GENIUS FORUMS

Well, this takes me back. Before the speaking worms, and before the heartfelt craze.

bert,

b: is it the 'otherness' within ourselves that make us loathe others?

L: No, bert. It is the “otherness” in others that makes them loathesome. That you have come to loathe yourself so much that you must deny self is not enlightenment. Don’t kid yourself, resting your conscience in the ego that positions itself as non-separate -- the universe, light and love -- is no less deluded than any other. That you find yourself partial to some form of emotion rather than another is not wisdom.

b: on the 'otherness' :
how can you be someone else?Ego can be bypassed?

It is an idea that Weininger expresses, though I’m sure he’s not the only one: to understand a man is to be that man. To understand a criminal, then, would be to be a criminal. Weininger posits that one who whilst understanding a criminal does not behave like one carries the mark of “genius.” How can you not be someone else and yet manage any kind of meaningful conversation?

Yes, ego can be “bypassed” by genius (not the sensory/perception/emotion talent kind -- which might indeed comprise a good proportion of a genius, but does not solely and completely comprise the sum him -- who inevitably is restricted and bound by such talent).

you were not the cause of your actions?

That depends on where you want to mark the beginning of the event, does it not?

b: -what is there to believe,but in Self?

What use do I have for arbitrary beginnings and endings, aside from arbitrary beginnings and endings toward something?

Why must it be self-preservation?

More later.

[Edit: inserted third quote.]

Yes, ego can be “bypassed” by genius (not the sensory/perception/emotion talent kind -- which might indeed comprise a good proportion of a genius, but does not solely and completely comprise the sum him -- who inevitably is restricted and bound by such talent).

How bypassed? Why?

bert: -what is there to believe,but in Self?

Leyla: What use do I have for arbitrary beginnings and endings, aside from arbitrary beginnings and endings toward something?
Why must it be self-preservation?

You're towards yourself at the very least. Like believing in belief. It's self-propagation.

Yes, ego can be “bypassed” by genius (not the sensory/perception/emotion talent kind -- which might indeed comprise a good proportion of a genius, but does not solely and completely comprise the sum him -- who inevitably is restricted and bound by such talent).

I will never believe this. IMO the ego is the necessary attachment of values to consciousness and there is no consciousness without such value attachments. The ego is simply memory-stored good/bad values - something that is impossible to bypass.

You can completely discount the context of anything the QRS might say in this regard. They are delusional about the relationship between enlightenment and emotions. They falsely say they are not creatures that experience emotions.

leyla:

It is an idea that Weininger expresses, though I’m sure he’s not the only one: to understand a man is to be that man. To understand a criminal, then, would be to be a criminal. Weininger posits that one who whilst understanding a criminal does not behave like one carries the mark of “genius.” How can you not be someone else and yet manage any kind of meaningful conversation?

b: is it the 'otherness' within ourselves that make us loathe others?

L: No, bert. It is the “otherness” in others that makes them loathesome.

Yes, ego can be “bypassed” by genius (not the sensory/perception/emotion talent kind -- which might indeed comprise a good proportion of a genius, but does not solely and completely comprise the sum him -- who inevitably is restricted and bound by such talent).

ok
so,the 'otherness' is within ourselves,according to weininger.so now we can loathe.
and I ask:is it the 'otherness' within ourselves that makes us loathe others?which goes further where weininger ends.
does weiningers idea imply:if he has not the mark of genius,then he is loathesome?

Quote:
you were not the cause of your actions?


That depends on where you want to mark the beginning of the event, does it not?

the impulse to loathe another.
and it comes into life at will,so I ask :is it the 'otherness' within ourselves that makes us loathe others?(this "brand" of realisation is a form of superstition,a necessary evolution,that I notice in all the "great" thinkers by which they built their reality tunnels)

Quote:
b: -what is there to believe,but in Self?


What use do I have for arbitrary beginnings and endings, aside from arbitrary beginnings and endings toward something?

Why must it be self-preservation?

More later.

because we are what we believe and what it implies by a process of time in the conception;creation is caused by this bondage to formula.

Belief is ever its own temper to belief differently;you cannot belief freedom but you may be freed from belief?Neither can you believe the "Truth" but you need not compromise yourself.The way of Life is not by "means" - these doctrines - my doctrines even though they allow the self-appointed devotee to emulate my realisation - may I ever blush!The man of sorrows is the Teacher!

the "why" and the "how" of desire must be contained within your awareness to fully see and comprehend where the universe rests upon.And common sense proves it is the milk state.

jamesh:

You can completely discount the context of anything the QRS might say in this regard. They are delusional about the relationship between enlightenment and emotions. They falsely say they are not creatures that experience emotions.

maybe in a new topic I will comment on this.'those' silly eastern spiritualists...

