GENIUS FORUMS

Iolaus wrote:Jason,

Iolaus, are you a vegetarian?

Oh, I suppose I know where this is going. You would think, when I write with such love about animals, that I should be vegetarian.

Given what you've written here recently I thought it might be hypocritical of you not to be a vegetarian.

I have considered it on and off, and lived that way for about a year at a time, thrice.

However, I have come to the conclusion, and I think pretty solidly, that human beings are not meant to be vegetarians, and compromise their health when they do so.

How did you come to the conclusion that vegetarianism compromises human health? What did you base it on? Scientific studies? I have a personal interest in it, I'm a vegetarian.

If a person is a vegetarian because they think it is wrong to kill animals, then they have made a moral decision that all predator animals are immoral, and that nature is fundamentally flawed. It can be difficult not to come to this position, and it is what the gnostics thought.

I tend to assume that most other animals lack the intellectual ability to make moral decisions in the way that some humans can. If that is the case then I wouldn't call non-human predatory animals immoral. They also live under very different circumstances which may not easily allow them the choice even if they were able to conceive of it. But then I'm not even sure I'd call humans who eat meat "immoral."

As far as nature being flawed, just the simple fact that nature contains any suffering at all is enough for me to be in moral disagreement with "it", I'd probably say that this means that nature is "flawed"; "fucked up" would be more my personal take on it. Nature can be excruciatingly horrible and I would hope for better.

Even there, though, an animal can live quite a nice life, and even with some positive tradeoff benefits such as protection by the shepherd from wolves.

That's quite possibly true.

A clean, quick kill is one thing, and in fact the predator prey relationship is a close and dynamic one that keeps life in balance.

A clean quick kill by who? Both humans and animal predators can engage in torturous killing methods. Lions taking on large prey can be brutal for example.

And all this endless torment of millions upon millions of lovely, sentient mammals, sows confined so that they cannot turn, lying on metal bars - in a society with humane laws for pet animals! But not livestock.

There are in fact humane treatment laws for livestock in most developed countries, but they often still allow things that many find morally unjustifiable.

Also, there are certain animals I think we should not eat, just as we are not cannibals, such as horses, dogs, dolphins. Animals of high understanding and close relationship to us, and who have all rendered great service, and even self-sacrificial service.

I'm not sure that those animals you list are especially significant in terms of intellect, understanding or relationship to humans. If you had a pet cow or pig perhaps you could sense some of the same qualities in it that you see and value in these other animals.

Kelly Jones wrote:You've got to be joking. My apologies to Jamesh and Pye. Yes, a poodle could do better than that.

Are you really surprised? That surprises me.

As if there was ever any real comparison. All one has to do is see that Pye sees the spirit as alive, human potential whilst Anna continues to wait for its revelation in physical death, bound to ritualistic moralising and totally bereft of rational philosophy and, thus, the potential for wisdom.

Yes. Anna is as pious and as spiritual as a sanctimonious priest, and as meaningful as the robes that clothe them.

Anna may have regressed, or I've progressed, or maybe both. I tend to think of Anna as "BirdofHermes", a creature with a sense of humour, and a relatively free thought. Pye, by contrast, seems fragile, perhaps because Anna's doing some combination of the Mother and Butterfly and Pye, in her transition, seems fragile by comparison. Of course, this is all speculation..... but it is interesting to think about psychology.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A brilliant quote from Weininger that I've just stumbled across:

“Souls, individuals, are not the ultimately real; they, too, are still the expression of vanity, the attachment of worth to the person. Only the Good, which contains all individual elements within it, is of the highest reality.”

(Good, in the sense that "God alone is Good.")

Kelly: Anna may have regressed, or I've progressed, or maybe both. I tend to think of Anna as "BirdofHermes", a creature with a sense of humour, and a relatively free thought. Pye, by contrast, seems fragile, perhaps because Anna's doing some combination of the Mother and Butterfly and Pye, in her transition, seems fragile by comparison. Of course, this is all speculation..... but it is interesting to think about psychology.

Somewhere in these threads, I think it was you who pointed out how women tend to love men who are passionate, but aren't really discriminate enough to care what those men are passionate about. Each of your defenses of Anna have fallen along these lines.

Further, I think you have internalized the physical description I left here of myself - so internalized that you cannot see what is going on in front of your face.

Psychology, indeed.

Finally, this Anna/Pye thing is not particularly edifying, to me at least. Frankly, in all of Anna's writings, I see the great struggle to transcend in larger measure than I've seen in evidence from you. It might be wandering, but its there. You, however, are still embedded in concrete shoes . . . and you let "a man/men" put them on you . . . .

Of course, this is all speculation.....

If it helps you progress spiritually, go for it. People are only images in one's mind.

Pye wrote:Feral boys are just as stupid as feral girls. It's far more than "just icing.

What does feral have to do with anything? I'm talking about the inherent unconsciousness of the feminine ego (which happens to be much stronger in females than males, hence the label feminine ego) which is in place long before the conditioning of modern society can run its course. Even if we look back at our specie's genetic and social evolution seeing how it has led to a species where the women are less conscious then men, that doesn't some how make the Woman philosophy talked about around here less meaningful. Your attempts to make excuses for women based on social conditioning is for the most part worthless in relation to the philosophy of this forum.

