There are some fools in this world, victims of rationalist materialist Enlightenment propaganda, who falsely posit a conflict between science and religion, reason and mysticism. In reality, mysticism is just a form of 'higher science' or 'higher reason'. Just read the anti-reductionist views of the greatest of modern physicists, see K. Wilber's Quantum Questions:
Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists. The truths of mystics cannot contradict the truths of natural philosophy, because truth cannot contradict truth. Trans-rational truth is not sub-rational. The different domains of human experience and knowledge complement each other. With this intellectual outlook in mind, I was wondering if anyone knew of any studies on the scientifically measurable beneficial effects of sexual celibacy and chastity in general? The greatest minds of civilized mankind (Pythagoras, Plato, Jesus, etc.) were one in their assertion of the metaphysical and moral importance of chaste and celibate values. But for a hardcore scientistic believer in profane modernity, the crudely measurable is all that counts. Therefore, this profane modernist would require a 'scientific' account of the physiological and neurochemical processes involved in such evolved asceticism....
I value the time-tested wisdom of the authentic sages of the past more than the nihilistic pseudo-wisdom of modern materialistic sexologists. Are we going to arrogantly pretend that the most exalted wisdom-bringers of human history, like Pythagoras, Plato, Jesus, Gandhi, etc. were delusional fools and we moderns simply know better than them? What foolish hubris.
In the Aryan-Hindu religion, it is taught that if the virya or spiritual manhood is lost or wasted this results in spiritual death and if withheld and conserved leads to life. The modern writer Sivananda Sarasvati explains this teaching: "The seed is dynamic energy which has to be converted into spiritual energy," and "He who seeks divine realization with true zeal should observe strict chastity." As a result of the conservation of virile energy in this way, supra-normal powers appear in the aspirant: the creation of a special "magnetic aura", a "personality that inspires a kind of holy awe," and the power of influencing other people by words or a mere look (La Practique de la meditation, Paris, 1950). Analagous teachings abound in all the various orthodox wisdom-traditions...
Naturally, those botched people without race, heritage, tradition and caste instinctively cannot understand the meaning of a traditional code of ethics, higher virile self-mastery, or the unitary joy of living a rigorously pure and chaste existence. The higher races transmute sexual energies into spiritual ones.
Plato established a hierarchy of the forms of eros, rising from the sensual and the profane up to the peaks of the sacred (Symposium, 14-15; 26-29; Phaedrus, 244-45; 251-57b) and culminating in the eros through which "the mortal seeks to live forever and become immortal" (Symposium 26).
Arthur Schopenhauer said: Far more than any other external member of the body, the genitals are subject merely to the will, and not at all to knowledge. [...] The genitals are the real focus of the will, and are therefore the opposite pole to the brain, the representative of knowledge, i.e., to the other side of the world, the world as representation.
Every animal, including also la bête philosophe [the philosophical beast] instinctively strives for the optimal beneficial conditions in which it can let out all its power and attain the strongest feeling of its strength. Every animal in the same instinctual way and with a refined sense of smell that 'is loftier than all reason' dislikes any kind of trouble maker or barrier which lies or which could lie in his way to these optimal conditions (I'm not speaking about his path to 'happiness' but about his way to power, to action, to his most powerful deeds, and, in most cases, really about his way to unhappiness). Thus, the philosopher dislikes marriage as well as what might persuade him into it—marriage is a barrier and a disaster along his route to the optimal. What great philosopher up to now has been married? Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leitniz, Kant, Schopenhauer—none of these got married. What's more, we cannot even imagine them married. A married philosopher belongs in a comedy, that's my principle ... A certain asceticism, as we have seen, a hard and cheerful renunciation in the best wills, belongs to those conditions favorable to the highest spirituality and is also among its most natural consequences. Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals
The re-absorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces towards the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, among the Brahmins). Nietzsche, Notes (1880-1881), p. 75 of the Kaufmann reader
H.P. Blavatsky: The question is often asked, Why should celibacy and chastity be a sine quâ non rule and condition of regular chelaship, or the development of psychic and occult powers?... When we learn that the "third eye" was once a physiological organ, and that later on, owing to the gradual disappearance of spirituality and increase of materiality (Spiritual nature being extinguished by the physical), it became an atrophied organ [the pineal gland], as little understood now by physiologists as the spleen is – when we learn this, the connection will become clear. During human life the greatest impediment in the way of spiritual development, and especially to the acquirement of Yoga powers, is the activity of our physiological senses. Sexual action being closely connected, by interaction, with the spinal cord and the grey matter of the brain, it is useless to give any longer explanation. Of course, the normal and abnormal state of the brain, and the degree of active work in the medulla oblongata, reacts powerfully on the pineal gland...
