GENIUS FORUMS

sue hindmarsh wrote: (from "Brad and Elizabeth")

For some males and females, understanding the basics of Truth is enough. For others they want to do more than understand Truth, they want to live it. They possess an unquenchable thirst for Truth, giving them the strength of giants and the courage of lions. It is these few that everyone else is judged against – so when you are considering your own development, size yourself up beside the likes of say; Diogenes or Hakuin; Kierkegaard or Solway, and then you will know what needs to be done in your own life. Use their strength and their courage to push your own life forward.

EXAMINING THE HOSTS
- A transcript from The Hour of Judgment radio series -
Copyright (c) 1995 Kevin Solway & David Quinn
Guests:

* Kevin Solway - Sage
* David Quinn - Sage

Host: Dan Rowden - Freelance philosopher

In all of the programs we had done thus far, not one of the guests had challenged us in any sustained way, even though we spent the entire time attacking their values and beliefs. This is perhaps understandable, considering that they were after all our guests. But nonetheless we did encourage them to do so, both explicitly and implicitly. For example, we would tell our guests before each show that it was to be a round-table discussion, a free-for-all, and that they were welcome to question us much as we questioned them. And then, to further facilitate this, we would do our level best on the show to shatter their professional facades and thereby provoke them into human consciousness. It rarely worked.

So Dan Rowden came up with the idea of him interviewing us. He would do what they wouldn't do. He would zero in on our beliefs and put them under the spotlight. He would play the role of the worldly person and challenge us from the worldly perspective, and try to lay exposed the true nature of what we are. Needless to say, this required Danny putting in a mammoth effort of concentration and discipline, for it's a very difficult thing for a human to fill the shoes of an animal. And all thing considered, he did a pretty fine job.

Dan: Hello, and welcome to the penultimate edition in this series of The Hour of Judgment. My name is Dan Rowden, and I'll be your host for this evening. Now through the course of these programs we've heard regular hosts, David Quinn and Kevin Solway, put a number of people under the analytical spotlight - diverse people, eminent people, experts in their given fields of endeavour: priests, professors, Buddhist monks and masters, scientists, psychologists, feminists, and even one who claims to teach the highest wisdom - all of them critically scrutinized by this pair of self-professed sages. Well, tonight it's their turn. It's high time, I think, that their claims of wisdom and spiritual authority were put under that very same spotlight. And so, tonight, good evening to David and Kevin.

Kevin: Good evening to you, Dan.

David: G'day, Dan.

Dan: And should I say, welcome to your program! Now, the first thing I want to ask you is precisely what it is that you value. Why do you have these values, and how did you arrive at them?

Kevin: Well, should I start answering that one, David?

David: Yes, go on, Kevin.

Kevin: Well, being an egotist - a person who desires to be happy - I wanted the greatest happiness of all. This goes back to my early teens. And the greatest happiness is the thing which lasts the longest - the happiness which lasts the longest. Now the thing that lasts the longest of all is, of course, the Truth. You can be a football hero, you can be a pinball wizard, but these things don't last. Some five year old kid will come along, for example, and get the high score on the pinball machine. So you're not going to be the best at ordinary things in the world. But when it comes to Truth . . . Truth is something that never changes. And once you know the Truth, it's something that's with you for the rest of your life. It is insurmountable. So, personally, Truth is the thing I value above all, because it gave me the greatest amount of happiness.

Dan: So, basically, you're saying that you value something that gives you permanent satisfaction.

Kevin: That's right.

Dan: Okay, what about you, David?

David: Well, I value Truth above all as well, but I think I came to it differently to Kevin. I was more motivated in a negative sense, rather than any striving for perfect happiness, because I never conceived of that in my younger days. I was more motivated by a fear of being in error. I didn't like being insecure about being uncertain in my knowledge. I was brought up to be a total moron. For the first twenty years of my life, I was a moron. I was fully into sport, and I didn't have any intellectual aims in any way. It was only when I reached about twenty that I began to explore away from sport. I began getting more into aesthetics - exploring sunsets, music, drugs, and all that sort of thing. In fact, I was becoming a bit of a dropout. And then I began to think philosophically. So the first time I began to think philosophically wasn't until I reached about twenty, and it was like I was being born at that stage. It was around that time that I met Kevin, and it was through Kevin that I heard ideas about cause and effect and the spiritual path. And in an instant flash I saw the totality of the spiritual path, Ultimate Reality, the whole thing, and I haven't looked back since.

