GENIUS FORUMS

Nick,

DQ: A person usually feels "guilt" if he acts against what society deems to be acceptable or good. It is like a little warning bell in his head which tells him that he has misbehaved in this way - almost as though he has internalized the warnings given by his parents and teachers as he was growing up.

N: Again I think what you are talking about has more to do with insecurity rather than guilt. I think guilt stems more from lazyness and being too attached to something, to try and reach their potential. For instance a drug abuser feels guilt because he can't overcome his desire to continue his use, regardless of the fact that it is killing him, and hurting those around him.

Isn't this a case of the drug abuser internalizing the idea from society that he must be productive, sober, disciplined, functional, pleasing to women, etc. And so his "guilt" in this case would still be an expression of his attachment to the herd (and which stimulate his insecurities in relation to the herd), and not necessarily a genuine expression of conscience.

It brings up the question of what exactly is a genuine expression of conscience, and whether it can ever be anything more than the common expression of guilt and the desire to be one with the herd. After all, even if a fellow displayed a strong attachment to the ideal of Truth, it could well be just another expression of the desire to be one with the herd - in this case, the herd of sages and lofty thinkers. So even here it cannot be escaped. Or can it?

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Isn't this a case of the drug abuser internalizing the idea from society that he must be productive, sober, disciplined, functional, pleasing to women, etc. And so his "guilt" in this case would still be an expression of his attachment to the herd (and which stimulate his insecurities in relation to the herd), and not necessarily a genuine expression of conscience.

You probably wouldn't be able to tell exactly where his reasoning was originating from unless you observed him and began to understand him more. Though I still think he would feel genuinely guilty about the destruction his actions cause, rather than just a common insecurity to fit in with the crowd. Maybe he has kids and regardless of how society views him, he knows, deep down, his actions are harming them. His motives could also be a combination of both fitting in and a sense of genuine guilt.

DavidQuinn000 wrote:It brings up the question of what exactly is a genuine expression of conscience, and whether it can ever be anything more than the common expression of guilt and the desire to be one with the herd. After all, even if a fellow displayed a strong attachment to the ideal of Truth, it could well be just another expression of the desire to be one with the herd - in this case, the herd of sages and lofty thinkers. So even here it cannot be escaped. Or can it?

-

Well, why did you desire to become a sage? Was it because you wanted to fit in with Kevin, and other sages of the past? Or was it a deeper issue that was disturbing you that caused you to take action? Me personally, I took to philosophy because of a genuine disgust for society, and myself. It was a "natural instinct" for me to become a person of honesty, sincerity, itegrity, courage, and individuality. Although these characterisitcs can be beneficial at times, at other times they can bring about much more hardship in life than you bargained for. But if one can't try and live honestly, I see no reason to live at all.

DavidQuinn000 wrote:I believe our leader, The Most Reverend Kevin Solway...

WTF??? I've been on this forum as long as he has! I want to be the leader! When the hell is my turn?

Pye wrote:As with Shardrol, offense to reason moved me to respond to you/this. I'm hopeful you won't sweep that beneath the carpet and assume the case was only as you put it above.

Do you think your personal attacks against me helped exemplify this?

...bloody gurus are all alike....

If you really think your words are worthless, why bother to type & post them to the forum & waste people's time?

I didn't say they are worthless -- they can have value in that moment. But after the moment has passed... is this post of mine and the previous post of yours so charged with wisdom that they're worth taking up bandspace in some archive? See my previous response to mootstinke for my (apparently unpopular) opinion on the matter.

What I think really happened is that you got carried away with the emotion of the moment, said more than you meant to say, didn't want to leave evidence of the way you presented yourself, so decided to exercise self-control retrospectively.

Oh, I think that's true in regard to removing my post about the work I currently do and my post about my experience of ego death. Doing so prompted at least one participant to observe it was, "Probably a good idea considering the maturity level of some of the members." I also removed a semi-personal conversation that took place between myself and Scott; not only because it was semi-personal but also because the subject matter can be disturbing to some. Dialogue and pontification can be one means of examining and buffing the ego away (as has been seen, it can also be used to reinforce and falsely inflate the ego), but trauma is a highly effective short cut.