The virility that is physical, phallic, muscular, and animal is lifeless and does not contain any creative germ in a superior sense. Phallic man deceives himself by thinking that he dominates; the truth is that he is passive and is always susceptible to the subtler power of women and to the feminine principle ... Thus proliferation is concentrated ... in the inferior races where the animal-like impulse is stronger than any rational calculation and consideration. Julius Evola
It is the 'spiritual' need that must be eliminated at an early stage, since this affects a much deeper element that has nothing to do with the body and since it testifies to deficiency and to inconsistency of spirit. The danger that a woman represents, particularly today, is not so much her female aspect as the fact that she encourages the need for support, for reliance upon someone else who may be a weak soul unable to find in himself a meaning for his life. The same Indo-Aryan tradition records a saying attributed to a yogin, an ascetic: 'What need have I of an external woman? I have an internal woman within me' - meaning that he had within himself the element of self-completion, of fulfillment, an element that the common man confusedly seeks, instead, in woman. J. Evola, The Doctrine of Awakening
We have a corresponding psychological process when, with the strengthening of masculine consciousness, masculinity and ego consciousness, the fight with the mother dragon becomes the hero's, i.e., the ego's, struggle for self-liberation. In this struggle the union of the hero with the masculine 'heaven' brings about a self-regeneration in which the male reproduces himself without the aid of a female. Erich Neumann, The Origins and History of Consciousness
Scientific Psychophysiological Benefits of Ascetic Chastity
-
Philosophaster
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am
Wow, another disappointment. Elizabeth thought I would receive more intelligent responses in the GENIUS forum. Perhaps you should refrain from responding to my posts in view of your limitations, Philosophaster. Your Freudo-Marxist explanation of my psychology is laughable, to the say the least.
So out of the whole post you are hung up on the blunt attitude toward racial matters? Otto Weininger, one of the putative inspirations behind this website, certainly was no cowardly, neurotic slave to the modern taboos on racial issues, in conformity with his ruthless intellectual honesty:
"What shall we make, for example, of the Chinese, with their feminine freedom from internal cravings and their incapacity for every effort?"
"A genius has perhaps scarcely ever appeared amongst the Negroes, and the standard of their morality is almost universally low that it is beginning to be acknowledged in America that their emancipation was an act of imprudence."
"The most manly Jew is more feminine than the least manly Aryan."
Don't waste my time, Philosophaster, if you want to impose your mental limitations and irrational subservience to modern mendacity.
So out of the whole post you are hung up on the blunt attitude toward racial matters? Otto Weininger, one of the putative inspirations behind this website, certainly was no cowardly, neurotic slave to the modern taboos on racial issues, in conformity with his ruthless intellectual honesty:
"What shall we make, for example, of the Chinese, with their feminine freedom from internal cravings and their incapacity for every effort?"
"A genius has perhaps scarcely ever appeared amongst the Negroes, and the standard of their morality is almost universally low that it is beginning to be acknowledged in America that their emancipation was an act of imprudence."
"The most manly Jew is more feminine than the least manly Aryan."
Don't waste my time, Philosophaster, if you want to impose your mental limitations and irrational subservience to modern mendacity.
-
Philosophaster
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am
No, that was only the most blatantly stupid part of it. The rest of it was slightly less idiotic. I may address it later if I feel like it. :-)So out of the whole post you are hung up on the blunt attitude toward racial matters?
