Thou Shalt Not Disappoint Her

[kissaki]

I'm not going to be taunted into debating with hot air. You can take another stab at your reply after you have slept on this matter, or had a hot bath, or gone for a long walk, or otherwise placated your emotions. When you can give me a reply that is more substance than rage, I will have no problems continuing this debate.

Translation: If you act in accordance with my particular protocols then we can play with more words that are to my liking.

Countless forms available to Buddha and debating with words is somehow the most supreme of all? I love Buddha too much for words, which is why I insist upon setting words against each other.

The photons leaving these words and reaching your eyes do not take a single straight path, so why should I?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

If you act in accordance with my particular protocols then we can play with more words that are to my liking.

If you'd rather write angry rants than arguments, keep a diary.

However, I'm losing confidence in your abilities: if you were capable of argument, you would be using those skills here. Maybe you should get yourself an introductory book on writing philosophic arguments. I'm not enough of a teacher to want to train you in basics.

[kissaki]

If you'd rather write angry rants than arguments, keep a diary.

However, I'm losing confidence in your abilities: if you were capable of argument, you would be using those skills here. Maybe you should get yourself an introductory book on writing philosophic arguments. I'm not enough of a teacher to want to train you in basics.

You cared not for the science mind vs Zen mind comment as it stood, but you did care enough to try to correct it to suit your own fashions. Finally, you admit you are incapable of correcting me. The end.

Hmmm, what to do today? I think I will go outside and begin straightening out all the branches on the trees. After I am done I shall ask them, "Trees, why do you still refuse me logical debate? All you offer me is the sound of your rustling leaves."

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Finally, you admit you are incapable of correcting me. The end.

Yes, it is impossible to teach someone who is unwilling to learn. There's an adage, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

You are the kid that refuses to follow any of his coaches' helpful tips. Sure, your problems at home (latent frustration with your parents) give a reason for it, but it does not excuse it: when your coach stops picking on you, you are in the worst possible situation. He has decided you are hopeless.

You have betrayed that you care not one whit for debate, for a logical understanding of reality, or for anything remotely related to the goals of this forum. You just want to toss around words and concepts that you hear wise people using, and then you throw temper tantrums when you are called out on your bullshit. I gave you one last ditch recommendation: to introduce yourself to the fundamentals of debate through some introductory reading. Even this, you refuse to do. Instead, you would pray to the trees for guidance.

Go ahead, have your last word. If you do not go back to the epistemological issue I disagreed with you about before your emotional breakdown; or, alternatively, your reply does not involve you asking me what my definition of sage is, then I will not reply. Your pretensions are already in full view, though, so I doubt that you will be concerned at all about either of these substantial points. You will focus on something insubstantial instead.

[kissaki]

Finally, you admit you are incapable of correcting me. The end.

Yes, it is impossible to teach someone who is unwilling to learn. There's an adage, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

You are the kid that refuses to follow any of his coaches' helpful tips. Sure, your problems at home (latent frustration with your parents) give a reason for it, but it does not excuse it: when your coach stops picking on you, you are in the worst possible situation. He has decided you are hopeless.

You have betrayed that you care not one whit for debate, for a logical understanding of reality, or for anything remotely related to the goals of this forum. You just want to toss around words and concepts that you hear wise people using, and then you throw temper tantrums when you are called out on your bullshit. I gave you one last ditch recommendation: to introduce yourself to the fundamentals of debate through some introductory reading. Even this, you refuse to do. Instead, you would pray to the trees for guidance.

Go ahead, have your last word. If you do not go back to the epistemological issue I disagreed with you about before your emotional breakdown; or, alternatively, your reply does not involve you asking me what my definition of sage is, then I will not reply. Your pretensions are already in full view, though, so I doubt that you will be concerned at all about either of these substantial points. You will focus on something insubstantial instead.

awww shucks Coach! If I'm not on the team my parents are gonna kill me!

[kissaki]

Proof of Void or Why Buddha is Supreme Mathematician

There are things.

