GENIUS FORUMS

Thanks to the current Crucible debate, I finally understand the essence of QRS phillosophy. It is in grave error. It is amazing how such a philosophy can use the same language that I use and even appear surfacely at times to be saying the same thing that I am. Often, I would let seemingly innocent statements pass by without refutation simply because I may say such things in very similar ways; yet, what is actually being said and championed are completely different.

There has been much confusion between myself and proponents of QRS philosophy--confusion in agreement as well as in not seeing what the other could be possibly be talking about. I now see that QRS philosophy promotes obliviousness--which, of course, its proponents would call Truth. It is an obliviousness of life, of their essence. To explain this further, I have to explain the essence of the masculine and the feminine.

The feminine is the flow of life. It is the ability to be present as life unfolds. It is essential to all existence; there is no being without it. The masculine is the space that provides a sense self, a sense of One. It provides a unity, a sense of common direction. The error of QRS philosophy--really of all philosophy in an academic sense, and all mental chattering--is to propose the existence of an eternal, unchanging space that is divorced from the flow of the feminine. This is the Absolute, a state of supreme wisdom from which all rational thinking follows. In actuality, this is oblivion. This is meaninglessness identified with and given reverence. It is based on the fallacy of a static presence, a space removed from the actual flow of presence.

The integration of masculine and feminine is the essence of the true absolute, which is a non-concept and is present within every experience as the origin and the goal. There is no need to speak or even think of it, as it is the foundation of all speech and all thought--and all that is left unspoken and unthought. There is nothing to speak or think about that is not about it. It is beyond form and formlessness.

The Absolute of QRS philosophy--and of ego-- confuses this absolute with the specific experience of oblivion. It confuses the empty space of "masculinity" or the oblivious ego with that which has no specific experience. In divorcing itself from the feminine presence--meaning, simply unrecognizing the eternally-changing-nature of the self--the Absolute loses itself in arbitrary truths that just are...because. The principle of causality is used to rationalize meaninglessness. It refuses to see that the core of all beliefs--which itself is a belief--is the ever-present, ever-changing feminine. Without the flow of being, there is no existence.

There are many ramifications for one's life in following the QRS philosophy. I am sure that I have convinced no one simply by what I have stated here, and will not convince anyone by continuing. All convincing happens internally. Nevertheless, I may continue.

Ok, so how are are you defining "feminine" and "masculine" and are these definitions ontological/metaphysical as in Yin/Yang or are they merely facets of consciousness? See, to me they are the latter and have no relationship to the former. People muddle these things up and this causes them to completely misunderstand my viewpoint, as you seem to have done here. My philosophy is not about "obliviousness" - though I admit I have trouble imagining that term to actually refer to anything real or coherent.

divine focus wrote:The feminine is the flow of life. It is the ability to be present as life unfolds. It is essential to all existence; there is no being without it.

Using that definition, literally everything in the Universe is feminine, since literally everything flows with the forces of cause and effect.

You are simply using a different definition of "feminine" than we do. We tie the term more closely to behaviour that is commonly found in females, as opposed to being found in equal measure everywhere in the Universe.

"Present as life unfolds" sounds extremely vague. Is a tree present as life unfolds? Is a cow present as life unfolds? Is a rock present as life unfolds? Is a woman present as life unfolds? Is a sage present as life unfolds?

This is the Absolute, a state of supreme wisdom from which all rational thinking follows.

The Absolute is Reality itself, the Totality of all cause and effect, the flow of the All.

The flow of the all. The flow of life. The totality of all cause and effect. The essential facet of being.

What flow exists in the Totality of All? The one you think you see?

Steven wrote:What flow exists in the Totality of All? The one you think you see?

It is what you see and what you do not see.

Egad,poetic philosophy.

Get thee to a nunnery.

Dan Rowden wrote:Ok, so how are are you defining "feminine" and "masculine" and are these definitions ontological/metaphysical as in Yin/Yang or are they merely facets of consciousness? See, to me they are the latter and have no relationship to the former.