I have no "taboos" on racial issues. You can talk about them all you wish. IQ test score differences? Differential crime rates? Riots? "Reverse racism?" All of that stuff interests me. There is one condition, though, which is that I expect people to address those topics intelligently. I would not hold my breath waiting for you to do so.
.
Perhaps the heads of the site (David Quinn, Kevin Solway, etc.) should indicate to me whether I am in the right place or not? I thought I had found a small community of authentic wisdom-seekers interested in nothing but actual knowledge, people who have mentally transcended contemporary fallacies, slavish taboos and fashions... If that is not the situation, I shall not bother anyone here anymore...
Perhaps instead of glibly and childishly proclaiming the "idiocy" of the statements of the above philosophers on the subject of asceticism, you could actually explain why these statements are "idiotic." Please remember to repress any typically modern immaturity and classlessness in your analysis, otherwise I won't waste my time with you.
BTW, Kierkegaard, another putative inspiration behind this site, in spite of his exoteric Protestantism, understood the value of monasticism in an age of effeminate materialism and irreverent self-worshipping hubris:
It is the opinion of all, and so far as I dare permit myself to pass judgment it is also my opinion, that it is not the highest thing to enter the monastery; but for all that it is by no means my opinion that in our age when nobody enters the monastery everybody is greater than the deep and earnest souls who found repose in a monastery. How many are there in our age who have passion enough to think this thought and then to judge themselves honestly? This mere thought of taking time upon one's conscience, of giving it time to explore with its sleepless vigilance every secret thought, with such effect that, if even, instant one does not make the movement by virtue of the highest and holiest there is in a man, one is able with dread and horror to discover and by dread itself, if in no other way, to lure forth the obscure libido which is concealed after all in even, human life, whereas on the contrary, when one lives in society with others one so easily forgets, is let off so easily, is sustained in so many ways, gets opportunity to start afresh–this mere thought, conceived with proper respect, I would suppose, must chasten many an individual in our age which imagines it has already reached the highest attainment.
...
But about this people concern themselves very little in our age which has reached the highest attainment, whereas in truth no age has so fallen victim to the comic as this has, and it is incomprehensible that this age has not already by a generatio acquivoca [breeding without mating] given birth to its hero, the demon who would remorselessly produce the dreadful spectacle of making the whole age laugh and making it forget that it was laughing at itself. Or what is existence for but to be laughed at if men in their twenties have already attained the utmost? And for all that, what loftier emotion has the age found since men gave up entering the monastery? Is it not a pitiable prudence, shrewdness, faintheartedness, it has found, which sits in high places and cravenly makes men believe they have accomplished the greatest things and insidiously withholds them from attempting to do even the lesser things? The man who has performed the cloister-movement has only one movement more to make, that is, the movement of the absurd. How many in our age understand what the absurd is? How many of our contemporaries so live that they have renounced all or have gained all? How many are even so honest with themselves that they know what they can do and what they cannot? And is it not true that in so far as one finds such people one finds them rather among the less cultured and in part among women? The age in a kind of clairvoyance reveals its weak point, as a demoniac always reveals himself without understanding himself, for over and over again it is demanding the comic. If it really were this the age needed, the theater might perhaps need a new play in which it was made a subject of laughter that a person died of love–or would it not rather be salutary for this age if such a thing were to happen among us, if the age were to witness such an occurrence, in order that for once it might acquire courage to believe in the power of spirit, courage to stop quenching cravenly the better impulses in oneself and quenching enviously the better impulses in others … by laughter? Does the age really need a ridiculous exhibition by a religious enthusiast in order to get something to laugh at, or does it not need rather that such an enthusiastic figure should remind it of that which has been forgotten? (Fear and Trembling)
BTW, Kierkegaard, another putative inspiration behind this site, in spite of his exoteric Protestantism, understood the value of monasticism in an age of effeminate materialism and irreverent self-worshipping hubris:
It is the opinion of all, and so far as I dare permit myself to pass judgment it is also my opinion, that it is not the highest thing to enter the monastery; but for all that it is by no means my opinion that in our age when nobody enters the monastery everybody is greater than the deep and earnest souls who found repose in a monastery. How many are there in our age who have passion enough to think this thought and then to judge themselves honestly? This mere thought of taking time upon one's conscience, of giving it time to explore with its sleepless vigilance every secret thought, with such effect that, if even, instant one does not make the movement by virtue of the highest and holiest there is in a man, one is able with dread and horror to discover and by dread itself, if in no other way, to lure forth the obscure libido which is concealed after all in even, human life, whereas on the contrary, when one lives in society with others one so easily forgets, is let off so easily, is sustained in so many ways, gets opportunity to start afresh–this mere thought, conceived with proper respect, I would suppose, must chasten many an individual in our age which imagines it has already reached the highest attainment.
