GENIUS FORUMS

Unidian wrote:TOILET BRUSH!

There is more wisdom in this if one can see what that actually implies; it all depends on how developed a mind already is.

However, I think you now know how different minds require different approach, and yes, you have done a good job, Nat :)

But never forget the TOILET BRUSH either ;D

Wolfbird wrote:
The first question is " What is 'human nature' ? "

I am not asking here for the dictionary definition or the wikipaedia entry or the formulaic answers provided long ago by traditional or historical schools of thought and belief.
I'm trying to fathom in what terms humans might conceive of themselves within our contemporary setting.

What is human nature other than the biological drive to continuate life, perhaps even aim for immortality, coupled to our natural weaponry of understanding?

Human nature; the complex, abstract conundrum that is made so only by the fact the questioner experiences his animalistic requirement to feel special and loved, even by himself.

Our nature is the raw drive of the inbuilt necessity to sustain and maintain life that is seen in all life of all variety, coupled not merely to a tool of thought and observation, reaction, but a tool shaped for understanding.

Our unique gift blinds us to the fact that it is still a biological function, an evolutionary development, a tool that has emerged from and competes within the battle for natural selection.

Our nature is to come to an understand with our existence, whether it is false or true, accurate or not. Our nature is to try to understand existence as our method of competing within it. This is the primary nature of the human being, after its classification as a living entity.

Wolfbird wrote:The second question is " What is Everything ? ".
By this I do not mean the scientific description of the known or knowable Universe in technical terms of what can be comprehended of structure and dynamics. I rather mean what is the totality of all that we know. Is it a ' thing ' ? If the totality of all can be considered as a thing, a something (as opposed to a nothing) how might it be approached, intellectually, appropriately, in a reasoned fashion ?

The definition of "Everything" is all you need to answer this question. Whether it is a "thing" or not depends upon how you try to imagine it, try to conceptualise it. The extent of your vision in the context of this question is irrelevant, for the term you use is absolute. Everything is everything, and no thing can lie beyond it. It is the defining line between what does and what does not exist, but then non-existent things are self refuting, so it is a boundary that does not divide.

Wolfbird wrote:My personal view would be that we overlay raw reality with language and conceptual frameworks, cerebral intellectual models, to try and map raw reality so we can navigate our lives. What I am asking tries to go a little deeper. What is it that we map ?

I tend to believe that we find sense or meaning by way of metaphor, by comparisom, by differences. A dog is like a fox. Mars is like Mercury. But the totality is singular and evades comparisom, not 'like' anything else. Does this mean it is meaningless ?

How can it be meaningless when you are a mind that cannot operate without meaning? If this "Totality" is the entirety of all things, then that is what it means. Is it false because we lack direct access to the objects of our experience? False because we must interperate what we see? What evidence is there that it is false? All experience of life compels us towards the assumption that it is true, and it is an assumption, must be an assumption, but none the less there is nothing beyond our choice of skepticism to provoke us into thinking that what we see is false.

What deeper meaning do you search for? Is it some meaning to save you from your inevitable death? That is not a meaning you have concluded but is a meaning you strive for, and while the difference matters, the motivation of the latter is a necessity, is fundamental to all life.

What is it about life that compels it to undergo such trials, such hardships to continue itself, in spite of the inevitability of its own cessation of existence? What is it that life grants that mere process does not? It can only be experience, and if it is experience, if experience is the fundamental aspect of the struggle to continue living, what then does this tell us about the falsehood or accuracy of our own perceptions?

We are not perfect, so our comprehension and understanding of the world that fuels our experience will not be perfect either, but imperfection is a far cry from falsehood. You can call an imperfect perception a false perception if you wish, but you will still be no more right than I.

Wolfbird wrote:Are we clever animals that have learned how to manipulate the ground of our existence, whilst being entirely ignorant of what we really are, unable to know if we are 'meant' to be anything or not ?
Are we clever animals who tell ourselves stories to provide comfort, in the face of inexplicable vastness and mystery ?

What we are "meant" to be is what we are. There are no alternatives to everything.