Things are appearances with clear boundaries, that is, definite beginnings and endings.

Things always appear within consciousness, thus things must appear within consciousness for me to know them.

A thing may always be separated into more things, which is to say, more things and not-things that make that thing.

No known thing is known to escape this observation of coming from more things and going to more things.

Since I can clearly distinguish this thing from that thing I shall number the things: 1 thing, 2 thing, 3 thing and so on.

Will I arrive to the end of things? It seems highly unlikely considering all these things everywhere. So I am likely to count to infinite.

This composes the action of my mind, and so may be correctly seen as alpeh-null, the countably infinite set of my mind things.

But what of the super mind? The enlightened mind? The god mind? The universal consciousness mind? The exceptional-clear-awakened-beyond-all-things mind? The Buddha mind.

Certainly the Buddha mind is at the very least composed of my mind-things and their combinations. Therefore, I shall take the power set of my mind set and unleash the power of the Buddha mind!

Interesting. It turns out the Buddha mind set is aleph-one, the uncountably infinite set of my mind-things and their combinations. This means I can never actually account for all the things in the Buddha mind using my mind action. No matter how many mind-things I identify, Buddha mind is always out of reach. Simply put, the Buddha mind is an order of cardinality larger than my mind.

So what is Buddha mind to my mind, really? Buddha mind effectively doesn't exist to my mind. Buddha mind effectively is beyond my mind. Buddha mind effectively is indistinguishable from my mind. Buddha mind effectively is three pounds of flax seed.

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: There are a huge variety of human beliefs about the nature of reality, life's purpose, metaphysical concepts, spirituality and ultimate meaning

kissaki: You're definition of metaphysics is off. Metaphysics encompasses all those things.

It's not so much that my definition is off, as that I threw that list together fairly thoughtlessly. Now that I think about it, I actually agree with you that metaphysics encompasses all of those things.

Beliefs are metaphysics. Judgment of sensory data is metaphysics. You cannot not do metaphysics.

I don't go that far. Some beliefs are metaphysics (or rather, metaphysical), but not all. Not, for example, the belief that interest rates will fall next month. As for judgement of sensory data, I see no reason to associate it with metaphysics at all. You seem to have a broader definition of the word than is generally agreed upon.

Great scientists have less metaphysical absurdities than mediocre ones and certainly less than ones who inject fantastic metaphysical absurdities and still claim to perform science. In my example, Dawkins has much much less metaphysical absurdities than his intelligent design opponents.

Given that you believe that "[y]ou cannot not do metaphysics", then what you write above makes sense. I, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to avoid metaphysics in large part, and that good scientists, to the extent that they are capable, do exactly that.

How much of the material linked to from this site have you read and how much from other sources?

As far as material linked to from this site goes, I have read the entirety of Wisdom of the Infinite, a small percentage of the Woman essay, a few of the letters from Letters Between Enemies, bits and pieces from Poison for the Heart - the entirety of the section on women, and, if I recall correctly, at least the sections on enlightenment and aging - and a few other miscellaneous bits and pieces from David's and Kevin's sites, such as the Larkin Debate, and David's conversations with quantum physicists.

As far as material from other sources goes, I'm assuming that you mean Buddhist sources. If so, then: not a great deal, but enough to comment intelligently on it. I have a passing familiarity with Buddhism - I studied it during my final two years of high school as part of the Studies in Religion subject (over a decade ago now); since then I've visited Buddhist temples and retreats, I've read a few Buddhist essays on the web, and I've read a few miscellaneous passages out of various Buddhist scriptures as people have linked to or quoted them in GF posts.

Why aren't you charging David with theft and unoriginality and copying Buddha? Because I do. If you think David is original in any fundamental way then you are very lost.

