Damn it! Foiled again! :)Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:kow-recently/sometimes (at least I can tell when he is being straight or not)
The Value of Truth + Truth & Gender
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
I'll grant you that point.Rory wrote:One could also take it from the 'Masculinity' section of the banner.
Pye,
Thank you. I greatly appreciate your analysis. I think you have touched on some of my core, but I'm not sure that you had enough data. Although I am not so young (born in 1969) I have had to come up through beginings that were much further from anything that anyone would recognize as truthfulness or reality than many have conceived of. The meaning of this is an illustration of how much Reality I must compensatively absorb.
My center is a global perspective, which I can see is often perceived of as "uncentered." My center is the Whole.
What you observe of me here is my sharpening of the tool. I know that the tool is not for the tool's sake, and I am in a transition point in my life, but I am not weilding the tool for its own sake. I have stopped for directions, and am making full use of my pit stop. Thanks for your help, I hope you will continue with your input. It is much appreciated.
Yes, and sometimes the most surprising discoveries are underneath things that originally looked inconsequential. I try to take nothing for granted.I think that some people here have noticed you are drawn to many things; that your logic-based discussions of those things sometimes produce the inconsequential;
Far from it. I have noticed on this forum that if one states something in a meek, mealy-mouthed way, it gets run over. I feel that I have to state things with great bravado here in order to be heard. To communicate effectivly, one must use the language of the culture one is communicating with. The culture on GF is rather stand-off-ish, so to communicate my Truth, I've adopted a bit of an attitude. It is Truth because it is still an accurate communication of my thoughts, but I see it needs clarification as youseem to think that I seem to think that I am done or something (and I gather that is where Dan thinks I think I am on the path too, whereas actually I recognize myself as being just "on the path."Because you assess your intellect highly, you seem to think you are done or something
I think some are interested more in the bigger picture of what the intellect concludes, right or wrong. What is missing from all your speech here, in my estimation, is what is at greater stake.
The bigger picture here is the basic "what is right or wrong?"
I think some are interested more in the bigger picture of what the intellect concludes, right or wrong. What is missing from all your speech here, in my estimation, is what is at greater stake.
The big picture is made up of a whole lot of little pictures.
I don't know who you think you are, but with the above post, I think you are one of my spiritual friends.Who in the hell do I think I am, etc. etc. . . . :)
Last edited by Elizabeth Isabelle on Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Adding to what others have said, I also think that Elizabeth should write less and reflect more inwardly about the subject-matter at hand before attempting to write about it. I don't like the way she uses her posts to do her thinking for her. There is very little benefit in simply spewing whatever happens to be on one's mind, particularly if one is not engaging in introspection away from the computer. All it tends to do is reinforce one's pre-existing attachments and prejudices.
I always recommend that for every hour a person spends writing, they should devote at least four hours to thinking and inward contemplation. That way they can ensure they get the best out of their writing and interaction with others.
-
Elizabeth wrote:
My "Wisdom of the Infinite" lays out the map very clearly, but even here it is still a case of taking people by the hand and gradually guiding them through the various conceptual stages before their minds can be receptive to Truth. Most people who read it won't get much benefit out of it because they will race through the book and not properly absorb each stage. They will reach the end and think, "Is that it?".
Ideally, the reader will spend a few months meditating deeply on each chapter before moving onto the next one, but most people don't have the patience or energy for that. So even with a map clearly laid out, it will still be lost on most people. It is only going to benefit a dedicated few.
If it was simply a matter of laying out a map which everyone can follow and become enlightened thereby, the world would be a vastly different place. The population would be saturated with enlightened sages. Buddhas would be everywhere. Wisdom wouldn't be on the verge of extinction, as it is now.
It's not as though the human race in the past has been bereft of clear expositions of wisdom. The Tao Te Ching, The Diamond Sutra, Huang Po's teachings, Nagarjuna's treaties, Chuang Tzu's writings - these are all magnificent works which set out the basics of the path very clearly. But most people cannot properly benefit from them because they are too impatient, too immature in their thinking and lack the capacity to question their own attachments.
-
I always recommend that for every hour a person spends writing, they should devote at least four hours to thinking and inward contemplation. That way they can ensure they get the best out of their writing and interaction with others.
-
Elizabeth wrote:
DQ: The enlightened teacher can't explain how things are absolutely real, and not illusory, to the ordinary person trapped in conventional materialism. He isn't ready for that type of truth. He would only misunderstand it. His attachment to the materialistic outlook would only be reaffirmed and strengthened So in effect, such a teaching, in those circumstances, would constitute a lie.
Kevin illustrated this basic dynamic in "Poison for the Heart":
To the women in my audience, cause and effect is most definitely real.
To the men in my audience, cause and effect is most definitely not real.
Both of these cases involve expressing truth to suit the circumstances.
E: I still do not see enough truth in this example for it to even make sense. Kevin addressed this quote for me in another thread when I questioned him on it; here's what Kevin said (Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:29 pm):
Different people have different delusions to overcome.
There is a teaching in Zen: At the beginning of the Path there is a teapot, further along the path there is no teapot, and at the end of the path there is again a teapot.
I held back comment on that at that time to think about it further. I have, and after a couple of months it still does not make sense to not just lay out the whole proposition clearly. Kevin's description is much the same as what you were describing earlier David, but I still do not see why the whole map can not be laid out for people from the begining. I can see where some may need to be taken one step at a time, but I do not see how laying out the whole map, and pointing out the route and destination, would not be the most efficient way to get the job done.
My "Wisdom of the Infinite" lays out the map very clearly, but even here it is still a case of taking people by the hand and gradually guiding them through the various conceptual stages before their minds can be receptive to Truth. Most people who read it won't get much benefit out of it because they will race through the book and not properly absorb each stage. They will reach the end and think, "Is that it?".
Ideally, the reader will spend a few months meditating deeply on each chapter before moving onto the next one, but most people don't have the patience or energy for that. So even with a map clearly laid out, it will still be lost on most people. It is only going to benefit a dedicated few.
