GENIUS FORUMS

Kelly Jones Wrote:

I'll have to ask John Howard for a raise, to cover the extra groceries. How much vomiting I've done lately. Why is this unconscious, degrading, disgusting, and highly abusive behaviour continuing to happen? Because no one stands up to the bullshit. What to do?

Well at least we can both see Andrew Cohen is absurd.

However I still disagree on our other matter, one shouldn’t separate psychological education from scientific knowledge because they compliment each other, however there’s no sense in butting heads over it for eternity.

Kelly Jones wrote:

I'm having difficulty distinguishing cosmic_prostitute from bert.

I’ll help you out a bit my dear, on the top left side of the screen in small letters, it will either say cosmic_prostitute or bert. Most likely the name that says cosmic prostitute are my posts.

; )

Best Wishes,
CP

prosticosbert wrote:However I still disagree on our other matter, one shouldn’t separate psychological education from scientific knowledge because they compliment each other, however there’s no sense in butting heads over it for eternity.

You're disagreeing with a phantom. For your convenience:

Kelly: But do you see that science-based ideologies, such as permaculture, or psychology, have nothing whatsoever to do with wisdom and genius? It's only through thinking logically about the Absolute that one can understand anything's true nature. Any other method will never reveal what attachment is.

cosmic_prostitute: What do you mean thinking logically about the absolute?

Kelly: Reasoning about what is absolutely true.

cosmic_prostitute: One should never abandon their scientific knowledge/pursuits of the natural world, its laughable.

Kelly: I never said abandon scientific knowledge. Just to recognise that theories based on empirical evidence are uncertain, whereas reasoning about what is absolutely true is certain.

If you're only interested in getting attention from some slags, then you won't be interested in living with certainty about your true nature, which is formlessness, the only criteria for genius.

You're lying: you like Andrew Cohen's ideas, and that he is absurd. You like being a clown, because you believe this frees you from criticism. But it is impossible to make one's personality a blank, all that happens is you create more and more error.

Kelly Jones wrote:

You're lying: you like Andrew Cohen's ideas, and that he is absurd. You like being a clown, because you believe this frees you from criticism. But it is impossible to make one's personality a blank, all that happens is you create more and more error.

I don’t think so Kelly, I think Andrew Cohen is absurd simply because of the fact that he is. Andrew Cohen isn’t trying to be a clown, that is the way he is. And as for myself, well I do enjoy throwing out a bit of humor now and again, but I'm also quite capable of intense seriousness when something arouses interest.

Have you ever watched a bear catching a fish in a river? I'm like that beer Kelly, Very attentive and all my energy is put into catching that one fish. that fish is all that exists for me in that moment...

wait, I forgot the fact that the bear is in hibernation for half of the year obivious to what is going on around him, bad metaphor, forget that one.

But overall, I do believe seriousness should be primary, but there is nothing wrong with indulging in a bit of humor.

And as for criticism, you can criticize me all you want, I don’t mind.

if two people are able to criticize the views of each other brutally well that illustrates that the ego doesn’t have a tight grip on them.

It illustrates that they are open to being in error, which is important.

This is how group insight occurs. when one has a question and the two explore and investigate together then deep truths can be discerned in that process.

And yes, seriousness is primary during these exchanges, however comedy can also happen quite unexpectedly during these periods as well.

If the "state" of "being beyond conception" has no form at all, then how do you know it is a dual principle? To have form is to appear as something. A dual principle is something.

the ancestral sex principle and the idea of self are one and the same.the early duality.Time does not change it.it is the mystery of mystries.
you can not know them by conceivable things,because concept is duality.
if we want to speak of it it is not of it but of our duality,mighty it is in its early simplicity.

it is the archetype of "self".

The only context in which any thing has meaning is absolute truth. That is, you are already using the concept of Ultimate Reality, despite your protests.

