The Perfectly Enlighened Buddha is a myth

[Steven Coyle]

S: Taoism is a good base for decreasing (or increasing) the energy of the libido. As it focuses the mind on attaining spiritual union with Nature - where any sexual urges could be sublimated into a desire for transcendence

R: Do you know of any thinkers that have actually claimed to succeed at this form of Taoist
Discipline?

I!

Here's a link -

http://www.meaning.ca/articles04/yu-hsi-contentment.htm

[Cory Duchesne]

There were a lot of issues that he dealt with, thus providing a new foundation for thinking. And let’s not forget to mention how Kierkegaard was very much influenced by Socrates.


Are memes able to change the genes of others or are they already predetermined to understand this material?

It seems to me that valuing certain memes can divorce the mind from more vulgar memes. When certain neural connections are not used, they weaken and eventually lose their power. Sure the genes for naughty behavior are present, but they require strong neural connections as well. Imperfect behavior is rooted in thought patterns and the biology that sustains these thought patterns can be weakened simply by placing more value on more superior memes. Yes, you are substituting one sensual involvement with a new sensual involvement, but the new sensual involvement is not as connected to genes most responsible for crude behavior. Thus the old, more vulgar neurobiology is gradually weakened and the genes are gradually put to sleep.

My main point is that philosophy has failed us thus far in creating perfectly enlightened beings.

That isn’t really a point. That’s just like building a house, and at the half way point throwing up your hands and saying: “our carpentry as thus far failed us in creating a house”.

So why don’t you keep building?

Cory: In other words, imperfect individuals have succeeded at becoming more perfect.


Ryan: Yes, but there was a limit, this fleshy body has limits, and living at ones limits is not living in a state of pure perfection.

You see, this is where we need to come to an agreement on a definition for what a perfect human being is. Just because the human body is so limited that it can’t sprout wings and fly at the snap of some fingers, doesn’t mean that the human body is not potentially perfect. Perhaps the problem is with humans who identify too much with their physical bodies and not enough with the totality.

* Perhaps the problem is with egotistical and anthropomorphic definitions of perfection.

Cory: Changing my personal environment, changes the environment of the world.

Ryan: Yes, but wisdom has always been for a minority, it doesn’t change the daily life of masses, they still behave as they prefer.

The daily life of the masses has changed a great deal since medieval times. A great number of people these days are openly atheistic, people don’t gather around town square to watch someone get burned at the stake anymore.

In other words, thanks to the Greeks, people like Copernicus, Galileo, Buddha, David Hume,Giordano Bruno, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and countless others, the present age is more ripe for wisdom to grow then it has ever been.

You may say that the levels of the wise minority are getting larger, but so is the world population. Could it be all relative? I’m just playing the other side of the coin here, you know this old game.

Sure, the population is bigger. But never has there been a time in history where people are conscientiously choosing to not have children, never has there been a time when people are concerned about over-population, food distribution, etc.

Wealthy westerns go over to other countries to help green deserts, plant trees and help undeveloped countries develop in a way that is more conscientious then your average western city.

There has been a very significant change in regards to the tolerance given to free thinkers.

We don’t burn philosophers at the stake anymore. We instead put them on welfare.

[Tharan]

The problem here, as with 99% of the debates in this arena, is the confusion between semantics; specifically a local perfection and a universal perfection. (I'll avoid mathematical examples for clarity's sake on this philosophy board.) For example, a person may discuss a deep well that "descends infinitely," but no one would question the fact that it is a limited, local, relative infinity. There exists space outside of the described parameters. In this same way, there has never been a universally perfect human. There has never existed a human (or any animal) without some desire, some need, some emotion. Positing such a state as factual and existent requires evidence, of which there is none, and thus should be regarded in the same light as is regarded other religious statements.

On the other hand, one may speak of a locally perfect individual by using the term "enlightened," but this too has its flaws. The phrase "locally perfect" has elements of simple actualization (a psychological term) as described by Taoist precepts such as "a tree being a tree," etc. Thus for "a human to be a human" requires only that the serial killer kill prostitutes, the banker charge usury, and the academic philosopher argue over semantics. And yet even if they become locally perfect in this, without compunction, the Buddhist would not call them enlightened. Enlightenment requires this and more.