If it was simply a matter of laying out a map which everyone can follow and become enlightened thereby, the world would be a vastly different place. The population would be saturated with enlightened sages. Buddhas would be everywhere. Wisdom wouldn't be on the verge of extinction, as it is now.
It's not as though the human race in the past has been bereft of clear expositions of wisdom. The Tao Te Ching, The Diamond Sutra, Huang Po's teachings, Nagarjuna's treaties, Chuang Tzu's writings - these are all magnificent works which set out the basics of the path very clearly. But most people cannot properly benefit from them because they are too impatient, too immature in their thinking and lack the capacity to question their own attachments.
-
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Eliza,
The emphasis is mine. Is an accurate communication of thoughts Truth? I would just call that honesty, and leave the big T to universal principles.have noticed on this forum that if one states something in a meek, mealy-mouthed way, it gets run over. I feel that I have to state things with great bravado here in order to be heard. To communicate effectivly, one must use the language of the culture one is communicating with. The culture on GF is rather stand-off-ish, so to communicate my Truth, I've adopted a bit of an attitude. It is Truth because it is still an accurate communication of my thoughts, but I see it needs clarification as youseem to think that I seem to think that I am done or something (and I gather that is where Dan thinks I think I am on the path too, whereas actually I recognize myself as being just "on the path."
Matt:
On the “Benefits of Beautyâ€â€¦and this is not a sarcastic comment, but was Bill Gates beautiful in these terms? I have always seen him as a geeky, awkward young man in his early days, and yet, although he is somewhat cleaned up now because he can afford to be, how has this changed his worth in life?
He may be an exception to the rule, but it does offer the possibility that looks are not the only thing that pays…unique ideas and thought can too, if properly marketed. The problem with this thread is that it goes in two directions…what sells and what is truth. I think what Elizabeth was trying to get at is why can’t you just be truthful, why do you have to sell truth in order to attain it? The most logical answer is that those who are the attainees are most likely not ready to attain truth, and so they must be sold using means that will allow them to think about it.
Say you took Brad Pitt and gave him credit for Wisdom of the Infinite, what might be the reaction? Would people read it and be its followers out of blind worship of Brad Pitt? Would there be people who would read it, meditate on it for months, and follow it because of the message of truth within? Would there be people who would absolutely refuse to read it because they couldn’t stand what Brad Pitt represents? All of these are likely scenarios in life. I think truth should be just what it is…without tricks, but people have tricked me before, and I have learned something from it…
Elizabeth's comments:
What will be interesting is that if you stop wearing mascara because of health reasons and people get used to you without it, will they stop taking you seriously because you did? If they do continue to take you seriously, then there were other ways to get to that truth then trickery.
Yes, it would, but many people do it everyday.
On the “Benefits of Beautyâ€â€¦and this is not a sarcastic comment, but was Bill Gates beautiful in these terms? I have always seen him as a geeky, awkward young man in his early days, and yet, although he is somewhat cleaned up now because he can afford to be, how has this changed his worth in life?
He may be an exception to the rule, but it does offer the possibility that looks are not the only thing that pays…unique ideas and thought can too, if properly marketed. The problem with this thread is that it goes in two directions…what sells and what is truth. I think what Elizabeth was trying to get at is why can’t you just be truthful, why do you have to sell truth in order to attain it? The most logical answer is that those who are the attainees are most likely not ready to attain truth, and so they must be sold using means that will allow them to think about it.
Say you took Brad Pitt and gave him credit for Wisdom of the Infinite, what might be the reaction? Would people read it and be its followers out of blind worship of Brad Pitt? Would there be people who would read it, meditate on it for months, and follow it because of the message of truth within? Would there be people who would absolutely refuse to read it because they couldn’t stand what Brad Pitt represents? All of these are likely scenarios in life. I think truth should be just what it is…without tricks, but people have tricked me before, and I have learned something from it…
Elizabeth's comments:
I think that using a biological function to compare to wearing make-up is not a good choice for the sake of this argument. What I am asking may not invoke a right or wrong answer…it is for you to think of why you are doing it. To thine ownself be true. If you wear it knowing that the only way to get these people to listen to you and you know that this is the ONLY way to get them to listen to you, then you are using “trickery†in order to deliver your message. If you wear it because you like it, then you are being true and the make up issue is moot in this argument…like the “fart†it is not a good comparison. But if you wear it when you usually don’t, you are not being true, thus you are engaging in a form of trickery.I honestly don't know if what I was doing would be considered a calculation or not. I did consider whether or not to wear make-up and how much of it to wear based on my perceptions of socially acceptable behavior. Is it calculating to not fart in public?
What will be interesting is that if you stop wearing mascara because of health reasons and people get used to you without it, will they stop taking you seriously because you did? If they do continue to take you seriously, then there were other ways to get to that truth then trickery.
What I don’t understand about this “herd†mentality is as long as you are being true to yourself, so what if several million other people do the same thing. Look, almost everyone in my office that is female wears some type of make-up…I don’t. Does that make me not in the herd mentality? What if no one in my office wore make-up? If I chose not to, would I then be part of a herd or a separate identity? The fact is, if you choose to do something just because everyone else is doing it, that would define being in a herd mentality…or at least my definition.I have stopped wearing makeup because of the reasons I stated, but I will continue to do other things that i see as reasonable, that the QRS may find "herdy." I will dress in a manner that is socially appropriate for the occasion (rather than just dress for comfort or health), I will pluck abherrant hairs that grow where they ought not grow on a female, I will refrain from audible belching or farting in public, and I will abide by a variety of other things that are simply social constructs. This is all part of the "individual" being a communication device for the thoughts that are truly all that I am.
And why people give everyone grief over that is a mystery to me. Some of us are given only a few precious moments of our day to meditate, read and write. Some of the leaders here are on disability, and while I think these guys make a lot of sense, they have more time with which to make sense because it is what they do. And, yes, I could become a Carmelite, but at this stage in my life…it is not a choice I am willing to make.I am still working on how to present my ideas most effectively. This place is good practice for that.