You will not like hearing this, and I'm sure will disagree, but this is the nature of the mental illness of low self-esteem: You are creating an imaginary state to feel more powerful, and are hiding in it because of detesting the mediocrity of conventional society. Many young men feel they must struggle to hold on to their own individual conception of reality, believing that this exhausting hypervigilance is noble. They are miserably proud of this egotism, that locks them into being unable to relax and live freely. But the truly noble alternative to animal mediocrity is understanding the nature of the ego, which in turn rests on feeling confident to explore Reality. Psychotherapy is helpful in this regard.

I understand perfectly what I'm talking about.
It is not an invention of me either.I'm quite well informed.

These quotes from Schiller and Dali reveal they have not a smidgin of wisdom. Nietzsche means there is no internality either: there is no inherent separation between an external environment and an internal intellect.

you made me laugh.

You can start by believing that the law of identity (A=A) is reliable. That'd be a big help. It means that a thing is not what it is not. This is the basis of truth.

If you define Ego as dual in nature, then it is untrue to then define Ego as ascending from duality. Anything ascending from duality is not in duality.

The reason you cannot achieve consistency in your definitions is because you are mistakenly believing that a finite thing is everything. I said this earlier.

I never said that Ego is dual in nature.and definately not in the way you explain it.
before you go and talk about my inconsistencies ,you should know what I'm telling.when you don't understand what I'm telling,then how can you know about any inconcistencies?

The "as it is in itself" state, called the early sex principle, is in context of what it is not. This state, and what it is not, can be related because they are both resting on the idea of absolute truth.

what is an "as it is in itself" state?
why is this state called early sex principle?

If you understand this, then you can know for certain that one's experiences are always part of Ultimate Reality. There's no need to separate Reality up into real and unreal. One can relax and live freely, accepting everything Nature has to offer.

so,actually you are just being sceptic.
everything I say has to be in favour of your reasoning faculty.

I'm so honest to tell that I know that one can not know,that the "intelligence is false",that "we have no direct experience of personality",that "all is illusion".that I know that.

you destroy your own arguments by having to make use of that which you deny.

concentration will not free you,the mind conceiving the law is bondage.when you arrive at that you will want deconcentration.
dissociation from all ideas but one is not release but imaginative fulfillment, or the fury of creation.

cosmic_prostitute,

I think you mean "bear". But what is it you're concentrating on so avidly?

Bert, if you think simplicity is a sign of wisdom, then surely you can give a simple one-sentence definition for each of these terms:

Mind
Ego
self
duality
non-duality

Kelly Jones wrote:

But what is it you're concentrating on so avidly?

Cory Patrick brought up a good point on the relationship between elitism and attachment. I’ve been giving some thought to this and here is what I've been thinking:

Example: Suppose a pair of Christians are conversing together, their attachment is their irrational belief which is also their morality, however if a muslim enters the room they will treat him as an inferior because their attachment to their belief and his differing belief creates an elitist attitude.

However this tendency works the same with sages:
Suppose you and I value a life of no sensual pleasure – IE: drink, gambling, sex, the whole deal, but suppose someone comes into the forum and states that sensual pursuits are part of wisdom then you and I would treat him as an inferior.

So you have the same dynamic operating between the deluded and the wise. You cannot have elitism without attachment.

And you cannot have wise attachments without being attached to facts.

And you cannot have an attachment to facts without emotion so I don’t believe there is an emotionless state as some philosophers will so confidently assert.

The emotionless state is rubbish.

For instance a wise men feels hatred toward inferiors because their behavior conflicts with the facts that he is attached to, the facts that he is certain are true.

So attachment, fact, elitism and emotion – all vital words to consider…

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Cory Patrick brought up a good point on the relationship between elitism and attachment. I’ve been giving some thought to this and here is what I've been thinking:

Example: Suppose a pair of Christians are conversing together, their attachment is their irrational belief which is also their morality, however if a muslim enters the room they will treat him as an inferior because their attachment to their belief and his differing belief creates an elitist attitude.