If we draw from anecdotal precedents by saying individuals such as Siddartha, Huang Po, Bodhidharma were all enlightened, then we are again defining enlightenment as merely a local perfection, with the added element of relative freedom from suffering. These individuals have conquered their own personal demons, a struggle others may feel that they share, and in this sense, there may be some perceived universality. But we know this is illusory based on the well defined principles of mind and subjective realities. Like the idea of a "local infinity," "human perfection" houses a component of the language that is lacking in consistent descriptive power because it is arguably oxymoronic. It is more effective to use the term "enlightened" rather than sprinkle our language with words like "perfection" because of the dual nature of these types of semantic structures as concepts.

As long as it is understood that enlightenment is a relative, local condition, then positing universal perfection is unnecessary and possibly disingenuous when it is an attempt to lend a universal credibility, a non-local Absolute, where it may be perceived by the speaker to be needed. Enlightenment does not need borrowed credibility. Enlightenment is not universal. Enlightenment is perfect within its local parameters. It is entirely subjective and personal. As such, it can easily be disagreed with when a person attempts to claim it for themselves politically. The person making the claim is projecting it outward into a space where it cannot logically exist as a homogenous whole. If it is projected, it can be done for social credibility, or it can be done to cease argumentation, at least temporarily.

If another chooses to argue it, then they are really arguing against the social credibility effect. Arguing against the substance of someone's personal perception of themselves is similar to arguing against a person's favorite color. They may be perceived by the outsider to be wrong because another color is better or there are some flaws in the speaker's personality that the outsider sees as diminishing the enlightened state. In that sense in might be housed as a humanitarian argumentation, filled with compassion. But in functioning reality, there seems to be a fine line between this type of compassionate instruction and the rebellion against the social credibility effect. One often comes disguised as the other.

But not always. Yet another messy grey area, as is Nature's perfect want.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

Perhaps the problem is with egotistical and anthropomorphic definitions of perfection.

Are you open to the possibility that natural selection could produce humans that no longer possess a single a-typical “human” trait?

Natural Selection is based on increasing complexity, but does it have an end? Does it have a limit?

Cory wrote:

So why don’t you keep building?

I’m not saying we stop building, but perhaps what is happening in that evolution is progressing in conjunction with philosophy.

Skills Carpenters are only able to work if they have the proper building materials.

If a plank is bent, that is a major setback.

[Cory Duchesne]

Are you open to the possibility that natural selection could produce humans that no longer possess a single a-typical “human” trait?

I don't think it is at all reasonable to be optimistic about a baby coming out of the womb who doesnt cry, nurse, laugh, cry, crawl, walk, feel pride, become a teenager, feel shame, feel sexual, feel pride, fear, experience sorrow, etc, etc.

However, between the ages of 15 and 30, there very well may be humans who use that time to develop in such a way as to be very close to perfect by the time they are 50 or 60.

I really don't find it that hard to believe that there will be much greater men than myself someday, as I know greater men have already lived and died, and are living now.

Isnt it inspiring to know that the philosohpical effort you put into this life, helps future humans become closer to perfection?

Despite my personal imperfection, it seems to me that I can be a part of perfection, contribute to it, have glimpses of it.

I can perhaps be enlightened in this life and do meaningful work, helping humanity perfect itself. And if I never realize enlightenment, well at least I did what I felt was the best thing for me to do.

There is no reason why I should not be open minded to the possibility of achieving a perfect way of life - one that is consistent at all times, a way of life that is without delusion.

[Cory Duchesne]

Ryan, I also think you are putting way too much emphasis on genes.

You know, they did an experiment where they raised a kitten in pitch dark, and at intervals the kitten was exposed to light, but only in vertical stripes.

When the cat was full grown, it was permanently incapable of seeing horizontally for the rests of its life.

Now don't tell me environment does not have a powerful effect on a single individual life.

[reedsch]

Dude, the whole concept of "perfection" is a myth! What the hell is perfect? Who or what makes the distinction? We are creatures driven by our hopes and dreams and visions, otherwise we'd still be living in caves. These also become a source of discontent, IMHO the real source of pain being not attachment but expectation. Tossing in a couple of pithy folk sayings:

"the perfect is the enemy of the good"
"satisfaction is performance minus expectation"

It is a continuum, not a straight line with a beginning and an end i.e. there is no END. Just being. Life is self-justifying. It will always be NOW, it is never anythign but NOW. IMHO the key is to strike some kiind of balance between striving to attain our goals and an awareness that your life as it currently stands is complete in the moment.

