Romance

[Nick]

I'm not blending anything that's not already blended in. Though the enlightened person makes a distinction between empirical and absolute truths, he doesn't need to use that distinction in his own thinking - that's what I was saying.

It's not possible to do any kind of thinking without making distinctions, that is the nature of thinking.

It's the only one that is reasonable.

Again, that depends on the context. So in the context of say, one person forcing their self on another against their will, and two willing individuals (consciousness aside), your definition of rape is simply not applicable.

Otherwise we'd have to give animals, rocks and trees the habeus corpus.

Actually we do give animal's rights and protect the environment from being abused and unnecessarily exploited by humans.

The context(for me) was that people were wrongly distinguishing between consensual sex and rape. So I had to talk about whether two people are conscious during sex.

I think you just need to pay more attention to context period. And if what you're trying to do is coax people out of their normal thinking habits, you need to do it with a lot more discretion and intelligence.

That's not true. Some consents are actually consents, i.e, conscious(albeit not highly so.)

If the only people who can "actually" consent are people who are conscious, and nearly everyone is unconscious, it can rightly be said that everyone is raping each other. That being the case, your definition of rape is meaningless in the case of one individual forcing their self upon another against their will. Intelligent distinctions need to be made depending on the context of a discussion, otherwise you're just talking to yourself.

[Kunga]

this thread aims to critique romance, and the psychological traits that relate to romance

Romance evolved from intelligent human beings . Do you think a moron can write intelligent poetry...create art or write a sonata ???
Romance is a product of an evolved mind...regardless of it's rationality. Man creates in his leisure. Leisure time is the privilege of the educated or wealthy.

Oh...and you can thank all the people on the low road (as opposed to your high road of spiritual truth seeking) for giving you the time to philosophise your time away...what would you do if you HAD to work ????

[pointexter]

write something romantic please

"In real love you want the other person's good. In romantic love, you want the other person.”

In both you want to be one who pleasurably

distorts reality

with

mental illness.

[Kunga]

mental illness is the result of greed and hatred

[Kelly Jones]

this thread aims to critique romance, and the psychological traits that relate to romance

Romance evolved from intelligent human beings . Do you think a moron can write intelligent poetry...create art or write a sonata ???
Romance is a product of an evolved mind...regardless of it's rationality.

It's not the highest form of intelligence. It's barely level one, as I indicated in my reply to Diebert a page or two back. By the way, the quote about romantic love being a distortion of reality was good, but there isn't any form of love that isn't. So people do in fact fall in love, in a romantic sense, with people they see, as the Keats poem showed.

Man creates in his leisure. Leisure time is the privilege of the educated or wealthy.

Hui Neng. What would you make of him?

Oh...and you can thank all the people on the low road (as opposed to your high road of spiritual truth seeking) for giving you the time to philosophise your time away...what would you do if you HAD to work ????

As your statement implies, they don't want me to be a philosopher. So it would be ungracious of me to thank them. Anyway, I do work, just not in the classic sense of employment. I can't be held responsible for the inability of others to regard "Concept auditor" as anything other than a sign of disability.

And thanks, but you don't have to remind me how foolish the world is. Like I need it!

.

[jupiviv]

It's not possible to do any kind of thinking without making distinctions, that is the nature of thinking.

I didn't say it was.

It's(the definition of consent) the only one that is reasonable.

Again, that depends on the context.

The context being - a reasonable definition.

So in the context of say, one person forcing their self on another against their will, and two willing individuals (consciousness aside), your definition of rape is simply not applicable.

If rape is defined to be non-consensual sex, then it applies in a situation where there is no consent involved in sex. The distinction between rape and normal sex made by humans is not based on consent, but(as you say) willingness, or pleasantness. But willingness is not the same as will. A rock or a cow is willing to do anything.

Actually we do give animal's rights and protect the environment from being abused and unnecessarily exploited by humans.

No we don't. Rights depend on the consciousness of the individual who has a right. We can protect animals and plants from cruelty, not give them rights. The whole concept of animal rights is utterly ridiculous, like doll rights, car rights or armchair rights.

I think you just need to pay more attention to context period. And if what you're trying to do is coax people out of their normal thinking habits, you need to do it with a lot more discretion and intelligence.