However this tendency works the same with sages:
Suppose you and I value a life of no sensual pleasure – IE: drink, gambling, sex, the whole deal, but suppose someone comes into the forum and states that sensual pursuits are part of wisdom then you and I would treat him as an inferior.

So you have the same dynamic operating between the deluded and the wise. You cannot have elitism without attachment.

To the unwise mind they might appear to be the same. Although the wise man knows the dynamics are completely different. In your first scenario both groups are diluted and ignorant. While in the second scenario, one group is diluted, and the other, if they are completely one with Truth, this group is undiluted.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:And you cannot have wise attachments without being attached to facts.

And you cannot have an attachment to facts without emotion so I don’t believe there is an emotionless state as some philosophers will so confidently assert.

The emotionless state is rubbish.

The sage is not "emotionally attached to facts", as you put it. He uses facts as tools to promote Truth and wisdom. If it appears that he is attached to them in some way it is your own attachments that is diluting your mind. It makes perfect sense to use facts when neccessary. If it didn't they would not be used, simple as that. No tissue will be needed if they are taken away from the sage.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:For instance a wise men feels hatred toward inferiors because their behavior conflicts with the facts that he is attached to, the facts that he is certain are true.

So attachment, fact, elitism and emotion – all vital words to consider…

A wise man does not feel hatred towards inferiors. He knows everyone is a result of infinite causes, making it ridiculous to actually hate someone for their ignorance. Afterall, noone is born with the intention of becoming ignorant. The wise man lets Truth dictate his reasoning and his being, eventually he may become enlightened where effort is no longer involved in the equation. This is when the wise man becomes one with Truth, and it is only through Truth that everything exists. Certainly Truth does not hate thyself, it is God, and God is true love and compassion.

bert plaintively wrote:everything I say has to be in favour of your reasoning faculty.

You have deduced that I exist, haven't you? That's not my reasoning faculty.

Reasoning is about creating conceptual definitions, which are logical and not contradictory. We make up all kinds of things, and have no problem reasoning about what they are. If there are any contradictions, then it's a good idea to iron them out. That's all I'm doing here.

I'm using two absolutist concepts and seeing if your ideas - which are also absolutist - fit:

1. "Ultimate Reality is everything"
2. "a thing is an appearance or form of some kind"

Cosmic_prostitute,

I think you're concerned about how to shift from attachment to non-attachment. It doesn't happen overnight.

Egotism is what everyone is educated to orient to, intellectually. So, any re-orientation to constant and pure mindfulness of one's true, formless, nature takes many years.

The ego is comfortable with its habits, and attached to them. It makes sense that non-attachment won't arise unless one has reasoned through the flaws in egotistical habits, and has outgrown them.

Creating an attachment to truth is like making a flag. It's just a reminder, in case things get difficult.

Nick wrote:

A wise man does not feel hatred towards inferiors. He knows everyone is a result of infinite causes, making it ridiculous to actually hate someone for their ignorance. Afterall, noone is born with the intention of becoming ignorant. The wise man lets Truth dictate his reasoning and his being, eventually he may become enlightened where effort is no longer involved in the equation. This is when the wise man becomes one with Truth, and it is only through Truth that everything exists. Certainly Truth does not hate thyself, it is God, and God is true love and compassion.

I disagree, I’ll give you an example, when my father heedlessly smokes cigarettes infront of me while I’m eating, there is hatred in that moment. I cannot control it, and I feel it is a healthy thing. I know the man is ignorant, but when someone’s ignorance affects you or they are confidently trying to influence you with their dull perspective, one feels an annoyance over the design itself and how helpless one is to do anything.

I’m not going to confront him because he is so emotionally weak that anything I say will only cause unnecessary suffering so I remain quiet which is part of compassion.

This is why I suspect that the wiseman is not without hatred, disdain and feelings of annoyance towards those he is in direct contact with.

