GENIUS FORUMS

sschaula wrote:

Well Scott, I now understand why you are so certain unconsciousness can't be overcome in any significant or consistent way, you just can't do it.

Really? Then prove me wrong by doing it. Or by showing me someone who has....just ONE person.

You just "lost" the argument with this exhortation. Why? Because it shows you don't get the issue. If you did, you'd know why your challenge is not legitimate.

Trevor,

Scott, Nick did choose his words carefully enough that he's right, and I might even suggest in agreement with you [at least on this point]. He said "...overcome in any significant or consistent way..." rather than "...overcome completely..."

I take the two to mean the same thing. If it's not overcome completely, how can it be said to be significant or consistent? It's especially not consistent if not overcome completely.

Read back to the few posts of his before this little slight of words, and you'll see he was saying something different entirely.

Can someone be more conscious than another, just as a human is more conscious than a dog? Or would you argue that there is no way to increase the quality of a person's consciousness in any perceivable sense?

Yes, some people are more conscious than others. My point here is that no one is perfect. Everyone does foolish things, and has foolish ideas.

If I were to give an example, I would say that an educated Westerner (highschool diploma) tends to have a more finely tuned consciousness than an uneducated Third World bumpkin.

I wouldn't agree with that. A more finely tuned intellect, maybe...but most of the time I'd say the Westerner is more unconscious.

The Westerner does have a better opportunity to develop.

Dan,

You just "lost" the argument with this exhortation. Why? Because it shows you don't get the issue. If you did, you'd know why your challenge is not legitimate.

Perhaps you don't get it. I don't see how I've lost by challenging Nick to either do it or show me someone who has done it.

My challenge is illegitimate because no one is perfect.

Anyway, you may want to explain what you mean, instead of being cryptic and lazy. Perhaps I am missing something.

sschaula wrote:Really? Then prove me wrong by doing it. Or by showing me someone who has....just ONE person.

All the wisdom in the world couldn't impress upon one while they remain clouded in ignorance. It's like trying to tell a blind man what the sky looks like, to him it's always dark.

I agree with you entirely there.

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick (jesus because the thread is named Jesus) both scott and nick

This is fucking ridiculous, make your own thread for your cat fight, as far as I can tell it no longer has any bearings on Jesus, this thread is about Jesus. In fact, right now I'm going to make a pit fight thread for scott and nick, take it over there. This is damn distracting and on other fourms this whole thread would be banned for tom-foolery.

Duke,

This is fucking ridiculous, make your own thread for your cat fight,

If they do something of the sort, chances are that David Quinn will lock it. IMO, it only has a chance if they open it right around the time it is bedtime in Oz, and make dozens of posts before it's time for the Aussies to crawl out of their beds.

9 a.m. Eastern US time would be a good time to start such a thread. Good luck.

If it makes you feel any better, a few weeks ago someone opened a real vicious (but fun) thread, and by the time the Aussies woke up, it already was on page 3.

.

Scott to Dan,

My challenge is illegitimate because no one is perfect.

Do you mean to say, “My challenge is legitimate because no one is perfect”?

If so, of course no ONE is perfect, but even foolishness is perfectly alright, and seeing just that is perfect realization, but that does not mean one will remain foolish and embrace it, because he really knows the difference.

Secondly, foolishness might seem foolishness from another’s perspective for he reasons differently, so what really needs to be discussed is the line of reasoning.

Even if we both see black as black, the question is how did we arrive at that conclusion and what does that really mean to each of us.

Duke,

I agree.

Sapius,

Do you mean to say, “My challenge is legitimate because no one is perfect”?

I could say that as well. It's both illegitimate and legitimate.

If so, of course no ONE is perfect, but even foolishness is perfectly alright, and seeing just that is perfect realization,

I don't think foolishness is perfectly alright. I also don't think being imperfect should be called perfect realization, ever.

sschaula wrote:Dan,

You just "lost" the argument with this exhortation. Why? Because it shows you don't get the issue. If you did, you'd know why your challenge is not legitimate.

Perhaps you don't get it. I don't see how I've lost by challenging Nick to either do it or show me someone who has done it.

You still don't get it.

Anyway, you may want to explain what you mean, instead of being cryptic and lazy. Perhaps I am missing something.

I could explain it to you in 2 sentences but I refuse to do so. If you care at all you'll stop and think about it. I'll give you a hint: how would you judge such a person anyway? And in so judging how could you not be that which you are judging, or do you think yourself able to recognise and judge that which is not even within your personal experience?

In short, your challenge to Nick was a total logical crock.

Dan,

I could explain it to you in 2 sentences but I refuse to do so. If you care at all you'll stop and think about it.

Since you refused to care enough to explain, why should I care enough to decipher?

