GENIUS FORUMS

Cory: I would have to begin with a love, a passion for the things that seem to be true, and those things that seem to be true are the tools to uncover more and more truth.

Sapius: In my opinion, it is neither “love” nor some “passion” when one sets out on a search to KNOW ‘the truth’, because for that one has to have a preconceived idea of what “truth” itself is or should be.

Ok so you agree with me when I say that one can only set out to know a ‘greater’ truth?

I say this because, like you seem to understand, the desire to know can only be born from a mind that already knows.

In other words, when you desire to know, you are really only desiring to know more. The desire to know more is in part born out of what one has come to know, but also from suffering.

That is why I say when one desires to know the whole and highest of truth, one must be passionate. The etymological root meaning of passion is: to suffer.

What you know always generates a feeling of entrapment and oppression, and what you know also always generates the unknown.

Humanity often deals with this feeling of oppression that knowledge gives by letting lose by indulging in various sensations (instead of investigating things more thoroughly and subtly).

Humanity generally hates truth, therefore, in order to seek and become that which humanity hates I would say requires a love, passion for truth and a hatred for the false and cowardly.

One can only set out on a quest to know ‘greater’ truth, and this is because one must begin with some basic conclusions and from those conclusions, discontent and questions arise, and those questions lead to the hypotheses that lead you to investigate certain areas.

Some people don’t desire greater truths because they, due to genetics and environment, are easily contented with meager explanations that they don’t know are meager.

The ones who desire greater truths are often those who, due to genetics and environment, want greatness and conquest.

There has to be love for what is highest.

Sapius: All one knows or starts with is – that it shouldn’t be so for it sounds illogical.

Yes, and that is an example of how ones basic truths sometimes generate perplexity and a desire for greater truths.

Sapius: Now if and when the Truth does come forward, it should not be made a GOD of in my opinion, for NOTHING at all can stand alone, not even Truth per say.

‘Nothingness/everything’ has no room to stand, unlike the ephemeral constituent that appears to fill and create empty space between it and other constituents.

The totality, unlike its constituents has no form, boundaries, and frontiers, it is not a fixed limited object and thus cannot fill and thus create empty space.

Therefore truth goes beyond isolation, time, and becoming

Sapius: It is just to be understood and realized, and even then the “I” still remains an I - but is now without any quotation marks.

What do the quotation marks represent?

Cory: So the ultimate truth is that no particular thing inherently exists.

Sapius: That is incomplete in my opinion...

So the ultimate truth is "that no particular thing inherently exists.…..AND that any particular thing necessarily exists in and of of any given causality created moment of the now at the same instance."

I think you are perhaps missing out on the significance of one stressing the word inherently.

That should be sufficient in it self, although if one doesn’t understand the statement, then further and more detailed explanation is appropriate. I will explain further:

There is the appearance of things, things appear to exist, but I say that things are merely an expression of all other things.

Each thing is the expression of everything else, there fore a particular thing doesn’t ‘inherently’ exist.

The expression that is the particular thing, is not so much an expression resulting from the independence and empowerment of that particular thing, but rather the thing is an expression of everything that is not the thing.

For instance, just look at the ocean or a lake on a windy day.

One particular wave is really the expression of not so much that particular wave, but of everything else. Gravity, temperature, wind, light, tide, the activity of all of the ‘other waves’ etc, etc.

The sheer phenomenon of there even being a huge body of water, and the movement of that entire body of water is an expression of temperature, the atmosphere, gravity, light, etc, etc. And each of those things: temperature, atmosphere, gravity, light – all of those things are the expression of other things.

A particular wave you see emerging and breaking has no independent, inherent power of its own.

It is merely the expression of everything else.

‘It’ does not ‘inherently’ exist.

Sapius: Continuous change does not make a thing disappear

When a wave comes into being and crashes, it is indeed forever gone.

Likewise when someone dies, his unique personality, consciousness and character is forever gone.

Sapius: In fact [change] makes any ’thing’ exactly what it is in any given moment, and that will necessarily ‘change’ because of causality, hence any ‘particular’ thing does not permanently (inherently) exist, but the causality, which has even created us, a thing that can sense change in and of other things, can see that what is actually permanent is causality, change, the flow, the way, the Tao, Emptiness, Void, even Abyss, OR whatever one wants to CALL it, but NAMING a ‘process’ that in itself is not a “thing” in any sense, gives IT a sense of possessing a thing-ness, by the fact that it is being NAMED, and necessarily has a conceptualized definition behind it.

Let me try and break down that doozy of a sentence:

Sapius: [Change] makes any ’thing’ exactly what it is in any given moment, and that will necessarily ‘change’ because of causality

You are saying that ‘change’ creates a ‘thing’?

I say that one particular ‘thing’ is the expression of that which is constant and changeless, namely; cause and effect.

One particular thing has no inherent, independent power to act and thus the expression of one particular thing is only the expression of everything else.

And everything (the totality of causality) is essentially without cause, purpose or reason.

I can’t see how I will not always find this essential truth irrational.

Sapius: hence any ‘particular’ thing does not permanently (inherently) exist

I agree.

Sapius: but the causality, which has even created us, a thing that can sense change in and of other things, can see that what is actually permanent is causality, change, the flow, the way, the Tao, Emptiness, Void, even Abyss, OR whatever one wants to CALL it

Sure, sure.

Sapius: but NAMING a ‘process’ that in itself is not a “thing” in any sense, gives IT a sense of possessing a thing-ness, by the fact that it is being NAMED, and necessarily has a conceptualized definition behind it.

Ok, I see what you mean. And I agree.

Cory: There is only a causal relationship that, if faced up to honestly, can only be regarded as an abyss.

Sapius: If there is ONLY a ‘causal relationship’, why don’t you leave it at just that? Why does one have to 'regard it as something else when it is already perfectly clear what it is?

I guess I said ‘only’ regarded as an abyss because my original post was trying to illustrate the act of ‘acknowledging’ the unfathomable and inexpressible abyss of causality in relationship to the formation of ‘character’.

Using the word causality would be fine if we were not trying to show the relationship between an acknowledger and his emotional struggle to come to grips with the truth - - But when you are writing a post with the intention of shedding light on the relationship between the acknowledger AND causality, then I think its appropriate to use the word abyss.

Like you said: causality has created us, a thing that can sense change in and of other things

And I was saying how ‘character’ is a bulwark, a defense against the threat of impotence and helplessness that I say the truth of causality instills unto those who have an intimation of it.

Hence it is appropriate to regard causality as an abyss when we are talking about the implications, challenges and emotions involved in becoming a truthful individual.

Cory: Therefore, truths indeed can be regarded as one whole truth.

Sapius: Absolutely, but the problem is that people find contradictions when they compare ‘truths’ and hence cannot reconcile or see it as a whole.

That is because when one truth contradicts another truth - one of those truths has to be wrong, or both are wrong.

Cory: I say that if the investigation is passionate enough (in other-words if ones love of truth is passionate enough) we are brought up against the abyss, and it is turning our gaze away from this abyss that gives us character. It is this discontent with myself that compels me to think, investigate and research.

The drive of latter automatically creates the former if the initial drive is intense enough, but it does not happen the other way around.

But I say that the discontent/suffering within myself is a by-product of loving/enjoying something.

So the latter (suffering) does create the former (the compulsion to think/investigate)

However thinking/investigating/discovering is an enjoyment that leads to suffering/discontent.

