GENIUS FORUMS

Sapius,

Sapius wrote: Hi Jason,

I’m not quite clear what you mean.

Firstly, the “beyond” is in reference to something that which lies beyond duality.

Ok. How are you defining "non-permanent", and do you think that all things are non-permanent?

Sapius,

Sapius: Yes, the desire to ‘know more’ is in part born out of what one has come to know, but the more essential part is that one is NOT satisfied, logically, with what one has come to know.

Cory: Yes, so can we agree that this dissatisfaction is a form of suffering, and that we are driven by the pain of limitation?


I don’t know... I would say that we are driven due to dissatisfaction itself, not the 'pain of limitations' as such.

Why don’t you equate dissatisfaction with ‘pain’ and ‘limitation’? I can’t think of two better words to describe dissatisfaction.
Satisfaction = pleasure, dissatisfaction = pain.

Sapius: Dissatisfaction emerges from the need to know, to understand logically, which is quite natural, albeit all are not that dissatisfied and hence not passionate enough to go all the way

Here it sounds like you are in agreement with me that dissatisfaction is a form of pain. People who are not that dissatisfied intellectually are not passionate and hence they live only on an aesthetic and sensual level. They avoid great suffering, hence they avoid great truth. They haven’t the passion to suffer, to know greater, more self effacing truths.

Sapius: If one is not satisfied in a conclusion is because he has thought over that conclusion and does not accept it, and hence wants to know the truth. Now how does this natural ‘wanting to know’ be considered as a form of suffering? It is simply a drive to Know the Truth.

You already admitted that dissatisfaction is the drive. I say that dissatisfaction is a form of pain. Furthermore, I would say dissatisfaction is really just the surface anyway. Despair is much deeper and one must face up to it and even dive into it whole-heartedly.

Here are some Quotes by Soren Kierkguaard:

-Nothing is more certain. Coming close to God brings catastrophe. Everyone whose life does not bring relative catastrophe has never even once turned as a single individual to God; it is just as impossible as it is to touch the conductors of a generator without getting a shock.

-To be an alien, to be in exile, is the mark of Christian suffering.

-Voluntary suffering provides the double collision which is the mark of everything essentially Christian: to become hated, cursed, detested, to have to suffer. No one ever thinks of persecuting someone because he is in poverty against his will, but no one is as hated as the one who voluntarily renounces that in which people naturally centre their lives.

-There is an almost mad self-contradiction in Christianity’s requirement. It sets a task and exclaims: In the same degree as you succeed in faith, you will come to suffer more and more.
If you desire, humanly speaking, pleasant and happy days, then never get seriously involved with Christ.
Voluntary suffering is suspect at three points. First, I must use my strength to compel myself to go forth into the suffering. Second, I must use my strength to bear it. And third, I must put up with the advice of relatives and sympathizers who insist that I go too far. Such is the way of Christian suffering.

-Just as in a large shipment of herring the outermost layer gets crushed and ruined, just as the outermost fruit gets bruised and damaged by the crate, so in every generation there are a few who stand farthest out and suffer from the crate, who alone guard those who are in the middle.

-He who himself does not wish to suffer cannot love him who has.

My personal experience says that being truthful equates to suffering more, and only through excessive suffering can we be totally liberated from the self which suffers.

Furthermore, those squeamish timid types who protect themselves from truth too great and effacing tend to despise you for your strength, a strength which they themselves are not sure whether to interpret as weakness or strength.

If it is strength that they see in you, then it pains them to both 1) know that they are weaker 2) and know that they must endure something similar if they are to be strong

If it is weakness they see in you, it pains them to know that you are a burden that they must either shamefully carry and make do with, or callously and proudly discard.

Sapius: You also seem to equate ‘sufferings’ to ‘passion’, and I like them to mean exactly what they mean. I could cut and paste the dictionary meanings of each but I wonder how that would help.

Sapius, the etymological root meaning of the word passion is: to suffer.

-----------------

I'm at work right now - I'll address your other comments when I get the chance.

Cory;

My personal experience says that being truthful equates to suffering more, and only through excessive suffering can we be totally liberated from the self which suffers.

Well, that solves the argument then.

The above may be true according to your or may be Soren’s personal experience, but my experiences could differ.

I have spent days without sleep, thinking, and there was not a single moment that I did not enjoy it. And being truthful equates to suffering for whom? Me or others?

I think that being truthful would equate to sufferings only when a self is not readily accepting its own truth, and I never did have any such problems. May be some get it at a much earlier age and hence do not experience “sufferings” as such. Logical reasoning is more that enough to make one truthful to a self; brain thumping is not necessarily essential for some perhaps.