I think it is good that you are learning how to see through the environment and perhaps it is the one thing that would help you progress in your journey. You are in this alone, but the people here whether a little crusty, misogynistic, and/or opinionated do form walls to bounce your thoughts in order for you to see the fallacy in your own or to strengthen what you have found. NO ONE knows the answers, if they did, we would not be here.For my personal journey, knowing they use trickery, and developing an increasing distrust of guys from reading some of the masculinity thoughts around here (combined with the mountain of BS that I have encountered from guys offline), my defenses are up. I do not learn as well in an environment of distrust, although I'm learning the value of being able to do so.
But, if you stop to think about it, it is. It makes your truth more clear to you than their falsity. This is an exercise for your benefit, not for others. Use it as you will.If I get the idea that someone may not be playing straight, I don't know what to make of their statements. That is not conducive to learning.
I understand what you mean, but again, some people don’t even know what they need or even how to act because the world is not a nice place. You have come on this thread in all honesty…needy for an answer…how were you treated? Some answered your need, some were obscure and some were mean. This is a cross section of the world. You must just hope that when YOU are needy that you find the right person to fulfill those needs, and likewise if you run across one who is needy and you can either sense it in him/her or it is approached face front, you fulfill those needs.As for acting needy, if one is needy, then one should act needy - they will then get what they need. It may not be what they think they need or feel that they need, but it will be what they ultimatly need to not be needy anymore. This is an important point - please let me know if you don't fully understand what I mean in this point.
I personally would not, and I'm not sure if it is calculating of me to not use what I know against him. I am aware that if I abuse whatever I know, it would both be telling on him and worse to my ends, telling on me and my lack of ethics if I were to be so lacking.
Yes, it would, but many people do it everyday.
It is truth within TruthI am also aware that for me personally, I'll look guilty even if I didn't do anything that most people would have even considered as wrong. If I even think that it might have a wrong aspect to it and I try it, it goes horribly wrong. For that reason, I don't get "brownie points" for doing the right thing. I just can't make the wrong thing work out right, so I don't bother. It really isn't me doing the right thing, it's the Totality. I don't deserve credit for it.
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
The article says that people who are more beautiful earn more, not that people who earn more are more beautiful. Do you not see the difference?passthrough wrote:Matt:
On the “Benefits of Beautyâ€â€¦and this is not a sarcastic comment, but was Bill Gates beautiful in these terms? I have always seen him as a geeky, awkward young man in his early days, and yet, although he is somewhat cleaned up now because he can afford to be, how has this changed his worth in life?
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Trevor wrote:
The dog lacks the ability to lie and dissimulate, thus it also lacks the ability to be honest. A certain level of mental sophistication is needed before honesty can take place.
In Red Dwarf, the android, Kryten, is taught how to lie by the human, Lister, in an attempt to break its programming. Lister realized that lying was a more advanced form of mental accomplishment than naively speaking the truth, and required a higher level of consciousness.
There is a bit of the android in Elizabeth. I think she could benefit from learning how to lie.
-
I'm not sure that it even qualifies as honesty. When a dog barks or yelps in pain it is obviously communicating its thoughts accurately, but can we really describe this as "honesty"?Elizabeth: It is Truth because it is still an accurate communication of my thoughts, but I see it needs clarification as youseem to think that I seem to think that I am done or something (and I gather that is where Dan thinks I think I am on the path too, whereas actually I recognize myself as being just "on the path."
Trevor: The emphasis is mine. Is an accurate communication of thoughts Truth? I would just call that honesty, and leave the big T to universal principles.
The dog lacks the ability to lie and dissimulate, thus it also lacks the ability to be honest. A certain level of mental sophistication is needed before honesty can take place.
In Red Dwarf, the android, Kryten, is taught how to lie by the human, Lister, in an attempt to break its programming. Lister realized that lying was a more advanced form of mental accomplishment than naively speaking the truth, and required a higher level of consciousness.
There is a bit of the android in Elizabeth. I think she could benefit from learning how to lie.
-
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
There is another example of a man finding value in lies.David Quinn wrote: There is a bit of the android in Elizabeth. I think she could benefit from learning how to lie.
Why, David, do you personally think there is value in lies? In what instances?
Here, David, are the original questions:
Why do guys think it is okay to lie and exaggeraterate to make themselves look tougher than they are? (I know this was partially covered in one of David or Kevin's writings, but I want to hear some other direct theories)
Why would some guys rather live in a world of deceipt where on the one hand they think their buddies are going to be there to empower them but on the other hand they know that guys lie about their abilities? Wouldn't it be better to know for sure who could do what and who needed help so where one was strong he could help another fix his weakness, and the other could help the first person where it was the second person who was strong and the first weak? Then both would be strong - but instead they want to keep their lies and delusions - why?
What are some other differeces and similarities between the genders do you see in regards to who values truth?
Is it ever okay to manipulate someone with a lie? If so, when?
How much do you value the truth?
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
If you lack the ability to be un-genuine, then your "being genuine" doesn't really mean anything. Being unconscious and lacking significant mental abilities - simply following your genetic nature automatically without choice - is not an accomplishment.
What does genuine mean, in any case? It's another one of those meaningless words which gets bandied around a lot these days. After all, a liar can be said to be genuine in his lying. He is a genuine liar.
-
What does genuine mean, in any case? It's another one of those meaningless words which gets bandied around a lot these days. After all, a liar can be said to be genuine in his lying. He is a genuine liar.
-
Non-sequitur.David Quinn wrote: If you lack the ability to be un-genuine, then your "being genuine" doesn't really mean anything.
Non-sequitur.David Quinn wrote: Being unconscious and lacking significant mental abilities - simply following your genetic nature automatically without choice - is not an accomplishment.
The word means "free from hypocrisy" AKA 'dog'. :)David Quinn wrote: What does genuine mean, in any case? It's another one of those meaningless words which gets bandied around a lot these days. After all, a liar can be said to be genuine in his lying. He is a genuine liar.