It is cyclical.

Sapius: Hence it is said that one finds his own WAY.

Each person is going to have a unique expression, however, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that ones way is necessarily ones ‘own’.

When you say ‘own’ are you speaking about being possessive of one self?

I would say, probably you are not, but just for the sake of being rigorous, I throw it at you.

Sapius: It is the logical discontent one finds in what is thrown at him and hence rejects, so then what is left except finding that which will give him ‘content’?

When one is searching for truth is one seeking for satisfaction in the sense of seeking for that which appeases ones discomfort/misery? I would say so.

Sapius: One is necessarily driven towards finding that which does not contradict in any which way, and that can happen only if one is able to see things placing a self OUT-SIDE of ones own shoes

This isn’t very clear. You are saying that one can only be rational if one is able to do what exactly?

‘See things’ by means of placing ‘a’ self (or oneself?) out-side of ones own shoes?

Are you basically saying – “in order to be rational, you have to be able to step outside of your own shoes?”

What does ‘your own shoes’ represent? Your ego, assumptions, conclusions?

Cory: Telling a student he must be passionate about being clear minded does seem reasonable to me.

Sapius: In other words telling someone what HE should value by understanding and accepting MY logical reasoning’s, which incidentally “I” worked intensely on, passionately, which is what one is actually driven to acquire through his own discontent. Now how can one create an intense 'discontent' in another, when he is comfortable in "logically" accepting others conclusions?

I never said that ‘telling a student about the importance of being passionate’ equates to ‘creating an intense discontent in the student’.

You have to realize sapius that a lot of what I am saying here is response to David Quinn’s assertion that one must have a strong attachment to truth in order to live truthfully.

Is DQ being false and unwise?

Well, like I originally said, it all depends on what David means by attachment.

If he equates attachment to the love of what the world hates –then he is essentially equating attachment to the suffering of being at odds with the whole of humanity.

Since the etymological root meaning of the word passion is; to suffer, then I would say to be attached to something is to be passionate. To be attached and passionate is to be caught in a cycle of pleasure and pain.

So if a student comes to a teacher and expresses to the teacher his desire to live truthfully, then the teacher telling him the importance of having a passion for being clear minded seems reasonable. The teacher might also add: otherwise, if you arent passionate about being clear minded, you will inevitably be passionate about something else. Therefore, no matter what you do, you are doomed to ensnared in a cycle of pleasure and pain. You might as well go after the truth, and perhaps you may know what it means to go beyond the cycle.

I say that all human beings are passionate, attached to differing degrees and qualities of life.

The problem of being passionate is the solution IF ones object of passion is truth itself.

Sapius: On a different note; there are no teachers or students as such; there is only exchange of knowable change - experience, that shapes another, causally, based in and of A=A.

I would say that there is the person who is aware of more(the teacher) in contrast to the person who is aware of less. (the student)

A sage teaches, however much more indirectly then someone who isn’t so wise as to be regarded a sage but nonetheless fancies himself a teacher (or even a sage).

Quote:
Bert: If events are foretellable from the subconscious (which I maintain) how do I and others like me reconcile 'freedom of will' and 'fatalism' or 'determinism'?



All subconscious activity is of course involuntary.

Once, while lying down in bed to go to sleep, I was doing what I usually do before I sleep – closing my eyes and carefully watching each ‘thought/desire’ as it involuntarily arises and becomes displaced by a new one - - - but suddenly, out of no-where, I perceived an image of a girls face.

I immediately recognized the face I perceived. The face was of a girl I knew in over 10 years ago in junior high.

This phenomenon of her image popping up in my mind was not the consequence of me trying to think back and remember old school days or anything like that. Nor was it even remotely connected to something sexual.

The image just inexplicably presented itself, perhaps jutting out of the subconscious against my so called will.

Despite I had my eyes closed, I actually perceived her face, rather than merely remember what she looked like. She was actually quite beautiful in junior highschool, one of the first girls to hit puberty – a sexpot I suppose you could say. One of the first girls to be sexually active to be sure.

But like I said, this sudden act of perceiving her face was not sexual. I know this because the face I perceived was tortured, aged, stressed.

In junior high school, I sure as hell never talked to her, I was never in one of her classes, and she went to a different school only 2 years after that first year I noticed her. And even when she was in my school, I really never gave her much attention.

Oddly, before I had that brief vision of her with my eyes closed, I couldn’t really picture her face in detail – even now I can’t.

But that night while I was lying in bed, the image of her that involuntarily jutted out of my subconscious mind was immediately acknowledged as her, it was not a rememberance, and I was actually shocked by the vividness of the face I perceived.

And despite I remembered her as a sexy junior high school girl, the image that I suddenly perceived as I lay with my eyes closed was not a pretty picture of her.

There was something tortured, weathered and strained about her face.

And why did I perceive her face peeking out of the black, instead of merely a remembrance?

To make it easier to understand what it was like for me to have this vision with my eyes closed - recall what happens when you stare at a light bulb and then look away – the imprint of light is still there for a moment.

Well, likewise, the image of this girls face, after it appeared in a flicker, left an imprint (which faded very quickly) on the black static swirl of energy that one perceives when ones eyes are closed.

I found this strange.

This uninvited image of her face that I perceived while lying down with my eyes closed was actually the residue of an experience that I was fated to have the next day in the grocery store.

The next day, after having this vision of her face, I seen her at the grocery store.

I don’t think she recognized me – I don’t even think she knew who I was in junior high school.

Recognizing her at the grocery store and reading her name on her name tag was very strange and I immediately connected it to the vision I had the night before.


Now, that being said – would you say that is an example of ‘fortelling’ the future? In my case I didn’t know that the face I was perceiving behind my eyelids would be a face that I would run into the next day at the grocery store.

All of it was involuntary (the vision and the grocery store), determined, and really of no significance.

Despite I was not and am not interesting in foretelling the future by means of desiring to, I don’t see how occult powers granting one access to future events can really give any advantage anway.

Well, unless you suggesting that one could potentially foretell the future with such mastery that one could know the winning numbers of a lottery?

i say that the future can only invite itself into our minds via just some useless fragments, giving us a brief image of what we 'might' experience the next day.

We can never be certain about the future, no matter what you see jutting out of the subconcious mind.

predicting works in the opposite.you first have a desire and then you receive the answer to that desire.

Quote:

Bert: To begin with, man is predestined by his good, evil and past history, but within him is the potential for effort towards free will and independence.


Yes, that’s your theory.

Personally, I’m just following my inclinations, my questions, and passions, which I don’t see as really up to me. I have a certain predilection, a propensity and life is just a matter of dealing with suffering via awareness, alignment, trial and error, experimentation.

that's your theory.

Quote:

Bert wrote: Illustration: I am predestined 'to journey to a certain place'. I have this measure of freedom: I can choose the direction and even delay the event—but go I must.



The choice to pick an idiosyncrtatic direction to a destination, or the choice to delay ones arrival are choices that are not so much really choices as they are an expression of ones emotional state, or state of awareness.

Awareness and emotions are what navigate us through the maze we have no choice to be in – and awareness and emotions are involuntary.

that's because you don't understand free will.

Quote:

Bert: It is obvious that those living a virtuous life are rectifying their future and the possibility of freer will.


Yeah, I think that sounds about right. I agree with that.

