GENIUS FORUMS

The empirical evidence would suggest so, that excess pleasure corrodes mental development, and conversely excessive intellectualism precludes the more base appetites, but isn't the greatest genius to flex ones brain in order to maximise pleasure? Surely the coolest state of being is to be in this world but not mentally chained to it, the pinnacle of genius to succeed in your surroundings in it PRECISELY because you are not of them?

I'll discuss Fermi's paradox or macro-economic strategy for the new dot-com resurgence with a few friends over Saturday lunch, and safari at the club with a different set of friends for the brainless beauties at 9pm. I see no conflict between the two; I can shop at galleries for fine art and at butchers for prime rump within the same 6 hour period. Every man decides for himself when to switch his brain off, regardless that most choose never to switch theirs truly ON.

Your thoughts, gents?


Jaybee.

A sage tries to rid himself of all attachments.

I tend to agree with Trevor here.

I think as a result of becoming a Buddha, one naturally feigns interest in the material possessions of the world.

Seeing them as fetters for whatever ego may remain.

Though I'm reminded of the two paths in present day Buddhism - Hinayana and Mahayana.

The former, as Kevin's ebook illustrates, is concerned with self-liberation and the pleasures of an ego. While the Mahayana is strictly concerned with the liberation of all sentient beings, and the dissolution of an egocentric existence.

So it is possible to be a Buddha (technically an Arahat), and still live within the world and its sensual pleasures.

.

where do these people come from? :-)



-schlep-
Jaybee - The empirical evidence would suggest so, that excess pleasure corrodes mental development, and conversely excessive intellectualism precludes the more base appetites, but isn't the greatest genius to flex ones brain in order to maximise pleasure?

-tomas-
Best to have common sense (with) the seven chakras.




-schlep-
Surely the coolest state of being is to be in this world but not mentally chained to it, the pinnacle of genius to succeed in your surroundings in it PRECISELY because you are not of them?

-tomas-
You have it backwards.



-schlep-
I'll discuss Fermi's paradox or macro-economic strategy for the new dot-com resurgence with a few friends over Saturday lunch, and safari at the club with a different set of friends for the brainless beauties at 9pm.

-tomas-
With friends like these... keep the Playboy between your mattress. Loserville, bigtime.




-schlep-
I see no conflict between the two; I can shop at galleries for fine art and at butchers for prime rump within the same 6 hour period.

-tomas-
You best work at a slaughterhouse and watch the blood spurt from the animal's jugular onto the walls - that's about as far as your "commoner" sense has taken you. A full-time job is an 8 hour period. Read the quotations of Chairman Mao for the other 2 hours.


-schlep-
Every man decides for himself when to switch his brain off, regardless that most choose never to switch theirs truly ON.

-tomas-
Get your prescription filled for Viagra... now.



-schlep-
Your thoughts, gents?


Jaybee.[/quote]



-tomas-
Were you dropped on your head as a child (or by the stork on the way to San Jose)?




Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971




.

Steven Coyle wrote:Though I'm reminded of the two paths in present day Buddhism - Hinayana and Mahayana.

The former, as Kevin's ebook illustrates, is concerned with self-liberation and the pleasures of an ego. While the Mahayana is strictly concerned with the liberation of all sentient beings, and the dissolution of an egocentric existence.

So it is possible to be a Buddha (technically an Arahat), and still live within the world and its sensual pleasures.

Interesting spin of religion on the pleasure-intellect continuum; one wonders what a "mirror universe" Earth would look like where selflessness was the norm, not the exception, I'd certainly like to see a thread on this, but still an irrelevant spin, what I'm talking about is the co-existence of extremes in pleasure and intellect.

This is a particularly close topic for me, reaching as I have an age where the balancing act between the two is the trickiest.

Jaybee wrote:The empirical evidence would suggest so, that excess pleasure corrodes mental development, and conversely excessive intellectualism precludes the more base appetites, but isn't the greatest genius to flex ones brain in order to maximise pleasure?

No, it is to maximize cognizance of truth.

Surely the coolest state of being is to be in this world but not mentally chained to it, the pinnacle of genius to succeed in your surroundings in it PRECISELY because you are not of them?

Yes, and this does not mean wallowing in pleasure or materiality.

