GENIUS FORUMS

Cory wrote:

Kevin: I think David is just saying something like, "You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Cory: No, I’m quite sure he is not. He is saying that truth is un-rational and to be aware of it is a great sensation and feeling.

Well, I've never said that truth is un-rational. I was only talking about what a sages experiences, in each moment, in his enlightenment.

For example, a sage might look at a flower and experience the colour red. His experience of red, in the moment, is neither rational nor un-rational in nature - it is simply what it is. At the same time, there isn't a single aspect of this redness, or this experience of redness, which cannot be logically analyzed by him.

DQ: What the sage experiences is pure, in that the sensations and feelings he experiences are undistorted by irrational thinking and projected delusions. He doesn't place any value on these sensations or feelings. He lets them come and go as they please. He never tries to freeze them and make a home in them.

Cory: He seems to basically be saying: ‘feelings and sensations have everything to do with how the sage behaves, they are with him always’

It seems to me that logic is just a program that helps the individual reach a physical state where sensation and feeling are at their greatest, richest, and most profound and hence thought is at its greatest, richest and most profound.

Or more accurately, logic can take you to a state in which even the richest and profoundist sensations are seen to have no more worth than the shallowest and most debased ones. It can take you beyond (relying on) sensations and feelings altogether.

The sage is basically logic prioritizing itself around feeling and sensing the truth.

Around the logical awareness of truth, yes. The sensations of the world that he experiences in each moment are integrated into this logical awareness, but it is the logical awareness which is paramount.

Again, although the sensations of the world that the sage experiences in each moment are undistorted, pure, and lacking in emotional content, it would never occur to him to place any value on them. Indeed, it is precisely this lack of value that he places on them which makes them undistorted, pure and lacking in emotional content.

His indifference causes him to experience the highest that life has to offer, and he is indifferent to it.

-

Kevin: For example, I might reason, logically, that I would be happier if I moved to a sunnier climate. But that may not be enough in itself to make me move, because of other factors. For example, I might have a short memory.

I am not interested in these hypothetical examples. I want truth. I want to know how Kevin functions, not some poor soul who wants to be happier but because he has Alzheimer’s can’t move himself to better circumstances.

However, I do find it interesting that the example you used illustrates a man who wants to employ a program of logic in order to align himself with a sensation and feeling.

This is it right here Kevin.

I want to understand if the highest man prioritizes his whole life around sensation and feeling.

I suspect he does and I want a clear answer from you or Quinn confirming whether he does or does not.

Cory: And why else would he work if it was not for feeling great, healthy and strong?

Kevin: He works because he is programmed to work, like a computer, or a seed that is programmed to grow into a tree.

A computer is programmed to serve various purposes, a tree is programmed to serve various purposes.

I guess I should rephrase my question:

“And why else would a human program themselves if it were not to sense deeply and vastly, feel greatness, health and strength?”

I’m more concerned with ‘why it is’ and you seem to be stuck on telling me ‘what it is’.

I want to know why the program is running.

And don’t answer by saying something like, “why does a tree grow?”

A tree grows to serve a variety of other things, and those things function to serve other things. Each thing exist to serve everything else, no?

I say that the sage is a program that is written to maintain deep and vast perception, feeling, and sensation.

If he is not programmed for this purpose, if he is absolutely cold and unfeeling – just numb, then I don’t see why he would think that life is worth all the trouble. I would think that such a man, if he was rational, would decide that the human race should cease all reproduction indefinitely.

Life is not worth all the hassle if there is nothing great to feel, see, sense.

Kevin: Yes. He experiences a foul smell as foul, and a sweet smell as sweet.

Cory: And is the experience of Rome (of truth) sweet?

Kevin: Before he was a sage the experience was sweet. But as a sage the experience is just of reality.

This doesn’t sound right. You say that he still has the sensation of foulness and sweetness in response to regular things, but you are saying that he does not feel sensation in response to encountering foul thoughts and foul people or greater thoughts and greater people.

Cory: And is the experience of delusion foul?

Kevin: Well, being a perfect sage (for argument's sake)…..

Ah! I’m not interested in arguments sake!