I'll give you a hint: how would you judge such a person anyway?

By analyzing their actions, the things they discuss, and seeing if the two consistently match up. Pretty easy.

And in so judging how could you not be that which you are judging, or do you think yourself able to recognise and judge that which is not even within your personal experience?

If you've never been scared in your life, would you need to experience fear in order to recognize someone who was scared?

Hint: the answer is no.

In short, your challenge to Nick was a total logical crock.

Think again, and this time don't be so lazy.

sschaula wrote:Dan,

I could explain it to you in 2 sentences but I refuse to do so. If you care at all you'll stop and think about it.

Since you refused to care enough to explain, why should I care enough to decipher?

Man, you love this particular song and dance don't you? Why I want you to figure it out is because if I tell you will mentally construct a way to reject it, but if your own mind makes the realisation that's much harder to do. It's that way with everyone.

I'll give you a hint: how would you judge such a person anyway?

By analyzing their actions, the things they discuss, and seeing if the two consistently match up. Pretty easy.

Rubish. On what basis and from what criteria do you make such judgements? That's the question.

And in so judging how could you not be that which you are judging, or do you think yourself able to recognise and judge that which is not even within your personal experience?

If you've never been scared in your life, would you need to experience fear in order to recognize someone who was scared?

If you got the issue you'd know why that analogy sucks. If you didn't know what fear was like how the hell could you do anything more meaningful than recognise a behaviour that you couldn't relate to? It would just be a behaviour and nothing more. You wouldn't know what it meant.

Dan,

Man, you love this particular song and dance don't you? Why I want you to figure it out is because if I tell you will mentally construct a way to reject it, but if your own mind makes the realisation that's much harder to do. It's that way with everyone.

I disagree. It's not that way with a thinker.

There's no song and dance. It really does seem as if you're just lazy.

Rubish. On what basis and from what criteria do you make such judgements? That's the question.

Well it's not as if an imperfectly enlightened person has no idea what wisdom is like and what it does to a person.

If you got the issue you'd know why that analogy sucks. If you didn't know what fear was like how the hell could you do anything more meaningful than recognise a behaviour that you couldn't relate to? It would just be a behaviour and nothing more. You wouldn't know what it meant.

Read the above.

Dan Rowden wrote:

If you've never been scared in your life, would you need to experience fear in order to recognize someone who was scared?

If you got the issue you'd know why that analogy sucks. If you didn't know what fear was like how the hell could you do anything more meaningful than recognise a behaviour that you couldn't relate to? It would just be a behaviour and nothing more. You wouldn't know what it meant.

Exactly, this is what I was trying to tell him when I said this:

All the wisdom in the world couldn't impress upon one while they remain clouded in ignorance. It's like trying to tell a blind man what the sky looks like, to him it's always dark.

Then he went on to agree with this even though he admitted he is dictated by unconscious motives, motives that don't have a rhyme or reason, making his entire argument just what you said, a logical crock. Him agreeing with this proves even more so just how badly he doesn't get it.

The bottomline is Scott, you are too unconscious to judge the wisdom of any person or text. The philisophical importance of our discussion may have went over the head of yourself and others, but others might see how people like yourself can be very misleading and detrimental to their philosophical development. Only wisdom can recognize wisdom.

Nick,

Exactly, this is what I was trying to tell him when I said this:Quote:
All the wisdom in the world couldn't impress upon one while they remain clouded in ignorance. It's like trying to tell a blind man what the sky looks like, to him it's always dark.

Then he went on to agree with this even though he admitted he is dictated by unconscious motives, motives that don't have a rhyme or reason, making his entire argument just what you said, a logical crock. Him agreeing with this proves even more so just how badly he doesn't get it.

Didn't you admit to the same thing? That you are dictated by unconscious motives? I could swear you did in this very thread. But if you claim now that you aren't dictated by unconscious motives, you'd be wrong...that was the entire reason you ever responded to me here.

I was calling you a fool by agreeing with what you said. I wasn't denying that I'm equally as foolish.

If you don't get it, don't pretend as if I'm stupid. You're the one that doesn't understand what I'm talking about.

The bottomline is Scott, you are too unconscious to judge the wisdom of any person or text.

What a stupid claim. Think what you want, I'll still judge you the same.

The philisophical importance of our discussion may have went over the head of yourself and others, but others might see how people like yourself can be very misleading and detrimental to their philosophical development. Only wisdom can recognize wisdom.

Funny, a fool saying something like that.

For understanding of how you're foolish, refer back to your first post to me in this thread. Read over it a few times and contemplate how that's indicative of wisdom, even to a wise person. Take a few years time and come back and read that. See if that person, who a few years ago wrote that, was displaying any sort of wisdom.