I'm perfectly aware of the context. It seems that you are the one who fails to grasp the context I'm speaking in, even though I spell it out clearly. I simply present things the way they are - I'm no salesman.

If the only people who can "actually" consent are people who are conscious, and nearly everyone is unconscious, it can rightly be said that everyone is raping each other.

In the case of sex, yes.

That being the case, your definition of rape is meaningless in the case of one individual forcing their self upon another against their will.

My definition of rape is non-consensual sex, but most people define rape as something else, since they define consensual sex to be something else. Let's say that you are trying to make love to a hose pipe(forgive me for being so vulgar and indiscrete.) But the opening of the hose pipe is too narrow for your penis. So you pull the opening to make it wide enough to get your penis in. That is rape. Now let's say that the opening of the hose pipe were big enough to fit your penis beforehand, so you didn't have to force it wide. Would that be rape? In human terms - no. In real terms - yes. Another, less vulgar example : you kick a football and it goes into the net - the football is willing to go into the net. You kick a football and it whizzes past the barpost, or the goalkeeper punches it away - the football is unwilling to go into the net.

Intelligent distinctions need to be made depending on the context of a discussion, otherwise you're just talking to yourself.

The only context I know is that of reason. I don't care for anything else. If a discussion is carried out on whether 1+1=3 or 1+1=4, then a person who says that 1+1=2 is out of context, although not wrong.

[Kunga]

Hui Neng. What would you make of him?

Never studied him. Besides having the leisure time as a monk/renunciate . I'm talking about Romantics/Romanticism in relation to art, culture and human evolution.

I just added the Platform Sutra to my favorites and will read it along with others things i can find on him...will also go get a book or two.

i really envy you being able to have the leisure time to study and practice...i often wondered why you don't become a nun.
i just think you should be grateful to the people that are giving you the opportunity to have this leisure time...even tho, as you say they are not grateful for what you do with it....still......you are surviving by the sweat of others and should be humble for that....or less degrading of others...as you are dependant on them for your survival...

[Kelly Jones]

Hui Neng was neither educated (he was illiterate, but had a good memory for scriptures) nor wealthy. Yet he was appointed the next Grand Master of Zen despite being called a barbarian by most of his peers. Meaning nothing, really. But he was extremely intelligent and creative.

i really envy you being able to have the leisure time to study and practice...i often wondered why you don't become a nun.

There aren't any wise nuns. To enter a monastery is the last thing a wisdom-seeker ought to do.

i just think you should be grateful to the people that are giving you the opportunity to have this leisure time...even tho, as you say they are not grateful for what you do with it....still......you are surviving by the sweat of others and should be humble for that....or less degrading of others...as you are dependant on them for your survival...

Is not what I do the opposite of degrading, in trying to break the stranglehold of demoralisation? Is challenging people to think and present rational arguments degrading, or is it bringing to the surface the mess that is actually already there?

.

[skipair]

The idea that everything is bullshit is just one way of looking at things. There's no reason for you believe this idea, one which upset you so much as to cause you to drop out from your spiritual journey, is all the truth has to offer. So I have to ask, why on earth would you build your life on purposelessness? Are those emotional and chemical highs you get really the reason? Or are you just scared of what the spiritual path has left in store for you?

I don't know what you're talking about.

It's not really about values. It just is what it is. The only reason I can think of as to why you aren't making the same assessment of yourself is that it hurts your ego too much to see things as they really are.

It's definitely about values. Let's say there is a conscious computer or robot that has been programmed to never directly or purposely put itself in a situation that would cause the death of its consciousness, but otherwise made completely dispassionate judgments. And further, lets say it was only programmed to teach others how also to make completely dispassionate judgments. This would be a robot that could have attachments to life and to rationality, but not suffer the emotional consequences like a human would. This essentially seems to be the moral ideal of our QRS.

It's not enough for them just to recognize logical reality, they want to also overcome BEING HUMAN (or at least David seems to want this). He wants to have the attachments to life and rationality like a robot, but without the natural human needs for variation, entertainment, emotional exercise, etc. that we are conditioned to have (for better or worse). Until a time comes where we don't have mixtures of hormones running through our body, and thousands of years of biological and social conditioning, and we instead have a computer chip with 0's and 1's in our head, we can expect to fall short of this rational ideal.