Wolfbird wrote:It is easy to see how a good story could enrich our human existence and make it more tolerable. But without humans, where would the stories be ? Was there 'meaning', say, twenty million years ago, before Homo Sapiens ? Presumably, the 'Everything' part of my question was operating, and went on to produce us, so if there is meaning now, how could there have been none then, because surely, any worthwhile profound sort of meaning must extend beyond human neurochemistry ? Or am I wrong in thinking of existence and evolution in linear time ?

I take a perspectivist stance. The astrophysicist will have one take; the biologist, another; the bishop a third, and so on.
All such views may be useful or helpful in particular instances according to one's purpose or requirement. But what if we stand back, and take the broadest possible overview ? Is there anything useful or coherent that can be said in answer to my questions ?

While we must interperate reality, it does not follow that our abstractions are real. Understanding meaning is something the human mind is capable of, without humans it follows that there are no living beings capable of understanding meaning. Meaning is not something produced by humans, but understood by humans. This does not mean that there is some fundamental greater meaning to life and existence, other than the meaning it has.

It may not be wise to look for transcendant meaning in existence, like it would be unwise to look for the lyrical and musical meaning within the sound of a motor vehicles engine. Without this quest however we lack motivation in our lives, perhaps even lack a meaning to continue living.

What you must reconcile is yourself as a human being, as a biological creature, and as an animal, with your desire to understand existence. What you look for may not exist, but equally meaning you could not ever imagine may lie at the very heart. Ultimately it is up to you to control that which motivates you, so that it does not interfere with your attempt to understand. Equally you may well give up attempting to understand, and give in to your desires. Which way is right? That is your choice.

Wolfbird wrote:No doubt, the fully enlightened zen master would tell me to chew my rice slowly, or some such. Perhaps to smile when the flower is held up is the only possible answer that can be given ? or perhaps it is possible to state an original thought that has never previously been conceived ?

The fully enlightened Zen masters obviously have much to teach us, but I have long ago stopped looking to others to answer my questions. It is not possible for someone else to understand them, let alone answer them.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Then he would be a poor astronomer and would quickly fail. My point is that any great scientist is motivated for moral reasons. Newton, Einstein, Darwin, these were all moral men. You cannot separate reasoning from morality.

This is true in that all motivations stem from personal value, what is known to be good. Morality, though, is somewhat different as it is used in common language. It's actually not something that exists outside of belief systems. It is essentially a judgment as to the right or wrong of any possible action. Value is different in that it comes from the you that is the source of your experience, and it is inherently known that what is of value for you may not be of value for someone else (although the value may be known and appreciated by them).

If you mean to say that you cannot separate value and reasoning, I'd say you cannot separate value and being. If you mean reasoning and morality as it is commonly used, as a black-and-white indicator of good or bad, then I do not agree.

...

Steven,

What is human nature other than.........

.........someone else to understand them, let alone answer them.

A very thoughtful post indeed :)

xerox wrote:Sometimes l think it would be useful, in the interests of logic and reason, that all posts followed a consistent structure, in order to develop positions devoid of ego. Something akin to the manner of scientific enquiry, such as establishing an hypothesis, definitions, lines of enquiry, testing and conclusions. Without any of the 'me, myself and i, me, mine' stuff getting in the way.

Has it crossed your mind that if we were all able to be devoid of ego, we wouldn't need this forum?

You forget that the proponents of QRS are often the ones who are the guiltiest of the very type of posting about which you are complaining.

It's all in the spirit of human exchange, xerox. I am pretty sure that if this were instead a secret society at King's College around 1900 composed of the male intellectual elite of the day, personalities and talk of lifesyles rather than philosophies would often dominate the the reparte.

Unidian wrote:Brokenhead, do you believe in God? And if so, can you describe him/it?

And you don't "lose" for bringing it up (or alluding to it), at least in my book. If anything, you "win" for your honesty. So I'm asking in that spirit.

I believe that the true source of power in the Universe lies in an accessible Personality who has delegated his power to created entities, most of which are divine, the rest, including us, are mortal. By "mortal" I mean what we are if we do not accept what has been delegated to us, offered to us, out of love.

I believe love does not come from us, it comes through us. If we feel that we run out of it at times, that is an illusion, it is a symptom of not understanding love's true source. From love comes the ability to comprehend, to understand. Without it, we are left to our own devices, and fall to misunderstanding and fighting and not fulfilling our true destinies, the ones that have been offered to every one of us.

