GENIUS FORUMS

I was remembering your suggestion, but also thinking that it looked wikipedia-ish. Fleshing it out would be better, of course as long as there are not any objections from the QRS (sliding in an explanation of QRS/QSR would be helpful to not have to keep repeating that to every newbie). The subtitles look good.

Laird wrote:

a belief that reality is based entirely upon thought and mind

Where did you get this notion from?

Laird: a belief that reality is based entirely upon thought and mind

Dan: Where did you get this notion from?

From a post of Kevin's in the ongoing "The affirmative nature of femininity" thread, where he writes that I (Laird) am "assuming that there is a reality independent of thought, and which thought corresponds to. There isn't." I continue in that thread to probe him about what exactly this statement means and he has not (in my opinion) managed to maintain a consistent position.

But Dan I haven't read Poison for the Heart or Wisdom of the Infinite yet and perhaps they are better guides to the philosophy of what I've defined as "rational infinitism" than "what Kev says on the forums". Perhaps they have some commentary on this topic - or perhaps not, and if so then we can remove it from my proposed definition.

The whole Woman thing is a really big part of their philosophy as well, which you left out of the intro paragraph, but I assume you would go into more depth on in the fleshing-out portion. I'm sure it would figure prominently in the criticism section.

Laird introduced this definition:

Rational infinitism: a philosophy founded by Kevin Solway, later joined by David Quinn and Dan Rowden, and promulgated through the website theabsolute.net, the forums therein, and various guiding texts including "Poison for the Heart" and "Wisdom of the Infinite". The underpinnings of the philosophy are that absolute truth is attainable through pure reasoning, that to be ignorant of this absolute truth is to be deluded, that the truth that one arrives at is of an infinite universe (the Totality) containing all causes but itself uncaused, and that the seeking of the continued undeluded awareness of truth is the ultimate goal of the spiritual path. Other facets of the philosophy are a definition of masculinity as consciousness and femininity as unconsciousness, a belief that reality is based entirely upon thought and mind, and an eschewing of the value of comfort and love other than universal, spiritual compassion.

This definition is okay, as I actually agree with most of the QRS’s foundational definitions on the spiritual path, although some terms could be expanded on a bit.

For instance: to expand on the masculine and feminine definitions, I would add that someone who becomes fully masculine achieves a heightened sense of femininity in the process. A heightened feminine sensitivity to the world is achieved by overcoming cruder forms of femininity, which is acheived through a masculine reasoning.

And I agree with the QRS regarding their criticism on women, because I believe it helps potential males break away from conventional values such as securing a sexual companion, marriage, children and so on. And instead they can actually taste the depths of solitude for long periods of time, without feeling lonely, or feeling like they are missing out on something.

Spirituality tends to be an unemotional asexual affair. One can communicate with those that value emotionalism/sexuality/financial success, but it is always a compromise because one has to be gentle in order to prevent the overwhelming of their ego.

One weakness of the QRS position is they could make it more clear in their booklets how the conception of causality is actually incomplete on its own – meaning that a mind that abides in ‘emptiness’ perceives reality in a way that is non-causal.

Lets a start I suppose.