If in your experience that is the path that will get the job done, then so be it. I also heard all roads lead to Rome, so how does it really matter who starts from where and which road one uses?

On the other hand, one could build his own road, and essentially, everyone’s “road” is actually quite unique, so is every individual.

I'm at work right now - I'll address your other comments when I get the chance.

Please take your time... I will check in tomorrow... after that I will be gone for a about a week or so myself.

Jason wrote:Sapius,

Sapius wrote: Hi Jason,

I’m not quite clear what you mean.

Firstly, the “beyond” is in reference to something that which lies beyond duality.

Ok. How are you defining "non-permanent", and do you think that all things are non-permanent?

What do you mean, Jason?

The motion in and of causality cannot allow ANY particular thing to remain or hold its form for more than its causally allotted period, relatively speaking. A seemingly halt so to speak; in and of a thing that other things (for example, me), detect and are able to experience and interact.

Things are always in motion even if they seem motionless from our relative perspective, and the same applies to transformations too, which at times may not be detected due to our relative time frame, but are continuously transforming nonetheless.

Sapius wrote,

The “quality” and the “intensity” of the philosophers discontent is different from the philosophers, but that does not mean that a physicist thinks of HIS “quality” and “intensity” of being any inferior than that of a philosopher.

I think there are probably some physicists who have big inferiority complexes, who harbor doubts and sorrows about what they do. David Bohm was a phycisists who reportedly suffered great anxieties and depressions about the value and worth of his work. I think he was one of the greatest physcisists ever - this is because he valued philosophy.

And I’m sure there are philosophers who likewise feel quite confident that they are superior to the physicist. (Jiddu Krishnamurti would sometimes seem to almost cudgel, dominate and prod David Bohm on occasions. Krishanmurti was totally devoted to philosophy (however perhaps not enough)

Sapius: So a real thinker, who looks at things from an absolute unbiased view point, detaching himself from his false-ego based thinking, meaning; standing ”outside” of his shoes, will not assume HIS own thinking as having some sort of superiority, for he is absolutely aware of the nature of causality and how HIS thinking comes about, so as do OTHERS. So in that sense, who or what is superior or inferior?

It depends on what you value. What do you value sapius?

Sapius: The physicist is as earnest in searching the “truth” as is a philosopher.

Cory: Well, I wouldnt go that far. They are functioning in the same way, however, the quality of the philosophers discontent has greater heart, there is greater social interest comprising the philosopher.

Sapius: I placed ‘truth’ in inverted commas, meaning, “truth” is what one Values as Truth according to ones own conclusions

The consequence to valuing something is ‘not valuing’ something else. A man who has values, consequently finds his life to be comprised of a hierarchy of priorities. If you have values, something’s are more important, meaningful (and superior) than others.

Do you think what I just said is clear and logical?

Sapius: emphasizing strongly that MY conclusions are ‘superior’ in any way is still standing in ones own shoes, it is a false-ego perspective, which I do not consider ‘wrong’ as such, but it isn’t Absolute in the face of Reality, which includes ALL that there is, that’s all.

Why is it important to you for something to be ‘absolute in the face of reality’.

Cory: I would say that there is existence. Each particular thing comprising existence does not inherently exists, but what always remains is a sense of existing and a sense of responsibility.

Sapius: So, does the ‘sense of existing and a sense of responsibility’ exists inherently?

No.

Cory: I say that the biggest challenge humanity faces is developing and knowing what good character is, and understanding why a certain character is good.

Sapius: Good, I agree, but I do not consider MY conclusions to be of any superior VALUE than that of a physicist, for then I would be saying that MY causal conditions are superior than HIS, which I see as absolutely impossible

It depends on what you value. For instance, if I value ‘clear-thinking’, then the casual conditions of a quiet place to sit or lie down are going to be superior to the causal conditions of a noisy and abrasive environment.
If I value ‘good health’ then the casual conditions of healthy food is going to superior to the casual conditions of junk food.

Cory: Humanity generally hates truth, therefore, in order to seek and become that which humanity hates I would say requires a love, passion for truth and a hatred for the false and cowardly.

Sapius: No, humanity actually loves truth, only that each individuals “truth” is defined differently.

Cory: No, humanity loves rationalizations, consensus, security, predicatability. Those things are not neccesarily truth, but are merely a desire for pleasantness.

Humans love pleasantness.

