To The Mystical Geniuses

[Cory Duchesne]

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?

Cory: It depends on what you value.


Sapius: That is what I have been telling you, and here it seems that you know it too, so how come one value is superior than another if any and all values are eventually a product of causality?


Cory: Do you value having values? Is it better for humans to have no values or to have values?


Sapius: As a conscious thing, each and every reaction is necessarily a value judgment.

That is not clear to me. Don’t animals react without value judgment? Are you suggesting that animals have values? ‘Relatively’ conscious things do react without value judgment, as far as I can tell.

But maybe you are just referring to humans. But even humans can act without values. Babies, toddlers and very young children are a good example of that.

Simply understanding this overwhelms me. Could I ever be otherwise even if I wanted to?

If you want to be something other than what you are, than that very wanting is involuntary. So no, you can’t be otherwise. In the big picture, choice doesn’t exist – but like I said before, dwelling on that thought can lead to fatalism. So I am aware of the sort of fatalistic, nihilistic sort of defeated stupor one can fall into if they dwell on the lack of free will, and so that very awareness is free from the limitation of merely those thoughts.

Sapius: So, if I say that I do not value values, you think that that would not be a value judgment?

Perhaps it is possible to not value values, but what would such a human being look like? His action would be based on instinctive reactions. You might be able to train such a person to be a cashier, to drive a car, to pass a test - - but he would have to be forced and prodded into those situations. To have a will is to have values of which are prioritized in a hierarchical fashion. Some values will take precedence over others, and this is because the ego, the self values deems some activities as superior to others. A sage for instance will prioritize his life around what he believes is the truth and that is because he deems being truthful as the most superior thing.

Sapius: I am talking form the perspective of A=A which is entrenched in consciousness itself, not personal preferential values as compared to another.

Personal preferential values are the foundation from which you talk from the perspective of A=A. That is why philosophers like Kieerkguaard assert the importance of the individual. If it wasn’t for values (prioritizing life based on notions of superior and inferior) then we could not become conscious.

What is more valuable than being a logically conscious thing capable of valuing among other things? I value the conscious ‘I’.

Ok, so you believe that the conscious ‘I’ is superior to submitting to the values of everyone else. Fair enough.

[Steven Coyle]

Love is a fleeting thing - whose sole purpose is to turn the infinite into the finite.

Human characteristics, such as "gentleness, being open, being patient, understanding . . ." are good traits.

[Cory Duchesne]

Steven wrote:

Human characteristics, such as "gentleness, being open, being patient, understanding . . ." are good traits.

Yes, I've come to consciously value those qualities. When I deal with people in person I can hardly remember ever being too vicious. A few times I was a dickhead maybe.

I find messageboards are a great place to learn about yourself. I've discovered how much of a dickhead I really am. I've discovered how much I enjoy being a dickhead, but also how disgusted I become about it.

On messageboards there is the tendency to talk to people in a way that you never could get away with in real life.

It's much easier to be cruel on a message board because its easier to be cruel to people that you don't have to deal with in person and on a daily basis.

However, there is a difference between cruelty and hatred.

Hatred (for oneself and for others) can be usefull in that it can drive this immature being away from what is bad and work toward investigating truth, but eventually one should not allow hatred to taint ones words.

If one can't speak with heart, one should not speak.

However, too much gentleness and sympathy can really be a mask hanging over the fear of hurting others.

Sometimes hurting others is neccesary in order to help them grow. But sadisticaly deriving enjoyment from bullying the weak is vulgar and weak hearted.

Personally, I have indeed indulged in malice.

I think that is because 1) the tendency is inherent in my poor brain, and 2) that tendency has been excarberated by being on the recieving end of such treatment in the past.

For example:

My grandmothers dog is quite friendly and is indifferent to the cats that it shares the house with. the other day I watched my aunt clip this dogs nails. It was yelping in fear and pain (even though It probably didnt hurt a bit). It was stricken with anxiety because it felt violated and harmed.

When it was all over, the dog stood in the corner under the table. Only a minute later one of the cats walk by the dog.

The dog snapped at the cat quite viciously.