...
But about this people concern themselves very little in our age which has reached the highest attainment, whereas in truth no age has so fallen victim to the comic as this has, and it is incomprehensible that this age has not already by a generatio acquivoca [breeding without mating] given birth to its hero, the demon who would remorselessly produce the dreadful spectacle of making the whole age laugh and making it forget that it was laughing at itself. Or what is existence for but to be laughed at if men in their twenties have already attained the utmost? And for all that, what loftier emotion has the age found since men gave up entering the monastery? Is it not a pitiable prudence, shrewdness, faintheartedness, it has found, which sits in high places and cravenly makes men believe they have accomplished the greatest things and insidiously withholds them from attempting to do even the lesser things? The man who has performed the cloister-movement has only one movement more to make, that is, the movement of the absurd. How many in our age understand what the absurd is? How many of our contemporaries so live that they have renounced all or have gained all? How many are even so honest with themselves that they know what they can do and what they cannot? And is it not true that in so far as one finds such people one finds them rather among the less cultured and in part among women? The age in a kind of clairvoyance reveals its weak point, as a demoniac always reveals himself without understanding himself, for over and over again it is demanding the comic. If it really were this the age needed, the theater might perhaps need a new play in which it was made a subject of laughter that a person died of love–or would it not rather be salutary for this age if such a thing were to happen among us, if the age were to witness such an occurrence, in order that for once it might acquire courage to believe in the power of spirit, courage to stop quenching cravenly the better impulses in oneself and quenching enviously the better impulses in others … by laughter? Does the age really need a ridiculous exhibition by a religious enthusiast in order to get something to laugh at, or does it not need rather that such an enthusiastic figure should remind it of that which has been forgotten? (Fear and Trembling)
Last edited by Arktos on Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Philosophaster
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am
I would not consider myself "part" of this community. I am not trying to "get enlightened" or "remove attachments" or any of that stuff like most of the people here. Your perception may be skewed by the fact that I was the first one to respond. You should probably wait for people like David or Kevin or Trevor to reply if you want a more "representative" opinion.
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
The basic drill is that sexual love is distracting from more important matters like Ultimate Truth, and ends up being pretty time and energy consuming as well. Sorry to not be more eloquent, but you are on track with what the core group of GF believe.
It may take a while for the regulars to post on this... but it is a basic concept here. Maybe check out the links above marked "David Quinn's site" and "theabsolute.net" while you are waiting.
It may take a while for the regulars to post on this... but it is a basic concept here. Maybe check out the links above marked "David Quinn's site" and "theabsolute.net" while you are waiting.
-
Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
I'm sort of a regular here, but I'm put off by the big words in the thread title (Psychophysiological, I don't do eight-syllables as a rule) and by the dense blocks of text in the opening post.
Last edited by Carl G on Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Good Citizen Carl
-
Philosophaster
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am
-
Philosophaster
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Ark,
If I might offer a suggestion, you need to read a fuck of a lot less, and take more time to digest the material. You're flailing all over the place with concepts pulled from every which way.
Also, it makes you look like a douche when you try to blame other people for your own insanity.