Nick: Your attempts to make excuses for women based on social conditioning is for the most part worthless in relation to the philosophy of this forum.

No discussion of understanding cause and effect is worthless in relation to the philosophy of this forum.

It's not discussing cause and effect I have a problem with, it's the way I've seen you attempt to use it as if it undermines the Woman philosophy of this forum. Or am I just jumping to conclusions?

Nick: it's the way I've seen you attempt to use it as if it undermines the Woman philosophy of this forum. Or am I just jumping to conclusions?

I think the "Woman" philosophy pretty much undermines itself, Nick, which is, at least, in part what I'm pointing out here. It is very simple to talk about degrees of consciousness/unconsciousness in the human being, rather than demonstrating a piss-poor use of A=A - especially one so heavily-laden with the self-same sexual hooks one puts forth as a matter to transcend.

This "Woman" philosophy is akin to "Female Mystique" - an idea, I believe, that this "Woman" philosophy itself is meant to disassemble. It will never do this whilst it is wearing virtually the same clothing and obsessing over it in much the same way. And further, this "Woman" philosophy slops back and forth in addressing a quality (consciousness) - and people (women). A=whatever the hell one wants it to equal, depending on one's already-sexualized agenda.

Again, I can only see its use in making one well and truly sick of one's sexualized viewing lens. (Aren't you sick enough yet, Nick?)

But, no, I am not trying to undermine the whole forum! You can't think I'd have that kind of influence, unless you think my reasoning on it is higher to begin with.

And I wouldn't be visiting here at all if I thought the place (and the people) had no merit beyond that . . . .

Pye wrote:I think the "Woman" philosophy pretty much undermines itself, Nick, which is, at least, in part what I'm pointing out here.

And what I'm pointing out is that you haven't done that by simply stating that women are "conditioned".

Pye wrote:It is very simple to talk about degrees of consciousness/unconsciousness in the human being, rather than demonstrating a piss-poor use of A=A - especially one so heavily-laden with the self-same sexual hooks one puts forth as a matter to transcend.

How exactly is the Woman philosophy a poor use of A=A? It's pretty straight forward if you ask me. If we can agree that the traits of the feminine ego are less conducive to consciousness than the masculine ego is, and that women posses more of the feminine ego than the masculine, we can say that women are less conscious than men and be perfectly in tune with A=A. To bring up the fact that women have been conditioned this way, for whatever reason, is redundant. Of course they were caused to be that way, everything's been caused to be the way it is.

Pye wrote:This "Woman" philosophy is akin to "Female Mystique" - an idea, I believe, that this "Woman" philosophy itself is meant to disassemble. It will never do this whilst it is wearing virtually the same clothing and obsessing over it in much the same way.

If your neighborhood were full of heroin addicts, wouldn't you be focused on it? Same goes for the "feminine mystique", since humanity is completely under it's spell, both male and female.

Pye wrote:And further, this "Woman" philosophy slops back and forth in addressing a quality (consciousness) - and people (women). A=whatever the hell one wants it to equal, depending on one's already-sexualized agenda.

That's because women embody the feminine ego so perfectly. How can one not use them as an all but perfect example of how not to be if one wants to achieve enlightenment? If you ask me this is perfectly acceptable, and to avoid using women as an example would first of all just be stupid, and further it would indicate a fear about overcoming an addiction to the "feminine mystique".

Pye wrote:Again, I can only see its use in making one well and truly sick of one's sexualized viewing lens.

Close, it's not just about the "sexualized viewing lens", it's about eliminating its underlying causes. Namely the ego, both feminine and masculine.

Pye wrote:(Aren't you sick enough yet, Nick?)

Yes, but the rest of the people on this planet I'm stuck with are not.

Pye wrote:But, no, I am not trying to undermine the whole forum! You can't think I'd have that kind of influence, unless you think my reasoning on it is higher to begin with.

I didn't say you were undermining it, I accused you of attempting to do so, and continued to explain to you why you were misguided in these attempts.

Pye wrote:And I wouldn't be visiting here at all if I thought the place (and the people) had no merit beyond that . . . .

Well, hopefully my clarifications on this particular merit will help you gain a respect for it so you can be in accord with all of this forum's merits. : )

Kelly,

It depends what you mean by soul. If you mean by "soul" something uncaused, then I do know it is impossible.

By soul, I am referring to the consciousness within, and that which departs the body at death. It may also be that there is both soul and spirit, with the spirit being universal and undivided, as well as uncaused, being of God.

Or do you mean that there is nothing uncaused? That is absurd and illogical. These is indeed something outside the loop of cause and effect, or existence would be impossible.

They are likely to be caused to value thinking over a fatalistic attitude to their biological makeup.

Caused by what? My original point was that there should be a reason why a woman would be attracted to a more 'masculine' mode of being, and that reason could be her brain. And look, it is not only the attitude toward one's biology but the biology itself that I think plays an important role in these things.