They are both. In describing them as simply facets of psychology, you can define them any which way you desire. This becomes problematic when the basis for the definitions, namely men and women, exhibit qualities of both and therefore muddles things up itself. It is much easier to use definitions which are not about the difference between men and women but about different apsects of yourself. This way, clear observation is possible, as the main focus of observation should be you.

Kevin Solway wrote:

divine focus wrote:The feminine is the flow of life. It is the ability to be present as life unfolds. It is essential to all existence; there is no being without it.

Using that definition, literally everything in the Universe is feminine, since literally everything flows with the forces of cause and effect.

"Present as life unfolds" sounds extremely vague. Is a tree present as life unfolds? Is a cow present as life unfolds? Is a rock present as life unfolds? Is a woman present as life unfolds? Is a sage present as life unfolds?

Everything in the universe is both masculine and feminine. All these things are present, but people may be oblivious to that presence due to the domination of thought. What you are promoting in your philosophy is this continuing domination under the guise of increasing consciousness. This term of consciousness is confused with thought as you have yet to distinguish between thought and awareness. This is the key to the path of knowledge--as distinct from the path of compassion, which has the same result.

The path of knowledge begins with the distinction made between your thoughts and your direction, which is your ease and simplicity. Direction is the masculine recognizing the feminine flow, enabling presence and awareness. It is eventually necessary to give more credence and trust to the simplicity of direction than to the complexity and bewilderment of thought. This allows increased self-confidence and doubtlessness and provides meaning through intuitive knowledge.

The path of compassion, which eventually merges with that of knowledge, involves the release of judgment. Judgment is the feminine form of unconsciousness, producing a very clouded subjectivity. Its release requires an irrational act of acceptance--irrational, at least, at first glance. Acceptance happens on a "subconscious" level, although it may be very conscious once you become aware through your direction. It is the feminine aspect of yourself recognizing the masculine space, giving you objectivity. This effect of objectivity is plenty evidence to validate the initial irrational leap of faith. It proves the hypothesis, so to speak.

The sooner these paths merge, the better, as they help to reinforce one another. They are not two different paths, in actuality, but two ingredients of the one path of growth. It is infinitely helpful to be aware of both, although you may concentrate on one or the other within practice.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Steven wrote:What flow exists in the Totality of All? The one you think you see?

It is what you see and what you do not see.

There can be no flow of the All for All exists. Every cause and every effect already is, and to do otherwise than remain stationary within your place, as your form, is to refute the All.

What you think you see is a moving, changing existence. You assume that the All 'flows' because the relationships you think you see equate to forms you think you don't yet see, and to forms you think you have seen.

You have yet to surpass the illusions of perception, to understand the meaning of the thoughts you think.

The only motion, 'flow' of the All is the one you think you see. The All already is All.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Steven wrote:

Ataraxia wrote: What flow exists in the Totality of All? The one you think you see?

It is what you see and what you do not see.

Egad,poetic philosophy.

Get thee to a nunnery.

Actually, it wasn't poetic at all. It was a concise, clear statement, brilliantly to the point.

There can be no flow of the All for All exists. Every cause and every effect already is, and to do otherwise than remain stationary within your place, as your form, is to refute the All.

What you think you see is a moving, changing existence. You assume that the All 'flows' because the relationships you think you see equate to forms you think you don't yet see, and to forms you think you have seen.

You have yet to surpass the illusions of perception, to understand the meaning of the thoughts you think.

The only motion, 'flow' of the All is the one you think you see. The All already is All.

I think Kevin was refering to the flow which makes up the All.

-

divine focus wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote: Using that definition, literally everything in the Universe is feminine, since literally everything flows with the forces of cause and effect.

Everything in the universe is both masculine and feminine.

As I say, in that case you are talking about something completely different than we are. What you mean by "masculine" and "feminine" has no relation to what I mean by those same terms.

But your definition seems pointless to me. If "everything in the universe" is equally masculine and feminine, then the masculine itself must be equally feminine as it is masculine. Likewise, the feminine must be equally masculine and feminine.

So I don't see your point to devising that particular usage of terms.