I am not interested in hypothetical stuff.

I want to know how you function, not hypothetically or theoretically.

Do you have the sensation of foulness when you encounter delusion in yourself and in others?

Cory: You see, I am suggesting that feeling is primary, and the intellect is simply employed to align the organism with the greatest sensations and to avoid bad sensations and feelings.

Kevin: It is natural for us to try and avoid pain, if that is what you mean.

Not only to avoid pain, but to involuntarily feel pain and enjoyment, to involuntarily have sensations. I want to know if you think that the highest man should be ‘at all times’ devoid of feeling, even feelings of tremendous depth and magnitude, a sensation of vastness and freedom, and even of beauty. (not the kind of beauty involved in merely looking at a sunset or flower, however it might be important for the human being to profoundly enjoy and reflect on simple things in nature)

Kevin: But after he became wise the delusion of emotional attachment disappeared.

Cory: Yeah but does the program prefer a particular sort of experience, sensation and feeling? I am making a difference between mere base emotion and more subtle sensation and feeling.

Kevin: Once he is enlightened he only has the experience of enlightenment.

And is the experience of enlightenment in anyway a sensation, a feeling?

Nietzsche said that great thoughts are just the shadows of sensations and feelings.

Kevin: Of course, he might feel hungry, in which case he eats. Or he might feel tired, in which case he sleeps, etc. Emotional turmoil for a sage is not an issue. He is calmly clinical in all situations.

Ok, I understand that enlightenment is not emotional. To me emotions are gross, vulgar, however, isn’t that only because ones thoughts are gross and vulgar?

If one refines the intellect, does that not refine ones feelings to the point where they become non-tumultuous sensations? And do these great sensations and feelings not likewise refine the intellect? It is a cyclical process of refinement, no?

Extremely subtle yet great sensations and feelings, are they not always accompanied by extremely subtle yet great thinking, and is not great thinking born from great perception, and is not great perception born from great feeling?

Cory: For instance, if he decided to start having sex again, he would regress, no?

Kevin: No. Let's say our sage was one of only a few males on the planet, and the survival of the human race depended on him impregnating females. He might decide that, with the help of viagra, he can contribute to the survival of the human race. For an aspiring sage, however, this could be a real problem.

I know you said that you are not a perfectly enlightened Buddha Solway. In that case, if you had sex with a beautiful girl, how much do you think you would regress?

A few months ago, because I had deprived myself of sex for almost a year, I only felt the need to masturbate once a week - sometimes I could go without for two weeks without effort or discipline.

However, due to a circumstance I ended up having sex with some girl.

The following weeks after this sexual experience, my mind was much more filled with sexual thoughts. The desire to masturbate was present much more frequently.

These days I’m back up to 1-2 week intervals of masturbation without effort or discipline.

Cory: he is now controlled by and is at the mercy to the great feelings and sensations that are the inevitable outcome of being truthful no?

Kevin: Not really. Imagine how the Universe feels. That's how the sage feels.

Why not ask me to imagine how a toaster feels? Or a shoe?

The universe isn’t programmed to feel, to be truthful, to be conscious, it isn’t programmed to be aware, to know - - so I really don’t think its appropriate or helpful.

The sage is an organism, an instrument that is physically sensitive and perceptive. The universe, like a toaster or a shoe is not.

Kevin: An aspiring sage, however, periodically feels great bliss, when his ego is bathed, or injected, with the manna from heaven.

Do you mean ‘cold-tingly-blissful feelings of ecstasy?’

Yes, I am quite familiar with feelings of ecstasy that runs through the body or sometimes hovers and bathes the crown of ones head.

However, as I progress more and more I find that even ecstasy seems gross and generated by deluded thoughts.

They say that when Hitler would speak to a crowd, the young men in their 20’s who stood close to him would be filled with ecstasy and bliss because they felt like they were experiencing a manifestation of profound, profound significance.

Bi-polar, manic depressive types often report that before they fell into profound depression, they were focused on profundity, music and they were filled with great ecstasy, often on their crown and through their body.

What is your scientific explanation for this ‘manna from heaven?’