David certainly has Buddhist influences/borrowings. That much is undeniable. The fundamental way in which David is original, however, is not necessarily in any of his individual ideas (although some of them might well be original, for all that I know - in particular I suspect that his take on the emotions is completely new), but in his packaging and prioritising of those ideas into an integrated whole that can be processed, digested and accepted, and in what he leaves out of as much as what he puts into the package. Where else can be found the equivalence of femininity with unconsciousness (as, essentially, an inability to understand the package) and of masculinity with consciousness (as the capacity which achieves rational enlightenment), plus rational enlightenment (as complete and perfect understanding and acceptance of the package), plus the doctrine that given the appropriate realisation (the illusory nature of the self), one's emotions cease arising, plus the neat and tidy little encapsulation that the-Totality-is-everything-and-contains-all-causes-therefore-cannot-be-caused-itself, plus the fixed belief in determinism, plus the emphasis on causality and the reworked understanding of a cause as anything that contributes to an effect rather than just the most significant contributor(s) to that effect, plus the tautology A=A which essentially means "consciousness identifies things", plus the atheism, plus the veneration of logic, plus the doctrine that through pure logic, non-trivial absolute truths can be proved, plus the discouragement of wise men and women from working in society, plus all of the other things that I'm not going to mention because this paragraph is huge enough as it is? Really, where else can you find it?

Let's not forget what's being left out of the package and de-prioritised, too. One of the most important teachings of Buddhism is the integral role of compassion. No doubt, if you asked him, David would wholeheartedly agree that compassion is an essential component of enlightenment, but how much talk time does he give it? Not only does he give it practically no talk time at all, but he makes suggestions of the order that we might kill unenlightened elderly people in nursing homes - sure, he might just be joking or simply trying to stir up some controversy, but it's hardly a compassionate notion, at least in the Buddhist sense, is it? What's most noticeably missing from this package is the human element: compassion and feeling.

All of this is really just to repeat what Alex has already written, in different words. He calls it a "story", I call it a "package". We're both making a similar observation.

Now onto the science, enlightenment, and the difference of being a man or a woman. First, let me state that your singular examples of women who do well in science does not disprove the fact that the sciences, the real hard abstract sciences, are dominated by men. Secondly, let me restate that you readily admit that it is men who give the best performances in these abstract realms of science.

I've already explained that my (tentative, provisional) understanding of the reason for this is that men are created at extremes more than women, so that there are more men with the extreme capacity to perform at the highest level in these sciences. The crucial point of this theory is that the average man is no better equipped than the average woman.

I want to acknowledge for fairness though that I haven't read up much on the genetic differences between men's and women's brains, although as I understand it there are many, and I might possibly at some point read a book such as the one that Kevin recommends - "BRAIN SEX: The real difference between men and women" - because the excerpts that he provides here are very interesting. Perhaps, the average man does have some skills that give him an advantage in certain fields of study (the very abstract, as you make reference to) over the average woman, and not just at the extremes. If so, then I will acknowledge it. Even if it is true though, how relevant is it? I'll answer that question later.

Given that, I state that because of this fact men are much more well armed to do battle with the realm of pure metaphysics, reach the edge of thought and words, and then correctly identify that which is known as Tao, Ultimate Reality, The Void, Enlightenment, Nirvana, God.

Well, for a start, assuming that we run with the "extremes" theory as outlined in the "Is there anything good about men?" article that we've both read, then that does not follow: on average, men are no better armed to "do battle with the realm of pure metaphysics" than women. But let me give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the Brain Sex book would demonstrate to me that men are more capable of abstract thought than women on average. I would want to know "by how much?" Are we talking poles apart, or just a little head-start? The way that QRS go on and on about how 99.9999% of men (or whatever figure they actually use) are in fact women (i.e. feminine), then it seems that it can't - according to them at least - be by very much, can it? And yet, above, you state that men are "much more" well armed.

Secondly, there's something that you ought to notice, and that is this: that the QRS philosophy is not particularly complicated. Kevin has been known to utter such statements as (paraphrased) "What we teach is actually pretty simple." Take, for example, the idea of non-inherent existence: a thing does not exist in complete causal isolation from everything else; also this can be come at from a different perspective as: a thing has no essential nature - whatever specific aspect you point to is not the thing itself. These concepts could be explained to a child, or at least to a young adolescent. So here's my answer to "how relevant is it if men are on average better equipped to deal with abstract thought?" - my answer is "it's not particularly relevant at all", because these are not particularly difficult concepts to comprehend in the first place.

