GENIUS FORUMS

Kelly:
I wasn't equating physicality and psychology, but trying, though I could have been clearer, to explain that what people regard, from the delusional perspective of the objectively real world, to be less real (i.e. psychology), is actually more real and more physical than their delusion of "fact", because it draws one closer to the inward-drawn focus, and to the idea, and therefore to truth.

Carmel:
Yes, but only if one clears away the mental clutter first. You haven't yet learned to do that. You're still spinning your wheels in a self induced mental labyrinth.

I find it interesting that you don't see how very "feminine" your thinking actually is, most notably the emotionalism which, at times, is veritably palpable.

Secondly, It's as though you've absorbed the views of "wise misogyny" perfectly using the feminine receptive energy, now you're simply spitting it back out like a perfectly programmed machine.

Incidentally, I've never once objected to the ideology of "wise misogyny", it's primarily the methodology which I object to, in your particlular case, it's the preaching, lack of fair mindedness, emotionalism and use of ad hominens i.e calling me "Mrs Baker" etc.

Also, I don't find your habit of playing armchair psychologist useful. You're not disciplined in your approach. You make rash judgments about people before actually understanding their worldview. In my case, you cherry picked statements to suit your agenda and overlooked more relevant statements i.e. I previously said: "I'm inclined toward autonomy." This is far more psychologically revealing than some of the issues you chose to focus your attention on.

So, I'll ask you, why is it that you needed to view me as being a dreamy eyed romantic, when, in fact, I'm not?

My analyses are always open to doubt and challenge, but I really do expect reasonable responses if challenged. How open were you to doubt and question, when you posted the above?

Incidentally, I've never once objected to the ideology of "wise misogyny", it's primarily the methodology which I object to, in your particlular case, it's the preaching, lack of fair mindedness, emotionalism and use of ad hominens i.e calling me "Mrs Baker" etc.

I didn't call you Mrs Baker. It was a joke, signing off my post as "Mrs Baker of Canterbury Street". I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. I was placing the hypothetical David-and-Carmel conversation into the context of a criticism written by a very ordinary person, a "Mrs Baker". David's Kierkegaard extract signified an ordinary humdrum person having an extraordinary fantasy, and I was having a bit of fun with the allusion. My sense of humour likes playing ironical jokes on ideas, twisting them around in meaning to get more out of them personally, if possible. Needless to say, everything I write to criticise others is first of all, and unavoidably, very deeply applied to myself.

Also, I wasn't saying you are an absolutely and irrevocably dreamy, loopy, romantic nutter, just that a couple of your posts seemed to be off with the pixies. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking you to explain at the outset. Unfortunately, you took it the wrong way. I've always had the attitude of seriously wanting some rational analysis, but you seemed to think I was being egotistical. Not my prob.

.

Kunga wrote:

prince wrote:Is that a true story? Surely the rogues beat up on the students too. Why did they single out the priest, was he a child molester?

what the story is pointing to is the point.... :)

I know...I just can't resist the urge to toss the odd spanner into the spokes of Kelly's tricycle of self-righteousness.

skipair wrote: I barely even know what we're talking about at this point. Something about dice and a board game named Risk, which is excellent, and which I think you can play online.

Ah yes, Risk, one of all time favorites!

skipair wrote:Anyway, if by your whole "have I 'truly' rolled the dice on myself" thing you mean do I really have full consciousness of logical reality, do I really understand the nature of women, have I really brought it to every nook and cranny of my life, etc.

I simply meant having the ability to trust one's mind, I mean really trust your mind, the kind of trust one can only gain by exploring the deepest and darkest depths of it.

skipair wrote:all I can tell you is that I put in an extraordinary amount of time and bloodshed into my quest, that I've never tried harder at anything in my entire life (though to be honest it was mostly smooth sailing until the end), and what I got out of it was something very obvious, all-inclusive, and made sense. In a very real sense it wasn't anything I didn't already know.

I don't doubt that you've been through an extraordinary journey. I just want to find out if it's anything like what I've been through. I want to be able to see you like I see all of my spiritual brethren. Sometimes I think I can see you, and I think you can see me, but I want to make sure neither of us is seeing a mirage.

skipair wrote:(though to be honest it was mostly smooth sailing until the end)

Why did the smooth sailing stop toward the end?

skipair wrote:I'm not one to romanticize and sell it. I'm not even one to talk about it much, because what would you say? I appreciate our talks because I like you and I don't think there's really anything I know that you don't also know, and AS you know, that's about as rare as it gets.