But one must question what a virtuous life is though.

The question is involuntarily born out of discontent and suffering, combined with the right sort of environmental conditions.

And the answer is not a choice, it is simply a fact that exists in spite of what one may prefer to belief, hope and will.

You cannot will the truth, you can only be it.

you are free to believe in nothing related to belief.the "Truth" is not difficult to understand.the truth has no will - will has no truth!truth is "will" never believed - it has no truth!"could be" - is the immediate certainty!this haunting Sphinx teaches us the "will to anything"?

sue hindmarsh wrote:Bert wrote:

If events are foretellable from the subconscious (which I maintain) how do I and others like me reconcile 'freedom of will' and 'fatalism' or 'determinism'?

To begin with, man is predestined by his good, evil and past history, but within him is the potential for effort towards free will and independence. Illustration: I am predestined 'to journey to a certain place'. I have this measure of freedom: I can choose the direction and even delay the event—but go I must. It is obvious that those living a virtuous life are rectifying their future and the possibility of freer will.

Bert, the above is just a chaotic collection of half-baked ideas with no obvious point to them. In an effort to make clear your thinking, please explain what you mean by:
1. “Events are foretellable from the subconscious”
2. “Man is predestined by his good, evil and past history”
3. “Within him is the potential for effort towards free will and independence”

And how can you be “predestined 'to journey to a certain place'”?
What do you mean by, “I have this measure of freedom”?
What do you consider to be a “virtuous life”? And how can it “rectifying their future”?
What is a “freer will”?

Once you have answered all these questions, your point may become apparent – that’s if there is one?

-
Sue

1.some things are destined,and you can know some.
2.the compensation for a wrong of our past ;good and evil rewarded by their aftermath.
3.he who be-lives his truth can make a reality.you have a free measure to change your future.Not?passions,ideals;effort.

-you are programmed to journey to it.
-I can make an effort to become more free,but not entirely free
-virtuous life is a life that has a positive influence on you.
-to have that positive influence you must make it affective to you,so they rectify their future.procreation.
-a will that is freeer

Thanks Bert,

But you basically repeated your original post. Could you go into a bit more detail?

-
Sue

Sue, most here have convinced themselves that anti-rational, nebulous statements are a from of genius. Don't let it get to you. Just point and laugh like me!

"Mom, the geniuses are throwing poo again, what cutups!"

Cory, please keep in mind that I’m not “arguing” just for the sake of it.

Ok so you agree with me when I say that one can only set out to know a ‘greater’ truth?

I say this because, like you seem to understand, the desire to know can only be born from a mind that already knows.

In other words, when you desire to know, you are really only desiring to know more. The desire to know more is in part born out of what one has come to know, but also from suffering.

Yes, the desire to ‘know more’ is in part born out of what one has come to know, but the more essential part is that one is NOT satisfied, logically, with what one has come to know. Now this drive exists in any and all things, but what that drive is directed to depends on an individual ‘thing’ also. A physicist is not any different than a philosopher as far as the drive itself is concerned. He is as earnest in searching the “truth” as is a philosopher. It all depends on what direction has an individual come to VALUE.

Cory: What you know always generates a feeling of entrapment and oppression, and what you know also always generates the unknown.

Sure, but not once you KNOW that there is or was nothing to ACTUALLY KNOW. Because once you Realize that what I actually wanted to KNOW was a thing created by my own thinking and values, and does not ACTUALLY exist at all.

Cory: Humanity often deals with this feeling of oppression that knowledge gives by letting lose by indulging in various sensations (instead of investigating things more thoroughly and subtly).

Humanity generally hates truth, therefore, in order to seek and become that which humanity hates I would say requires a love, passion for truth and a hatred for the false and cowardly.

No, humanity actually loves truth, only that each individuals “truth” is defined differently. Everyone creates his own circle of “values” and hence “truths” accordingly. I’m not saying that what I don’t value Truth, but my circle of values point to a different direction, that’s all.

Cory: One can only set out on a quest to know ‘greater’ truth, and this is because one must begin with some basic conclusions and from those conclusions, discontent and questions arise, and those questions lead to the hypotheses that lead you to investigate certain areas.

I would say that we begin with certain premises rather than conclusions, because those conclusions belong to others in which I’m not satisfied in the first place. My day begins when what I was told and kind of accepted, not as logical conclusions but beliefs, and they begin to not make sense because they contradict my experiences and logical thinking.

Cory: Some people don’t desire greater truths because they, due to genetics and environment, are easily contented with meager explanations that they don’t know are meager.

If ONLY that part was absolutely true, then one cannot hold responsible or give credit to the ones that do not know nor to the ones that know. So, how logical is your above statement? That leaves actually nothing to be discussed or differentiated.

Other than genetics and environment, the essence, or particular attributes of an individual thing also exists. Isn’t “mind” within its self an environment too? Isn’t an individual Thinking an environment too? Does the process of causality NOT bring forth an individual “thing” in and of of any given moment of causality?

Cory: The ones who desire greater truths are often those who, due to genetics and environment, want greatness and conquest.

It would then stand to reason that the ones that DO NOT desire greater truths do so also due to genetics and environment, but yet want greatness and conquest. (Say Alexander, Hitler, etc. etc.) So where is the problem? Isn’t all so perfect! In other words, you have discovered the perfection of Existence, so what the hell is “truth” and “non-truth”? Aren’t both put together actually perfection?

Cory: There has to be love for what is highest.

I agree, but according to what I “logically” believe should be the “highest”.

Cory: The totality, unlike its constituents has no form, boundaries, and frontiers, it is not a fixed limited object and thus cannot fill and thus create empty space.

Therefore truth goes beyond isolation, time, and becoming

Hence isn’t “totality” BUT infinite forms?

Sapius: It is just to be understood and realized, and even then the “I” still remains an I - but is now without any quotation marks.

Cory: What do the quotation marks represent?

You can say the attachments to a false-ego, in which I initially believed that I exist, then I logically deduced that an “I” is illusory, and when further deduced, one realizes that it was always the I battling its self, and the I becomes as REAL as any-THING else in and of any given moment of causality, absolutely, hence I literally exist, so do all other things, otherwise I wouldn't be able to detect or define THEM.

Cory: So the ultimate truth is that no particular thing inherently exists.

Sapius: That is incomplete in my opinion...

So the ultimate truth is "that no particular thing inherently exists.…..AND that any particular thing necessarily exists in and of of any given causality created moment of the now at the same instance."

Cory: I think you are perhaps missing out on the significance of one stressing the word inherently.

That should be sufficient in it self, although if one doesn’t understand the statement, then further and more detailed explanation is appropriate. I will explain further:

There is the appearance of things, things appear to exist, but I say that things are merely an expression of all other things.

Each thing is the expression of everything else, there fore a particular thing doesn’t ‘inherently’ exist.

The expression that is the particular thing, is not so much an expression resulting from the independence and empowerment of that particular thing, but rather the thing is an expression of everything that is not the thing.

For instance, just look at the ocean or a lake on a windy day.

One particular wave is really the expression of not so much that particular wave, but of everything else. Gravity, temperature, wind, light, tide, the activity of all of the ‘other waves’ etc, etc.

The sheer phenomenon of there even being a huge body of water, and the movement of that entire body of water is an expression of temperature, the atmosphere, gravity, light, etc, etc. And each of those things: temperature, atmosphere, gravity, light – all of those things are the expression of other things.