The first phrase says that knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles itself is not knowledge of Void. The second phrase says that those who do posses knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles are more likely to have the capacity, which is rationality, to understand Void.

OK.

As far as your criticism regarding the undeserved attack on women, my reply to that is that women do deserve such criticism -- every single bit. Men are already effectively trash to society, they are throwaways. They are automatons who take the brunt of risk in the form of dangerous roles who are clearly replaceable since such an attribute is a requirement for such a system to work.

With those words you're simply again displaying your brazen bias. Men might be more represented than women in the dangerous roles, but they are also more represented than women in the powerful roles - heads of business; chiefs of state; managers; etc.

So for me to emphasize attacks on women more so than men is simply an efficient use of time. The reality of society attacks and tears down men every day, but who is tearing down women?

Why the focus on tearing people down, why not fortify them instead?

Women get all the benefits of mens' work with relatively little of the work.

There are plenty of women who do work in this world, and men get the benefits of those women's work. Perhaps you think that the sorts of jobs that women typically do don't count. And aside from paid work, many women still work in the home, not just as child-rearers but also as housekeepers. Men get the benefit of that work.

Regarding your charge that I am prejudiced and psychologically motivated in my philosophy, I am guilty as charged. The very fact that you bring this up tells me what level your thinking is at. The very fact that you level that at me implies to me that somehow you think you have escaped it or that you plan to escape it at some imaginary point in the future. It implies that you think you somehow can escape the judging action of your mind and the specific character traits that color your personality and preferences.

Oh, I have my own psychological motivations - for example, I like to see people get on well together, so I encourage pleasant behaviour and favourable views of one another - however I try to see things from a balanced perspective whereas yours is completely, and demonstrably, biased against women.

Understand cause and effect and this entire paragraph disappears.

What's that supposed to mean?

All that said, I hate women. I hate them more than you can imagine.

That's pretty sad. Hatred's not a pleasant experience, for either the hater or the hated. All that you have to do is change your perspective. You needn't view women in the negative light that you currently do. There are more healthy perspectives.

It seems to me that there's something essential that you're missing. I'm getting this impression from your general attitude towards women as expressed above, from your willingness to heap nasty insults upon someone whom you barely know (me), from your admission that you bring people to tears with the ferocity of your philosophising, from your unkind words to Elizabeth, and from your unwillingness to apologise for those unkind words. That something is respect.

Let me guess your reaction: "Women don't deserve respect".

If that's your reaction, then let me ask you: "Why should the glass be half empty and not half full"? Women are not typically murderers, rapists, or particularly evil in the traditional sense; furthermore they give birth to us - there's plenty there to be respected, and you could choose to focus on the positives, but instead you focus on the negatives, leading you to a form of misogyny that even QRS don't practice.

I hate how unthinking they are.

Firstly, do you even try to have meaningful (respectful) conversations with women? I don't find that men have a monopoly on thought.

Secondly, even if it were true that women are unthinking, is this a reason to hate them? Rocks are - as far as I know - unthinking: do you hate rocks? Shouldn't those who are lacking something be pitied, rather than hated?

I hate how simply because I am caused to sexually respond to them they think I must obey them, put up with their inane fetishes, or structure my entire life and very being around them.

I don't know which women you're hanging around, but it's time to find a new crowd.

But most of all, I hate them because they are such pathetic representatives of the vehicle which gives rise to my current and future vehicles. I swear to the living god of reality that should I succeed in breaking their monopoly on the restrictions of form I will cut theirs down in an instant.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, particularly by the words "vehicle" and "form". Are you referring to physical bodies, or to minds, or to personalities, or to some combination?

Quinn, Solway, and Rowden can act as arrogantly as they see fit. They are actually quite humble all things considered. If it wasn't for Solway's greatest book ever written I would still be a fool who believes in literal reincarnation like the Dali Lama and his circus ilk. You really have no idea from where they come.