Rare indeed! That's why I want to make sure it's the real thing!

skipair wrote:But I do get a little tired of all the prodding these days. This isn't about me anymore.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Can you clarify it for me?

skipair wrote:Yes, this. The intuition was more of a jumping over logical steps that I'd already made, making the path brighter and allowing me to remember it. It gave nothing "extra" about reality other than how remembering the logic affects my life (which is a lot).

That seems odd to me. Looking back on when I was younger, I relied much more on my intuition to gain a sense of what's true and what's not, and it was only through perfecting my reasoning skills and use of logic that I was really able to bring what my intuition sensed to the front of my mind. Logic is what allowed me to turn what my intuition could only sense into perfectly crystallized wisdom.

skipair wrote:Putting it in words like this is gonna fuck with someone's head, though. The path to understanding has to be natural, not teacher manufactured or referenced.

If by natural you mean personal, then yes, real philosophy and the spiritual path is deeply personal. It's just you and reality, face to face.

Carmel wrote:Also, I don't find your habit of playing armchair psychologist useful. You're not disciplined in your approach. You make rash judgments about people before actually understanding their worldview.

Good point. I don't know why a psychologist would tell the subjects what they are going to be tested for before actually analysing them. It would be like a zoologist who analyses the behaviour of an animal in a cage.

But as for your worldview - can you tell us what your your worldview exactly is regarding relationships or romance? In what little I've seen of your posts, I couldn't see any trace of a worldview. It all seemed too vague to be able to analyse in the first place.

Nick Treklis wrote:I simply meant having the ability to trust one's mind, I mean really trust your mind, the kind of trust one can only gain by exploring the deepest and darkest depths of it.

Yeah, it's pretty amazing. I have no idea how I got so lucky.

I don't doubt that you've been through an extraordinary journey. I just want to find out if it's anything like what I've been through. I want to be able to see you like I see all of my spiritual brethren. Sometimes I think I can see you, and I think you can see me, but I want to make sure neither of us is seeing a mirage.

Sure, I can relate.

Of course, it's not really about that, is it. :)

Why did the smooth sailing stop toward the end?

Well, I was hurteling down to rock bottom in terms of losing reasons to take value in anything in the light of logic. Up to that point my intellectual understanding was very good, but the things I had overcome were all relatively easy and non-depressing. It wasn't until I fell deeply in love that I became very taxed and very serious. And once I overcame that (which felt like it almost killed me), I was able then to take on the rest of the darkness. It was hard, but felt like the worst of it was over.

Eventually, I realized I didn't have to search anymore. I'd killed everything. Everything was bullshit. I could either die, or re-enter the world and live a life according to my best judgment. There are pleasures to be had in the world, so I chose to live.

jupiviv:

Good point. I don't know why a psychologist would tell the subjects what they are going to be tested for before actually analysing them.

Carmel:
She's not a psychologist. She's a fractured person performing a cheap imitation of a psychologist. Psychologists employ strict methodology. She doesn't. Her "analysis" consists of just a bunch of haphazard and random comments. That's why it's not only useless, but irresponsible.

jupiviv:
It would be like a zoologist who analyses the behaviour of an animal in a cage.

Carmel:
Such irony coming from a neanderthal such as you. You're obviously an insecure beta ape who continuously trolls me to try to compensate for his own insecurites, inexperience and lack of wisdom.

jupiviv:
But as for your worldview - can you tell us what your your worldview exactly is regarding relationships or romance? In what little I've seen of your posts, I couldn't see any trace of a worldview.

Carmel:
That's correct. I never stated my world view because it's not much of a struggle for me. People often discuss issues that are still unresolved within themselves. Usually, the autonomy vs. intimacy stage occurs from 20-34(Eric Erickson). I'm passed that stage, though residual issues may occasionally arise.

Incidentally, I don't know what your worldview is either, except that your views about sex are depraved.

high 5 Carmel

Carmel wrote:

jupiviv wrote:It would be like a zoologist who analyses the behaviour of an animal in a cage.

Such irony coming from a neanderthal such as you. You're obviously an insecure beta ape who continuously trolls me to try to compensate for his own insecurites, inexperience and lack of wisdom.

Although I don't know why you said this, this further proves what I've said about your psychology. Oh, and you forgot "fat" and "small penis". As for my lack of wisdom - you have to give at least some proof of that. For example, proof of how all of my arguments are wrong.

But as for your worldview - can you tell us what your your worldview exactly is regarding relationships or romance? In what little I've seen of your posts, I couldn't see any trace of a worldview.