So there is both hatred and compassion, it is not an either/or, it's not that simple.

This idea of the “compassionate god” of true love is a romantic notion, there is definitely healthy hatred.

Nick wrote:

The sage is not "emotionally attached to facts", as you put it.

It is not an emotional attachment as defined in the deluded, it is a different kind of attachment, attachment maybe even the wrong word here.

When you weld that fact to speak, it is part of you, it is part of truth, just as a warrior’s sword is part of them, it defines what they are.

An entities awareness is partly determined by the extent of the “relationships of facts” that he has come to realize and is able to communicate effectively.

There is definitely less emotion, but I don’t see no emotion. Humans cannot be without any emotion, it is what motivates us to do everything.

Just as one can never be completely free from fear, one’s fear simply transforms into intelligent fear just as ones hatred transforms into intelligent hatred.

For instance: when someone asks me to go drinking downtown at the bars, there is a fear to do that, the body cannot handle the poisons and there is actually a fear associated with the thought of being poisoned. That is intelligent fear working and I feel it is necessary and part of the bodies natural intelligence.

Kelly Jones wrote:

bert plaintively wrote:everything I say has to be in favour of your reasoning faculty.

You have deduced that I exist, haven't you? That's not my reasoning faculty.

Reasoning is about creating conceptual definitions, which are logical and not contradictory. We make up all kinds of things, and have no problem reasoning about what they are. If there are any contradictions, then it's a good idea to iron them out. That's all I'm doing here.

I'm using two absolutist concepts and seeing if your ideas - which are also absolutist - fit:

1. "Ultimate Reality is everything"
2. "a thing is an appearance or form of some kind"

-the Absolute creates Cosmos with its aeon;and Cosmos formulates itself dimensionally as the 'alwaysness' we know as existence - the realizable reality - presented serially,partitively;never known as a whole.

CP, FYI, you quoted Kelly Jones wrong, it was me you should have quoted.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:I disagree, I’ll give you an example, when my father heedlessly smokes cigarettes infront of me while I’m eating, there is hatred in that moment. I cannot control it, and I feel it is a healthy thing. I know the man is ignorant, but when someone’s ignorance affects you or they are confidently trying to influence you with their dull perspective, one feels an annoyance over the design itself and how helpless one is to do anything.

I’m not going to confront him because he is so emotionally weak that anything I say will only cause unnecessary suffering so I remain quiet which is part of compassion.

That is not compassion, that is protecting your fathers ego, the complete opposite of compassion. Comprimising Truth for ego is evil.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:This is why I suspect that the wiseman is not without hatred, disdain and feelings of annoyance towards those he is in direct contact with.

So there is both hatred and compassion, it is not an either/or, it's not that simple.

It is more than simple when one has become enlightened, compassion becomes one's undeniable nature.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:This idea of the “compassionate god” of true love is a romantic notion, there is definitely healthy hatred.

Your understanding of True compassion is not clear if you believe it is a romantic notion. You are probably confusing Christian compassion with True compassion. True compassion does not inspire romance, or love. True compassion is despised by nearly everyone on this planet, and there is nothing they wont do to remain ignorant of what True compassion is. I can't say I blame them when True compassion threatens to destroy all that they value, especially their egos.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:It is not an emotional attachment as defined in the deluded, it is a different kind of attachment, attachment maybe even the wrong word here.

When you weld that fact to speak, it is part of you, it is part of truth, just as a warrior’s sword is part of them, it defines what they are.

An entities awareness is partly determined by the extent of the “relationships of facts” that he has come to realize and is able to communicate effectively.

There is definitely less emotion, but I don’t see no emotion. Humans cannot be without any emotion, it is what motivates us to do everything.

Just as one can never be completely free from fear, one’s fear simply transforms into intelligent fear just as ones hatred transforms into intelligent hatred.