A particular wave you see emerging and breaking has no independent, inherent power of its own.

It is merely the expression of everything else.

‘It’ does not ‘inherently’ exist.

With all due respects, I have been hearing this “wave” and “eddy” thing from my childhood so to speak, and I have avtually spent quite some time thinking over it, but the one telling me this does not realize that he is actually creating a mental picture of the SEA giving it a sense of ‘thing-ness’ which is also subject to all that which it is not, so what the hell is it that “underlies” ANY-THING at all? I am told, emptiness, void, etc., etc. Which in my opinion, at this stage of understanding, is a mistake, (I’m not talking about the struggling beginners who need such a concept to actually start thinking), since we cannot even begin to phantom that NOTHING underlies THINGS, and THINGS, or FORMS, is all that exists, and causality is not what causes or creates THINGS, but is simply the transformation that is being detected by THINGS itself.

It is the transformations that we detect and because of the “logical” belief, that there HAS to necessarily be something that is an Absolute, be it a concept, we cannot accept otherwise. Whatever the concept of an Absolute, it is no different than a blind faith because it leads to some sort of valued Godhead. Drop just THAT, and one is free to live the moment in and of the NOW. Free from a deliberately created conceptual world, and live a real flow in and of A=A, a naturally flowing and yet a “conceptual” world.

I am not saying that the “deliberate” conceptual world is not real in any sense, because it is that very world that leads to a different Realization, and both are reality in every sense of the word.

What I say is not for those who believe that nothing lies beyond the “mind”; that is kindergarten stuff, atleast for me, for what is MIND itself, actually, but a causal process? Which is actually Empty, as are all things, with no “emptiness” as such underlying any thing at all.

Sapius: Continuous change does not make a thing disappear

Cory: When a wave comes into being and crashes, it is indeed forever gone.

Likewise when someone dies, his unique personality, consciousness and character is forever gone.

Of course, may be I was not clear enough.

I mean to say, is it possible that at any given moment of Existence THINGS do NOT exist? If “causality” is permanent, so are “THINGS”, because without THINGS, where or what would “causality” be? They arise together, THAT is Existence! We split the ‘process’ and ‘things’ because we experience and “logically” thing it so.

When some one dies, say a person or a tree, all that is happening is CHANGE, so A particular thing CHANGES into another thing, and this is hapenning each and evey moment in and of change, in the bargain loosing its previous attributes and gaining different ones, and is hence now a different THING. So when and where do THINGS in and of causality cease to exist?

If it's not one, then it's another, when not that, then it's yet another, ad infinitum....

Cory: Let me try and break down that doozy of a sentence:

(It’s been quite a long post and I am yet again preparing to travel, so the rest might have to wait for a few days. I do have a few pointers to discuss regarding the rest of your post.)

Sapius wrote:

Yes, the desire to ‘know more’ is in part born out of what one has come to know, but the more essential part is that one is NOT satisfied, logically, with what one has come to know. Now this drive exists in any and all things, but what that drive is directed to depends on an individual ‘thing’ also. A physicist is not any different than a philosopher as far as the drive itself is concerned. He is as earnest in searching the “truth” as is a philosopher. It all depends on what direction has an individual come to VALUE.

It is clearly incorrect that a “physicist is not any different than a philosopher” in his earnest in searching out the truth of things.

The physicist only needs enough of what he defines as ‘truth’ to provide him with a lifestyle: academic, husband, father, lover, author, speaker, etc. The philosopher dedicates his whole life to uncovering the truth of all things. His life is not excluded from this investigation, as every aspect of it is held up for evaluation in the light of Truth.

The philosopher is the only man to ever attempt this undertaking of total self examination. It takes the sort of courage that only a few men possess; and that only one or two are able to maintain.

-

You do not dare for the sake of suffering, but you dare in order not to betray the truth.
--Kierkegaard

-
Sue

Subjectivity is Truth.
Truth is Subjectivity.

Kierkegaard.

Yes Soren...we make it mean what we make it mean...hahaha

frank

Cory Patrick wrote:

For instance, despite the dictionary definition of elitism does not mention anything about attachment, and despite the dictionary definition or even the Buddhist explanation of attachment says nothing about elitism – I see them both – elitism and attachment - as one whole dynamic.

You mentioned in your post “causality” and “things having no inherent existence” – how does “elitism” fit?

To have character is to be attached, and to be attached is to be elitist.

Again – what’s elitism got to do with anything?

However, the one whole truth is infinitely complicated and to honestly acknowledge this unfathamoble abyss of causality, one is required to passionately investigate.

A good understanding of cause and effect is all that is needed to investigate and understand everything. It is the key that unlocks all things. What appeared to be a complicated mystery is reveled through its application to be transparent, understandable and uninvolved.

Cory wrote:
This explains my elitist behavior.

I asked:
What sort of “elitist behaviour” do you indulge in?

Your reply detailed how you thought you interacted with people on the forum: for example, if you consider someone’s ideas foolish or shallow – you “tell them so”. But if someone writes something that you consider not too foolish and shallow you “encourage” them - though you’re careful not to encourage them too much, because from your experience “someone showing promise often quickly steers off course once you congratulate them too excessively or prematurely”.

Fair enough. All that doesn’t sound elitist – just sounds like normal discrimination to me. You present your ideas: sometimes people agree with them; other times they don’t. People will think the way they want. Your only concern is that the knowledge you have is rock-solid truth. If your concern is Truth alone, there is then less likelihood of you falling into error.

-

You asked me,

Based on what you read, do you think I love truth?

Well, Meister Eckhart said:

The kingdom of God is for none but the thoroughly dead.

To which I am left to query: how dead are you?

-
Sue

Dear geniuses of the "Attachment to anything is bad, therefore to truly be good, one must be anti everything, because to be pro anything is to have an attachment to it." persuasion. Your view is idiotic. Your nature is nihilistic.

Haven't read this whole thread, I'm just callin' strawman in case anyone else hasn't already.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:

Dear geniuses of the "Attachment to anything is bad, therefore to truly be good, one must be anti everything, because to be pro anything is to have an attachment to it." persuasion. Your view is idiotic. Your nature is nihilistic.

Haven't read this whole thread, I'm just callin' strawman in case anyone else hasn't already.

What? This is a common view here.

It sounds stupid when you take away the verbose language doesn't it? There's a reason for that. It's stupid.

If you think I'm misrepresenting, tell me how I am.

You'll have to do better than this on the genius forum.

millipodium wrote:You'll have to do better than this on the genius forum.

Indeed. So when are you going to start following your own advice?

Frank wrote:

Yes Soren...we make it mean what we make it mean...hahaha

Could you go into detail of what you mean by this in reference to the exchanges between Sapius, Cory Patrick and Sue?

I suspect you stated this Frank because you feel it is relevant to the discussion.

Cory: For instance, despite the dictionary definition of elitism does not mention anything about attachment, and despite the dictionary definition or even the Buddhist explanation of attachment says nothing about elitism – I see them both – elitism and attachment - as one whole dynamic.

Sue: You mentioned in your post “causality” and “things having no inherent existence” – how does “elitism” fit?