And do you equate it with my examples of ecstasy?

To me ecstasy seems to be some sort of distillation, or a chain reaction. Some central part of the brain sends out a charge, and that charge gets carried through many, many cells throughout the body. Just a theory.

Kevin: The sage is guided by the purpose he developed in his former life, rather than by what happens from moment to moment.

Cory: To be guided by what happens from moment to moment.....are you saying that this is only how the mediocre man functions?

Kevin: Yes. A "man of the senses" is controlled by his senses. He is controlled by food, and by sex, etc. He has no purpose or direction (this is of course "femininity", again).

A great man is guided by his internal compass, like an airline pilot who still knows clearly where he is going despite being in thick cloud. He has a bigger picture than what he sees through the windscreen.

This internal compass, does it have anything to do with an autistic sort of intelligence? Otto Weiniger said something about the genius being someone who knows everything without having to think or learn it externally.

Cory wrote:

Life is not worth all the hassle if there is nothing great to feel, see, sense.

I agree. Even a delusion is worth something if it keeps a person from putting a bullet through his or her chest.

Cory

I want to know why the program is running.

And don’t answer by saying something like, “why does a tree grow?”

A tree grows to serve a variety of other things, and those things function to serve other things. Each thing exist to serve everything else, no?

I say that the sage is a program that is written to maintain deep and vast perception, feeling, and sensation.

If he is not programmed for this purpose, if he is absolutely cold and unfeeling – just numb, then I don’t see why he would think that life is worth all the trouble. I would think that such a man, if he was rational, would decide that the human race should cease all reproduction indefinitely.

Life is not worth all the hassle if there is nothing great to feel, see, sense.

You answered your own question. "Each thing exists to serve everything else"; bodhisattvas likewise hold off nirvana for the sole purpose of educating others in enlightenment.

It is deeper than that, however. A tree sustains itself, and in the process helps transform the environment in countless ways: changing the concentration of gasses in the atmosphere, the amount of sunlight absorbed/reflected at that spot, the richness of the soil, etc; as well as providing a habitat for richer life, such as birds and mammals, to nest.

A sage, in living his life, may only be sustaining himself. He may not feel great feelings or have heavy emotional reactions to sensations -- however, in his chance interactions with other people, even if they themselves do not choose to become sages (ie. the birds don't become trees), he plays an important role in sustaining overall background human reason.

Rhetorical question: how many wise men did it take before the common man had enough insight to allow a Socrates to evolve, and then go further?

Cory Duchesne wrote:I do find it interesting that the example you used illustrates a man who wants to employ a program of logic in order to align himself with a sensation and feeling.

By "align" you mean that he wants to employ logic to bring about certain sensations or feelings.

Certainly. When you are suffering then you employ logic to alleviate the suffering.

When you feel wrong, or if you know you are wrong, you might employ logic so that you will be right.

I want to understand if the highest man prioritizes his whole life around sensation and feeling.

If the purpose of the highest man is "the survival of wisdom" then he will want all other people to become wise. If a person is wise, he will sense (know) he is wise. So if you like, the sage is prioritizing his life in order to bring others to the sensation (knowledge) that they are wise. This in turn gives the sage sensation (knowledge) that he is bringing other people to wisdom.

“And why else would a human program themselves if it were not to sense deeply and vastly, feel greatness, health and strength?”

I’m more concerned with ‘why it is’ and you seem to be stuck on telling me ‘what it is’.

I want to know why the program is running.

The answer is that the Universe, God, has decided it to be so. Whatever happens is the will of God, of cause and effect.

From a biological perspective, the ego evolved because it gave us the competitive edge to survive. It helped us to greedily procure land and resources, and to kill competing tribes. It helped us to rape and pillage and spread our genes far and wide.

It is the nature of the ego to avoid pain and suffering as much as possible, and this includes to "sense deeply and vastly, feel greatness, health and strength".

I believe that wisdom is only a chance by-product of the evolution of the ego and of consciousness. It does not necessarily give the species a survival advantage. It is a mutation.

So that is "why" the program is running.

I say that the sage is a program that is written to maintain deep and vast perception, feeling, and sensation.

