GENIUS FORUMS

There you are displaying Wisdom already Xen.

You've grokked the surface activity at once.
You've cut the root that gives rise to the intricate web of mass hypnosis.
Amazing.

Wisdom goes so deep it sometimes feels like many oceans to cross.

The discussion was so intense that it caused me a mental breakdown and a short psychosis. But I came out of it without the blind spot.

The old survival machine gene (ego) switched off.
The spiritual gene switched on.
Your DNA had it in for you.

Go for it.
live it!

Thanks man :).

And I will!

There's no turning back now. There never was...

I've always known I would reach enlightenment during my years on the Earth.

During my first psychosis I've lived like a madman in preparation for what is to come.

I tried to follow love's path while not having a sound understanding of it. But what I did then is so eerily close to what is waiting for me now :).

But my heart is terribly afraid. Because it will bring me in situations that any sane man would fear.

And yet, the fear is False Evidence Appearing Real, or something like that. It is always rooted in a false idea about yourself.

Let go of these false ideas, and you will become fearless.

Xen the Explorer.
exploring new country.
blessings.

Xen wrote:I feel David Quinn's words are of a lower vibration that I now do not wish to expose myself to.

But it is a special kind of lower vibration. Maybe it's not lower at all. But it seems to leave something out. The intuitive mind. Maybe Quinn's rational mind is perfected, but in his book, it is just not paired with his intuitive mind.

I beg to differ.

The value of "rationality" is that clears away all mental obstacles and allows the intuitive mind to shine. This is the basic thrust of all mental development.

Intuition is a function of rationality, not an enemy of it. The more rational a person is, the more intuitive he is.

At the same time I know (experientially) that everything we see in the outside world is unreal, and that our true reality exists within. I'm not sure how to pair these two statements of mine. I would say that illusion may exist on two different levels.

There is no outside world and inner world. They are both aspects of the same reality and therefore equally illusory.

I don't think I fully understand my dualistic mind. I also can't say whether I know God.

Perhaps, then, you are being a little too quick in claiming enlightement.....

It's good that you've had a breakthrough and now enjoy a deeper intuitive insight into the world, but you really need to sharpen it up and deepen it immensely, and that can only really done through the fire of reason.

But maybe you are too holy for something as lowly as reason ....

-

Hi David,

thank you for your response.

Well it's clear we differ on this. I would say intuition is not an enemy of rationality either, but rather something complimentary to it. It feels mistaken to reduce one to the other.

After all, we have two brain halves, one of which specializes in logic and structure, as we grow up, while the other specializes in imagination and intuition.

I beg to differ on this fire of reason thing. I'm not going to deepen my understanding through reason, but rather through experience and intuition. Of course there is an intellectual component to it. You need to understand what you perceive, or it will be worthless. But understanding is something that (to me) dawns very naturally and effortlessly.

I think about it, feel it, evaluate it, and gain new insight, all the time. And many times my actual words or actions precede my understanding, and I will think "hey, what am I doing now?" And then "aah, now I see!"

So for me, understanding is really about living and not so much about reasoning.

But thank you for your words, and your kind response.

Xen wrote:So for me, understanding is really about living and not so much about reasoning.

Well get on with it and start 'living', boy. Rather than wasting everyone's 'time' with your drivel.

Xen wrote:Hi David,

thank you for your response.

Well it's clear we differ on this. I would say intuition is not an enemy of rationality either, but rather something complimentary to it. It feels mistaken to reduce one to the other.

After all, we have two brain halves, one of which specializes in logic and structure, as we grow up, while the other specializes in imagination and intuition.

I beg to differ on this fire of reason thing. I'm not going to deepen my understanding through reason, but rather through experience and intuition. Of course there is an intellectual component to it. You need to understand what you perceive, or it will be worthless. But understanding is something that (to me) dawns very naturally and effortlessly.

I think about it, feel it, evaluate it, and gain new insight, all the time. And many times my actual words or actions precede my understanding, and I will think "hey, what am I doing now?" And then "aah, now I see!"

So for me, understanding is really about living and not so much about reasoning.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

What is it about our era that constantly wants to associate reasoning with death?

If wisdom was merely a matter of "living" and "experience", then everybody would naturally (effortlessly) become wiser as they got older. But this is far from the case. Intuition and experience usually end up deceiving people, not enlightening them. Take care!