-
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Buddhas and dogs are free from hypocrisy. Which side are you on?
---------------------
- What the World Needs is More Hypocrisy -
I must confess to being guilty, on occasion, of causing people considerable agitation as a result of my proclamation that the world would be a far better place if there was considerably more hypocrisy. Despite their concerned bewilderment, I stand by this claim unswervingly. You see, genuine hypocrisy is something relatively rare in these times of entrenched pragmatism and spiritual and intellectual mediocrity. Genuine hypocrisy is not in itself a virtue, but all things are relative, and in this world, currently, it comes so close to holding that status that it may as well carry that designation if only for the sake of the positive effect it may impart.
A true hypocrite is one who upholds, or at the very least has a sense of some higher virtue, but who subsequently ignores or does not live up to that virtue. The significant thing here is that such ones at least have a sense of something higher; they actually recognise the reality of transcendent virtues, their inability to consistently live up to those virtues notwithstanding.
But in the world as it stands, the very notion of higher virtue, transcendent virtue, or simply living a truly principled life, is considered tantamount to presumptive arrogance! To authentically express one's principles is to show intolerance to others who do not share such principles, and in an era where relativism is the new theology, that is unaccetpable. It is horrible but true, that nowadays we are too pathetic, too unprincipled, too blind to the idealistic spirit to be capable of exhibiting anything remotely resembling authentic hypocrisy.
In a time which views all idealism as pretentious and arrogant folly, genuine hypocrisy shines forth as a beacon of hope and virtue.
---------------------
- What the World Needs is More Hypocrisy -
I must confess to being guilty, on occasion, of causing people considerable agitation as a result of my proclamation that the world would be a far better place if there was considerably more hypocrisy. Despite their concerned bewilderment, I stand by this claim unswervingly. You see, genuine hypocrisy is something relatively rare in these times of entrenched pragmatism and spiritual and intellectual mediocrity. Genuine hypocrisy is not in itself a virtue, but all things are relative, and in this world, currently, it comes so close to holding that status that it may as well carry that designation if only for the sake of the positive effect it may impart.
A true hypocrite is one who upholds, or at the very least has a sense of some higher virtue, but who subsequently ignores or does not live up to that virtue. The significant thing here is that such ones at least have a sense of something higher; they actually recognise the reality of transcendent virtues, their inability to consistently live up to those virtues notwithstanding.
But in the world as it stands, the very notion of higher virtue, transcendent virtue, or simply living a truly principled life, is considered tantamount to presumptive arrogance! To authentically express one's principles is to show intolerance to others who do not share such principles, and in an era where relativism is the new theology, that is unaccetpable. It is horrible but true, that nowadays we are too pathetic, too unprincipled, too blind to the idealistic spirit to be capable of exhibiting anything remotely resembling authentic hypocrisy.
In a time which views all idealism as pretentious and arrogant folly, genuine hypocrisy shines forth as a beacon of hope and virtue.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Elizabeth wrote:
Or a leader might see that his troops are relying on his remaining confident and strong in the face of dire circumstances, and so he puts on a brave face for their sake of their morale.
There are countless examples of this kind. Men are the ones who have to directly protect their family, tribe, or society from outside threats. They can't afford to crumble. They have to be display toughness, either real or imaginary, no matter what. They can't go to pieces like women do.
Well, here we are looking at male vanity. That kind of lying is foolish, I agree, for it creates unnecessary confusion and danger.
Generally, women are more open in their feelings and thoughts because they do not have to put on a brave face like men do.
Moreover, they rarely strive for lofty ideals which involve calculated, long-term planning, and thus they don't have to deal with all those extra complications and layers of egotism in their thought-processes. They are like children who spontaneously spurt out their little bits of honesty in the moment. But also like children, they are often cunning and disingenuous (in a subconscious, instinctive sense) when it comes to expressing their thoughts and feelings.
As mentioned by Trevor, women have almost no connection to the concept of absolute truth, which is the loftiest goal of all.
Men have a relatively strong connection to absolute truth, but they constantly suppress it as much as possible because they know deep down that taking such a connection seriously would cause far too much friction and suffering.
Women are completely out of the loop, as far this issue is concerned. They do not know what it means to have a conscience, nor do they know what it means to suffer for one's conscience.
At root, most women's minds are exceedingly fluid and, as a consequence, they have no real idea who they are or why they do the things they do. They have no real means of judging whether they are being honest or dishonest, or truthful or untruthful. They lack the consistent memory and level of consciousness to form such a judgment properly. It's all just a mergey, messy flow inside their minds.
- Lying to a psychopathic killer that the sage he is chasing with an axe is not in your house, thus sparing the life of the sage.
Again, there are endless examples of this kind.
-
It has its uses in some circumstances. For example, if a bear threatens to attack a man's family, he might seek to exaggerate his toughness in order to scare the bear off. Similarly, if the attacker was another person.Here, David, are the original questions:
Why do guys think it is okay to lie and exaggeraterate to make themselves look tougher than they are?
Or a leader might see that his troops are relying on his remaining confident and strong in the face of dire circumstances, and so he puts on a brave face for their sake of their morale.
There are countless examples of this kind. Men are the ones who have to directly protect their family, tribe, or society from outside threats. They can't afford to crumble. They have to be display toughness, either real or imaginary, no matter what. They can't go to pieces like women do.
Why would some guys rather live in a world of deceipt where on the one hand they think their buddies are going to be there to empower them but on the other hand they know that guys lie about their abilities? Wouldn't it be better to know for sure who could do what and who needed help so where one was strong he could help another fix his weakness, and the other could help the first person where it was the second person who was strong and the first weak? Then both would be strong - but instead they want to keep their lies and delusions - why?
Well, here we are looking at male vanity. That kind of lying is foolish, I agree, for it creates unnecessary confusion and danger.
This is a complex issue which cannot be adequately summarized in a few short paragraphs. So here's just a few observations:What are some other differeces and similarities between the genders do you see in regards to who values truth?