Statements like that are the red flag to most of the people on this forum. The Christians get sent into the lions' den all over again. Instead of drinking the proffered glass of water, many people seem to prefer remaining bitter over the fact that they are thirsty!

I just found out something very interesting (to me, at any rate.) I always thought that dust - the dust that settles on our furniture - was the tiny sediment of particulate matter sent up by volcanoes, power plants, car exhaust, etc. But you know what it is, in fact? Studies show that 70 - 90% of dust in homes and offices is tiny particles of us. It is particulate matter that sloughs off living things, mostly humans with some pet dead matter. We are, in fact, dust. In due time, our bodies return to dust. Where does the other part go? How can you contemplate the existence of a soul - or even finer, a spirit - without granting the possibility that the origin and destination of one's soul lies outside the material realms? Or, upon further contemplation, the likliehood that the material worlds as we know them are just a subset of what is out there, what exists?

I have to run now, Nat, but since you asked, perhaps I'll continue at a later time.

Unidian wrote:Brokenhead, do you believe in God? And if so, can you describe him/it?

And you don't "lose" for bringing it up (or alluding to it), at least in my book. If anything, you "win" for your honesty. So I'm asking in that spirit.

Every time someone asks me if I believe in God, I feel like Peter being questioned by the Roman guard while Jesus was in captivity awaiting his death. It is the most tedious of questions, since there is no way I could have any inkling as to what the asker means by “God.” Usually, I can guess by the tone of voice. Here, in this forum, I can usually guess because of the nature of the forum itself, and the prevailing tendency to applaud reasoning that “proves” God cannot – or at least, does not – exist, and the more sophisticated and clever the reasoning, the louder the pats on the back.

It is maddening in its sheer ignorance. Yet, when I hear the reasoning of the “God Hates Fags” people, or see the greased pig Jimmy Swaggart strutting around on a televangelist broadcast he has convinced the gullible masses to pay for, or hear a smug Jerry Falwell complacently telling people who it is that Jesus wants us to kill, I am the first in line with a stone looking for a just such a “believer” to bean.

I cringe at the word “religion,” because it bespeaks an establishment of men telling other men what to believe, and then to hand over money; it bespeaks strife and warfare, misunderstanding, mistrust, and betrayal.

But when I seek to answer the question of God for myself, and to myself, it is an entirely different story. I have seen things that nothing short of an aspect of divinity could explain. And I have seen things for which nothing other than a refusal to consider God with an open heart could be to blame.

How many times have I found myself saying this same thing: faith is a prerequisite for knowing anything about the Greater World, not an end result. Faith is not always easy, but few things of true value are. It is an ability – a power, if you will - that we all have within us. You are not born able to do anything but learn, not able to know anything except through learning. Everything must be acquired, and we acquire through the exercise of our innate powers. One of these is the power of faith, the ability to turn on your headlights so you can see and understand for yourself the answers to questions that seem otherwise to be so intractable. Faith cannot be an end, but must instead be a means. It is the surest way to get over yourself so that you may, in fact, find yourself.

Yet it was organized religion that kept humanity in the Dark Ages. Can I be any more emphatic than to say: organized religion is not God. It is not any sort of divinity. It is not the best way to come to know God. It is not even a way. Rather it is the same the world over, it is a way to perpetuate the existence of the priestly classes, to keep them in their fancy robes and to maintain their tax-exempt statuses.

But a little thought should go a very, very long way. Just as the anthropocentric view of the earth within the cosmos had to give way when the more correct understanding of the Solar System became prevalent, then so must the Humanistic exaltation of Man’s intellectual achievements give way. Is it even remotely possible that this planet, in a Cosmos which seems to expand with every newly discovered galaxy cluster, is the only home of sentient life? Rather, logic makes it necessary to concede the existence of countless other inhabited worlds, some more advanced, some less, than our own. It is the only reasonable viewpoint. Once this is understood, then we need to ask, why have the more advanced worlds not made contact with us? For this, we must assume that they have not. I find this assumption to be without merit. I rather think that the more advanced worlds owe their existence to the same Creator, and are subject to his mandates and restrictions.