Wisdom is a matter of living without falseness, a far rarer accomplishment.

I'm not going to deepen my understanding through reason, but rather through experience and intuition. Of course there is an intellectual component to it. You need to understand what you perceive, or it will be worthless. But understanding is something that (to me) dawns very naturally and effortlessly.

I think if you look more closely into your own mind, you will see that these "intuitions" and "effortless understandings" you've had so far have ultimately come from past reasonings that occured inside you, perhaps without you being fully aware of it. The brain suddenly puts 2 and 2 together, as it were - seemingly out of the blue, but prompted by past struggles to understand. Intense, heartfelt reasonings etch the neural pathways from which intuitive leaps can be made.

Being more conscious of this process makes one far more intuitive on an increasingly deeper level.

-

Welkom Xen,

Intuition is really better described as a basically rational process taking place in such a manner that we do not witness the process itself clearly, so only its end result pops up. It's a gut calculation, using a mix of senses and memories tuned by the quality of our mental habits (rational capacity). This is why intuition functions better with highly rational people but will most average folks "feel" it ain't so, since there's a deep lying resistance against any higher form of rationality simply because it will challenge by its very nature and presence any deeper lying attachments and convictions. Rationality works with negatives, it can show our errors.

It's interesting you're using as part of your reasoning a highly technical, medical example about the two brain halves. Since you have such an interest in scientifically beefing up your thought, you should know that people having a hemispherectomy, having one brain halve removed, still have their imagination, intuition as well logic intact. It appears these functions are way more integrated than people used to think. Anyway, it's always better to stick with pure logic or philosophical arguments when one tries to show the truth of ones philosophy.

And many times my actual words or actions precede my understanding, and I will think "hey, what am I doing now?" And then "aah, now I see!"

Your words and actions are your understanding, you're living your current understandings and misunderstandings as well as those of your environment or background. The intellectual exercises you have defined as being the whole of reasoning is only one extended limb of the body of reason.

Based on your posts so far I can only advice to rethink your position on paradoxes and contradictions. Contradictions are not just something to step over or rise above: they can be an indication of muddled and disordered thought, often based on false identifications. Better to slow down and really think or meditate on what is given exactly which identity and how consistent this remains in the thought-imagery when a question is formed or some label is given.

It's summed up pretty well by Kierkegaard:

• Wishing to be in the wrong is an expression of an infinite relationship, and wanting to be in the right, or finding it painful to be in the wrong, is an expression of a finite relationship! Hence, it is upbuilding always to be in the wrong-because only the infinite builds up; the finite does not!

David Quinn wrote:It's good that you've had a breakthrough and now enjoy a deeper intuitive insight into the world, but you really need to sharpen it up and deepen it immensely, and that can only really done through the fire of reason.

No David, it's the fire of EXPERIENCE that makes 'real' men of the Infinite.

Hmm you both have some good points.

@Daniel:

I do believe everyone progresses spiritually with age. This may not mean everone's mind remains open, or that everyone gets somewhere intellectually. But all change is for the better. That's how life is designed.

I think if you look more closely into your own mind, you will see that these "intuitions" and "effortless understandings" you've had so far have ultimately come from past reasonings that occured inside you, perhaps without you being fully aware of it. The brain suddenly puts 2 and 2 together, as it were - seemingly out of the blue, but prompted by past struggles to understand. Intense, heartfelt reasonings etch the neural pathways from which intuitive leaps can be made.

Yes, you are right about this, but it matters what you define "reasoning" as. If reasoning is "thinking, trying to find a solution, trying to put 2 and 2 together" then you are absolutely right, I would think. But if you define reasoning more narrowly as "proceeding along logical thought with determined steps in order to reach a certain goal" then I would disagree. Also, much of my "revelations" have come from experiences that form and combine to produce constellations in my mind that show me the reality (about me). Basically, each experience has served to open my mind a little bit, to give me new food for thought. It is certainly a combination of "reasoning" together with "input from experience" that combines to yield "revelation" or awareness.

Intuition is really better described as a basically rational process taking place in such a manner that we do not witness the process itself clearly, so only its end result pops up. It's a gut calculation, using a mix of senses and memories tuned by the quality of our mental habits (rational capacity).

I agree with this. But notice that this is not about a conscious, effortful process of reaching new areas of thought with willful determination and severely logical, straight-leading steps. It's is not about "reasoning" as a discipline.