I'll discuss Fermi's paradox or macro-economic strategy for the new dot-com resurgence with a few friends over Saturday lunch, and safari at the club with a different set of friends for the brainless beauties at 9pm. I see no conflict between the two;

No, but neither of them indicates genius. They both embrace worldiness.

I can shop at galleries for fine art and at butchers for prime rump within the same 6 hour period

Same here. No genius involved.

Every man decides for himself when to switch his brain off,

No, most do not have this power.

regardless that most choose never to switch theirs truly ON.

Most people's mental process runs on 'automatic', based on instinct and emotion, reaction and association. Conscious active thought is rare.

Anyway, I wonder if you refer to genius in the academic sense rather than the way it is used here.

Carl G wrote:

Jaybee wrote:The empirical evidence would suggest so, that excess pleasure corrodes mental development, and conversely excessive intellectualism precludes the more base appetites, but isn't the greatest genius to flex ones brain in order to maximise pleasure?

No, it is to maximize cognizance of truth.

Isn't that selflessness, not genius? I for one don't believe it's a particularly good idea to freely disseminate information - not only is it a waste of time, it may also help your competitors.

Surely the coolest state of being is to be in this world but not mentally chained to it, the pinnacle of genius to succeed in your surroundings in it PRECISELY because you are not of them?

Yes, and this does not mean wallowing in pleasure or materiality.

Wallowing, no. Indulging, often.

I'll discuss Fermi's paradox or macro-economic strategy for the new dot-com resurgence with a few friends over Saturday lunch, and safari at the club with a different set of friends for the brainless beauties at 9pm. I see no conflict between the two;

No, but neither of them indicates genius. They both embrace worldiness.

Hopefully.

Anyway, I wonder if you refer to genius in the academic sense rather than the way it is used here.

The dictionary sense - which is the only one that matters.

Jaybee,

The dictionary sense - which is the only one that matters.

The dictionary definition of genius only matters if the person who wrote that entry was himself a genius, and thus could define genius. Otherwise, there is no guarantee you are being lead in the correct direction.

The defintion used here, which refers exclusively to one's access to truth -- a genius being a man who has a superior understanding of reality -- matters much more than any superficial definition. I simply cannot consider a man who does not understand reality to be a genius.

I for one don't believe it's a particularly good idea to freely disseminate information - not only is it a waste of time, it may also help your competitors.

No matter how much information I give to my "competitors", they always end up weaker than me, precisely because they share your attitude. They are a bunch of fucking pussies. I want my competition to have a chance to beat me.

Otherwise, and this is hardly a trivial point, I'm curious what you consider time well spent to be. For instance, I would say Diogenes, who got pissed off at his fellow man's weakness and laziness, and thus hopped in a barrel and then lived in that barrel for the rest of his life, to have spent every second of his life wisely. He was called a dog, but I would sooner say he was a human who reflected the lack of humanity of those around him.

In light of my respect for Diogenes, I find your club-hopping and pretentious-theory gabbing both common and boring. Diogenes, as well as Buddha, Socrates, and Jesus, were all better men than you.

(Jesus, stapled to a tree by a mob of paranoid priests, said, "don't bother blaming these guys for doing this to me, because they're fucking morons. They know not what they do." Best last words ever.)

Carl,

Most people's mental process runs on 'automatic', based on instinct and emotion, reaction and association. Conscious active thought is rare.

I find this embarassing, on account of how simple it would be to fix this problem.

For instance:

1. One should always do what is beneficial.
2. Maintaining one's health is beneficial.
3. The only sigificant consequence of smoking cigarettes is that one's health is no longer maintained.
4. Therefore, one should never smoke cigarettes.

Although most people can follow a conscious train of reasoning like the above, immediately applying such conclusions to one's life is beyond the abilities of nearly everyone I have ever met. No wonder most people think philosophy is abstract, and that truth is a useless concept.

Jaybee wrote:JB: The empirical evidence would suggest so, that excess pleasure corrodes mental development, and conversely excessive intellectualism precludes the more base appetites, but isn't the greatest genius to flex ones brain in order to maximise pleasure?

CG: No, it is to maximize cognizance of truth.

JB: Isn't that selflessness, not genius? I for one don't believe it's a particularly good idea to freely disseminate information - not only is it a waste of time, it may also help your competitors.