It is odd that on one hand you so sternly inform Pye that women are this particular way, and that boys play so differently from girls, and then you go ahead and agree with her that biology has little to do with it. But I don't like to flee from reality.

I like Pye just fine but I think she is indulging in a certain amount of denial, of fantasy, and an academic fantasy at that. Out of touch with real life.

With inadequate testosterone, a male embryo's brain will lack the masculinization process that should take place. This means that a particular embryo can be masculinized or feminized, despite their genetic endowment, by environmental conditions in the womb.

Reducing masculinity or femininity to only the first two sex characters contradicts the evidence that has been around for more than a hundred years.

You'll have to elaborate. What evidence? That not all people fit the stereotype? You are focusing on bodies, I am focusing on brains.

Having babies isn't incompatible with those traits, per se. But there's roughly nil evidence so far to say they are compatible.

Thinking takes a huge amount of one's time, energy, and concentration. A thinker's life is basically idle. They simply cannot have lots of chores, a social diary, schedules, projects, or entertaining distractions. Anything that regularly interferes with the thinker's fishing, intently watching and guiding thoughts over time to deeper understanding, is anathema. Having to look after children, who are very demanding on one's time, makes it extremely difficult to make enough time for thinking.

It has not stopped me, although I did rearrange my life a bit to accommodate it.

By definition, a woman is an unenlightened person.

It is not a useful definition. I won't go along with it.

So it is true by definition that a woman of either sex is driven by self-love (meaning, hatred of the true self).

Your stark terms are uneccessary, because untrue. That people are driven by ego does not mean they have hatred to the true self. Fear, ignorance, immaturity, perhaps, but not hatred.

This confirms that people who say they really love children, are usually lying.

Again, use of the term lying is not only incendiary, it isn't true. Not that you will listen, Kelly, but you are locking yourself in to a mindset that is negative, which by definition is not one of enlightenment. This constant tearing down of your fellow man is most unfortunate.

The self of the unenlightened is not the self of the enlightened.

On the other hand, the consciousness within an insect, or that horse, is it different than mine? It appears to be, because of personality and knowledge and memory - but are these the true self?

Expanding one's notion of self could be a helpful idea if it were wise, but it's invariably contaminated by belief that things inherently exist - which is what drives so-called altruistic acts in the first place.

But reality does inherently exist, only the apparent forms within it that are mutable and dependent upon conditions do not inherently exist.

When a person doesn't love the false self, having reasoned that things don't inherently exist, then they are liberated to experience everything as themselves, literally.

Yes, this is good, but the false self is only false because the understanding of it is false. If you are going to love everything, don't forget to include yourself.

There is no emotion in this love, because there is no desire, because there is nothing to desire.

Perhaps it is a different emotion, perhaps very peaceful, but I doubt that there is a truly nonemotional state.

What an odd question. You believe, if I am correct, that consciousness develops through evolution and was not present in the universe till then. So the highest consciousness that you know of, is human consciousness.

You're talking about the animal type consciousness, which is sensation-driven, emotional, vague, and henidic. Not human consciousness, which loves reason, and has ideals. Also, human consciousness is focussed on truth.

In fact, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about pure consciousness, the being within, regardless of the knowledge contained in its lifetime. If you died the day you were born, you had a consciousness within that either ceased or left your body, and if you die today, same thing. Both were quite human, in one sense, I suppose, but I do not believe that our consciousness, the being within, the subjective experiencer, is human, per se.

Higher consciousness, as I define it, is logic,

Well now, a higher consciousness should certainly appreciate logic, but my consciousness is not logic, any more than the tree outside is logic. Logic just is.

I don't disparage babies. I am just distinguishing between animal and human consciousness.

But I am not so distinguishing. I am explaining to you why women love babies. They see a pure, unsullied consciousness. Now, if you speak of a love which includes everything, in which everything is experienced as self...why not love it all?

Oh, sigh. Listen to me, Kelly, without the filter of superiority (which hides a desperate bid to overcome feeling inferior) and the 19th century styled materialism.

More animal psychology. You're doing an excellent job of illustrating animal consciousness to others here, Anna.

What? How? I am talking about something completely different. I am talking about the inner being of all living things, and the possibility that this ENERGY may be able to interact after all, contrary to the very limited understanding of 19th century materialist thinking.

Solipsism is not an irrefutable truth of philosophy, it's false. It states that there is only one's own subjective consciousness, not that others possibly exist. Reasoning that things are caused by what they are not, is how solipsism is refuted. It is not refuted by more empirical evidence, which necessarily occurs within one's own subjective consciousness.

As I understand it, solipsism is the proposal that all we can know for sure is that we ourselves exist. It is difficult to refute. Now, explain your refutation, because I didn't get it.

The ego is based on the belief in the false self, holds to a falsity "that things intrinsically exist". By its nature, it desires connection with other things beyond itself.

It takes more than an intellectual realization that one is connected to the All to stop reacting as an ego. Seeing that things do not inherently exist is not that much help, either. Profound enough for a while, but one gets used to it.