Sapius: Who or what isn’t looking for pleasantness? Isn’t any conclusion reached, irrelevant of what it is, give a sense of satisfaction, pleasantness, because one considers HIS conclusions to be the TRUTH, irrelevant of it not being so

Just because one considers his conclusion to be the truth, doesn’t mean it is the truth.

Sapius: Ask a priest, a rabbi, a mullah, if he does not consider his conclusions to be the Truth. Similarly, ask the Buddha and you will get the same answer.

Yes, humans tend to regard themselves as honest, despite they are usually dishonest.

Sapius: Other than genetics and environment, the essence, or particular attributes of an individual thing also exists.

Cory: Can you prove it? Tell me more about this essence, tell me about these particular attributes....

Sapius: Sure I can… here… read this…

CORY: Just because everything is determined, doesnt mean we don't live, discuss, explore. Just because i am determined to know that which I do not know now, doesnt mean I should'nt follow through with my curiousities.

Sapius: Need I say more? Who or what is reasoning above?

You are taking words and appearances too literally.

I say ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘we’ and the like merely for convenience. The noun is an illusion, but a helpful one for communicating and describing the illusion of life and death.

Sapius: Does the process of causality NOT bring forth an individual “thing” in and of any given moment of causality?

Cory: I really can't quite picture what your getting at. Are you pushing to believe that the fate of an individual depends on more than just heredity and environment?

- you'll have to give me some clear examples from real life.

Sapius: Sure, for example YOU and ME, unless you believe we have no reality beyond each others “mind”.

I don’t see the anything in particular as having ‘a reality’. Reality is an illusion.

Sapius: Are WE one and the same thing? Or, because of causally connected infinite causes are WE one and the same THING?

Reducing it down to 'you' and 'me' is too limited.

The best way I am capable of describing it is:

A huge crowd of humans gathered together and looked at from a plane appear to be one big undivided mass, but that mass is both an individual constituent of something greater AND within that mass are individual humans. One individual human appears to be one whole mass, and it also appears to be a part of a greater whole of, but within that human there are individual cells - -but these individual cells are crowded together appearing as say an organ, but within that individual organ there appear to be individual cells, and if you go into an individual cell you will another myriad of continuents and within the constituents, myriads.

The individual IS the whole community in this sense, and the whole community IS an individual.

Likewise, tragedy can be looked at as comedy and vice versa.

Something cold, is relatively warm, and something warm is relatively cool.

You, know the whole 'duality is illusion' thing.

Meaning doesnt inherently exist.

Sapius: Does causality render OUR individuality redundant?

I think what you mean is, does being a part of greater and lesser wholes render our individuality redundant?

I would say that realizing one is dependent upon greater and lesser wholes renders our individuality as well as what we appear to belong to as illusionary.

And you can only clearly realize that by valuing individuality.

I value individuality, however, from an absolute perspective; I see individuality AND thus even community as illusionary.

Sapius: I have my own environment and you yours, and we are a part of each others environment, but for any reasoned and logical communication to take place there must necessarily be a YOU as much as there has to be an I.

Logical communication is a map - - and the map is not the actual territory.

Sapius: It would then stand to reason that the ones that DO NOT desire greater truths do so also due to genetics and environment, but yet want greatness and conquest.

Cory: Yes, all humans are driven by the desire for superiority, greatness, conquest. There is just a spectrum of values.

Sapius: And once you realize just that, what do you make of “value” itself then?

I say that values are both the effect and cause of consciounsess.

Values arise as a consequence to consciousness, and consciouness arises as a consequence to values.

Poor quality consciousness produces poor and more inimical values. Poor values beget poor consciouness.

Higher quality consciousness produce higher quality values, and higher quality values produce higher quality consciousness.

It is cyclical.

Cory: I would say the truth stands on its own, it does not depend on un-truth.

Really? Give me one Truth where you, a non-inherent thing, is not involved? Even causality “depends” on “it” being sensed.

Good question Sapius.

But I’m not sure if causality depends on being sensed….

Sorry, why do you feel that it does?

Cory: Much like the sun does not depend on the object casting the shadow,

Sapius:, but the sun depends on the intensity of its own brilliance

Exactly, the brilliance of the sun depends upon the fusion happening within it and distance, rather than on merely angle like the shadows being cast outside of it. What is interesting about shadows is that they depend on ‘an angle’. A sun requires no angle, only distance.

Sapius: the sun also depends on the object on which the shadow falls, and the distance at which the object itself is.

The sun is dependent only upon distance from other stars, everything else is trivial.

A whole galaxy is like a star. The galaxy when viewed from the outside has no shadows being cast within it. It is only when you are positioned and limited to certain angles that you see shadows.

