GENIUS FORUMS

L: I know that initially this might seem like dishonesty, but I look at it like this:
Words convey attitude. Attitude conveys intention. Our intentions are good. Let us then choose good words.

P: Those that bespoke the criticism and accusation referenced had every intention of provocation or lack of thought before the words were written. Not all people’s intentions are good.

The way that we choose to interpret a situation affects how that situation ensues and whether it resolves. If we choose a positive interpretation where we view everyone's intentions as good, then this outlook will be reflected in our words and actions, people will pick up on it and the chances that everyone will perceive a win-win outcome will improve.

Any situation can be interpreted in many different ways. In the moment, I generally feel that one interpretation is the "right" one. Looking back, I see other possibilities. Who knows which one is "actually right"? When a person attacks me, is it because s/he is acting out of bad intentions, or because s/he is unconsciously guided to act in that way in order to teach me some lesson, perhaps endurance of suffering, that will ultimately lead me to become a better person? I can imagine anything; in my experience imagining the most positive intentions in all people has the most positive effect on my behaviour and on the world.

passthrough wrote:Aquinas viewed spiritual love as a will of good.

So spiritual love is good intentions and a desire to put them into practice. I can go with that view.

P: Those with full and perfect consciousness, by necessity, are self-less.

Yes, my point though is that it's harder to reach this position if we're constantly making ourselves aware of how much better our consciousness and ability to love are than other people's. Self-evaluation for purposes of improvement and affirmation is important but I feel that it's better to focus on the good in other people rather than on how we are better than other people.

I wish I could agree with you that all love is spiritually based, but even Aquinas noticed a distinction between types of love, intellect and desire. One is towards the good of others while the other is towards receiving good. While both may come from God, one can be abused while the other is never understood by the unconscious individual and seemingly difficult for those who are anything but conscious.

I am an optimist when it comes to human nature. I believe that at our core, each of us wants to improve the life of ourselves and of each other in some way. We make constant or at least frequent offerings to other people and it disappoints us when our offerings are ignored or rejected, whether deliberately or through non-recognition. I view "abuse of love" as a lack of awareness of, and trust in, the good intentions of others and of ourselves - an obliviousness to the abundance of good-will that can be shared if we approach each other genuinely and sensitively. I view it as a state of suffering more than of abuse.

passthrough wrote:You cannot ever begin to love [your enemies] immaturely to reach the point of mature, unconditional love without a change within…that is a realization of something bigger.

Agreed (I believe that some people are born with that change already realised).

passthrough wrote:This forum is not known for being gentle

Perhaps not. I've found the people here to be respectful and considerate though, and good intentions are contagious.

Laird: You are right, always.

passthrough: I disagree. If this is so, then any movement in one direction or another would be wrong and contradictory. Therefore, if any growth or increase in consciousness occurs this cannot be right in one instance and wrong in another. You are speaking of “right” in relativistic terms – like a pragmatist…it is right for the moment. I am more absolutist, but I do agree that one must live by what one has in the moment, but in knowing it is not perfection - strive towards the absolute.

Yes, I think that we understand each other - I'm talking about an attitude to life that is beneficial for everyone's self-esteem and openness to possibilities for improvement, and you're talking about whether a person's beliefs are plausible, perhaps even whether they are aligned with ultimate understanding.

passthrough wrote:However, knowing you do not wish to argue adversarially, I will try to keep that in mind while in discussion with you…but I will not say you are right, if I think you are wrong just to appease your argument style…it is not honest and lends towards relativity, which is not choosing.

There are different senses to the word right and I don't expect you to tell me that I'm right in all senses. I'm using it in the sense that "all is right with the world and the life within it; all is progressing as it should" (which is not to justify abrogation of personal responsibility to contribute to and to improve things).

passthrough wrote:Fear of being wrong is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is confidence in uncertainty a good thing…the former keeps you honest while the latter does not…necessarily.

I'm open to the possibility that fear is useful, but usually I see it as unhelpful: it is inhibiting and stultifying. It often encourages either passivity and inaction or anger and aggression.

Perhaps we could agree that confidence is a "good thing" when it is backed by good intentions (we are all well intentioned...).

passthrough wrote:It leaves me in a place where I must either accept that these guys walk their walk or they are dishonest. If they are dishonest, then nothing will be learned here except dishonesty.

I believe in their honest intentions, and I know Kevin personally. I don't believe in their claims to absolute truth.

passthrough wrote:As far as their position is concerned, it is interesting that it has a name…rational infinitism.

