GENIUS FORUMS

Anyone with average intelligence can understand the nature of Reality. Males and females both. Many if not most females have the ability to think a range of abstract relationships. So intelligence isn't lacking.

It is not intelligence we're after, but courage.

So we should be asking, What is courage?



Here are some ideas on courage:

- a kind of amplified intelligence, like mental strength that can sustain abstract thinking, taking it as "home"

- the mindstate that has learnt enough from sensory information, to let the body take care of itself, living instead on an entirely non-sensual plane; ability to ride through weaknesses without collapsing

- an all-consuming need for permanence, where things are predictable; a deep drive to limit chaos; a burning need for some core foundation or stability in life; fear of mortality; extreme reliance on ideas of efficiency and forecasting

- an instinctive faith in the ability to realise whatever one imagines; confidence

- energy, enthusiasm; never-say-die; well-developed sense of humour; never burns itself out


Kelly

Kelly Jones wrote:Anyone with average intelligence can understand the nature of Reality. Males and females both. Many if not most females have the ability to think a range of abstract relationships. So intelligence isn't lacking.

Agreed that anyone with average intelligence (and indeed it must be average, neither too high nor too low will cut it) can understand what you call "the nature of Reality".

Kelly Jones wrote:So we should be asking, What is courage?

Courage is taking risks, facing danger, without fear.

Kelly Jones wrote:- a kind of amplified intelligence, like mental strength that can sustain abstract thinking, taking it as "home"

- the mindstate that has learnt enough from sensory information, to let the body take care of itself, living instead on an entirely non-sensual plane; ability to ride through weaknesses without collapsing

This really has nothing to do with courage. This can be the result of either courage or cowardice. For example: If you live a rich, joyful life it would take courage to throw it all away and become a sage (assuming you live a geniunely joyful life, not that you are weary of your life), whereas if you live a poor, suffering life becoming a sage is probably a sign of your cowardice (your inability to become rich and joyful, and consequent condemnation of both).

Kelly Jones wrote:- an all-consuming need for permanence, where things are predictable; a deep drive to limit chaos; a burning need for some core foundation or stability in life; fear of mortality; extreme reliance on ideas of efficiency and forecasting

Courage is the opposite of fear. Someone who is courageous does not hold a fear of mortality and use abstract reason to prove to himself that he is immortal. This is cowardice, the desire to escape from what you fear and causes your suffering. Courage is the desire to overcome, to tackle, to prove one's ability, NOT to glorify one's inability.

Kelly Jones wrote:- an instinctive faith in the ability to realise whatever one imagines; confidence

Courage is not faith. And I have no clue what you were trying to say here otherwise.

Kelly Jones wrote:- energy, enthusiasm; never-say-die; well-developed sense of humour; never burns itself out

Courage has little to do with having a sense of humor. The rest works.

Kelly Jones wrote:It is not intelligence we're after, but courage.

With intelligence comes a capacity for rationalization and self-deception. Rejecting that, looking for truth instead of comfort, does take a certain kind of courage and persistence.

Apparently that is a rare turn of mind.

"Anyone with average intelligence can understand the nature of Reality. Males and females both. Many if not most females have the ability to think a range of abstract relationships. So intelligence isn't lacking."

It really depends on your context, the context one has been raised in. What is the 'nature of reality' for you might be radically different from what is the nature of reality for me and for others.

What I find interesting is how the idea of 'nature of reality' changes and evolves, and how it is never a constant.

"the mindstate that has learnt enough from sensory information, to let the body take care of itself, living instead on an entirely non-sensual plane; ability to ride through weaknesses without collapsing".

This sounds potentially dangerous as an assertion, and reminds me of so many variations of formulation one reads on these pages. To live entirely in a non-sensual plane, to become abstracted from one's physical being, one's root, is potentially schizophrenic. And I might say it is 'a coward's way'. It takes more strnegth to exist and carry on within contradiction, it seems to me.

But, that conceptual world, the world of the imagination, the world of artists and thinkers, what a shame and a loss when people stop visiting that place, and can't talk to each other from within it.

DHodges wrote:looking for truth instead of comfort, does take a certain kind of courage and persistence.

This "looking for truth instead of comfort" might be a definition of courage. It is listed among my ideas (above).