[millipodium]

I know greater men have already lived and died, and are living now.

I will try to remain humble. Because, of course, I disdain elitism. I work a menial job at a mall frequented mostly by black people, but I will remember your reverence toward me when I'm feeling blue. Thanks cory.

[Cory Duchesne]

Dude, the whole concept of "perfection" is a myth! What the hell is perfect? Who or what makes the distinction? We are creatures driven by our hopes and dreams and visions, otherwise we'd still be living in caves. These also become a source of discontent, IMHO the real source of pain being not attachment but expectation. Tossing in a couple of pithy folk sayings:

"the perfect is the enemy of the good"
"satisfaction is performance minus expectation"

It is a continuum, not a straight line with a beginning and an end i.e. there is no END. Just being. Life is self-justifying. It will always be NOW, it is never anythign but NOW. IMHO the key is to strike some kiind of balance between striving to attain our goals and an awareness that your life as it currently stands is complete in the moment.

Since I know you're a Ken Wilber fan, just to let you know, Wilber thought that the "nobody's perfect" motto was a blight upon the human condition, he thought it was ironically a sign of narcicism.

As far as I can tell, Wilber thinks striving toward perfection is healthy and logical, he encourages it.

Although I actually don't like Wilber too much ever since he supported Andrew Cohen.

I liked Wilber's (8?) tier model of consciousness - You know, with the red meme, purple meme, blue meme, orange meme, etc? You might not be familar with it.

Anyhow, I thought that model was a good generalization for consciousness.

[reedsch]

Since I know you're a Ken Wilber fan, just to let you know, Wilber thought that the "nobody's perfect" motto was a blight upon the human condition, he thought it was ironically a sign of narcicism.

Cory dear re-read my post, nowhere do I use the term you have attributed to me. The "Perfect is the enemy..." is often quoted in political contexts, however it also holds true in business; the meaning is quite different than "nobody's perfect".

It is a paradox, we continually strive for something we can never reach. But strive we must.

However in terms of statements that are universally true, the one you mentioned comes as close as any possibly could, no? Nobody is perfect, ever was, or ever will be...because there is NO SUCH THING.

Ken is probably recoiling at the use of the term as an excuse for sub-standard performance.

[Nick]

Ryan, you and I and everyone else here would probably be very suprised to see just how incredibly effective the proper environment would be in helping a child grow up to be one of the wisest men on the planet. To go as far as tampering with genetics seems far too dangerous and completely uneccessary.

[Steven Coyle]

Without imperfection, how could the process of evolution exist?

[Tharan]

I've read a couple of Ken Wilbur's books and I like what he says. But it still does not mean that "perfection" is a real thing. Thus, "nobody's perfect" would be entirely correct.

[Steven Coyle]

The need for perfection arises largely out of a need for cooperation. When there is no longer guilt, but instead a confidence in our own thoughts, our own narcissism transforms itself into a greater understanding of others. Narcissism, while an act of self-love, actually forces us to hate others for not loving us in the same way as we "love" ourselves. We instinctively know that our ways our corrupt, but we lack the strength to fully respect and appreciate others, so we blame them instead. Learning to see our causal relationship with them, instead of only ourselves in them, is key.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

Ryan, I also think you are putting way too much emphasis on genes.

Perhaps you're correct, I'm open to the possibility that I'm weighing genetics too heavily here, but answer these questions and think about this, and we’ll see where it leads.

Suppose you grew up in my circumstance, but you still had your parent’s genes, and I grew up in yours (with my parents genes), but we still met and got into philosophy at the same time – Obviously, we would have different experiences, but because we still have the same personalities, which are inherited from the parents, don’t you think both of us would have responded to the conflicts in similar ways to how we handled ourselves in our actual lives?

would the outcome have been all that different? I don't think so.

Your kitten example is an extreme case. Of course if there were drastic changes to the environment then the individual’s growth would be seriously affected. However, if the environment is fairly stable from outset meaning a democratic country in the west with a financially stable family, then isn’t the personality the primary factor which ultimately determines how one is capable of dealing with conflicts?

