GENIUS FORUMS

R:Alchemists, believed that in order to acheive true psychological wholeness, one must essentially become a hermaphrodite, pairing all opposites, integrating all polarities.

bert: yes,that's how I do it.
Man implies Woman,I transcend these by the Hermaphrodite,this again implies a Eunuch(sex-less);all these conditions I transcend by a "Neither",it is vague,but conceiving it proves its palpability,and again implies another "Neither".
That is the state where you have passed beyond conception,it cannot be balanced.

What?!!

R. Steven Coyle wrote:

It depends on what you define as real.

Every 'thing' in the world is impermanent. All is an illusion as a result. When the mind recieves perception as an illusion, this is defined as emptiness. The mind can begin to communicate with its environment as a result.

The tree is no longer a tree. Your body no longer a body. But an extension of your mind.

Its like when you observe clouds forming shapes. Or the ripple of a concentric circle. There's something there. But the connection to it hasn't been learned yet. Emptiness is an artform. Its the flow of the mind without "thinking."

Steven, if all is in flux – why have you left out the mind?

Sue

The flux is your mind.

Wasn't that implied?

R. Steven Coyle wrote:

The flux is your mind.

Wasn't that implied?

Well, I was kind of hoping that you weren’t thinking that.

Consider the implications of having a mind that is outside of cause and effect. A mind that is not subject to change cannot have anything to do with the rest of the universe – which you tell me is always in flux.

This “mind is flux” thingy - how did you reason this out?

Sue

Consider the implications of having a mind that is outside of cause and effect. A mind that is not subject to change cannot have anything to do with the rest of the universe – which you tell me is always in flux.

What if the mind is cause and effect, Sue.

Thereby - becoming the All.

This “mind is flux” thingy - how did you reason this out?

I like to observe, with the right hemisphere.

To the west, for the east, I say.

suergaz wrote:

R:Alchemists, believed that in order to acheive true psychological wholeness, one must essentially become a hermaphrodite, pairing all opposites, integrating all polarities.

bert: yes,that's how I do it.
Man implies Woman,I transcend these by the Hermaphrodite,this again implies a Eunuch(sex-less);all these conditions I transcend by a "Neither",it is vague,but conceiving it proves its palpability,and again implies another "Neither".
That is the state where you have passed beyond conception,it cannot be balanced.

What?!!

what what?

R. Steven Coyle wrote:

Sue: Consider the implications of having a mind that is outside of cause and effect. A mind that is not subject to change cannot have anything to do with the rest of the universe – which you tell me is always in flux.

What if the mind is cause and effect, Sue.

Thereby - becoming the All.

That is the same as saying that your mind is not subject to cause and effect, because it is the Totality.

Are you saying your mind is the Totality?

Are you suggesting that each mind is a Totality unto itself?

Sue: This “mind is flux” thingy - how did you reason this out?

I like to observe, with the right hemisphere.

To the west, for the east, I say.

Your "observations" are very poor. Perhaps you need glasses!

Sue

How can anyone transcend sex? The state beyond conception--infinity, encompasses all conception, it is conception, birthing, being

Steven,

Sapius: So how come it bothers you? Would it matter since All is but a dream?

Steven: : Good point.

No, that was not that good a point, however, this was…

Super-ego could well be a dream as well, irrelevant of it being achieved through an “honest” A=A perception, since that too would necessarily be a component of the brain. No?

… the point you chose to ignore. Well… good luck my friend.

.

That is the same as saying that your mind is not subject to cause and effect, because it is the Totality.

Buddhahood.

Your "observations" are very poor. Perhaps you need glasses!

Maybe I'll buy a hat instead.

…the point you chose to ignore. Well…good luck my friend.

You should quit with the passive aggression.

To think beyond yourself more!

R. Steven Coyle wrote:

…the point you chose to ignore. Well…good luck my friend.

You should quit with the passive aggression.

To think beyond yourself more!

I will keep that relevant logical advice in mind. Thanks :)

.

Steven,

S: The genius must recognize both aspects of the process that you've (skillfully) described. In order to create the masterpiece, his vocabulary (sympathetic symbosis), must also be intact in order to edit and compose.

No, actually. If you agree with what I wrote, genius is in the discernment of perception (obscurity/in the obscure quality of). In the context above, “symbiosis” is also perception in that it’s mutual association for the sake of mutual association. Therefore, there is nothing ingenious about it.