This is a term that I suggested in another thread as a compromise between what David wanted (something like "the path of reason and truth" if I recall correctly) and the deliberately provocative and satirical term that I opened with, "totalitarianism". David did not respond to my suggestion, so I used my own judgement and adopted it. It seems to capture the essential aspects of the philosophy: a belief that all can be understood through rationality and that the understanding that is reached is of an infinite universe. It doesn't capture the other aspects of the philosophy - a belief that femininity is equivalent to unconsciousness and that love and the ego are delusions, but to capture those would lead to an unwieldy term.

The next step is a Wikipedia article. I think that there is enough meat to warrant it - the philosophy has founders, followers, two guiding texts, a history, a flourishing online community and an outreach (The Reasoning Show). David, Dan, Kevin - what do you reckon?

passthrough wrote:I am most likely not a rational infinitist. After my brief introduction into philosophy, I find that Kierkegaard is better suited to my philosophical bent, and who I intend to study in depth for a while.

I am interested to read Kierkegaard too. Both Kevin and Kelly speak highly of his writings.

passthrough wrote:as for me, I am still working on what is straw and what is truth, and this forum is a place of gleaning.

Yes, there are a lot of insightful and sharp participants here to keep one on the straight and narrow.

Laird, you are an eternal optimist! You either are or you live out in the woods away from most people...(I say this out of amazement that if that be your true picture, you are old enough to have encountered many walks of life...including those that are NOT well intentioned)

Anyhow, I read your post but must rush off to work. I will reply later.


And Kevin, I am working on a decision whether or not I believe someone to be truly perfect and remain either alive and/or sane. That being said, you guys know a lot and have a lot of insight to offer anyone who comes here. I find it would be odd that anyone who spent some time on this forum walked away without having learned something and become a little wiser for it. I have to side with Laird on the views of this forum on issues that deal with the female sex to include applications of the feminine and woman-ness, but I will continue my arguments until an impasse has been reached.

However, love is another story, but it also has many forms. I truly don't care about that kind of love one way or the other in what I am trying to learn...except for spiritual love, the kind that comes from intellect. Consciousness...well, no one can know what is in another's mind nor judge it by its outward expression. This forum is one of the best because even though there are strict adherents to your philosophy as members, you guys leave the world open for discussion...that is a fair game.

clyde wrote:While no one is perfect . . .

Some people may be perfect. It's very difficult to be perfect, but I don't believe it's impossible.

either it’s fair to say that everyone is in the ballpark, or it’s not fair to say that you are even close.

I don't understand why you say this.

It's certainly not fair to say that everyone is in the ballpark of enlightenment, since many beings are not even conscious, and many of those who are, are barely conscious.

On the other hand there have been many people who I would call "enlightened", even though they weren't perfect.

As I understand QRS, you do not love the feminine, believe most everyone is feminine, and so do not love most everyone. But perhaps I have misunderstood QRS.

We don't encourage unconsciousness, that's all.

Rocks are unconscious, but they should not be hated because of it. They need to be understood.

Kevin Solway wrote: Some people may be perfect. It's very difficult to be perfect, but I don't believe it's impossible.

I’m somewhat surprised that you hold a belief in an ideal of a perfect human being. Would you like to explore that? (If so, I would suggest a new thread.)

Kevin Solway wrote:

As I understand QRS, you do not love the feminine, believe most everyone is feminine, and so do not love most everyone. But perhaps I have misunderstood QRS.

We don't encourage unconsciousness, that's all.

Rocks are unconscious, but they should not be hated because of it. They need to be understood.

That’s disingenuous.

clyde wrote:I’m somewhat surprised that you hold a belief in an ideal of a perfect human being. Would you like to explore that?

There's not a lot to explore. Such a person is simply perfectly wise, and never has any delusions about the fundamental nature of reality.

Kevin Solway wrote:We don't encourage unconsciousness, that's all.

Rocks are unconscious, but they should not be hated because of it. They need to be understood.

That’s disingenuous.

I don't know why you say that.

L: The way that we choose to interpret a situation affects how that situation ensues and whether it resolves. If we choose a positive interpretation where we view everyone's intentions as good, then this outlook will be reflected in our words and actions, people will pick up on it and the chances that everyone will perceive a win-win outcome will improve.

P: While you are the eternal optimist, I am the eternal pessimist. I've seen too much of what you think doesn't exist...

L: Yes, my point though is that it's harder to reach this position if we're constantly making ourselves aware of how much better our consciousness and ability to love are than other people's.

P: Are people doing that on this forum or do you mean in general? When people think they are better or say they are better, time proves them out...I wouldn't get hung up on it -it's their problem not yours. Allowing their vanity to derail you, you will find yourself constantly being derailed. I understand the difficulty of which I speak but it still doesn't make it any less true.

L: Self-evaluation for purposes of improvement and affirmation is important but I feel that it's better to focus on the good in other people rather than on how we are better than other people.

