GENIUS FORUMS

I'm interested in what philosophy can come from this thread. What is there to discuss about what Kow posted?

Do you know what the word 'philosophy' means?

Could you say?

sschaula wrote:I'm interested in what philosophy can come from this thread. What is there to discuss about what Kow posted?

The thread topic "What is alive" does have merit. The rest of what she (yes, I still think kow is a girl - beerbuddy said kow is male, but kow had not publicly and personally refuted any gender things at that point - so how would beebuddy know unless it was kow's sockpuppet? and would a sockpuppet tell the truth or just say what the puppetier wanted someone else to say?) - anyway, the rest of what she has said has been so full of innane, time-wasting questions that it is not worth it to me to take the time to fish through it all. looking for anything good.

So Scott, what is your take on what it means to be alive? Does unemotionality make one more alive as Cory suggested, or is it the state of serenity that allows access to the state of being alive as I suggested, or do you have a third view?

Please don't mistake my thought - I do not suggest that mere serenity leads to a state of being alive, but it is a useful tool along the path of enlightenment.

kowtaaia wrote:Do you know what the word 'philosophy' means?

Could you say?

Love of Wisdom. I thought everyone knew that.

Love of Wisdom. I thought everyone knew that.

Yeah but each person has different notions of what love is, and what wisdom is.

A person can parrot the definition of philosophy and yet know nothing at all.

Elizabeth,

So Scott, what is your take on what it means to be alive?

If your heart is pumping you're alive. If it's not, you're dead. There are NO exceptions to this definition.

This kind of discussion has nothing to do with philosophy, and everything to do with how we define things.

Does unemotionality make one more alive as Cory suggested, or is it the state of serenity that allows access to the state of being alive as I suggested, or do you have a third view?

Emotions or not, serenity or not...we are alive.

If we are defining "alive" as being aware of the truth...which should not be its definition...then as long as you're aware of the truth you're "alive". If you have emotions, yet you're aware of the truth, you are "alive". If you have none and you're still aware of the truth, you're "alive". If you're serene and aware of the truth, you're "alive". If you're not serene and you are aware of the truth, you're "alive".

Please don't mistake my thought - I do not suggest that mere serenity leads to a state of being alive, but it is a useful tool along the path of enlightenment.

Serenity is a byproduct of knowing the truth...being "alive". It's not something we can use as a tool.

But as long as we think reason is a tool we are using, we might as well delude ourselves into thinking we can use serenity as well. The truth is that these things use us. The true path to enlightenment is always surrendering to the process of becoming enlightened. Surrendering - another thing we have no control over.

Anyway...this topic was "dead" in the first place. Trying to revive it is of no use, in my opinion. But if you do revive it, Elizabeth, then that's cool with me. I always do hope something interesting can come into discussion. Good effort trying to keep things on track, even if there wasn't a track in the first place.

And I agree with Elizabeth that its time to give Kow a break and stop carrying his past deeds into a present comment and being derisive towards him in general.

And Scott, there is no reason that this thread can't go into an interesting place - there's no need to be pessimistic.

Kow I'm sure has good qualities, and I think we should give him a few more chances to learn how to express himself in a way that satisfactory to the people.

kowtaaia wrote:Someone on another thread said:

"I suppose I was thinking from the point of view that most people are not alive – for they are not conscious of the existence of Truth."

Most, O. K. all followers of organized religion would claim "alive" status, don't you think?

Under the condition stated above that to be alive requires one to be conscious of the mere existence of Truth, most if not all followers of religion would fall under the condition "alive."

A better phrasing would be, "I suppose I was thinking from the point of view that most people are not alive – for they are not conscious of Truth"

Granted, it is better to have a conscious understanding of the existence of the Truth than having no consciousness of Truth whatsoever.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Love of Wisdom. I thought everyone knew that.

Yeah but each person has different notions of what love is, and what wisdom is.

A person can parrot the definition of philosophy and yet know nothing at all.

I was being a bit sarcastic. But each person has a different definition of what sarcasm is. Etc. etc

sschaula wrote:Elizabeth,

So Scott, what is your take on what it means to be alive?

If your heart is pumping you're alive. If it's not, you're dead. There are NO exceptions to this definition.

This kind of discussion has nothing to do with philosophy, and everything to do with how we define things.

Does unemotionality make one more alive as Cory suggested, or is it the state of serenity that allows access to the state of being alive as I suggested, or do you have a third view?

Emotions or not, serenity or not...we are alive.

If we are defining "alive" as being aware of the truth...which should not be its definition...

I stand corrected. You are right - it is no more acceptable to allow a redefinition of "alive" for the sake of discussion than it is to redefine "woman" for the sake of discussion.

**************************
edit to shorten quantity of quote to more pertinent portion, and to repair spelling, and to explain why I edited.
.

Cory,

And I agree with Elizabeth that its time to give Kow a break and stop carrying his past deeds into a present comment and being derisive towards him in general.

I don't agree. I will try not to waste anyone's time with posts that contain no substance, but I'm not going to suck up to this Kow kid just because he/she seems incapable of changing to a better way of functioning here at the forum. If Kow can't change, that's his/her problem and not my own.

Cory,

Sanctimoniousness doesn't cut the mustard. Just let it go. Protecting the herd (this actually doesn't apply to you, so much) is a primitive conditioning of the brain. It infests almost every forum on the internet. Geniuses don't pull that kind of crap. The ladies and their peanut gallery comments are just inciting the hostility of the monobrows.

sschaula wrote:Serenity is a byproduct of knowing the truth...being "alive". It's not something we can use as a tool.

I'd say it is both a byproduct and a tool. If one is too emotional, the person becomes blinded to the truth, and delusions creep in.

E,

If one is too emotional, the person becomes blinded to the truth, and delusions creep in.

To quote Kowpie, "non sequitur"!

"Emotions keep you from knowing the truth" isn't necessarily true. Who said it was so? I guarantee they were just making it up. It's a false premise.

You can know the truth and have emotions. You can have as much emotion as you want, but if you know the truth you will still...know the truth!

I'd say it (serenity) is both a byproduct and a tool.

People that are using it as a tool will get nowhere, and nothing. It's important for the seeker to note that being too angry, lustful or depressed can skew their views...but trying to stay serene is impossible. If a person is prone to anger, they will become angry.

Our emotions aren't really our choice. They happen to us. You can't stop being sad by telling yourself "stop being sad".

So, I guess I kind of think it's impossible to use serenity as a tool.

Scott,

"Emotions keep you from knowing the truth" isn't true. It is becoming too emotional that does. As you wrote

"It's important for the seeker to note that being too angry, lustful or depressed can skew their views..."

There is a world of difference between having an emotion and an emotion having you.

"but trying to stay serene is impossible. If a person is prone to anger, they will become angry. "

Trying is the important part. Having a moment of anger, and utilizing it properly, or going through the moment and processing enough of it rapidly enough to remove the distortion of perception is important - which can be done through the employment of the tool of serenity.

I did that week-long experiment trying to rid myself of all emotions. The happiness went away really easily, but that did not make negative emotions go away. Actually, removing the positive emotions added to some distortions of understanding - especially when trying to understand issues effected by the emotions of others (and that includes a lot, since humans have emotions). I believe that responsible use of emotions is a much more noble goal than the removal of emotions.

"Our emotions aren't really our choice. They happen to us. You can't stop being sad by telling yourself 'stop being sad'. "

It's a matter of extent. A little unhappy - I can cheer myself up. Worse than that, I can overlay a meditative state and be rid of it. Overwhelming, baseless suicidal urges - time to go back on medication (even this is actually a choice, and the resultant feelings are the effect of that choice).