Generally, women are more open in their feelings and thoughts because they do not have to put on a brave face like men do.
Moreover, they rarely strive for lofty ideals which involve calculated, long-term planning, and thus they don't have to deal with all those extra complications and layers of egotism in their thought-processes. They are like children who spontaneously spurt out their little bits of honesty in the moment. But also like children, they are often cunning and disingenuous (in a subconscious, instinctive sense) when it comes to expressing their thoughts and feelings.
As mentioned by Trevor, women have almost no connection to the concept of absolute truth, which is the loftiest goal of all.
Men have a relatively strong connection to absolute truth, but they constantly suppress it as much as possible because they know deep down that taking such a connection seriously would cause far too much friction and suffering.
Women are completely out of the loop, as far this issue is concerned. They do not know what it means to have a conscience, nor do they know what it means to suffer for one's conscience.
At root, most women's minds are exceedingly fluid and, as a consequence, they have no real idea who they are or why they do the things they do. They have no real means of judging whether they are being honest or dishonest, or truthful or untruthful. They lack the consistent memory and level of consciousness to form such a judgment properly. It's all just a mergey, messy flow inside their minds.
- Comforting an upset child with the idea that "everything's going to be alright", even though such an idea is uncertain at best, and often a lie.Is it ever okay to manipulate someone with a lie? If so, when?
- Lying to a psychopathic killer that the sage he is chasing with an axe is not in your house, thus sparing the life of the sage.
Again, there are endless examples of this kind.
Enough to be truthful about the importance of lying.How much do you value the truth?
-
I was having some of these same thoughts as well but couldn't quite put it into words. Perhaps it could simply be sumed up as, logic without consciousness.Pye wrote:.
Elizabeth, begging your pardon for the following analysis, but the overall character of different intellects interests me, and there is something in yours that I've noticed you are doing that I think accounts for a number of the reactions you've gotten from people here. Too, I have a couple of days off.
Your thinking style is well-representative of the logic-for-its-own sake kind, and as a result, does not center itself around any particular specific values other than logic for its own sake. As a result, too, this kind of thinking acts something like an appliance that one applies to any subject. It stirs, sifts, analyzes, sorts, collates, and comes out with something it considers cohesive, as logic for its own sake. Probably sounds okay so far, but this logic-for-its-own-sake is not discriminatory; gets drawn into inconsequential if not inane activities; and the conclusions overall of what is drawn seldom cohere to each other. You have a sharp tool; you will want to do more with it than just wield it for its own sake.
So I think that some people here have noticed you are drawn to many things; that your logic-based discussions of those things sometimes produce the inconsequential; and that there is not [yet] a core-reason out of which your intellect operates. It operates (and operates), but it is not an end in itself. Because you assess your intellect highly, you seem to think you are done or something (and hence, the backs put up here or there). As much as I've noticed people here interested in the intellect's working for its own sake, I think some are interested more in the bigger picture of what the intellect concludes, right or wrong. What is missing from all your speech here, in my estimation, is what is at greater stake. It appears that your intelligence has not centered itself around a task yet; a project; a commitment. Or perhaps if it has, it is just not as large and huge a one as a lot of the people are trying to center themselves around here.
In other words, in other words . . . it is good to have a fine-working appliance. It is better to have something of the utmost to do with it.
Perhaps some of this can account for the accusations of prattling you've incurred in the past; the current disagreement with Sue, who, if I do not find completely clean and sparkling in her own approach, she at least has an approach, and for very high stakes.
I think you are just still young, and have not found what it is you mean to really think about yet, something something about a center, you know. When you do, I expect you will think well.
Yes, I know.
Who in the hell do I think I am, etc. etc. . . . :)
.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
David Quinn wrote:
I don't think you've really thought this one through.
-
What about a stone? Is it meaningful to call the behaviour of a stone "genuine"?DQ: If you lack the ability to be un-genuine, then your "being genuine" doesn't really mean anything.
K: Non-sequitur.
That still doesn't help. A hypocrite is genuinely a hypocrite. His hypocrisy is genuine.DQ: What does genuine mean, in any case? It's another one of those meaningless words which gets bandied around a lot these days. After all, a liar can be said to be genuine in his lying. He is a genuine liar.
K: The word means "free from hypocrisy" AKA 'dog'. :)
I don't think you've really thought this one through.
-
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Any child can lie David. Must one lie to prove he, or she, can lie? Must one kill to prove he or she can kill? No, and no. But one must be truthful in order to prove that the truth is important to him or her.
Take some real life examples - the truth can be much harder to speak than a lie.
You cite as your "proof" a British comedy television series. I only saw a couple of the shows so I don't know much about the specific program, but comedy and humor are based on the fact of something being "wrong" with the picture. Lying is not a more advanced concept than the truth, that is the humor. It is naive of you to not comprehend the mechanics of humor, and silly of you to cite that as your example.
Granted, it is not in my nature to lie. Our nature is what we hone it to be (yes, yes, that is based also on genetic and environmental factors, but still our internal environment involves the honing of skill), and it is intelligence that sees the overall benefits to humanity of truth-telling (even at the sacrifice of the individual) over the ego-saving skill of lying well.
One lies to protedct the ego. One tells the truth because that is more functional to the universe.
What is "automatic" is what one practices. Yes, due to practice, I do now automatically tell the truth. My exhusband was one who automatically lied even if there was ultimatly no difference in the effect of lying and telling the truth. I was observant enough to become the only person who could tell the difference between when he was lying and when he was telling the truth. He lied so automatically, that I could tell when he was telling the truth because it was the only time he sounded like he was lying. His lies were not a sign of being advanced.