P: Although, I think you have a point in that we should concentrate on what good or potential good others have and encourage it the best we can.. As far as self-evaluation for affirmation and improvement, people reflect enough on themselves as it is, that type of stuff is what gets one into a lot of trouble-most of the time they could be looking in the wrong area.

L: Yes, I think that we understand each other - I'm talking about an attitude to life that is beneficial for everyone's self-esteem and openness to possibilities for improvement,

P: Self-esteem...well, I think the further we get away from self the better we are. If you think about it, the self is what is causing the trouble. What causes low self-esteem anyhow? Outside influencing the inside. No one should look outside for sanction...one will be sadly disappointed, nor should one look inside for sanction because we are woefully imperfect. People are flux, they are fickle and to base your life around them will bring sadness and despair. It's not that one should be a gloomy Gus...if there is any love to be had it would be the ability to love them despite their failure to you and yours to them, but that comes from God. Continual reflection on these reciprocal failures does nothing for anyone.

L: I'm open to the possibility that fear is useful, but usually I see it as unhelpful: it is inhibiting and stultifying. It often encourages either passivity and inaction or anger and aggression.

P: Or teach one to think before one acts impulsively. Aristotle said: To be able to hit the mean [by having just enough fear and just enough confidence] is to have virtue of courage...But he who exceeds in confidence has the vice of recklessness, while he who has too much fear and not enough confidence has the vice of cowardliness.

L: Perhaps we could agree that confidence is a "good thing" when it is backed by good intentions (we are all well intentioned...).

P: I will not concede that all are well-intentioned. Do you watch the news?

L: I don't believe in their claims to absolute truth.

P: Now, now, who is not allowing others to be right? It is their truth, they believe it to be absolute...why are you concerned with their claims? Are you trying to change them to what you claim to be the truth?

passthrough wrote:

Self-esteem...well, I think the further we get away from self the better we are.

That is only emotionally (and, therefore, not logically) beneficial when one is as incompetent dealing with the self as they are any other thing, including truth.

I have no trouble with self and find no need to fall into direct contradiction by claiming I do not exist.

Ego is a needy, deluded notion of self.

The self exists as much as truth does.

Now, now, who is not allowing others to be right? It is their truth, they believe it to be absolute...why are you concerned with their claims? Are you trying to change them to what you claim to be the truth?

If you are to be consistent with your beliefs, the appropriate reply should have gone something like this, "There are no others, Laird! I too am nothing more than a voice in the ether..."

Poetry is for the birds.

Laird wrote:If we choose a positive interpretation where we view everyone's intentions as good . . .

Such a "positive" interpretation does in fact arise out of a negative mode of thinking, since it is based on a belief that either oneself or others are too foolish to be able to face up to the truth, or even benefit from it.

P: While you are the eternal optimist, I am the eternal pessimist. I've seen too much of what you think doesn't exist...

Perhaps we should share with each other more of our life experiences. I have seen many frightening things. Nevertheless I maintain that belief in rightfulness and in ultimate good intentions are the most productive use of my energy. What seems evil at first has rhyme and reason to it. The actor plays his/her role as best as s/he is able. Playing one's role to the best of one's ability is proof enough of good intentions.

L: Yes, my point though is that it's harder to reach this position if we're constantly making ourselves aware of how much better our consciousness and ability to love are than other people's.

P: Are people doing that on this forum or do you mean in general?

Both.

passthrough wrote:Allowing [the vanity of others] to derail you, you will find yourself constantly being derailed.

Yes, but when I choose a community, should I not seek to influence it as best I can? Being part of a community means dealing with the vanity of others. (and all choices are arbitrary yet meaningful)

passthrough wrote:Although, I think you have a point in that we should concentrate on what good or potential good others have and encourage it the best we can.. As far as self-evaluation for affirmation and improvement, people reflect enough on themselves as it is, that type of stuff is what gets one into a lot of trouble-most of the time they could be looking in the wrong area.

I have no fixed position on this. When I try to examine what positive effect I have on others, is my egotism overwhelming me or am I encouraging a positive feedback loop? I do not know for sure.

passthrough wrote:Self-esteem...well, I think the further we get away from self the better we are. If you think about it, the self is what is causing the trouble. What causes low self-esteem anyhow? Outside influencing the inside. No one should look outside for sanction...one will be sadly disappointed, nor should one look inside for sanction because we are woefully imperfect. People are flux, they are fickle and to base your life around them will bring sadness and despair. It's not that one should be a gloomy Gus...if there is any love to be had it would be the ability to love them despite their failure to you and yours to them, but that comes from God. Continual reflection on these reciprocal failures does nothing for anyone.

You speak much insight, however: the "self [causes] trouble"? Yes; yet the self also causes wonderment, joy, selflessness, sacrifice and sharing.