I will repeat my last question, which you didn't answer, as I think it might help to clarify what you mean by being "present as life unfolds."

Is a tree present as life unfolds? Is a cow present as life unfolds? Is a rock present as life unfolds? Is a woman present as life unfolds? Is a sage present as life unfolds?

If women are not "present as life unfolds" then why do you call it "feminine" to be "present as life unfolds?" And if women are "present as life unfolds" then how do you explain the fact that women are extremely gullible, easily led, and get extremely upset by the most insignificant and natural of things? And if women have a natural tendency to be "present as life unfolds" then why do they have a deep hunger for all manner of artificial and vane things, like shoes, handbags, the latest fashions, and shopping, etc? Or do all these things go hand-in-hand with being "present as life unfolds?"

David Quinn wrote:Actually, it wasn't poetic at all. It was a concise, clear statement, brilliantly to the point.

I was refering to the OP.

David Quinn wrote: I think Kevin was refering to the flow which makes up the All.

The All is already composed of every part that you would order into a flow. Each instance of existence that you witness as change is ever present as part of the All.

There are no flows in a timeless totality, only the manifestation of every possible form. That you think you witness flow, time, is because each form is the same fundamental thing, each form relates to each other through being a different manifestation of the same fundamental thing, each form must be consistent, all relationships must relate, and the entity confined to a single expression of possible existence must witness consistent existence and relationship as motion and flow through a single, eternal, conscious instant.

The All does not flow, your perception of flow is because you are confined to one possible expression of all existant forms. You cannot witness directly any other existant form than the one your explicit self is a part of, thus you cannot view the totality directly other than by memory, anticipation, and recognition of possibility.

But still the All does not flow. The All is not "made up" of flows. The All is not only contituted of all possible existant forms, but it is also the simplest expression of all existence. Even if the "flow" perceived by conscious entities within their existential prisons were "real", still the Totality would not flow because it is the most simple, most absolute expression of all existence.

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote: I think Kevin was refering to the flow which makes up the All.

The All is already composed of every part that you would order into a flow. Each instance of existence that you witness as change is ever present as part of the All.

There are no flows in a timeless totality, only the manifestation of every possible form. That you think you witness flow, time, is because each form is the same fundamental thing, each form relates to each other through being a different manifestation of the same fundamental thing, each form must be consistent, all relationships must relate, and the entity confined to a single expression of possible existence must witness consistent existence and relationship as motion and flow through a single, eternal, conscious instant.

The All does not flow, your perception of flow is because you are confined to one possible expression of all existant forms. You cannot witness directly any other existant form than the one your explicit self is a part of, thus you cannot view the totality directly other than by memory, anticipation, and recognition of possibility.

But still the All does not flow. The All is not "made up" of flows. The All is not only contituted of all possible existant forms, but it is also the simplest expression of all existence. Even if the "flow" perceived by conscious entities within their existential prisons were "real", still the Totality would not flow because it is the most simple, most absolute expression of all existence.

Well said, however, just like the “flow”, “Totality” itself is a perceived (calculated through memory, reason, etc, etc.) impression; isn’t it? By simply calling it All, it does not become something that has particular attributes such as EXPRESSING something since it is the PARTS ITSELF. The EXPRESSIONS, if that is the word one chooses to call Existence which is an error in my opinion, IS ITSELF the Totality itself, with absolutely nothing “expressing” Existence; not even the so called ‘emptiness’, which is but a poetic expression of a false-ego that assumes that there must be something greater than me since I experience being a part, whereas “Totality” means absolutely nothing without “perceptions”(or parts) being around; so how “Absolute” is such a Totality which if nothing else, then must be dependent on minimally blind “sensual” Awareness at least? Otherwise Existence, the ISNESS, the NOW, itself could never ever be possible.

The level of ‘awareness’ may fluctuate as per the particular nature of a thing, (as in logically self-aware consciousness in us), due to the dynamic nature of forms itself, but ‘awareness’, AND that whatever a thing is “aware” of, are necessary for Existence to be what it IS, and absolutely nothing is “expressing” either of it. It simply, interactively IS.