Beingof1 wrote:
Diebert: "At that age our critical skills are often less developed. "

Oh but I did investigate. The memory of these events are identical to the recollection of others who witnessed the same.

Well, I was talking about you since you play the role of having a greater understanding. The adults around you I don't know and can only assume they, as most people, didn't investigate at all sincerely or had the desire to even do such thing. Their recollection is therefore irrelevant: people tend to think and remember events in quite a similar way.

Being wrote: I really do not want to get into the validation exercise of 'maybe it did, maybe it didn`t'. As you well know my wise friend, that is a rabbit trail.

That's true. But why then recounting such experience at all? Do you expect people to trust your judgement? What purpose does it have, if not estranging people from taking you seriously? People that are craving for signs and miracles are not the ones you want to talk to, really.

Diebert: "Why are you interpreting everything though symbols of your childhood christian past?"

All due respect but that is your projection. I use Christ as an example as well as all past sages (look at my past posts). I do admit to a certain affinity to Jesus as it was Christianity that I learned and studied the most. My experience of awakening is most like his with the nonordinary so accentuated. I do believe he is the symbol that is needed because of the lesson involved that his life demonstrates like non other.

Using examples and symbols is one thing but I was reading you with the background information that you regard Jesus his clinical death (by crucifixion) and resurrection (after being dead for almost three days) as literal events. Including some other events as walking over water, multiplying bread and so on. Now of course there are many unknowns about cause and effects but logic as well as science are wonderful tools to make sure we are not fooling ourselves with our perceptions.

I do use his life as an example as when he said on the cross "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do" was the supreme act of forgiveness.

I'd like to describe that as the compassion that rises out of a deep understanding of the world and its inhabitants. Its root lies in the term "doing away with", the insight that there's nothing to forgive in the first place. Interesting second meaning is "allowing" or "suffering", which might point to yet another level in this highly potent imagery.

Hi, James. You wrote:

I will never believe this. IMO the ego is the necessary attachment of values to consciousness and there is no consciousness without such value attachments. The ego is simply memory-stored good/bad values - something that is impossible to bypass.

I think that is way too simplified to be useful, really. If that were the case, there would be no difference between the good/bad values of a reasoning individual and the good/bad values of a non-reasoning one -- or, (what is usually considered) the same individual in a reasoning state as opposed to a non-reasoning state.

You have a scientific mind, how about considering the emotional state of any individual as that effect produced by consciousness as wavelength over a given period of time and through experience. The wavelength of the fully enlightened buddha would be superior to the point of flat lining -- “dead”; passing through experience unaffected, but effecting. The shorter the wavelength, the more emotional activity -- the longer, the less. What do you think?

Of course, we’re talking philosophy, here. Just how this fully-enlightened-buddha-state might manifest in any objective sort of way in an individual would take quite some investigation, indeed. :)

There is a point in the progression of the mind, when philosophy no longer invests itself with scholarship, but with experience alone. In this state, belief is secondary, and knowledge, in whatever form, is direct. This is not to imply that ideas aren't still exchanged, in fact, the opening up of newer and newer ideas is instigated.

leyla:

You have a scientific mind, how about considering the emotional state of any individual as that effect produced by consciousness as wavelength over a given period of time and through experience. The wavelength of the fully enlightened buddha would be superior to the point of flat lining -- “dead”; passing through experience unaffected, but effecting. The shorter the wavelength, the more emotional activity -- the longer, the less. What do you think?

I don't see any scientific prove in it,but it is definitely scientific thinking.
ever heard of 'fictional final goal'?along with it comes inferiority feelings.

The ego desires to hide itself in time, to revel in the past, in order to overcome its own shame. With presence, and consciousness, the self is allowed to let itself shine. We may often pattern our behavior after another, for the enjoyment of the immediate, but to construct ourselves with fearlessness, we can open up the mind, to itself.

this is interesting stuff(from my teacher(who else?)):
"'like' first recognized differences and then likenesses.the emotional contact gave effusion which helped us to see interrelationships everywhere and - the inducement to new likenesses in what would have been unlikely."

without the flesh, you shall come to nothing!

Others are our own means to self as pleasure, even pain [anti-suffering]. We may secretly fear ourselves through others, but it only presents itself for construction of the spiritual. It is forever onwards to remembrance.

When placing blame on causality, we are inevitably placing blame on ourselves. This form of delineation sacrifices our memory of events - because we have not yet become the events. In helping ourselves, we help ourselves, and other.

the phenomenal world is the only 'real' world where we know of,and is entirely apparent,neither explaining or revealing purpose,meaning,..
the trueer construction leads to a greater whole.certain kinds of Knowledge should be arrested.
the way of trueer relating ,is in making the seen supremely tactual.