Cory: the truth does not need untruth to be perfect.

Sapius: I don’t see how any-thing could stand without that which is not it being around, and that includes ‘perfection’. Existence includes both aspects of any opposites, and existence itself is neither perfect nor imperfect. It cannot be thought of in such terms.

I meant perfect as in - - beyond shortcomings, incompletion, polarity and duality. You can argue between North, South, West, or East, between tragedy and comedy – but the whole includes all of these opposing points of view. The truth is not the opposite of a lie. A lie can only be the opposite of an opposing lie. To be beyond, but not the opposite of – is what the truth is.

Cory: The totality, unlike its constituents has no form, boundaries, and frontiers, it is not a fixed limited object and thus cannot fill and thus create empty space.

Therefore truth goes beyond isolation, time, and becoming

Sapius: Hence isn’t “totality” BUT infinite forms?

Cory: There would be no form, because form requires space/time to contain it.

Sapius: I would take such thinking as ‘erecting objects within ones mind creating shadows’. So in your opinion space/time is ‘contained’ as the scientist claim it to be?

All I can say is that space and time are an appearance that I seem to experience, and furthermore, space and time appear to me to be contained.

Sapius, you quoted me as saying:

Cory: Hence that which lies beyond “space/time”, containment, or Duality, is Truth and Reality?

Sapius, Why don’t you use my actual quotes instead of writing something I didn’t even say?

Sapius: Yes, things are non-permanent, yes they are dependant; don’t you know by now that I know that? All I want to show is that THAT does not take away the THINGNESS of any thing that necessarily has to EXIST, however temporarily that it may be for ANYTHING to be actually happening.

All I’m saying is that, saying a thing has ‘thingness’ is just redundancy. A thing has no inherent locality. A thing has no essence. That’s all I have ever emphasized.

Sapius: If the illusion is REAL, then how un-real is your experience of it?

My experience is unreal to the degree that I don’t realize it’s an illusion. My experience is unreal to the degree that I am attached and emotionally involved in an illusion.

Sapius: the “Illusion” is all that there is and NOTHING that lies under that can be considered as TRUTH or Reality other than the experience of what you are already actually experiencing.

The illusion is all there is, but experience is always limited. Truth is not limited to what I am presently experiencing because what I am experiencing is by definition limited.

Cory: Just because he has a pictorial representation of the sea, doesn’t negate the fact that the sea doesn’t 'inherently' exist.

Sapius: Sure, nor does that mean that the SEA does not exist as and when it does.

The sea appears to exist, and is differentiated from other things that appear to exist. If I were to go further than that I would simply apply causality in order to understand that the sea, like anything else, doesn’t ‘inherently’ exist.

Cory: As you might have heard, the word isnt the thing. The signifier is not the signified.

Sapius: Yes I have, but I understand it differently, because I also know that that does not mean that the MEANING, which the words represents, do not exist, otherwise that sentence itself would mean nothing!

The word and the sentence inherently has no meaning, only from a point of view, only in a particular relationship do they mean something.

Cory: Again sapius, "inherently" is the word we are stressing. Sure, the illusion is real - but the sea, like the wave - doesnt inherently exist.

Sapius: So why did you then give me an example of waves as being more illusionary than the sea?

That wasn’t my intention. My intention was to imply that the inherent existence of waves and the inherent existence of the sea are equally illusionary.

Sapius: So what the hell underlies causality other than what is detected as causality by you and me by sensing the change in and of other things?

Sorry, what makes you think that I am implying that something ‘underlies’ causality?

Sapius: So what the hell is it that “underlies” ANY-THING at all?

I am told, emptiness, void, etc., etc.
I am told, emptiness, void, etc., etc. Which in my opinion, at this stage of understanding, is a mistake

Cory: Sure, it seems superflous to me too. I always thought (for the past 2 years) that everything, the totality is really just one big, undiscernable mass of energy which has no center - and thus could be regarded as a void, just nowhereness, nothingness.

Sapius: What I’m trying to say is that one cannot and should not think of totality as ONE big whatever. IT cannot be considered as an IT in the first place

I agree, that’s what I meant. Pardon the ‘one big’. Just a bad choice in wording.

Sapius: because one cannot total up infinite forms and say that there is such a thing as “totality” as such itself. So where does that leave the “thus” or the regarding of “IT” as something else? Be it what ever!

yes, I agree.

Cory: Sapius, do you believe that a 'center' actually exists? Doesnt a center imply 2 seperate points? Does a center not imply space?