There is an obvious biological difference between men and women. That is not the level that philosophy is interested in. Philosophy is interested in quality of thought and in psychology (values, drives). Thinking and psychology can be corrected, unlike genetics or cogenital factors. Therefore whoever has poor reasoning, and irrational values, can also be corrected.

This is very hopeful of you. But it negates that biology and brain are actually, well...relevant. In that case, why talk about animal psychology? Correct them too! I am exaggerating of course, but at what point do we agree that biology and brain are causal to the differences between men and women?
Of course, I am not at all sure that women need be less conscious, or have a worse outcome in the search for enlightenment. But I do wonder if perhaps their different psychology could be taken into account, if perhaps they have somewhat different strengths and pitfalls, and if it is possible to accept women as they are rather than saying any woman who transcends, is by definition a man and not a woman.

I read that kind of shit from early Greek Christian writings of nearly two thousand years ago.

It has always pissed me off.

Anna may have regressed, or I've progressed, or maybe both.

I think that you have progressed, and are more interesting than before. But I doubt you will break free of the obedience you have taken on to model David Quinn.

I tend to think of Anna as "BirdofHermes", a creature with a sense of humour, and a relatively free thought.

Freer than ever!

Kelly Jones wrote:Anna may have regressed, or I've progressed, or maybe both. I tend to think of Anna as "BirdofHermes", a creature with a sense of humour, and a relatively free thought. Pye, by contrast, seems fragile, perhaps because Anna's doing some combination of the Mother and Butterfly and Pye, in her transition, seems fragile by comparison. Of course, this is all speculation..... but it is interesting to think about psychology.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A brilliant quote from Weininger that I've just stumbled across:

“Souls, individuals, are not the ultimately real; they, too, are still the expression of vanity, the attachment of worth to the person. Only the Good, which contains all individual elements within it, is of the highest reality.”

(Good, in the sense that "God alone is Good.")

You mean, your discernment of them as individuals is grounded more in their monikers than the essential substance of their thought available in what they produce on this forum? (In case it has some relevance I've not considered with this statement, I indicate here that I have not yet checked out your link and reserve the right to comment later should I find it useful to do so.) Personally, I see less potential and more structural fragility in a bird than I do in a mathematical formulation.

I had seven pet chickens and a rooster, once. Really good as natural fertiliser (droppings) for growing vegetables and fruit. A couple of them were Chinese silkies. Sure, they were free and humorous---and very cute looking, too. But only the rooster ever took flight over the fence...

PS: when the rooster finally did escape, one of the chickens assumed his post and started cock-a-doodle-doo-ing in the mornings. Was very funny. Sounded constipated, at first. She even physically changed to look more like a rooster, but it wasn't one of the Chinese silkies. It was a regular looking, attack chicken the kids called Gun-crazy.

Pye to Nick wrote:I think the "Woman" philosophy pretty much undermines itself, Nick, which is, at least, in part what I'm pointing out here. It is very simple to talk about degrees of consciousness/unconsciousness in the human being, rather than demonstrating a piss-poor use of A=A - especially one so heavily-laden with the self-same sexual hooks one puts forth as a matter to transcend.

I have already explained in this thread why this is a false idea.

Repeating:

Kelly: if women (of both sexes) . . .

nice example of the law of identity. as close to incoherency as you can get and still be standing . . . .

Women psychologically, of course.

and here:

Pye wrote:It is at the very least ironic that one assumes the way out of an obsession is to obsess about it. Some of the men here have expressed the most fervent desires to be "free" of their sexual obsessions that get in the way of their higher minds.

It's not really that hard to understand. It is not easy for a drug addict to end an addiction. Being drug-free is a totally foreign state to the addict. Instead of trying the impossible, we make stepping-stones out of the addiction. We focus on making the first step relatively drug-free, yet it's still within our capability. Each step has part of the old man, and part of the new man. Each step he makes takes him further away from the drugs, and requires progressively less of his drug-loving mind.

This "Woman" philosophy is akin to "Female Mystique" - an idea, I believe, that this "Woman" philosophy itself is meant to disassemble. It will never do this whilst it is wearing virtually the same clothing and obsessing over it in much the same way.

The way biological females behave and express themselves indicates feminine psychology very clearly. There is no lust for females in observing their behaviour and the way they speak.

And further, this "Woman" philosophy slops back and forth in addressing a quality (consciousness) - and people (women). A=whatever the hell one wants it to equal, depending on one's already-sexualized agenda.

Again, observing how females act and what they say, indicates feminine psychology (low quality thinking, virtual non-consciousness) very clearly. There is no abuse of A=A, but an excellent obedience of it.

Quality of thinking is itself (A=A). Low quality thinking is itself (A=A). Quality of thinking is not the same as low-quality thinking.

Males demonstrate quality of thinking more consistently, although the level is not the highest. It is also itself (A=A). It is not the same as low quality thinking, which females demonstrate consistently. Need I go on?

Again, I can only see its use in making one well and truly sick of one's sexualized viewing lens. (Aren't you sick enough yet, Nick?)

You don't yet understand it, Pye. That transcendance idea of yours is only relatively useful, and ultimately false.