Anything we make a habit of becomes automatic. At some point we may establish our habits. You once established a habit of smoking. I assume that since then you established a habit of not smoking. Have I ever lied? Of course. I lied to my parents from second grade until eigth grade about believing in Santa Clause so that I would continue to get decent presents. I lied to my parents about a great deal of things to try to stay out of trouble or to try to lead some semblance of a normal life despite their outlandish behavior. Away from my parents, the truth worked better than lies and as I matured, I was able to note why. Yes, in certain situation that involved personal safety, lying was and would be necessary - but that is not the same thing as a "teaching" experience.
Looking to reality rather than fiction, through most of my life, neither truth nor lies worked out well. My exhusband seemed to have everything going for him despite all of his lies, so when my life fell apart so badly despite my openness and honesty - or perhaps even because of it - I began to think that perhaps my parents were right, that men were always right, that I'd never be able to survive without a man, and that I should always listen to men. I turned my back on who I was and did as I was told by him because I believed that I was only a stupid and worthless woman. I saw the ugliness of lies through and through - and I hated it. I experienced the nature of what a liar is, and I literally barely survived the sociopath. I now vehemently hate lies and deception. I gave up the truth for my now-ex-husband, and my passion for the truth snapped back on me ten-fold.
Despite my valuing of truth, I knew it would be safer to not be particularly truthful to my exhusband between the time I got the restraining order and the time it was delivered. That is different from the wanton lying that so many engage in, and I certainly do not believe that people conciously lie more often than they unconciously lie. Lying is a bad habit, but telling the truth is a good habit. If one must do either as a default, truth would be the better default procedure.
Truth is not always the best for the individual, but it is the best for what is right. Despite that I was expected to get a promotion in my last job, I ended up losing my job for reporting an incident about the company psychiatrist. A client had complained to my boss that the psychiatrist was staring at her chest through the entire psyciatric session, and everyone thought she had just misinterpreted something. Within a week, the same psychiatrist took his shirt off in front of me, and when I expressed discomfort at that, he said he'd keep the rest of his clothes on, then almost immediatly dropped his pants. I reported him and relayed the complaint the client had given to my boss - and shortly I lost my job (instead of getting the promotion everyone had expected I would get).
The truth is not easy - and even telling the above was not easy after having gone through enough people who tried to twist it around that somehow I must have provoked the psychiatrist to drop his pants, but telling people what happened is one way of spreading awareness of what the world is really like so that others will be prepared when/if something like that happens to them.
It was not easy to counter JamesH's idiotic statement about immodestly dressed women provoking sexual attacks by sharing my real-life example of what I was wearing when I got raped when I was 18 - but telling the truth rather than sharing something off a fictional television series was far more important for whoever may have agreed with JamesH's idiotic opinion - and it was not easy to put up with his crass response -- yet here I am sharing the interaction with you as a real-life proof that truth-telling is not easy. And it sure as hell isn't easy to bring either of the above incidents up to you here and now because I substantially expect that in your current state of mind, you're likely to also somehow blame me for these men's sexual inappropriatness and for my losing my job for reporting a man (and no - I was not dressed provacativly when the psychiatrist dropped his pants). But I am telling the truth, giving truthful examples (not citing a sit-com), to show that telling the truth is a concious and worthy deed.
Take some real life examples - the truth can be much harder to speak than a lie.
You cite as your "proof" a British comedy television series. I only saw a couple of the shows so I don't know much about the specific program, but comedy and humor are based on the fact of something being "wrong" with the picture. Lying is not a more advanced concept than the truth, that is the humor. It is naive of you to not comprehend the mechanics of humor, and silly of you to cite that as your example.
Granted, it is not in my nature to lie. Our nature is what we hone it to be (yes, yes, that is based also on genetic and environmental factors, but still our internal environment involves the honing of skill), and it is intelligence that sees the overall benefits to humanity of truth-telling (even at the sacrifice of the individual) over the ego-saving skill of lying well.
One lies to protedct the ego. One tells the truth because that is more functional to the universe.
What is "automatic" is what one practices. Yes, due to practice, I do now automatically tell the truth. My exhusband was one who automatically lied even if there was ultimatly no difference in the effect of lying and telling the truth. I was observant enough to become the only person who could tell the difference between when he was lying and when he was telling the truth. He lied so automatically, that I could tell when he was telling the truth because it was the only time he sounded like he was lying. His lies were not a sign of being advanced.
Anything we make a habit of becomes automatic. At some point we may establish our habits. You once established a habit of smoking. I assume that since then you established a habit of not smoking. Have I ever lied? Of course. I lied to my parents from second grade until eigth grade about believing in Santa Clause so that I would continue to get decent presents. I lied to my parents about a great deal of things to try to stay out of trouble or to try to lead some semblance of a normal life despite their outlandish behavior. Away from my parents, the truth worked better than lies and as I matured, I was able to note why. Yes, in certain situation that involved personal safety, lying was and would be necessary - but that is not the same thing as a "teaching" experience.
Looking to reality rather than fiction, through most of my life, neither truth nor lies worked out well. My exhusband seemed to have everything going for him despite all of his lies, so when my life fell apart so badly despite my openness and honesty - or perhaps even because of it - I began to think that perhaps my parents were right, that men were always right, that I'd never be able to survive without a man, and that I should always listen to men. I turned my back on who I was and did as I was told by him because I believed that I was only a stupid and worthless woman. I saw the ugliness of lies through and through - and I hated it. I experienced the nature of what a liar is, and I literally barely survived the sociopath. I now vehemently hate lies and deception. I gave up the truth for my now-ex-husband, and my passion for the truth snapped back on me ten-fold.
Despite my valuing of truth, I knew it would be safer to not be particularly truthful to my exhusband between the time I got the restraining order and the time it was delivered. That is different from the wanton lying that so many engage in, and I certainly do not believe that people conciously lie more often than they unconciously lie. Lying is a bad habit, but telling the truth is a good habit. If one must do either as a default, truth would be the better default procedure.