Sapius: I’m not sure how this ‘center’ point came up,

It came up because I was trying to make the very point you just made when I unwisely said “one big”. I elaborated further, ruminating on the illusion of a center in order to make my point more clear.

Sapius: but I believe I KNOW that a “center” is an absolute impossibility as far as existence goes, which is quite difficult even to imagine

I’m not sure its even possible to imagine. One can only presume its true because it seems to be ‘implied’ if we draw from how life appears to work.

Cory: But what I have difficulty with is character. The problem of comprimise, of pleasing people, of helping people, of getting along in a way that helps humanity lift itself out of its ugly state.

Sapius: How does the way one has adopted to “help” OTHERS really matter? Is it not a result of ones own conclusions? Wouldn’t one have to come to a conclusion as to WHAT IS an “ugly” state in the first palace? Say ‘femininity’ for example, which IS a very UGLY state to be in according to quite a few here. I may agree to all its philosophical descriptions, but why should I hate or call it “ugly” if I know what it is and opt to be otherwise? If I detest it, I necessarily do not understand IT, and hence am afraid of it.

Hatred arises due to attachment. Most people cannot free themselves from irrationality without being attached to some basic as well as generally despised truths. If one has a noble enough birth, perhaps one can reach a state of mind of great clarity and depth without feeling hatred for ones own life, parents, brothers, sisters, etc….

Cory Patrick wrote:

Cory: What causes you to become a naughty little child?

Sue: My ego’s attachments. They remain unresolved even though I apply cause and effect to them.

So I guess what your saying is:

The ‘vulgarity/sophistication’ of ones attachment to the world corresponds to the vulgarity/sophistication of ones understanding of cause and effect.

That’s an interesting way of looking at it, but I think it is more a case of some attachments being easier to grow out of then others.

For me, some attachments fall away easily, and others have to be confronted again and again and again... I just have to remain patient, and keep on doing what I can.

Where there is attachment there is hatred

?

I suppose you could use “hatred” to motivate you to attack attachments, but perhaps it's easier to just keep reminding yourself of their empty nature, and in that way they slowly lose their power.

-
Sue

Sue,

I've been meaning to ask you, what was your experience like when you were "reborn as a man"? How was your mind able to escape the unconsciousness of its feminine nature? Was it a slow process of realization, or did you all of a sudden have a metaphorical brick hit you in the head that woke you up? Also what were all the feelings you experienced when you seen the world through the "eyes of masculinity" for the first time? If for some reason you don't want to discuss it over a public forum I can give you my email address. Look forward to your response.

Nick

Sapius,

Jason wrote: How are you defining "non-permanent", and do you think that all things are non-permanent?

Sapius wrote: What do you mean, Jason?

It's pretty straightforward: do you think that all things are impermanent? If so, why are all things impermanent? How do you know, for example, that some rock somewhere will not last forever?

Sapius wrote: Things are always in motion even if they seem motionless from our relative perspective, and the same applies to transformations too, which at times may not be detected due to our relative time frame, but are continuously transforming nonetheless.

So you are happy to make assumptions about unseen and hidden things? I was under the (possibly wrong)impression that you believed the only certainties were things which were directly perceived.

What you wrote in the above quote also seems to disagree with what you wrote here:

Sapius wrote:In MY opinion, what lies “beyond” could only be conjecture; All that there IS, is right HERE and NOW, and there is no elusive Reality or Truth beyond that.

Wouldn't you say that motion which is not detected is elusive, and beyond the here and now?

Nick wrote:Sue,

I've been meaning to ask you, what was your experience like when you were "reborn as a man"?

Hairy.

Hey Sue,

I want to go back quite a few posts to something you said. I probably wrote about a 14 page (3000 word) response to you about 3 weeks ago, but instead of giving you the whole gamut, I settled for minimalism.

You may remember this....

Cory: For instance, I really don't think the problem with scientists is that they lack the mind for having a good understanding of cause and effect. I think the problem with scientists is that they lack the passionate desire (root meaning of passion; suffering) to take cause and effect and investigation so far as to become wholly unemotional and indifferent to matters pertaining to family, marriage, career, children, etc, etc.

Sue: The scientist has those base attachments because he doesn’t have a good understanding of cause and effect.

My next question is, what causes this generic scientist to not have a good understanding of cause and effect?

Cory,

I think it's simply the case that he loves his life more than he loves truth. He’s not willing to risk his happiness for something he obviously doesn’t consider worthwhile.

What do you reckon?