I'm guessing that the aggressive and vicious tendency was already within the dog, but being violated by my aunt
brought that tendency to the surface and the dog unleashed his aggression on something he felt confident that he could intimitate, rather than on the person who originally violated him.

So humans, because they come from animals, do have innate vicious tendencies which they usually unleash only on those who they feel they can succesfully dominate, but I think that they would hardly be activiated if humans did not experience the sensation of being violated and humilated in previous experiences.

But I maintain, hurting others is neccesary in the 'emperors new clothes' sense.

It is correct to point out a persons foolishness, but to do so without malice and with good heart requires a quality of heart that few have.

There may be some who feel that sadism is always perfectly justified, and that people get what they deserve.

But I don't believe this.

Some say: 'what doesnt kill you can only make you stronger'.

I dont believe this is always true. So, I'm more careful in what I choose to say to people these days.

[Steven Coyle]

You've uncovered within yourself what Nietzsche was overcome by in his Abyss [witnessing an animal being crueling treated].

[cue applause sign]

I decided to speak out against Milli because it was part of today's DNA script. I suppress being assertive, and saw an opportunity to express myself. Maybe we both benefit.

If you value the conscious 'I' alone, you only value the truth.

[millipodium]

You've uncovered within yourself what Nietzsche was overcome by in his Abyss [witnessing an animal being crueling treated].

[cue applause sign]

I decided to speak out against Milli because it was part of today's DNA script. I suppress being assertive, and saw an opportunity to express myself. Maybe we both benefit.

If you value the conscious 'I' alone, you only value the truth.

Well Steven, I'm happy to get the wallflowers on their feet and boogeying.

[Steven Coyle]

Thanks Milli.

(And thanks to Phish Radio)

:)

[Sapius]

Cory,

Sapius: As a conscious thing, each and every reaction is necessarily a value judgment.

Cory: That is not clear to me.

I shall get back tomorrow.

For now, I include all things one could consider to have the least amount of consciousness.

When talking in terms of A=A, value has a more vast and deeper meaning than conceptual values.

[Sapius]

Cory,

Don’t animals react without value judgment?

No, every reaction of any conscious thing is necessarily based in recognition - differentiation - reaction, where a preferred choice is made over another, hence a value judgment.

Are you suggesting that animals have values?

No, they don't have "values" as YOU do because of your higher cognitive and linguistic capabilities, but nevertheless, their instinctual capabilities work through 'logic' = recognition - differentiation - reaction.

‘Relatively’ conscious things do react without value judgment, as far as I can tell.

Yes they do, it is also called survival of the fittest. Each and every thing strives for the better option at any given moment, making a choice based on its own level of judgment.

But maybe you are just referring to humans. But even humans can act without values. Babies, toddlers and very young children are a good example of that.

I think the above should clarify that it is not me but you, who is limiting value judgments taken by any conscious thing, to human "Values" based in conceptual value based judgments. Further more, our conceptual value based judgments are but an extension of A=A based value judgments, the most basic ingredient of consciousness, irrelevant of human capabilities.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sapius wrote:

Cory: 'Relatively’ conscious (animals) things do not react with value judgments, as far as I can tell.

Sapius: Yes they do, it is also called survival of the fittest. Each and every thing strives for the better option at any given moment, making a choice based on its own level of judgment.

Animals are relatively conscious, but not conscious enough to improve themselves morally and intellectually by weighing and considering empirical data. That is what I meant by values.

That sort of consciousness is what makes human beings distinct from the other animals. We have the sort of consciousness that allows us to consciously improve ourselves through our values.

Besides, if you admit that all consciousness is functioning on the level of value judgement in order to strive for the better, then what's the problem with me saying that I believe what I am doing is best?

Is it even possible to do otherwise unless you are brain damaged, in comotose?

Sapius: I think the above should clarify that it is not me but you who is limiting value judgments taken by any conscious thing to human "Values" based in conceptual value based judgments. Further more, our conceptual value based judgments are but an extension of A=A based value judgments, the most basic ingredient of consciousness, irrelevant of human capabilities.