This SHOULD be very, very, very obvious. It would have never occurred to me in 1,000 years that such a thing would be possible, just as I would never suspect that I could train my arms to become wings to take me to the sky. But such an idea is presented here as if it's attainable, if not already attained, and I had to fly to Australia to see for myself who these people were who, at least on paper, do a good job of selling the idea. In person, it's obvious they are as human as anyone (read: nowhere even close to being 100% rational robot, 0% passionate or emotional).

So, David wants to be rationally perfect, but is stuck being a human who can think LIKE a robot (which he does better than most), and exhibit mounds of self-control, but not BE a robot. And it's through this dichotomy that he has made observations about psychology. In addition to getting to dominate as teacher, it's these observations that allow him to continue to build categories around the subject of the infinite to keep himself entertained and his passion for "spirituality" alive (no emotion of course).

There is definitely something to be said for stepping back from emotions to see the All and gain consciousness of your definitions and categories. This doesn't mean you should try to become Mr. Spock. If you are among the few who is able to see the true nature of causation, that is enough. Not dedicating your life around it has nothing to do with being weak, or avoiding the pain of "reality", but only to do with being a monkey, and not a robot.

In other words, they just aren't reasonable values to have if you've had the experiences I've had. It's essentially a psychotic endevour when you take it too far like this. Is it any surprise that people from seriously fucked up histories often find themselves on this forum? It's a philosophy that, improperly taught, basically suggests that people give themselves a neurosis while attracting the people who already have one.

It's not that what David is saying is wrong, it's just that it's based on psychological theorizing. I find them interesting to read, and I recognize that the perspective makes some sense when you consider "ultimate reality". But it's certainly not the only perspective, and I don't pretend that it's something anyone can get anywhere close to achieving. Try this: Keep your head on your shoulders, but HAVE FUN. If you like fun, of course. If you like suffering, by all means... :)

[guest_of_logic]

Excellent post, Skip.

[Kelly Jones]

Skip,

This essentially seems to be the moral ideal of our QRS.

It's not enough for them just to recognize logical reality, they want to also overcome BEING HUMAN (or at least David seems to want this). He wants to have the attachments to life and rationality like a robot, but without the natural human needs for variation, entertainment, emotional exercise, etc. that we are conditioned to have (for better or worse). Until a time comes where we don't have mixtures of hormones running through our body, and thousands of years of biological and social conditioning, and we instead have a computer chip with 0's and 1's in our head, we can expect to fall short of this rational ideal.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. The fact that the body functions better with exercise, and the mind with variation, is obvious. All these things are biochemical. They're certainly human. No one is promoting that these things be abandoned, because that would be stupid and unnecessary.

What you're not understanding is the psychological consequences of understanding the nature of Reality: the evidence that you regard as impossible and inhuman. But that, in turn, is because you don't understand Reality. If one wishes to understand, one has to sacrifice the errors. There is no half-and-half.

.

[David Quinn]

It's definitely about values. Let's say there is a conscious computer or robot that has been programmed to never directly or purposely put itself in a situation that would cause the death of its consciousness, but otherwise made completely dispassionate judgments. And further, lets say it was only programmed to teach others how also to make completely dispassionate judgments. This would be a robot that could have attachments to life and to rationality, but not suffer the emotional consequences like a human would. This essentially seems to be the moral ideal of our QRS.

Given your idea that "logical consciousness" is nothing more than a dry intellectual template (of 1s and 0s), I can understand why you would say this. But you couldn't be further removed from the truth if you tried.

Far from becoming robotic, the immersion into wisdom is the very opposite. It is a very organic, magical, free-flowing thing. One expands into the marvelous fluidity of our true nature.

Like Laird and many others, you're continuing to mistake the ladder or the scaffolding towards wisdom for wisdom itself. In your case, you have been using the scaffolding for the purpose of clearing space for a life of pleasure, and, in so doing, you have failed to see what the scaffolding is really for. (Laird just wants to bash the scaffolding down, as it casts a shadow over his elves).

It is true that clear, disciplined thought is needed to reach wisdom, but once you enter into wisdom, all that falls away. You don't need the ladder or the scaffolding anymore. Once you jump off from it, you're away.

This is why I find your comments to be extremely comical. You and Laird are still firmly holding onto what I have discarded long ago.

-

[skipair]

Given your idea that "logical consciousness" is nothing more than a dry intellectual template (of 1s and 0s), I can understand why you would say this. But you couldn't be further removed from the truth if you tried.