-
Sue

Nick wrote:

I've been meaning to ask you, what was your experience like when you were "reborn as a man"? How was your mind able to escape the unconsciousness of its feminine nature? Was it a slow process of realization, or did you all of a sudden have a metaphorical brick hit you in the head that woke you up? Also what were all the feelings you experienced when you seen the world through the "eyes of masculinity" for the first time? If for some reason you don't want to discuss it over a public forum I can give you my email address. Look forward to your response.

Each person’s mind is made up of varying degrees of masculinity and femininity. There is no set feminine or masculine mind. One person (male or female) may have a large portion of their mind taken up with the feminine, with a smaller masculine part – and another person’s mind may have a much larger masculine part, with a miniscule feminine part. These different parts of their minds are (like everything in the universe) always changing.

You’ve read my posts calling upon males to stop joining the feminine (mind) by chucking away their masculinity. And my posts on building a stronger masculine mind by focusing on Truth alone. The fact is that the masculine part of the mind can be either reduced or enlarged. These days it is mostly being reduced – and hardly ever enlarged. When you reduce the masculine part of your mind the feminine naturally fills up that vacated space. But if you work at building a strong masculine mind, the feminine part is slowly but surely squeezed out.

My mind has always been more masculine than feminine. At different times of my life the feminine part of my mind has flourished – but not for long, as the masculine part would become dissatisfied, causing my life to change direction. As the years have gone by and I’ve become more focused on Truth, the masculine part of my mind has become stronger and more developed. Because of this, the feminine part has grown smaller by the same degree.

Whether the masculine part of my mind continues to develop, or the feminine part grows stronger, isn’t something that I can predict - I’ll just have to wait and see how I go over time.

-
Sue

sue hindmarsh wrote:Each person’s mind is made up of varying degrees of masculinity and femininity. There is no set feminine or masculine mind. One person (male or female) may have a large portion of their mind taken up with the feminine, with a smaller masculine part – and another person’s mind may have a much larger masculine part, with a miniscule feminine part. These different parts of their minds are (like everything in the universe) always changing.

You’ve read my posts calling upon males to stop joining the feminine (mind) by chucking away their masculinity. And my posts on building a stronger masculine mind by focusing on Truth alone. The fact is that the masculine part of the mind can be either reduced or enlarged. These days it is mostly being reduced – and hardly ever enlarged. When you reduce the masculine part of your mind the feminine naturally fills up that vacated space. But if you work at building a strong masculine mind, the feminine part is slowly but surely squeezed out.

My mind has always been more masculine than feminine. At different times of my life the feminine part of my mind has flourished – but not for long, as the masculine part would become dissatisfied, causing my life to change direction. As the years have gone by and I’ve become more focused on Truth, the masculine part of my mind has become stronger and more developed. Because of this, the feminine part has grown smaller by the same degree.

Whether the masculine part of my mind continues to develop, or the feminine part grows stronger, isn’t something that I can predict - I’ll just have to wait and see how I go over time.

-
Sue

So there was no rebirth into masculinity on your part, that some use to describe the only way a woman can attain consciousness. How exactly is someone reborn as a man then? I don't think it's a possibility unless someone values masculine traits to begin with. If this is the case, there is no "complete rebirth" just a shifting from femininity to masculinity, then generally remaining in one's masculine nature.

Nick wrote:

So there was no rebirth into masculinity on your part, that some use to describe the only way a woman can attain consciousness. How exactly is someone reborn as a man then?

To be ‘reborn a man’ depends on your karma (those circumstances that have brought you to this point in time). If you are lucky, you will have in place many of the prerequisites needed to become a thinker. I can say that I’ve been lucky to have had the ancestors I had, the family and environment I grew up in, the education system, teachers, and friends that all helped foster the person I am today. Not saying that any of it was particularly special or unique, just that the combination of all those things brought about a female thinker – me. So, the seed of my being “reborn a man” was planted many, many years ago in the combined genetics and environments of my ancestors.

I don't think it's a possibility unless someone values masculine traits to begin with. If this is the case, there is no "complete rebirth" just a shifting from femininity to masculinity, then generally remaining in one's masculine nature.

A “rebirth” takes place when you acknowledge and accept the importance of those “masculine traits” to assist your philosophical progress. Developing those traits to enrich and advance your masculinity is essential – for an undeveloped masculinity is on a par with unconsciousness.

-
Sue

sue hindmarsh wrote:A “rebirth” takes place when you acknowledge and accept the importance of those “masculine traits” to assist your philosophical progress. Developing those traits to enrich and advance your masculinity is essential – for an undeveloped masculinity is on a par with unconsciousness.