But, no, I am not trying to undermine the whole forum! You can't think I'd have that kind of influence, unless you think my reasoning on it is higher to begin with.

It is not your biology which is evidence of poor quality thinking, but your thinking does demonstrate feminine values at play.


KJ

Anna wrote:

It depends what you mean by soul. If you mean by "soul" something uncaused, then I do know it is impossible.

By soul, I am referring to the consciousness within, and that which departs the body at death.

Are you absolutely certain of this? Or is this a hypothesis, based on observable evidence?

It may also be that there is both soul and spirit, with the spirit being universal and undivided, as well as uncaused, being of God.

The only way a "thing" can be uncaused is to have no existence whatsoever. To exist means to appear, and have some kind of form. If there is an appearance of universality and lack of divisions, then there are causes for same.

Thus, your God is a deluded notion without rational grounds for argument.

Or do you mean that there is nothing uncaused? That is absurd and illogical. These is indeed something outside the loop of cause and effect, or existence would be impossible.

Things exist because of causation. Can you not see your argument depends on causation?

They are likely to be caused to value thinking over a fatalistic attitude to their biological makeup.

Caused by what? My original point was that there should be a reason why a woman would be attracted to a more 'masculine' mode of being, and that reason could be her brain. And look, it is not only the attitude toward one's biology but the biology itself that I think plays an important role in these things.

At any moment in time, a person makes choices. Their values determine what they choose. These values are learnt.

It is odd that on one hand you so sternly inform Pye that women are this particular way, and that boys play so differently from girls, and then you go ahead and agree with her that biology has little to do with it. But I don't like to flee from reality.

No, I am saying that psychology is more influential in making choices, than biology.

But of course, the neural pathways created by those who do not value thinking, may over time preclude them from ever learning to think.

Kelly wrote:

Anna wrote:With inadequate testosterone, a male embryo's brain will lack the masculinization process that should take place. This means that a particular embryo can be masculinized or feminized, despite their genetic endowment, by environmental conditions in the womb.

Reducing masculinity or femininity to only the first two sex characters contradicts the evidence that has been around for more than a hundred years.

You'll have to elaborate. What evidence? That not all people fit the stereotype? You are focusing on bodies, I am focusing on brains.

The first part of "Sex and Character" by Weininger has an excellent account in chapter two (allowing for some outdated data):

The distribution of sexual characters affords an important proof of the appearance of sexuality in different degrees. Such characters (at least in the animal kingdom) may be arranged according to the strength of their exciting influence on the opposite sex. To avoid confusion, I shall make use of John Hunter’s terms for classifying sexual characters. The primordial sexual characters are the male and female genital glands (testes and epididymis, ovaries and epoophoron); the primary sexual characters are
the internal appendages of the sexual glands (vasa deferentia vesiculae seminales, oviducts and uterus), which may have sexual characters quite distinct from those of the glands and the external sexual organs, according to which alone the sex of human
beings is reckoned at birth (sometimes quite erroneously, as I shall show) and their consequent fate in life decided. After the primary, come all those sexual characters not directly necessary to reproduction. Such secondary sexual characters are best
defined as those which begin to appear at puberty, and which cannot be developed except under the influence on the system of the internal secretions of the genital glands. Examples of these are the beards in men, the luxuriant growth of hair in women, the development of the mammary glands, the character of the voice. As a convenient mode of treatment, and for practical rather than theoretical reasons, certain inherited characters, such as the development of muscular strength or of mental obstinacy may be reckoned as tertiary sexual characters. Under the designation “quaternary sexual characters” may be placed such accessories as relative social position, difference in habit, mode of livelihood, the smoking and drinking habit in man, and the domestic duties of women. All these characters possess a potent and direct sexual influence, and in my opinion often may be reckoned with the
tertiary characters or even with the secondary. This classification of sexual characters must not be taken as implying a definite chain of sequence, nor must it be assumed that the mental sexual characters either determine the bodily characters or are
determined by them in some causal nexus. The classification relates only to the strength of the exciting influence on the other sex, to the order in time in which this influence is exerted, and to the degree of certainty with which the extent of the influence may be predicted.

Having babies isn't incompatible with those traits, per se. But there's roughly nil evidence so far to say they are compatible.

Thinking takes a huge amount of one's time, energy, and concentration. A thinker's life is basically idle. They simply cannot have lots of chores, a social diary, schedules, projects, or entertaining distractions. Anything that regularly interferes with the thinker's fishing, intently watching and guiding thoughts over time to deeper understanding, is anathema. Having to look after children, who are very demanding on one's time, makes it extremely difficult to make enough time for thinking.

It has not stopped me, although I did rearrange my life a bit to accommodate it.

You are not, as yet, a thinker.

By definition, a woman is an unenlightened person.

It is not a useful definition. I won't go along with it.

Everything you write is a display of woman, according to my definition of enlightenment, which is understanding Truth.

So it is true by definition that a woman of either sex is driven by self-love (meaning, hatred of the true self).

Your stark terms are uneccessary, because untrue. That people are driven by ego does not mean they have hatred to the true self. Fear, ignorance, immaturity, perhaps, but not hatred.