Far from becoming robotic, the immersion into wisdom is the very opposite. It is a very organic, magical, free-flowing thing. One expands into the marvelous fluidity of our true nature.

I 100% agree with wisdom and consciousness being very organic and amazing, at least in the beginning before one gets used to the new paradigm. It is not a dry, intellectual template of 0's and 1's. It is something you live and breathe.

What IS robotic is the idea of eradicating all signs of ego. Ego, aggression, the will to power is the human element. And while it can be pragmatized, there's no reason for me to think it can be erased.

[David Quinn]

Given your idea that "logical consciousness" is nothing more than a dry intellectual template (of 1s and 0s), I can understand why you would say this. But you couldn't be further removed from the truth if you tried.

Far from becoming robotic, the immersion into wisdom is the very opposite. It is a very organic, magical, free-flowing thing. One expands into the marvelous fluidity of our true nature.

I 100% agree with wisdom and consciousness being very organic and amazing, at least in the beginning before one gets used to the new paradigm.

Well, I wasn't really talking about the process of adapting to the scaffolding (although you're right, this can be organic and amazing in its own right), but rather of climbing to the very top of it and launching oneself into the Void. This wisdom of the Void doesn't have a paradigm. It is always too fluid, too fresh and too immediate to be cloaked within a paradigm. One can only adapt to its rawness by eliminating every inner need to grasp at paradigms - which, in essence, means eliminating the ego.

What IS robotic is the idea of eradicating all signs of ego. Ego, aggression, the will to power is the human element. And while it can be pragmatized, there's no reason for me to think it can be erased.

Then this is the same as saying that no one can become truly free within the Infinite. Are you really prepared to make such a statement?

-

[Loki]

What IS robotic is the idea of eradicating all signs of ego. Ego, aggression, the will to power is the human element. And while it can be pragmatized, there's no reason for me to think it can be erased.

Then this is the same as saying that no one can become truly free within the Infinite. Are you really prepared to make such a statement?

Aren't we already in the infinite, all of us? It's not about becoming, it's about realizing what you already are, and after you make the realization, you still need to live in illusions. You have to treat "things" as if they are real. For instance, when I cross the street, I have to value ideas like "life as separate from death" or a "speeding car separate from my organism", otherwise I would obliviously walk into the street without paying heed to the car, and get hit. Getting hit by a car, in the big picture, is no better or worse than not getting hit by a car, but is that really the consciousness you want to abide in all the time? If so, you wouldn't survive very long.

The only way to be truly be free in the infinite is to be utterly mindless and dead. Otherwise, you have to live in a world of illusion, and treat those illusions as real.

[skipair]

Well, I wasn't really talking about the process of adapting to the scaffolding (although you're right, this can be organic and amazing in its own right), but rather of climbing to the very top of it and launching oneself into the Void. This wisdom of the Void doesn't have a paradigm. It is always too fluid, too fresh and too immediate to be cloaked within a paradigm. One can only adapt to its rawness by eliminating every inner need to grasp at paradigms - which, in essence, means eliminating the ego.

True, the void doesn't have any beliefs to strictly qualify as a paradigm, but like "void" or "emptiness" I of course need to use some word to describe it. It's anything and everything. I remember once you described it as both infinitely light and infinitely heavy at the same time, which is one of the best descriptions IMO.

But living in that space is not something I'm interested in always keeping around, and from my experience, a human is just not set up to keep it even if he wanted to. I think there are always emotions involved, particularly regarding instincts for personal survival and the specific things a person ends up valuing that cause lapses in remembering it.

I support the forum whole-heartedly in encouraging people to discover their experience of truth in whatever way they can. Also in my mind one can work with the lapses and not consider them unwanted, but to make something beautiful out of them.

I think you are an amazing man for believing it's possible to be 100% engulfed in the infinite at all times.

[David Quinn]

What about the possibility of slowly growing into it?

-

[Nick]

I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm basically just wondering why the idea that there is no ultimate purpose is so important to you.

Until a time comes where we don't have mixtures of hormones running through our body, and thousands of years of biological and social conditioning, and we instead have a computer chip with 0's and 1's in our head, we can expect to fall short of this rational ideal.