What is the personality if it isn’t genetic information that controls function? I say potential sages have weak personalities from the outset, and this makes them incredibly susceptible to be seek out and be influenced by intelligent memes.

in the beginning, seeking intelligent memes are an attempt to fill the absence of personality with something.

A meek person has an insecurity complex because of their absence of personality, it is this absence that choicelessly causes them to seek wisdom.

This absence of personality is a lucky genetic configuration.

[Cory Duchesne]

Suppose you grew up in my circumstance, but you still had your parent’s genes, and I grew up in yours (with my parents genes), but we still met and got into philosophy at the same time – Obviously, we would have different experiences, but because we still have the same personalities, which are inherited from the parents don’t you think both of us would have responded to the conflicts in similar ways to how we handled ourselves in our actual lives?

Why do you start an argument based on a wild assumption?

The assumption being: that our personalities would be the same because they are determined only by our genes.

Your kitten example is an extreme case. Of course if there were drastic changes to the environment then the individual’s growth would be seriously affected.

Yes and moderate changes in environment would cause moderate changes in character development. And mild changes would cause mild changes.

When you say a persons 'growth', I am assuming you mean the development of ones personality.

However, if the environment is fairly stable from outset meaning a democratic country in the west with a financially stable family, then isn’t the personality the primary factor which ultimately determines how one is capable of dealing with conflicts?

What's the difference between personality and consciousness?

What is the personality if it isn’t genetic information that controls function?

Personality isn’t just that. The presence or absence of certain environmental triggers largely effects character development.

I say potential sages have weak personalities from the outset, and this makes them incredibly susceptible to be seek out and be influenced by intelligent memes.

Weak personality in eyes of whom, woman? It all depends on how you see it.

I don't consider a strong personality one who prioritizes his life around woman, easily adopting the habits of common drugs, getting himself into senseless debt and imitating the current trends in general.

A strong personality has deeper questions and takes life seriously. And yes, he appears weak by most people for doing this. And the more he comes to know, the more poorly suited he becomes for public gatherings and common social functions. And so he seems weak. In fact the more consistent and logical he becomes in his daily living, the smaller he appears to others who can’t likewise fly. The higher up you go, the smaller you get in other peoples eyes. The more rational you become, the more irrational you seem to those whose fundamental interest is doing whatever it takes to be approved of in the eyes of a particular group and from there proceeding to secure a consistent supply of sexual stimulation, and later, simply a motherly presence. For those with weak character, life revolves around maintaining this setup.

So, in regards to what character is strong and what is weak, it’s entirely subjective. It depends on the wisdom of the judge.

It seems like your idea of a strong personality is the sort that women find strong.

A meek person has an insecurity complex because of their absence of personality, it is this absence that choicelessly causes them to seek wisdom.

Everyone has an insecurity complex. None explode violently as those who appear most confident and strong.

This absence of personality is a lucky genetic configuration.

Woman have personalities? If you enjoy her image, then sure, it seems like there is a real personality there. But if a man were to say the things she says? What if he talked all that nonsense? Would you say he had a personality then?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Suppose you grew up in my circumstance, but you still had your parent’s genes, and I grew up in yours ...would the outcome have been all that different? I don't think so.
...Of course if there were drastic changes to the environment then the individual’s growth would be seriously affected. However, if the environment is fairly stable from outset meaning a democratic country in the west with a financially stable family, then isn’t the personality the primary factor which ultimately determines how one is capable of dealing with conflicts?

So you're saying insignificant differences in environment don't have a significant impact over genetic impact... Isn't that the meaning of "insignificant?"

I say potential sages have weak personalities from the outset, and this makes them incredibly susceptible to be seek out and be influenced by intelligent memes.

That couldn't be more opposite from reality. A sage must have the strongest, most unwaverable, tenacious grip on Reality to not be susceptible to misdirection. A weak personality would be equally susceptible to culturally predominent memes and even more susceptible to the influence of strong personalities or brainwashing techniques.

A sage must start off with a scrappy attitude that is in the direction of The Path, and any event that throws a potential sage into confusion will still leave the sage with reason intact - no matter how extreme the circumstance. You could use the most advanced brainwashing techniques on a potential sage, and the most you could do is temporarily shake her perceptions - and each instance after that would be less and less effective because a sage learns even from these experiences.

