impractical.

one doesnt need to cultivate an attachment to the absolute as you say because it all happens choicelessly agaisnt ones will anyhow.

If something occurs against one's will, then absolute choicelessness is not possible. Will implies choosing.

Decisions are always either/or situations. One can either decide to go for a walk around the block, or not, for instance.

In deciding bigger matters, such as one's life purpose, one can either choose to dedicate oneself to one thing, or else some other thing. Even if one postpones the decision, it is still decided by some part of the personality.

If one is living the truth then there is nothing to be attached to because one "is" the truth. There is nothing to cling onto here.

cultivating an attachment to truth implies effort, but I make an effort not be put an effort into anything...

One's understanding always comes through an effortless process....

That would explain why your posts are so boring, colourless, and empty of all that is absolutely vital to genius.

bert,

If you believe in the eternity of the Ego, then it's a bit odd, to say the least, to say "my time ends here".

I ran out of time.I had to go to work.

I define nonduality to mean that which is everything, neither a particular thing nor separate from any thing. Wisdom is based on understanding this. Wisdom is of non-duality, but is itself a particular thing, being consciousness of the Infinite that can stop arising.

yes,it(Wisdom) is a stasis.

If you agree that wisdom is of Mind (everything, the Totality), then why do you equate Mind and Ego when you state the Ego is dual in nature? The Mind is not dual, it is nonduality.

the ego is a refraction of Mind. so ego sees the ramifications that the dual principle emanates through the infinite variety of emotions that cometh from Mind(I call it ancestral sex principle). this principle and the idea of self are the same,the early duality, the mystery of mysteries. all conceivbable things are in the light of its emotion,the ecstasy which the idea of self induces. the idea is unity by the formula of self,its necessary reality as continuity(Self is the negation of completeness as reality),all this universe visible and invisible has come out of it.

Ego in the light of Mind becomes the Absolute;for ego sees self-love, and life is conscious of one.Self being its opposing force, its conflict,harmony,life and death.

the Ego performs an ascension from duality - the annihilation of Law.

Or are you saying that, since the wise-consciousness is finite, and the deluded-consciousness is finite, that they are exactly the same thing?

the delusive consciousness from ego is such because it has conceived an ill "substraction/negative" from the Id.its concept of reality is illusive,for reality is always the inconceivable.(see also "the philosophy of 'as if'" from Hans Vaihinger.)

By the way, I strongly dislike your usage of Ego, as it is very easy to avoid consciousness of the delusional reality of egotism, and consequently believe oneself "absolutely free" of delusion.

how?

sanchez wrote:
Christians are already talking about the return of the spiritual dark ages. Which basically means we're fucked-according to the bible.

Actually, the narrative ends with "And then jesus comes, kicks ass, and saves the day!" It's really an upbeat story.

Bert,

If you agree that wisdom is of Mind (everything, the Totality), then why do you equate Mind and Ego when you state the Ego is dual in nature? The Mind is not dual, it is nonduality.

Bert: the ego is a refraction of Mind. so ego sees the ramifications that the dual principle emanates through the infinite variety of emotions that cometh from Mind(I call it ancestral sex principle).

At least you've intuited that egotism is largely driven by the need to reproduce. But you're trying to understanding Ultimate Reality by poking it into a tiny nook, which leads to your delusional belief that "all conceivable things are in the light of [the dual, ancestral sex principal's] emotion".

It's not truthful nor logical to define all conceivable things as having the form of a finite thing. If everything were one thing, then there would be another thing that everything is not --- clearly contradicting the meaning of everything.

Starting with a concept of Ultimate Reality that is based on the self-construct means it's inevitably going to be wrong, for the simple reason that the self-construct is a particular reality. Reality doesn't fit into a box, such as "continuity" or "negation of completeness" or "becoming".

the Ego performs an ascension from duality - the annihilation of Law.

It is unwise to alter definitions willy-nilly. It makes it impossible to have a logical idea of absolute.

Also, it reveals a hatred of memory. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a history of drug-induced altered states. Do you smoke?

reality is always the inconceivable.

And did you conceive of this idea of reality?

By the way, I strongly dislike your usage of Ego, as it is very easy to avoid consciousness of the delusional reality of egotism, and consequently believe oneself "absolutely free" of delusion.

Bert: how?

If you call Ego the Ultimate Reality, then you've mistaken a finite part to be the Totality of all things. It leads to the delusion that Reality has a nature of some kind, namely, that it is based on "I" (the usual meaning of ego).

Kelly Jones wrote:

Genius makes life harder, and is extremely impractical.