Just like your “psychological wholeness.” How ordinary. Sometimes, so much is said with so few ordinary words. Only those who have nothing to say try to be new and fresh about … nothing. Again, only discernment comprehends this -- not mutual association. Mutual association feels like it connects with it.

If you want genius, you will have to give it up. Otherwise, also by definition, you will do nothing but merge into the universal flow. I hardly call that a masterpiece -- by definition or by the nature of its appearance.

Reference 1.

L: Making a connection between that and your reply to Sapius on his questioning that all truth is subjective implies that the Superego comes into existence through the law of identity (A=A), which belongs to (when conscious) the faculty of logic and not “perception,” unless you’re an animal who can’t think and especially because you have made the claim that all truth is subjective. What “perception/s” to you assign to subjectivity, exactly?

S: All perceptions, with the Superego opening up my mind to consciousness of its own logical faculty.

L: Do you mean to imply that the faculty of logic exists only in/as Superego (social conscience)?

S: I mean to imply it.

While logic may be said to exist prior to Superego development, it is in reaction to parental influence - a precursor on the road to the Superego.

Reference 2.

S: Since fear is related to the social conscience transmitted unconsciously from the parents, the rising Superego (along with knowledge of Truth), helps to eliminate it.

L: Are you saying that fear appears in direct proportion to the degree that Superego is unconsciously (paternally and maternally) transmitted and that Truth brings about what could be called a “healthy” Superego? If so, what would replace the unconscious parental transmission as the source of “social conscience”? Or, would it eliminate Superego altogether?

Given 1 & 2 above, you are saying that the unconscious, parentally derived Superego (the faculty of logic itself in an unconscious form of social conscience) is opening up your mind to its (Superego's) ultimate opposite; that is, a conscious(ness) (of truth) faculty of logic.

Why so many words to say that you are realising your unconscious nature and the relationship of truth to reason and logic?

Essentially, what you have said is the following -- and I hope you will appreciate it has several gaping holes:

1. All perceptions are subjective.

2. The Superego develops unconsciously

You have made no distinction between subjectivity and unconsciousness nor provided any proposition for unconsciousness in relation to parental influence. Is it on the level of perception, for example -- subjectivity?

You then go on to “conclude,” (in other words, rip right out of thin air to a discerning observer) without supporting propositions and despite the earlier contrary proposition:

3. Logic “could be said to be” a precursor on the road to Superego (I mean, what??)

And from “all” this, you somehow further manage to conclude -- and still think you‘re making sense to anyone with an ounce of discernment:

4. Fear is connected to social conscience.

You call this art? Because it certainly isn’t philosophy.

Certainly Leyla? A genius does not attempt to discredit anothers love of wisdom through art, or through anything at all for that matter. If all you were doing was trying to discredit R's expression, I wouldn't be discrediting yours right now.

Mama zag,

Certainly Leyla?

Yes, that’s what I said.

A genius does not attempt to discredit anothers love of wisdom through art, or through anything at all for that matter.

And I give a fuck about your notion of the love of wisdom because…?

The only thing you love is the sound of your own exclamation marks!

Don’t even try telling me you’re a genius without substantiating it in the form of a complete and well-structured, logical argument. I am not interested in creatively reading anyone’s “thought.” If I were, I wouldn’t post to a forum of others.

If all you were doing was trying to discredit R's expression, I wouldn't be discrediting yours right now.

Oh, please. You give yourself way too much credit.

He shouldn’t need to be mollycoddled like you with "love" and sympathetic bullshit.

He’s a big boy now!

PS: Happy nightmares. I'm going to bed. :D

Why so many words to say that you are realising your unconscious nature and the relationship of truth to reason and logic?

I need to place faith in my own logic in order to reason more efficently.

You're right.

You have made no distinction between subjectivity and unconsciousness nor provided any proposition for unconsciousness in relation to parental influence. Is it on the level of perception, for example -- subjectivity?

The "Super (elevated from parents influence)" "Ego (center of discernment)" by definition, discerns unconsciousness from subjectivity, hopefully advancing logic in the process.

The ego discerns subjectivity for its own advancement.

Fear is connected to social conscience

We fear what is 'other' within ourselves - as a result, projecting our faults onto others to avoid responsibility.