A person with a weak personality can be programmed and reprogrammed by an outside influence, but only a person with a strong personality will only listen to the reason that is Truth verifiable from the inside.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

Yes and moderate changes in environment would cause moderate changes in character development. And mild changes would cause mild changes.

How can you be absolutely certain that this isn’t the assumption?

Cory wrote:

When you say a persons 'growth', I am assuming you mean the development of ones personality.

Growth meaning going beyond personality.

Cory wrote:

What's the difference between personality and consciousness?

The less personality, the more consciousness, the way I define personality is that that outgoing, charismatic people have lots of personality – they are well adapted to socialize in superficial ways.

Cory wrote:

The presence or absence of certain environmental triggers largely effects character development.

Perhaps you should give examples to strengthen your argument.

Lets take Steve for example, I say Steve would have became an alcoholic regardless of what western family he was raised in (as long as his genes were the same) – from an early age he exhibited absolutely no intellectual interests, all he wanted to do is pursue pleasure in all its forms – especially alcohol, but anything else as well.

Cory wrote:

It seems like your idea of a strong personality is the sort that women find strong.

Yes, strong personalities in society are weak, when I say a sage has a weak personality, this is a good thing. The goal is very little personality.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Perfection in the individual forms ideals, which in turn generates ambition and drive. While it can never become a thing to touch or measure, just like ideal it's a mental image than could be outlined somewhat, induced by inquiry. Ideas like the 'perfected Buddha' are now possible.

Through reasoning one can arrive at the conclusion that the only perfection in actual existence, while following the definition "lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind" - would be the whole itself: totality.

Perfection in this universal sense is only attainable to the degree one is able to identify wholeheartedly with totality, without flinching.

[Cory Duchesne]

Ryan,

Cory: Yes and moderate changes in environment would cause moderate changes in character development. And mild changes would cause mild changes.


Ryan: How can you be absolutely certain that this isn’t the assumption?

Well, you already admitted that extreme changes in environment would cause extreme changes in personality. So how doesn’t it follow that moderate changes would cause moderate changes, and mild, mild?

1000 years ago, there were not any alcoholics, (and probably suicides and depressives were quite, quite rare – if non-existent) in your typical isolated Indian population.

Why such a big difference in aboriginal behavior ever since the alien entity of alcohol was introduced and alien religions and civilization were imposed on once isolated aborigines?

Cory: When you say a persons 'growth', I am assuming you mean the development of ones personality.

Ryan: Growth meaning going beyond personality.

Ryan, let’s go back to what you originally said:

Your kitten example is an extreme case. Of course if there were drastic changes to the environment then the individual’s growth would be seriously affected.

What relationship does an individual’s growth have with personality?

Cory: What's the difference between personality and consciousness?

Ryan: The less personality, the more consciousness. The way I define personality is that that outgoing, charismatic people have lots of personality – they are well adapted to socialize in superficial ways.

So where did you get that definition from?

I define strong personality as the sort that can tolerate questioning reality and values to such an extent that he actually emerges from the inquiry with his own opinion, his very own idea, rather than merely being tethered to other peoples ideas, opinions, and definitions.

There are very withdrawn, quiet and uncolorful people who can't do this.

So just because someone is withdrawn, quiet, and uncolorful, doesnt mean that they are more conscious. They may be even more shallow and emotional than the outgoing fellow that you describe.

Cory: The presence or absence of certain environmental triggers largely effects character development.

Ryan: Perhaps you should give examples to strengthen your argument.

Think about the aboriginal boy raised in an isolated tribe 2000 years ago. And now think about that same boy raised in a modern reserve with lots of opportunities to sniff gas, drink alcohol and gamble.

Big difference in personality.

Lets take Steve for example, I say Steve would have became an alcoholic regardless of what western family he was raised in

But he wouldn’t have become an alcoholic if he was raised in an Amish community - would he?

(as long as his genes were the same) – from an early age he exhibited absolutely no intellectual interests, all he wanted to do is pursue pleasure in all its forms – especially alcohol, but anything else as well.

Well, since I know his father, his brother and God knows who else in his extended family were also alcoholics, then I’m inclined to think that ‘role models’ have a lot to do with a childs behavior.

