GENIUS FORUMS

hey kelly - get a life!....then write...all power to you! your postulating on behalf of truth - the value of - is to say the least a little overdone. It's all been said...fair dinkum.

also, it seems you have made some sort of decision to retreat from life, in order to pursue truth, to live truthfully in your head...but I don't think that's quite true...What I've learnt is not to take philosophers too seriously, but rather look at how they live...history is a road littered with the corpses of those who've sacrificed themselves for truth...anyway - what's the pay off? what does it give you: a sense being superior in relation to us ignorant ordinary people? a place in heaven? sainthood? immortality? Mmmm.....as for sex, drugs and rock n' roll - don't knock what you haven't tried!

Leyla: You are, in fact, anti-human: anti-woman, and anti-man. How the heck is that wise? How is it wise when the very wisdom you promote will be the undoing of itself?

Kelly: By this, do you mean that wisdom will be destroyed with the elimination of sexuality? Or that promoting reason may cause a form of rationality to survive that virtually no one living today could recognise as human?

Leyla: I mean you have made wisdom relative and not timeless. Bit like science, really.

Kelly: Well, the arising of wisdom does depend on consciousness. It's content is timeless, however.

In your hypothetical, completely “masculine,” reasoning and rational and all-other-things-you-have-so-classified-as-masculine robotic society, what philosophical relevance will your theory of masculinity (compared, say, to the absolute truth that all things lack inherent existence) have?

Absolute Truth sustains the timelessness of wisdom, Kelly. Apparently, femininity cannot exist without masculinity. Woman does not exist without man.

In your society, upon what will the existence of reason depend, exactly?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Harping on about enlightenment, and everything related, may not stem from attachment.

Tell that to the Buddha who would fuck a baby for the progress of wisdom.

Done.

Someone fighting over the rights of a baby might, on seeing it cut in half, realise it's a thing that can be cut in half, just like an apple. They might realise that things don't have inherent boundaries, and then be astonished to find that Reality is utterly empty.

This outcome is possible. A Buddha who judges everything with this understanding naturally values Buddhahood, and helping those in ignorance to arrive at the same understanding. Over against this, preserving the life of the baby would have insignificant value.

A baby Buddha, struggling to "cut babies in half", will attempt to do the same, but subtle delusions may weaken them.

Leyla Shen wrote:In your hypothetical, completely “masculine,” reasoning and rational and all-other-things-you-have-so-classified-as-masculine robotic society, what philosophical relevance will your theory of masculinity (compared, say, to the absolute truth that all things lack inherent existence) have?

What theory? I used the robotic scenario to illustrate that rationality isn't inherently sexual, and thus, that masculinity would have meaning only if there were irrational robots. You're very rigid about this.

Absolute Truth sustains the timelessness of wisdom, Kelly.

Nothing at all can sustain timelessness.

Apparently, femininity cannot exist without masculinity. Woman does not exist without man.

Generally men can survive without women, if they're pushed to. A Buddha exists without femininity (egotism), unless there is still womanhood in his mind.

In your society, upon what will the existence of reason depend, exactly?

How different is a robot's rational consciousness from a human's rational consciousness?


Kelly

zarathustra wrote:hey kelly - get a life!....then write...all power to you! your postulating on behalf of truth - the value of - is to say the least a little overdone. It's all been said...fair dinkum.

also, it seems you have made some sort of decision to retreat from life, in order to pursue truth, to live truthfully in your head...but I don't think that's quite true...What I've learnt is not to take philosophers too seriously, but rather look at how they live...history is a road littered with the corpses of those who've sacrificed themselves for truth...anyway - what's the pay off? what does it give you: a sense being superior in relation to us ignorant ordinary people? a place in heaven? sainthood? immortality? Mmmm.....as for sex, drugs and rock n' roll - don't knock what you haven't tried!

Ah, the old bury-your-head-in-the-sand trick. It's working for you, mate. I'm almost tempted to follow your example..................Not.

I mentioned earlier that living in a tent and cycling is an experiment, to keep my mind clear as possible. It does have some flaws, such as higher risk exposure: getting involved in a road accident, or becoming sick, or not being constantly alert to pranksters, rapists, killers and so on. Sometimes, this risk element pushes me to focus immediately on Truth, and other times, becomes a distraction. I'm still weighing it up.


Kelly

Kelly,

on reading your paper again, I think it has value. I respect your direction and conviction.

What was your "career" before you went the path?

What theory? I used the robotic scenario to illustrate that rationality isn't inherently sexual, and thus, that masculinity would have meaning only if there were irrational robots. You're very rigid about this.

I must be insane. See, I know "flow" is probably a thing that is frowned upon here, but our little interaction here flows on from previous interactions and you seem to like hopping around like a flippen mexican jumping bean. Focus.

Would a masculine robot have a penis? Testosterone?

Fucking useless analogy, ain't it?

Let me ask it yet another way: how would you get/evolve/create irrational and rational robots? No, don't tell me -- cause and effect.

Boy, I've learned so much.

Generally men can survive without women, if they're pushed to. A Buddha exists without femininity (egotism), unless there is still womanhood in his mind.