If so, does a courageous person find discomfort in comfort? Or more comfort in looking for truth? Or more comfort on remembering finding truth? Or more comfort associated with truth itself?

What is comfort? Happiness? Ideas of absence of mental discord and dissonance? Love of truth?

What happens if there is no mental agitation, no dullness, and no comfort, yet no clear truth either? What is courage then?

Can courage change to become exactly the same as a habit of rationality?


Kelly

Kelly Jones wrote:Can courage change to become exactly the same as a habit of rationality?

I would say no. Rationality boils down to security, freedom from the intuitions and passions, "solid ground", etc.

It involves reaching the genuinely solid ground of truth, as opposed to the illusory solid ground of an illusion - such as what underpins, say, Christian fundamentalism and postmodernism.

Rationality involves challenging the illusory solid-grounds of illusion, which is why people constantly kick up such a fuss about reason. They don't want to have their own solid ground undermined. Your own dismissal of reason very much stems from this.

To apply reason fully and consistency to every aspect of one's existence, that does indeed require a lot of courage and faith.

-

David wrote:To apply reason fully and consistency to every aspect of one's existence, that does indeed require a lot of courage and faith.

It looks as if courage and faith, are different.

I think courage combines these two:

- a kind of attitude, an absolutist turn of mind, an uncompromising persistence.

and

- what arises before reason, ie. a feeling of satisfaction associated with reason, a habitual over-riding love of what reason seems to stand for. This feeling could gradually build, with more experience of reason, into a habitual rationality. So the feeling gets to be more purely associated with reason.

Meaning, courage is an absolutist feeling about reason. It comes before and with reason, like the roadworks gang comes before and with the highway.

that does indeed require a lot of courage and faith.

Courage, is the absolutist feeling - an all-consuming anticipation - about reasoning. Ok.

This brings a rational mindstate into existence. This allows reason to be tested and accepted as reliable. This is an important experience for later. Later, if neither courage nor reason are strong, then one relies on (trusts, has faith in) that memory of the rational mindstate. One hasn't yet retested it. But with that memory, one risks going back to reason. At this point, one relies only on a memory, rather than a test. So it is yet to be valid.

If this reliance on a memory, before knowing it is valid, is faith, then faith comes after courage.

But another idea of faith comes to mind.

It's where reason is accepted as reliable, and there is no fluctuating of rationality - and now one must apply reason (and understanding of Ultimate Reality) in difficult situations. I.e. knowledge ---> application. The distance between the two at any instant is - courage; the distance between them over one's life-time is - faith.

In this idea of faith, there is faith in reason itself, which here isn't deepening or changing; then there is consistency of application, which can improve, which is faith itself (how close to knowledge one's everyday life is). E.g. the method for making a road is exactly the same at point A as at point B, but the actual road is changing in length.


Kelly

Rather than courage, I think of the attitude as fearlessness. And fearlessness is required to see reality as it is and even more so to live honestly.

I didn't go with Neil's idea of fearlessness, because that comes after reason.

Kelly: - an instinctive faith in the ability to realise whatever one imagines; confidence
Neil: Courage is not faith. And I have no clue what you were trying to say here otherwise.

Without having faith in some form of successful beneficial end result, courage will not appear. This is where self-confidence comes from. With experience one gains confidence that the end result, or the path to the end result is a positive manner of action. Faith provides the motivation to drive courage.

Kelly: - energy, enthusiasm; never-say-die; well-developed sense of humour; never burns itself out
Neil: Courage has little to do with having a sense of humor. The rest works.

Perhaps not humour per se, but humour does allow an ability not to get emotionally trapped in negative thoughts. If one can laugh at themselves, not take themselves too seriously, they gain an ability de-emotionalise themselves so that courage can make an appearance. Such people "don't sweat the small stuff", as those without an ability to laugh at themselves do, but concern themselves with things that can really make a difference.


To me courage is about being willing to take a short term loss or some form of suffering in order to gain a long term gain.

I tend to rationalise myself away from steps that involve short term suffering. That I still smoke for instance, indicates that I have almost no courage. My rationalisation in the short term is "So what, do I really care if I die of not, gotta die sometime, 46+ aint too bad, our ancestors used to die much younger so I've had a good run anyway", and other crap like that. It is rationalising away the need to do something now.