I used elitism in relationship to attatchment to show a causal relationship and to reveal elitism and attatchment as inherently non-existing things. You asked me what my truth was, and so I did my best to illustrate my understanding. I mean, I could have used an ocean wave in relationship to temperature and wind or something instead of elitism, attatchment (in order to make the same point), but given the argumentation surrounding the concept of elitism as of late, I thought I should continue towing it along and see if I could attract more challenges.

And it seems that by doing so, I'm finally provoking a dissenting opinion from someone besides Millipodium. You know, I would like to see someone suceed at proving elitism is unneccessary (and I do personally believe that it is eventually rendered unneccesary) but I found mills argument (not to mention his actual behavior) unconvincing. And given that Quinn and Diebert have both spoke in favor of elitism, well, that would make you, Sue, someone who is dissenting below the consensus on this forum - which I think is commendable, as long as you can carry out your questions and arguments in a way that doesnt involve humililating people and insulting them.

Cory: To have character is to be attached, and to be attached is to be elitist.

Sue: Again – what’s elitism got to do with anything?

Why not ask me; what does 'character' have to do with anything?

The answer is: my whole post focused on the 'lover of truth' in relationship to the abyss (the abyss being: inconcievably infinite causality) and how, by having an intimation or direct confrontation with complexity, we are compelled to turn our gaze away and establish character. And character is 'always' elitist.

Then you may ask: what does all of that have to do with anything?

Well, you asked me what my truth was, and so I did my best to illustrate a sense of truth that I think cannot be undermined.

Cory: However, the one whole truth is infinitely complicated and to honestly acknowledge this unfathamoble abyss of causality, one is required to passionately investigate.

A good understanding of cause and effect is all that is needed to investigate and understand everything.

A good understanding of cause and effect is all that is needed to investigate and understand everything?

It is strange hearing this from someone who has quoted Jesus as many times on this forum as you have, Sue.

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

According to Jesus and the old Sue, there seems to be a little more to it then just having a good understanding of cause and effect.

For instance, I really don't think the problem with scientists is that they lack the mind for having a good understanding of cause and effect. I think the problem with scientists is that they lack the passionate desire (root meaning of passion; suffering) to take cause and effect and investigation so far as to become wholly unemotional and indifferent to matters pertaining to family, marriage, career, children, etc, etc.

So, a good understanding of cause and effect is all that is needed to investigate and understand everything, eh?

I'd like to hear about or even see with an eagles view the factors contributing to the phenomenon of Sue coming to understand everything. Sue, are you sure that 'understanding everything' has nothing to do with discontent, hatred and pain caused by your old conditions and values?

If not, then what's up with Jesus's and the old sue's emphasis on hatred?

Sue: [Cause and effect] is the key that unlocks all things. What appeared to be a complicated mystery is reveled through its application to be transparent, understandable and uninvolved.

First of all, what's your take on Dan Rowden And Kevin Solways (two proffessed lovers of truth) disagreement on the Israel and Hezbolah situation?

Not too mention Kevin and Quinn both admitted to not completely understanding how to solve the situation, and succombed to some mere speculaton and guesses about how to help humanity move foward.

And that is my take on character, it arises when we turn away from the uncomprehensible abyss of causality and put our energies into what seems relevant to us.

The more refined and subtle our understanding of causality, the more our response to the challenges of life will trivialize and make petty the challenges, and therefore we end challenge.

And second:
Why is there a body of causality at all?

Do you agree with me when I say that the body of causality has no cause?

If so, then tell me, why is there something rather than nothing?

Quote:
Cory wrote:
This explains my elitist behavior.

I asked:
What sort of “elitist behaviour” do you indulge in?

Sue: Your reply detailed how you thought you interacted with people on the forum: for example, if you consider someone’s ideas foolish or shallow – you “tell them so”. But if someone writes something that you consider not too foolish and shallow you “encourage” them - though you’re careful not to encourage them too much, because from your experience “someone showing promise often quickly steers off course once you congratulate them too excessively or prematurely”.

Fair enough. All that doesn’t sound elitist – just sounds like normal discrimination to me. You present your ideas: sometimes people agree with them; other times they don’t. People will think the way they want. Your only concern is that the knowledge you have is rock-solid truth. If your concern is Truth alone, there is then less likelihood of you falling into error.

I would say discrimination is elitist. It is just like siphoning for gold. You reject and pay little heed to that which is not gold.

Being truthful is superior, being in error is inferior. And I would say it is elitist to be critical of, indifferent to, or unsupporitve toward those who are in error, and supportive and attentive only to those who seem genuinely interested in truth or are truthful.

For instance, you don't see me (a lover of truth) gravitating toward an evangelical christian message board. And if an evangelical preacher came onto this forum and started spewing his nonesense, then he would not be given supportive, favorable treatment, and if he was persistant enough, he might even be banned. So this forum is elitist.

And second, you have to understand the main reason i've been towing elitism along with me in most of my posts.

Milli was emotionally and angrily condemning and insulting all of those he judged to be elitist. It became apparent to Diebert, eventually myself and Quinn that Mills very behavior was elitist.

He was in contradiction and his behavior was hypocritical.

So I became interested in trying to clearly understand elitism and the role it plays, so that in the future I'd be able to deal with mixed up people more effectively.

After thinking things over, it became apparent that without attatchment, there is no elitism.

Being unconditionally liberated and enlightened would imply that one is not elitist, but rather, like you said: dead.

So, milli's angry denounciation of elitism implied that he was (and perhaps still is) someone who is (unbeknownst to him) against attatchment, yet in favor of it in terms of opinion.

You asked me,
Quote:
Based on what you read, do you think I love truth?

Well, Meister Eckhart said:

The kingdom of God is for none but the thoroughly dead.

To which I am left to query: how dead are you?

'How' dead am I? Tough to measure I daresay.

Maybe you can tell me how dead you are, then I'll have something to gauge by.

Dead:

1. no longer living; deprived of life: dead people; dead flowers; dead animals.
2. brain-dead.
3. not endowed with life; inanimate: dead stones.
4. resembling death; deathlike: a dead sleep; a dead faint.
5. bereft of sensation; numb: He was half dead with fright. My leg feels dead.
6. lacking sensitivity of feeling; insensitive: dead to the needs of others.
7. incapable of being emotionally moved; unresponsive: dead to the nuances of the music.
8. (of an emotion) no longer felt; ended; extinguished: a dead passion; dead affections.
9. no longer current or prevalent, as in effect, significance, or practice; obsolete: a dead law; a dead controversy.
10. no longer functioning, operating, or productive: a dead motor; a dead battery.
11. not moving or circulating; stagnant; stale: dead water; dead air.
12. utterly tired; exhausted: They felt dead from the six-hour trip.
13. (of a language) no longer in use as a sole means of oral communication among a people: Latin is a dead language.
14. without vitality, spirit, enthusiasm, or the like: a dead party.
15. lacking the customary activity; dull; inactive: a dead business day.
16. complete; absolute: dead silence; The plan was a dead loss.
17. sudden or abrupt, as the complete stoppage of an action: The bus came to a dead stop.
18. put out; extinguished: a dead cigarette.
19. without resilience or bounce: a dead tennis ball.
20. infertile; barren: dead land.
21. exact; precise: the dead center of a circle.
22. accurate; sure; unerring: a dead shot.
23. direct; straight: a dead line.
24. tasteless or flat, as a beverage: a dead soft drink.
25. flat rather than glossy, bright, or brilliant: The house was painted dead white.
26. without resonance; anechoic: dead sound; a dead wall surface of a recording studio.
27. not fruitful; unproductive: dead capital.
28. Law. deprived of civil rights so that one is in the state of civil death, esp. deprived of the rights of property.
29. Sports. out of play: a dead ball.
30. (of a golf ball) lying so close to the hole as to make holing on the next stroke a virtual certainty.
31. (of type or copy) having been used or rejected.
32. Electricity. a. free from any electric connection to a source of potential difference and from electric charge.
b. not having a potential different from that of the earth.

