Genius Rules

[clyde]

I may not have all the Genius Rules, but here is a start:

1. We (QRS and those we so designate) are enlightened and you are either part of the “herd” or a seeker.

2. Repeat “A=A” continuously. It is the Genius Mantra and has great power, even if it lacks meaning.

3. When we use a word it has an enlightened meaning which you are incapable of understanding; unlike when you use the same word.

[Dan Rowden]

That has all the hallmarks of a sour grapes dummy spit, Clyde.

[clyde]

Here is an example of Genius Rule #3 rececently posted by S on the "To David Quinn: two worries" thread:

The enlightened might use the same words to describe things as the unenlightened, but they mean something entirely different by them.

[Kevin Solway]

So you don't like the fact that the enlightened have different experiences to the unenlightened?

[Dan Rowden]

Clyde,

And what problem do you have with that, specifically? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. An unenlightened person necessarily passes concepts through egotistical filters which distort them. Enlightenment being a case in point. It's simply a point that needs to be understood so a person can attempt to clear away such distortions.

If an unenlightened person could speak of enlightenment with the same meaning as the enlightened, what would that imply to you?

[clyde]

Kevin;

I don't see that I wrote about "diferent experiences". Have you noticed that recently you seem to be in the habit of changing the subject?

That said, experiences are experiences. (You know, A=A.) And each experience is unique. I have not had the same experience twice, so I do not expect that my experiences match your experiences or anyone else's experiences. Are your experiences identical to Q and R?

Finally, are your experiences enlightened? ALL of them? ALWAYS?

[clyde]

Dan;

Aside from projecting or speculating regarding my feelings or motives, you have not objected to the Genius Rules. Genius Rule #3 states:

3. When we use a word it has an enlightened meaning which you are incapable of understanding; unlike when you use the same word.

Since you claim to be an enlightened person and agree with the rule as stated, what does that mean to you and your efforts to communicate with others? Can you communicate successfully with others, even the unenlightened?

[Kevin Solway]

I don't see that I wrote about "diferent experiences".

The reason that the wise mean something different by their words is because they have a different experience.

Are your experiences identical to Q and R?

I don't know.

Finally, are your experiences enlightened? ALL of them? ALWAYS?

They're not all perfectly enlightened, but they are always informed by enlightenment. Once you know the truth, this changes everything.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan;

Aside from projecting or speculating regarding my feelings or motives, you have not objected to the Genius Rules.

When a physicist is trying to explain Relativity to a person not familiar with the concepts (which still employ conventionally known "words") he attempts to reorient the mind of that person such that they can conceive of things differently. It's essentially the same with wisdom.

Rule 3. When we use a word it has an enlightened meaning which you are incapable of understanding; unlike when you use the same word.

Since you claim to be an enlightened person and agree with the rule as stated,

Hang on, when did I say that? I agree with it where applicable and only then.

what does that mean to you and your efforts to communicate with others? Can you communicate successfully with others, even the unenlightened?

Potentially. Depends how open their minds are to reorientation. Do you think everyone is capable of getting their mind around Relativity conceptually?

[clyde]

They're not all perfectly enlightened, but they are always informed by enlightenment. Once you know the truth, this changes everything.

1) Am I to understand that some of your experiences are perfectly enlightened and some of your experiences are not perfectly enlightened, so that some of your experiences are unenlightened, at least to some degree?

2) Does this mean enlightenment is not binary, but has degrees?

3) Does this mean that sometimes you're enlightened and sometime you're unenlightened? Or can you be enlightened all the time, even though you sometimes have unenlightened experiences?

[clyde]

Rule 3. When we use a word it has an enlightened meaning which you are incapable of understanding; unlike when you use the same word.

Since you claim to be an enlightened person and agree with the rule as stated,

Hang on, when did I say that? I agree with it where applicable and only then.

OK. I'm guessing here, but QRS gets to decide where its applicable, right? So Genius Rule #3 needs to be modified to account for that:

3. When QRS uses a word, QRS determines if the word has an enlightened meaning which only QRS is capable of understanding; unlike when you use the same word.

[Kevin Solway]

some of your experiences are unenlightened, at least to some degree?

Yes.

Does this mean enlightenment is not binary, but has degrees?

It depends largely on what you mean by "enlightenment". It can mean many different things.

Whether a person knows the absolute truth or not is binary. I would personally say that a person is enlightened if they know the absolute truth.

To what degree that knowledge informs all their thoughts and actions is a matter of degree.

Or can you be enlightened all the time

It's possible for a person to lose their enlightenment through brain damage or the like, but it's unlikely to happen through ordinary forgetfulness. Generally speaking, once a person is enlightened, they're enlightened all the time, in the sense that they always know what is absolutely true.