We could say that all things are a program that is written to do whatever it is that they do.

A brick is a program that is written to be a brick.

If he is not programmed for this purpose, if he is absolutely cold and unfeeling – just numb, then I don’t see why he would think that life is worth all the trouble.

Life isn't "trouble" to a sage, any more than life is trouble to a brick, or to a tree.

Diogenes used to say that there was no difference between life and death, so someone asked him, "So why don't you kill yourself?" "Because there's no difference", replied Diogenes.

I would think that such a man, if he was rational, would decide that the human race should cease all reproduction indefinitely.

No matter what you do you can't stop the propagation of cause and effect. One form of life is replaced by another.

Life is not worth all the hassle if there is nothing great to feel, see, sense.

That's what the ego thinks, because it divides things up into things it enjoys and things it doesn't. But there are in fact great things for the ego to feel, see, and sense - such as wisdom (the drug that kills the ego). So there is a reason for the ego to keep going.

You say that he still has the sensation of foulness and sweetness in response to regular things, but you are saying that he does not feel sensation in response to encountering foul thoughts and foul people or greater thoughts and greater people.

He experiences wise people as wise, and ignorant people as ignorant. His job is to turn ignorant people into wise people, so he is like a potter who creates pots out of lumps of clay. A potter doesn't necessarily think that a pot is beautiful and a lump of clay isn't. They have different uses.

Do you have the sensation of foulness when you encounter delusion in yourself and in others?

To the degree that a person is not perfectly enlightened they will experience both happiness and suffering, beauty and uglness, attraction and aversion, etc.

I want to know if you think that the highest man should be ‘at all times’ devoid of feeling, even feelings of tremendous depth and magnitude, a sensation of vastness and freedom, and even of beauty

It is unclear what you mean by these feelings. Such feelings can have ego-content or not. The more enlightened you are, the less ego-content.

Ultimately, the enlightened person feels like the Universe, which doesn't correlate with anything normally thought of as human. It is neither cold nor hot, neither beautiful nor ugly, neither lonely nor in company.

And is the experience of enlightenment in anyway a sensation, a feeling?

The mind itself is a kind of sense, so whatever you think is sensed. The sage thinks he is enlightened. He "feels" (knows) understanding and experiences a lack of suffering.

To me emotions are gross, vulgar, however, isn’t that only because ones thoughts are gross and vulgar?

Yes, to the degree that your ego/delusion is being imputed into your conception of "gross" and "vulgar".

If one refines the intellect, does that not refine ones feelings to the point where they become non-tumultuous sensations? And do these great sensations and feelings not likewise refine the intellect? It is a cyclical process of refinement

Powerful and deeply satisfying states of mind increase ones confidence and ability to focus the power of the mind. (called "samadhi"). These are also called "The god realms" in Buddhism.

I know you said that you are not a perfectly enlightened Buddha Solway. In that case, if you had sex with a beautiful girl, how much do you think you would regress?

I think not much. I know from experience that my mind turns very quickly to things I hold to be of higher importance. I can be distracted, but the distraction doesn't last long.

Many years ago I met a beautiful girl online who said she would fly to Australia to spend time with me, provided that I took down my Misogyny Unlimited website - since she would never get the approval of her family otherwise. As you can see, there was no possibility of my removing the website.

For whatever reason, there are things I cannot compromise. . . . And there are very few crumbs left over that are up for grabs.

The sage is an organism, an instrument that is physically sensitive and perceptive. The universe, like a toaster or a shoe is not.

The more enlightened a person becomes, the less pleasure they get from truth, since the thing that inherently values pleasure is dying.

Kevin: An aspiring sage, however, periodically feels great bliss, when his ego is bathed, or injected, with the manna from heaven.

Do you mean ‘cold-tingly-blissful feelings of ecstasy?’

The feeling is different for different people. But it comes about from a removal of suffering from the ego.

What is your scientific explanation for this ‘manna from heaven?’

As above. There is also a chemical element. Like taking drugs.

This internal compass, does it have anything to do with an autistic sort of intelligence?

Just intelligence.

Otto Weiniger said something about the genius being someone who knows everything without having to think or learn it externally.