33. Metallurgy. (of steel) a. fully killed.
b. unresponsive to heat treatment.

34. (of the mouth of a horse) no longer sensitive to the pressure of a bit.
35. noting any rope in a tackle that does not pass over a pulley or is not rove through a block.
–noun 36. the period of greatest darkness, coldness, etc.: the dead of night; the dead of winter.
37. the dead, dead persons collectively: Prayers were recited for the dead.
–adverb 38. absolutely; completely: dead right; dead tired.
39. with sudden and total stoppage of motion, action, or the like: He stopped dead.
40. directly; exactly; straight: The island lay dead ahead.
—Idioms41. dead in the water, completely inactive or inoperable; no longer in action or under consideration: Our plans to expand the business have been dead in the water for the past two months.
42. dead to rights, in the very act of committing a crime, offense, or mistake; red-handed.

-----------------------------------

Am I an outgoing, excitable, warm, enthusiastic, lively socializer?

No, I would say I seem dead to many people who know me. I think enthusiasm is shallow and stupid.

And I think many people who I am in relationship to (family and people at work) are seriously starting to think there is something wrong with me.

I am not very responsive, excitable or enthusiastic about anything.

Lately at work everyone is excited about the rollingstones coming to play here in halifax, or they are excited to talk about what happened on their favorite reality show.

They are rather uncomfortable to acknowledge my indifference, and even more uncomfortable to notice the 'genius' written in big letters on my computer monitor.

I am a bit uncomfortable about this too. It's depressing really.

Not quite dead yet, but close I daresay.

Cory Patrick wrote:I am not very responsive, excitable or enthusiastic about anything.

This is an ongoing issue for me - one the one hand, I don't get excited about things I think are dumb, and there's nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, not being excited or enthusiastic about anything is mentally unhealthy. If I start to lose interest in something, I have to ask, is it because it's something I've outgrown, or am I just falling into a depression, losing interest in everything in life?

It's depressing really.

Yes, it can be. Sometimes, I need to take a break, step back find something fun to do, even if I know it is shallow and pointless in the end.

I think there is sometimes a tendancy to downplay the mental stress. But it's important not to push too hard, too fast. There is some very real danger there. There needs to be some balance.

Some where else - on another thread, probably, I don't recall where - there was an assertion that the wise person doesn't have any friends. That may be true, but not having friends can be harmful to one's mental health. If friendships sort of slowly fade away as your attachments fades, then probably the strength to be friendless will develop simultaneously. But push too far, too fast, and you just make yourself miserable for nothing.

That's how I see it, but that just may be because of the limits of what I personally am capable of, and I need to live within those limits.

prince wrote:

millipodium wrote:You'll have to do better than this on the genius forum.

Indeed. So when are you going to start following your own advice?

What's wrong mulatto lover? Paisley pants pinching again?

The poster formerly known as ...

Corey, with you everything is bound up with attachment. Any argument can be refuted by calling you opponent and attachmentian.



I only mention elitism because it predominates here, especially for those of you who openly toy with the idea of genocide.

Mill: I only mention elitism because it predominates here, especially for those of you who openly toy with the idea of genocide.

First of all, like I've tried to point out to you on almost every second post - elitism predominates everywhere you go. Humans are attatched and thus are elitist by nature.

Second, I assume you are refering to the genetic degradation thread that cosmicslut started.

If you go back and look at that thread, you will actually see that my first post was quite hateful towards cosmic prostitutes interests and excitements.

To this day I still find the idea of genetically tweaking humans uninteresting and not worth the trouble.

My second post was me trying to calmly play it cool, while continuing to present reasons why I thought it was not a good idea.

Then I noticed your overdramatic crusade against comsic prostitute.

I thought your attitude was doing a disservice to any attempt to rationally refute cosmic prostitutes interests.

So I started poking you, to see if there was anybody behind the melodrama.

Cory Patrick wrote:

Mill: I only mention elitism because it predominates here, especially for those of you who openly toy with the idea of genocide.

First of all, like I've tried to point out to you on almost every second post - elitism predominates everywhere you go.

So that makes it ok? "But mom, EVERYBODY'S doing it."

Humans are attatched and thus are elitist by nature.

but what if one is attached to disattachment? Is he an elitist?

Second, I assume you are refering to the genetic degradation thread that cosmicslut started.

No. I'm getting at your general contempt for humanity.

If you go back and look at that thread, you will actually see that my first post was quite hateful towards cosmic prostitutes interests and excitements.

To this day I still find the idea of genetically tweaking humans uninteresting and not worth the trouble.

My second post was me trying to calmly play it cool, while continuing to present reasons why I thought it was not a good idea.

Then I noticed your overdramatic crusade against comsic prostitute.

I thought your attitude was doing a disservice to any attempt to rationally refute cosmic prostitutes interests.

Thanks for the blow by blow of the thread. It was boring the first time. And I'll handly my attitude. Thank you very much.

So I started poking you, to see if there was anybody behind the melodrama.

There's a lot of meat.

Sapius wrote:

Yes, the desire to ‘know more’ is in part born out of what one has come to know, but the more essential part is that one is NOT satisfied, logically, with what one has come to know.

Yes, so can we agree that this dissatisfaction is a form of suffering, and that we are driven by the pain of limitation?

Sapius: Now this drive exists in any and all things, but what that drive is directed to depends on an individual ‘thing’ also. A physicist is not any different than a philosopher as far as the drive itself is concerned.

'As far as the drive is concerned' - I'll admit the philsopher and the physicist are both driven by discontent, anxiety, an uncomfortable feeling of limitation.

However, the quality and intensity of the discontent is of course different.

Sapius: The physicist is as earnest in searching the “truth” as is a philosopher.

Well, I wouldnt go that far. They are functioning in the same way, however, the quality of the philosophers discontent has greater heart, there is greater social interest comprising the philosopher.

The physicist isnt really interested in understanding humanity or himself. I would say that this implies his discontent is more feeble and small.

Cory: What you know always generates a feeling of entrapment and oppression, and what you know also always generates the unknown.

sapius: Sure, but not once you KNOW that there is or was nothing to ACTUALLY KNOW. Because once you Realize that what I actually wanted to KNOW was a thing created by my own thinking and values, and does not ACTUALLY exist at all.

I would say that there is existence. Each particular thing comprising existence does not inherently exists, but what always remains is a sense of existing and a sense of responsibility.

I say that the biggest challenge humanity faces is developing and knowing what good character is, and understanding why a certain character is good.

Cory: Humanity often deals with this feeling of oppression that knowledge gives by letting lose by indulging in various sensations (instead of investigating things more thoroughly and subtly).

Humanity generally hates truth, therefore, in order to seek and become that which humanity hates I would say requires a love, passion for truth and a hatred for the false and cowardly.


Sapius: No, humanity actually loves truth, only that each individuals “truth” is defined differently.