And: "[o]utside influencing the inside [causes trouble]"? Perhaps so, yet does not also outside influence show us what is real within us? We surely are not that conceited that we trust only in our own judgement. Are we any less fickle than those outside us?

"People are flux" and our "ability to love them ... comes from God"? Wonderful, yes! Yet we need not "reflect" merely on "reciprocal failures". Instead we can simply strive to teach each other our truths. When we approach each other honestly and genuinely, there is no limit to what we can learn and teach.

passthrough wrote:Or teach one to think before one acts impulsively. Aristotle said: To be able to hit the mean [by having just enough fear and just enough confidence] is to have virtue of courage...But he who exceeds in confidence has the vice of recklessness, while he who has too much fear and not enough confidence has the vice of cowardliness.

Sure, that makes sense, yet I see affirmation in these vices. Does not the reckless one teach us our own boundaries? Does not the cowardly one teach us what we seek to avoid?

passthrough wrote:I will not concede that all are well-intentioned. Do you watch the news?

Not very often - my television loses sound. This is a possible view:

Intention underlies action. God's will underlies intention. God's will is good.

No matter what occurs, it is for a higher purpose, inspired by more insightful goals than we realise. The suicide bomber is enacting the intention to realise that misdirected selfless sacrifice is mindlessly uninspired. The intention of a serial killer is the realisation of the discovery that intrinsic disrespect for life brings superficial satisfaction and not true happiness. Through the apparent mistakes of others our own truths are made more apparent.

passthrough wrote:L: I don't believe in their claims to absolute truth.

P: Now, now, who is not allowing others to be right?

I allow them their righteousness, I do not allow them my belief.

passthrough wrote:It is their truth, they believe it to be absolute...why are you concerned with their claims? Are you trying to change them to what you claim to be the truth?

Once we have found right, then we can find better... I am part of we. (in other words, yes, I am trying to change people)

Leyla Shen wrote:If you [passthrough] are to be consistent with your beliefs, the appropriate reply should have gone something like this, "There are no others, Laird! I too am nothing more than a voice in the ether..."

Leyla, I still await your discourse on how a reflection might be fatal. In response to the above, I am probably not familiar enough with passthrough's beliefs to know how she might be inconsistent.

Leyla Shen wrote:Poetry is for the birds.

Poetry is the manipulation of words.
We shift amongst the mindless herds,
Battling to comprehend how the Kurds
Or some other culture attains
Some semblance of truth and then feigns
Righteousness, dignity and truth:
A semblance of honour, forsooth,
And then lets us all down in its ways,
Making us conscious that all that it says
Is appearance, semblance and manipulation:
A world of superficial gyration.

(that's more pessimistic than I would like, however I hope that it is some evidence against your claim: poetry is not only for the animals, but for receptive humans too)

--
The error is believing that if you are right then I must be wrong. No one is in error.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Laird wrote:If we choose a positive interpretation where we view everyone's intentions as good . . .

Such a "positive" interpretation does in fact arise out of a negative mode of thinking, since it is based on a belief that either oneself or others are too foolish to be able to face up to the truth, or even benefit from it.

It is a recognition that truth is elusive, and that intuitive belief is more useful.

Kevin; Is the feminine part of the Totality? Do you love the feminine?

Laird:

(that's more pessimistic than I would like, however I hope that it is some evidence against your claim: poetry is not only for the animals, but for receptive humans too)

If by the virtue of “evidence” (rightness) of your claim against me I am to any degree not right, you must be in error:

The error is believing that if you are right then I must be wrong. No one is in error.

~

Leyla, I still await your discourse on how a reflection might be fatal.

Yes, I know. Thing is, Laird, people like you do my head in. Your insistence that all persons be treated equally on the basis that we are all fundamentally good is a thing I have objected to and argued against all my life and makes any meaningful discussion on the subject utterly pointless.

As cumbersome a task as it is, there are women in my office with whom I would discuss such matters more confidently than with you. So, oddly even to me, I am taking more time replying to you than I have ever taken with anyone on this forum. Taking more time not because I see myself in your current self-projected reflection, but because I see nothing of myself there.

Another person is a mirror to oneself for as long as there is no distinction between the two, and the mirror. You would have me disappear into the reflection of some nebulous and “loving” god of human nature.

I consider that pretty fatal!

Nonetheless, I fully intend to give the question a proper reply outside of my own curious difficulties expressed here. More than likely it will be in the form of a new thread, however.

.

clyde asks Pye re: the definition of ego=one's sense of self:

How is your definition efficacious?

Not to be glib, clyde, but I think you demonstrate the efficaciousness of this definition by your quote here, which ends by giving up on the word altogether:

As I noted in my post, there are different definitions of ego. It has been my experience that the varying definitions often point to different things (other types of egos, if you wish). For that reason, I usually avoid the term.