As far as I can tell, you just said that we sit around on our asses. If that bothers you, maybe philosophy isn't the right path for you. Have you ever thought of taking up croquet?
I wouldn't get too cocky. What you wrote was a blog entry filled with name-drops and more quotations than personal opinion. The title of this thread is unnecessarily complex, with redundancy in both the word "scientific" and the prefix "physio". You could have said "The Psychological Advantages of Celibacy" and made a hundred times more sense, or even just "Advantages of Celibacy" and allowed a more open discussion.Ok, guys, you've made it clear that there is a psychological gap between myself and most of the posters here.
If I might offer a suggestion, you need to read a fuck of a lot less, and take more time to digest the material. You're flailing all over the place with concepts pulled from every which way.
Also, it makes you look like a douche when you try to blame other people for your own insanity.
I have enough of an idea of what this means to wonder: "how in hell does this criticism relate to this forum?"No one needs to freak out, I just won't post anymore and challenge the sacred cows of modernism.
Wow, you pretentious fuck. Tone down the language, both when posting ideas and when making these stupid insults.The level of self-complacency, puerility and vulgar modernist hubris is too much.
As far as I can tell, you just said that we sit around on our asses. If that bothers you, maybe philosophy isn't the right path for you. Have you ever thought of taking up croquet?
I do not think the gradual gain of the ability of a person to see deeper wisdoms is related to sexual celibacy and chastity as such, but rather through a lack of “touch‘.
Take myself for instance - and I regard myself as a person that can often see into the core of a matter - I wank often, but do not have any sexual companionship and I keep myself reasonably distant from others. I just do not get touched in the manner than most people do. Touch is more important than sex – a baby requires touch, it does not require sex. Touch is the signal of acceptance, it is an alleviation of suffering. Those who do not get this touch suffer from ideas of being outcast from the herd, and suffer greatly, but this suffering creates a desire to remove the suffering and intellectual development occurs [ or physical development in the case of a sick, weak or fat person who suddenly goes on a health binge, because they have had enough suffering].
My view is that evolution, or survival of the fittest, has engineered opportunities for people who are unattractive to others. I think it relates to tribes of the past requiring a leader of battles and a spiritual leader. The impression I get is that the spiritual leader was the nerdiest or weakest dude in the village, and often had genetic abnormalities. As children they suffered greatly because they could not adequately compete and do the things that stronger males could do, and found an outlet via the mind. Even if a male was left in a village with the females while the other males hunted, would create the circumstances for the development of IQ, as this lower caste male would still need to have control over the females that remained in the village - on this alone a lot of causes would result that woudl lead to weak males developing intelligence via actual use.
This concentration of mental functions as opposed to physical ones was found to be beneficial to the herd, and the herd rewarded such persons by providing food, lodgings and fuck buddies*. I’m a Lamarckian evolutionist, I 100% believe that finding a use of some part of the body, which may or may not be a genetic aberration, leads to a concentration of resources to that part, and stimulates growth during an individuals lifetime, and at the time of sexual reproduction this “state†is reflected in the genetic material, in the DNA. To think that there is not reverse causality for DNA is just insane in my book. There is reverse causality in everything. Causes do not flow one way but two ways – that which affects something is equally affected but in an opposite manner to what is affected.
Over 1000’s of generations, where the weaker male became the spiritual head and the weaker or less desirous of the female herd [perhaps even by having an excess of masculine hormones, that lead to inquisitiveness desires and desires for domination, which leads to higher IQ’s] bred with this male, then slowly, via Lamarckian usage, this became an actual physical thing in peoples brains passed down from generation to generation. It also spread to the wider population, as the spiritual head was awarded for supplying information that was more rational than that which the herd could think of – an example would be a spiritual leader giving the battle leader, advice about how to set a trap for the tribes competition.
This physical thing that developed in the brain, is merely the switch that turns off strong emotions when one needs to concentrate [all concentration is, is non-emotional thinking]. Now the trick it that it is activated by suffering, and in a select few they are able to more or less permanently turn it off – these are the enlightened!! The autistic however are those who have difficulty turning it off.
