GENIUS FORUMS

David,

I have no argument with what you put forth.

David Quinn wrote: I don't think anyone here would deny that freedom can exist in a relative sense, and that, practically speaking, some people are more free than others.

A truly purposeful and conscious person is free, because their purpose is oriented to Nature, which has no purpose to constrain it.

Only when cause and effect is believed to be something, such as a purpose, is one unfree.

-

Kelly,

Can you see any correlation between what I've said about people doing the best they can and what David says below?

David wrote:

Naturally, cause and effect has determined that one of the balls has a parachute attached to it and the other doesn't, just as cause and effect determines that one person has a strong, rebellious will and another doesn't.

-

I still think "best" is a purpose-driven, ie. relative, term. It's not really applicable to the natural "gifts" a person has, because everyone has them.

Note that David's statement implicitly offers the willing (rebellious, in the sense of the Great Contempt), active, purposeful type of psyche as the "best", for the simple reason that it offers the statement. It is capable of deeply understanding causation.

-

So, what it comes down to is the difference between natural gifts (what Weininger calls "begabung" - talent, or endowment, or natural capacity) and genius.

While both are not capable of transcending causation, both being caused, only one of them is capable of understanding emptiness.

-

Kelly Jones wrote:So, what it comes down to is the difference between natural gifts (what Weininger calls "begabung" - talent, or endowment, or natural capacity) and genius.

While both are not capable of transcending causation, both being caused, only one of them is capable of understanding emptiness.

-

weininger is wrong, genius IS natural capacity and inherited, talent can be inherited or attained after being born.

Kelly,

I'm not discussing which psychology is "better". I'm discussing where psychology, and everything else comes from - causation.

I'm not discussing why one set of values is better than another set. I'm discussing the underlying nature of all values - causation.

I'm stating that I'm doing the best I can because, at bottom, I only have a certain set of causes (which I'm one) bringing 'me' into existence this very moment.

-

Why do you use the word "best" to describe what has no alternative?

Is not "best" meaningless, in this context, given there is no "worst" ?

-

Kelly,

"Best" here means that you can do no other.

It is not a value judgment - it's a fundamental reality.


-

Parham wrote: K: So, what it comes down to is the difference between natural gifts (what Weininger calls "begabung" - talent, or endowment, or natural capacity) and genius.

P: weininger is wrong, genius IS natural capacity and inherited, talent can be inherited or attained after being born.

I'd say that some natural gifts (inherited traits) are likely factors in the formation of genius. For example, a deep curiosity about nature, and a calm personality.

However, more probable factors are the decisions and reasonings that occur during one's life. These are not inherited, because they're based on values and experiences. One might be deeply influenced by a parent's values and experiences, but strictly speaking, they aren't inherited qualities.

-

Sue,

"Best" here means that you can do no other. It is not a value judgment - it's a fundamental reality.

Yes, I understood this quite a while ago. The thing is, you often use comparative forms like better, not so effective, good, less rational, etc. It is easy to mislead people and perhaps yourself, that, the understanding of your use of the word best in relation to causation is "best" (in relation to better, good, etc.), compared to not understanding it.

You see how confusing it can be?

So, I advise you to say, "Inevitable" or "Determined". "Best" is always relative to good and better.

-

Kelly,

I used the term "best" specifically so as to highlight the fact that each of us, and every other thing in creation, are all glorious displays of Nature. That each and every thing is perfection itself.

But, as you say, you've understood this point "quite a while ago". Perhaps now you'd like to further elaborate on this subject by discussing why it is that people are doing their best in each and every moment.

-

Kelly Jones wrote:You're starting to sound like Jason with his, "God has ordained me as free to be as naughty as I feel like".

Am I the one in your dreams who takes you,
makes you wake up crying,
feeling like a criminal?

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:
I used the term "best" specifically so as to highlight the fact that each of us, and every other thing in creation, are all glorious displays of Nature. That each and every thing is perfection itself.

But, as you say, you've understood this point "quite a while ago". Perhaps now you'd like to further elaborate on this subject by discussing why it is that people are doing their best in each and every moment.

Since it's only to convince you of my understanding, I don't need to start using "best" as an epithet for Perfection.

It just doesn't work for me. It carries too many connotations of, "Everything I do is oriented to Truth". That's abhorrent.

-

Jason wrote: K: You're starting to sound like Jason with his, "God has ordained me as free to be as naughty as I feel like".

J: Am I the one in your dreams who takes you,
makes you wake up crying,
feeling like a criminal?

I thought, by that petulant reference to psychoanalysis earlier in this thread, that you were thinking of the Porn thread.

Your manifestations lately have been quite interesting. Quite hellish, like someone flailing about for some way to escape the flames.

-

Kelly wrote:

Sue: Perhaps now you'd like to further elaborate on this subject by discussing why it is that people are doing their best in each and every moment.

Since it's only to convince you of my understanding, I don't need to start using "best" as an epithet for Perfection.

It just doesn't work for me. It carries too many connotations of, "Everything I do is oriented to Truth". That's abhorrent.

Even though it is only "me" - I'd still be interested in you elaborating on some of your thoughts on this subject of perfection. Take a look at what I've written below and see if it fits in with your thinking at all.

Sue: Out of the small number of people I’ve encountered who understood, to varying degrees, the truth about existence, only one of them has admitted that living according to the truth wasn’t for him. But turning his back on truth wasn’t done to cause harm to others - he simply had too many unresolved attachments making it impossible for him to connect whole heartedly with what he knew to be true.

Yes, if he ignored his own comfort levels, he would have done a lot of harm.

My point was that he could not ignore his attachments because they were the very things that shaped his mind and soul. So it was inevitable that he would not become a philosopher, for God had not determined him to be so (at that time). Or in other words, he could not have done other, for he did not possess it in him. Maybe in the future he will grow more attached to truth and less attached to those things that steer him away from it - we'll just have to wait and see. Either way, his life is in God's hands.

Totally ignoring the need to repair them has done more.

Could he have done anything differently than what he did? If he is destined not to be a philosopher, then how could he have done anything differently? That he didn't possess the necessary mindset needed to attack his attachments - is he to blame, or do we blame God?

Obviously, blaming anyone, or any thing, is absurd. All anyone can do is the best they can. That 'best' is completely dependent on its causes. For example, my discussing this subject at this moment in time has been destined for eternity - I can do no other.

Also, because I value truth over ignorance, it is only natural that in my observations on others I will discern what is useful for the furtherance of truth. For example, I spoke of the chap above as not having a strong enough love of truth for him to become a philosopher. I don't say that to make him look small, and for me to show-of. I say it because I'd like to see truth flourish.

Because this is the way I am, I cannot completely agree with your view that by his "Totally ignoring the need to repair" his attachments, he has "done more harm". I reckon he may have assisted others by admitting that he lacked the focused love for truth required to enter onto the philosophical path. Other people may be challenged to assess their own strengths and weaknesses and thereby understand better where they stand in regards to truth. It could well be the case that upon his shoulders, others may climb higher.

-

People make a bigger deal of philosophical insight than is necessary, because doing so inflates the ego and encourages the perception that one has braved some mighty trial and attained some unique "specialness." But in reality, most of the essential realizations should not cause more than a few weeks of serious disturbance to a reasonable individual. Yes, one's life is permanently changed in certain ways by philosophical understanding, but people are quite adaptable by nature, and there's no reason it needs to be described so dramatically.

Life goes on.