For instance: when someone asks me to go drinking downtown at the bars, there is a fear to do that, the body cannot handle the poisons and there is actually a fear associated with the thought of being poisoned. That is intelligent fear working and I feel it is necessary and part of the bodies natural intelligence.

I cannot say it enough; When Truth becomes your single motivation, all other motives melt away into insignificance. It is only through the ignorance of ones mind that they percieve a wise man's actions as emotional due to the fact that they cannot relate to the wise man on an enlightened level.

Nick wrote:

That is not compassion, that is protecting your fathers ego, the complete opposite of compassion. Comprimising Truth for ego is evil.

I don’t agree Nick, you are not seeing the entire picture. I could hurt my father’s ego over and over, but it will accomplish absolutely nothing. It would be like inflicting pain on a defenseless creature over and over. It really is sadistic and if you feel that is part of compassion then you are not seeing clearly.

One only challenges Egos that actually have a chance of growth, there is no point in causing suffering on those that are too weak to grow. That is the nature of compassion. The awareness to see when someone is a lost cause and the awareness to suffer quietly instead of reacting like an animal.

Nick wrote:

It is more than simple when one has become enlightened, compassion becomes one's undeniable nature.

You are being idealistic Nick, you’ve read too many philosophy books while not actually paying attention to what is happening inside you, there is hatred operating and to suggest that the enlightened man is without hatred would be as silly as saying that he is without fear…

The body continues to operate with the emotions, it needs to for survival purposes, It is programmed by the very DNA to function in that manner.

If there was no emotion, you would lay in your bed and do nothing all the time. Thought is not separate from emotion and even if those emotions are incredibly subtle they are still there. there is no end to thought so there is no end to emotion, they are inseparable.

Nick wrote:

I cannot say it enough; When Truth becomes your single motivation, all other motives melt away into insignificance. It is only through the ignorance of ones mind that they percieve a wise man's actions as emotional due to the fact that they cannot relate to the wise man on an enlightened level.

You are in love with a fantasy, there is no end to emotion. The ones who claim there is an emotionless state are tricking themselves. It is idealistic hogwash, emotion motives humans to do everything. You are here because of emotion Nick, don’t trick yourself.

You may say “no I’m here because I’m interested in the absolute truth, that is my sole motivation” but that interest is not separate from emotion, it is enjoyable for you to be here, don’t try to trick a trickster…

cosmic_prostitute wrote:

You are being idealistic Nick, you’ve read too many philosophy books while not actually paying attention to what is happening inside you, there is hatred operating and to suggest that the enlightened man is without hatred would be as silly as saying that he is without fear…

How do you know you are enlightened?

cosmic_prostitute also wrote:

If there was no emotion, you would lay in your bed and do nothing all the time. Thought is not separate from emotion and even if those emotions are incredibly subtle they are still there. there is no end to thought so there is no end to emotion, they are inseparable.

Seriously, this is the height of ignorance and delusion. Are you honestly claiming there is no difference between reason and emotion; no separation?

Have you ever heard of apathy?

.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Have you ever heard of apathy?

It is impossible to show apathy all the time. No one has ever achieved that and they never will.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Are you honestly claiming there is no difference between reason and emotion; no separation?

when one is reasoning something out there maybe very little emotion operating in that moment but that is not to say that they are without emotion at other times. You are trying to create general all-encompassing rules for the sage, but it is oversimplifying the entire process.

Leyla Shen wrote:

How do you know you are enlightened?

I've never said that, I honestly dont know what I am.

However I have studied the lives of many other sages only to come to find out that they were not without emotion. Some of them even suggested there was an emotionless state, but in their private lives emotional scandals surfaced over and over.

There has not been a single human being on this planet that was completely free from all emotion, it is a pipedream, it will never happen. As long as one is in this human body with the DNA functioning the way it is, there is emotion there. It is self-protective, the organism needs it to function.

Quinn once criticised me for suggesting there is no emotionless state and then two weeks later he was showing disdain/disgust over some poor deluded fellow named Terry.