Dan: So, basically, what you're saying is that for both of you this philosophic path, in many respects, was just a flight from suffering.

Kevin: For sure. For me anyway, yes.

David: Yes, definitely, but I didn't have this conception of perfect happiness. I mean, I was brought up with no ideals at all. I met nobody who had any ideals. I was brought up in the Catholic tradition, and the Catholic priests were just incredibly mediocre people. I mean, I remember one Catholic priest in particular - and there are many examples in my schooling from which I could choose - and his aim in life was to go to Heaven so he could play golf all day! This didn't inspire me at all. I mean, I was already playing golf all day in my teens! So I met nobody in my childhood who taught me to have ideals.

Dan: Yes, okay. This concept of the flight from suffering was certainly my experience. I just couldn't handle people's inconsistency, their irrationality, the general insanity of the world. And the only way I could escape from that, I intuited, was to actually understand it.

David: Totally. I found golf was a great teacher. Golf was my first teacher. I was a member of a golf club, quite a prestigious one in Brisbane, and there were politicians and doctors and lawyers and so forth with whom I played rounds with every weekend. I got to know some of them quite well, and I just found them to be incredibly mediocre people. They puffed themselves up - they thought themselves to be great men, successful men - but their lives were incredibly petty. All they thought about was from one week to the next. It was very disappointing.

Dan: Yes, all they thought about really was running away from suffering. The point that I want to make is that, in a qualitative sense, it seems to me that everyone is trying to escape suffering. So what makes you guys better or superior to anyone else?

Kevin: Well, I think I had a bigger ego. I wanted to avoid suffering more than everybody else. I'd seen that nobody else had done a very good job of it. Even those people who had largely escaped suffering, and who do live very happy lives - still, even they seemed incredibly fragile to me. I could see a thousand ways to upset their apple cart. And I wanted to place myself in a position, egotistically, that was perfectly safe, that had absolute security, that nothing in the whole universe could upset. And, of course, there is only one thing that is like that - and that's Truth. But, of course, the closer and closer I came to Truth, the less and less egotism was a factor in my desiring it.

David: So by the time you reach this goal of complete security you no longer have any need of it.

Kevin: Exactly. The egotism is so powerful it has consumed itself in its greed for perfection.

Jason wrote:The primary forces(and probably the most influencial people here) behind the original existence of this forum Dan, David and Kevin constantly refer to ending suffering in the same breath as "ultimate truth".

I have always understood that in the context it as an end to suffering for everyone, the whole human race, not just a selfish pursuit of the individual.

I would never use another philosophers life(however supposedly developed they are) to see what needs to be done with my own. To me that would be guru worship, which is blind following instead of reasoning.

The path of truth can only extend as far as your own reasoning has progressed, it is therefore impossible to know of anyone(guru) or anything that is further developed or further along the path.

And I've never had to push my philosophical life forward: philosophy and truth pursue ME. It has a life of its own. After all, if philosophy is about what actually is, then of course it will expose itself - how could it be any other way?

In fact in my experience the only pushing I have ever done has been trying to push and fight against philosophy. "Leave me alone! I've had enough. Please leave me alone. At lease let me rest." But no, it just keeps attacking me.

And my experience of philosophy has never needed strength or courage to push forward(let alone some other philosopher's courage and strength). Progress has always been forced upon me. The only strength I have needed is a strength to survive the unending assault. (Maybe I am just predisposed with characteristics that make philosophical development inescapable for me? Then again maybe I don't have the balls to be strong and courageous?)

I question those who have to push themselves to progress philosophically. If your reasoning leads somewhere it is inescapable, there is no pushing necessary. It makes me think that this need for pushing, for courage and for strength are coming from something that is not truth, that is not reasoned. A desire to end suffering would be my first guess.

If you are driven towards philosophy and rationality out of a desire to end suffering, then truth will always be secondary. Truth and reasoning will just be a means to an end. "I don't really like reasoning and truth so this is going to take a lot of courage and strength, but I will push my way through it, because it could lead to an end to my suffering."

The problem with the primary motivation being an end to suffering is that anything that stops suffering will suffice - truth be damned. Any answers you find will always be suspect. Are they the result of truth, or the result of them being suitably pain relieving?

Of course, you see crude versions of this in Christians and other religious types everywhere. They seek comfort and respite - things that truth would strip them of. This forum itself is full of people talking first of truth, and then immediately following that with talk of an end to suffering. The primary forces(and probably the most influencial people here) behind the original existence of this forum Dan, David and Kevin constantly refer to ending suffering in the same breath as "ultimate truth".