If ‘Totality’ is supposed to be eternal, then surely “Awareness” has to necessarily be eternal too, otherwise Totality (Existence in my books) isn’t, and that is not possible. Saying Totality IS and ISN”T, or is not a thing but not nothing whatsoever at the same time is illogical, because it would be the same as saying Existence IS and ISN’T, where the “ISN”T” part as far as Existence (or Totality goes) is not possible.

Totality - the ALL – Existence - IS, and is not dependant on my consciousness alone, but is necessarily dependant, or rather is itself, ‘awareness’ AND the ‘object’ of awareness, which leaves absolutely nothing underlying to “expresses” anything at all, and is but an interactively eternal dynamic dance between absolutely any two things. Which can never ever unite or become ONE, as in an Ultimately Absolute, as in one assumes “Totality” to have such a quality or characteristics. Existence (or Totality) can’t even have the characteristic of being infinite, or eternal, or timeless, for absolutely nothing actually applies.

I cannot think of any thing more consistently conforming to the experiences of the NOW.

As far as ‘femininity’ goes, let me put it this way; the blind unconscious causality is the femininity, for there is no logical reason to value reason that emerges from it, where the form is masculine in nature, and there is absolutely no thing that do not consist of both; philosophically speaking of course.

However, it could have different connotations depending on the context and particular form one is talking about, for example a biological male or a female, and their predominant traits that their biology effects psychologically, and for good reasons, if I may add.

Edit: Sp Corrections.

The following text is is copied from the old servers
-------------------------------------------------------


divine focus
Post subject: Re: The Error of QRSPosted: 23 Mar 2008 04:55 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
divine focus wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
I will repeat my last question, which you didn't answer, as I think it might help to clarify what you mean by being "present as life unfolds."

Is a tree present as life unfolds? Is a cow present as life unfolds? Is a rock present as life unfolds? Is a woman present as life unfolds? Is a sage present as life unfolds?

If women are not "present as life unfolds" then why do you call it "feminine" to be "present as life unfolds?" And if women are "present as life unfolds" then how do you explain the fact that women are extremely gullible, easily led, and get extremely upset by the most insignificant and natural of things? And if women have a natural tendency to be "present as life unfolds" then why do they have a deep hunger for all manner of artificial and vane things, like shoes, handbags, the latest fashions, and shopping, etc? Or do all these things go hand-in-hand with being "present as life unfolds?"

The feminine is the aspect of self that flows. As life is something that happens--it being an action--being present to it means being conscious of this feminine aspect. The masculine is the "space" where this awareness takes place; this is why I say the masculine must be aware of the flow for there to be a recognition of this presence. Women and men are both present, as is everything that exists at any "time." Women have no more of a tendency to be present than anything else; as people, they have as much of a tendency to not recognize this presence as men have. The only difference is that women focus more on the flowing aspect while men focus more on the space that is separated from the flow. They both exist equally in both sexes, but one or the other is naturally given more attention. The essence of the ego is separation and conflict, so that those with constricted awareness will focus completely on one aspect and deny the other.

The way out of ego is the recognition of flow within the masculine space and the recognition of space within the feminine flow--what I call direction and acceptance. Direction could also be called presence--the active participation in life with the intuitive knowing of your intent. It requires the cultivation of non-conceptual discrimination between the awareness of direction and the control of thought. Acceptance or "compassion" is the experiential recognition that all is one--that literally everything is you. This is objectivity. It engenders a spontaneous feeling of appreciation, without even necessarily trying to be appreciative. The essence of all is understood and known to be just fine; combined with direction, everything is seen to be perfect, and amazingly so.

_________________
There is nothing to deny.




Top

Sapius Post subject: Re: The Error of QRSPosted: 23 Mar 2008 05:05 am



Joined: 17 Sep 2001 04:59 pm
Posts: 1435 DF;


Quote:
There is nothing to deny.


Don’t you think adding ‘or affirm’ as J Krishnamurti (I think) puts it, is more appropriate?