A lack in social conscience indicates a lack of self-respect, (ultimately caused by an unhealthy relationship with the family - pointing to the Superego's role in discernment), which indicates a fear of social criticism (a return to the family's lack of support), which affects one's retension of a social conscience. This process results in fear. If we never felt isolated at all from our family (our original world), then there would be nothing to fear - having safely secured ourself in the larger representation.

Lilliputian Leyla:

And I give a fuck about your notion of the love of wisdom because…?

Because you know I'm ever-loving. :D

Good morning!

suergaz wrote:How can anyone transcend sex? The state beyond conception--infinity, encompasses all conception, it is conception, birthing, being

nevermind

maybe later...

Steven wrote:

We fear what is 'other' within ourselves - as a result, projecting our faults onto others to avoid responsibility.

But, Steven, that IS your social conscience.

I have to go to work, but I like where and how we are going with this now. Perhaps you can think about my above comment and give me your thoughts on it. With it in mind, what meaning does this have:

A lack in social conscience indicates a lack of self-respect [snip]

.

Leyla,

You asked how fear and social conscience were related specifically: "We fear what is 'other' within ourselves - as a result, projecting our faults onto others to avoid responsibility" was the beginning of my response.

A lack of social conscience indicates a lack of self-respect.

When we lack self-respect, our conscience is strangely concerned with a social appearence, rather than its social aspect. This is likely due to a fear surrounding an inability to progress our conscience, for fear of losing even more respect for ourselves. Since our personal conscience is only concerned with our social behavior, if there is a lack in self-respect, then there is also a lack in social conscience.

Steven,

What is other “within ourselves” is reason to project our faults onto others “outside ourselves.” “Self” respect includes otherness since without it what “self” and “other” can there be?

Fear is the perception of impending harm (denial of pleasure/self-satisfaction) to self through others (separation) manifesting as anxiety. Social conscience (Superego) is morality -- the morality that necessitates Ego, or survival, through the navigation of the real [objective] world by negotiating drives -- hedonism, with the Law -- moralism).

In Freud, the unconscious is ideations of the drives accessible only through language. Even he has his mythologies, therefore (Oedipus, for example). And he has them because a fundamental premise of his work is that man can never understand his primitive drives since they are pre-lingual. He can only become healthy by accessing ideations of them through and with the advent of language (enter Lacan and psychoanalysis as structural linguistics: metaphor and metonymy).

Your and bert’s regularly advocated idea of “getting in touch with/returning to the unconscious/ness,” “merging with the universe,” “cosmic consciousness” is, then, an ideation of the death drive (that drive motivated by a return to the state of total self-satisfaction) when it causes pain/fear and an ideation of the pleasure principle when it causes happiness. The “guiding light” in Freud’s rational man (healthy Ego) appears to ultimately be, do his actions conflict with others (and the real [objective] world) and thus jeopardise the individual‘s survival, causing anxiety?

(Recognising the following concepts metaphorically rather than literally) if daddy never said no, (failed to castrate) Superego is not developed and, therefore, you have an immoral individual who can derive no rational, egotistical (negotiated) pleasure. Who is your daddy, and do you respect him?

Is enlightenment a matter of negotiating primitive drives with morality?

Is it the complete freedom of Id (primitive drives) to manifest howsoever it will?

Is it “returning” to a state of complete self-satisfaction where self and other merge into oneness (there can only be a going back -- after language -- through a will to unconsciousness or a never having come out of the state in the first place, of course)?

(I'm in a hurry at the moment but I'd like to address consciousness/unconsciouness with respect to time and memory, and will do so as soon as I can.)

Leyla,

What is other “within ourselves” is reason to project our faults onto others “outside ourselves.” “Self” respect includes otherness since without it what “self” and “other” can there be?

I agree.

That's what I was trying to get across.

Fear is the perception of impending harm (denial of pleasure/self-satisfaction) to self through others (separation) manifesting as anxiety. Social conscience (Superego) is morality -- the morality that necessitates Ego, or survival, through the navigation of the real [objective] world by negotiating drives -- hedonism, with the Law -- moralism).

I think you're taking my statements out of their context to fit your own understanding. I was explaining the synthesis that I arrived at, in my situation. You are separating my ideal from its context to fit it into Freud's description. We're basically saying the same thing. But not having an understanding of what Truth is, you're not yet able to fully understand what I was pointing to. Hopefully, we can understand each other better as the thread progresses.