How can you say that with such confidence? What do you really know about me?

Finally, ultimately everything I've said here is a lie and I expect to be hung for these words.

Again I ask: what's that supposed to mean?

In particular, are you recanting your hatred for women?

[Iolaus]

It appears to me that Kissaki is unbalanced and dangerous.

[Kelly Jones]

Kissaki's more lively and has significantly more soul than many here. No wonder some see him as unbalanced and dangerous, those pretenders who lack even the spirit of a dried-up mustard seed.

He's growing. It'll be interesting to see where his wild energy takes him. Either into science, comraderie, girls and madness (like Hu Zheng), or into cold, inhuman, ultimate ambitions.

[kissaki]

Why aren't you charging David with theft and unoriginality and copying Buddha? Because I do. If you think David is original in any fundamental way then you are very lost.

David certainly has Buddhist influences/borrowings. That much is undeniable. The fundamental way in which David is original, however, is not necessarily in any of his individual ideas (although some of them might well be original, for all that I know - in particular I suspect that his take on the emotions is completely new), but in his packaging and prioritising of those ideas into an integrated whole that can be processed, digested and accepted, and in what he leaves out of as much as what he puts into the package. Where else can be found the equivalence of femininity with unconsciousness (as, essentially, an inability to understand the package) and of masculinity with consciousness (as the capacity which achieves rational enlightenment), plus rational enlightenment (as complete and perfect understanding and acceptance of the package), plus the doctrine that given the appropriate realisation (the illusory nature of the self), one's emotions cease arising, plus the neat and tidy little encapsulation that the-Totality-is-everything-and-contains-all-causes-therefore-cannot-be-caused-itself, plus the fixed belief in determinism, plus the emphasis on causality and the reworked understanding of a cause as anything that contributes to an effect rather than just the most significant contributor(s) to that effect, plus the tautology A=A which essentially means "consciousness identifies things", plus the atheism, plus the veneration of logic, plus the doctrine that through pure logic, non-trivial absolute truths can be proved, plus the discouragement of wise men and women from working in society, plus all of the other things that I'm not going to mention because this paragraph is huge enough as it is? Really, where else can you find it?

All these things are pretty much mentioned in the Buddha's teachings. They were coded in ways abstract and specific to the culture he existed in though, and because of that are prone to misinterpretation and such. David is good at clearing all that aside and getting to the point in straight forward non-occluded logical language. All I can really say regarding that is if I hadn't read the writings offered by Kevin or David I would still be looking for nirvana somewhere ... out there. I'd still be obsessed about endless literal births and worrying about how if I eat, or do, or think this or that I'd be reborn some animal in my next lifetime or what have you. Basically, I'd still be tied to a very religious interpretation of Buddhism and most of all still have a delusional belief in a do-er.

Secondly, there's something that you ought to notice, and that is this: that the QRS philosophy is not particularly complicated. Kevin has been known to utter such statements as (paraphrased) "What we teach is actually pretty simple." Take, for example, the idea of non-inherent existence: a thing does not exist in complete causal isolation from everything else; also this can be come at from a different perspective as: a thing has no essential nature - whatever specific aspect you point to is not the thing itself. These concepts could be explained to a child, or at least to a young adolescent. So here's my answer to "how relevant is it if men are on average better equipped to deal with abstract thought?" - my answer is "it's not particularly relevant at all", because these are not particularly difficult concepts to comprehend in the first place.

I agree it's not complicated. However, reprogramming your neurons with said simple philosophy is not simple. A person has to drop many notions about himself and the world in order to integrate the knowledge.

Why the focus on tearing people down, why not fortify them instead?

Because there is enough fortification already: You are a good person. You are valuable. We love you. Think positively. Everything will be ok.

Understand cause and effect and this entire paragraph disappears.

What's that supposed to mean?

