Emancipating Reality

[Kelly Jones]

Orenholt,

It is not pomposity, preposterous pride, religious dogmatism, condescending heroism or anything of the sort. It's my experience that prompts me to post very clear and emphatic warnings about the extreme demands of the path to enlightenment. It saves lots of unnecessary suffering and self-deceit. Most people simply aren't cut out for it. That's just how it is. To pretend otherwise is a grave disservice to them, as well as being false. What would be the point of entertaining you with the illusion of a nice wilderness jaunt among friends, only to find out, after all, that you must develop your own unique understanding without the thought-scaffoldings created by others --- since at that point, bereft of the entertainment, camraderie, and fun times, you'd quickly tire of it all, and just give up? What a waste of everyone's time.

No, far better that I be up front and point out the prerequisites, intellectual and psychological. Wisdom is an all-or-nothing endeavour, because it requires sacrifice of every false nook and cranny in one's reasoning. If one doesn't have that all-out passion for truth, but, instead be content to skip a couple of corners and believe you'll get there anyway, there's simply no way you'll taste the waters of that illimitable ocean for yourself. This is why I treat women with the justice they deserve. It pinches off a lot of bad habits right in the bud.

KJ: That there is no objective reality is about dismantling attachment to the view that the world of the senses is really "out there" beyond consciousness, instead of right here, where it has appeared.

O: Aren't you only saying that because it's impossible to travel beyond one's own consciousness?

No, it is a logical truth about the nature of Reality. It isn't a dualistic something, objective or subjective.

If you want I can link you to old posts I made on a different forum in 2006 that state some of my philosophical musings. But frankly your pomposity is turning me off.

Don't waste your efforts. It is not me you have to convince of your credentials. What you write today ought to be leaps and bound in advance of your thoughts seven years ago, if you're worth listening to. Yet you have already admitted you don't understand what is being said to you today. It's you who need to be putting your brains to work.

But why should you? What possible motivation could you possibly have for wanting to understand something that has no possible social or emotional advantages? It won't make your life easier. You won't get any respect or interest from your acquaintances or peers. You won't be a leader of a radical new movement. It won't earn you any money. It won't bring you any lasting emotional-romantic relationships. I find it hard to think what possible interest you could have in wanting to pay any attention to what is being said to you. But perhaps that's why you can't cross the barrier and understand.

The intellectual side isn't difficult, but it takes a commitment to wanting to be perfectly rational first. To seek ultimate truths. That's why women haven't got the right stuff. They don't want to make that effort of commitment. Why would they? The world is perfectly set up for their happiness, well-being and comfort just as it is. For a woman to abandon willingly this paradise of mental fog, for nothing but truth, is simply not the way their emotions will have it. As soon as things get difficult, they'd rather scream and rant at how difficult things are, and give up wallowing in their emotional same-old, same-old "paradise".


.

[Orenholt]

Orenholt,

It is not pomposity, preposterous pride, religious dogmatism, condescending heroism or anything of the sort. It's my experience that prompts me to post very clear and emphatic warnings about the extreme demands of the path to enlightenment. It saves lots of unnecessary suffering and self-deceit. Most people simply aren't cut out for it. That's just how it is. To pretend otherwise is a grave disservice to them, as well as being false. What would be the point of entertaining you with the illusion of a nice wilderness jaunt among friends, only to find out, after all, that you must develop your own unique understanding without the thought-scaffoldings created by others --- since at that point, bereft of the entertainment, camraderie, and fun times, you'd quickly tire of it all, and just give up? What a waste of everyone's time.

Well there's still no reason to be condescending about it.

No, far better that I be up front and point out the prerequisites, intellectual and psychological. Wisdom is an all-or-nothing endeavour, because it requires sacrifice of every false nook and cranny in one's reasoning. If one doesn't have that all-out passion for truth, but, instead be content to skip a couple of corners and believe you'll get there anyway, there's simply no way you'll taste the waters of that illimitable ocean for yourself. This is why I treat women with the justice they deserve. It pinches off a lot of bad habits right in the bud.

You don't even know what true justice is, do you?

Don't waste your efforts. It is not me you have to convince of your credentials. What you write today ought to be leaps and bound in advance of your thoughts seven years ago, if you're worth listening to. Yet you have already admitted you don't understand what is being said to you today. It's you who need to be putting your brains to work.

What better way to get a thorough understanding than to ask lots of questions? I do contemplate what I'm told but if it's all going under the wrong file then it's not going to be of much use to me.

But why should you? What possible motivation could you possibly have for wanting to understand something that has no possible social or emotional advantages? It won't make your life easier. You won't get any respect or interest from your acquaintances or peers. You won't be a leader of a radical new movement. It won't earn you any money. It won't bring you any lasting emotional-romantic relationships. I find it hard to think what possible interest you could have in wanting to pay any attention to what is being said to you. But perhaps that's why you can't cross the barrier and understand.

Well what's the reason you do it?

The intellectual side isn't difficult, but it takes a commitment to wanting to be perfectly rational first. To seek ultimate truths. That's why women haven't got the right stuff. They don't want to make that effort of commitment. Why would they? The world is perfectly set up for their happiness, well-being and comfort just as it is. For a woman to abandon willingly this paradise of mental fog, for nothing but truth, is simply not the way their emotions will have it. As soon as things get difficult, they'd rather scream and rant at how difficult things are, and give up wallowing in their emotional same-old, same-old "paradise".