I don't know if a computer with 0's and 1's running through it's "brain" would be any more capable at sustaining perfectly enlightened consciousness any more than a human can.

and I had to fly to Australia to see for myself who these people were who, at least on paper, do a good job of selling the idea.

Hm, I thought you lived in Australia. Where do you live? I also recall you saying that you lived in a tent or something, so how the hell did you afford the flight? Or, didn't you say you worked for an airline? If so I imagine discount ticket prices are one of the job perks.

In person, it's obvious they are as human as anyone (read: nowhere even close to being 100% rational robot, 0% passionate or emotional).

That's cool. :)

So, David wants to be rationally perfect, but is stuck being a human who can think LIKE a robot (which he does better than most), and exhibit mounds of self-control, but not BE a robot. And it's through this dichotomy that he has made observations about psychology. In addition to getting to dominate as teacher, it's these observations that allow him to continue to build categories around the subject of the infinite to keep himself entertained and his passion for "spirituality" alive (no emotion of course).

Nobody ever said the truth can't be fun! Realizing the truth was probably the most intense and exciting experience in my life.

There is definitely something to be said for stepping back from emotions to see the All and gain consciousness of your definitions and categories. This doesn't mean you should try to become Mr. Spock. If you are among the few who is able to see the true nature of causation, that is enough. Not dedicating your life around it has nothing to do with being weak, or avoiding the pain of "reality", but only to do with being a monkey, and not a robot.

Well in this sense, it would depend on what you value if it can be called weakness or not, but I'm not really talking about that. What I am saying is that when we look at things objectively and honestly, we have to say that any thought, action, or behavior that isn't based around what we know to be true is delusional. It's just the fact of the matter. It has nothing to do with morals, values, ethics, or anything else like that.

It's like being in a dark room, and instead turning the light on so we can see where we're going, we continue to walk around in the dark because it's more fun and exciting to see how far we can go before we run into something. So even if you value the excitement of the dark more than being able to see what's actually around you, it's still fair to say that this kind of behavior is a little crazy.

In other words, they just aren't reasonable values to have if you've had the experiences I've had.

That's cool. Nobody is trying to force their values on you. I think you're being a bit too defensive.

It's essentially a psychotic endevour when you take it too far like this. Is it any surprise that people from seriously fucked up histories often find themselves on this forum? It's a philosophy that, improperly taught, basically suggests that people give themselves a neurosis while attracting the people who already have one.

Everything outside of mainstream society attracts a disproportionate amount of crazys compared to the things within mainstream society, so it doesn't really surprise me that people with fucked up histories hang out here seeing as this forum is way outside the mainstream. How did you end up here?

I don't pretend that it's something anyone can get anywhere close to achieving.

I think this is something you can only speak for yourself on.

Try this: Keep your head on your shoulders, but HAVE FUN.

I do.

If you like fun, of course.

I certainly enjoy having fun, but it's just not always the most important thing to me.

If you like suffering, by all means... :)

I definitely don't like suffering, but sometimes when something is really important to me, I can deal with it to a certain extent.

[Nick]

The only way to be truly be free in the infinite is to be utterly mindless and dead. Otherwise, you have to live in a world of illusion, and treat those illusions as real.

Everything is real, just not inherently. Understanding this difference is what allows one to live wisely and see things as they truly are, or as you described it, "truly free in the infinite". You certainly don't have to be dead to do this. In fact, if you're dead, you're not going to see anything at all, wise or not.

[Nick]

The only context I know is that of reason.

I don't think you fully understand what context means, and locking yourself into one and calling it "the context of reason" is not wise. Being wise is about understanding the nature of all context to freely and effortlessly glide between and deal with them.

I don't care for anything else.

Then like I said, you're just talking to yourself, and there's no reason I can see for you to be on a discussion forum.

[jupiviv]

I don't think you fully understand what context means, and locking yourself into one and calling it "the context of reason" is not wise.

In what context are you saying this? If it's a different one from my own context, then you're not in context and therefore what you say is invalid.

That is the problem with your argument. You're saying one thing, and doing something else. You're criticising me for being trapped in my own context, while being trapped in your own context. I defined my terms in what I said about sex, and based my conclusions on those terms. If you have any problems with those definitions, or the conclusions, then that's another matter. But the question of being out of context is not valid here.

Being wise is about understanding the nature of all context to freely and effortlessly glide between and deal with them.