I meant maximize one's own cognizance of truth.

JB: Surely the coolest state of being is to be in this world but not mentally chained to it, the pinnacle of genius to succeed in your surroundings in it PRECISELY because you are not of them?

CG: Yes, and this does not mean wallowing in pleasure or materiality.

JB: Wallowing, no. Indulging, often.

Indulging often = Wallowing. Or, what's the diff?

CG: Anyway, I wonder if you refer to genius in the academic sense rather than the way it is used here.

JB: The dictionary sense - which is the only one that matters.

As Trevor has already pointed out, WTF? The standard dictionary sense is not the one we use here, as should be obvious to anyone reading the introductory material at or linked to this site.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:3. The only sigificant consequence of smoking cigarettes is that one's health is no longer maintained.

Trevor, have you ever smoked? If you had, you'd know this isn't true. There are other significant consequences.

DHodges,

Trevor, have you ever smoked? If you had, you'd know this isn't true. There are other significant consequences.

I smoked for three years before finally developing the willpower to quit. I have a hard time considering some other factors of smoking (eg. the compulsion to get out of bed once an hour to have a smoke, the cure for an anxiety that is caused by smoking in the first place) significant in and of themselves, since they can be considered factors that lead to destruction of health.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Jaybee,

The dictionary sense - which is the only one that matters.

The dictionary definition of genius only matters if the person who wrote that entry was himself a genius, and thus could define genius. Otherwise, there is no guarantee you are being lead in the correct direction.

Poppycock. You don't need to be a genius to be a member of staff at the Oxford English Dictionary. Your interpretation, or rather misinterpretation of the word, serves only to muddy its distinctness.

The defintion used here, which refers exclusively to one's access to truth -- a genius being a man who has a superior understanding of reality -- matters much more than any superficial definition. I simply cannot consider a man who does not understand reality to be a genius.

There's a certain appeal to that line of thought, and I would agree with you on the latter. True genius cannot exist disconnected from worldly events. However, dictionaries do not offer 'superficial' definitions, if such exists at all. They provide vital means of precision that common men bastardise.

I for one don't believe it's a particularly good idea to freely disseminate information - not only is it a waste of time, it may also help your competitors.

No matter how much information I give to my "competitors", they always end up weaker than me, precisely because they share your attitude. They are a bunch of fucking pussies. I want my competition to have a chance to beat me.

Why? And, forgive my bluntness, but if they do not adapt your information to their advantadge, these 'competitors' would make inferior opposition in any marketplace. What is yours, may I ask?

Otherwise, and this is hardly a trivial point, I'm curious what you consider time well spent to be. For instance, I would say Diogenes, who got pissed off at his fellow man's weakness and laziness, and thus hopped in a barrel and then lived in that barrel for the rest of his life, to have spent every second of his life wisely. He was called a dog, but I would sooner say he was a human who reflected the lack of humanity of those around him.

The maximisation of pleasure, which as you know involves spending a minority of time in less than pleasurable activities that in turn produce the means to make the remaining time all the more pleasant. I only hope this Diogenes fellow became a recluse towards the end of his life.

In light of my respect for Diogenes, I find your club-hopping and pretentious-theory gabbing both common and boring. Diogenes, as well as Buddha, Socrates, and Jesus, were all better men than you.

Not Buddha.

(Jesus, stapled to a tree by a mob of paranoid priests, said, "don't bother blaming these guys for doing this to me, because they're fucking morons. They know not what they do." Best last words ever.)

I holy agree. :)

You don't need to be a genius to be a member of staff at the Oxford English Dictionary.

Precisely. Don't take their word on what a genius is. Rather, see what geniuses say about genius (there are plenty of quotations from genuine geniuses on the moderators' sites). Without exception, they lean toward my use of the term.

However, dictionaries do not offer 'superficial' definitions, if such exists at all. They provide vital means of precision that common men bastardise.

They offer poorly considered, depressingly common definitions. A non-genius does not have the genius to understand what makes a genius different, and as such he cannot define it.

Why? And, forgive my bluntness, but if they do not adapt your information to their advantadge, these 'competitors' would make inferior opposition in any marketplace. What is yours, may I ask?

I'm a philosopher. It is a non-paying profession that can only be assisted by real competition. Difficulty in this trade is a good thing.