But there is also a source of "intuition" that is more about "tapping into" archetypes or shapes or forms that exist in reality or the mind, without really depending on a gut calculation of past data. For instance, in my fantasies of sexual roleplay, I explore the human sexual mind in relation to domination/submission, and I find that these things are "baked into" the fabric of the human mind. Therefore, the mind can easily show me these things, if I attune to it through imaginative conversation and interaction. Also, during this game, my mind feeds me with the exact perfect things to say or do, IF I am fearless and open. There is genius in that.

Also, there is a powerful feeling of love, of intuition, that guides me on my way. This does not arise from the mind, but rather the heart, or the soul. Of course it combines with my rational understanding of things.

It's interesting you're using as part of your reasoning a highly technical, medical example about the two brain halves. Since you have such an interest in scientifically beefing up your thought, you should know that people having a hemispherectomy, having one brain halve removed, still have their imagination, intuition as well logic intact. It appears these functions are way more integrated than people used to think. Anyway, it's always better to stick with pure logic or philosophical arguments when one tries to show the truth of ones philosophy.

Well we are living in a material universe with material wisdom. I know that either brain half can take on the functions of the other. In a baby, these functions are not even specialized. I would think the specialization could be reversed, and one half of the brain could learn again to take on both aspects of functioning. It would be silly to not take into account aspects of the material universe that shows you truth about philosophical positions.

It is this tendency to remain purely philosophical, rational, and logical, that disconnects you from your deeper wisdom and understanding.

Your words and actions are your understanding, you're living your current understandings and misunderstandings as well as those of your environment or background.

Yes, but they are often new and precede conscious awareness. As such they weren't arrived at by way of a conscious reasoning process, but rather an unconscious one, if that is the case. And I would say it was a process of becoming aware of something (getting a new perspective) rather than arriving at some new conclusion (getting a new thought).

Contradictions can point to muddled thinking, this is true, but you must learn to distinguish between contradictions that point to a lack of awareness and contradictions that indicate a heightened sense of awareness being found inside of them.

I do believe everyone progresses spiritually with age. This may not mean everone's mind remains open, or that everyone gets somewhere intellectually. But all change is for the better. That's how life is designed.

You have much to learn. Do continue to wake up to the horrors of human reality. That is if you have the courage to stomach it and endure in it.

Enlightenment lies in understanding that everything is perfect. I'm not fully there yet, I know. I will still curse and swear when something terribly frustrates me. But that is the path.

That does not negate the horrors that you speak of. I myself, too, have found older people becoming dumber, more closed-minded, more blind, more stuck to their age-old positions that they acquired when they were 20 or 25.

I believe it would serve their spiritual progress immensely by remaining curious and rationally active. It would certainly not hurt them to read books such as the one by David Quinn, if that is what they felt like.

I myself have found great joy in the Conversations with God series, that, while not overly rational, continually challenges your thinking and your understanding, feeding you new ideas that you never even considered in your wildest moments and dreams. It is a book series that speaks of the Dichotomy and how to overcome it. But it is not an intellectual treatise in that "difficult" sense. It speaks to your deeper understanding that exists "between" the words. The openness that arises when you "unlock" the fixed meanings of terms and words and concepts and try to go beyond it, to try and explore a WORLD behind the strict meaning of the sentences, one that you can only reach by being very intellectually mature, and yes, by pairing rationality with intuition.

I think it's the ability to not reach conclusions so swiftly. A closed mind is a mind that "defaults" to certain conclusions too swiftly, like a magnet not being able to stay between two sheets of metal, but instead "clicking" to either side, because it cannot bear being in the unknown.

Maybe an interesting question is,

Are "rationality" and "the mind" one and the same?

Is there a non-rational mind?

Is lack of what we qualify as rationality not a result of limited awarness, confusion, and false beliefs?

Even with false beliefs, the mind still retains it rational properties, even though the outcomes are distorted.

Even the "gut calculation" that Diebert spoke of, is a rational, if automatic, and unconscious process.

I myself have studied on a university level both a technical subject and a language/cultural subject. I've done about 4 years of Computer Science at Delft University of Technology, and after that I did Japanese Language and Culture, and after that a year of Psychology/Philosophy.

I can tell you there was a vast difference between the kinds of people that you meet in those cities and areas. In Delft, people are rational, they like mathematics, computer games, computers in general, technical science, and in general there are a lot of boys and very few girls.