OK, let me get this straight -- femininity is a word under which all the shit of the universe can be lumped at a whim and is easily interchangeable with woman, therefore?

If femininity is equal to egotism, why not just say egotism?

Leyla: Tell that to the Buddha who would fuck a baby for the progress of wisdom.

Kelly: Done

While you're at it, ask the Buddha how he will cause himself to have an erection without desire -- telekinesis?

Leyla Shen wrote:

What theory? I used the robotic scenario to illustrate that rationality isn't inherently sexual, and thus, that masculinity would have meaning only if there were irrational robots. You're very rigid about this.

Would a masculine robot have a penis? Testosterone?

Here it is in very plain English. If you don't get it after this, I don't see what point there is pursuing this topic with you:

Rationality is currently a masculine sexual trait, because the majority of human species' males rely on rationality far more than the majority of human females. When what is generally known as rational has no sex at all, for example robots, then rationality is not a sexual trait.

If you can't imagine life without sex, then un-sexual robots won't make any sense to you.

Let me ask it yet another way: how would you get/evolve/create irrational and rational robots? No, don't tell me -- cause and effect.

Boy, I've learned so much.

Humans are often deliberately irrational because they're strung up over something, and don't want to think about it. But, if there is no reason for irrationality, this wouldn't occur.

Generally men can survive without women, if they're pushed to. A Buddha exists without femininity (egotism), unless there is still womanhood in his mind.

OK, let me get this straight -- femininity is a word under which all the shit of the universe can be lumped at a whim and is easily interchangeable with woman, therefore?

If femininity is equal to egotism, why not just say egotism?

Femininity and woman are very closely tied. It's a simple matter of inference to see that (i) there have been no female sages, (ii) egotism is the absolute opposite of spirituality, therefore (iii) females are deeply egotistical.

And also, (iv) distinguishing between males and females can boost one's powers of judgment, which is no small matter in the spiritual path.



Kelly

Leyla Shen wrote:

Leyla: Tell that to the Buddha who would fuck a baby for the progress of wisdom.

Kelly: Done

While you're at it, ask the Buddha how he will cause himself to have an erection without desire -- telekinesis?

I'd say it would be difficult. Since I've never tried, this would have to be my best guess. I'd say he'd imagine penetrating the miniscule vagina of a baby girl, using the image of a penis thrusting in and out of a blood-engorged, mucus-coated vagina, and effortlessly know that all these experiences are illusory. Something like that.

prince wrote:Kelly,

on reading your paper again, I think it has value. I respect your direction and conviction.

Why do you value it?

What was your "career" before you went the path?

Ecological urban design. I had 6 months of a 5 year degree left, when I did a three-month internship with the Adelaide architectural company Ecopolis (website: http://www.ecopolis.com.au), which was the most ethical in its field in Australia. It caused me to realise that no matter how hard I tried to create optimal living conditions for humans, so they'd have the freedom to explore philosophy, ethics, and thinking about all the most important things in the universe, they'd inevitably fail if they lacked knowledge of what is ultimately true. My co-workers and the director didn't like me much at all.

After the internship was over, I began my own business (for 6 weeks) in an attempt to support myself and be able to think as much as my free time allowed. When I couldn't find a rental premises where I could both live and run the business (a drylands ecological innovation company), I fronted up to the social security system.

What is your current occupation, and what do you see yourself doing in five years' time?



Kelly

Here it is in very plain English. If you don't get it after this, I don't see what point there is pursuing this topic with you:

Hey, that's not fair. I've been very patient with you.

Worthy of note is the fact that I never said I believed life was inherently sexual. You assumed that I did. You should watch that projection.

Rationality is currently a masculine sexual trait, because the majority of human species' males rely on rationality far more than the majority of human females.

Oh really? That's the reason? The cause? Why do you take testosterone then? Why do you consider a sex change if you can't manage your mood swings? You got the current stats on that?

Tiny bit like the dude who tries to find his way to Ultimate Reality through the use of drugs.

If you can't imagine life without sex, then un-sexual robots won't make any sense to you.

But Kelly, I am not the one who has a problem imagining this -- you are by your very words and actions.

Humans are often deliberately irrational because they're strung up over something, and don't want to think about it. But, if there is no reason for irrationality, this wouldn't occur.

Yes. I think this should be in your Truth Paper.

I have to pick up my children. I shall reply to the rest of your comments later.

kjones wrote:Why do you value it?

I don't value it. I gave you feedback, don't look a gift horse in the mouth always.

What is your current occupation, and what do you see yourself doing in five years' time?
Kelly

I have no occupation, and in five years I see myself as dead, hopefully.

prince...how inspiring! is this where the road to truth leads?

jones, I think you're a truth junkie...

Leyla Shen wrote:If you need testosterone to encourage masculinity, is that not an affirmation of life's "intrinsic, sexual nature"? ..... Why do you take testosterone then? Why do you consider a sex change if you can't manage your mood swings? You got the current stats on that? Tiny bit like the dude who tries to find his way to Ultimate Reality through the use of drugs.