The best philosophers don't even need me to tell them my deep trade secrets, since I reveal all necessary information anyway.

Not Buddha.

Read The Diamond Sutra, or the Heart Sutra, and you will be forced to disagree with yourself.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

You don't need to be a genius to be a member of staff at the Oxford English Dictionary.

Precisely. Don't take their word on what a genius is. Rather, see what geniuses say about genius (there are plenty of quotations from genuine geniuses on the moderators' sites). Without exception, they lean toward my use of the term.

So...I'm supposed to accept your interpretation - presumably molded by some moderator(s) on some website(s) during the last decade - of the word "genius", in place of the definition established by dictionary since before either of us was born? I'm supposed to accept your version of what constitutes a "genuine" genius?

While we're at it, would you like to reinterpret the physical colours 'black' and 'white', for me? Perhaps you can dilute each with the other to provide more comfortably blurred tints?

Sorry, no deal.

The message I think (or at least hope) you're getting now is that I simply do not accept any assault upon distinctness, which I hold almost sacred.

However, dictionaries do not offer 'superficial' definitions, if such exists at all. They provide vital means of precision that common men bastardise.

They offer poorly considered, depressingly common definitions. A non-genius does not have the genius to understand what makes a genius different, and as such he cannot define it.

He doesn't need to; it's in the dictionary, and it this point I'm urging you strongly to read it, or at least to provide me with a fuller version of your own, in order to bring perspective to this increasingly hypothetical discussion.

Why? And, forgive my bluntness, but if they do not adapt your information to their advantadge, these 'competitors' would make inferior opposition in any marketplace. What is yours, may I ask?

I'm a philosopher. It is a non-paying profession that can only be assisted by real competition. Difficulty in this trade is a good thing.

I withdraw my comment about the "marketplace", clearly in this case it was misdirected as you don't engage in commerce. Who supports you?

The best philosophers don't even need me to tell them my deep trade secrets, since I reveal all necessary information anyway.

You don't have any trade secrets, just secrets. No pay, no trade. Actually, if you're revealing all, they're not even secrets, now are they? I see why you don't charge for this information.

Not Buddha.

Read The Diamond Sutra, or the Heart Sutra, and you will be forced to disagree with yourself.

[/quote]

Well wahayyyyyyyy, a bold statement if ever I read one. Bolder still, given that you don't know me. Buddha is likely burning in Hell at this time; he may have had his finer attributes, but for that reason alone I have no respect for him. However, that's not to say I won't give his work an audience; perhaps you could quote a few passages from this "noble" text that would sway me; I retain an open mind.

"Burning in Hell"? What are you talking about? Don't tell me you take the exoteric meaning of Christianity literally! You may benefit from reading works by some of the Church Fathers, like Saint Augustine, where the religious rhetor is used only to transmit profound philosophic insight to people who would be incapable of virtue without some fantastic notions behind it.

Here's the Diamond Sutra. You may have to read it several times over the course of a few years to understand what the Buddha meant, since despite it's short length, it is a deceptively tricky book to understand:

Diamond Sutra

...

xerox,

Genius and hedonism are one in the same.

Moron.

Perhaps there should be a warning at this forum for all newcomers that the word Genius is defined differently here, namely to be a Buddha.

Neil: Although accurate, that would come with its own problems. Someone might accuse GF as being "Buddhist"!

I think genius works, since apparently the use it sees here corresponds to the original meaning of the word (and not to its modern slang use, where men with high IQ's, talented scientists, and skilled artists are often confused with geniuses).

...

Neil Melnyk wrote:Perhaps there should be a warning at this forum for all newcomers that the word Genius is defined differently here, namely to be a Buddha.

It would be simpler if people just read the introduction forums like their supposed to :/

Dan Rowden wrote:It would be simpler if people just read the introduction forums like their supposed to :/

I think it would be clearer for people if you got rid of the introduction forum, took the two introductory posts, stick them in the main forum and put direct links to them on the header up there, and take the help desk thread and shove it in the Suggestions/Tips forum, and rename it to the Suggestions/Tips/Help forum.

Just a suggestion/tip/help.

That's an idea, but I'm not sure if it would actually cause people to bother reading. Maybe I should sub-title the Intro thread: "read this before you post, stupid".