You do not know what the true self is. You hate it, by denying it.

This confirms that people who say they really love children, are usually lying.

Again, use of the term lying is not only incendiary, it isn't true. Not that you will listen, Kelly, but you are locking yourself in to a mindset that is negative, which by definition is not one of enlightenment. This constant tearing down of your fellow man is most unfortunate.

You don't understand what enlightenment is, so how can you speak of Truth?

The self of the unenlightened is not the self of the enlightened.

On the other hand, the consciousness within an insect, or that horse, is it different than mine?

Not much.

It appears to be, because of personality and knowledge and memory - but are these the true self?

No.

Expanding one's notion of self could be a helpful idea if it were wise, but it's invariably contaminated by belief that things inherently exist - which is what drives so-called altruistic acts in the first place.

But reality does inherently exist, only the apparent forms within it that are mutable and dependent upon conditions do not inherently exist.

A container is dependent on what it contains. Therefore, neither inherently exist.

When a person doesn't love the false self, having reasoned that things don't inherently exist, then they are liberated to experience everything as themselves, literally.

Yes, this is good, but the false self is only false because the understanding of it is false. If you are going to love everything, don't forget to include yourself.

The false self is a self that is believed to exist when it really doesn't. Any understanding of it is therefore superfluous.

There is no emotion in this love, because there is no desire, because there is nothing to desire.

Perhaps it is a different emotion, perhaps very peaceful, but I doubt that there is a truly nonemotional state.

Emotions are, at basis, false thoughts. Where there are no false thoughts, there is no emotion; not even a feeling of peace.

What an odd question. You believe, if I am correct, that consciousness develops through evolution and was not present in the universe till then. So the highest consciousness that you know of, is human consciousness.

You're talking about the animal type consciousness, which is sensation-driven, emotional, vague, and henidic. Not human consciousness, which loves reason, and has ideals. Also, human consciousness is focussed on truth.

In fact, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about pure consciousness, the being within,

Within what? Forms within a container? I've already explained how co-dependency rules out inherent existence.

If you died the day you were born, you had a consciousness within that either ceased or left your body, and if you die today, same thing.

There is a huge difference between "ceased" and "left your body"!

Solipsism is not an irrefutable truth of philosophy, it's false. It states that there is only one's own subjective consciousness, not that others possibly exist. Reasoning that things are caused by what they are not, is how solipsism is refuted. It is not refuted by more empirical evidence, which necessarily occurs within one's own subjective consciousness.

As I understand it, solipsism is the proposal that all we can know for sure is that we ourselves exist. It is difficult to refute. Now, explain your refutation, because I didn't get it.

Everything an individual experiences is everything occurring in their consciousness. All they know of other consciousnesses is evidence within their own consciousness. However, they need not fall into solipsism, because they can reason that consciousness is bounded by something that never appears to consciousness. Within that something, are all other consciousnesses.

There is an obvious biological difference between men and women. That is not the level that philosophy is interested in. Philosophy is interested in quality of thought and in psychology (values, drives). Thinking and psychology can be corrected, unlike genetics or cogenital factors. Therefore whoever has poor reasoning, and irrational values, can also be corrected.

This is very hopeful of you.

Some people, of course, have become too set in their ways to learn to think. Their neural pathways are grown in such a way as to be incapable of thinking.


KJ

"Inherent" means "existing in something as a permanent and inseparable element of; infixed; innate".

Existence therefore cannot be inherent. It is ludicrous to speak of existence existing in itself.

If existence is not inherent then nothing is inherent. I can't think of many words which do not apply to anything.

That's right, Carl. Except that words don't actually apply to anything at all. The meanings we associate with other meanings are labels stuck onto other labels stuck onto other labels - or forms stuck onto other forms... with no ultimate basis on which to pin them.

Nature, God, Truth, Reality are all such labels.

Ah. Shooting for Emptiness. The Big Shazam.

Jason,

Given what you've written here recently I thought it might be hypocritical of you not to be a vegetarian.

You will find that while I may not agree with you, I am not unsympathetic to your position.

How did you come to the conclusion that vegetarianism compromises human health? What did you base it on? Scientific studies? I have a personal interest in it, I'm a vegetarian.

One has to be very careful with scientific studies. Many of them are biased by financial interests. We were told that margarine was a health food for 50 years, and the research supposedly supported that (it never really did and was often paid for by the edible oils industry) and the cardiologists were convinced. Yet it flew in the face of common sense and in the year 2003 or 2004 the entire media (the front men and lackeys for corporate America - or did you think we had a free press?) did a shocking about face. They said that the recommended daily amount of hydrogenated fats was ZERO. Which means, that it is really, really bad for you, close to a toxin or poison. And it means they fucked up huge time, and must cover their asses now.

Dr. Weston Price was a dentist in the 1930s, and he thought people's teeth were deteriorating, and wondered why. He decided to do some research on healthy people to see what they did right. He went to indigenous peoples throughout the world, every summer for about 10 years. He went to every continent and island, studied African blacks, northern Eskimos, even rural Europeans. His incredible criterion for considering a people worthy of study is that they had to have no tooth decay!