Do you think his disdain/disgust was not separate from emotion?

Jesus said you must hate your whole family to enter the kingdom. How do you hate something without feeling emotion? can someone help me with that one please? yeah thanks.

cosmic_prostitute:

It is impossible to show apathy all the time. No one has ever achieved that and they never will.

Why do you assume that reasoning individuals act on emotion rather than reason?

L: Are you honestly claiming there is no difference between reason and emotion; no separation?

CP: One when is reasoning something out there maybe very little emotion operating in that moment but that is not to say that they are without emotion at other times. You are trying to create general all-encompassing rules for the sage, but it is oversimplifying the entire process.

You never answered my question.

I've never said that, I honestly dont know what I am.

Not explicitly, no. But implicitly, most definitely. Why else would you be asserting an uncertainty?

There has not been a single human being on this planet that was completely free from all emotion, it is a pipedream, it will never happen. As long as one is in this human body with the DNA functioning the way it is, there is emotion there. It is self-protective, the organism needs it to function.

So, you believe in objective, inherent existence? On what grounds do you think that self-preservation of the organism is the height of wisdom and enlightenment?

Quinn once criticised me for suggesting there is no emotionless state and then two weeks later he was showing disdain/disgust over some poor deluded fellow named Terry.

I do not recall such a thing. Mind giving us an overview of the discussion, or pointing to the thread?

Do you think his disdain/disgust was not separate from emotion?

Disdain/disgust is an emotion. When we talk about an absence of emotion, we are talking about a course of action/state of existence free of emotional distress. What has been discussed on this board several times on the subject is the difference between "emotion" as instinct and mental stress. I think it's worthwhile exploring that subject again.

With regard to your conversation with David, I'd like to see the discussion before I comment further.

Jesus said you must hate your whole family to enter the kingdom. How do you hate something without feeling emotion, [snip]

You don’t. Of course, one can take elements of any text and use them wisely as much as one can do the opposite.

I have given my view on the bible, and this particular aspect of it elsewhere. Wisdom comes from thinking/reason alone. Anything positive apart from that might be considered intuition, at best. But how do you think intuition measures up against reason?

[Edit: elaboration]

.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Why do you assume that reasoning individuals act on emotion rather than reason?

They act on both, they are inseparable, this is not an either/or situation.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Are you honestly claiming there is no difference between reason and emotion;

the quality of our reasoning is dictated by the quality of our emotional awareness; They are one undivided whole.

Leyla Shen wrote:

On what grounds do you think that self-preservation of the organism is the height of wisdom and enlightenment?

In the wise state, the intelligence of the body controls the individual. The individual goes from being controlled in an unintelligent way to being controlled in an intelligent way.

Basically the body’s natural intelligence emerges, however that natural intelligence cannot function without emotion. Emotion is needed, we cannot get away from it.

If ones emotional awareness is lacking then their reasoning skills will be lacking as well, but if ones emotional awareness is heightened then their reasoning will be heightened as well. There is not a complete end of emotion, we need emotion to be able to reason through anything.

For instance Leyla: Why were you attracted to this post over other posts? Interest is not separate from emotion. You had an emotional investment in what I am saying.

Namely you feel that Emotion and Reason are two separate things, and I’m saying that they are one undivided thing that are mutually dependent on each other.

So you were emotionally involved in the idea that I’m suggesting something contrary to what you belief.

Emotion brought you here, not reason. The reason comes afterwards. The quality of our emotional awareness guilds us, not our reasoning.

So it was your emotional investment in this thread that caused you to question me and you used reason to do that.

I'm afraid you will have to wait. I have come to the reasoned conclusion, which I will act upon, that I need to sleep.

Suffice it to say it's obvious that you are not really willing to think before you post, which is a shame. You need to get out of the habit of repeating over and over the same old ideas and attempt a fresh look at things. Maybe address some of the ideas in my post that you have left out. You know, have a proper dialogue...