In Leiden, there are plenty of girls. People study languages, history, psychology, philosophy, sociology, archeology, cultural anthropology. They are more inclined to care about the world, to be engaged in some way. To have socialist political views of some sort. To be interested in art house film, theatre, culture in general.

This difference is so enormous that it clearly points to a distinction of two distinct qualities or aspects of the human mind. I have always been someone that bridges this gap. People were intrigued by me because I was a rational/logical thinker with an intuitive mind. That didn't happen that often. People were usually either the one or the other. Not a lot of spirituality in Delft.

And Leiden was a beautiful city that attracted many interesting foreigners. I can say the people there were vastly more interesting than in Delft. I believe it has to do with the masculine / feminine aspects of the mind. I believe the brain specialization we witness in growing children and adults also relates to a specialization of the left hemisphere to a masculine aspect and the right hemisphere to a feminine aspect.

It is important to notice this dimension and not reduce the feminine mind to a function of the masculine mind. They are complimentary, like the Yin and the Yang. As David has done, when he reduced intuition to a function of rationality or reason.

I would say rationality, if we must stick to that term, has both a male and a female component. Or in any case, the MIND has. You may call the male component rationality and the female component intuition. But in more technical terms, I think it is a distinction between structure and flowing form.

The left hemisphere specializes in structure and the right hemisphere specializes in free flowing form aspects. That is why language aspects usually activate the left hemisphere while art and imagination and kindness activates the right hemisphere.

I would say this is a very important understanding.

Xen wrote:Enlightenment lies in understanding that everything is perfect. I'm not fully there yet, I know. I will still curse and swear when something terribly frustrates me. But that is the path.

That does not negate the horrors that you speak of. I myself, too, have found older people becoming dumber, more closed-minded, more blind, more stuck to their age-old positions that they acquired when they were 20 or 25.

I believe it would serve their spiritual progress immensely by remaining curious and rationally active. It would certainly not hurt them to read books such as the one by David Quinn, if that is what they felt like.

I myself have found great joy in the Conversations with God series, that, while not overly rational, continually challenges your thinking and your understanding, feeding you new ideas that you never even considered in your wildest moments and dreams. It is a book series that speaks of the Dichotomy and how to overcome it. But it is not an intellectual treatise in that "difficult" sense. It speaks to your deeper understanding that exists "between" the words. The openness that arises when you "unlock" the fixed meanings of terms and words and concepts and try to go beyond it, to try and explore a WORLD behind the strict meaning of the sentences, one that you can only reach by being very intellectually mature, and yes, by pairing rationality with intuition.

I think it's the ability to not reach conclusions so swiftly. A closed mind is a mind that "defaults" to certain conclusions too swiftly, like a magnet not being able to stay between two sheets of metal, but instead "clicking" to either side, because it cannot bear being in the unknown.

I suggest you get busy and enroll yourself in 'Life's School of Hard Knocks', Xen. The school that David and some other clearly apparent safe-players-in-life herein seem to have played far too much hookey from.

Thank you Bob. I will.

In fact I'm going to live on the streets of Amsterdam for some weeks, to gain experience. Not sure if I can say something like that on this forum here, though...

But well, whatever.

In any case, I will now stop responding in this thread. I've said all I wanted (or would have wanted) to say, and I got some feedback, for which I am grateful. I also became more clear about some things.

Thank you.

maybe i'll be back later when I have new things to say.

Bye.

No David, it's the fire of EXPERIENCE that makes 'real' men of the Infinite.

If we were talking about music Bob.
We can experience music as the appearance and be moved, delighted, thrilled, made sombre.
The surface activity.

What David's talking about is the depth to music.
The underlying rules of it.
What is invisible in the experience that accounts for the experience.
The maestro knows which scales to use in the building of melody, the harmonic counterpoint to that.
Where the cadences fit, the tritones, the crescendos, the tempos, which instruments best go in certain situations..
In short, the totality of it, the entire intricate web.

Now bring that analogy over to existence and enlightenment concerning existence.
The rules go very deep, really, really deep.
It takes getting to that depth, way, way, deeper than surface activity to get at the rules that give rise to the surface appearance.

Anything anybody says discloses the invisible set of rules that person has that gives rise to their utterances.

Looking at Nietschke, all he said was you buggers have been labouring under a set of rules that defeats you...here are the new rules.