Truth is not always the best for the individual, but it is the best for what is right. Despite that I was expected to get a promotion in my last job, I ended up losing my job for reporting an incident about the company psychiatrist. A client had complained to my boss that the psychiatrist was staring at her chest through the entire psyciatric session, and everyone thought she had just misinterpreted something. Within a week, the same psychiatrist took his shirt off in front of me, and when I expressed discomfort at that, he said he'd keep the rest of his clothes on, then almost immediatly dropped his pants. I reported him and relayed the complaint the client had given to my boss - and shortly I lost my job (instead of getting the promotion everyone had expected I would get).
The truth is not easy - and even telling the above was not easy after having gone through enough people who tried to twist it around that somehow I must have provoked the psychiatrist to drop his pants, but telling people what happened is one way of spreading awareness of what the world is really like so that others will be prepared when/if something like that happens to them.
It was not easy to counter JamesH's idiotic statement about immodestly dressed women provoking sexual attacks by sharing my real-life example of what I was wearing when I got raped when I was 18 - but telling the truth rather than sharing something off a fictional television series was far more important for whoever may have agreed with JamesH's idiotic opinion - and it was not easy to put up with his crass response -- yet here I am sharing the interaction with you as a real-life proof that truth-telling is not easy. And it sure as hell isn't easy to bring either of the above incidents up to you here and now because I substantially expect that in your current state of mind, you're likely to also somehow blame me for these men's sexual inappropriatness and for my losing my job for reporting a man (and no - I was not dressed provacativly when the psychiatrist dropped his pants). But I am telling the truth, giving truthful examples (not citing a sit-com), to show that telling the truth is a concious and worthy deed.
The men are still in competition for the woman. The feminine in them demands it and seduces the conscious into sleep.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Why would some guys rather live in a world of deceipt where on the one hand they think their buddies are going to be there to empower them but on the other hand they know that guys lie about their abilities? Wouldn't it be better to know for sure who could do what and who needed help so where one was strong he could help another fix his weakness, and the other could help the first person where it was the second person who was strong and the first weak? Then both would be strong - but instead they want to keep their lies and delusions - why?
When it is done by the likes of Buddha, Jesus, Nagarjuna... They expout the lies in service of the Truth instead of in service of the little truths that also feed the ego.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Is it ever okay to manipulate someone with a lie? If so, when?
You might benefit from understanding optimization and the difference between a local optimum and the global optimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_optimum
As I here give you this lie it does serve the Truth. It is a lie in that taken literally as an accurate model for the world it will encourage strong illusions. It is not a lie in how it can align your thinking processing so that you may sparkle. Sparkle.
Yes, thinking of a machine with an ego as operator.Pye wrote:Your thinking style is well-representative of the logic-for-its-own sake kind, and as a result, does not center itself around any particular specific values other than logic for its own sake. As a result, too, this kind of thinking acts something like an appliance that one applies to any subject.
Going through the motions is equally pointless as the act of a mime drinking is for quenching of thirst. It is also akin to the story about the king who donated money to charity and was furious when it didn't give him any merit whatsoever.Nick Treklis wrote:Perhaps it could simply be sumed up as, logic without consciousness.
Elizabeth is rather pissed by the lack of aknowledgement, but not the least bit rightfully. That her ego goes without gentle stroking awakens the nest of vermins. Despite all the surface of indigo she has a Judeo-Christian grounding in beliefs that is seasoned with an affair she has with pop eastern mafia. Her choice of literature might be commendable if instead for only voicing the words aloud she had read the book as well.
The reason there is no going forward is because there is not an iota of momentum present without co-operation. You signal absolute refusal to co-operate without some initial concession to the ego on some part, any part. Should such a thing be possible, despite what would happen next, that little ego particle would still contain all of the ego, and could yet survive.
The ego is correct to realize its demise in light of Truth. Its death will be painful and filled with rage and unimaginable fear. A student who, in her own words is genuine and becomes internally convinced of being sincere, will still experience intense paranoia and become so afraid of the show her ego makes up for her, that there may be actual physical convulsions and screaming for: "I don't want to die!" It will cry to the unfairness of others and the universe, pitying itself, while at the same time planning their total annihilation for the pain that is now and yet to come. If only they would give it a chance, and it might in its grace show, how grateful it can be, and reward them for their kindness. "Just don't let me die!"
Cut fast and deep. In space no one can hear the ego scream.
To put it another way. Your ego is a puppy that you have treated like it was your baby. Because of that, the dog has become all stressed out and over protective. Since it didn't perceive leadership in the pack it must perform the tasks of the leader to its best ability. During the years it has picked up so many bad habits that it now bites with the sound of a bang. Because you didn't do what was neccessary then, the puppy has become in fact 'evil'. Your compassion is of the wrong kind and one beautiful day the puppy escapes to the neighbourhood and kills a baby in a carriage on the lawn just because a car driving by had a bad tail pipe.
Where you are now, is that, in your ignorance you want to believe in your dog and suggest re-training. You talk about the humanity of dogs. It is to no avail. You don't even get a vet to put the dog to sleep but are handed only a big knife.
You will take the puppy to your lap,
and with one fell swoop,
cut its head off.
Because of your attachment there are emotions of disgust, or sorrow, or dumbfoundness, or anything else but the precense of plain Truth. Your ego doesn't allow you to see through the present lie into its heart of true compassion. That is why you won't cut the puppy's head. Because on the surface it is such a morbid task you won't see clearly. Instead of committing the act of true kindness and compassion you retreat back to ignorance.
When you grapple with concepts such as metaphor and figure ways to interpret what has been said here, the puppy's head is yet uncut and you must in truth _really_ prepare to cut through the flesh, all to the bone.
When the puppy's head lies separate on the floor, you will see the lies as what they really are. There is no precedent to this case so interpretation here and now is impossible.
If you insist on not cutting fast,
cut deep.
Let him who has ears hear.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Elizabeth wrote:
The ability to lie effectively requires a well-developed imagination, a sharp memory, meticulous consideration of future consequences, the willingness to engage in long-term planning, etc - all of which are high-level mental skills. By comparison, the automatic and indiscriminate telling of truth is really a form of dull-wittedness.