He found no vegetarians. Some ate little meat but mostly milk, some ate more seafood. It varied. He said their diets contained about 10 times as much vitamin A as a modern diet. But remember - in 1930 cows ate grass and lived in pastures, soil was still decent and petrochemicals had hardly begun. Diets are worse now. In his book are hundreds of pictures of perfect teeth and facial development - but he often also found people in which the white man's civilized diet had made recent inroads - sugar and white flour and such - and he photographed the next generation, often the very children of those with perfect teeth - and you see crowded, overlapping and rotten teeth.

If you are truly interested, there is a website whose research I think is untainted by big money, and they promote his ideas. It is vast but quite interesting. http://www.westonaprice.org

If you are vegetarian, but not vegan, you can do all right. It would be more important to learn what quality to look for in milk, eggs, and cheese than to eat meat.

I tend to assume that most other animals lack the intellectual ability to make moral decisions in the way that some humans can. If that is the case then I wouldn't call non-human predatory animals immoral. They also live under very different circumstances which may not easily allow them the choice even if they were able to conceive of it.

Yes, they lack that ability, but it still means that it would be wrong if they understood it. Problem is, whether we people abstain or not, the life system on planet earth involves things constantly morphing into one another, through eating of one another. Animals eat plants (plants are psychic, they emit screams during destruction, they are aware of tissue death in their vicinity) and they eat one another. If wolves stopped hunting the caribou, the caribou would overpopulate and die of other diseases.

But animals need to eat the diet they are designed to live upon. One zoo found that a certain big cat had to have a certain internal organ in order to reproduce successfully.

As far as nature being flawed, just the simple fact that nature contains any suffering at all is enough for me to be in moral disagreement with "it", I'd probably say that this means that nature is "flawed"; "fucked up" would be more my personal take on it. Nature can be excruciatingly horrible and I would hope for better.

I'm very sympathetic to this position, and I personally think that this plane of existence isn't the only one, and that there is a better, but also that death isn't the tragedy we think it is. Nonetheless, all animals possess a drive to live, and experience fear and exert themselves not to be caught.

A clean quick kill by who? Both humans and animal predators can engage in torturous killing methods. Lions taking on large prey can be brutal for example.

For humans to do such a thing is completely repugnant. Animals do it sometimes, but mostly through ineptidude, such as young lions who haven't learned to kill properly. But mostly I was referring to a quick kill as opposed to a long, tedious life behind bars under miserable conditions.

There are in fact humane treatment laws for livestock in most developed countries, but they often still allow things that many find morally unjustifiable.

If so the laws are inadequate. The pictures I've seen of caged chickens and pigs are completely unacceptable. And, I have read that a modern dairy cow lives only 4 years! That is how bad they are treated!

If you had a pet cow or pig perhaps you could sense some of the same qualities in it that you see and value in these other animals.

They are not so far off, but if you think about it, although cows are sweet, they have not done us the service horses have, and do not have the same relationship. Pigs may be capable as dogs, of that relationship, not sure.

Carl,

Emptiness is not inherent in anything; it is just a concept that means, "things are empty of inherent existence."

It refers to the truth of co-dependent origination.

KJ

dejavu wrote:

Inherent" means "existing in something as a permanent and inseparable element of; infixed; innate". Existence therefore cannot be inherent. It is ludicrous to speak of existence existing in itself.

What else is there in which it may exist?

That's the folly of those who actually think existence exists, as if it is something separate to itself.

I see you hold the concept of the void over infinity----as though you could.

I can only assume you don't understand how I use the word "Void" or "Infinite". They both mean, "Empty of inherent boundaries".

Emptiness is not inherent in anything; it is just a concept that means, "things are empty of inherent existence." It refers to the truth of co-dependent origination.

It is odd how one may become utterly befuddled by the concept of cause and effect! 'Things' may be said to lack inherent existence only in their relationship to other things, and even then they can only be said to.

Things have no other existence than in relationship to other things. I don't say that "Things are only said to lack inherent existence." I say that they truly do lack inherent existence, by reason of of their dependency on other things.

Existence itself doesn't perceive the infinite relationships between its 'parts'.

This is nonsense. Existence is not something conscious, so it's meaningless to speak of whether or not it has perceptions.

KJ

Oh, Kelly-

By soul, I am referring to the consciousness within, and that which departs the body at death.

Are you absolutely certain of this? Or is this a hypothesis, based on observable evidence?

There are few things I am absolutely certain of. I do know the difference. Ahem.
But it is my working hypothesis based on the preponderance of evidence.
Observable? I have not myself observed a soul, except once in a dream, and I have not had an out of body experience. Perhaps, once, I have. It was very fleeting. I entered my husband's "I"

I have observed the astonishing change in a body when the life force departs.

Things exist because of causation. Can you not see your argument depends on causation?

No, if it were true, there could be no existence. It's not turtles all the way down. I know your guru says that, and I have recently questioned him on it, but he has not answered.
It's cause and effect as far as the eye can see, but our eyes are limited. There must be something quite other, something inherently existing, capable of causing its own existence. There's just no way around it.