If Steve was adopted and cared for on an isolated farm of hard working and intellectual or very pious people, he would have become a significantly different person, despite have some similar tendencies.

I think you need to give more thought to the power that role models have over a developing child. Studies have shown that it is quite a powerful factor.

Cory: It seems like your idea of a strong personality is the sort that women find strong.

Ryan: Yes, strong personalities in society are weak, when I say a sage has a weak personality, this is a good thing. The goal is very little personality.

But I think the goal is also to be a real person, rather than just some guy who is a mish mash of other peoples opinions that really aren’t well thought out. So I say personality is very important. The personality is comprised of two fundamental forces - will and intellect. These two forces create the person. And so yes, will and intellect are determined by genetics to a large degree, but environment is powerful. You need an average intellect to live the truth, but you need exceptional will. Environment often drains the will, it weakens it, or sometimes infuses it with vitality. Environment also limits and schews intellectual development, or sometimes can enchance it.

[Cory Duchesne]

Perfection in the individual forms ideals, which in turn generates ambition and drive.

Diebert – this is my interpretation of your words:

You say that it is perfection within the individual that forms ideals. Do you mean: “because I have fleeting moments of consciousness where perfection is understood as the totality”, then from that glimpse of perfection, I begin to form ideals that, if achieved, will make those flashes of consciousness more than just flashes, but a more prolonged consciousness.

Through reasoning one can arrive at the conclusion that the only perfection in actual existence, while following the definition "lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind" - would be the whole itself: totality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sort of reasoning necessary to realize this conclusion is a more perfect reasoning.

And after coming to this conclusion, through reasoning, that “I am the totality” - - - one is not necessarily consistent.

Instead, one may continue to have irrational, sexual and angry impulses. And so, one may be inclined to perfect oneself further after realizing the totality as both perfect and ones true identity.

Perfection in this universal sense is only attainable to the degree that one is able to identify wholeheartedly with totality, without flinching.

And is not ones biology perfect to the degree that it is able to identify with the totality?

What is it that is identifying with the totality? Is it a biological-chemical configuration?

And thus is the goal to bring about a more perfect biological configuration?

[reedsch]

Maybe I missed it, but has anyone even defined what the devil we're talking about here?

to wit: What is perfection?

I know what a Buddha is, and I have some concept what enlightened means, so I can formulate an image of what an enlightened Buddha is, but how does that differ from a perfectly enlightened Buddha?

[Cory Duchesne]

Maybe I missed it, but has anyone even defined what the devil we're talking about here?

to wit: What is perfection?

My understanding is that: to be perfect is to never feel like one is lacking in anything (such a feeling is suffering)

One is perfect when one is impervious to suffering loss or feeling lack.

To be imperfect is to both feel incomplete and succesptible to experiencing the suffering and anxiety of loss.

In short, to be perfect is to be free from delusion and to be imperfect is to be deluded. A deluded person is absorbed in precious, beautiful images - often the images that one has of oneself, of particular woman, or of ones own mother are all rather precious and beautiful things. They all must go. Things need to be seen for what they really are.

so I can formulate an image of what an enlightened Buddha is, but how does that differ from a perfectly enlightened Buddha?

Again, this is only my understanding, but as far as I can tell, a perfectly enlightened Buddha would not succomb to the actual act of masterbation or sex - because to do so, one would have to still be deluded in some way. It is not at all rational to get excited by the image of a woman, or any phenomenon in particular.

However, one may be enlightened yet on occasion feel a need for masterbation, or one may be enlightened yet suffer when thinking about how one is misunderstood and resented by family, old friends, etc. One may be enlightened, yet one has a strong craving for a particular flavor of food.

etc, etc.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

Think about the aboriginal boy raised in an isolated tribe 2000 years ago. And now think about that same boy raised in a modern reserve with lots of opportunities to sniff gas, drink alcohol and gamble.

Big difference in personality.

Yes, but it’s not like the past natives are superior to present natives in terms of genetics. The flaws were still there in their genome. Many natives still smoked tabbaco, had group sex experiences, danced around fires singing, and did all sorts of other things to excite and stimulate themselves.

Cory wrote:

I define strong personality as the sort that can tolerate questioning reality and values to such an extent that he actually emerges from the inquiry with his own opinion, his very own idea, rather than merely being tethered to other peoples ideas, opinions, and definitions.