*fuck buddies. Imagine a smart dude left in a village with a bunch of cackling females. He could even copulate with the most attractive ones, and they would go along with the ride for the benefits. It is not surprising that many males, who could obtain females if they dropped their standards, do not do so. It is also my impression that nerdy males are actually more highly sexed than jocks over the span of a lifetime. Jocks don't need sex as much because they have their mates, and because they can take it for granted, they don't have to concentrate on getting sex to get sex - all they have to do is concentrate on fighting other males to get the most attractive female to breed with.
Take myself for instance - and I regard myself as a person that can often see into the core of a matter - I wank often, but do not have any sexual companionship and I keep myself reasonably distant from others. I just do not get touched in the manner than most people do. Touch is more important than sex – a baby requires touch, it does not require sex. Touch is the signal of acceptance, it is an alleviation of suffering. Those who do not get this touch suffer from ideas of being outcast from the herd, and suffer greatly, but this suffering creates a desire to remove the suffering and intellectual development occurs [ or physical development in the case of a sick, weak or fat person who suddenly goes on a health binge, because they have had enough suffering].
My view is that evolution, or survival of the fittest, has engineered opportunities for people who are unattractive to others. I think it relates to tribes of the past requiring a leader of battles and a spiritual leader. The impression I get is that the spiritual leader was the nerdiest or weakest dude in the village, and often had genetic abnormalities. As children they suffered greatly because they could not adequately compete and do the things that stronger males could do, and found an outlet via the mind. Even if a male was left in a village with the females while the other males hunted, would create the circumstances for the development of IQ, as this lower caste male would still need to have control over the females that remained in the village - on this alone a lot of causes would result that woudl lead to weak males developing intelligence via actual use.
This concentration of mental functions as opposed to physical ones was found to be beneficial to the herd, and the herd rewarded such persons by providing food, lodgings and fuck buddies*. I’m a Lamarckian evolutionist, I 100% believe that finding a use of some part of the body, which may or may not be a genetic aberration, leads to a concentration of resources to that part, and stimulates growth during an individuals lifetime, and at the time of sexual reproduction this “state†is reflected in the genetic material, in the DNA. To think that there is not reverse causality for DNA is just insane in my book. There is reverse causality in everything. Causes do not flow one way but two ways – that which affects something is equally affected but in an opposite manner to what is affected.
Over 1000’s of generations, where the weaker male became the spiritual head and the weaker or less desirous of the female herd [perhaps even by having an excess of masculine hormones, that lead to inquisitiveness desires and desires for domination, which leads to higher IQ’s] bred with this male, then slowly, via Lamarckian usage, this became an actual physical thing in peoples brains passed down from generation to generation. It also spread to the wider population, as the spiritual head was awarded for supplying information that was more rational than that which the herd could think of – an example would be a spiritual leader giving the battle leader, advice about how to set a trap for the tribes competition.
This physical thing that developed in the brain, is merely the switch that turns off strong emotions when one needs to concentrate [all concentration is, is non-emotional thinking]. Now the trick it that it is activated by suffering, and in a select few they are able to more or less permanently turn it off – these are the enlightened!! The autistic however are those who have difficulty turning it off.
*fuck buddies. Imagine a smart dude left in a village with a bunch of cackling females. He could even copulate with the most attractive ones, and they would go along with the ride for the benefits. It is not surprising that many males, who could obtain females if they dropped their standards, do not do so. It is also my impression that nerdy males are actually more highly sexed than jocks over the span of a lifetime. Jocks don't need sex as much because they have their mates, and because they can take it for granted, they don't have to concentrate on getting sex to get sex - all they have to do is concentrate on fighting other males to get the most attractive female to breed with.
Last edited by Jamesh on Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
The truths of mystics cannot contradict the truths of natural philosophy, because truth cannot contradict truth
When I first scanned your post I read this sentence and started to comment on it. Here is what I came up with.