In other words, we live in a vastly more complex, and more ordered, universe than we can possibly imagine. We are given every opportunity to discover the Truth. But it must be sought, it must be asked for, the door to it must be knocked upon until it is open.

The Universe is not a vast emptiness, but is teeming with life and consciousness. Sooner or later, mankind must yield his arrogance to the power of Divine Love. I reject the “doom and gloom” scenarios depicted by religious zealots. They make no sense whatsoever. What possible sense is there for a loving Deity to create a home for his children, fill it with them, then proceed to destroy them? It is weak-minded, fear-filled idiots who proclaim such global catastrophe. If we are God’s children, then he is already taking care of us. Can we truly enumerate every Cause that has had an Effect upon our lives? Is it so irrational to consider there may be Causes which are unknown to us, hidden only until we can gather the courage and intelligence required to make them known? I believe it is irrational - unreasonable - to conclude otherwise, to think we have seen all the evidence we need to answer the Big Questions. And just like with earthly parents who offer their children love, the love must be accepted if it is to take hold and flourish. The analogy only falters because earthly parents cannot be perfect.

I believe myself to be a child of God, emphasis on child. I ask to be taught; I cannot do this if I lack faith. I feel boundless wonder at his creation; the wonder vanishes if I permit my faith to vanish.

Once more, and I know I have said this in previous posts, petulance gets you next to nothing with either earthly or divine parents. It is okay to say “show me,” in fact, you are encouraged to do so, as long as you are willing to consider the response. Otherwise, how can you learn? How can you grow? You have to take the first step. Your faith is intended to be neither blind acceptance nor sheep-like belief. Your faith is your headlights, your high beams. Failing to turn them on ensures you will miss much, very much, and may cause damage to yourself and others, for let’s be honest, we all of us on this forum are night drivers.

With some chemically-assisted meditation, I have encountered consciousnesses not of this plane, but very much of this world. I have been permitted to see things which I can share, but I find I have to do so in terms that sound more confusing than the things themselves. As well, I have been shown, or permitted to know, things which I am not at liberty to discuss, at least in a venue such as this, where I do not know who may read what I write. I believe this is nothing special, in that all you have to do is ask and be ready to take responsibility for the answers you receive.

All God wants you to do is open your hearts to him. It is all he asks. He does the rest. If it seems like you are being asked for too much, then that is a sure sign that you haven't done this one thing being asked of you.

It is that simple.

So it is well to ask, what is Everything? If you expect a convincing answer composed of words, you will be disappointed time and time again. Philosophy is not all that comprises the best that is in Man. You must ask the question not only with your mind, but with your body, your heart, and your soul; and it is with these facets of yourself that you must listen for the answer. You cannot get the answer to "What is Everything?" if you insist on withholding something from the question, if you are not prepared to listen with everything for the answer. It seems to me that we on the cusp of mankind's evolution, we who are the ultimate product of humanity's advance thus far, must be ready to face the possibility that we are not the be-all and end-all in the Grand Universe. How prepared are we to lose ourselves when we receive the Big Answers to our Big Questions?

If you want to kiss the sky, you'd better learn how to kneel. No?

Busted! Owned! You're a stupid, dumb, retarded, crazy God-bothering nutty religious whacko! Epic fail!

Nah, just kidding. That seems to be something like the reaction your were bracing for, but it won't come from me. I found your remarks interesting, and it seems to be a fairly harmless form of theism, at least the way you present it. I am always somewhat dubious of the term "faith," simply because of the outrageous things people can do with it. But you don't seem to be attempting anything like that yourself.

I don't share your views, but they seem respectable enough. They are certainly far superior in my eyes to the proclamations of some around here who won't touch the word "God" with a ten-foot pole but will not hesitate to replace it with terms like "Truth" and "Ultimate Reality," setting themselves up as enlightened preachers thereof.