It's really funny.

sschaula wrote:Didn't you admit to the same thing? That you are dictated by unconscious motives? I could swear you did in this very thread.

A bad memory is a sign of unconsciousness.

sschaula wrote:

The bottomline is Scott, you are too unconscious to judge the wisdom of any person or text.

What a stupid claim. Think what you want, I'll still judge you the same.

No doubt!

sschaula wrote:For understanding of how you're foolish, refer back to your first post to me in this thread. Read over it a few times and contemplate how that's indicative of wisdom, even to a wise person. Take a few years time and come back and read that. See if that person, who a few years ago wrote that, was displaying any sort of wisdom.

It's really funny.

Pointing out how unreasonable and illogical you are? That's worth while to the cause of wisdom.

Nick,

A bad memory is a sign of unconsciousness.

Do you want me to sort through all this shit and find it for you? I agree that a bad memory is a sign of unconsciousness. Why is it that you seem to not remember admitting to it?

Pointing out how unreasonable and illogical you are? That's worth while to the cause of wisdom.

Funny how a supposed fool can threaten a supposed wise man. What a joke.

sschaula wrote:Do you want me to sort through all this shit and find it for you? I agree that a bad memory is a sign of unconsciousness. Why is it that you seem to not remember admitting to it?

Go ahead, I'd love to see you try and twist what I've said to match whatever inane thoughts you have about me running through your head.

sschaula wrote:Funny how a supposed fool can threaten a supposed wise man. What a joke.

You think I am threatened by you? Now that's a joke.

Scott,

If you've never been scared in your life, would you need to experience fear in order to recognize someone who was scared?

Hint: the answer is no.

Riiiiiight... that sazz it all...

Nick,

Go ahead, I'd love to see you try and twist what I've said to match whatever inane thoughts you have about me running through your head.

Regarding some unconscious desire:
“This desire varies widely between people and beyond that not everyone lets this desire control them, or affect them much at all. Like I said, it's about values and one's ability to handle the Truth.”

There you admitted to having the same unconscious desire I had, but for some reason it's different for you because you control it. There's no evidence that I don't, but because we're in an argument you assume I don't...like a moron.

If you were a thinker, you wouldn't make such huge leaps in logic simply to justify your anger and win this thing.

“Yes we are animals, with animal desires, survival tools if you will, but that's only a part of who we are. Nobody is denying these desires, but the point is we have a conscience and it is up to us to use it. Say you want to go out and kill somebody because you want something they have, but you don't because you realize how irrational and greedy you are acting. This doesn't mean you are putting up a front, you are just using your other "human half" as a means of reaching a more reasonable outcome. The conscious can control the unconscious if we are caused to value a conscious mindset over the unconscious mindset.

Beyond that, the use it or lose it saying is a good way of explaining how one can become less and less affected by their unconscious if they are consistently conscious.”

So there you're saying that a person can be deluded but then stop his delusions from affecting his actions by being consciously wise. I'm in full agreement. This is precisely the point where you agreed with my argument entirely.

Reread and think again. If it doesn't make sense, you haven't yet understood my point.

You think I am threatened by you? Now that's a joke.

This is what you said:
The philisophical importance of our discussion may have went over the head of yourself and others, but others might see how people like yourself can be very misleading and detrimental to their philosophical development.

Make sense now?

sschaula wrote:Didn't you admit to the same thing? That you are dictated by unconscious motives?

So where exactly in the above statements of mine did I say that I admit to being dictated by unconscious motives? Strike one Scotty boy!

Ah, you are right. Dictated being the key word. We can be deluded yet as long as we control ourselves to not act deluded, we will be wise...right.

Anyway, I suppose your anger in the first part of this thread had nothing to do with unconsciousness?

What a dumbass.

sschaula wrote:The philisophical importance of our discussion may have went over the head of yourself and others, but others might see how people like yourself can be very misleading and detrimental to their philosophical development.

Make sense now?

Well it certainly doen't threaten me, I've gained too much wisdom to be derailed by someone like you, but for others just starting out on their spritual journey, or those yet to start out you might. I'm just looking out for my brothers, that's all.

Nick,

Well it certainly doen't threaten me, I've gained too much wisdom to be derailed by someone like you, but for others just starting out on their spritual journey, or those yet to start out you might. I'm just looking out for my brothers, that's all.

Haha, right. Just as you were trained to do...to spread the virus of wisdom without thinking.

sschaula wrote:Ah, you are right. Dictated being the key word. We can be deluded yet as long as we control ourselves to not act deluded, we will be wise...right.

Anyway, I suppose your anger in the first part of this thread had nothing to do with unconsciousness?

What a dumbass.

There's a HUGE difference between feeling an emotion, and becoming an emotion. e.g. I feel anger vs. I have become angry.