GENIUS FORUMS

the wise man who blinks and sees god is DELUDING himself...


why attribute beauty and wonder to god? some even believe they are a manifestation of god...think about it


the slaughter of innocence: does the wise man also look and see god there too?

no, most of the silly old buggers only attribute the nice things to god and the horrible things to man - thus they DEVALUE MAN.

in the first instance primarily, they don't see beauty and wonder - they see GOD


conclusion: in the first case WHAT IS is devalued
in the second: MAN is devalued



and then along come the priests with their wisdom, potions and rituals.....kneel you miserable sinners! and obey....












written by lightening for your edification

zarathustra wrote:how wise, berty boy, how very wise....what's the fucking use?the old geniuses know - don't they? that the telling of wisdom is so futile, falling like rap music on the ears of the ignorant
...better to shut up, say nothing, sit under a yum yum tree and become enlightened....OMMMM








written by lightening for your edification

There is no use ,there is but choice.Tools containing their own purpose.

an old genius or a young genius.What the fuck does it matter.

You make the choices ,not me.What most people daily strive for,is a jail.
Slaves for heaven's sake - must I beg for pleasure?

The great human factor in life is deceit.
And those with the truth in righteousness...,they are the ones who receive the wrath.

self-suggestion - to will,that is the great teacher!

Zarathustra wrote:

the wise man who blinks and sees god is DELUDING himself...

You haven't stopped to ask what I mean by "God". You just continue to blindly shoot from the hip.

I define "God" to be reality itself. It is what a person sees when he eliminates all false thoughts from his mind. What he sees is neither religioius, nor mystical, nor supernatural in nature. It is Nature itself, naked, as it were.

why attribute beauty and wonder to god? some even believe they are a manifestation of god...think about it

the slaughter of innocence: does the wise man also look and see god there too?

Everything is a manifestation of God, even violence and slaughter.

no, most of the silly old buggers only attribute the nice things to god and the horrible things to man - thus they DEVALUE MAN.

in the first instance primarily, they don't see beauty and wonder - they see GOD


conclusion: in the first case WHAT IS is devalued
in the second: MAN is devalued



and then along come the priests with their wisdom, potions and rituals.....kneel you miserable sinners! and obey....

A fine sermon from the pulpit there, man.

You're probably the most religious out of all of us. I think it's called postmodern irony.

-

Yes David Quinn you are right, everything is a manifestation of God, even violence and slaughter.

You've heard me say many times before that I am a seer, well I see an
Assassination coming. Someone is going to be killed.

nature is not alive, it is not omnipotent, omniscent, wise,divine, bla, bla, bla....it just is. it was primative man who attributed divine qualities to it, and above it, because he felt it was better to believe in a lie than nothing. for primative humanity (from the year dot to now!) the big lie was what they required to feel secure about themselves and their place in the galaxy. but with the growth of science and reason, the lie was challanged ( at least in the form it took in the west ). up until the renaissance most 'wise' men believed the world was flat and that instead of being situated at the centre of the universe it was just a very tiny part of a greater whole. beautiful, sublime and might I add 'wise' poems, books and philosophies have been written about both the flat earth theory and earth as the nucleus in the atom of the cosmos. in australia we once had a wonderful poet called a.d.hope, who wrote a wonderful poem in honour of frey luis, a 12th century monk who wrote some of the most inspiring uplifting stuff about the earth at the centre of the universe belief. in his poem hope paid homage to luis' vision, against which he also described the new universe - the modern universe of which hope was a part:

a modest universe
where god rides on the clouds
though in the year your verse
was penned, a hairy star
seen at oranisborg presaged not war
but this new earth and heaven
of frame and scale not dreamed of in your day
now we can no longer say
with you 'as we wewre saying yesterday'

your ptolemaic gyres dissolve
we see earth orbit around the sun
the sun himself retires
a minor star and one
of millions in our galaxy alone
the fixed stars of your day
scatter each way we turn; they fade and flee
galaxies pass away
among thoier myriads we
shrivel to dust in that immensity
our cosmos thrusts towards ends unknown
we search and yearn to find
some voice to greet our own
and meet with silence and an empty throne

a.d.hope.


it is easy to see that humankind is at the beginning of another leap forward into the light...however, unfortunately, the old gods are hanging on for dear life...but if we don't let go and they don't let go of us, for obvious reasons we will soon enter another dark age...there is already, proof of this, just turn on your tv....my friends, wisdom and genius, as history has shown
are still very much the children of their times...don't put too much faith in them. rather reason - human reason...

zara,
ever heard of sublimated language?
'Center of the universe' was used a metaphor for something different.
Yes,the truth was kept to the few - only those who had affinity with the meant knowledge.'As such' it has ever been.
He who can not comprehend the true meaning,is fooled.