You Bob say, you buggers are gonna pay big time for your wayward set of rules.

May as well get deeper and discover the rules that get a piece of animated meat called a human being up there disseminating a bunch of rules relevant to where they're at in the first place.

Xen wrote:

Intuition is really better described as a basically rational process taking place in such a manner that we do not witness the process itself clearly, so only its end result pops up. It's a gut calculation, using a mix of senses and memories tuned by the quality of our mental habits (rational capacity).

I agree with this. But notice that this is not about a conscious, effortful process of reaching new areas of thought with willful determination and severely logical, straight-leading steps. It's is not about "reasoning" as a discipline.

But it is, in the sense that before ones intuition can start to function properly and effortlessly, a couple of willful, determined, courageous logical steps will have to be followed through to challenge the thought-forms and emotional "ties" people unconsciously pick up during their early life. Don't worry about "developing intuition", worry instead about developing rationality first! It's like training for a race: you don't practice the winning or excelling, one just trains the stuff that can be trained for and hopefully the rest will follow through when the time and opportunity comes.

But there is also a source of "intuition" that is more about "tapping into" archetypes or shapes or forms that exist in reality or the mind, without really depending on a gut calculation of past data. For instance, in my fantasies of sexual roleplay, I explore the human sexual mind in relation to domination/submission, and I find that these things are "baked into" the fabric of the human mind.

Many of these forms are just put there by the way you have been raised and the culture you have been infused in. They are not different than all other things coming up in your mind, dreams, spontaneous thought or how you react to the world around you. You might discover they are not as "baked" as you think, unless you're too old and weak to challenge them. For example under the domination/submission dynamic one finds the ancient power-struggle combined with a lack of identity or "sense of self". The domination game dynamic provides some sense of strengthened identity (you know your place, no matter how briefly) for all involved and both sides of the dynamic tap into the energy of the power exchange, as hungry ghosts. But it's more important to intuit power and the dynamics of self, and leave the training wheels behind.

I know that either brain half can take on the functions of the other.

Brain halves do not have or ever had split "functions". Stop believing the misconception! This might clear the way for understanding how the functionality is not split at all.

It is this tendency to remain purely philosophical, rational, and logical, that disconnects you from your deeper wisdom and understanding.

First develop some capacity to remain "purely" philosophical and rational for more than a few moments. Perhaps then talk about disconnects. It's a hard road but encouragement and correction is needed.

you must learn to distinguish between contradictions that point to a lack of awareness and contradictions that indicate a heightened sense of awareness being found inside of them.

At that point they already ceased to be contradictions: they never were contradictions. There's nothing they indicate anymore because the identifications are being made properly.

As an aside:

I can tell you there was a vast difference between the kinds of people that you meet in those cities and areas. In Delft, people are rational, they like mathematics, computer games, computers in general, technical science, and in general there are a lot of boys and very few girls.

In Leiden, there are plenty of girls. People study languages, history, psychology, philosophy, sociology, archeology, cultural anthropology. They are more inclined to care about the world, to be engaged in some way. To have socialist political views of some sort. To be interested in art house film, theater, culture in general.

Leiden also has a vast community around the bio-sciences and medical "nuts and bolts" research and education. It's always been very much centered around knowledge and teaching, way earlier than Delft which appeared to have had initially a more political and military function. But perhaps the bubble of university life does show a difference in student types, no doubt. Also, I believe there are other reasons that Leiden might appear more "spiritual" and 'humanist". It seems to have more to do with historical developments and layout of the place (I know both well). There has always been a special focus on book knowledge and free thinking and for example the foreign Flemish influx and the Pilgrims which all brought necessarily a wider dimension.

I do agree there's a distinct difference between the cities though. But I'd hesitate to call a more "laid back" or a more complete rounded entity either masculine or feminine.

I would say rationality, if we must stick to that term, has both a male and a female component. Or in any case, the MIND has. You may call the male component rationality and the female component intuition. But in more technical terms, I think it is a distinction between structure and flowing form.

Everything in existence has structure and flow in time and space. Or like time and space. Rationality in this case might flow out of a proper and measured interaction between structure and flow. Where the boundaries of a whole "mind" exactly lie is hard to say. But one could find out where rationality stops!

Sorry Bob, the body had to get some sleep.
I was mentioning human being shows up as a set of rules.
Now,
a set of rules is there 'in order to'.......'for the ultimate sake of which'.