Laird writes:

I can't help but notice though that the bodies of men and women are formed differently. Is there not value in assessing how this might apply to their minds?

Perhaps you could tell me how this assessment of difference has functioned for us - historically, culturally, actually - thus far.

Laird:

One problem that I could envisage with a myth is not so much that it exists, but that it is taken too seriously. Who is this mythic Man you speak of?

Yes, exactly. Where is he? His strength and bravery and honesty and fortitude dress him as attractively as did the powerfully crooked finger of the feminine mystique.



.

Laird: (that's more pessimistic than I would like, however I hope that it is some evidence against your claim: poetry is not only for the animals, but for receptive humans too)

Leyla: If by the virtue of “evidence” (rightness) of your claim against me I am to any degree not right, you must be in error:

The error is believing that if you are right then I must be wrong. No one is in error.

You might make that claim against me, however we have no (at least I have none) ultimate means of substantiating any claim. All claims are equally right.

Leyla Shen wrote:Thing is, Laird, people like you do my head in.

Mission accomplished. :-)

Leyla Shen wrote:Your insistence that all persons be treated equally on the basis that we are all fundamentally good is a thing I have objected to and argued against all my life and makes any meaningful discussion on the subject utterly pointless.

I'm not sure that I can identify with your characterisation of my insistence, mostly because I don't know how you intend the word "equally". I'm not suggesting that we make no useful value judgements. I support, for example, the idea that those who randomly murder and torture others should be isolated for the sake of safety.

Leyla Shen wrote:Another person is a mirror to oneself for as long as there is no distinction between the two, and the mirror. You would have me disappear into the reflection of some nebulous and “loving” god of human nature.

I consider that pretty fatal!

Your identity still has meaning: the disappearance is a matter of perspective.

Laird wrote:No one is in error.

Laird, if you met a suicide bomber who was on his way to blow-up a school full of children, would you tell him that he wasn't wrong in wanting to do so?

Laird writes:

I can't help but notice though that the bodies of men and women are formed differently. Is there not value in assessing how this might apply to their minds?

Pye: Perhaps you could tell me how this assessment of difference has functioned for us - historically, culturally, actually - thus far.

I don't claim historical or sociological expertise, but I'll give you my take. Historically (and contemporaneously in many parts of the world) women have been viewed as being of inferior intellectual capacity, of suitability for no task other than to raise children and to run a household. They have been viewed as weaker (more dependent) and more emotional than men, but also more generous, peaceful and empathetic. Men have been viewed as willful, courageous, noble and intelligent, but also as aggressive, stubborn and destructive.

Functionally, women had until recently been excluded from most roles in society; men had suffered under the weight of societal responsibility. Now in modern first-world countries, women are being given access to what were once masculine domains. Their opportunities are not yet as great as men's, but they are far better than ever. Modern men, being encouraged to view themselves as islands of reliability, machismo and reason, are suffering due to their denial of the validity of their emotional lives and of the utility of occasionally speaking directly, honestly and bluntly about what they are feeling (and exploring why) to at least themselves, if not to an interested friend/partner ("real men don't talk like that, only women do").

So I think that both genders have challenges. I also strongly suspect that in general there are real differences between men's and women's minds, so that the concepts of femininity and masculinity have value, but as I implied in my opening post, I believe that the balance between these amorphous traits is different in each person.

I don't think that I've said anything particularly original or controversial here, but you asked.

Laird: One problem that I could envisage with a myth is not so much that it exists, but that it is taken too seriously. Who is this mythic Man you speak of?

Pye: Yes, exactly. Where is he? His strength and bravery and honesty and fortitude dress him as attractively as did the powerfully crooked finger of the feminine mystique.

I see value in striving for the integrity of these ideals but I get the impression that you believe that they lead only to disillusionment.

Each to his/her own: if you like the myth then live it, otherwise create yourself to your own standards.

--
Certainty is suffering. It hurts to be proved wrong. I am uncertain and I am right.

Laird: No one is in error.

Kevin: Laird, if you met a suicide bomber who was on his way to blow-up a school full of children, would you tell him that he wasn't wrong in wanting to do so?

In that context I would probably be comfortable using a word like wrong.

Laird: No one is in error.

Kevin: Laird, if you met a suicide bomber who was on his way to blow-up a school full of children, would you tell him that he wasn't wrong in wanting to do so?

Laird: In that context I would probably be comfortable using a word like wrong.

Kevin: So instead of "No one is in error" what you really mean is "Sometimes it's best not to tell people when they are wrong". The latter is probably true, but it's a lot different to what you said at first.