Wolfbird,

From what I have observed thus far, it seems, we're each sticking to our own thoughts and ideas and improving them as we go along. Listening (or in this case: reading) another's posts. Converting it into something meaningful. Comparing. And reiterating our previous posts, while making sure they have the other posters ideas incorporated into their own (if accepted). In more ways then one, it's a thing of beauty. We are communicating telepathically (so to speak). Improve each others models as we go along. For instance, I have abstract fascinating models about existence. Little gems of knowledge that lack completeness. I accept that we all do and so, when we communicate, we gather meaning by comparing whatever we think the other is saying, to our own models. In a very real sense, we're communicating with ourselves. We'll never understand the other person's exact model, we'll only understand our own. The lack in our understanding, or the feebleness of our own models is what leads to an unappreciation of the other's model.

Whatever is "out there" (beyond the 5 senses) cannot be grasped. All we understand is that there is something, because we're experiencing it. If this wasn't so, then we would not exist and if we didn't exist, then "...." ! If we didn't exist, then we'd still believe that others and life still did exist; we believe there's a world outside of our own - though, that's what the evidence dictates. However, it makes sense to say that others could not exist in the way we perceived them to (when we lived). Though, however we perceived them to be, is the way they really were (hint: for ourselves). The same (obviously) goes for the "out there", because the others (other human beings) are part of it.

There is an inner and outer world. The trick is, it's the inner representing the outer and at the same time, the outer is the inners fabrication. This fabrication is made possible by there being some sort of outside, which gives rise to ourselves and we inturn create these vast and complex inner worlds - trying to understand...

By the way, the Totality is an illusion and it's a grand fabrication of our inner worlds, which tries to describe what's out there... Very complex.

Question: Is there time in the Totality? (depends on how you think about it, but let's see what you got...)

Unidian wrote:I don't share your views, but they seem respectable enough. They are certainly far superior in my eyes to the proclamations of some around here who won't touch the word "God" with a ten-foot pole but will not hesitate to replace it with terms like "Truth" and "Ultimate Reality," setting themselves up as enlightened preachers thereof.

Really? Who might that be?

Not necessarily you, if that's what you're thinking. You've never been particularly bad about that sort of thing, in my view. I was thinking primarily of David and Sue, and to a lesser extent, Kevin. Also a couple of the "hangers on" who will remain nameless are pretty bad about it. Kelly Jones was another one, until she took off. Recent interactions with her have suggested some possible improvement, though.

Since when have Sue, David or Kevin ever had a problem with the use of the word "God"? Honestly, you're just making this up. They have stated more times than one could possibly count that they don't have a problem using the word God if the meaning is coherent. There is an entire section of Poison entitled "God".

I am not one for originality. If I invent new names for God, it may well help you to overcome any preconceptions you have about the old ones, but I will not do this, as new names only create more confusion. There are already enough words, so I will use the words we already have, and try to awaken your minds to their real and intended meaning. - Poison for the Heart

The word/term "God" appears over 280 times in that book.

Busted! Owned! You're a stupid, dumb, retarded, crazy God-bothering nutty religious whacko! Epic fail!

Thanks. I needed that.

Dan,

Okay, you have a point there. I still don't think it makes much difference, because what David, Sue, and Kevin mean by "God" is completely different from what just about everybody else means by it. Certainly brokenhead's idea of "God" is substantially different. I'll concede the point as it regards that particular sentence in my post, though.

Quibbles over the term "God" are less important than my point about David, Sue, and Kevin setting themselves up as enlightened teachers and proceeding to preach their favorite concepts as gospel. In doing that, they defy the entire thrust of the non-dualist traditions they claim accord with - traditions such as Taoism and Zen which always point away from concepts. I think you know this as well as I do. I rarely see you slinging around capitalized terms such as "Ultimate Reality," "The Absolute," "Enlightenment," and "Cause and Effect" - at least not in the past few years.

Quibbles over the term "God" are less important than my point about David, Sue, and Kevin setting themselves up as enlightened teachers and proceeding to preach their favorite concepts as gospel

Oh, you've noticed that,too?

Bickering: two or more egos clashing. Beware, you maybe talking about the same thing.

brokenhead,

It's kind of hard not to notice that sort of thing.


Plexus,

Do you see what's going on here as "bickering," or as a "pissing contest" perhaps? Why is it that all dialogue in which two people have disagreements is painted that way by some people? I'm pretty familiar with hearing that sort of thing. I think it says more about those slinging such claims from the sidelines than it does about the participants.

I found your remarks interesting, and it seems to be a fairly harmless form of theism

I certainly mean no harm to anyone.