I wrote on this subject a couple of years ago, which now can be found in the Quality Posts section of my website:
I agree that it is important to be as truthful as possible, for a number of different reasons. However, I still rate the person who has capacity to lie - and, just as importantly, who also has the purity to know how and when to utilize this skill without harming the cause of wisdom - more highly than I do the person who automatically and indiscriminately tells the truth in all circumstances.Any child can lie David. Must one lie to prove he, or she, can lie? Must one kill to prove he or she can kill? No, and no. But one must be truthful in order to prove that the truth is important to him or her.
The ability to lie effectively requires a well-developed imagination, a sharp memory, meticulous consideration of future consequences, the willingness to engage in long-term planning, etc - all of which are high-level mental skills. By comparison, the automatic and indiscriminate telling of truth is really a form of dull-wittedness.
I wrote on this subject a couple of years ago, which now can be found in the Quality Posts section of my website:
-The Role of Lying in the Life of Truth
It is interesting to analyze the role of lying in the mind of the perfectly truthful individual. Contrary to what one might expect, telling a lie needn't be at odds with being perfectly truthful. Sometimes even the perfect sage has occasions to lie.
A person who speaks the truth at all times and in all circumstances is essentially an aimless person who has no values. He just articulates what is on his mind without thought for the consequences. His truthfulness is actually the product of a deeper lie which underpins his entire existence - namely, that he refrains from systematically promoting consciousness of truth in others. In other words, his truthfulness is, at best, confined to his own mind. He does not bother himself with promoting truthfulness in others. His commitment to truth is thus selective and halfhearted.
A classic example which illustrates this principle concerns the man who is running away from an axe murderer and takes refuge inside your house. The axe murderer knocks on your front door and asks if you have seen the man he is chasing, and you have the choice of whether to lie or tell the truth.
The impulsive truthteller who tells the truth in all circumstances, no matter what, will obviously choose to condemn the man hiding in your house to death. But what if the man in hiding is an enlightened sage? By telling the truth and condemning him to death you effectively undermine the cause of wisdom by eliminating a potent teacher. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people in the future would be robbed of an important source of wisdom. Thus, the compulsive truthteller would in fact be harming wisdom and truth in the long run by telling the truth in this circumstance.
So in a very real sense, the compulsive truthteller is still quite unconscious in his perceptiveness and still a long way short of being wise.
***
If you value anything at all in this world, even as something as lofty as the promotion of wisdom, you automatically create the need to protect this value, even to the point of lying for it. If you didn't, then your commitment to this value would be piece-meal.
The key issue for the wisdom-valuer, then, is not whether he can refrain from lying at all times - which, as I have just articulated, is impossible due to the value he places on wisdom - but whether the lies he creates are wise in nature and lack any trace of ego. Obviously, he would want to minimize the telling of lies as much as possible, if for no other reason that to maintain his credibility as a teacher of Truth. But if he does need to lie, then ideally, it would need to be from the purest of motivations.
The recognition that it is impossible not to lie on occasion is part and parcel of being perfect truthful.
***
Q: Perhaps you could give a clearer example of being forced to lie for the cause of truth.
A: Here is an interesting example. It may well be that the religion of Buddhism is little more than a giant lie concocted by Gautama Siddharta (the original Buddha) for the purpose of preserving his highest wisdom. In other words, he created a religious community in which everyone was required to wear the same robes and the same haircut, and flooded it with reams of simplistic dogma and superficial rules, knowing that it would attract sheep-like individuals in droves. Although sheep-like individuals have no potential for wisdom, they tend to be very good at mundane things like building temples, copying texts, organizing lectures, administrating communities and so on. The Buddha saw, perhaps, that they could be harnessed to create a vehicle in which his deepest truths would be preserved for the sake of those few advanced thinkers in future generations.
The process is a bit like a bird eating a tasty seed and flying away to defecate the seed in another spot. What attracts the bird is the taste and smell of the seed, while the most valuble part of the seed is the genetic material contained within it, which the bird knows nothing about. Similarly, the rituals, rules and dogmas of the Buddhist religion are the "tasty" elements which attact multitudes of witless monks, and it is through their mundane. sheep-like activity that they unwittingly preserve the genuine wisdom which exists deep within Buddhism. In other words, the Buddha created a lie for the sake of truth.
I don't know if this is what really happened, but I cannot think of any other (wise) reason why Buddhism was created in the first place. There is no other way that its existence can be justified from the point of view of wisdom. Unless, of course, the Buddha was really a Rashneesh-type charlatan. (But if that were the case, then the presence of the genuine wisdom which does exist in certain parts of Buddhism would still need to be explained.)
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
kowtaaia wrote:
I agree that dishonesty needs to be absent before honesty can occur, but where we differ is that I stipulate that other conditions have to be fulfilled as well.
The mere absence of dishonesty isn't enough. A labotomy will rid you of all your dishonesty, but that's hardly a wise solution. I am far more interested in the type of honesty which can occur in an intelligent, pure, discriminating, highly-conscious, exceedingly-rational mind.
As the Buddha said in the Dhammapada: To be thoughtless is easy, it is easy to live without shame and be selfish. But it is hard to be selfless, pure and intelligent.
-
Your post is again, non-sequitur. Your original statement...
DQ: The dog lacks the ability to lie and dissimulate, thus it also lacks the ability to be honest. A certain level of mental sophistication is needed before honesty can take place.
...is false. That's the bottom line.
Your error is in thinking that one can't be without the other, when in fact, one is the absence of the other.
I agree that dishonesty needs to be absent before honesty can occur, but where we differ is that I stipulate that other conditions have to be fulfilled as well.
The mere absence of dishonesty isn't enough. A labotomy will rid you of all your dishonesty, but that's hardly a wise solution. I am far more interested in the type of honesty which can occur in an intelligent, pure, discriminating, highly-conscious, exceedingly-rational mind.
As the Buddha said in the Dhammapada: To be thoughtless is easy, it is easy to live without shame and be selfish. But it is hard to be selfless, pure and intelligent.
-