And this is why one needs scientific knowledge to make it easier. The sage cannot work in civilization full time so he must find a more intelligent way to live. It is choiceless.

Kelly Jones wrote:

If something occurs against one's will, then absolute choicelessness is not possible. Will implies choosing.

The awareness of the entity dictates what will be chosen whether it is a wise entity or stupid entity, either way there is no choice, both are controlled.

Kelly Jones wrote:

one can either choose to dedicate oneself to one thing, or else some other thing

.

I disagree, what a depressing perception of things you have. The brain is not as limited as you would like to believe. One does not have to solely specialize in philosophy to get it right, its almost as if you are attached to the idea that one must put all their energy into philosophy to be wise, what a romantic notion!

Kelly Jones wrote:

In deciding bigger matters, such as one's life purpose

Woah, back up for a sec, I don’t believe in life purpose, the organism does what it must to survive, that is all, there is no purpose, no meaning. You are no more special than a maggot feeding on a corpse. Don’t fool yourself with a silly word such as purpose. Thinking your life actually has purpose will cause self-inflicted suffering as you say. No purpose, nothing.

Kelly Jones wrote:

That would explain why your posts are so boring...

Yeah well I’m not in the entertainment business. If you want something fun and exciting here is a quote by my old bud Andew Cohen, I’m sure you two would have a grand time talking about life’s purpose together over tea….

Cosmic Conscience

As we reach for higher and higher levels of human potential, a completely new kind of moral development enters into the picture, which is what I call “cosmic conscience.” Cosmic conscience is what emerges when the individual awakens to the evolutionary impulse or Authentic Self, and begins to see his or her own capacity for self-awareness as part of a fourteen-billion-year process of development. When you contemplate this nothing-less-than-cosmic context for your very own life, and begin to understand that your own experience of awareness is literally the cutting edge of that vast unfolding process, you realize that the continuation of that process is now completely dependent upon your own willingness to consciously create the future. Awakening to this overwhelming fact puts more pressure on the individual self-sense than anything else ever could. In the face of this ultimate responsibility, either you're going to go crazy or you will very quickly become profoundly sane—because you have no choice, because it's your obligation to do so, because the future is totally dependent upon you. That is cosmic conscience: the realization that “It's up to me.”
The degree to which you awaken to this cosmic conscience is the degree to which you will actually find the wherewithal to handle your own personal experience, however overwhelming it may be, because you realize that who you really are and what you're here for is far greater than any of your personal concerns. That alone is what makes it possible to abandon all unwholesome expressions of self and embrace the ultimately empowering and ennobling qualities of natural dignity, humility, and self-respect that this cosmic conscience potentially engenders in the human heart and soul.

Andrew Cohen

At least you've intuited that egotism is largely driven by the need to reproduce. But you're trying to understanding Ultimate Reality by poking it into a tiny nook, which leads to your delusional belief that "all conceivable things are in the light of [the dual, ancestral sex principal's] emotion".

the early duality of the ancestral sex principle is too abstruse to explain by orthodox words.it is only detected in that state where the mind has passed beyond conception,and is not related to form.
there is no other,therefore it alone is complete and eternal.

It's not truthful nor logical to define all conceivable things as having the form of a finite thing. If everything were one thing, then there would be another thing that everything is not --- clearly contradicting the meaning of everything.

see my previous answer.

Starting with a concept of Ultimate Reality that is based on the self-construct means it's inevitably going to be wrong, for the simple reason that the self-construct is a particular reality. Reality doesn't fit into a box, such as "continuity" or "negation of completeness" or "becoming".

I never use the concept or idea of 'Ultimate Reality'.reality is always the inconceivable.Reality is illusion;Illusion is reality.

Schiller - in error only is there life,and knowledge must be death.
Dali - the real is an epiphenomenon of thought,a result of non-thought,a form of amnesia.the true real is within us and we project it.
Nietzsche - "the belief in external things is one of the necessary errors of mankind." and, "Our external world is a product of the fantasy."

Quote:
the Ego performs an ascension from duality - the annihilation of Law.


It is unwise to alter definitions willy-nilly. It makes it impossible to have a logical idea of absolute.

Also, it reveals a hatred of memory. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a history of drug-induced altered states. Do you smoke?

I'm not altering definitions.
I believe in the eternity of Ego, whatever its fluctuations.
If I can not believe in the eternity of Ego,then tell me in what shall I believe.

I smoke.

Quote:
reality is always the inconceivable.


And did you conceive of this idea of reality?

usefull fiction

Vaihinger - the 'as if' world...the world of the 'unreal' is just as real and important as the real or actual.