It's clear in my mind now.

After reasoning that Truth isn't something, faith is realising it is foolish to keep seeking for Truth. Faith is stopping at Truth.

Courage is accepting this, because it can be difficult to.


Kelly

Self-control is a type of moderation/balance. One exercises self-control in the presence of temptation. If there is no temptation, one cannot claim s/he is exercising self-control. Likewise with courage and fear, and so many other virtues.

It follows that courage isn't the absence of fear, as without fear, one cannot claim to be courageous. Courage moderates fears so one can take action.

Courage is the endurance of 'fear and trembling' as opposed to the escape from such (via suicide, drinking, shopping, etc).

When fear ends, courage ends.

I believe that faith is a promise we make to ourselves; and that, as a promise, it is like a light that shines in the darkness. If you will accept that this darkness is fear; then, courage is the sound of your own footfalls, the walking through into this path of the unknown. Courage loves to laugh; that is, the courageous consider their hardships laughable and trifling matters. Even in the face of death, they are able to find the promise of certainty.

David Quinn wrote:

To apply reason fully and consistency to every aspect of one's existence, that does indeed require a lot of courage and faith.

And it requires a lucky genetic/neural configuration.

Some are born with a partially cracked dam, backed by a large volume of water, which can overflow after a bit of erosion and a few hard blows, whereas others are born with a narrow, meandering riverbed that continually chokes itself off by depositing too much sediment…

great potential

No potential

Ryan Rudolph wrote:David Quinn wrote:

To apply reason fully and consistency to every aspect of one's existence, that does indeed require a lot of courage and faith.

And it requires a lucky genetic/neural configuration.

Some are born with a partially cracked dam, backed by a large volume of water, which can overflow after a bit of erosion and a few hard blows, whereas others are born with a narrow, meandering riverbed that continually chokes itself off by depositing too much sediment…

great potential

No potential

Ryan,

Interesting metaphors - but what use is such speculation, really? Your constant emphasis on genetics seems a bit superfluous, perhaps it's even based on a misunderstanding.

Kelly Jones wrote:Anyone with average intelligence can understand the nature of Reality. Males and females both. Many if not most females have the ability to think a range of abstract relationships. So intelligence isn't lacking.

It is not intelligence we're after, but courage.

So we should be asking, What is courage?

Here are some ideas on courage:

amplified intelligence...mental strength that can sustain abstract thinking...the mindstate

These are not courage. They are mental ability, based on level of consciousness.

... extreme reliance on ideas of efficiency and forecasting

This is not courage. It is faith in the mind and in mental process (which is a good thing, unless taken too far, to the exclusion of the emotional and physical functions.)

fear of mortality...never-say-die

Contradiction.

faith in the ability to realise whatever one imagines; confidence...well-developed sense of humour;

All good hallmarks of a successful endeavor, but not strictly functions of courage. One quibble would be faith not in the ability to realize whatever one imagines -- for there are many things which are not within one's potential -- but to realize whatever is important, or rational to realize.

all-consuming need...a deep drive...a burning need for some core foundation or stability in life, energy, enthusiasm, never burns itself out

Yes, here you speak of the inner fire, which is essential for success in this endeavor. It is the cultivation of the heart, of emotions, and of heart -- or courage. And of will, the mental application. Here the mind and heart come together, and the constant motivation is found. From here the Path is trod.

Cory,

Interesting metaphors - but what use is such speculation, really? Your constant emphasis on genetics seems a bit superfluous, perhaps it's even based on a misunderstanding.

It seems to me that there is no sense emphasizing courage when most people don’t have the ideal biological conditions to be enlightened. So why lead people astray by instilling this false sense of hope that if they keep striving with ‘courage’ that someday they’ll be there?

because that is what they do in the Christian tradition; they convince followers to courageously carry their crosses until death, with the promise of some sort of reward at the end. And that is the danger of courage, as some can believe that if they keep persevering through suffering that someday things will be different, but such thinking seems slightly hopeful…

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Cory,

Interesting metaphors - but what use is such speculation, really? Your constant emphasis on genetics seems a bit superfluous, perhaps it's even based on a misunderstanding.