That's correct. I never stated my world view because it's not much of a struggle for me. People often discuss issues that are still unresolved within themselves. Usually, the autonomy vs. intimacy stage occurs from 20-34(Eric Erickson). I'm passed that stage, though residual issues may occasionally arise.

Again, I've no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying that you've stopped thinking about the "autonomy vs intimacy"(reason vs. emotion?) issue go? When people say "I'm past that stage" they normally just mean that they've stopped thinking about those problems because they don't seem to affect them, or they don't want to deal with them. If you don't "struggle" with something, it should be easier for you to state it, to clarify your position. Since you aren't stating it, I'm assuming that's the case with you.

Incidentally, I don't know what your worldview is either, except that your views about sex are depraved.

My views on romance? More or less the same as my views on sex - it's irrational, therefore it's wrong. My general worldview is most similar to Kevin Solway and Otto Weininger, with an added "punk" vibe.

Carmel wrote:Usually, the autonomy vs. intimacy stage occurs from 20-34(Eric Erickson).

I've only got a bit over a year to go? Man, I don't know whether I can make the deadline. Might have to ask for an extension on that one. Hopefully they accept email.

Eric Erickson looks like a very interesting character, if the Wikipedia article about him is anything to go by. Just to be a pedant (not really), the stage appears to be intimacy vs isolation - autonomy appears to be part of an earlier stage.

Carmel to jupiviv wrote:Incidentally, I don't know what your worldview is either, except that your views about sex are depraved.

QFT

guest_of_logic wrote:Might have to ask for an extension on that one. Hopefully they accept email.

A formal letter would probably be better received, or better yet, a face to face. I know a lot about milking academic authorities.

Though, I remember seeing a picture of Erik and remember him looking old. If he's dead, you might just get away with this one. Guess we'll just have to hope for the best.

the ziller is don don devoy.

Kelly Jones wrote:... what "facts" are, or what "totally physical" is: one's own consciousness. I was simply trying to draw you away from the commonplace delusion of objective reality, by moving all physicality into the psychological realms, and thereby to the inward-drawn focus.

It appears you lost track of the initial remarks: you were describing a battle in notably psychological terms ("psychological pitfalls") which were interpreted as "sometimes romantic" by Carmel. Then you moved this psychological sounding battle into a more physical context using language from Hakuin. Now you want to draw me away again from the delusions of physicality into the psychological realm again.

Note that you were introducing both realms, dragging the discussion from one into the other and back again. Clarity arises when introducing a term or a context and work with it, no matter the limited dualistic meanings. Not to flip back and forward with it, as to remain slippery.Or at least hard to follow. Terms might be flexible but there's also value in consistency in how to apply them.

Wasn't your larger point that descriptions of psychological battle are romantic, over-dramatic, and exaggerated? And that the cancer sufferer's battle was "fact" whereas the psychological battle was not as real? Though you gave a context of this perception being "my audience" (e.g. Carmel et al.), it seemed to me that you felt inclined to share it. I was responding to that misperception, that lack of "I".

Almost sounding like Carmel here but it's not an issue for me, this is why I'm not putting much of 'me' out there. But my take on it would be that it's about intensity. Is this a physical of psychological thing? But whatever the answer: intensity translated to writing results in the dramatic and therefore the appearance of romanticism. This captures all I wanted to say about it.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I wrote: ... what "facts" are, or what "totally physical" is: one's own consciousness. I was simply trying to draw you away from the commonplace delusion of objective reality, by moving all physicality into the psychological realms, and thereby to the inward-drawn focus.

Diebert: It appears you lost track of the initial remarks: you were describing a battle in notably psychological terms ("psychological pitfalls") which were interpreted as "sometimes romantic" by Carmel. Then you moved this psychological sounding battle into a more physical context using language from Hakuin. Now you want to draw me away again from the delusions of physicality into the psychological realm again.

Note that you were introducing both realms, dragging the discussion from one into the other and back again. Clarity arises when introducing a term or a context and work with it, no matter the limited dualistic meanings. Not to flip back and forward with it, as to remain slippery.Or at least hard to follow. Terms might be flexible but there's also value in consistency in how to apply them.

It's exactly the same "consistency" as in the "a teacup is a teacup, a teacup is not a teacup, a teacup is a teacup" idea. One believes that the first teacup is the same as the last teacup, whereas an internal transformation has occurred in the interim. I'll try to put it again, more simply:

Stage 1: Low consciousness.
The delusion of objective reality (or scientific materialism, where physicality are what is, the "facts"), which perceives psychological perceptions as less real.

Stage 2: Increasing consciousness.
The awareness that all physicality is psychological, in that all materialistic facts are perceived through the individual's own worldview.