Unidian wrote:Dan,

Quibbles over the term "God" are less important than my point about David, Sue, and Kevin setting themselves up as enlightened teachers and proceeding to preach their favorite concepts as gospel.

They make their case strongly just like you do when it suits you, as in the whole welfare issue. I think your "complaint" here is kind of petty and hypocritical. It certainly isn't an argument that anything they say is wrong.

In doing that, they defy the entire thrust of the non-dualist traditions they claim accord with - traditions such as Taoism and Zen which always point away from concepts.

It takes concepts to defeat concepts. No Zen or Taoist "teacher" has ever, ever, ever functioned in any way other other than this.

I think you know this as well as I do. I rarely see you slinging around capitalized terms such as "Ultimate Reality," "The Absolute," "Enlightenment," and "Cause and Effect" - at least not in the past few years.

I do if I think the emphasis will strike a chord with certain audiences. It's hardly necessary with people who have a reasonable grasp of the issues at hand but can be helpful to certain others. For the former type, the usage ought not bother them given the intention and target.

Unidan (nice nickname, btw)

I'm pretty familiar with hearing that sort of thing. I think it says more about those slinging such claims from the sidelines than it does about the participants.

And I'm pretty familiar with your explanation - typical bickerer behavior. I'm only making an observation (possibly because I felt left out, who knows...).

Check this out: two people are physically fighting (wrong), someone gets involved and ends up making the same mistakes. So, why take the risk?

Another: you punch me in the face, because you're pissed. I become pissed and hit you back. Feels good, yet it's wrong. This is how evil infects others. So, again, I ask: why get involved, when it's a risk better left unexplored.

They make their case strongly just like you do when it suits you, as in the whole welfare issue.

But in those threads, I state up front that I'm being somewhat hyperbolic to spark discussion and response. Essentially, you could say that I'm quasi-trolling in some of those discussions. Is that what you're saying David and Sue are doing?

I think your "complaint" here is kind of petty and hypocritical. It certainly isn't an argument that anything they say is wrong.

See above. Do the admit to being hyperbolic? I've never seen it, but I have seen them "stick to their guns" any number of times.

It takes concepts to defeat concepts. No Zen or Taoist "teacher" has ever, ever, ever functioned in any way other other than this.

Of course, and I've said it myself a billion times. So, show me where David and Sue say it. I'll leave Kevin out because I think he does do so in Poison, at least.

I do if I think the emphasis will strike a chord with certain audiences. It's hardly necessary with people who have a reasonable grasp of the issues at hand but can be helpful to certain others. For the former type, the usage ought not bother them given the intention and target.

So, basically you're telling me "it's for noobs." Okay, fair enough, and I'm glad you have the wherewithal to determine who is a noob and who isn't. I have yet to see people like David do that. As far as I can tell, anyone who doesn't parrot the language he uses and the concepts he values almost verbatim is the noobiest of noobs. I know he's painted me that way many times, and it's not that I care in a ego sense, it just points to my contention that you and he have a different approach (and yours is better). The approach of David, Sue, and those who mimic them really blows mules and causes all of you guys endless contention. If they weren't so egotistical and determined to envision you as "the least of the three" (an idea which you yourself indulge, as far as I'm aware), they would step back and take some notes from you.

Plexus,

Another: you punch me in the face, because you're pissed. I become pissed and hit you back. Feels good, yet it's wrong. This is how evil infects others. So, again, I ask: why get involved, when it's a risk better left unexplored.

And yet, you spoke up and got involved. Why?

I was thinking the same thing....

Make your pick:)

I grew up in a somewhat dysfunctional household, where everyone seemed to size themselves up against one another. The person engaged in such an activity sorta made themselves feel better by criticizing another. They knew where they stood (on an intellectual bases or whatever) by doing this. In a way, we'd all like to be the best at everything. We all want to know the truth and what's closer to the truth then having a better understanding then everyone else? I feel this kind of thinking stops us from reaching our full potential. I'm not sure how to go about finding a solution for this. I could try and change my own thinking, but it's hard to turn the other cheek sometimes, especially when we believe the other is wrong. How does one get over something like this?

It pisses me off how hypocritical I can get. Damn, evil.