You are thinking more in terms of the first definition of personality and I am using the second definition.

1. somebody's set of characteristics: the totality of somebody's attitudes, interests, behavioral patterns, emotional responses, social roles, and other individual traits that endure over long periods of time

2. characteristics making somebody appealing: the distinctive or very noticeable characteristics that make somebody socially appealing
a partner with real personality

Cory wrote:

But he wouldn’t have become an alcoholic if he was raised in an Amish community - would he?

how many modern natives have lived in Amish communities in the past?

A guy like Steve probably wouldnt have lasted in an Amish community. He probably would have ran away. He could never see the importance in things like religion, philosophy and discipline. Group morality wouldn’t have worked on him, unless the sexuality of a women kept him there, but that would have been his only incentive. People create the societies they want.

Steve is like his father, and his father was like his father. It isn’t a matter of role models, it is a matter genetics. In terms of the enzyme that is responsible for breaking down alcohol, it doesn’t function like many other people, the result is the person that is immediately addicted to alcohol after only a few encounters. All natives have this weakness.

Fix the gene, and you fix the problem.

Cory wrote:

I think you need to give more thought to the power that role models have over a developing child. Studies have shown that it is quite a powerful factor.

The role models that people choose are only as good as the strength of their wills, intellects and emotions. Steve never looked up to his father and he never wanted to emulate him - he thought he was a dick. He looked up to the rolling stones, and ACDC, guys that knew have to party hard, play music, have fun, and get women.

Steve never wanted to contribute to any sort of intellectual conversation, things needed to remain on the surface for him to be interested.

Cory wrote:

But I think the goal is also to be a real person, rather than just some guy who is a mish mash of other peoples opinions that really aren’t well thought out. So I say personality is very important. The personality is comprised of two fundamental forces - will and intellect.

This is all a matter of semantics, I define personality differently, and you immediately judge. You understand how limited language is right? What makes you so confident? what is that emotion? I'm not confident, I'm still not absolutely certain, but everytime I argue this, I am favored to weigh genetics more heavily than the environment although I agree that there is a certain environmental standard one needs for the thinker to have any chance at all.

The strength of the will is defined by the strength of the intellect, which is related to the emotional strength of the individual. If someone has an intellectual and emotional handicap, they will also be feeble in terms of will, people don’t choose how intellectual/inquistive/introverted they are, it is something they are born with.

Cory wrote:

And so yes, will and intellect are determined by genetics to a large degree, but environment is powerful.

Although I agree that the environment is a powerful force, it still seems less powerful than genetics to me. Even overweight people like my aunts were big as younger girls, and they ate much more than the other sisters, and there was very little difference in how they were raised. It seems like an enzyme problem to me. Of course, not in all cases, but some.

Geneticists are now realizing that there are hundreds of coding errors and mutations in the genome that affects how enzymes are manufactured, and I suspect that this plays a big role in people’s vices.

Many other things are affected by protein and enzyme production as well such as brain function.

The human being is just a machine, and an imperfect one at that.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory: Think about the aboriginal boy raised in an isolated tribe 2000 years ago. And now think about that same boy raised in a modern reserve with lots of opportunities to sniff gas, drink alcohol and gamble. Big difference in personality.

Yes, but it’s not like the past natives are superior to present natives in terms of genetics.

And that is exactly my point – the genes are the same, but the character, due to environment, turns out different.

Many natives still smoked tabbaco, had group sex experiences, danced around fires singing, and did all sorts of other things to excite and stimulate themselves.

Yes, the natives were not wise and enlightened. Lets not deviate too far from the main point of the discussion - the point being, environment shapes character to a significant degree.

Cory: I define strong personality as the sort that can tolerate questioning reality and values to such an extent that he actually emerges from the inquiry with his own opinion, his very own idea, rather than merely being tethered to other peoples ideas, opinions, and definitions.

Ryan: You are thinking more in terms of the first definition of personality and I am using the second definition.