No, humanity loves rationalizations, consensus, security, predicatability. Those things are not neccesarily truth, but are merely a desire for pleasantness.

Humans love pleasantness.

Sapius: Everyone creates his own circle of “values” and hence “truths” accordingly.

But they are not truths. They are merely values. These people with their shoddy values are confused.

Cory: One can only set out on a quest to know ‘greater’ truth, and this is because one must begin with some basic conclusions and from those conclusions, discontent and questions arise, and those questions lead to the hypotheses that lead you to investigate certain areas.

Sapius: I would say that we begin with certain premises rather than conclusions, because those conclusions belong to others in which I’m not satisfied in the first place.

Yes, you said it better than I. that was what I meant.

Cory: Some people don’t desire greater truths because they, due to genetics and environment, are easily contented with meager explanations that they don’t know are meager.

Sapius: If ONLY that part was absolutely true, then one cannot hold responsible or give credit to the ones that do not know nor to the ones that know.

Yes, exactly. It is not a bad persons fault that they are bad. And a good person is good because he is lucky. That is why I say hatred is often healthy to treat as something to not be supressed but to be expressed, and it is for some people a requiste for being good, however, one should not hate anyone in particular, ones hatred should simply be for a certain quality of being.

Sapius: So, how logical is your above statement? That leaves actually nothing to be discussed or differentiated.

Just because everything is determined, doesnt mean we don't live, discuss, explore. Just because i am determined to know that which I do not know now, doesnt mean I should'nt follow through with my curiousities.

But you know what, I guess i'm starting to think that emphasizing the view that there is no choice, and that everything is determined is really unnecessary, superfluous, and redundant. I think we might be better off just to forget about it, its a waste of energy. Some knowledge, despite it is true, isnt worth holding onto. There is more pertinent business to take care of and that businnes demands an open receptive mind that isnt tethred and neurotic about this fact or the other fact.

Sapius: Other than genetics and environment, the essence, or particular attributes of an individual thing also exists.

Can you prove it? Tell me more about this essence, tell me about these particular attributes....

Sapius: Isn’t “mind” within its self an environment too?

Sure, the constituent is always a container (an environment) of some sort.

Sapius: Isn’t an individual Thinking an environment too?

Yes, you sapius, are in part, my environment. As I am yours.

Sapius: Does the process of causality NOT bring forth an individual “thing” in and of any given moment of causality?

I really can't quite picture what your getting at.

You are pushing to believe that the fate of an individual depends on more than just heredity and environment?

I don't know, you'll have to give me some clear examples from real life.

Cory: The ones who desire greater truths are often those who, due to genetics and environment, want greatness and conquest.

Sapius: It would then stand to reason that the ones that DO NOT desire greater truths do so also due to genetics and environment, but yet want greatness and conquest.

Yes, all humans are driven by the desire for superiority, greatness, conquest. There is just a spectrum of values.

Some people have an idea that greatness means winning an athletics competition. Others have an idea that preoccupation with athletics is inferior behavior. Etc, etc.

Sapius: (Say Alexander, Hitler, etc. etc.) So where is the problem? Isn’t all so perfect! In other words, you have discovered the perfection of Existence, so what the hell is “truth” and “non-truth”? Aren’t both put together actually perfection?

I would say the truth stands on its own, it does not depend on un-truth. Much like the sun does not depend on the object casting the shadow, the truth does not need untruth to be perfect. Humans are indeed imperfect and that is because they have errected objects within their minds creating shadows. We can do better.

Cory: The totality, unlike its constituents has no form, boundaries, and frontiers, it is not a fixed limited object and thus cannot fill and thus create empty space.

Therefore truth goes beyond isolation, time, and becoming

Sapius: Hence isn’t “totality” BUT infinite forms?

There would be no form, because form requires space/time to contain it.

Sapius: It is just to be understood and realized, and even then the “I” still remains an I - but is now without any quotation marks.

Cory: What do the quotation marks represent?

You can say the attachments to a false-ego, in which I initially believed that I exist, then I logically deduced that an “I” is illusory, and when further deduced, one realizes that it was always the I battling it self, and the I becomes as REAL as any-THING else in and of any given moment of causality, absolutely, hence I literally exist, so do all other things, otherwise I wouldn't be able to detect or define THEM.

I see what you mean here, and I agree. The illusion is real, however, each thing has no inherent existence of its own.

Cory: So the ultimate truth is that no particular thing inherently exists.

Sapius: That is incomplete in my opinion...

So the ultimate truth is "that no particular thing inherently exists.…..AND that any particular thing necessarily exists in and of of any given causality created moment of the now at the same instance."

Cory: I think you are perhaps missing out on the significance of one stressing the word inherently.

That should be sufficient in it self, although if one doesn’t understand the statement, then further and more detailed explanation is appropriate. I will explain further:

There is the appearance of things, things appear to exist, but I say that things are merely an expression of all other things.

Each thing is the expression of everything else, there fore a particular thing doesn’t ‘inherently’ exist.

The expression that is the particular thing, is not so much an expression resulting from the independence and empowerment of that particular thing, but rather the thing is an expression of everything that is not the thing.

For instance, just look at the ocean or a lake on a windy day.

One particular wave is really the expression of not so much that particular wave, but of everything else. Gravity, temperature, wind, light, tide, the activity of all of the ‘other waves’ etc, etc.

The sheer phenomenon of there even being a huge body of water, and the movement of that entire body of water is an expression of temperature, the atmosphere, gravity, light, etc, etc. And each of those things: temperature, atmosphere, gravity, light – all of those things are the expression of other things.

A particular wave you see emerging and breaking has no independent, inherent power of its own.

It is merely the expression of everything else.

‘It’ does not ‘inherently’ exist.

Sapius: With all due respects, I have been hearing this “wave” and “eddy” thing from my childhood so to speak, and I have actually spent quite some time thinking over it, but the one telling me this does not realize that he is actually creating a mental picture of the SEA giving it a sense of ‘thing-ness’

Just because he has a pictorial representation of the sea, doesnt negate the fact that the sea doesnt 'inherently' exist.

As you might have heard, the word isnt the thing. The signifier is not the signified.

Again sapius, "inherently" is the word we are stressing. Sure, the illusion is real - but the sea, like the wave - doesnt inherently exist.

So what the hell is it that “underlies” ANY-THING at all?
I am told, emptiness, void, etc., etc.
I am told, emptiness, void, etc., etc. Which in my opinion, at this stage of understanding, is a mistake

Sure, it seems superflous to me too. I always thought (for the past 2 years) that everything, the totality is really just one big, undiscernable mass of energy which has no center - and thus could be regarded as a void, just nowhereness, nothingness.

Sapius, do you believe that a 'center' actually exists? Doesnt a center imply 2 seperate points? Does a center not imply space?

Sapius: It is the transformations that we detect and because of the “logical” belief, that there HAS to necessarily be something that is an Absolute, be it a concept, we cannot accept otherwise. Whatever the concept of an Absolute, it is no different than a blind faith because it leads to some sort of valued Godhead. Drop just THAT, and one is free to live the moment in and of the NOW. Free from a deliberately created conceptual world, and live a real flow in and of A=A, a naturally flowing and yet a “conceptual” world.

Ok, fine. Sounds ok to me.

Sapius: I am not saying that the “deliberate” conceptual world is not real in any sense, because it is that very world that leads to a different Realization, and both are reality in every sense of the word.