Fine.

Animals strive to be superior. Humans strive to be superior.

[sky]

sapius

As far as I go, I don’t find anything “mystical” as such, and the word ‘genius’ breeds in pride, strengthening a false ego, so I prefer to stay away from it.

oh good i did not see the 'mystical' so i was wondering

i agree 'genius' tends to the egoistic

humble is good in fact it is great

one of my favorites from the i ching

hexagram 62

'Thus the superior man derives an imperative from this image: he must always fix his eyes more closely and more directly on duty than does the ordinary man, even though this might make his behavior seem petty to the outside world. He is exceptionally conscientious in his actions. In bereavement emotion means more to him than ceremoniousness. In all his personal expenditures he is extremely simple and unpretentious. In comparison with the man of the masses, all this makes him stand out as exceptional. But the essential significance of his attitude lies in the fact that in external matters he is on the side of the lowly. '

[Cory Duchesne]

Sapius,

Moreover,

Animals (with the exception of maybe a few) operate only on a level of unconscious addiction, whereas some humans, because of their values, and able to restrain themselves from what they initially desire to do.

My dog for instance seems to prefer paritcular foods over others. But it is not that he makes a value judgement in order to improve himself - -- he is just plain addicted. Genetically addicted.

Many humans don't have values, but instead live like animals.

It's not that they value sex, gambling, power, flattery, alcohol, being rude, sadistic - - they are addicted to such pleasures.

If they claim to value such vices, that value is just a superficial cover up of the fact that they are being controlled by the lowest part of them, the part that doesnt have values.

Values imply restraining oneself in the face of pleasure. Values imply suffering voluntary.

No animal does that, and that is because they are not capable of value judgements in the sense that I was talking about.

[millipodium]

sapius

As far as I go, I don’t find anything “mystical” as such, and the word ‘genius’ breeds in pride, strengthening a false ego, so I prefer to stay away from it.

oh good i did not see the 'mystical' so i was wondering

i agree 'genius' tends to the egoistic

humble is good in fact it is great

one of my favorites from the i ching

hexagram 62

'Thus the superior man derives an imperative from this image: he must always fix his eyes more closely and more directly on duty than does the ordinary man, even though this might make his behavior seem petty to the outside world. He is exceptionally conscientious in his actions. In bereavement emotion means more to him than ceremoniousness. In all his personal expenditures he is extremely simple and unpretentious. In comparison with the man of the masses, all this makes him stand out as exceptional. But the essential significance of his attitude lies in the fact that in external matters he is on the side of the lowly. '

I call it mysticism because the philosophies here are simply mishmashed pastiches of words that ultimately are vague, misdefined, and lack critical analysis, similar to shamanic utterances of old, and the New Age "Crap thought" of today.

[Sapius]

Cory,

No animal does that, and that is because they are not capable of value judgements in the sense that I was talking about.

I know they are not capable of “value judgments” in the sense that you mean, but I though you knew what I was talking about, which goes much deeper than a comparison created through pride, which a false-ego thrives on.

It is from the point of view of an individual intellectual thing that sees things as better or worst, which is of course natural too, but if one can step out of his shoes, conceptually that is, and see it from the point of view of causality, then his false pride, or his complete false-ego is shattered, leaving clear unbiased reactions, which can be achieved through reasoning.

I was talking about the core nature of where any and all reactions emerge from, be it instinctual or intellectual. Intellectual conclusions are as valid as any other, but not necessarily “superior” than another, that is IF, you can see the blind causality at play at the core of it all, otherwise, one can boost his false-ego to any extant one wants to, believing in the reality of his-self alone, and not accepting that ALL that there is, is reality, and that all is not “I”, for then I would not KNOW the “I” itself.

It’s a matter of choice of words too; if ‘superior’ is what your conclusions are, then so be it, but there could be nothing superior nor inferior if one can see the reality of existence of it ALL, in an absolute sense.

I do not consider what I say as superior, but just an observation of what 'superiority' could really mean, and in my book, it means disregarding all that which it is lead from, and all that it leads to. I'm looking at the whole system itself, and I realize that it is no more than a system that gives rise to the "I", any "I" for that matter, and the system is causality.