_________________
---------

divine focus wrote:the masculine must be aware of the flow for there to be a recognition of this presence.

In my judgement women are not aware of the flow. If they were, they would be wise, and wouldn't find so much pleasure in shopping and accessories.

Women have no more of a tendency to be present than anything else; as people, they have as much of a tendency to not recognize this presence as men have. The only difference is that women focus more on the flowing aspect

Not in my experience they don't. As a rule, women don't focus on anything at all. Women flow in the same way that a river flows - completely unconsciously and wherever the environment dictates.

Sapius wrote: Quote:
There is nothing to deny.


Don’t you think adding ‘or affirm’ as J Krishnamurti (I think) puts it, is more appropriate?

There is something to affirm, although it may be so automatic to you that you do not realize your affirmation. I cannot say what it is that is to be affirmed, but I can say that it includes everything.

Kevin Solway wrote:

divine focus wrote:the masculine must be aware of the flow for there to be a recognition of this presence.

In my judgement women are not aware of the flow. If they were, they would be wise, and wouldn't find so much pleasure in shopping and accessories.

Women have no more of a tendency to be present than anything else; as people, they have as much of a tendency to not recognize this presence as men have. The only difference is that women focus more on the flowing aspect

Not in my experience they don't. As a rule, women don't focus on anything at all. Women flow in the same way that a river flows - completely unconsciously and wherever the environment dictates.

The flow is what you call unconscious, what I call subjective. It is aware of itself, and there is nothing outside of it. The idea that their is an outside comes from the space. The space may create a flowless reality, which is nonsensical to the flow. In this flowless reality, there may be divisions and separations between things with no inherent connection. Things simply are, because; they have no say on the matter. This is what you call awareness of what is; I call it oblivion.

Even within the flowless reality, there is flow. Women create this flowless reality just as men do. They only focus on the flow, which their space or masculine aspect does not recognize. They are "unconscious," if you will, but subjectively, within action, they know what they are doing. Otherwise, they couldn't do it! It is similar with you. You only focus on the masculine aspect to the exclusion of the flow and become oblivious to what you are doing. "Unconsciousness" and obliviousness go hand in hand, though your attention may move naturally to the flowless reality or the spaceless, subjective flow.

Expanding awarness requires a recognition of the flow within the space. There is only one thing to be aware of, and all necessary distinctions are made by being aware of it. Expanding awareness also requires the knowledge that distinctions necessary for you may not be necessary for someone else. This is the flow recognizing the individuality of the space. More can be said on this, but not verbally. Paradox abounds around this at the rational level.

divine focus wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:As a rule, women don't focus on anything at all. Women flow in the same way that a river flows - completely unconsciously and wherever the environment dictates.

The flow is what you call unconscious, what I call subjective.

Is the flow of a river "subjective?" I don't think so. The flow of a river is unconscious but not subjective. Women are like the flow of a river.

It is aware of itself

A river is not aware of itself, and neither are women. The unconscious is unaware by definition.

They only focus on the flow

In my experience women do not focus at all.

They are "unconscious," if you will, but subjectively, within action, they know what they are doing.

Do you really think women know what they are doing when they go shopping? Or when they allow themselves to be abused and dictated to by men? Or when they have children? I don't.

If women knew what they were doing, they wouldn't do what they do.

Kevin Solway wrote:In my experience women do not focus at all.

Do you really think women know what they are doing when they go shopping? Or when they allow themselves to be abused and dictated to by men? Or when they have children? I don't.

If women knew what they were doing, they wouldn't do what they do

How about when they become physicians and open up their own practices? Or CEOs and screw the little guy just like their male counterparts? Or run efficient households, for that matter?

I resent it when big fat dumb-ass Oprah has her shows about how males are violent. And I can't help but resent your stereotypes about women as well. You simply cannot think this way. You are too intelligent. I believe you like to be controversial, Perhaps you feel it gets across a point more effectively, I don't know why you do it. I'm not for political correctness for its own sake - that makes me gag. But when it is more accurate, it is folly to flout it. Why don't you try couching things more like this: "Some Chinese people all look the same."