Yes, in Taoism it is said that the sage knows everything without even having to go outside his own room.

Cory: David, here it seems like your saying; despite it requires logic in order to get to Rome, the actual direct experiencing of Rome is ultimately un-rational.

David: That's right.

And then....

David: But, I've never said that truth is un-rational. I was only talking about what a sage experiences, in each moment, in his enlightenment.

Experience is different and divided from the truth?

David: For example, a sage might look at a flower and experience the color red.

His experience of red, in the moment, is neither rational nor un-rational in nature - it is simply what it is.

I think you are (understandably) confusing ‘un-rational’ with ‘irrational’. You agreed with me originally that experience is un-rational.

The unrational is: “what is’

No?

Kevin wrote:

But there are in fact great things for the ego to feel, see, and sense - such as wisdom (the drug that kills the ego). So there is a reason for the ego to keep going.

That is circular logic.

David: I've never said that truth is un-rational. I was only talking about what a sages experiences, in each moment, in his enlightenment.

For example, a sage might look at a flower and experience the colour red. His experience of red, in the moment, is neither rational nor un-rational in nature - it is simply what it is.
At the same time, there isn't a single aspect of this redness, or this experience of redness, which cannot be logically analyzed by him.

And you think a logical analyses of (a color, or the experiencer) is capable of yielding a complete and total logical explanation of the color and/or the experiencer?

Why do you believe that the existence of an uncaused totality is perfectly logical? It seems ‘pre-logical/un-rational’ if you ask me. If you are going to explain away the experience of red, or of red, then your explanation has to take into account the entire totality of existence. And the entire totality logically has no cause. To me, this is not logical, rational. I can apply logic and rationality in order to acknowlege the un-rationality and absurdity of the predicament, but I would be insane to say that it all made perfect sense.

But maybe you think that this is all just perfectly logical…….

An excerpt from 'thus spake zarathustra':

Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!

For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent.

But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow and blessed thee for it.

Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.

I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.

Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the nether-world, thou exuberant star!

Like thee must I GO DOWN, as men say, to whom I shall descend.

Bless me, then, thou tranquil eye, that canst behold even the greatest happiness without envy!

Bless the cup that is about to overflow, that the water may flow golden out of it, and carry everywhere the reflection of thy bliss!

Lo! This cup is again going to empty itself, and Zarathustra is again going to be a man.

Thus began Zarathustra's down-going.

Kevin wrote:

If a person is wise, he will sense (know) he is wise. So if you like, the sage is prioritizing his life in order to bring others to the sensation (knowledge) that they are wise. This in turn gives the sage sensation (knowledge) that he is bringing other people to wisdom.

That's what the ego thinks, because it divides things up into things it enjoys and things it doesn't. But there are in fact great things for the ego to feel, see, and sense - such as wisdom (the drug that kills the ego). So there is a reason for the ego to keep going.

And I would say what Neitzche says in the prologue of 'thus spake' corresponds with what you are saying Kevin.


Ok Solway – Now I would like to discuss these most recent comments of yours:

The mind itself is a kind of sense, so whatever you think is sensed. The sage thinks he is enlightened. He "feels" (knows) understanding and experiences a lack of suffering.

Do you see a significant distinction between ‘thought’ and direct sense perception/ feeling?

What do you make of Nietzche stating: “thought is merely the shadow of sensation”

Cory: To me emotions are gross, vulgar, however, isn’t that only because ones thoughts are gross and vulgar?

Kevin: Yes, to the degree that your ego/delusion is being imputed into your conception of "gross" and "vulgar".

Sorry Kevin, I don’t quite follow. Are you saying that ‘gross and vulgar’ are mere concepts that have no real bearing?

For instance, there are prostitutes, homeless people, drug addicts, and thugs. And then there are beings who are fairly educated, and are searching for and are open to wisdom. And then there are genuine teachers of wisdom. If I am an outsider, surely I would be directly physically sensitive to the relative crudeness, to a sense of greatness, a sense of purification, a sense of process, also a sense of neglect, a sense of what is corrupt, and hence a sense of what is beauty and what is ugliness. There is rightly a sense of what is goodness, wisdom and love, and what is evil and ignorance.