Stage 3: Infinite consciousness.
There is no originating characteristic given to what is, but everything is accepted as how it appears.

In the first stage, the second appears to be dramatic, exaggerated, dreamy, and unrealistic. But that is only because of the lack of self-awareness. Note, the romantic poets actually took this position, which is partly why romantic poetry has gotten the reputation it has. They were afraid to immerse themselves in it, and became overly excitable. The second stage regards, accurately, the first to be the most fantastical and unrealistic. That is the sense of "romance" that I was conveying in the opening post.

Kelly: Wasn't your larger point that descriptions of psychological battle are romantic, over-dramatic, and exaggerated? And that the cancer sufferer's battle was "fact" whereas the psychological battle was not as real? Though you gave a context of this perception being "my audience" (e.g. Carmel et al.), it seemed to me that you felt inclined to share it. I was responding to that misperception, that lack of "I".

Diebert: Almost sounding like Carmel here but it's not an issue for me, this is why I'm not putting much of 'me' out there. But my take on it would be that it's about intensity. Is this a physical of psychological thing? But whatever the answer: intensity translated to writing results in the dramatic and therefore the appearance of romanticism. This captures all I wanted to say about it.

Do you mean intensity of consciousness (ie. greater clarity)? Initially, as the person becomes more conscious, they are frightened, and overemphasise the psychological in the way the romantics, such as Shelley, Keats, H.C.Andersen, etc. do and did. They wanted to be entertained, so they made things dramatic. Similarly, I think some of Hakuin's writings have that element of drama to appeal to the frightened student, and conjure up a "theater" of the imagination. If one does poeticise and exaggerate the value of the goal (for example, instead of a female: the damsel, or ... the beautiful damsel, or ... the beautiful damsel in distress, or ... the beautiful damsel in distress imprisoned far away, etc.), one only does that to fight against the current apathy and its magnetic pull. That means, one is actually drawing one closer to reality, and away from fantasy.

.

skipair wrote:Yes, logical consciousness is a valuable thing, but it really amazes me that someone like David, for instance, can keep talking about it so much. To me it seems obvious that he is fulfilling his natural need to express aggression by co-running the forum and assuming the position of teacher. And there is nothing wrong with that. I value wisdom and respect him for it.

Nick Treklis wrote:Skip,

I'm not convinced that you have actually reasoned long enough about the fundamental nature of reality to be taken seriously. To me it appears you have latched on to the idea that the there is no ultimate purpose (a mere appearance) and made a hedonistic religion out of it.

That's what it looks like to me as well. Skip seems to regard philosophy as a kind of temporary measure designed to sweep away intellectual irritations so that one can get on with the real business of life - namely, seeking pleasure and contentment.

As such, what he calls "logical consciousness" degenerates from being a springboard for cultivating a living, ever-deepening relationship with Reality in every moment of the day and becomes instead a dry, static intellectual template whose sole job is to eliminate the irritations.

Philosophy should be an all-consuming love-letter to the Infinite, an expression of one's deepest passion for truth, not a spring-cleaning exercise for a life of worldly pleasure.

-

For the record, if I had David's values, I would agree, and I would make exactly the same assessment.

Kelly Jones wrote:It's exactly the same "consistency" as in the "a teacup is a teacup, a teacup is not a teacup, a teacup is a teacup" idea. One believes that the first teacup is the same as the last teacup, whereas an internal transformation has occurred in the interim.

My current understanding of this provides a deeper truth: there is no "last teacup" or some "teacup+" as that would mean it's a teacup with added value which you call "internal transformation" of the beholder. But the whole picture, subject and object dynamic, has changed and one cannot call it just "teacup" without deceiving oneself and the other. This means that one is just rehashing the first experience, which always is in motion as internal transformations happen all the time.

One always needs consciousness to make a determination. This is not delusion or "objective reality" - it's just identification. Here's a teacup, here's a mountain. The mountain is not the same as the teacup. Some of the original texts are actually stressing the ability to distinguish between a river and mountain: here's the rivers, that's the mountain. It appears to have been simplified later on.

Delusion is a stage where no distinction between teacups and mountains are made. It's all a blur where ones own 'absolutes' and priorities are projected upon. One lives in confusion and lives in a stage of "there might be a teacuppish thingy, somewhere around here".

After understanding what I mean here you'll see that your "infinite consciousness" is unnecessary as all consciousness is infinite, it being what it is. Your stage two would be still stage one, as in the no-teacup stage there's nothing particular to be conscious of, hence "there is no teacup', no A.