Kevin, I guess what I'm saying is that it comes across as ignorant when you say things like

Do you really think women know what they are doing when they go shopping? Or when they allow themselves to be abused and dictated to by men? Or when they have children? I don't.

And you are clearly not an ignorant person. No one in his right mind would believe that every single woman knows what she is about when she, asy, gets pregnant and has children. But you demean yourself by asserting what you did in this quote. My sister-in-law, just for example, paid for extensive tests and in vitro fertilization to have her delightful little twins. She knew very well what she was doing. And her high-paying job helped her afford to be able to do it.

Jesus Christ, Kevin. Sometimes, you are just plain wrong.

brokenhead wrote:How about when they become physicians and open up their own practices? Or CEOs and screw the little guy just like their male counterparts? Or run efficient households, for that matter?

They still don't know what they are doing.

A lot of the time, when women behave like men, they are doing so because they have been brainwashed into thinking they should behave like men. But women themselves don't know this.

My sister-in-law, just for example, paid for extensive tests and in vitro fertilization to have her delightful little twins. She knew very well what she was doing.

I've no doubt that she knew that she wanted children, and knew she had the huge amount of money to pay for it. But it is my contention that that is probably all she knew. In all likelihood she was simply following the dictates of her hormones, rather than, say, willing to advance the cause of wisdom in the world.

brokenhead wrote:Jesus Christ, Kevin. Sometimes, you are just plain wrong.

I see him more like the hangover you get after indulging in something you’ve spent a lifetime acquiring a taste for.

brokenhead, you have a sense of fairness in how you treat men and women that is very noble, but blinds you to how they differ. Men and women have different animal natures, just like male and female penguins play different roles on the south pole. While both sexes need to eat, sleep, breathe, etc., men and women do act out certain survival operations in completely different ways.

I think you're a cool guy, and I'm not saying scrap your fairness - everyone deserves the best no matter what, but that doesn't mean we are "equal", because we most definitely are not. This difference goes beyond "women are more emotional, more intuitive" etc. It goes to the source of what women ARE. And your current concept of a woman is not even close to realistic.

If you were drinking tea out of a red mug and someone said to you calmly, "you're drinking coffee out of a blue mug", you would have no problem defending your case with little effort and total certainty. So what do your reactionary responses to these new ideas about women say about you?

skipair wrote:So what do your reactionary responses to these new ideas about women say about you?

What new ideas about women? Do you suppose for an instant that there is anything new or original about the QRS formulation of WOMAN? What planet are you from?

Where did you see me say anything about men and women being "equal"?

And your current concept of a woman is not even close to realistic

You can't possibly know what my concept of a woman is because you are not me. And FYI, all I am doing is being realistic.

I think you're a cool guy, and I'm not saying scrap your fairness

Thanks for being patronizing, and thanks for letting me keep my fairness.

The monumental arrogance I run into at GF sometimes just makes my fucking head want to explode. The last thing I need is a goddamn lecture on the fundamental differences between men and women.

It all comes down to one thing, doesn't it, skipair? And that is which women you know. Maybe I've just been lucky. Maybe my outlook is not skewed like yours because both my parents were physicians and I don't assume women can't compete in an intellectual capacity just because they can't piss standing up.

Or maybe you need to get out more and stop watching Rikki Lake reruns.

Kevin, on women, wrote:They still don't know what they are doing.

And men do? There is competence and incompetence in both sexes, Kevin. What kind of genius are you that you don't know that? And is this how you "advance the cause of wisdom," as you put it, by berating an entire gender? One that just so happens not to be your own? So a little Sheila broke your heart when you were 12. Wah, wah. Get over it.

Kevin wrote:Do you really think women know what they are doing when they go shopping?

Compared to men, they do! Shopping is what they do best! We men don't have a fucking clue when we go shopping!

brokenhead wrote:

Kevin wrote:Do you really think women know what they are doing when they go shopping?

Compared to men, they do! Shopping is what they do best! We men don't have a fucking clue when we go shopping!

Men buy; women shop.