The signs and symptoms are all here that many of the people posting are ultimately motivated by a desire to end their suffering, with all the problems that that suggests. Maybe the strongest delusion is thinking that truth is our ultimate motivation and goal?

"Accept my life, dear God" - Kierkegaard

sue hindmarsh wrote: Are you saying that no one has even influenced or encouraged you in your lifetime? Have you never read a book, listened to a piece of music, had a conversation with someone – have you always lived in a vacuum?

You are involved in a forum run by men who openly state their Sage status. Your involvement in the discussions on this forum could mean that these men are influencing your philosophic ideas. I’m sure you look at David, Dan and Kevin with the eye of a sceptic – making decisions about their ideas based on your own. Some days you may think yourself more knowledgable than them - and then other days you may feel you have something to learn from them.

Okay, let’s say you don’t - surely you look at your own life and question your abilities and weaknesses. When you do, what type of benchmark do you use?

sue hindmarsh wrote:

And I've never had to push my philosophical life forward: philosophy and truth pursue ME. It has a life of its own. After all, if philosophy is about what actually is, then of course it will expose itself - how could it be any other way?

Are you saying that you don’t think about anything – you instead wait for thoughts to ‘pop’ into your head?

sue hindmarsh wrote: What do you make of Nietzsche's idea below? Are you in that same "territory"?

Better know naught than half-know much! Better be a fool on ones own merits than a wise man by other folks opinions! I go to the roots. What mattereth great or small, marsh or heaven? An hand-breadth of territory is sufficient for me, if it be real rock-bottom territory!

sue hindmarsh wrote:

In fact in my experience the only pushing I have ever done has been trying to push and fight against philosophy. "Leave me alone! I've had enough. Please leave me alone. At lease let me rest." But no, it just keeps attacking me.

It is written that Jesus said:

And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.(Matt. 11:6; Luke 7:23)

Do you think these words have anything to do with your experience with philosophy?

sue hindmarsh wrote:

And my experience of philosophy has never needed strength or courage to push forward(let alone some other philosopher's courage and strength). Progress has always been forced upon me. The only strength I have needed is a strength to survive the unending assault. (Maybe I am just predisposed with characteristics that make philosophical development inescapable for me? Then again maybe I don't have the balls to be strong and courageous?)

So you don’t think you can be assisted in any way by the potent thoughts of a philosopher like Nietzsche? Could the “unending assault” be lessened if you allowed yourself to rest in the thoughts of men, like him, who have already done a lot of the hard work, thereby making philosophy easier for others?

Walk in the footsteps of your fathers' virtue! How should ye rise high, if your fathers' wills rise not with you?

sue hindmarsh wrote:

I question those who have to push themselves to progress philosophically. If your reasoning leads somewhere it is inescapable, there is no pushing necessary. It makes me think that this need for pushing, for courage and for strength are coming from something that is not truth, that is not reasoned. A desire to end suffering would be my first guess.

Let’s look at this passage from Kevin –

First things first

No one can immediately see the final goal of the spiritual quest. So follow your nose. Face the breeze and capture the fragrance of truth as it wafts past you. Acquaint yourself with the sons, and they will direct you towards the Mother. Begin with small truths and large truths will follow of themselves.
How can you hope to see the brilliance of Truth while you still have planks in your eye! Remove first the planks, then the splinters, and seeing will arise without effort.

sue hindmarsh wrote: People are not raised to be wise, therefore they need to “push” themselves in those beginning stages to look closely at their own attachments to the world - so they can begin removing those “planks”. Attachments are often difficult to budge, so drawing on your inner strength to help you break free of them, can be described as ‘giving yourself a push’.

sue hindmarsh wrote:

The problem with the primary motivation being an end to suffering is that anything that stops suffering will suffice - truth be damned. Any answers you find will always be suspect. Are they the result of truth, or the result of them being suitably pain relieving?

Shiny, twinkling objects easily satisfy morons; anyone with a discriminating mind, will want something much more substantial.

sue hindmarsh wrote:

The signs and symptoms are all here that many of the people posting are ultimately motivated by a desire to end their suffering, with all the problems that that suggests. Maybe the strongest delusion is thinking that truth is our ultimate motivation and goal?