Women? Or "woman"?
I'd like to know which one you mean because you do come off as some terribly sexist Uncle Tom.

[Getoriks]

Higher learning does not take place when the student might expect it, but when the conditions are right, when the fruit is ripe. The trick is knowing when to treat what you are learning like you are viewing a rainbow -- not something to grasp at and be absolutely certain of, but something to witness in wonder, when to grab hold of it with an iron grip which comes along with absolute certainty, and when to once more let go!

On the contrary, Orenholt needs to develop a burning, insatiable, uncompromising desire for perfectly logical reasoning, absolute certainty, crystal-clear concepts and ultimate horizons. Telling her that concepts are fuzzy and interchangeable, that she should let the process occur randomly and by chance, and that she shouldn't get her teeth tightly clenched into a set of ideas, is definitely a misjudgment of where she's at. She is nowhere near ripe for infinite-mindedness, because her thinking is too foggy to appreciate it. She'll only patter happily away into post-modernism. Do you really think she has the muscle required for taking heaven by storm, and beating God into submission? Nothing else will do here. She has to be single-minded and go at it with all possible energy, because she is a female, and butterfly-mind will be her ongoing enemy.

Only when she has actually climbed the hundred-foot-pole, will she be ready to fly. Personally, I think the odds are stacked way against her, and I don't think you're helping in that regard.

True, Kelly. I don't think we're in disagreement here. She definitely should "get her teeth tightly clenched into a set of ideas" as to get into the second stage where she may "grab hold of it with an iron grip which comes along with absolute certainty". She is still in the aesthetic (not ascetic), and will slip into postmodernism and agnosticism and mediocrity if she does not keep striving with all her might to eventually break into the philosophical, if God wills it.

My point is that if one does not first develop fully in the aesthetic stage, they will never come to find truth to be the most beautiful thing of all, and will not have the super human motivation toward truth, the sweeping passion for truth, the epic love of truth that is required to seek it no matter what the cost. Of course, the danger with suggesting that one should develop their capacity to be passionate and to appreciate beauty is that one could just get stuck in and stagnate in it, and not move onward into the philosophical.

[Getoriks]

Defining of terms is critical to exchanging information / concepts. Yes knowledge can limit the accuracy of definitions, or better words might need to be created.

Well, yeah, that's exactly what I said. I mean, did you even read what I wrote? You're proving to be as bad as Orenholt in this regard.

The use of such adjectives (wise, genius, etc.) in discussions has no honest purpose, and is nothing more then an added supposition used to add weight without substance. The function is as follows: A wise person said this - oh then who are we (or I) to disagree?

No, that's not at all the function.

The "throughout the ages " is also just as dishonest. Through out the ages people have believed in gods.

Sorry mate, wise persons (the ONLY kinds of person who matter) throughout the ages have NEVER believed in gods.

The amount of time in which people practice, believe, or use anything, is not a validation. Validity is a matter of accuracy, in adherence to reality.

Well, of course. Which is why I never claimed it to be a validation. You simply inferred that.

[oxytocinNA]

if anyone here is knowledgeable about the names given to these faulty argumentative techniques

Logical Fallacies, like "Appeal to Authority"?

Yes

This is the reason that throughout the ages, wise persons have used different definitions of mind, of ego, of self, two different definitions of truth, two definitions of existence, have differentiated between Being and Existence, and between Reality, Being, and Existence. It's all about gaining the understanding, about seeing what is being pointed to.

So if the underlined were replaced with "people" there would be no extra inference - experts though ages (these are inferring).

I am being picky Getoriks.

My motivation: I have been around a while and watched how much people use faulty argumentative tactic. Some without bad intention - others with.
If people (dare I dream - most people - on the entire planet) educate themselves to the strict rules of argument (learn all the inappropriate techniques and discipline themselves not to use them), they will force others, and themselves, to a higher standard of exchange.
Example of why this is important: Where I come from politics is all about sound byte and ad hominem attacks, context dropping, appeals to emotion, appeals to authority, etc. All designed to avoid having to discuss actual policies. They want people to be ignorant (no doubt the same around the world - to varying degrees). This is the only way to potentially remove the emperor's new clothing, if you will. It is much tougher for those of bad intent to do what they want to do if they can't hide behind rhetoric, sound bytes, etc.
The way to a better world is through savvier people.

[Getoriks]

I don't think you're being picky at all. I highly recommend stripping down facades, peeling away at fancy barriers, seeing through eloquent posturings the fools and madmen that hide behind, overcoming myths, questioning authority figures, deconstruction, heresy, apostasy, and just plain curiosity. All of these things are the mark of an individual -- and it takes an individual to become wise. Rather, I think you're taking what I said out of context. See, I wasn't making the "argument" that "since 'wise' persons have always done something in X manner, then X manner must be the 'wise' and 'correct' manner of doing things". I agree, that would be an appeal to authority, and quite silly, and unethical of me. Instead, I was simply saying that spiritual teachers have changed their teachings according to the time, place, culture, and the needs of the individual student -- that is, teaching isn't about sticking to some fixed system, but doing what ever it takes to assist -- assist, because the student has to do the work themselves -- the student to realize that what they hold as sound truth is really just uninformed conjecture, that what they see as reality is really just an imagining, and to open up the student's mind to the wondrous Reality of the Infinite.

[Bobo]

Actually you have said that wise persons have used different definitions and still did not disagreed about reality. And if someone do not agree with that they are someone who doesn't matter.

[AarongamerX]

mewtwo is a paradox.