Yes, the only thing real is the illusions. And illusions are simply illusions. To know everything is to know nothing.

But what I have difficulty with is character. The problem of comprimise, of pleasing people, of helping people, of getting along in a way that helps humanity lift itself out of its ugly state.

Sapius: What I say is not for those who believe that nothing lies beyond the “mind”; that is kindergarten stuff, atleast for me, for what is MIND itself, actually, but a causal process?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

An apple is a casual proccess too, but does that mean it has a mind. The human being has a brain and if I assert that there is no consciousness beyond the brain, then what is the problem? You can say - Ah! there is consciousness beyond the brain because the brain is a causal proccess!

Well, I just don't see what you mean. All things are causal proccesses. But only brains think.

However, I would prefer there to be consciousness beyond the brain. I would prefer to be transformed in a higher state of intelligence at death.

Sapius: Continuous change does not make a thing disappear

Cory: When a wave comes into being and crashes, it is indeed forever gone.

Likewise when someone dies, his unique personality, consciousness and character is forever gone.

Sapius: Of course, maybe I was not clear enough.
I mean to say, is it possible that at any given moment of Existence THINGS do NOT exist?

'Inherently' they do not. A particular wave has no individual essence, a particular wave has no inherent will of its own.

Sapius: If “causality” is permanent, so are “THINGS”, because without THINGS, where or what would “causality” be? They arise together, THAT is Existence! We split the ‘process’ and ‘things’ because we experience and “logically” think it so.

When someone dies, say a person or a tree, all that is happening is CHANGE, so a particular thing CHANGES into another thing, and this is hapenning each and evey moment in and of change, in the bargain loosing its previous attributes and gaining different ones, and is hence now a different THING.

I see what your getting at now, and I disagree.

One particular thing - a tree (which I say has no locatable essence) - when it burns to the ground and turns into ashes, its previous form, its thingness, its treeness, is forever gone.

Yes, there is a residue left from the tree, the ashes - but the ashes are not the tree. Ashes are ashes, a tree is a tree.

Neither inherently exist - and they are certainly not permanent. The only thing permanent is their destruction into a 'new' thing. There is the proccess of one thing changing into another thing. You are trying to say that there is only one thing, and that one thing is constantly changing its appearance. I say that there is only the totality, and that totality is not a thing, it has no appearance. The things that we observe living within time, are not permanent, they are mere things, things of which do not inherently exist.

Sapius: So when and where do THINGS in and of causality cease to exist?

They cease to exist when they become new things.

Sapius: If it's not one, then it's another, when not that, then it's yet another, ad infinitum......

You are making it seem like there is only this permanent soul that goes from one costume to another.

This is incorrect.

millipodium wrote:What? This is a common view here.

uh huh

It sounds stupid when you take away the verbose language doesn't it? There's a reason for that. It's stupid.

what you dismiss as "verbose language" is probably just points of refinement inconvenient to your rebuff.

If you think I'm misrepresenting, tell me how I am.

Because I don't think anyone here actually believes this. In fact, if I were to take your parody at total face-value, I'd have to say I've never heard anybody claim this, ever (except as a parody, of course.) The doctrine of yielding attachment doesn't play into a good/bad or even favorable/unfavorable duality. It comes from a realization that your being is not contingent on any particular thing -- that includes philosophy and ideology, as well as material things.

This idea might manifest in a faker as him trying to reject all things, but that kind of neurotic behavior might really just be indicative of some deeper 'attachment' ruling his life (like a desire for absolute "purity"... or maybe not even an attachment, but just an idiotic literalist interpretation, like your own.)

Cory Patrick wrote:

To this day I still find the idea of genetically tweaking humans uninteresting and not worth the trouble.

You know, there are genetic defects that can cause children to be born without arms? Now, wouldn’t any sane, rational man prevent that child from being born without arms if it could be done with a “simple surgerial procedure”? You would have to be insane to suggest that you would rather see that child born without arms?

It will be a simple procedure, no trouble at all. I have been in the biology labs, they have mapped over 50 hereditary diseases.

So perhaps there is a bit of good in some shadows…

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Cory Patrick wrote:

To this day I still find the idea of genetically tweaking humans uninteresting and not worth the trouble.

You know, there are genetic defects that can cause children to be born without arms? Now, wouldn’t any sane, rational man prevent that child from being born without arms if it could be done with a “simple surgerial procedure”? You would have to be insane to suggest that you would rather see that child born without arms?

It will be a simple procedure, no trouble at all. I have been in the biology labs, they have mapped over 50 hereditary diseases.

So perhaps there is a bit of good in some shadows…

Walk away from Omelas, my friend.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Cory Patrick wrote:

To this day I still find the idea of genetically tweaking humans uninteresting and not worth the trouble.

You know, there are genetic defects that can cause children to be born without arms? Now, wouldn’t any sane, rational man prevent that child from being born without arms if it could be done with a “simple surgerial procedure”? You would have to be insane to suggest that you would rather see that child born without arms?

It will be a simple procedure, no trouble at all. I have been in the biology labs, they have mapped over 50 hereditary diseases.

So perhaps there is a bit of good in some shadows…

That's not addressing the larger issue, obviously. Which is: where do you draw the line? A doctor could persuade a family that *any* particular, non-life threatening, abnormal trait, not deemed favorable to social adaptation, is cause for a "simple surgerial procedure."

The parents are, generally, totally ignorant about the nature of such things and are completely unable to judge for themselves -- so all the power goes to the medical establishment, and in the end, who do 'they' serve?

Wild Fox Zen wrote:

That's not addressing the larger issue, obviously. Which is: where do you draw the line? A doctor could persuade a family that *any* particular, non-life threatening, abnormal trait, not deemed favorable to social adaptation, is cause for a "simple surgerial procedure."

The parents are, generally, totally ignorant about the nature of such things and are completely unable to judge for themselves -- so all the power goes to the medical establishment, and in the end, who do 'they' serve?

The west is fairly leftist meaning they are terrified moving away from the conventional. The US policy makers are still weary over “the morning after bill’ and “abortion” so genetic engineering would be heavily regulated and the sole decision for a significant alteration of the genome would probably not fall down on the responsibility of one doctor. There will be a chain of command, a hierarchy. Like anything else which involves a serious amount of risk.

Overall I believe genetic engineering will be fairly limited to hereditary diseases and strange mutations.

Remember there is a strong Christian influence in most of the western world and they will not allow any serious tampering of the genome. Christian values are what predominately controls the west.

They have a huge sway of power.

However I’m not denying the fact that there will be considerable blunders, tragedies and ignorant evil screw-ups caused by genetic engineering

Here are a few guesses:

Humanity may take individuals who they believe are genius and clone another copy of them after their death to try to keep that uniqueness alive. For instance if the US military believes someone like Stephen Hawking was an invaluable asset, they may secretly clone him after his death as a means to produce another mathematical consultant.

That is the sort of ignorant evil I forsee..

Cloning for desirable traits is something the powerful may fool around with in a limited context. I don’t believe it will ever reach the point where we see armies of clones, it will only occur in small localized experiments.

This is true because the west works very hard to keep nucleur weapons out of the hands of dictators just as they will work very hard to keep genetic engineering out of the hands of dictators…

With any sort of technological knowledge comes power, the problem is that humanity is not mature enough to weld that power.