You seem to be at loggerheads with David on the woman thing and dare I say it emotion appears.

So let's look at it rationally.

I may not be framing it satisfactorily so I'm open to correction.

You say:
Adam must have his Eve.
Further, Adam must face the task of taming his Eve.

David says:
Adam requires no Eve.
And indeed Eve requires no Adam.
If Adam and Eve hook up, co-dependancy ensues.
The business of 'going deep' is forestalled.
The 'ultimate sake of which'...enlightenment...ie, the jackpot...is missed.

Sorry, had to go away for an hour.

Bob, I can see your rules, your 'in order to' but I'm not getting 'for the ultimate sake of which'.

In the big book, the story goes the snake got to Adam thru Eve when Eve persuaded Adam to eat the apple at the snakes behest.

Does taming Eve, mean keeping Eve away from Snakes, in order to forestall Adam from eating apples?

Is that the 'for the ultimate sake of which?

Is it all about Eve?

That a Man's Life is measured by Eve Management?

Bob Michael wrote:

David Quinn wrote:It's good that you've had a breakthrough and now enjoy a deeper intuitive insight into the world, but you really need to sharpen it up and deepen it immensely, and that can only really done through the fire of reason.

No David, it's the fire of EXPERIENCE that makes 'real' men of the Infinite.

And yet, according to you, there has hardly been anyone who has been truly wise. Plenty of people with "experience" and yet hardly anyone who is wise.

This does not compute.

-

Xen wrote: I do believe everyone progresses spiritually with age. This may not mean everone's mind remains open, or that everyone gets somewhere intellectually. But all change is for the better. That's how life is designed.

I don't know what planet you are living on, but here on earth I haven't encountered anyone over the age of 50 who is even remotely close to Buddhahood. Most people degenerate into contented animals or hollow shells as they age.

Still, it's a nice, comforting idea.

-

David Quinn wrote: And yet, according to you, there has hardly been anyone who has been truly wise. Plenty of people with "experience" and yet hardly anyone who is wise.

This does not compute.

Putting experience aside here, though it's very important, I suggest there was never yet a man who had perfect wisdom and understanding of the precise nature of the broken human-condition or the right approach for the successful fixing of it.

Xen wrote:In fact I'm going to live on the streets of Amsterdam for some weeks, to gain experience. Not sure if I can say something like that on this forum here, though...

Good for you. I've experienced, among many, many things, living on the streets for a time some 30 years ago. And in retrospect the experience gave me such tremendous feelings of freedom in my early 40s, along with it being very vital for my spiritual development. So again, best wishes. And while I know little about you, I do get good vibes from what I so far know. And beware of those who think you should be where they are, or they think they are, overnight. Self-overcoming does take time, each one's timetable of course being his own.

Dennis Mahar wrote:
Is it all about Eve?

That a Man's Life is measured by Eve Management?

No, Dennis, It's all about Adam. Whose life is measured by being divinely and humanly yoked up with his perfect Eve. Adam, the new Adam that is, 'finally' being the head of the household.

Dennis Mahar wrote: Looking at Nietsche, all he said was you buggers have been labouring under a set of rules that defeats you...here are the new rules.

You Bob say, you buggers are gonna pay big time for your wayward set of rules.

May as well get deeper and discover the rules that get a piece of animated meat called a human being up there disseminating a bunch of rules relevant to where they're at in the first place.

Yes, but most of us are incapable of playing by the new rules, or any rules for that matter. And it's really only the highly-sensitive who are "gonna pay big time." The rest, the bulk of humanity, have been so desensitized by their conditioning that they're quite 'happy' and 'content' in their robotic states of being. Hence, they don't suffer deeply and at best are merely momentarily discontented from time to time.

No, Dennis, It's all about Adam. Whose life is measured by being divinely and humanly yoked up with his perfect Eve. Adam, the new Adam that is, 'finally' being the head of the household.

If Adam and Eve are divinely and humanly yoked up...
What you seem to be suggesting is that that delivers a jackpot.
The yoking of Adam and Eve in such a way has to take place in order to have the 'for the ultimate sake of which'.

Are you saying that the dethroning of Adam as head of the household has directly caused the miserable desensitisation of people and woeful state of Society?

That raising Adam to his rightful perch is the winning formula that sets things right?