Very few people explicitly bring ‘cause and effect’ into their consciousness and investigate its nature thoroughly.
And if they did, would they all be like you? What I’m getting at, is, do you value the survival of the human race? Judging from Solways comments about how he feels it is urgent for humanity to conquer space to increase our chances of survival, and considering the lengths you have gone to preserve the wisdom of past individuals, I assume that you at least share Solways notion that ones concern with the survival of the human race is important. But what’s the point in humanity surviving as the virus it is? If we leave this planet in order to increase our chances of survival –to what end would we be doing this for?
To perpetuate our plundering and exploitation? Isn’t that what we as humans are all about? Isn’t that what you are about David? You concern yourself with lofty, noble ideals for one reason, and one reason only – ‘self-esteem’, or as Sam Vaknin likes to say: ‘narcissistic supply’. Is there anyone who concerns themselves with nobility and loftiness for any other reason besides enjoyment? You tend to shun the word happiness, yet your are always emphasizing the gloriousness and enjoyment of your reality.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3 ... 76-7654309
http://samvak.tripod.com/narcissist/
-------------------------------------------------------
David: So even though they implicitly deal with causality in every aspect of their professional and personal lives, they still have little or no knowledge of it. It is still a foreign notion to them.
No David, I don’t think it’s a foreign notion to them. I think taking it to the extreme that you have is what is foreign to them. Again you fail to make a valuable distinction. Why do you suppose they haven’t taken causality to the extreme that you have David? Don’t settle for smug answers like ‘cowardice’, even though that is not ‘totally’ incorrect. But don’t let your self believe you are so different from most people 'soley' because you are the ‘braver’. ‘stronger’ soul. On the contrary most people get involved in studying wisdom and philosophy because they try to adapt to humanity and fail due to hypersensitivity, fearfulness, and 'inflexiblity' (by your book - a feminine trait).
The more significant reason the scientists you tried to influence were and are not willing to go to the extreme you have gone is because they were/are not as miserable with their lot that you were, and ‘perhaps’ continue to be. Because they're not miserable with being imperfect - they dont care. PLUS, and this is a biggie - the people you try to influence are, like you, concerned with being great men in their own minds - by their rules - so it is not at all pleasant for them to have you come along and suddenly turn their world upside down. The reason why Solway was able to influence you was probably because you had just recoverd or were recovering from some sort of personal crises or meltdown.
And thus, here we are, striving toward perfection (a mirage?) – what do you think perfection is anyway?
I don't know, Cory. Most people would immediately pick up that I am not perfect.
After all, I have an overly-high opinion of myself, no sense of humour, fixed repetitive views, a pathological hatred of women, a weakness for engaging in character assassination, a fear of intimacy and love, a lack of shame in bludging off the backs of Australian workers, a callous indifference towards the suffering of others - the list goes on and on.
Is this 1) some kind of desperate attempt at suddenly being humble David? Or is this 2) some sort of cunning attempt at didacticism in the guise of narcissistic self-deprecation? Or 3) simply a sincere confession that you truly believe? (which, due to the apparently self-aggrandizing, self deprecating nature of your personality, again provokes us to suspect a severe narcissistic personality disorder is the puppet master behind most of what you say and do)
If this is a genuine attempt at an honest confession on your part, then you should also add ‘pathological liar’ to your list.
You’ve been accused of hating women before, and your response has always been an assurance that you don’t hate women – but rather – you are simply making it very clear what women are.
Now you suddenly confess to harboring a pathological hatred for women.
But perhaps you’re trying to make the ironical point that, if a man was perfect, surely he would be unrecognizable as such. He would appear to be an abhorrent aberration to those who have an ideal of what perfection looks like.
What is it David? What do you think perfection is comprised of?
A young person like my self seeking meaning in life could easily begin to formulate a notion that perfection has much to do with the tendencies of your personality. There’s a lot of people out there who have the same ‘imperfections’ that you listed above, (for instance 'sometimes' I regard my self as having similar flaws - able to be humorous, but usually limited to ironic observations - ultimately unflexible and dour with common folk - - plus i'm a sucker for character assasinations, as you can tell by my harangues directed often at you) And your forum and persona can very easily function as a refuge for those desiring to preserve their imperfections by means of convicing themselves that they what they feel as flaws are really just symptoms of people close to perfection, whereas the rest of the normal, well adjusted people are really the cancer.
And if you truly believe that the qualites you listed as your flaws are truly your flaws - -- -What are the factors compelling you to maintain your flawed overly-high opinion of yourself? Why not focus your writing and discussions on those root factors? Ernest Becker might be a good start for you, if you want to take a closer step toward his notions of imperfection (and thus his notion of perfection)
If you can see that you have fixed repetitive views, why doesn’t this awareness of your neurosis stop you from doing what you feel is a flaw and instead explore some new thinkers, thinkers which emphasize the importance of things other than purely abstract logic. (I can't stress enough how important I think masanobu Fukuoka is - the philosopher closest to perfection in my opinion - if you are worth your salt david you will recognize his genius and sagehood)
If you think engaging in character assassination is a flaw, a weakness - - then why don’t you focus on the underlying, root causes compelling you to engage in this ‘flawed’ behavior?
If you think fear of intimacy and love is a flaw, then why do you constantly insist that to value love and intimacy are the mark of a flawed character?
And if you think having a lack of shame in bludging off the backs of Australian workers is a flaw, then why don’t you invest your time and energy more into not only understanding and writing about the virtue of feeling shame, but also put some work into taking some steps toward becoming more self-sufficient (see Bill Molison and David Holmgren of Permaculture and Masanobu Fukuoka). Why dont you work toward being less dependent on people’s complacent ignorance for your survival?
A callous indifference towards the suffering of others, pathological hatred of women, and having no sense of humor will probably be resolved to the degree that you manage to overcome your other flaws. Although, quite often you posts are quite funny in a subtle, wry, ironical way - and I think you know this. The ne plus ultra phenomenon was indeed hilarious as well.
Something tells me that you don’t ‘truly’ consider all of those things you listed as flaws, as really flaws – but symptoms of a man at the threshold of perfection. Was your list of personal flaws really just a weird misguided attempt at subterfuge for the sake of didacticism?