Quote:
By the way, I strongly dislike your usage of Ego, as it is very easy to avoid consciousness of the delusional reality of egotism, and consequently believe oneself "absolutely free" of delusion.

Bert: how?


If you call Ego the Ultimate Reality, then you've mistaken a finite part to be the Totality of all things. It leads to the delusion that Reality has a nature of some kind, namely, that it is based on "I" (the usual meaning of ego

I don't call Ego the Ultimate Reality.
the only 'real' world where we know of is the phenomenal world(not 'as it is in itself').

I'm having difficulty distinguishing cosmic_prostitute from bert. I'll address my post to prosticosbert. When there is real individuality, then it is just to identify it. Real names, real people.

prosticosbert wrote:Thinking your life actually has purpose will cause self-inflicted suffering as you say. No purpose, nothing.

I've deliberately decided that my purpose in life is to become as wise as possible, and as a consequence, many of my decisions are focussed on wisdom. If I didn't do this, then by default I will go along with egotism, by far the easier choice.

Scientific knowledge doesn't help in my spiritual education, because education rests on the degree of willingness. Willing does not rely on experience but on the absolute either/or.

prosticosbert wrote: One does not have to solely specialize in philosophy to get it right, its almost as if you are attached to the idea that one must put all their energy into philosophy to be wise

The brain only focusses on one thing at a time. This thing is always determined by one's values. If there is something more valuable than truth, then thoughts will focus on lying. Philosophy demands specialisation - an extreme obsession, given that egotism is the default focus of the brain.

prosticosbert aka Andrew Cohen wrote:: embrace the ultimately empowering and ennobling qualities of natural dignity, humility, and self-respect that this cosmic conscience potentially engenders in the human heart and soul.

I'll have to ask John Howard for a raise, to cover the extra groceries. How much vomiting I've done lately. Why is this unconscious, degrading, disgusting, and highly abusive behaviour continuing to happen? Because no one stands up to the bullshit. What to do?

prosticosbert wrote:it is only detected in that state where the mind has passed beyond conception,and is not related to form. there is no other,therefore it alone is complete and eternal.

[snip]

I never use the concept or idea of 'Ultimate Reality'.reality is always the inconceivable.Reality is illusion;Illusion is reality.

If the "state" of "being beyond conception" has no form at all, then how do you know it is a dual principle? To have form is to appear as something. A dual principle is something.

The only context in which any thing has meaning is absolute truth. That is, you are already using the concept of Ultimate Reality, despite your protests.

You will not like hearing this, and I'm sure will disagree, but this is the nature of the mental illness of low self-esteem: You are creating an imaginary state to feel more powerful, and are hiding in it because of detesting the mediocrity of conventional society. Many young men feel they must struggle to hold on to their own individual conception of reality, believing that this exhausting hypervigilance is noble. They are miserably proud of this egotism, that locks them into being unable to relax and live freely. But the truly noble alternative to animal mediocrity is understanding the nature of the ego, which in turn rests on feeling confident to explore Reality. Psychotherapy is helpful in this regard.

Schiller - in error only is there life,and knowledge must be death.
Dali - the real is an epiphenomenon of thought,a result of non-thought,a form of amnesia.the true real is within us and we project it.
Nietzsche - "the belief in external things is one of the necessary errors of mankind." and, "Our external world is a product of the fantasy."

These quotes from Schiller and Dali reveal they have not a smidgin of wisdom. Nietzsche means there is no internality either: there is no inherent separation between an external environment and an internal intellect.

prosticosbert wrote:the Ego performs an ascension from duality - the annihilation of Law.

I'm not altering definitions. I believe in the eternity of Ego, whatever its fluctuations. If I can not believe in the eternity of Ego,then tell me in what shall I believe.

You can start by believing that the law of identity (A=A) is reliable. That'd be a big help. It means that a thing is not what it is not. This is the basis of truth.

If you define Ego as dual in nature, then it is untrue to then define Ego as ascending from duality. Anything ascending from duality is not in duality.

The reason you cannot achieve consistency in your definitions is because you are mistakenly believing that a finite thing is everything. I said this earlier.

Here's another example:

prosticosbert wrote:Reality is illusion; Illusion is reality. [snip] reality is always the inconceivable.

the only 'real' world where we know of is the phenomenal world(not 'as it is in itself').

The "as it is in itself" state, called the early sex principle, is in context of what it is not. This state, and what it is not, can be related because they are both resting on the idea of absolute truth.

If you understand this, then you can know for certain that one's experiences are always part of Ultimate Reality. There's no need to separate Reality up into real and unreal. One can relax and live freely, accepting everything Nature has to offer.