Yes, that and also: since we (or at least I) have no mechanism for determining absolute right and wrong, and because I believe that reality is interpretation, and that all interpretations are valid (albeit that some are more useful and/or plausible than others), then to the best of my understanding no one is ever wrong in an absolute sense (but I could be wrong...). As well, to put things in rational infinitist terms: as implied by your idea of cause-and-effect, all things are interdependent and necessary in the totality, and therefore all things are equally right.

L: That is only emotionally (and, therefore, not logically) beneficial when one is as incompetent dealing with the self as they are any other thing, including truth.

P: Perhaps you are correct...emotionally wounded, yes maybe so, but I have never claimed to be completely logical either, although I am working on the logic...it helps that people spot the errors...Frankly, a mixture of both might be best. If, perchance, one day my logical component becomes stronger than the emotional component...then my emotion will no longer be an issue. I have never claimed to be self-less only to say that it seems those that are can accomplish a good deal more than those who are self-full.

L: I have no trouble with self and find no need to fall into direct contradiction by claiming I do not exist.

P: Good for you, some of us are still working on it. Further, I don't think it necessary to evaporate altogether either...striking a balance as you seem to say you have is a good place to set a goal. Until one can adjust the balance between logic and emotion, the pendulum swings greatly back and forth until it settles on a rhythm.

L: Ego is a needy, deluded notion of self.

P: I suppose I was using the word self in a different manner then you define it for I was using self as ego...but ego is such a sketchy word. I can understand better self-less aka altruistic and self-full aka selfish. I will start using altruistic and selfish from now on since "self" seems to mean several different things as does ego.

L: If you are to be consistent with your beliefs, the appropriate reply should have gone something like this, "There are no others, Laird! I too am nothing more than a voice in the ether..."

P: They are not my beliefs, but Laird's...I was giving him a friendly jab about something he had said in another posting earlier in the thread. I am not a voice in the ether, but a person with a soul, full of flaws and ignorance same as the next guy.

Laird:

Leyla: Thing is, Laird, people like you do my head in.

Laird: Mission accomplished. :-)

Your mission is/was to do my head in?

Leyla: Your insistence that all persons be treated equally on the basis that we are all fundamentally good is a thing I have objected to and argued against all my life and makes any meaningful discussion on the subject utterly pointless.

Laird: I'm not sure that I can identify with your characterisation of my insistence, mostly because I don't know how you intend the word "equally". I'm not suggesting that we make no useful value judgements. I support, for example, the idea that those who randomly murder and torture others should be isolated for the sake of safety.

And the affirmation that all people have good intentions is meant to keep in check the bad intentions of those who would kill and torture the random killers and torturers for the sake of safety?

It’s meaningless because it pretends it can exist without its counterpart: evil. A discussion of the matter in terms of good and evil bears much more fruit, even if it does feel more uncomfortable, because people are, in general, very stupid! For example, in recent history, we appear to have a considerable portion of the civilised West population prepared to jump on Bush’s Middle-East as the axis of evil proposition. Mind boggling! And, so, this good-intentioned civilised West then, not having been able to isolate the spawn of evil for the sake of safety, pretends no other part in the matter except the part thence proceeding: the bringing of democracy. How much of this good democratic society is even aware of the any part of the world’s history outside of their political leaders’ push for power? How much of this good, well-informed, democratic society is aware of the complex of treaties and gentleman’s handshakes violated time and time again and spent for what on the battlefields of time? And in all this history, brimming with intentions good and bad, echoes the whisper in the present that might is right. But to some with yet keener eyes, it says that the bigger they are the harder they fall. Where and for whom in all of this, Laird, is the balm of your good intentions meant to do its work?

Your thinking is too narrow, too local--too domestic, for me.

passthrough wrote:

They are not my beliefs, but Laird's...I was giving him a friendly jab about something he had said in another posting earlier in the thread. I am not a voice in the ether, but a person with a soul, full of flaws and ignorance same as the next guy.

Methinks Laird needs a few good, hard slaps, not friendly jabs.

I admit, however, it's very difficult to slap the nice guys.

L: Yes, but when I choose a community, should I not seek to influence it as best I can? Being part of a community means dealing with the vanity of others. (and all choices are arbitrary yet meaningful)

P: Of course you can seek to influence it...but example and action is better than counsel. Telling someone that they shouldn't think of themselves as better may fall on deaf ears a lot more than you think. KeenObserver made a comment when I suggested that if he wanted to meet women who were not all these horrible things, to go to places that shared his interest. He said he did but they called security on him because he was trying to enlighten them. In my experience, befriending someone "as is" and once a mutual trust is gained, you can both start working on each others beams and specks, but even then it isn't (or shouldn't )really a conscious thing nor is it done by your own will.

