GENIUS FORUMS

From my experience, people are either ignorant or they depict certain degrees of wisdom or consciousness. A wise person maybe clear-minded one moment and emotional the next, or he could be clear-minded for weeks, and then suddenly go through a prolonged period of intense sexual desire.

There has never been a perfectly enlightened buddha, but there have been flawed individuals that have lead wise lives. The only thing one can aspire to be is a flawed individual that lives the wisest life possible, which is governed by ones own unique imperfect genetic constitution. One cannot aspire to be a perfect individual, it is simply not possible.

One can achieve a certain degree of wisdom depending on the strength of his genes. Moreover our genetic flaws dictate how far our progress can go, and those flaws ultimately depict our weaknesses.

Buddha, Jesus, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and the whole gang – all were flawed, in different ways.

One can understand those flaws in other passionate men, but it doesn’t really help one overcome his own unique flaws, which can be truthfully observed by taking notes on ones daily habits and subjective inconsistencies.

Here is an comical article written about the cartoony life of Andrew Cohen:

In one part of the article the author explains how Cohen actually scorns a student for blaming his lack of clarity on his schizophrenia. He told him that he needs to take responsibility for his own mental state, but how is that possible when he has a psychological illness that he cannot control?

The irony is that Cohen is unable to understand the extent of how genetics controls our potential because his own emotional weaknesses (which are genetic) are based on new agey ideas that allow him to remain an overly special and powerful magnomaniac.

The Myth of the Totally Enlightened Guru:
http://www.johnhorgan.org/work21.htm

<snip>

Transcix wrote:

correlates with the perpetual evolution of existence at large, that we exist in the first place as opposed to not. We are not flawed at all, or perfect, but if anything then we are perfect... we are all *different*, and it's absolutely not a matter of better or worse…

I don’t follow you here. We are different based on our intellectual capacities, which I define as ones ability to think critically with clarity, which is prevented by ones emotional weaknesses. *Difference* must be measured in terms of inferiority and superiority or else one doesn’t any criteria to measure what wisdom is compared to ignorance. You’re attempts to assign *Difference* some neutral judgment-free value ends up sounding quite relative in nature, which isn’t logical.

Transcix wrote:

so would you say the top steps of a staircase are better than the bottom ones?

Yes, the top staircase is better or superior as far as living a wise life is concerned, the entity with the least amount of imperfections ends up living a superior life, which I define as a life with lower amounts of confusion, suffering, emotion and delusion.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:In one part of the article the author explains how Cohen actually scorns a student for blaming his lack of clarity on his schizophrenia. He told him that he needs to take responsibility for his own mental state, but how is that possible when he has a psychological illness that he cannot control?

That a person becomes insane is only possible through his own fault.
-Otto Weininger

I see what you're saying, Ryan. Basically, I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that one's intellect is the sole measure of their virtue. In fact, I think this is the kind of thinking that makes the term 'genius' unpopular. But moreover, I do not think that wisdom can even be hoarded in the first place.

I do not believe a person can rise above others in superiority, by rising up contrastically in comparison to said persons. Rather, a person can only truly rise up by bringing those around them with them at least to an extent. We're all part of the same matrix and can't help but influence those around us.

But wisdom cannot even be hoarded, because it is innate, and available in infinite universal abundance. Knowledge is power and power is responsibility, and when you gain more of one element of this trinary package you gain correspondingly more of each of the other two elements as well.

Are the gods better than humans? Is a powerful human better than a less powerful one? Are we all in it alone, or as a team? Why do the more powerful help the less powerful?

Perhaps we are mixing terminology, but here is how I see it. Wisdom is beyond language and definition, subtle and intuitive; understanding is linguistic and conceptual in that it deals with the relationship between ideas; knowledge is understanding combined with wisdom as one personally consciously understands it.

One can never get wisdom, just as one can never get power. One gets knowledge and responsibility to the extent that they can *handle* wisdom/power... but it's not a matter of how much wisdom a person can get as it is a matter of how much a person can handle. Nobody can own wisdom, although a person may possess their proper individualized knowledge.