In Freud, the unconscious is ideations of the drives accessible only through language.

While it is possible to arrive at the unconscious through language, it is more easily accessible through perception of the abstract -- direct communication with the unconscious. This is one of the reasons why I find Jung more interesting than Freud. He explored the unconscious in greater depth, exploring the occult, spiritual tradition, alchemy, and mythology, in order to arrive at a better understanding of the mind.

Your and bert’s regularly advocated idea of “getting in touch with/returning to the unconscious/ness,” “merging with the universe,” “cosmic consciousness”

Not returning to unconsciousness. But, merging with it, to form a supra-consciousness. Buddhahood is ultimately entering into the collective unconscious.

. . . an ideation of the death drive (that drive motivated by a return to the state of total self-satisfaction) when it causes pain/fear and an ideation of the pleasure principle when it causes happiness. The “guiding light” in Freud’s rational man (healthy Ego) appears to ultimately be, do his actions conflict with others (and the real [objective] world) and thus jeopardise the individual‘s survival, causing anxiety?

Realization of Self is total self-satisfaction. Suffering is also realized to be self-satisfaction. This allows for the perception of non-duality.

I am in the process of relearning my healthy ego: Using the Superego as a guide.

(Recognising the following concepts metaphorically rather than literally) if daddy never said no, (failed to castrate) Superego is not developed and, therefore, you have an immoral individual who can derive no rational, egotistical (negotiated) pleasure. Who is your daddy, and do you respect him?

Not as much as I should. My father is Nature. But, I am my own father, too. I am Nature. Forced to castrate myself by "enlightening" my parents.

Is enlightenment a matter of negotiating primitive drives with morality?

Not specifically. My mind has to negotiate to heal. I'm forced to will my future, to correct past mistakes. I utilize non-action to acheive my goals: Non-action, a Buddhist term, refering to the union of passive perception and an active will.

It's a powerful tool.

Is it the complete freedom of Id (primitive drives) to manifest howsoever it will?

It can be.

Is it “returning” to a state of complete self-satisfaction where self and other merge into oneness (there can only be a going back -- after language -- through a will to unconsciousness or a never having come out of the state in the first place, of course)?

It is advancing towards Nirvana.

A will to unconsciousness it is not.

Steven,

That's what I was trying to get across.

But you didn't and I did.

I think you're taking my statements out of their context to fit your own understanding. I was explaining the synthesis that I arrived at, in my situation. You are separating my ideal from its context to fit it into Freud's description. We're basically saying the same thing.

I think you're deluding yourself. We were talking about Freud. You failed to define Freud's terms outside of his works and you further failed to provide any semblance of a philsophy. In other words, your statements had no context. And you would chastise me for being generous enough to give them some?

Figures.

But not having an understanding of what Truth is, you're not yet able to fully understand what I was pointing to. Hopefully, we can understand each other better as the thread progresses.

Realization of Self is total self-satisfaction. Suffering is also realized to be self-satisfaction. This allows for the perception of non-duality.

I am in the process of relearning my healthy ego: Using the Superego as a guide.

You idiot.

Using Freud again or am I separating your ideal from its context?

I will entertain your ignorance no further, until you go too far, again -- In the name of the Father, you understand.

That's what I was trying to get across.

But you didn't and I did.

To your eyes, Leyla.

You restated what I said.

I think you're taking my statements out of their context to fit your own understanding. I was explaining the synthesis that I arrived at, in my situation. You are separating my ideal from its context to fit it into Freud's description. We're basically saying the same thing.

I think you're deluding yourself. We were talking about Freud. You failed to define Freud's terms outside of his works and you further failed to provide any semblance of a philsophy. In other words, your statements had no context. And you would chastise me for being generous enough to give them some?

Figures.

How would I define his terms outside of his works without a personal context -- a context that would be meaningful to me, foremost.

I don't find any solace in his specifics -- when it is my understanding that needs its own foundation.

You idiot.

Using Freud again or am I separating your ideal from its context?

I will entertain your ignorance no further, until you go too far, again -- In the name of the Father, you understand.

What is this discussion?

How do you think I'd respond to my understanding of self, when it is labeled as a "will to unconsciousness"? A "death drive"?

Give me a break.