.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:I don’t agree Nick, you are not seeing the entire picture. I could hurt my father’s ego over and over, but it will accomplish absolutely nothing. It would be like inflicting pain on a defenseless creature over and over. It really is sadistic and if you feel that is part of compassion then you are not seeing clearly.

One only challenges Egos that actually have a chance of growth, there is no point in causing suffering on those that are too weak to grow. That is the nature of compassion. The awareness to see when someone is a lost cause and the awareness to suffer quietly instead of reacting like an animal.

Compassion has nothing to do with challenging your father's ego, it has to do with showing careless disregard for it. If you truly believe your father's actions are harming you and your ability to understand Truth, then by logical means you should rectify the situation. Instead you choose to suffer quietly like a coward. Maybe you are affraid of encountering your father's ego because you might have to confront your own in the process.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:You are being idealistic Nick, you’ve read too many philosophy books while not actually paying attention to what is happening inside you, there is hatred operating and to suggest that the enlightened man is without hatred would be as silly as saying that he is without fear...

The body continues to operate with the emotions, it needs to for survival purposes, It is programmed by the very DNA to function in that manner.

If there was no emotion, you would lay in your bed and do nothing all the time. Thought is not separate from emotion and even if those emotions are incredibly subtle they are still there. there is no end to thought so there is no end to emotion, they are inseparable.

You are in love with a fantasy, there is no end to emotion. The ones who claim there is an emotionless state are tricking themselves. It is idealistic hogwash, emotion motives humans to do everything. You are here because of emotion Nick, don’t trick yourself.

You may say “no I’m here because I’m interested in the absolute truth, that is my sole motivation” but that interest is not separate from emotion, it is enjoyable for you to be here, don’t try to trick a trickster…

You can't get past your own emotional mess so your putting everyone else in the same boat as yourself. The drawback to this comfort zone you have created for yourself is that your reasoning and logic will forever be hampered by your ignorant state of affairs. Essentially the journey is over for you, unless you can escape this trap you have fallen into and start back at square one.

Nick wrote:

If you truly believe your father's actions are harming you and your ability to understand Truth, then by logical means you should rectify the situation. Instead you choose to suffer quietly like a coward.

No, no this is not about controlling my ability to understand truth, he smokes cigarettes around me, I have confronted him many many times, but trying to reason with a hopefully lost deluded man is like trying to persuade a baboon to stop eating bananas.

I suffer quietly because there is nothing I can do. I live in his house. I can either become a bigger slave to civilization by moving out or suffer with the cigarette smoke, those are my options.

So either way there is suffering, I am basically doomed, this world is for the birds.

Nick wrote:

You can't get past your own emotional mess so your putting everyone else in the same boat as yourself. The drawback to this comfort zone you have created for yourself is that your reasoning and logic will forever be hampered by your ignorant state of affairs. Essentially the journey is over for you, unless you can escape this trap you have fallen into and start back at square one.

You still don’t understand my point. There is no emotional mess, The emotional mess is transcended, but intelligent emotion remains.

There is an undivided link between emotional awareness and reasoning/logic.

You cannot reason anything without emotion. The quality of man’s logic/reason is dictated by the quality of emotions acting within him.

Messy hatred is transformed into intelligent hatred.
Messy fear is transformed into intelligent fear.
Messy discontent is transformed into intelligent discontent.

When man's values drastically change, this changes how he responds emotionally/logically to each situation.

Basically the whole psyche flip-flops.

reasoning and its inferences are completely useless to put in contact with reality.it's a screevers logic.all reality being more abstract than actual.
the closest we come is by the unification of the senses,that appreciates by personal sentiment,can ,via suitable channeling of the emotions, be affective and associate and express nuances and 'abstracts' that can not be defined in thought.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:You still don’t understand my point. There is no emotional mess, The emotional mess is transcended, but intelligent emotion remains.