The mind that craves existance for itself, may become side-swept by associative thinking, forgetting to realize that even these glances of thought are entitled to examination: Or to be discarded, for greater depth of continuity.

The World as Will and Representation: Schopenhauer

[Better expressed.]

"...Every true act of his will is also at once and inevitably a movement of his body; he cannot actually will the act without at the same time being aware that it appears as a movement of the body. The action of the will and the action of the body are not two different states objectively known connected by the bond of causality; they do not stand in the relation of cause and effect, but are one and the same thing, though given in two entirely different ways, first quite directly, then in perception for the understanding. The action of the body is nothing but the act of will objectified, i.e., translated into perception."

zag,

bert: -what is there to believe,but in Self?

Leyla: What use do I have for arbitrary beginnings and endings, aside from arbitrary beginnings and endings toward something?
Why must it be self-preservation?

zee: You're towards yourself at the very least. Like believing in belief. It's self-propagation.

Hence, your religiosity. Do you accept it, yet? Oh mighty Self, how I worship thee: my body is my temple (I think)…

And, if things inherently exist, why do I need to believe in any one thing at all, let alone one over any other -- unless we’re talking some kind of (heaven forbid!) illusion. No? Can I not, then, only preserve “self” by preserving every other thing in contrast to it no matter how limited those things may be at any given moment (which limitations expand, I might add, only in retrospect from some other point of self-preservation)?

Aye, indeed, what manner of self should be preserved? That is the question.

I will ask for some clarification on your part, here: can you give me an example of this “being towards oneself”? I mean, how does that work?

...and if I receive one more call from a telemarketer today, I'm going to throw my phone through the fucking window.

:)

bert: -what is there to believe,but in Self?

Leyla: What use do I have for arbitrary beginnings and endings, aside from arbitrary beginnings and endings toward something?
Why must it be self-preservation?

zagreus: You're towards yourself at the very least. Like believing in belief. It's self-propagation.

Leyla: Hence, your religiosity. Do you accept it, yet? Oh mighty Self, how I worship thee: my body is my temple (I think)…

You honestly think I worship myself or any other?! :D

And, if things inherently exist, why do I need to believe in any one thing at all, let alone one over any other -- unless we’re talking some kind of (heaven forbid!) illusion.

You don't have to Leyla!

No? Can I not, then, only preserve “self” by preserving every other thing in contrast to it no matter how limited those things may be at any given moment (which limitations expand, I might add, only in retrospect from some other point of self-preservation)? Aye, indeed, what manner of self should be preserved? That is the question.

You mean propagated. No self can be preserved. I suggest a self like mine. :D

I will ask for some clarification on your part, here: can you give me an example of this “being towards oneself”? I mean, how does that work?

At the very least, you're towards yourself, meaning that you become what you are, you must eternally return as yourself.

Happy Unbirthday!

Leyla Shen wrote:...and if I receive one more call from a telemarketer today, I'm going to throw my phone through the fucking window.

:)

how is your phone doing?
:)

Jason: So you don't need proof for your philosophy? You don't mind if parts of your philosophy are capable of being denied?

sschaula: I do need proof, and there's an abundance of proof. What you're doing is taking the proof that I see and saying, "Your hypothesis isn't the case." I admit, maybe you're right, but there's so much proof that I don't mind believing in this.

You seem to be unsure of yourself and in contradiction. In a previous post you wrote the following:

sschaula: Something is only proven if it's undeniable. You can deny everything in this world. You can deny gravity!

If you can deny anything in the world, and if only that which is undeniable is proven, how then can you say that there is an abundance of proof? I think you need to make your mind up one way or the other.

sschaula: I don't mind that parts of my philosophy can be denied. I do mind if I'm wrong...there's a difference.

There is a difference agreed. The problem I see is that if parts of your philosophy can be denied, you will never know for certain that parts of your philosophy are not wrong. As long as there is uncertainty and deniability in your philosophy the possibility of error will be ever present.

Jason: But you do compromise certainty for the advancement of your philosophy?

sschaula: How can you be certain of the way things work?

Maybe you can't? Maybe certainty is limited in its reach? Myself, I say that at bottom, at the most fundamental level, everything is certain and beyond deniability. All existence is direct and undeniable. Even when I am uncertain: I am certain that I am uncertain. The basic fact of existence is that to think, perceive or feel(the stuff of our entire existence), is to be certain that we are thinking, perceiving and feeling.

sschaula: What would make me say that pool balls scattering is directly caused by a gust of wind?