I find this way of viewing the stages more fruitful and truthful. Although I'm going against thousands of new age books and pseudo-Eastern wankery.

But my take on it would be that it's about intensity. Is this a physical of psychological thing? But whatever the answer: intensity translated to writing results in the dramatic and therefore the appearance of romanticism. This captures all I wanted to say about it.

Do you mean intensity of consciousness (ie. greater clarity)?

Intensity of experience is often taken as indicator of reality. People project their concept of 'truth' on the directness of what they can experience. Hence people would say life, death, pain, ecstasy are real, tangible experiences. Thinking about a totality would be not, unless it invokes some intense sense of awe, makes the body shake and shiver or breaks down ones personality.

In my life I had a couple of dreams, before I ever touched drugs or was engaged in serious philosophy, which appeared through their intensity so real, significant and meaningful that they bleached out normal experiences for weeks afterward. Perhaps they were closer to "visions" as reported by mystics. To me it appeared like I witnessed a reality, a truth which trumped anything I knew so far. There was nothing comparable. But I do realize it was the intensity that made it real to me. If a neuroscientist would jam some electrodes in my brain I'm sure I'll experience some astounding realities. But they don't have to be truthful, although I'm sure they'll appear very consistent and meaningful.

The higher perception would be that only absolute truth is real, independent of intensity or personal experience. Arriving at these truths is only possible through a path which might consists of various experiences and intensities. Each of them capable of leading towards truth or shielding it, depending on context.

David Quinn wrote:can get on with the real business of life - namely, seeking pleasure and contentment.

so...would it be better to live and enjoy life or kill yourself because it's considered taboo to enjoy life ? This is the desire realm...no sin in enjoying yourself as long as you harm no one..including yourself. You have all eternity to realization.

I think Carmel was trying to be ironic with the "insecure beta ape" comment.

Atum wrote:I think Carmel was trying to be ironic with the "insecure beta ape" comment.

Most probably not. She's the kind of person who likes to classify everybody into "alpha", "beta", "A", "B" and so on without really thinking about the logicality of the classification. Well, I guess almost all people like to do that. It's a very common trait of feminine psychology, and that is why it's so prevalent today, like all those stupid lists in magazines. Even so-called scientific studies have a tendency to be like that.

jupiviv:
Most probably not. She's the kind of person who likes to classify everybody into "alpha", "beta", "A", "B" and so on without really thinking about the logicality of the classification.

Carmel:
In the context of this forum, I classify people by degrees of intellectual and applied wisdom, not alpha/beta. Understanding truth intellectually is not enough if one fails to demontrate it in speech and behaviour as is too often the case with you.

It's as though you've decided that you already know all the answers. There are many people here you could learn from(not me, of course;)...you need only ask them, I'm sure they would be more than happy to assist you...or you can choose to continue being a slave to your ego.

"Listen, or thy tongue will make thee deaf." ~old Indian proverb

Nick to skipair wrote:I'm not convinced that you have actually reasoned long enough about the fundamental nature of reality to be taken seriously. To me it appears you have latched on to the idea that the there is no ultimate purpose (a mere appearance) and made a hedonistic religion out of it.

David wrote:That's what it looks like to me as well. Skip seems to regard philosophy as a kind of temporary measure designed to sweep away intellectual irritations so that one can get on with the real business of life - namely, seeking pleasure and contentment.

As such, what he calls "logical consciousness" degenerates from being a springboard for cultivating a living, ever-deepening relationship with Reality in every moment of the day and becomes instead a dry, static intellectual template whose sole job is to eliminate the irritations.

Philosophy should be an all-consuming love-letter to the Infinite, an expression of one's deepest passion for truth, not a spring-cleaning exercise for a life of worldly pleasure.

Superb.

.

Carmel wrote:"Listen, or thy tongue will make thee deaf." ~old Indian proverb

Whoever disbelieves this will be condemned to hell and reborn as an ass. ~old Indian proverb

.

Carmel, instead of piling on the conclusions, give a little supporting evidence in the form of the reasoning you relied on to form those conclusions. You haven't responded to quite a few of my questions, and you've been repeating that habit with Jupta also.

.

Kelly Jones: Carmel, instead of piling on the conclusions, give a little supporting evidence in the form of the reasoning you relied on to form those conclusions.

Carmel:
You need to apply this same standard to yourself ...and why didn't you request that jupiviv do the same? Could it be your personal bias and chronic lack of fairmindedness?

Kelly:
You haven't responded to quite a few of my questions, and you've been repeating that habit with Jupta also.

Carmel:
yes, that's true.

What's up doc?