We know that people will try nearly anything to escape suffering – except understanding where suffering comes from. They refuse to look at what’s directly in front of them, and therefore they will remain lost in hell for eternity. We can’t help them, except by escaping our own cycle of happiness and suffering. That’s what Philosophy is all about; and that's why the Great Men of Philosophy speak to us continuously on this matter. They write with their lives, they write with their blood –

Of all writings I love only those which the writer writeth with his blood.
Write in blood, and thou shalt learn that blood is spirit.
(Nietzsche)

Sue

DavidQuinn000 wrote:This subject has been talked about quite a bit on the forum over the years. I agree that if a person focuses too much on trying to end suffering, he is likely to quit his search for Truth the moment he stops experiencing suffering. That is a very serious danger. As you say, Jason, we can see this happening all the time with religious people. But it can also happen with higher philosophical types as well.

So yes, the ideal motivation would be the pure desire to understand what is ultimately true in life, with all other thoughts about happiness and suffering coming a distant second.

On the other hand, we are complex human beings with strong emotional desires to be happy and this can't be ignored. We can go a long way towards Truth if we mentally believe that we can find happiness in it. This can't take us all the way, but it can take us to the very brink, which makes it a very significant motivating force.

To my mind, it all comes down to the individual in question and how skilfully he can manage his spiritual progress. If he has a good understanding of his own psychology and some inkling of the nature of Reality, he is in a position to plot his own course. He can know, for example, how much emphasis to place on being motivated to find Truth in a pure sense and how much to place on the egotistical desire to attain permanent happiness, and so on. -

DavidQuinn000 wrote: As for the issue of strength and courage, these are definitely important factors in the spiritual path. It takes courage to take on the whole human race, to make the judgment that nearly all of the human race's celebrated heroes in history were philosophic morons, that nearly everyone around you is extremely deluded. And it takes strength to keep persisting on the path in the knowledge that the human race doesn't really care, and that, as you become wiser, you will increasingly stick out and become mistreated by a society that misunderstands you. -

DavidQuinn000 wrote: This is where the example of past wise men can help. Just knowing that these types of men existed can be very encouraging.
-

I think with myself I wanted happiness, but I thought that only perfectly certain truth could bring me that happiness. So in that way I seem to have been able to combine both desire for truth and happiness, without happiness leading me to uncertain truths. I could see, as I progressed philosophically, that my insights were actually leading to more suffering in one way, so if I valued happiness more it would have been obvious to go back to leaing a "normal" life, but I kept going, probably because I felt I could not find utlimate happiness in what I saw as falsity and irrationality.

DQ: As for the issue of strength and courage, these are definitely important factors in the spiritual path. It takes courage to take on the whole human race, to make the judgment that nearly all of the human race's celebrated heroes in history were philosophic morons, that nearly everyone around you is extremely deluded. And it takes strength to keep persisting on the path in the knowledge that the human race doesn't really care, and that, as you become wiser, you will increasingly stick out and become mistreated by a society that misunderstands you. -

J: I can see how that can be the case. But for me personally I have never felt like I had a choice not to confront society and normalcy if that is where my reasoning took me, I've been doing it for as far back as my memory goes, right back into early childhood.

I consider myself to have climbed the highest peak and completed the journey. I came to consciously know the ultimate understanding of existence. But the thing I found was that my understanding does not inherently lead to an end to suffering or a beginning of rapturous joy. The only thing it lead me to was a conscious understanding of existence.

"Oh my god I exist! Holy shit the world exists! Everything is so weird. I feel like Alice In Wonderland: everything is new, wonderous, unusual. What is going on? Why?"

DavidQuinn000 wrote: J: I can see how that can be the case. But for me personally I have never felt like I had a choice not to confront society and normalcy if that is where my reasoning took me, I've been doing it for as far back as my memory goes, right back into early childhood.
DQ:That's usually how we generate courage in the first place - by realizing that we simply have no choice! -

DavidQuinn000 wrote:

J: I consider myself to have climbed the highest peak and completed the journey. I came to consciously know the ultimate understanding of existence. But the thing I found was that my understanding does not inherently lead to an end to suffering or a beginning of rapturous joy. The only thing it lead me to was a conscious understanding of existence.

DQ: If that is the case, then why is this your dominant thought?:

"Oh my god I exist! Holy shit the world exists! Everything is so weird. I feel like Alice In Wonderland: everything is new, wonderous, unusual. What is going on? Why?"

-

I was drawn to the deepest philosophy at least partly out of my hope that it would lead me to place of ultimate rapturous joy and an end to suffering. I consider myself to have climbed the highest peak and completed the journey. I came to consciously know the ultimate understanding of existence. But the thing I found was that my understanding does not inherently lead to an end to suffering or a beginning of rapturous joy. The only thing it lead me to was a conscious understanding of existence.