This fellow addresses the matter better than I could, and his words would be of far more benefit to any archives than mine could be... Source: Spirituality and Trauma

There's a goddam epidemic of hypocrisy going on here.

Once more, we are apparently in agreement.

For example, when the science community creates generalizations (which it does all the time ), it does so purely for the furtherance of human knowledge, at least for the most part. The same is true of the logical community and its deeper generalizations.

What passes for Truth in the scientific community is nothing more than current favorable opinion as based upon information that is known at that time; information that is constantly changing. What's more, the motives are hardly pure given that they're humanly driven -- scientists also desire to "help" others, to secure prestige and notoriety, to put food upon the table, to win the admiration of others. The scientific community is no more immune to these facets of human behavior than any other community.

[Edited to comply with Kevin's desire that I not post large blocks of text.]

.

sky
so are you trying to say that in the y chromosome lie honesty and sincerity

nick
Not at all, it's all about character.

ok nick

so in a female womb are two embryos both XX as all embryos begin as XX and one of them becomes XY

so at what point and in what way does the XY character become different as to give him all the values of genius where XX is left a bit of pink fluff

your thoughts

not weininger or QRS please

are the girls your age more interested in brides magazines or college applications for masters or phd programs or law school

and yes i know academia is held in low esteem here also

but self sufficiency is noble imho

i don't see any perfection in living off the labor of others unless they like pye want you to especially when those doing the toil are held in contempt by the 'lofty'

so from the XX to XY to when and how is this ignoble and noble character formed today not in victorian times nor even 40 years ago but now in the 21st century

Me personally, I took to philosophy because of a genuine disgust for society, and myself. It was a "natural instinct" for me to become a person of honesty, sincerity, integrity, courage, and individuality. Although these characteristics can be beneficial at times, at other times they can bring about much more hardship in life than you bargained for. But if one can't try and live honestly, I see no reason to live at all.

funny the same thing happened to me but really young i mean really young long before i knew that being aware thinking and reflecting were philosophy

when you are not quite two and mother dies and all of a sudden a moron is in total control of your life you realize quickly that you are essentially alone and that it is going to take some time to free yourself you also realize that in your thoughts and only in your thoughts you are free

i left home at my insistence at 14 i went to boarding school and i never ever went 'home' i never even considered it

and i know exactly what you mean about integrity et al causing a lot of hardship

amongst numerous other examples

it cost me millions as my stepmonster's daughter who is all willingness and such a perfect docile female gets the larger by far part of my father's estate even though i am my father's only living child

even though i never actually said anything i thought my father was a jerk and he was acutely aware of it and it bothered him big time and guess what i did not care and i still don't

but i doubt that you will believe that my experiences/conclusions equate in anyway with yours

because you know i am a female and omg type in blue font

matt gregory

WTF??? I've been on this forum as long as he has! I want to be the leader! When the hell is my turn?

maybe if you became a serial killer of women as it has been suggested is testament to being 'masculine' and 'single minded' then you would get your due

Sky wrote:

but i doubt that you will believe that my experiences/conclusions equate in anyway with yours

because you know i am a female and omg type in blue font

So your being a female that types in blue font, whose experience of "integrity" is leaving home at 14 to attend boarding school, shouldn't cause me or anyone else on this forum to judge you as an average woman? What's to stop me?

-
Sue

shardrol

There's a goddam epidemic of hypocrisy going on here.

hypocrisy in endemic everywhere and here is no exception no matter who one might think or believe is authentic and who one thinks/believes is not

sh

So your being a female that types in blue font, whose experience of "integrity" is leaving home at 14 to attend boarding school, shouldn't cause me or anyone else on this forum to judge you as an average woman? What's to stop me?

nothing as that is all you could extrapolate from my entire post and my question was directed at nick

because he has shown some deep honesty in his latest posts

i already stated that i am done arguing the standard weininger QRS position which appears to include you

so if i post it is to a specific individual though you may comment as you like this is the last time i am answering you

"There is in the unconscious of each man an inherent image of woman who helps him to understand her being."

Wouldn't that be his being?

;)

.

Nick writes:

Do you think your personal attacks against me helped exemplify this?

I don't think I attacked your character, Nick. I attacked your reasoning.

Shall we move on, then?