[edit: and no, I am not implying that there must be an 'I' that is emotional about what he senses, I am saying that there can be the sensation of beauty or ugliness WITHOUT there being an 'I' that likes or dislikes the sensation. One can be sensitive to ugliness without disliking it. However, the logical program is to turn wretchedness and weakness into wisdom and strength.]

Kevin wrote:

Powerful and deeply satisfying states of mind increase ones confidence and ability to focus the power of the mind. (called "samadhi"). These are also called "The god realms" in Buddhism.

These powerful and deeply satisfying states of mind -- - is there anyway an aspirant can by-pass these feelings? Can an aspirant reach absolute wisdom and purity without having to feel anything deeply, whether that is bliss, deeply satisfying mind states, etc?

Cory: The sage is an organism, an instrument that is physically sensitive and perceptive. The universe, like a toaster or a shoe is not.

Kevin: The more enlightened a person becomes, the less pleasure they get from truth, since the thing that inherently values pleasure is dying.

However, do not the powerful and deeply satisfying states of mind arise in spite of the fact that the aspirant does not value pleasure? It seems that ones feelings are satisfying to the degree that one does not value pleasure and happiness.

The more one values ones happiness, the more meager and unsatisfying the happiness is.

Those who have addictions to various drugs, whether it is merely coffee and cigarettes or cocaine and heroin are good examples of those who cannot get satisfaction due to their high value of feeling pleasure.

Kevin: From a biological perspective, the ego evolved because it gave us the competitive edge to survive. It helped us to greedily procure land and resources, and to kill competing tribes. It helped us to rape and pillage and spread our genes far and wide.

But don’t you agree that this emotional competitiveness to survive is at this point in human evolution begining to seriously threaten our survival, rather than help it?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

KS wrote:The mind itself is a kind of sense, so whatever you think is sensed. The sage thinks he is enlightened. He "feels" (knows) understanding and experiences a lack of suffering.

Do you see a significant distinction between ‘thought’ and direct sense perception/ feeling?

No. Ultimately all we have to deal with are thoughts.

What do you make of Nietzche stating: “thought is merely the shadow of sensation”

I'd have to see it in its whole context, but it sounds like he is saying that sensation is a cause of thought.

It seems a pointless statement on its own, since physical senses are only a supposition. That which we think we are physically sensing might only be imagined.

Cory: To me emotions are gross, vulgar, however, isn’t that only because ones thoughts are gross and vulgar?

Kevin: Yes, to the degree that your ego/delusion is being imputed into your conception of "gross" and "vulgar".

Sorry Kevin, I don’t quite follow. Are you saying that ‘gross and vulgar’ are mere concepts that have no real bearing?

Terms like "gross" and "vulgar" normally have an emotional feeling associated with them. Therefore a person only finds things to be "gross" and "vulgar" to the degree they are gross and vulgar themselves.

To a perfectly enlightened person, "gross" and "vulgar" have no emotional feeling associated with them.

There is rightly a sense of what is goodness, wisdom and love, and what is evil and ignorance.

Yes, different people find different things to be good and bad, beautiful and ugly, etc.

One can be sensitive to ugliness without disliking it.

Yes, to the degree that one is wise.

Powerful and deeply satisfying states of mind increase ones confidence and ability to focus the power of the mind. (called "samadhi"). These are also called "The god realms" in Buddhism.

These powerful and deeply satisfying states of mind -- - is there anyway an aspirant can by-pass these feelings? Can an aspirant reach absolute wisdom and purity without having to feel anything deeply, whether that is bliss, deeply satisfying mind states, etc?

I can't think of any way to by-pass those feelings. They happen naturally at different stages.

Kevin: The more enlightened a person becomes, the less pleasure they get from truth, since the thing that inherently values pleasure is dying.

However, do not the powerful and deeply satisfying states of mind arise in spite of the fact that the aspirant does not value pleasure?

A person who does not value pleasure at all is perfectly enlightened. And it's difficult to describe what their experience is like.