The makers of epics,the tellers of tales,they are the compellers of the 'as such'.

"We are kalenders,sons of Kings"

Zarathustra wrote:

up until the renaissance most 'wise' men believed the world was flat and that instead of being situated at the centre of the universe it was just a very tiny part of a greater whole.

You don't really know what you are talking about. Any poem or saying which stipulates a flat earth, or the earth being the centre of the universe, is certainly not "wise". No wise man would ever have asserted theories of this kind - at least not as absolute truths.

One of the very first steps towards wisdom is knowing how to distinguish between empirical speculation (such as the "flat earth theory", and indeed, the "spherical earth theory") and absolute truth (such as "all things are caused", "Nature is without beginning or end", "all things lack inherent existence", etc). The former is speculative, provisonal, temporary, uncertain, while the latter is timeless, beyond question, true for all possible worlds.

You have to go beyond poetry and physics to be able to see this distinction. It's a very rare piece of knowledge.

-

davidQ ol' mate,

you should go do a crash course in pre-renaissance history. Up to that point, the scholastic world ( what there was of it ) believed in three primary theories of the universe: the flat earth, earth as the centre of the universe, and the universe as canopy and vaccum. The first one was mostly confined to pagan cultures, the second to pre-renaissance christianity and the third to a theory devised by the classical greeks.I don't propose to go into them in detail, but I would say in conclusion, that all three theories were expounded beautifully and they were all WRONG. concepts of infinite space-time which also included perspective and depth in maths/physics/art/architecture and so on were the result of the RENAISSANCE/REFORMATION.... the flowering of an entirely new philosophical/creative/ reasoned worldview happened THEN, it was at that precise moment when the world and our place therein deepened and expanded, not because of the fucking religious wackos, but because of a new consciousness that was beginning to express itself through science, art and philosophy...

distinguishing between empirical speculation and absolute truth: ha!ha!ha! what a funny little man you are. firstly you forgot about scientific/ reason...no matter. there is also one thing you overlooked regarding empirical speculation and absolute truth: both do not primarily rely on the reasoned scientific, but belief or faith. I mean how the fuck do you prove absolute truth, other than by a leep of faith????? but when you look a little closer, it's easy to see that empiricism and absolute truth are more alike than you like. as for all that spooky fluff about 'going beyond' and 'rare knowledge' its just so much esoteric hot air, the last refuge of the primative...who, no doubt, if he thinks about it long enough, may not only come to his senses, but reason...




written by zarathustra for your edification

Zarathustra wrote:

you should go do a crash course in pre-renaissance history. Up to that point, the scholastic world ( what there was of it ) believed in three primary theories of the universe: the flat earth, earth as the centre of the universe, and the universe as canopy and vaccum.

This has nothing to do with the history of wise thought. You are merely repeating what the popular textbooks say, as part of your postmodernist conditioning.

I say again, no wise man has ever asserted theories of this kind - not Lao Tzu, not Buddha, not Diogenes, not Hakuin, not Chuang Tzu, not Kierkegaard, not me.

You are simply regurgitating the mediocre aspects of human history. That's all you seem to know.

distinguishing between empirical speculation and absolute truth: ha!ha!ha! what a funny little man you are. firstly you forgot about scientific/ reason...

Science itself is nothing more than empirical speculation. Its theories are always provisional and uncertain.

no matter. there is also one thing you overlooked regarding empirical speculation and absolute truth: both do not primarily rely on the reasoned scientific, but belief or faith. I mean how the fuck do you prove absolute truth, other than by a leep of faith?????

I prove it by means of pure logic, which requires neither science nor faith.

[cue hysterical postmodernist diatribe]

but when you look a little closer, it's easy to see that empiricism and absolute truth are more alike than you like. as for all that spooky fluff about 'going beyond' and 'rare knowledge' its just so much esoteric hot air, the last refuge of the primative...who, no doubt, if he thinks about it long enough, may not only come to his senses, but reason...

Your belief that the attempt to go beyond science (into ultimate knowledge) is esoteric hot air is itself an article of faith, nothing more.

-

Q....you're so full of bullshit mate...i think in the end, you'll find religion, repentance is a growth industry these days, particularly among reactionary would-be god-squad philosophers ...you act as if you're a big rebel philosopher, you may be able to fool the flock with your metaphysical hat-tricks, but I know exactly where you're coming from...you're good at entertaining and you lie...thats ok, but don't expect me to take you seriously...

first the popluar intelligent belief was that the world was round, but that the atlantic and pacfic ocean were only one. the world beign flat were beliefs of the peasants and farmers who had no book learning.


also, it seems that by doing name calling we simply show how ungensis like we all are.

zarathustra: why are you so afraid of David Quinn?

layla....afraid of Q - you must be kidding.