.

sky wrote:Nick,

Not at all, it's all about character.

ok nick

so in a female womb are two embryos both XX as all embryos begin as XX and one of them becomes XY

so at what point and in what way does the XY character become different as to give him all the values of genius where XX is left a bit of pink fluff

your thoughts

not weininger or QRS please

There is no particular point in which someone's character is defined. A person's character is defined and shaped by an infinite number of factors which are constantly changing, causing one's character to constantly change as well. Also, no need to specify where you would like my thoughts to come from, because I assure you, they are in fact my thoughts.

sky wrote:are the girls your age more interested in brides magazines or college applications for masters or phd programs or law school

Fashion magazines stands out the most when I think about what most women my age, as well as women who are younger and older, read most often.

sky wrote:i don't see any perfection in living off the labor of others unless they like pye want you to especially when those doing the toil are held in contempt by the 'lofty'

I think a courageous philosopher deserves the money he gets from government. He does more good for humanity than any other occupation does. If a government can afford to spend half a trillion dollars on a groundless war, I think the courageous philosopher can be afforded at least enough to pay for necessities.

sky wrote:funny the same thing happened to me but really young i mean really young long before i knew that being aware thinking and reflecting were philosophy

I can relate to that, I wasn't fully aware that my change of heart equated to philosophy until later on in my life. I was probably around 19 when I started to have my first conscious philosophical thoughts run through my head. It probably took me another year and a half, at least, to recognize that what I was doing, was in fact philosophy.

sky wrote:when you are not quite two and mother dies and all of a sudden a moron is in total control of your life you realize quickly that you are essentially alone and that it is going to take some time to free yourself you also realize that in your thoughts and only in your thoughts you are free

i left home at my insistence at 14 i went to boarding school and i never ever went 'home' i never even considered it

and i know exactly what you mean about integrity et al causing a lot of hardship

amongst numerous other examples

it cost me millions as my stepmonster's daughter who is all willingness and such a perfect docile female gets the larger by far part of my father's estate even though i am my father's only living child

even though i never actually said anything i thought my father was a jerk and he was acutely aware of it and it bothered him big time and guess what i did not care and i still don't

but i doubt that you will believe that my experiences/conclusions equate in anyway with yours

because you know i am a female and omg type in blue font

I'm not looking to judge you based on your anatomy. I do make generalisations, but I am aware that every person is capable of demonstrating individuality. I only judge individuals when I come to know them directly, or indirectly. In your case you seem overly defensive and extremely irrational at times. You don't demonstrate enough trust-worthiness for me to take you too seriously. And for what it's worth, the blue font doesn't help, it sends signals of immaturity and superficiality.

Pye wrote:I don't think I attacked your character, Nick. I attacked your reasoning.

Shall we move on, then?

Lets.

.

. . . and, in fact, it was your defender(s) who put your character in front of me, perhaps to get me to back off, not expect so much from you.

.

Pye wrote:.

. . . and, in fact, it was your defender(s) who put your character in front of me, perhaps to get me to back off, not expect so much from you.

.

That made me laugh. I wasn't aware that I had any "defenders", please, say it ain't so!

nick

I can relate to that, I wasn't fully aware that my change of heart equated to philosophy until later on in my life. I was probably around 19 when I started to have my first conscious philosophical thoughts run through my head. It probably took me another year and a half, at least, to recognize that what I was doing, was in fact philosophy.

great then we have at least one point of agreement

that the true philosopher arises spontaneously not thru indocrination

... for what it's worth, the blue font doesn't help, it sends signals of immaturity and superficiality.

[Test]

Purpose of post: To experience whether or not the presence of a blue font renders me immature and superficial.

Hmmm. I can't say that I'm necessarily perceiving myself to be more immature and superficial. Quite honestly, I think I've been more immature and superficial when using black font.

Having tried the experience on for myself it seems most true at this moment that font color will not necessarily render the poster immature or superficial, however, one's perception that the use of a specific (or different) font color (or style) may render that poster "immature and superficial" in the eyes of the perceiver if the perceiver perceives it to be so. This strikes me as remarkably similar to what David, Kevin and others have said about women. Being a woman does not automatically render one unconscious anymore than using blue font renders one immature.