This line of thinking does not make the comparative world disappear, but simply changes the perspective and how one reacts without introducing personal self-centered biasness, for I know that my personality cannot exist without every other thing that is not me, so how un-valuable or inferior is all that that is not “I”? And hence, what is superior or inferior as far as all existence is concerned, which includes the 'I' and all that is not 'I'?

[Cory Duchesne]

Sapius wrote:

I know they are not capable of “value judgments” in the sense that you mean, but I though you knew what I was talking about, which goes much deeper than a comparison created through pride, which a false-ego thrives on.

In other words, you were talking about something much more superior in comparison to the level that I was on. ;)

Sapius: It is from the point of view of an individual intellectual thing that sees things as better or worst, which is of course natural too, but if one can step out of his shoes, conceptually that is, and see it from the point of view of causality, then his false pride, or his complete false-ego is shattered, leaving clear unbiased reactions, which can be achieved through reasoning.

Yes, those clear, ‘superior’, unbiased reactions, which can be achieved through the ‘superiority’ of reasoning.

You say ‘false’-pride. Is there true pride?

Sapius: I was talking about the core nature of where any and all reactions emerge from, be it instinctual or intellectual. Intellectual conclusions are as valid as any other,

This is not true. Some intellectual conclusions are more valid than others. Einstiens intellectual conclusions undermined the Newtonian paradigm of his day.

B.F Skinner came to some very intellectual conclusions, some of which still stand, however, many of B.F Skinner’s intellectual conclusions have been undermined by the more valid conclusions of Noam Chomsky.

Aquinas and Augustine each had a conception of a Monotheistic God that was quite intellectual, however David Hume deflated both their theories quite effectively and irrefutably.

Sapius: It’s a matter of choice of words too; if ‘superior’ is what your conclusions are, then so be it, but there could be nothing superior nor inferior if one can see the reality of existence of it ALL, in an absolute sense.

This ‘absolute sense’ is apparently a superior sense. Otherwise, why do you value and emphasize it?

Sapius: I do not consider what I say as superior, but just an observation of what 'superiority' could really mean, and in my book, it means disregarding all that which it is lead from, and all that it leads to. I'm looking at the whole system itself

Yes, you are doing the more superior thing.

Sapius: I realize that it is no more than a system that gives rise to the "I", any "I" for that matter, and the system is causality.

Ok you realized. Big deal. So what? According to your logic it doesn’t matter what you realize, its no more superior than what I have not realized due to my self imposed limitations.

Sapius: This line of thinking does not make the comparative world disappear, but simply changes the perspective and how one reacts without introducing personal self-centered biasness, for I know that my personality cannot exist without every other thing that is not me, so how un-valuable or inferior is all that that is not “I”?

Your existence does not depend on the local casino or the city brothel. It is perfectly correct to consider yourself above that sort of behavior. If they were illegalized, you would still exist. It is wrong to think that who you are depends on what you see as below you. For example, if I were to suddenly wake up and realize the truth of what you are saying and thus totally agree with you, would you cease to exist? No, you see my perspective as inferior, you try to reason with me, you try to make me see, and if I do, then I change.

Because I realized what you were saying Sapius, I am no longer trapped in my inferior ways and you Sapius continue to exist, and thus you may continue trying to win others to your superior view.

[Sapius]

Cory,

Your existence does not depend on the local casino or the city brothel.

Please speak for yourself my friend, mine does. In fact, I cannot see a thing that my existence may not be dependant on.

It is perfectly correct to consider yourself above that sort of behavior.

My moral behavior has nothing to do with my existence, in and of itself.

It is wrong to think that who you are depends on what you see as below you.

Ah! Here I agree, because that creates a sense of ‘superiority’. Hence I don’t see things as below, but around. I rather be humble than arrogant, but that’s me.

Have a nice day :)

[Cory Duchesne]

Sapius wrote:

I rather be humble than arrogant, but that’s me.

yes, you'd rather be superior than inferior.