Exactly. It involves understanding the NATURE of all contexts, but a wise person never thinks about things in the context of a foolish person, or he wouldn't be wise.

[Nick]

I don't think you fully understand what context means, and locking yourself into one and calling it "the context of reason" is not wise.

In what context are you saying this?

The context of the discussion, duh. You might want to try it some time if you want to have a meaningful discussion with anyone about anything at all, otherwise don't bother.

If it's a different one from my own context, then you're not in context and therefore what you say is invalid.

Yeah, I think you've made it abundantly clear that's how you operate.

That is the problem with your argument. You're saying one thing, and doing something else. You're criticising me for being trapped in my own context, while being trapped in your own context.

You're the one who said, (several times I might add) that you don't care to discuss things in any other context than the one you imagine it to be. I'm just telling you why "discussing", (and I use that term very loosely here) things in that manner is not intelligent or wise.

I defined my terms in what I said about sex, and based my conclusions on those terms. If you have any problems with those definitions, or the conclusions, then that's another matter. But the question of being out of context is not valid here.

See this is why I don't think you really understand the importance of context, or what it even means in the first place. You think that coming into a discussion using the same terms as other people, but with different definitions, is enough to stay within the context of that discussion. In actuality you're talking about something completely different from what was initially being discussed, and this is why I say you're just talking to yourself. It's foolish, often disrespectful, and shows a lack of perspective.

Exactly. It involves understanding the NATURE of all contexts, but a wise person never thinks about things in the context of a foolish person, or he wouldn't be wise.

First of all, to be clear, it doesn't make any sense to refer to context as wise or foolish. Context is simply the limits of what is and is not relevant to a situation or discussion. So when you jump into a discussion using terms defined in a way that makes them irrelevant (out of context) to the discussion, you're the one acting a fool.

Secondly, the idea of "thinking in the context of a foolish person" doesn't really make any sense either. What I think you mean, and what you're actually doing is wrongly equating the idea of thinking about things within the same context as a person you believe to be foolish, with actually being foolish. Well, in fact, it's a sign of wisdom if one is capable of thinking within the context that the foolish person is, or indeed any person at all, so you can understand them better, relate to them, and hopefully have a beneficial outcome to the discussion. It's also a sign of wisdom if one can think like other people without getting stuck in their mindset, but as I said earlier this requires great mental flexibility. That you think this very conscious, intelligent, and effective way of discussing things makes someone not wise is very foolish of you.

"The man of genius is he who understands incomparably more other beings than the average man. Goethe is said to have said of himself that there was no vice or crime of which he could not trace the tendency in himself, and that at some period of his life he could not have understood fully. The genius, therefore, is a more complicated, more richly endowed, more varied man; and a man is the closer to being a genius the more men he has in his personality, and the more really and strongly he has these others within him. If comprehension of those about him only flickers in him like a poor candle, then he is unable, like the great poet, to kindle a mighty flame in his heroes, to give distinction and character to his creations. The ideal of an artistic genius is to live in all men, to lose himself in all men, to reveal himself in multitudes; and so also the aim of the philosopher is to discover all others in himself, to fuse them into a unit which is his own unit".

"The ideal genius, who has all men within him, has also all their preferences and all their dislikes. There is in him not only the universality of men, but of all nature. He is the man to whom all things tell their secrets, to whom most happens, and whom least escapes. He understands most things, and those most deeply, because he has the greatest number of things to contrast and compare them with. The genius is he who is conscious of most, and of that most acutely. And so without doubt his sensations must be most acute; but this must not be understood as implying, say, in the artist the keenest power of vision, in the composer the most acute hearing; the measure of genius is not to be taken from the acuteness of the sense organ but from that of the perceiving brain".

- Otto Weininger

[jupiviv]

I don't think you fully understand what context means, and locking yourself into one and calling it "the context of reason" is not wise.

In what context are you saying this?

The context of the discussion, duh. You might want to try it some time if you want to have a meaningful discussion with anyone about anything at all, otherwise don't bother.

Well my comments about sex and rape are also within the context of the discussion that was going on. I don't know what the problem is.

If it's a different one from my own context, then you're not in context and therefore what you say is invalid.

Yeah, I think you've made it abundantly clear that's how you operate.

No, that's how you operate, as you have abundantly demonstrated. See, this won't get anywhere if we keep on like this.