There is an undivided link between emotional awareness and reasoning/logic.

You cannot reason anything without emotion. The quality of man’s logic/reason is dictated by the quality of emotions acting within him.

Messy hatred is transformed into intelligent hatred.
Messy fear is transformed into intelligent fear.
Messy discontent is transformed into intelligent discontent.

When man's values drastically change, this changes how he responds emotionally/logically to each situation.

Basically the whole psyche flip-flops.

I think you are giving emotion undue credit. Explain exactly what you mean by emotion. I might have a few more questions for you, but this one needs to be answered first.

Nick wrote:

I think you are giving emotion undue credit. Explain exactly what you mean by emotion. I might have a few more questions for you, but this one needs to be answered first.

I’ll give a few examples:

1. Have you ever just felt the agony and futility of life? Of everything? How everything you can possibility do is futile? This type of realization is necessary and indeed it is an emotional affair.

2. When you are driving your car, and someone almost hits you, your whole body shakes with fear, this is fear in its right place. It is fear as a self-protective mechanism.

3. Sometimes you will observe the odd human who is so confidant, smug, pretentious, but also deluded, and you find the whole design disgusting. It is disgusting how lost people are, but how happy they are able to keep themselves. One feels disgust over the power of delusion.

4. Of course these occurrences do not happen every time, some deluded humans provoke a sort of compassion because they are deluded, but they are trying desperately to be moral/good and one feels a certain positivity for their sincere attempt.

5. Duing a period of creativity, there is suffering/discontent. And suffering is needed to end any behavior, it is the only way one can become tired of a certain tendency/behavior action.

Suffering/emotion is an invaluable resource. it is like oil for the Americans or Rainwater for the farmer.

The philosopher is never free from all suffering.

Suffering is emotion. Suffering is the only way one can grow and come up with deep profound realizations.

5. Duing a period of creativity, there is suffering/discontent. And suffering is needed to end any behavior, it is the only way one can become tired of a certain tendency/behavior action.

Suffering/emotion is an invaluable resource. it is like oil for the Americans or Rainwater for the farmer.

The philosopher is never free from all suffering.

Suffering is emotion. Suffering is the only way one can grow and come up with deep profound realizations.

in bursts of creativity are no sufferings.they are spontaneous.

I've explained sufferings in learning some time ago:
"the sub-conscious activity is the "capacity",the "knowledge"
;all other we aquire is of a negative or manurial value.the virtue of learning and aquiring knowledge by the ordinary means is in it's worry and dissapointment,of that degree which causes 'exhaustion':by that the desire might accidentaly reach the real abode of knowledge,ie,the subconsciousness."

when you suffer,you have doubted your natural fund of genius,ignorance obsesses you.doubt puts his teeth in you.you are no longer fearless but a coward to difficulties,your very learning is fear.
he who is without fear accomplishes with ease.
the difference between genius and ignorance is a degree of fear.
" Ignorance is the curse of God, Knowledge the wing
wherewith we fly to heaven." - Shakespeare
Ignorance here points to the one who is without knowing.
he is ignorant because he does not know who he is.therefore he suffers in his experience/learning.
this is the learning by ordinary means.

"A willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge
which one may acquire and it is his duty to have. - Book
of Common Prayer."
this explains the person's ignorance that is beyond his control,therefore,he is not responsible to God.
he will accomplish with ease.
this is the 'ignorance is bliss' frase in its highest form.
the beginning of wisdom is fear of forethought.
children doubt,and abhor learning.why,even the affection of courage results in cleverness!
the difference between good and evil is a matter of intellectual depth.Which is nearer you,self-love and its immorality or love and morals?

you think suffering is emotion?
emotion is the knowledge which tells you why.but when the Ego sees self-love there is only pleasure.and pleasure has no fear.
then there is neither thou nor I nor a third person.loose this consciousness by the unity of I and Self.[/quote]