"Satisfying" doesn't mean anything to them in the normal sense of the word, since they are never dissatisfied. They are "satisfied" with whatever Nature dishes up, and with whatever they are able to do. "Satisfaction" is not something that occurs to them.

It seems that ones feelings are satisfying to the degree that one does not value pleasure and happiness.

I see what you are saying: the less one seeks satisfaction, the more satisfied one is.

This is certainly one way to obtain satisfaction, but it doesn't describe the experience of the enlightened person. The enlightened person cannot seek or not seek satisfaction, because the whole problem doesn't arise for him.

Kevin: From a biological perspective, the ego evolved because it gave us the competitive edge to survive. It helped us to greedily procure land and resources, and to kill competing tribes. It helped us to rape and pillage and spread our genes far and wide.

But don’t you agree that this emotional competitiveness to survive is at this point in human evolution begining to seriously threaten our survival, rather than help it?

It's difficult to say, since we cannot predict the future.

Personally, I think we would have a better chance if we were all Buddhas.

KS wrote:It seems a pointless statement on its own, since physical senses are only a supposition. That which we think we are physically sensing might only be imagined.

How is sensation/feeling anymore imagined then our thoughts?

How is sensation/feeling anymore imagined then our thoughts?

Thoughts are real. There is logically no way to disprove that I am having thoughts. But in the case of physical sensations, it may be discovered that these are entirely created within the mind, and have nothing to do with physical senses at all, as I may not have any physical senses.

[PS. Sorry, I accidentally messed up your above post]

Kevin Solway wrote:

How is sensation/feeling anymore imagined then our thoughts?

Thoughts are real. There is logically no way to disprove that I am having thoughts. But in the case of physical sensations, it may be discovered that these are entirely created within the mind,

Neither is there any logical way to disprove that one is having sensations/feelings. Sometimes those can be created in the mind as well, as you pointed out.

There is, however, a way to logically verify certain sensations. Significant pain, for example, can be verified by an increase in blood pressure. Localized pain can sometimes be verified by heat in the tissues or a knot in the muscle.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:There is, however, a way to logically verify certain sensations. Significant pain, for example, can be verified by an increase in blood pressure.

The thought of your increase in blood pressure can be created by the mind as well.

Cory asked: How is sensation/feeling anymore imagined then our thoughts?

Kevin answered: Thoughts are real. There is logically no way to disprove that I am having thoughts. But in the case of physical sensations, it may be discovered that these are entirely created within the mind, and have nothing to do with physical senses at all, as I may not have any physical senses.

You get an understanding of this point when you observe people with mental illness. They suffer greatly from being manacled, then stabbed and beaten – yet there are no outward signs of this torture, apart from the anxiety they experience. No evidence of bruising, gashes, wounds or blood – yet the pain and agony they feel is very real to them. When they become more mentally healthy they see that the suffering they experienced came directly from their own minds.

Even if one is truly bloodied and bruised by torture, the pain and discomfort is only ever known mentally – and therefore must be considered suspect.

-
Sue

Kevin,

Cory: But don’t you agree that this emotional competitiveness to survive is at this point in human evolution begining to seriously threaten our survival, rather than help it?

Kevin: It's difficult to say, since we cannot predict the future.
Personally, I think we would have a better chance if we were all Buddhas.

So then is this opinion of yours born out of reason? Or is your fancy of becoming a buddha just merely an opinion, one of which is unverifiable by reason?

And Kevin, another thing........

Cory: Sorry Kevin, I don’t quite follow. Are you saying that ‘gross and vulgar’ are mere concepts that have no real bearing?

Kevin: Terms like "gross" and "vulgar" normally have an emotional feeling associated with them. Therefore a person only finds things to be "gross" and "vulgar" to the degree they are gross and vulgar themselves.

Ok, so according to your logic, judging others as vulgar is ok to the degree that one doesnt sensually feel vulgarity in the object that one senses before them.

To the degree that one is not sensual, is the degree to which one is not deluded, and the degree to which one is not deluded is the degree to which one is capable of seeing delusion in others.

Thus, delusion is thought absorbed in sensuality, and it is this state of absorption that is vulgarity.