You're the one who said, (several times I might add) that you don't care to discuss things in any other context than the one you imagine it to be. I'm just telling you why "discussing", (and I use that term very loosely here) things in that manner is not intelligent or wise.

No, I said that I don't care discussing it in any other context other than that of reason. If someone is discussing something in the context of emotions, then I would either try to change the context, or not engage in the discussions. I think that's what any reasonable person would do.

You think that coming into a discussion using the same terms as other people, but with different definitions, is enough to stay within the context of that discussion.

If the definitions used by people are contrary to mine, then I would obviously come into the discussion with different definitions. In fact, debates exist because definitions are different. If everyone had the same definition, there wouldn't be any debates, by definition. Do you agree with that, or am I out of context again...?

In actuality you're talking about something completely different from what was initially being discussed, and this is why I say you're just talking to yourself.

Alright, I think you should actually read my posts. All my posts about sex, are about sex, not oranges or Hollywood movies. I'm not defining sex to be "something completely different" from what the other people discussing were defining it. The place where I differed in definition was defining "normal" sex as consensual sex, and distinguishing it from rape on that basis. So I was very much within the context of the discussion. I think your problem is with my outright rejection of a deep-rooted idea. So instead of blaming me for not being in context, try thinking about what I said.

First of all, to be clear, it doesn't make any sense to refer to context as wise or foolish. Context is simply the limits of what is and is not relevant to a situation or discussion. So when you jump into a discussion using terms defined in a way that makes them irrelevant (out of context) to the discussion, you're the one acting a fool.

If a discussion is a carried out on whether red or green nail polish is more moral, then that is a foolish context to my mind. A knife is relevant to murdering a person - can we not say whether that is wise or foolish?

What I think you mean, and what you're actually doing is wrongly equating the idea of thinking about things within the same context as a person you believe to be foolish, with actually being foolish.

A wise person may know what the context of a foolish person is, but he himself doesn't think within that context, or he wouldn't be wise. I know that people see things as inherently existing(their context), but I myself never see things as inherently existing. I can't have two contexts at the same time. At best I can know that there are other contexts. That was what Weininger meant when he said that geniuses have all men within them. What you are talking about(trying to think in all contexts) is what Weininger would call "Judaism."

[skipair]

What about the possibility of slowly growing into it?

I think it's possible to the degree a person can care about nothing at all and still stay alive.

I don't think it's possible, unless it's a robot, to have goals and values and not care about them to some degree. And this causes lapses from those experiences of total infinite freedom.

There are two lifestyles that seem to minimize the burden:

1) Be a hermit and float. Do things without any level of serious expectation for return.

2) Be incredibly busy and focused on many goals, so that if and when one collapses, there's simply no time for a downfall.

[skipair]

I'm basically just wondering why the idea that there is no ultimate purpose is so important to you.

I find it important that causation proves no universal morality. To me it's a guiding light in terms of being a reference point for how I take action. All values including truth are brought down to ground zero in inherent importance. I can be a total self-creator.

I don't know if a computer with 0's and 1's running through it's "brain" would be any more capable at sustaining perfectly enlightened consciousness any more than a human can.

Sure, maybe not, but it does a good job of characterizing emotionless, passionless action.

Hm, I thought you lived in Australia. Where do you live? I also recall you saying that you lived in a tent or something, so how the hell did you afford the flight? Or, didn't you say you worked for an airline? If so I imagine discount ticket prices are one of the job perks.

I'm American, brah. Tu no sabes? I lived in a tent for a while on Hawaii to help save the ticket money and to have an adventure. I'm back east coast now. Will graduate undergrad in may, teach English in Korea and travel about. :)

Well in this sense, it would depend on what you value if it can be called weakness or not, but I'm not really talking about that. What I am saying is that when we look at things objectively and honestly, we have to say that any thought, action, or behavior that isn't based around what we know to be true is delusional. It's just the fact of the matter. It has nothing to do with morals, values, ethics, or anything else like that.

I'm not sure I follow here. Even though a direct experience of FEELING fully in the infinite comes and goes, the understanding is not something you can really forget. There's no such thing as a false thought or action in my mind. There is only a person who does things and has full awareness, and someone who doesn't have it yet.

This is what I meant by masculine emotions earlier. They might stretch out, but they are always connected and they always bounce back.