It seems to me that there is no sense emphasizing courage when most people don’t have the ideal material conditions to be enlightened.

What are the material conditions to be enlightened? Seriously, why don't you lay them all out. If you can't, then you really should reconsider the logic behind your always going on and on about genetics.

that is what they do in the Christian tradition; they convince followers to courageously carry their crosses until death, with the promise of some sort of reward at the end.

This is a deluded notion of immortality. It doesn't require exceptional intellectual ability to realize immortality in a non-supernatural sense.

And that is the danger of courage, as some can believe that if they keep persevering through suffering that someday things will be different, but such thinking seems slightly hopeful…

Who here is promoting enlightenment as some salvation and egotistical comfort? This is really about being logically consistent in your deeds.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:It seems to me that there is no sense emphasizing courage when most people don’t have the ideal biological conditions to be enlightened. So why lead people astray by instilling this false sense of hope that if they keep striving with ‘courage’ that someday they’ll be there?

Ah, but there is sense in emphasizing courage to those who do have the biological conditions.

because that is what they do in the Christian tradition; they convince followers to courageously carry their crosses until death, with the promise of some sort of reward at the end. And that is the danger of courage, as some can believe that if they keep persevering through suffering that someday things will be different, but such thinking seems slightly hopeful…

Fuck "the Christian tradition." Seriously, you speak as one who has been burned by it; fair enough. But that is not what this board is about and it is not -- I'm assuming -- what you are currently about. There is no need to speak of others. It is like saying it is not wise to speak of courage because that is what the Stalinist regime instilled in the raw troops they sent out on mass suicide charges during World War II.

Hopefully your biology will allow you to see this.

Carl G wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:It seems to me that there is no sense emphasizing courage when most people don’t have the ideal biological conditions to be enlightened. So why lead people astray by instilling this false sense of hope that if they keep striving with ‘courage’ that someday they’ll be there?

Ah, but there is sense in emphasizing courage to those who do have the biological conditions.

And one cannot know for certain whether or not the listeners are genetically apt for being wise, so it's better to overestimate people rather than underestimate them. A good example of destructive underestimation is making sweeping generalizations about the inability of black males to achieve enlightenment due to their genetics. It is really quite unnecessary to come to these conclusions.

because that is what they do in the Christian tradition; they convince followers to courageously carry their crosses until death, with the promise of some sort of reward at the end. And that is the danger of courage, as some can believe that if they keep persevering through suffering that someday things will be different, but such thinking seems slightly hopeful…

Fuck "the Christian tradition." Seriously, you speak as one who has been burned by it; fair enough. But that is not what this board is about and it is not -- I'm assuming -- what you are currently about. There is no need to speak of others.

It's even more needless to refer to their genetics.

Cory,

What are the material conditions to be enlightened?

A relatively masculine mind from the outset.

This is really about being logically consistent in your deeds.

Without a relatively masculine mind from the outset, being logically consistent in your thoughts, action and life is an impossibility.

Btw, I was thinking about your metaphor with hormones on the brain, as software acting on hardware, and it works except for the fact that hormones actually influence and change the very structure of the brain by reinforcing brain maps, and making stronger connections between synapses and so on. So in this sense, the software molds the structure of the hardware, and the software is governed by the instructions within the genes.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:

This is really about being logically consistent in your deeds.

Without a relatively masculine mind from the outset, being logically consistent in your thoughts, action and life is an impossibility.

One can be relatively more, or one can be relatively less consistent and logical. Improvements can obviously be made.

Btw, I was thinking about your metaphor with hormones on the brain, as software acting on hardware, and it works except for the fact that hormones actually influence and change the very structure of the brain by reinforcing brain maps, and making stronger connections between synapses and so on. So in this sense, the software molds the structure of the hardware, and the software is governed by the instructions within the genes.

I agree the metaphor does break down when you take it too far, but the point is that two organisms can have equal testosterone, but function quite differently.

There are some who might say courage is actually a myth, however, courage is no more a myth than humor, sympathy, fear, hate, love, etc.

By clearly laying out what we mean by courage, we create an environment which acts upon the individual, and perhaps even improves an individual.

Environment is like the software being run on the organism, which is like the hardware.