-
Sue

I agree with that definition of a rebirth. I remember when I first started to consciously value my masclune traits, experiencing a significant "rebirth". It was about when I was 20 years old, I remember losing patience with all the bullshit in society on the large scale, and on the small scale that I dealt with everyday. I began to fully look to myself for approval and guidance, rather than things outside of me. Then I think I experienced another significant "rebirth", when I accidentally found Kevin Solway's "Thinking Man's Minefield". This accidental discovery gave my developing masculine traits a shot of adrenaline. It put my thoughts in a new light, so to speak, giving me the ability to maintain an even higher consciousness, and putting into perspective the incredible potential for wisdom and knowledge that can be gained by developing my masculine traits.

Cory: My next question is: what causes this generic scientist to not have a good understanding of cause and effect?

Sue: I think it's simply the case that he loves his life more than he loves truth. He’s not willing to risk his happiness for something he obviously doesn’t consider worthwhile.

What do you reckon?

I reckon he’s not willing to do without the immediate and more easily obtained (however a nightmare to maintain) gratifications of worldliness.

If he were to establish the sort of values necessary for becoming enlightened, he would have to be willing to feel greater pain then he is willing to feel.

That’s why I say, the scientist does not live truthfully because he is afraid of pain and danger. He is frightened of his feelings. He is afraid to take too great a risk. He is afraid of his own hatred.

He has the mind for understanding cause and effect, but he has not the degree of courage to make humanity his adversary to such an extent that he suffers so unusually.

A good understanding of cause and effect does not come into being because people have intimations of its painful implications.

Most character, like most art, is a bullwark against the anihilating quality of truth.

Cory,

Understanding cause and effect isn’t difficult – especially for a scientist who uses causality on a daily basis to look for the connection between things. What does become difficult is when you apply that knowledge to your own life and don’t like what you discover. Most people balk at accepting the fact that they have no inherent existence – preferring the lie instead.

So you’re correct in what you say about the scientist being “afraid of pain and danger”, because to him, the truth about the ‘self’ causes him nothing more than pain and danger. As I said, if he truly valued the truth he’d be more willing and open to accepting it wherever it arose – even if it meant that ‘his life’ was no longer true.

-
Sue

You geniuses are so freaking stupid. Understanding cause and effect is not an implicit commitment to nihilism.

Still singing the same broken tune I see.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Still singing the same broken tune I see.

Only because you fake geniuses are still suffering the same bizarre delusions.

Genius is not nihilism.

A scientist is not less a scientist because he procreates and cares for a family.

Cory: Still singing the same broken tune I see.

Mill: Only because you fake geniuses are still suffering the same bizarre delusions. Genius is not nihilism.

Give it up with the nihilism already. You are using the word glibly and without relfection.

To be nihilistic is to not have any values, to not know anything, to not have opinions, conclusions, etc.

So you are picking fights with strawmen, as seems to be your tendency.

A scientist is not less a scientist because he procreates and cares for a family.

I would say that a man who cares for the human race as his family is superior to a man who limits himself to his own personal family.

I value the philsopher more than I value the scientist.

However, I do not condemn scientists. I think they would do their jobs better and more humanly if they were more philosophical.

The more superior scientists are more philosophical.

To borrow and modify Einstiens quote:

Science without philosophy is blind, and philosohpy without science is lame

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Cory: Still singing the same broken tune I see.

Mill: Only because you fake geniuses are still suffering the same bizarre delusions. Genius is not nihilism.

Give it up with the nihilism already. You are using the word glibly and without relfection.

Actually, Im using the word accurately and in the proper context. You just hate what you are.

To be nihilistic is to not have any values, to not know anything, to not have opinions, conclusions, etc.

And you fake geniuses laud this.

So you are picking fights with strawmen, as seems to be your tendency.

A scientist is not less a scientist because he procreates and cares for a family.

I would say that a man who cares for the human race as his family is superior to a man who limits himself to his own personal family.

Can't one care for a family and still love the human race? Are the two really mutually exclusive?

I value the philsopher more than I value the scientist.

Because you get off on bullshit nihilistic rambling.

However, I do not condemn scientists. I think they would do their jobs better and more humanly if they were more philosophical.

The more superior scientists are more philosophical.

To borrow and modify Einstiens quote:

Science without philosophy is blind, and philosohpy without science is lame

But rationality without love has no purpose to serve.

Cory: To be nihilistic is to not have any values, to not know anything, to not have opinions, conclusions, etc.

Mill: And you fake geniuses laud this.