The topic I've been discussing with you is the clash between sexuality and individuality. I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from, perhaps that sexuality is either unimportant in one's pursuit of wisdom, or inevitable to it. Your arguments seem to be focussing on how my personal history undermines the validity of my conclusions.

But ad hominem doesn't apply here, since my personal life can never change the polar difference between egotism (feminine-mindedness) and Ultimate Truth.

My method for examining the feminine mind vs. the masculine mind, is valid, because it is based on my assessment of the psyche using the Absolute as the basis. In contrast, if I were to begin by using psychological samples of humans, yet lack the fundamental concept of psychological health, my conclusions would be applicable only to that sample. It would have no general applicability.

There would be no clash between sexuality and individuality (genius), if males and females were characteristically rational, wise, intelligent, and truth-oriented to an equal degree. In any interaction the submissive / dominating dynamic would be absent, including sexual concourse.

But since there is a clash, male sex hormones would seem to be the major cause behind a more rational existence. This does not "affirm life's intrinsic, sexual nature" as you asked, unless you want to define life as hormonal influences on the pursuit of wisdom.

Testosterone therapy would be a logical conclusion for a biological female who experiences a surfeit of monthly mood swings, and who notices that men generally don't experience periodically emotionalism. If the emotionalism is purely a hormonal thing, then adjusting hormones would be useful. If it is caused by delusion, then focussing on the Infinite would solve it. If it is a result of both, then it would probably be easier to think clearly and focus on the Infinite, if hormones were adjusted. Ignorance about the nature of Ultimate Reality cannot be solved on the level of hormones, but since biologically females are more deeply egotistical (genetically adapted to ignorance), it would probably improve the lot of a female student of Truth to adjust her hormones.

Psychological health remains a logical absolute, but becoming healthy is a biological process. Like I said earlier, wisdom is dependent on consciousness. Truth itself is not.


Kelly

prince wrote:

kjones wrote:Why do you value it?

I don't value it. I gave you feedback, don't look a gift horse in the mouth always.

I was startled when you wrote you thought The Truth Paper had value. I was interested to know what your reasons were. Was it a particular article, for instance?

kjones wrote:What is your current occupation, and what do you see yourself doing in five years' time?

I have no occupation, and in five years I see myself as dead, hopefully.

Are you suicidal?


Kelly

Now -- for me -- that's more like it, Kelly Jones.

Leyla Shen wrote:Now -- for me -- that's more like it, Kelly Jones.

It was pretty verbose. As Ultimate Reality becomes increasingly familiar to me, my descriptions will simplify.

I'm now going to focus on simplifying the articles in the Truth Paper. I'll need to spend time away from these discussions.

Kelly

Just looking in, I can see that this thread has dwindled down to the usual cock fight.

Ultimately, I plain don't give a flying fuck -- whatever -- what Kelly thinks or does or what Lela thinks or does or what David Quinn thinks or does or what whoever thinks or does.

Whatever ya'll want to do is cool, I reckon, but I do draw a line with killing babies. Just not into the whole Pol Pot scene. I don't think that killing babies or other things is a hallmark of enlightenment.

I do not believe that a Buddha could pull a child apart limb from limb -- or an adult. I think someone who is philosophically enlightened would realize that there would be a price of some kind to pay for such horror.

Murder is not enlighthened detachment. It is attachment to horror.

Faizi

Kelly actually wrote this:

I'd say it would be difficult. Since I've never tried, this would have to be my best guess. I'd say he'd imagine penetrating the miniscule vagina of a baby girl, using the image of a penis thrusting in and out of a blood-engorged, mucus-coated vagina, and effortlessly know that all these experiences are illusory. Something like that.

All experiences are not illusory. Any psycho can convince himself that such an act is illusory but the act is not illusory for his victim.

Deliberately inflicting intense physical pain -- especially on an unwilling or much smaller and weaker being -- is not an act consistent with philosophical enlightenment. It is an act consistent with criminality.

I do think it is a good idea for you to work further on your Truth Paper, Kelly. Funny that you think that that is more important work than writing here. Not much wonder in that. You will face no opposition.

Would an enlightened Buddha also be capable of penetrating the miniscule butt hole of a baby boy while managing an erection based on the desire for an engourged, snotty cunt?

Damn.

Faizi

Kelly actually wrote:

men generally don't experience periodically emotionalism.

I reckon you have not lived with a man.

The unfortunate thing is that men do not have menstrual periods. They cannot simply bleed the emotional bullshit out from month to month. No outlet.

When my daughter gets bitchy or moody, I can say, "Thank God, her period will start in a couple of days and she will be human again."

When my son gets in a snit, there is no relief in sight. Hopefully, he masturbates.

Faizi

Kelly actually wrote:

What is more powerful than cause and effect? If feminity is caused to be gotten rid of, it will be.

Well, duh.

I am starting to doubt what I initally thought was your intelligence.

Faizi

Sue wrote:

Universe = Everything

Everything therefore = Nothing

Therefore Nothing can get rid of Everything.

What chance has femininity got when Nothing looks her way?

And a bird is a word.

I get no meaning whatsoever from the above. Reads like Beatle lyrics. Pop poetry.

Faizi

Mmm, the smell of fresh evil.

Never get better biting, my friend.