1. somebody's set of characteristics: the totality of somebody's attitudes, interests, behavioral patterns, emotional responses, social roles, and other individual traits that endure over long periods of time

2. characteristics making somebody appealing: the distinctive or very noticeable characteristics that make somebody socially appealing
a partner with real personality

I understood the context you were using the word in - - I was just trying to show that just because an individual is lacking the sparkling personality that a woman or womanly man might be delighted with, doesn’t mean he is any more conscious or potentially more wise. And just because an individual is capable of being very charming to woman and womanly men - doesnt mean he is any less capable of devoting himself to wisdom.

And also, the two different definitions of personality above - are really the same. There are just two different ways of describing the same thing.

The way you are using the word personality, I think I more or less equate with cowardice, femininity.

Cory: But he wouldn’t have become an alcoholic if he was raised in an Amish community - would he?

Ryan: A guy like Steve probably wouldn’t have lasted in an Amish community.

He probably would have ran away. He could never see the importance in things like religion, philosophy and discipline.

Did anyone make an attempt to instill those values into him?

Well of course he could never see the importance in what is more difficult. Since his environment took it easy, he took it easy.

Group morality wouldn’t have worked on him, unless the sexuality of a women kept him there, but that would have been his only incentive.

Wanting to please ones role models and family figures is also very powerful. And in regards to the power of woman, in order to get a woman he may have had no problem learning the ropes and working hard for his wife. He wouldn’t have known any outside world. You make it sound like he would have grew up in an Amish community automatically identifying with partying hard, having fun, alcohol, drugs and rock and roll - - -but the truth is that those personality shaping concepts would not have touched his mind. He would have looked up to those who took care of him and rewarded and punished him with whatever pleasures and concepts were being dealt. Sure, because of his genetic disposition he may have been more succeptible to prioritizing his life around enjoyment, but probably not to a degree that was too destructive.

People create the societies they want.

Not really. A very, very small minority of humans create and organize a society - - whereas the rest are conditioned with reward and punishment, fear, pride and shame, to obey the rules. The environment largely determines how individuals live, as does genes.

Steve is like his father, and his father was like his father. It isn’t a matter of role models, it is a matter genetics. In terms of the enzyme that is responsible for breaking down alcohol, it doesn’t function like many other people, the result is the person that is immediately addicted to alcohol after only a few encounters. All natives have this weakness.

You can repeat this over and over to me, but the fact remains the same. If you remove alcohol totally from the environment, the individuals development is significantly different.

The role models that people choose are only as good as the strength of their wills, intellects and emotions.

Partly true. It’s also true to say that the role models that people choose are only as good as their environment.

Steve never looked up to his father and he never wanted to emulate him - he thought he was a dick.

Probably because he was a dick. The pain of having a dick for a father might have been dealt with by appeasing his pain with drugs. Conveniently, Steve had peers who helped him feel cool, and feeling cool was his way of escaping pain.

He looked up to the rolling stones, and ACDC, guys that knew have to party hard, play music, have fun, and get women.

A common way of dealing with the pain of having parents who don’t seem to care all that much. And even if he didnt feel that much pain over his Dad being a Dick - - - simply the lack of any discipline or values were responsible for Steves strong propensity for partying hard, identifying with rock and roll and drugs. I probably would have turned out very similarly. I used to wait down at the bus stop and because my mother told me that my neighbor my age, Daren, was a bad kid who had bad parents, I was frightened to be his friend so I stayed away from him. If my mother wasnt so elitist and judgemental I probably would have made friends with Darren and thus followed a similar life style as Darren who was quite a bit like Steve in some respects.

every time I argue this, I am favored to weigh genetics more heavily than the environment although I agree that there is a certain environmental standard one needs for the thinker to have any chance at all.

Ok, so you admit, that there needs to be a certain environment in order for a wise individual to come into being and that the wrong environment can hold people back.

The strength of the will is defined by the strength of the intellect which is related to the emotional strength of the individual

Henry Kissinger had a massive intellect, but was a war criminal, a diplomatic coward. He was weak willed. And generally, high IQ doesn’t necessarily result in a profound individual, but more often than not, a cowardly one.

If someone has an intellectual and emotional handicap, they will also be feeble in terms of will, people don’t choose how intellectual/inquistive/introverted they are, it is something they are born with.

It really depends on ‘how’ handicapped you are talking about.

A man with an average intellect can potentially reach greater levels of consciousness than a man with a great intellect. The factor differentiating them is will power - which is drained by certain factors that are permitted into the environment.