:)

[Sapius]

Sapius wrote:

I rather be humble than arrogant, but that’s me.

yes, you'd rather be superior than inferior.

:)

I do respect your right to express what and how you perceive, Cory, but I don't have to agree. We are not one and the same thing after all.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sapius,

Why do you prefer being humble as opposed to being arrogant?

[Sapius]

Sapius,

Why do you prefer being humble as opposed to being arrogant?

That cannot be helped once one realizes the true nature of existence, and nothing remains essentially greater or smaller than a self that is dependant on utterly everything. What remain are mere reasoned differentiations, not discriminations.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sapius wrote:

Cory: why do you prefer being humble as opposed to being arrogant?

Sapius: that cannot be helped once one realizes the true nature of existence, and nothing remains essentially greater or smaller than a self that is dependant on utterly everything. What remains are mere reasoned differentiations, not discriminations.

Ok, so that puts a neat spin on things.

Rather than prefering to be humble, you can't help but be humble.

Is humility ever a preference? Or is it an involuntary characteristic that comes with realizaion?

And second,

what causes one to be arrogant?

[Sapius]

Cory,

Ok, so that puts a neat spin on things.

I’m glad you like it, however you do misunderstand it.

Rather than prefering to be humble, you can't help but be humble.

No, I cannot help but prefer to be humble.

Is humility ever a preference? Or is it an involuntary characteristic that comes with realizaion?

I think the above answers this question. One is lead through his reasoning to be whatever, and if someone else’s reasoning leads him to be otherwise, I have no complains as such. Being humble does not mean agreeing to unreasonable conclusions; at the end of the day all I can do is agree to disagree and save all the aggravation; how unreasonable is that?

And second,

what causes one to be arrogant?

His reasoning and conclusions thereof, as do mine to be whoever I am.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory: Rather than prefering to be humble, you can't help but be humble.


Sapius: No, I cannot help but prefer to be humble.

Is this preference you speak of, at essence, an emotional affair?

Cory: Is humility ever a preference? Or is it an involuntary characteristic that comes with realization?

Sapius: One is lead through his reasoning to be whatever

Hey, I thought you said that one is lead by ones preference?

Sapius: And if someone else’s reasoning leads him to be something other than myself, I have no complains as such.

Do you believe that a person ought to find meaning in his life by willing humanity to change?

Do you personally find meaning by trying to will others to change?

Sapius: Being humble does not mean agreeing to unreasonable conclusions;

What is the difference between an ‘unreasonable conclusion’ and an ‘inferior conclusion?’

Sapius: At the end of the day all I can do is agree to disagree and save all the aggravation; how unreasonable is that?

Why do you think it is wrong to be unreasonable? And what is wrong with being aggravated?

Are you implying that one way is better other ways?

[Sapius]

Cory,

Cory: Rather than prefering to be humble, you can't help but be humble.

Sapius: No, I cannot help but prefer to be humble.

Cory: Is this preference you speak of, at essence, an emotional affair?

No, a logical one.

Hey, I thought you said that one is lead by ones preference?

Yes, but are you saying a preference cannot be a reasoned one?

Sapius: And if someone else’s reasoning leads him to be something other than myself, I have no complains as such.

Cory: Do you believe that a person ought to find meaning in his life by willing humanity to change? Do you personally find meaning by trying to will others to change?

What do you mean by find meaning? One cannot operate without meaning, and my personal willing has nothing to do with how another mind operates; all I can do is offer reasons for my behavior.

What is the difference between an ‘unreasonable conclusion’ and an ‘inferior conclusion?’

Mentality.

Why do you think it is wrong to be unreasonable?

For then I would no longer consider myself a rational thing.

And what is wrong with being aggravated?

Unclear thinking, self mental torture, high blood pressure, heart attack, diabetes, etc.

Are you implying that one way is better other ways?

Implying? There is always one thing better than another according to ones own reasoning, but what has that got to do with ones attitude? If ‘superior’ is the word you reason to prefer, then so be it, enjoy. I only express my-self, and there is no compulsion on agreeing with me, or adapting my attitude.