L: When I try to examine what positive effect I have on others, is my egotism overwhelming me or am I encouraging a positive feedback loop? I do not know for sure.

P: It seems you are strangling yourself on reflection. Have you ever thought or been told that you were too nice, too positive? There are a lot of not nice and negative people out in the world and they would look upon this gentleness and kindness with extreme distrust, thus in turn, treating you shabbily. Rather than it being them that is the creep, you reflect it back on yourself as if something were wrong with you, when clearly there wasn't anything wrong with either...the nature of the beasts. The negative and grouchy person isn't necessarily a bad person but you might think so because they didn't have a cheery disposition, when in fact, by your outlook, you may have changed something within him without ever even knowing you did a thing at all. Therefore, this notion of a positive feedback loop is not a viable thing to expect out of anyone...you may never know the impact you have on others.

L: You speak much insight, however: the "self [causes] trouble"? Yes; yet the self also causes wonderment, joy, selflessness, sacrifice and sharing.

P: My fault, Leyla pointed out my use of a word that has many meanings, perhaps ego is a better word but not really for it too has many aspects. I guess my point is that when one focuses on themselves all the time, they become introspective to a point that thoughts manifest themselves into ideas that do not exist at all. While Leyla is correct in stating that there is nothing wrong with having a self, too much reflection on the self and not enough living can do a person damage.

L: And: "[o]utside influencing the inside [causes trouble]"? Perhaps so, yet does not also outside influence show us what is real within us?

P: Hmmm, not really because who can know what your intentions are? Who can really know what is in your mind? Are there not misperceptions abounding around you in relationships with others?


L: We surely are not that conceited that we trust only in our own judgement. Are we any less fickle than those outside us?

P: Perhaps in our minds we are not fickle, but we are as well. I'm not sure I would use the word conceited but only one knows their own reality, therefore it would seem that we would have to rely on our judgement in the moment. I don't know Laird, the deal here is that I believe (and I'm sure I'll get raked over the coals on this one) but that God reveals all things in time. It is in the gray of living that we learn by God placing us in "check" position.

Here, I need to clarify my position...I am coming to realize the idea that we may not have free will, but that those who do not realize this fact, go on about their lives thinking they have a choice. The fact is that once you recognize God as the driving force in life, you have no free will...and although you float in and out of what this forum terms "consciousness", when you do have those moments of clarity you realize what has happened. God has put you in "check." At the moment, you may have not understood but later, if you have clarity of thought, you realize what happened. In essence, this "judgement" is learned and realized from God.

L: "People are flux" and our "ability to love them ... comes from God"? Wonderful, yes!

P: :-)

L: Sure, that makes sense, yet I see affirmation in these vices. Does not the reckless one teach us our own boundaries? Does not the cowardly one teach us what we seek to avoid?

P: Perhaps, but each man finds his own way...so I suppose if one can learn through others mistakes, it is affirmative, but if one is selfish...they either think the guy's a schmuck because he was reckless and cowardly and pat themselves on the back for not being the one it was done to. However, I thought the issue was: is fear necessarily bad and is confidence in uncertainty necessarily good? I say no to both.

L: This is a possible view:Intention underlies action. God's will underlies intention. God's will is good.

P: This is one to think about a bit more...I'll get back to you on this one.

L: I allow them their righteousness, I do not allow them my belief.

Fair enough

L: Once we have found right, then we can find better... I am part of we. (in other words, yes, I am trying to change people)

P: Deliberately? You may be disappointed in your attempts for you may never see whom you really affect in life...and, in truth, it is not you that changes anyone.

L: In response to the above, I am probably not familiar enough with passthrough's beliefs to know how she might be inconsistent.

P: Based on my error in using words that have more than one meaning, she was correct in pointing out my error. If I believed as some do here that I am self-less, meaning "no thing", then I am as ether. However, I meant self in a different fashion. I'm going to change my verbage to be more specific.

Laird wrote:no one is ever wrong in an absolute sense (but I could be wrong...).

Yes, you are wrong. If a person says that "A" is identical with "B", based on the definition that "A" is entirely different to "B", you can say they are absolutely wrong.

But you can't say that they are absolutely wrong for choosing to be illogical, since that is something that is a personal preference.

all things are equally right.

This statement is simply pointless, and nobody believes it even for a second - not even yourself - otherwise you wouldn't be trying to correct the opinions of others, which you see as less right than your own.

I found this essay in the catacombs...thought it worthy to discuss in this thread:

In simple terms, I define the masculine to be that in us which seeks greatness.

In achieving greatness, what is the purpose of achievement and how is this “greatness” not ego driven? You say to be rid of all feminine and masculine, reaching beyond both is to be enlightened…so greatness equals enlightenment? Greatness denotes an ego quality, so who would determine this greatness other than the self that has achieved it to know it existed at all?