Sure, you can say that one person is more or less wise than another. This is relatively true in conventional terms and is a practically necessary distinction to sometimes make. However, fundamentally speaking where the distinction between self and other is nil, then we are all equally enlightened, as we are all similarly a drop of water from the ocean.

It's like we each have a piece of infinity inside us, and infinity is always infinity no matter how much you add to or substract from it. It's precisely this ever-changing aspect of infinity that constitutes one's individuality, and as one is personally immortal, one always shapes their piece of infinity in a vein of simultaneous oneness and difference towards the universal whole; one's individuality never stops changing.

Now wisdom is changeless, eternal, innate in everything... so it cannot be an aspect of one's individuality. We each have our own unique perspective relationship with wisdom and the universe, but it is never a matter of better or worse. Wisdom is so manifold, it does not rise in a straight line as if subjectable to measurement.

I can say one person is more or less wise than another, but here I am expressing a subjective belief that is a relative matter of probability - I cannot be certain, although I can be relatively sure. Attaching virtue to wisdom is like measuring a person's wealth under the contex of infinity... you are infinitely rich, but so is everyone else.. or you are a 'winner', along with everyone else... do you still care about winning if there is no loser?

It's not like wisdom brings you fun stuff.. it brings you knowledge, power, and responsibility. I would rather be more wise than less wise, but if you ask me if I'd like to automatically double my wisdom right now, I would say no, because that would be unnatural, and it would totally change the person I am. That's why we have free will, to come to our own conclusions and perceive wisdom in our own unique perspective of knowledge.

Greg Shantz wrote:

That a person becomes insane is only possible through his own fault.
-Otto Weininger

Otto Weininger is incorrect.

Does a man choose to be emotionally confused? Does a man choose to hallucinate? If something is my own fault, it implies that I make a choice to be insane, however this could not be further from the truth.

Each person alive on this earth today has the potential to become perfectly enlightened.

That is a myth.

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

Each person alive on this earth today can overcome, to an unknown degree, some of their present imperfections.

That is not a myth.

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

Many years down the road, a human being may achieve perfect enlightenment.

I don't see the harm in being both open minded and working hard at overcoming imperfections.

That is not a myth, but rather, healthy open mindedness.


Furthermore, the effort that I make in this life to overcome my imperfections, may help future humans attain an enlightenment that is closer to perfection.

If progress has been made, then there is no reason that progress cannot continue to be made --- if humanity values this mentality, then it is not unreasonable to be open minded to the possibility of perfection being reached.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Greg Shantz wrote:

That a person becomes insane is only possible through his own fault.
-Otto Weininger

Otto Weininger is incorrect.

Does a man choose to be emotionally confused?

Yes.

Does a man choose to hallucinate?

Yes.

If something is my own fault, it implies that I make a choice to be insane, however this could not be further from the truth.

Why?

Greg Shantz wrote:

If something is my own fault, it implies that I make a choice to be insane, however this could not be further from the truth.

Why?

You can become insane from an injury, or a chemical imbalance in your brain. A chemical imbalance could be genetic, or could be caused by environmental factors. Brain chemistry is actually pretty delicate - it's amazing that it works as well as it (usually) does.

Cory wrote:

Many years down the road, a human being may achieve perfect enlightenment.

It maybe possible, but my argument is that it hasn’t happened in the past, and it hasn’t occurred in the present.

Cory wrote:

Furthermore, the effort that I make in this life to overcome my imperfections, may help future humans attain an enlightenment that is closer to perfection.

How would that work?

Cory wrote:

If progress has been made, then there is no reason that progress cannot continue to be made --- if humanity values this mentality, then it is not unreasonable to be open minded to the possibility of perfection being reached.

Yes, but the past progress has been achieved by imperfect individuals, and the present revolution is lead by imperfect individuals, so the question remains: what concrete evidence is there that the future will be any different? What is fuelling your open mindedness?

My argument is based on the fact that natural selection can only produce unique individuals by sacrificing the possibility of perfection. Uniqueness is imperfection.