As I said in a previous post, I'm really not interested in creating theories as to why the pool balls move the way they do. My aim was to show you the uncertainty in these theories. Any theory I suggest would be just as subject to the same uncertainty. I am aiming for certainty, so I simply see the inherent uncertainty in this area and remove it from the list of worthwhile avenues, I discard it and move on towards certainty.

Jason: So what were you aiming for when you used domino-causation to undermine the ego? Couldn't have been absolute truth.

...

Jason: I'm pointing out the uncertainty in your domino-causation idea. Without certainy you can't have absolutely certain truth. If you're after absolutely certain truth say goodbye to your undermining of the ego using domino-causation.

sschaula: You're saying the ego can't be undermined by believing in something false? I think it can. Where's your proof that it can't?

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I'm not interested in basing my philosophical ideas on false premises. Are you? Is your primary concern the undermining of the ego? Does truth come second? The ends justify the means?

No doubt a lot of things can be achieved by believing in something false, maybe even undermining the ego, but my version of philosophy is about truth.

sschaula: I don't think that causation is false, though. There's no other sensible explaination for the way things come about. Not like you need an explaination to know that the ego is false, though.

The ego is false simply because you know it is? No explanation necessary? That seems very weak to me. Why then did you originally use dominoes-causation to explain why the ego is false?

sschaula: Are you saying you don't use cause and effect in day to day life? If you drive a car, do you not put your foot on the gas because that cause won't have the effect of acceleration? Do you not use light switches because you believe that the light being turned on isn't caused by that?

I constantly use the common cause and effect idea in my day-to-day life, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's certain or deeply philosophically relevant.

Jason, I find your way of thinking quite interesting. Would you mind elaborating on your philosophical methods & what conclusions you have reached? Perhaps in another thread.
.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:
Diebert: At that age our critical skills are often less developed.

Me: Oh but I did investigate. The memory of these events are identical to the recollection of others who witnessed the same.

Diebert: Well, I was talking about you since you play the role of having a greater understanding. The adults around you I don't know and can only assume they, as most people, didn't investigate at all sincerely or had the desire to even do such thing. Their recollection is therefore irrelevant: people tend to think and remember events in quite a similar way.

Then disregard whatever does not assist you.

Being wrote: I really do not want to get into the validation exercise of 'maybe it did, maybe it didn`t'. As you well know my wise friend, that is a rabbit trail.

Diebert: That's true. But why then recounting such experience at all? Do you expect people to trust your judgement? What purpose does it have, if not estranging people from taking you seriously? People that are craving for signs and miracles are not the ones you want to talk to, really.

Other than my reference to having been beyond death, it was to put the issue away that I have been asked to talk about "who I am". As you can see, it does not lend itself to philosophy as it becomes distracting and the subject devolves into "signs and miracles".

I expect people to understand flawless reasoning(though I am often let down) :). This is always evident to anyone who can see reality without a filter. It eventually allows for fearless experience of life itself.

Diebert: "Why are you interpreting everything though symbols of your childhood christian past?"

Me: All due respect but that is your projection. I use Christ as an example as well as all past sages (look at my past posts). I do admit to a certain affinity to Jesus as it was Christianity that I learned and studied the most. My experience of awakening is most like his with the nonordinary so accentuated. I do believe he is the symbol that is needed because of the lesson involved that his life demonstrates like non other.

Diebert: Using examples and symbols is one thing but I was reading you with the background information that you regard Jesus his clinical death (by crucifixion) and resurrection (after being dead for almost three days) as literal events. Including some other events as walking over water, multiplying bread and so on. Now of course there are many unknowns about cause and effects but logic as well as science are wonderful tools to make sure we are not fooling ourselves with our perceptions.

Does my reasoning bring you to the idea that I am "fooling myself"? I will not deny my own experience because you 'do not believe it'. I will not deny my experience as that would make me quite insane to allow someone else to redefine my own reality. I do not need you to explain to me what is real and what is illusion. I am capable of experiencing my reality without the interdiction of 'higher authority'. I am the highest authority - there is no one more qualified to discern my experience. You would only expect the same Diebert.

Perhaps you simply do not like the fact that I experienced what I shared and hold on to limitations of your own "perceptions"?

Are you envious of my experience Diebert? This is a question not an assumption. If it is the case, you may want to stop testing me and ask questions.

Me: I do use his life as an example as when he said on the cross "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do" was the supreme act of forgiveness.

Diebert: I'd like to describe that as the compassion that rises out of a deep understanding of the world and its inhabitants. Its root lies in the term "doing away with", the insight that there's nothing to forgive in the first place. Interesting second meaning is "allowing" or "suffering", which might point to yet another level in this highly potent imagery.

Interesting insight indeed.

Jason, I don't like your style so I'm not going to reply to you.