Apart from the sentence seeming to mean nothing, there is not one part of this so called truth rubbish, that does not contradict another.
The nature of the universe is contradictory, because it is dualistic – it is always in opposition with itself. Whatever truth you may have will always be in opposition to another, even in your own mind.
Truths are most real, when they have a structure that recognises perspectives that are opposite to each other. All absolutes truths require both sides to be stated. In between is where our minds dwell. One requires the paradox of opposite opinions, in order to find a place somewhere in the middle ground. Single perspective Truths are always fuzzy in nature, that is because they will always lie at any point in the spectrum between the absolute opposites. Now although nothing is actually fuzzy at the fundamental level of nature, the level of the infinite, some degree of fuzziness must occur for all things. This is because all things will be relative to your singular view of the Totality. The nature of consciousness or of any conceptual thought, is a ONE to MANY perspective. It is not a One to All perspective [as in when I am thinking, I am a single point of existence and everything that is not me is the ALL], because all though the ALL allows the Many, we cannot see the ALL, as the single point of view requires all things to be defined, and the act of definition changes the ALL into just sets of MANY things of various differing and alike properties.
Truth does contradict truth to the degree that the truth is subjectively, and there are no truths that are not subjectively based. To have ideas one’s calls the truth is ALWAYS an exercise in rationality. Rationality is the processing of information in a manner that best suits your survival. Rationality is not logic. Logic is just robotic binary processing, that means absolutely zilch, until it is applied relative to oneself.
When I first scanned your post I read this sentence and started to comment on it. Here is what I came up with.
Apart from the sentence seeming to mean nothing, there is not one part of this so called truth rubbish, that does not contradict another.
The nature of the universe is contradictory, because it is dualistic – it is always in opposition with itself. Whatever truth you may have will always be in opposition to another, even in your own mind.
Truths are most real, when they have a structure that recognises perspectives that are opposite to each other. All absolutes truths require both sides to be stated. In between is where our minds dwell. One requires the paradox of opposite opinions, in order to find a place somewhere in the middle ground. Single perspective Truths are always fuzzy in nature, that is because they will always lie at any point in the spectrum between the absolute opposites. Now although nothing is actually fuzzy at the fundamental level of nature, the level of the infinite, some degree of fuzziness must occur for all things. This is because all things will be relative to your singular view of the Totality. The nature of consciousness or of any conceptual thought, is a ONE to MANY perspective. It is not a One to All perspective [as in when I am thinking, I am a single point of existence and everything that is not me is the ALL], because all though the ALL allows the Many, we cannot see the ALL, as the single point of view requires all things to be defined, and the act of definition changes the ALL into just sets of MANY things of various differing and alike properties.
Truth does contradict truth to the degree that the truth is subjectively, and there are no truths that are not subjectively based. To have ideas one’s calls the truth is ALWAYS an exercise in rationality. Rationality is the processing of information in a manner that best suits your survival. Rationality is not logic. Logic is just robotic binary processing, that means absolutely zilch, until it is applied relative to oneself.
Hello Trevor (and the rest),
I never pretended my initial post was a masterpiece of literature, but a rough stimulus to further thoughts. The critique you offer amounts to nothing more than irrelevant quibbling and playground taunts. You say I pull concepts from every which way, but the mind of the sage is synthetic and incorporates information from each perspective as much as possible.
I am not going to waste my time proving myself and taking insults from coarse-natured knaves and undereducated bozos. I have been privately informed that the more mature posters are not especially available right now, so I will return to the board in a week or so and see if the more sapientally-minded return.
I never pretended my initial post was a masterpiece of literature, but a rough stimulus to further thoughts. The critique you offer amounts to nothing more than irrelevant quibbling and playground taunts. You say I pull concepts from every which way, but the mind of the sage is synthetic and incorporates information from each perspective as much as possible.
I am not going to waste my time proving myself and taking insults from coarse-natured knaves and undereducated bozos. I have been privately informed that the more mature posters are not especially available right now, so I will return to the board in a week or so and see if the more sapientally-minded return.