Perhaps genetic engineering will eliminate uniqueness in individuals, but then we need to ask ourselves do the pros outweigh the cons?

The major positive aspect of this is that we achieve perfection, however the negative aspect is that we would be all fundamentally the same.

Yes, we are involuntarily born imperfect - -- and nobody consciously chooses to be mentally ill.

Good intentions can produce some very flawed behavior.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Good intentions can produce some very flawed behavior.

You mean like wanting to enlighten people through genocide?

Ryan wrote:

From my experience, people are either ignorant or they depict certain degrees of wisdom or consciousness.

How reliable would you say your experience is, from a genetic standpoint, that is?

.

millipodium wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: Good intentions can produce some very flawed behavior.

You mean like wanting to enlighten people through genocide?

Firstly, your repetitiveness and obstinancy makes it hard to see your posts as anything but spam.

And secondly, please stop with the hyperbole. I never once said anything about focusing on the elimination of a particular race or particular group of people via violence and force. I have simply said that most people are a waste of life and that we should try to improve the human race by focusing on quality by encouraging (through education and reasoning) a reduction in quantity. (I am not an advocate of violence or force)

Perhaps humans, given the right environment/upbringing, may find life meaningful by limiting reproduction and finding greater meaning in a way of life that is not based on mere tribalism.

Greg Shantz wrote:

If something is my own fault, it implies that I make a choice to be insane, however this could not be further from the truth.

Why?

People do not choose to be emotionally distraught/deluded. If people had the potential to be clear-minded, they would be. Someone doesn’t choose their intellectual/emotional handicaps, it is all predetermined by their genes. Environment plays a very little part in it all.

Leyla wrote:

How reliable would you say your experience is, from a genetic standpoint, that is?

I’m reliable enough to be aware of my own genetic downfalls, and I’m also receptive to the genetic downfalls of others.

ryan wrote:Environment plays a very little part in it all.

Genetics plays a huge role - - but environment is also quite powerful.

Ted Bundy was born with a predisposition, or an unusual capacity to become excited by very violent sex.

However, if you removed certain key environmental factors that defined Bundy's childhood - I don't believe he would have, by neccesity, killed anyone despite he had a remarkable genetic inclination to grow exceptionally psychotic.

Greg Shantz wrote:

Does a man choose to hallucinate?

Yes.

While there are people who will choose to hallucinate, that is not always the case. Many people who do hallucinate naturally try to get help for the problem and there isn't always a solution. The chemical ones that everyone thinks exist have tons of side-effects, including death.

Sometimes, stuff just happens, like getting the genes for schizophrenia, or a brain injury.

Hmmmmmmmmm...

My argument is based on the fact that natural selection can only produce unique individuals by sacrificing the possibility of perfection. Uniqueness is imperfection.

People do not choice to be emotionally distraught/deluded. If people had the potential to be clear-minded, they would be. Someone doesn’t choose their intellectual/emotional handicaps, it is all predetermined by their genes. Environment plays a very little part in it all.

What's natural selection?

.

Ryan,

I’m reliable enough to be aware of my own genetic downfalls, [snip]

OK. What are they?

.

Cory wrote:

However, if you removed certain key environmental factors that defined Bundy's childhood - I don't believe he would have, by neccesity, killed anyone despite he had a remarkable genetic inclination to grow exceptionally psychotic.

How practical is it to try to control the environment of the entire world? Are you willing to sign up for that job? I bet you’d have to work a lot of overtime.

I suspect that the factors in the environment are the result of the demand, which is genetic.

Man has always created violent and sexual entertainment for himself because there is a genetic demand.

Leyla wrote:

OK. What are they?

Knowing my genetic downfalls will not aid you, I do not see the point in revealing the extent of this information.

Leyla wrote:

What's natural selection?

A rudimentary definition: The mechanism by which a temporary adaptive homeostasis is reached between the organism and it’s environment.