I really don’t know where we are going with this, Cory? At this point I prefer to plan my trip coming up in a day or two. :)

[Cory Duchesne]

Sapius,

Cory: Rather than prefering to be humble, you can't help but be humble.

Sapius: No, I cannot help but prefer to be humble.

Cory: Is this preference you speak of, at essence, an emotional affair?

No, a logical one.

So does not this logical, reasoned preference that you speak of imply discrimination?

Discrimination over one thing in preference to another?

Cory: Hey, I thought you said that one is lead by ones preference?

Sapius: Yes, but are you saying a preference cannot be a reasoned one?

Are you not simply trying to say: ‘I prefer to reason’?

But why do you prefer to reason?

If you say that you can’t help but to prefer, then your action is involuntary, is it not?

You can't help but to prefer to reason, therefore your humility is involuntary.

Sapius: And if someone else’s reasoning leads him to be something other than myself, I have no complains as such.

Cory: Do you believe that a person ought to find meaning in his life by willing humanity to change? Do you personally find meaning by trying to will others to change?

Sapius: What do you mean by find meaning? One cannot operate without meaning

I said finding meaning BY willing others to change. However, I’m open to the possibility that one can function without meaning.

For instance - Sure, the words ‘fire’ and ‘water’ point to the phenomena of ‘fire’ and ‘water’ but the phenomenon of fire or water ultimately have no particular meaning in themselves - despite we may use signs (words) to point toward them.
The words have meanings yes, but the things that words point to don’t have meaning.

I don’t see why ones life necessarily has to have meaning in order for one to function.

Do you honestly think that animals need meaning in order to function?

Sapius: And my personal willing has nothing to do with how another mind operates; all I can do is offer reasons for my behavior.

Don’t those reasons, those offerings of yours effect the way other minds operate? And isn’t your behavior likewise, to some degree, the consequence, the effect of other minds?


Are you saying that you have never been influenced?

Cory: Why do you think it is wrong to be unreasonable?

Sapius: For then I would no longer consider myself a rational thing.

Why is it better to be a rational thing? Your preference to be a rational thing implies elitism, otherwise any old message board would do just fine for you.

But you associate yourself with people who share your values of what is better and for the most part ignore the ones who don’t. This is elitism.

Cory: And what is wrong with being aggravated?

Sapius: Unclear thinking, self mental torture, high blood pressure, heart attack, diabetes, etc.

Why are all those things worse? You seem to be implying that there is a better in contrast to a worse, and that one must discriminate the worse in order to be the better.

Cory: Are you implying that one way is better other ways?

Sapius: Implying? There is always one thing better than another according to ones own reasoning, but what has that got to do with ones attitude?

Are you asking what has ‘attitude’ got to do with ones reasoning? I can’t see how the two in anyway can be separable. How is it that they are unrelated? I would say that they are directly related. What in your opinion is a bad attitude in contrast to a better attitude? And what are the factors governing what you think is a better and/or worse attitude?

Sapius: If ‘superior’ is the word you reason to prefer, then so be it, enjoy.

Are you telling me to ‘enjoy’ because enjoyment is what you prioritize your life around? Or are you telling me to ‘enjoy’ because you think that is what I am prioritizing my life around?

[Sapius]

Cory, lets clear a few things first and then we can talk about ‘superiority’.

Are you not simply trying to say: ‘I prefer to reason’?

No, not prefer to reason but I cannot help but reason for I am a thing caused to reason, but what conclusions my/others reasoning’s reach according to my/their over all understanding of existence is a different story. My conclusions conform to MY understanding of existence, that's all.

If you say that you can’t help but to prefer, then your action is involuntary, is it not?

No, my “actions”, preferences, depend on MY reasoning.

For instance - Sure, the words ‘fire’ and ‘water’ point to the phenomena of ‘fire’ and ‘water’ but the phenomenon of fire or water ultimately have no particular meaning in themselves - despite we may use signs (words) to point toward them.
The words have meanings yes, but the things that words point to don’t have meaning.

You brought up this point earlier too so I would like to understand what you mean by it. Lets clear the meaning of meaning first.

How do words come about?