And this is why it’s so terrible having too serious of a conversation with you. (Although I do sometimes enjoy you for who you are, not a real serious thinker but a sometimes funny one)

What makes you often boring is how you repetitively attack using an ignorant hypothesis (such as: genius forum people are nihilists) and rather than acknowledge the data right in front of you (that data of which, if acknowledged would invalidate your hypothesis and thus break the monotony) you instead ignore the data and continue with your tiresome scripts.

It’s as if there’s a string on your back and someone keeps pulling it.

Now you might be wondering: “what ‘data’ is he talking about?”

I’m talking about the banner at the top of this forum, the banner of which presents various values. This forum is based on values. So right off the bat, your nihilism hypothesis is killed. So give it up.

You might also want to look over my posts over the weeks and months and note the various conclusions and opinions I’ve made.

Hardly Nihilistic.

So Mill, you should drop the script and come up with something less absurd.

Cory: I would say that a man who cares for the human race as his family is superior to a man who limits himself to his own personal family.

Mill: Can't one care for a family and still love the human race? Are the two really mutually exclusive?

Shakeshpere had a good understanding of how much families love other families.

Family is evil.

Remember about a month ago when I told you that I thought all violence and war was rooted mostly in tribalism, patriotism, nationalism? Nationalism is just a bloated form of tribalism you know.

You told me last month that you don’t think man can go beyond tribalism, patriotism and nationalism.

I disagree with you on that one. I value the destruction of all division, all illusion. I value unity, oneness.

Cory: However, I do not condemn scientists. I think they would do their jobs better and more humanly if they were more philosophical.

The more superior scientists are more philosophical.

To borrow and modify Einstiens quote:

Science without philosophy is blind, and philosohpy without science is lame


Mill: But rationality without love has no purpose to serve.

What kind of love are you talking about Mill? Love is such a clichéd, loaded and broken word, a word that has been preached for thousands of years. How naïve it is for you to think that it means much when you say it.

Mil wrote:

rationality without love has no purpose to serve.

Cory asked:

What kind of love are you talking about Mill?

Even though the question was not directed at Elizabeth, Elizabeth responds anyway because she agreed with Mil's above quote:

"Love" could be considered "strong interest" and what would rationality be if it were not motivated in a direction by something?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Cory: To be nihilistic is to not have any values, to not know anything, to not have opinions, conclusions, etc.

Mill: And you fake geniuses laud this.

And this is why it’s so terrible having too serious of a conversation with you. (Although I do sometimes enjoy you for who you are, not a real serious thinker but a sometimes funny one)

What makes you often boring is how you repetitively attack using an ignorant hypothesis (such as: genius forum people are nihilists) and rather than acknowledge the data right in front of you (that data of which, if acknowledged would invalidate your hypothesis and thus break the monotony) you instead ignore the data and continue with your tiresome scripts.

Nihilism is all I see here. I consider buddhism a nihilistic victim religion, just so you know.

It’s as if there’s a string on your back and someone keeps pulling it.

Now you might be wondering: “what ‘data’ is he talking about?”

I’m talking about the banner at the top of this forum, the banner of which presents various values. This forum is based on values. So right off the bat, your nihilism hypothesis is killed. So give it up.

Yes. I believe the forum is mistitled. It's really a nihilistic hate forum.

You might also want to look over my posts over the weeks and months and note the various conclusions and opinions I’ve made.

Hardly Nihilistic.

You're an elitist globalist who believes in the destruction of all religion and non approved identities.

So Mill, you should drop the script and come up with something less absurd.

Cory: I would say that a man who cares for the human race as his family is superior to a man who limits himself to his own personal family.

Mill: Can't one care for a family and still love the human race? Are the two really mutually exclusive?

Shakeshpere had a good understanding of how much families love other families.

Family is evil.

See how sick you are?

Remember about a month ago when I told you that I thought all violence and war was rooted mostly in tribalism, patriotism, nationalism? Nationalism is just a bloated form of tribalism you know.

There's nothing wrong with nationalism, or tribalism, or individualism.

You told me last month that you don’t think man can go beyond tribalism, patriotism and nationalism.

I disagree with you on that one. I value the destruction of all division, all illusion. I value unity, oneness.

Oneness is a lie.

Cory: However, I do not condemn scientists. I think they would do their jobs better and more humanly if they were more philosophical.

The more superior scientists are more philosophical.

To borrow and modify Einstiens quote:

Science without philosophy is blind, and philosohpy without science is lame


Mill: But rationality without love has no purpose to serve.

What kind of love are you talking about Mill? Love is such a clichéd, loaded and broken word, a word that has been preached for thousands of years. How naïve it is for you to think that it means much when you say it.

You have a deep illness.