Pye doesn't seem to care much for colored fonts. I don't mind them personally. Within an online discussion they help me quickly identify the identity of a poster, allowing me to invest more attention if I've found meaning in what they previously had to say, and easily skip over them if I don't. They can also serve as a marker within a discussion. For example, if I want to easily relocate the comments Pye has made above, I can simply look for the blue font. My own experience of different font colors is one of rapid categorization and helpfulness, not immaturity or superficiality.

[/Test]

@ se




lol

it is i irrational untrustworthy defensive sky who uses blue font



nick

... for what it's worth, the blue font doesn't help, it sends signals of immaturity and superficiality.

if I want to easily relocate the comments Pye has made above, I can simply look for the blue font. My own experience of different font colors is one of rapid categorization and helpfulness, not immaturity or superficiality.

please don't insult pye (joke)

and you have come very close to why i use blue font

so i can find my own posts easily

I'm not meaning to insult Pye. I'm merely meaning to play with perception to see if I can shake any truth out of it. In this case, I would say that the truth I have shaken forth is different from the truth Pye has shaken forth.

.

Here he is, Nick!

David: He's young, passionate and has an inkling of the world's bullshit. What more do you want? He may be a bit raw at the moment, but there is every chance that he will change and develop as time goes on.

not a dire assessment at all, I'd say :)

While, I'm here . . . s.e. . . . where is my dislike of colored fonts? In fact, I was, in a sense, trying to render their use of no particular substance or consequence, in contrast to the diverted attention they originally received.

.

Re: There is in the unconscious of each man an inherent image of woman who helps him to understand her being.

Wouldn't that be his being?

I think a good argument could be put forth in that regard and pondered the matter myself. After all, the anima is an element of one's own interiority so coming into relationship with it (her) should bring us closer into relationship with our self.

On the other hand, the anima herself is merely a metaphoric piece of imagery that speaks to a larger truth that could be termed feminine (within this culture. Other cultures might frame the same truth within masculine terms [*]). Therefore the statement has relevancy from this perspective too, for it clarifies the need to come into relationship with this larger truth regardless of whether we label it masculine or feminine.

[* One example of the use of contrasexual terms is that in our (Western) culture, the moon and darkness is associated with the feminine and the sun and lightness associated with the masculine. In other cultures, the reverse is true.]

pye quoting david

David: He's young, passionate and has an inkling of the world's bullshit. What more do you want? He may be a bit raw at the moment, but there is every chance that he will change and develop as time goes on.

and there is every chance that he may grow and develop in a manner which might not meet with QRS expectations or approval which to my mind would be truly excellent

nick

What I'm getting at is, at least, deep down, men know they're evil. Although this is an extremely poor way to exemplify honesty and sincerity on the part of man, it exemplifies it none the less.

^^^^^that statement has the crystalline ring of absolute honesty and sincerity

Would you say, Pye, that I have made an inaccurate assessment of this statement: "the blue font doesn't help, it sends signals of immaturity and superficiality" by interpreting it as a dislike for blue fonts? Were you in fact intending to say that it wasn't the blue font itself that you found immature and superficial, but rather Sky herself?

I can empathize to a certain extent. I once encountered a woman who used rainbow fonts. It wasn't the colors of the rainbow that triggered my annoyance so much as her chirpiness about god's current plan to wipe evil off the face of the earth and therefore, there was no cause to be alarmed or dismayed if a number of brown-colored people were mowed down by bombs leaving mostly white-colored people miraculously spared (as well as behind the controls) because it was all just part of god's prettier, greater, loving master plan.

The rainbow font I could have tolerated, but genocide and ethnic cleansing wrapped up in a colorful bow just didn't jive for me. It wasn't the medium, it was the message.

nick

In your case you seem overly defensive and extremely irrational at times.

i came here purposefully for one cause only because david visited another forum where i encountered this twisted rational of male genius as equate with enlightenment

(btw at least 100 people have told me to 'go to law school as i am a born defense lawyer' so defense as in defensive is not necessarily derogatory)

to dispute the irrational male=genius female=idiot premise

and the proof of its irrationality is that almost every post is about that duality

there is almost nothing about enlightenment here

and any idiot with any study of any spiritual discipline knows that enlightenment is that state beyond any duality