At any moment in time, a person makes choices. Their values determine what they choose. These values are learnt. No, I am saying that psychology is more influential in making choices, than biology.

So you essentially agree with Pye then. I do not doubt that humans are capable of a wide variety of learning and values and choices. But if what you say is true, then it would not be so that we see such consistent differences between men and women, differences which you insist upon!

Newborn baby boys look at patterns and faces equally, while girls show a strong preference for faces.

Ha, ha, and it if is true that mothers who know the sex of their babies put out the appropriate hormones, then we will see an increased divergence with this new generation, almost all of whose mothers know.

Reducing masculinity or femininity to only the first two sex characters contradicts the evidence that has been around for more than a hundred years.

You'll have to elaborate. What evidence? That not all people fit the stereotype? You are focusing on bodies, I am focusing on brains

I fail to see what relevance the Weininger quote had to the question, nor why you consider it evidence.

You are not, as yet, a thinker.

Because my thoughts do not agree with yours. Yet I have so many original ideas, and yours are all regurgitated QRS, mostly Q.

You do not know what the true self is. You hate it, by denying it.

You make such remarks, yet if you know what the true self is, why didn't you explain it?

You don't understand what enlightenment is, so how can you speak of Truth?

But I do speak of it, and often. And the better part of truth, is that which cannot be spoken.

I wonder if anyone who speaks of enlightenment has the same idea of it. My current understanding of enlightenment, is not so much an intellection, as experiencing that one is connected to the All, transcending ego in a real way, not by struggle and exertion to an idea.

Within what? Forms within a container? I've already explained how co-dependency rules out inherent existence.

But the whole thing inherently exists.

There is a huge difference between "ceased" and "left your body"!

Why yes. I was allowing for either in this example.

Everything an individual experiences is everything occurring in their consciousness. All they know of other consciousnesses is evidence within their own consciousness. However, they need not fall into solipsism, because they can reason that consciousness is bounded by something that never appears to consciousness. Within that something, are all other consciousnesses.

What???

++++++++++++++++++++++=
Dejavu,

Like yourself for instance, with your belief that existence is not inherent, one you share with Anna, Nick, Leyla?, and others. I don't think this is as much a neural no-u-turn as it is a sort of security blanket to shield yourselves from the ice of eternity

No, dejavu,
I think existence is inherent and must be. But things, items within existence, are ephemeral in their formations.

Anna,

Say we are observing the process of someone dying. Initially, the person is identified as (probably) conscious because of the evidence (responding coherently to questions). This is also evidence that "life force" is still present, though we can use other evidence, such as: the heart is pumping blood (we can take a pulse, pierce a vein, even insert a camera into the chest to observe), the lungs are pumping air (the chest rises and falls, we can hear air passing across the lips, there is condensation on a piece of glass placed directly above the lips), the pupils dilate when light shines into them, the skin is flushed with blood, the body is warm to the touch. All of these are signs of life.

Now there are other factors which we observe as evidence of dying. The pulse stops, the breathing stops, the pupils are not photosensitive and then glaze over, the skin becomes pale, cold, and later hardens and shrinks. The gums recede from the teeth, and so forth.

Why does the body die? We have to go off observable evidence. The first certain and logical answer is: causes. We can also give a less certain answer based on observable relationships: for instance - a person is hit by a car, the lungs are ruptured by broken ribs, the breath is not carrying oxygen around the body or to the brain, so unconsciousness results. Or, in ageing - a biomachine is not functioning as efficiently as it once did, with dysfunctional cells or not enough new cells, so the various organs deteriorate, and eventually health drops off.

When you say "I observe consciousness ceasing in that person", it is likely it does. But when you say "I observe consciousness leaving the body and going somewhere else" that is most likely an over-active imagination.

KJ

Anna wrote:It's cause and effect as far as the eye can see, but our eyes are limited.

Causation is not an empirical but a logical concept.

You haven't put any thought into your statements or questions, so there's no point in my answering them.

KJ

Dejavu wrote:Existence is not separate to itself. What do you imagine causes existence but existence?!

If existence is caused, then there is something that is not existence, causing existence. If this is what you are claiming occurs, you are claiming that non-existence exists, which you agree is nonsense.

dejavu wrote:

Kelly wrote:

dejavu wrote:I see you hold the concept of the void over infinity----as though you could.

I can only assume you don't understand how I use the word "Void" or "Infinite". They both mean, "Empty of inherent boundaries".

How does infinity lack inherency Kelly?

As explained earlier, inherent means "existing in something as a permanent and inseparable element of; infixed; innate". So, in what are you claiming infinity is existing? Is it separate to something? What?

A things causal relationship to other things means its existence can only be inherent.

Existence is not something separate from things. As soon as there is a thing, its existence has arisen. So, you see by the definition for "inherent", a thing's existence cannot exist as something separate to the thing. It would be foolish to say that existence can reside within a thing. Do you see what I'm getting at? A thing = existence. Existence is not a second thing apart from things.

What you are doing is doubling up on categories. Either use "thing" or "existence", not both.

KJ