Are woman deluded only because of that little bit of masculinity they have?

You see, if one were to be pure feminine, would there not be the absence of thought? And since there is the absence of thought, would there not be the absence of sensuality? And since there is the absence of thought and sensuality, would there thus be an absence of 'me'? And is an absence of 'me' and absence of delusion?

Does delusion arise when a small % of masculinity emerges in the feminine (and thus a sense of 'I' becomes sensual)?

Cory Duchesne wrote:Kevin,

Cory: But don’t you agree that this emotional competitiveness to survive is at this point in human evolution begining to seriously threaten our survival, rather than help it?

Kevin: It's difficult to say, since we cannot predict the future.
Personally, I think we would have a better chance if we were all Buddhas.

So then is this opinion of yours born out of reason? Or is your fancy of becoming a buddha just merely an opinion, one of which is unverifiable by reason?

My purpose in life is the survival of wisdom rather than the survival of the species, so I'm only interested in the survival of the species as a vehicle for wisdom.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. Is it my opinion that the human race would have a better chance of survival if we were all Buddhas? Yes it is, and that is an opinion based on reason and experience. It is verifiable by reason once you know what Buddhas are capable of.

Cory Duchesne wrote:To the degree that one is not sensual, is the degree to which one is not deluded, and the degree to which one is not deluded is the degree to which one is capable of seeing delusion in others.

That sounds about right.

Thus, delusion is thought absorbed in sensuality, and it is this state of absorption that is vulgarity.

Ok.

Are woman deluded only because of that little bit of masculinity they have?

Yes.

We wouldn't speak of, say, a rock as being "deluded", even though it lacked wisdom.

Women are commonly called "amoral" rather than "immoral", because they are considered to have too little self-awareness to be immoral.

You see, if one were to be pure feminine, would there not be the absence of thought? And since there is the absence of thought, would there not be the absence of sensuality? And since there is the absence of thought and sensuality, would there thus be an absence of 'me'? And is an absence of 'me' and absence of delusion?

Exactly. This is why Weininger says, "In such a being as the absolute female there are no logical and ethical phenomena, and, therefore, the ground for the assumption of a soul is absent."

Does delusion arise when a small % of masculinity emerges in the feminine (and thus a sense of 'I' becomes sensual)?

That's the way I see it.

Kevin wrote,

My purpose in life is the survival of wisdom rather than the survival of the species, so I'm only interested in the survival of the species as a vehicle for wisdom.

Is Wisdom by definition only applicable to beings who experience emotions, feeling and sensuality?

Cory Duchesne wrote: Is Wisdom by definition only applicable to beings who experience emotions, feeling and sensuality?

I think you meant to ask "...are of a species capable of experiencing..." as Kevin has frequently touted the lack of emotions, feeling and sensuality associated with what he thinks wisdom is.

(I hope neither of you minds that observation coming from some "deluded" or "amoral" female.)

I think a wiser being than Kevin pictures is capable of these things, but is adept at turning them on or off as optimal for the situation.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Is Wisdom by definition only applicable to beings who experience emotions, feeling and sensuality?

Cows, dogs, and many other animals experience emotions and feelings, but they don't have the capacity for wisdom.

Wisdom is an option for beings who are deluded. And if they are deluded then they probably experience emotions.

Unisex brain a feminist myth

-

A very interesting influence on Louann Brizendine, author of the book The Female Brain, has been the discovery of the importance of “mirror neurons” on human behaviour. See here at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/01.html - for more info on “mirror neurons”.

Brizendine says that females have more mirror neurons, which makes them better at picking up on how another person feels. This fits in with my understanding of females as being the more ‘social’ and ‘emotional’ of the two sexes. It also helps explain why females in general don’t go on to work in those areas of science and mathematics, since often you are working alone with your own thoughts. And since those two situations describe the life of a philosopher, it also helps explain, to a degree, why most females steer clear of a life of thought.

To hear Brizendine talk about her ideas, go to:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13989048/site/newsweek/

Or to find out more about her, go to:
http://louannbrizendine.com/

-
Sue

Interesting link:

Why women are stupid