That's the exact opposite of how I define courage. To me, courage is having the choice not to proceed, but choosing to proceed despite being scared. Unless you are arguing against free will or something.

sue hindmarsh wrote:Jason wrote to David:

That's the exact opposite of how I define courage. To me, courage is having the choice not to proceed, but choosing to proceed despite being scared. Unless you are arguing against free will or something.

Have I understood you correctly - free will exists? If so - how?

Sue

Lennyrizzo wrote:
Completed the journey? Nothing more to do, then? What about perfection? What about Nirvana? Isn't it time to question the validity of your understanding? How do you explain this.

Lennyrizzo wrote: Isn't it possible that your hope of great joy and no suffering was not all wishful thinking but a result of once getting a barely noticeable and now forgotten glimpse of truth, an actual possibility? Are you 100% certain of your understanding? If not surely the journey is far from over. How do you square this with the glorious claims of past sages? How can a self with no existence worry about not existing?

Lennyrizzo wrote: My intentions are well meaning.

Lennyrizzo wrote:


Completed the journey? Nothing more to do, then? What about perfection? What about Nirvana? Isn't it time to question the validity of your understanding? How do you explain this.

Jason:
I was searching for truth and ultimate certainty and understanding. I didn't have a preset endpoint in mind(like Nirvana), I only had a process: the application of doubt, and my critical mind to remove all uncertainty. Setting up a specific endpoint before I reached the end, would be bypassing and sabotaging that method. That would make the endpoint liable to uncertainty.

Whenever I gather my thoughts for a few moments and concentrate on my understanding, I am 100% certain. Since the end of my journey lead to just a conscious understanding I think it makes sense that I can lapse out of the understanding and into doubt, when not thinking about it clearly etc.

Though I am not sure certainty can be applied to "that which is" - there is no room for uncertainty, so certainty loses meaning.

Past sages claims? Well they may have been wrong, they may have been experiencing glorious things, but not because of a certain understanding of existence. I am open to the idea that my core understanding could lead somewhere further. I am examining that currently

I agree with your point about a non-existent self not worrying about non-existence. I think my fear is based on a instinctual fear of death. Since it is instinctual, it is hard for rational arguments to alter it.

Which to me also poses the question: why would people who espouse determinism over free-will(at least at the moderate-high levels of communicating their version of truth) still use the concept of courage.

I think courage and universal determinism are generally opposing concepts.

To answer your question: yes "free will" sometimes exists in my mind/reality. "Determinism" does also. Sometimes they exist as a conceptual experience, sometimes as a more intuitive and experiential thing.

Lennyrizzo wrote: The removal of all doubt, certainty, is your endpoint. Nirvana is Perfection. Your preset endpoint was the perfect application of process or method.

Lennyrizzo wrote: How do you know that your journey ends with conscious understanding?
Why regard this as the end?

Lennyrizzo wrote: A perfect understanding of the ultimate reality, the Infinite, would transcend duality entirely, excluding concepts and any consciousness that may contain them. This alone would inform you that your journey is not yet complete.

Jason wrote:Though I am not sure certainty can be applied to "that which is" - there is no room for uncertainty, so certainty loses meaning.

Lennyrizzo wrote:Exactly. Therefore the journey ends beyond certainty, if you will.

Lennyrizzo wrote: A main theme has always been the liberation from emotional suffering, no fear of death,etc. If you're impressed with any spiritual teacher, and he maintains this is true, that may kick you back into doubt which is good.

Lennyrizzo wrote: I've always thought courage to be the taking of risks without fear. Overcoming fear. Your definition is burned into us by the world, society, in order to compell men beyond what is reasonable. Evil design.

DavidQuinn000 wrote:

I think courage and universal determinism are generally opposing concepts.

For you to say this, your understanding of determinism must be very poor. Disturbingly so. I'm very surprised, Jason.
If you're going to write a critique of determinism, I can tell you now it will be worthless if you don't radically deepen your understanding of it first.

DavidQuinn000 wrote: J: To answer your question: yes "free will" sometimes exists in my mind/reality. "Determinism" does also. Sometimes they exist as a conceptual experience, sometimes as a more intuitive and experiential thing.
DQ: What are you saying, exactly? That sometimes causality rules over all things and sometimes it doesn't - all depending on what mood you happen to be in? -