[Kevin Solway]

When QRS uses a word, QRS determines if the word has an enlightened meaning which only QRS is capable of understanding; unlike when you use the same word.

For some reason you are spiralling off into total fantasy. I've never said anything even remotely like what you say above.

[clyde]

Does this mean enlightenment is not binary, but has degrees?

It depends largely on what you mean by "enlightenment". It can mean many different things.

Whether a person knows the absolute truth or not is binary. I would personally say that a person is enlightened if they know the absolute truth.

Kevin; Thank you for your answers. Of course, what "enlightenment" means depends entirely on QRS for only QRS is capable of determining the meaning of "enlightenment", as explained by R:

An unenlightened person necessarily passes concepts through egotistical filters which distort them. Enlightenment being a case in point. It's simply a point that needs to be understood so a person can attempt to clear away such distortions.

But to continue,

To what degree that knowledge informs all their thoughts and actions is a matter of degree.

So, enlightenment is knowledge?

[Kevin Solway]

what "enlightenment" means depends entirely on QRS for only QRS is capable of determining the meaning of "enlightenment", as explained by R:

Dan didn't say anything remotely like that.

[clyde]

When QRS uses a word, QRS determines if the word has an enlightened meaning which only QRS is capable of understanding; unlike when you use the same word.

For some reason you are spiralling off into total fantasy. I've never said anything even remotely like what you say above.

Kevin; Please look at the post (See below.) you're quoting from and notice that is was a response to R, not you.

Rule 3. When we use a word it has an enlightened meaning which you are incapable of understanding; unlike when you use the same word.

Since you claim to be an enlightened person and agree with the rule as stated,

Hang on, when did I say that? I agree with it where applicable and only then.

OK. I'm guessing here, but QRS gets to decide where its applicable, right? So Genius Rule #3 needs to be modified to account for that:

3. When QRS uses a word, QRS determines if the word has an enlightened meaning which only QRS is capable of understanding; unlike when you use the same word.

[clyde]

what "enlightenment" means depends entirely on QRS for only QRS is capable of determining the meaning of "enlightenment", as explained by R:

Dan didn't say anything remotely like that.

Look at the quote from R that was part of my post. Both you and he have argued that only an enlightened person, such as QRS, can understand the meaning of enlightenment. Or are you now positing that unenlightened persons are capable of understanding the meaning of enlightenment?

[Kevin Solway]

Dan didn't say anything about QRS or "only QRS" being capable of determining the meaning of enlightenment.

Only enlightened people can really know what enlightenment means. This should be obvious.

[Imadrongo]

4. The enlightened define their own terms as it becomes necessary to do so to logically reach the conclusions that they already know are true, since they are enlightened.

[clyde]

Dan didn't say anything about QRS or "only QRS" being capable of determining the meaning of enlightenment.

Only enlightened people can really know what enlightenment means. This should be obvious.

OK, but according to Genius Rule #1
1. We (QRS and those we so designate) are enlightened and you are either part of the “herd” or a seeker.

So the following then follows:

3. When QRS and those QRS so designates (collectively, "the enlightened") use a word, the enlightened determine if the word has an enlightened meaning which only the enlightened are capable of understanding; unlike when you (collectively, "the unenlightened") use the same word.

Of course, these Genius Rules are obvious to the enlightened who do not need a list of Genius Rules, but the same is not the case for the unenlightened for whom the list is intended.

[Kevin Solway]

Only enlightened people can really know what enlightenment means. This should be obvious.

OK, but according to Genius Rule #1
1. We (QRS and those we so designate) are enlightened and you are either part of the “herd” or a seeker

These rules of yours are a figment of your imagination. I only speak for myself. I don't know for sure whether Dave and Dan even exist.

Also, I don't know who "you" is supposed to refer to. It is not true that a person is either part of the herd or a seeker.

The enlightened have altogether different experiences to the unenlightened, as well as having a different understanding of all things.

This is not a very difficult thing to understand.

[clyde]

Kevin;

Yes, of course the rules are a figment of my imagination. What else could any "rule" be?

Do you know if anyone other than yourself exists? I hope so; otherwise you must be very lonely.

[Kevin Solway]

Do you know if anyone other than yourself exists?

Not for sure.

[clyde]

Kevin; I do understand the feeling. It seems natural for some (myself included) to sometimes feel that the universe is sustained by our awareness alone. For me, when I find myself entering that 'space', I pause and start to look at the details of the world about me, like the fingerprints on my fingers, the grain of the wood of my desk, or I look at animals and pets and observe the details of their behaviour. I can't believe that I imagined the overwhelming detail and it's enough to 'break the spell'.

[Dan Rowden]

Clyde,

Does "No Harm", mean to everyone what it means to you?