It is the active principle and incorporated into it are the traditional masculine qualities of idealism, courage, persistence, single-mindedness, rationality, independence, and the desire to dominate.

The feminine, on the other hand, is that part of us which is easily contented and loves going with the flow. It incorporates the qualities of unconsciousness, submissiveness, passiveness, absorption in immediacy, indulgence in emotional pleasure, scatteredness, and the desire to minimize one's existence.

Why not a balance of the two? Without the feminine to reflect the masculine qualities, how does one know one has reached this pinnacle? For instance, courage cannot be shown unless fear exists. Likewise, domination is non-existent if no one is passive and/or submissive…someone has to have the feminine traits to express the masculine. Now, in achieving this enlightenment, you discard all notions, which is to say that neither are ideal. I take it that none at all is preferential but that masculinity is the route to get there. So, it would seem that there are two choices: balance of the two or none at all.

In most cases, women can only ape masculinity and only then under certain specific conditions (which, ultimately, are created and sustained by men).

Explain what you mean by this.

From my experience, most women secretly believe that they are already perfect - simply due to the fact that they are women! Apart from a bit of tinkering on the sides to make themselves appear more charming and beautiful, they really don't believe there is anything to do.

This is an unfair generalization and not necessarily true of all woman…and if you believe this to be true, then your universe of women seems limited. Some of us realize we are not charming and beautiful, therefore, it is not a focus of daily life. For instance, I am major low maintenance and what you see is what you get with most interaction. While in my past I may have been guilty of abusing this ability, over the years I have found that flattery and charm are dishonest, and if something comes out of my mouth that sounds like flattery and charm, it is sincere…one is not compelled to lie for the sake of endearing another...for, truly, what type of relationship can be founded on this type of dishonesty? You'd have to keep up the ruse which takes quite a bit of energy...and for what purpose?

Put simply, women have no conception of how evil and removed from Truth they really are. Men, on the other hand, having been brought up in our feminine-worshiping society, are thoroughly familiar with the notion that they are evil. Hence, their outlook on life is more realistic. They have a conscience about themselves.

I find this an unfair and generalized statement as well. I know many women, as well as men, who have a conscience about themselves, it drives some to alcoholism, drug abuse and depression, whereas it should empower them to seek betterment - a masculine quality defined...but it doesn't mean that a conscience doesn't exist.

It mainly stems from upbringing, although part of it is probably genetic as well. Men are brought up to believe that they are consciously responsible for their own lives, as well as the lives of others. Women, on the other hand, are brought up in a cocoon of femininity inside which they can frolic and play to their heart's content. Men create and sustain the cocoon, believing it to be their greatest obligation in life. They willingly form a protective barrier between women and the wild chaos of Nature, and, like loyal servants, attend to their needs inside.

This is true but for the fact that the woman also is brought up to believe that she is consciously responsible for the lives of her children and attending to the needs of the man while attending to all needs inside…it is a reciprocal responsibility. With feminism, now women are also being taught that they must also work outside this protective barrier while still attending to the inside as well, therefore they do both. How do you interpret this perspective? In other words, how to you see the woman’s role within and without? My father and mother lean towards these old-fashioned notions of life within family, but they instilled in me a work ethic. My life experience and my family life do not connote this frolicking and playing to one’s heart’s content…perhaps I’m an oddity.

All of us have masculinity and femininity inside of us to varying degrees. By studying the "woman" inside of me, I can develop a good understanding of the essence all women. Together with careful observation of the way women (and men) conduct themselves in everyday life, I can come to a very good understanding of a woman's mind.

But studying the “woman” within you does not a woman make…you simply are not one. It is difficult for me to contemplate how if one is not hard-wired sexually as a male or female, how one can come to conclusions about the opposite sex without it being some guesswork…and generalization. Granted studying the feminine and masculine within yourself may give you insight into this psychology, but coming to conclusions about a gender that you are not? It seems you base this on your self-exploration and enlightenment. I will grant that you are a wise man and certainly you are entitled to hold opinions, but do you declare this theory universal? Do you not think that after all the pomp and circumstance surrounding marriage and child-rearing is over that women evolve into something different than your categorical norm for woman?

The "subtle mental habits" are of course subtle tendencies of the mind to view things as inherently existing.

That is because they clearly do inherently exist at the time of observation by an observer.

The QRS attach to the definition of "inherent" the properties of permanancy. This is the only reason they can make the above blatantly false statement. Inherency is not a relevant factor for the term "exist". Nor is it relevant to this term, that things do not begin of their own making.

They are just playing the "the ends justifies the means game", which is by stating nothing exists, then this means all personal obligation and meaning ceases, from which freedom arises.