However, at this stage of evolution, natural selection has produced incredibly imperfect human beings as far as enlightenment is concerned. Even the most enlightened on the planet have still possessed some level of genetic imperfection.

Human beings are different because their psyches can be changed by memes, however the mind of the individual can only receive/understand the meme if their genetic profile is strong enough to receive it.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:From my experience, people are either ignorant or they depict certain degrees of wisdom or consciousness. A wise person maybe clear-minded one moment and emotional the next, or he could be clear-minded for weeks, and then suddenly go through a prolonged period of intense sexual desire.

I believe there is a wisdom gradient, but the more wise will have less disruptive emotions. A wiser persons happiness, sadness, or anger would not interfere with thought process or in any way be distracting. I can't imagine a wise person with a prolonged period of intense sexual desire. Even with my definition of sagacity, which differs somewhat from the QRS's, a sage would find a harmless way of relieving that desire before the period became "prolonged" and it wouldn't be "intense."

Ryan Rudolph wrote:The only thing one can aspire to be is a flawed individual that lives the wisest life possible, which is governed by ones own unique imperfect genetic constitution. One cannot aspire to be a perfect individual, it is simply not possible.

Although I agree that the only thing one can aspire to is to live the wisest life possible, I believe that one can aspire to be a perfect individual as a method of overcoming false barriers.

ryan wrote:How practical is it to try to control the environment of the entire world?

Who said anything about controlling the environment of the entire world?

Taking special care to make your personal environment a sane one does not really seem that unreasonable to me.

Cory wrote:

Taking special care to make your personal environment a sane one does not really seem that unreasonable to me.

Yes it is reasonable, but changing your personal environment does not change the environmental exposure for individuals such as Ted Bundy.

Elizabeth wrote:

I believe there is a wisdom gradient, but the more wise will have less disruptive emotions. A wiser persons happiness, sadness, or anger would not interfere with thought process or in any way be distracting. I can't imagine a wise person with a prolonged period of intense sexual desire. Even with my definition of sagacity, which differs somewhat from the QRS's, a sage would find a harmless way of relieving that desire before the period became "prolonged" and it wouldn't be "intense."

You’re basis for evaluation is based on your own female subjective experience, However, female sexuality functions much differently than males.

Ryan wrote:

Knowing my genetic downfalls will not aid you, I do not see the point in revealing the extent of this information.

I was not seeking aid, Ryan. But I do see that knowing them has not aided you but made you think you are a wise, flawed individual. I think you miss the whole point of wisdom in your deluded attempt to supplant it with some notion of “sober” scientific materialism.

Philosophically, “genetic flaws” are an excuse for non-thinkers.

Therefore, I think you should give up your disingenuous pursuit of philosophy and seek the medical road to truth forthwith.

.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:There has never been a perfectly enlightened buddha,

That assertion cannot be proven without a cogent argument for the actual impossibility of perfection. You haven't offered any such argument.

but there have been flawed individuals that have lead wise lives.

Certainly. There may in fact never have been a perfectly wise person, but that doesn't constitute an argument against perfection. It's just a statistic.

The only thing one can aspire to be is a flawed individual that lives the wisest life possible, which is governed by ones own unique imperfect genetic constitution. One cannot aspire to be a perfect individual, it is simply not possible.

You know that how? There's is nothing that resembles an actual argument for this in your posts.

One can achieve a certain degree of wisdom depending on the strength of his genes. Moreover our genetic flaws dictate how far our progress can go, and those flaws ultimately depict our weaknesses.

That is obviously wrong. But still, you haven't made any real case for how certain genetic flaws limit development. Maybe you should define "perfection" for us as you're using it in this thread.

One can understand those flaws in other passionate men, but it doesn’t really help one overcome his own unique flaws, which can be truthfully observed by taking notes on ones daily habits and subjective inconsistencies.

This is an argument for the possibility of perfection, not one against it. What flaws, exactly, cannot be overcome in your view and why can't they be?

The Myth of the Totally Enlightened Guru:
http://www.johnhorgan.org/work21.htm

That article is irrelevant. What do "gurus" have to do with anything?