It means that if you take cause and effect all the way through to its end then ultimately these appearances of individual people with bounded traits and characteristics are seen as mere phantoms. Afterwords, you need only account for such phenomenon for practical purposes only, and never as something to reside or confide in. It's unnerving seeing all the flesh puppets dancing and understanding there is no puppeteer controlling them, no true origination to their actions.

That's pretty sad. Hatred's not a pleasant experience, for either the hater or the hated. All that you have to do is change your perspective. You needn't view women in the negative light that you currently do. There are more healthy perspectives.

It seems to me that there's something essential that you're missing. I'm getting this impression from your general attitude towards women as expressed above, from your willingness to heap nasty insults upon someone whom you barely know (me), from your admission that you bring people to tears with the ferocity of your philosophising, from your unkind words to Elizabeth, and from your unwillingness to apologise for those unkind words. That something is respect.

I had what you could call positive women in my life while I was growing up, the upstanding and respectable to society and well-liked by their peers type. This is precisely the reason I developed so much angst and resentment towards the vast majority of females. I always got this sickly feeling around them that I was inferior to them and pressured to continually prove myself to them in order to gain all the various forms of female approval. I simply got sick of their corrections and what amounted to nothing more than being led around on a leash like a dog. Jump through the hoop! Stand on one leg! Lower the toilet lid when you're finished peeing! To hell with them.

Let me guess your reaction: "Women don't deserve respect".

Women have enough respect if you ask me. Maybe not every single woman everywhere in the world is respected, but as a group they certainly are. And if that is still not enough respect to satisfy women then they can be the ones to worry about it.

I hate on women because it's the only thing standing between me and an altar with some arbitrary female. It's a tool to help me make a successful run through this dangerous phase of life. Once my neurons are fully reprogrammed then I am finished with the tool.

I hate how unthinking they are.

Firstly, do you even try to have meaningful (respectful) conversations with women? I don't find that men have a monopoly on thought.

Secondly, even if it were true that women are unthinking, is this a reason to hate them? Rocks are - as far as I know - unthinking: do you hate rocks? Shouldn't those who are lacking something be pitied, rather than hated?

Yes, but ultimately the conversations end on the same note: they are not interested in any of the ideas I am and vice-versa.

I hate how simply because I am caused to sexually respond to them they think I must obey them, put up with their inane fetishes, or structure my entire life and very being around them.

I don't know which women you're hanging around, but it's time to find a new crowd.

I've always seen it as a trade off. I want sex and they want bullshit. So far the cost of bullshit is higher than the cost of sex. Women demand your life -- every time. Different women have different demands to different extents, but they never have no demands at all. I am finished with demands from females and males alike. By purposely aligning myself against individuals I create this state of no demands.

But most of all, I hate them because they are such pathetic representatives of the vehicle which gives rise to my current and future vehicles. I swear to the living god of reality that should I succeed in breaking their monopoly on the restrictions of form I will cut theirs down in an instant.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, particularly by the words "vehicle" and "form". Are you referring to physical bodies, or to minds, or to personalities, or to some combination?

Do you know what's stopping men from uploading themselves to robotic space battle suits and fighting each other like our mythical gods of old? One is the physics, and two is women bitching and nagging said men to death from going: "Take out the trash!" or "What will I and the kids do without you?" or "Don't go, I love you!"

Women construct barriers for men every single step of the way in pretty much any endeavor. What's worse, the barriers are all seemingly pleasant and lovable. Women to me it seems just want to create these caricatures of men that they then can place on their mantle piece to show off to their friends, family, and society.

Men have the capability of gods. Once a suitable replacement is found for these rotting obsolete flesh vehicles then all bets are off, and women's only carrot, her fleshy body, becomes irrelevant. All this talk of women being the ultimate, or representing life, or being untouchable because they happen to carry the birthing circuitry is complete and utter bullshit. It's the propaganda of a deluded tyrant aimed at securing a hold on an entire species. Women, and most men, have mistaken the physical female appearance as originator and sole representative of Nature.

Quinn, Solway, and Rowden can act as arrogantly as they see fit. They are actually quite humble all things considered. If it wasn't for Solway's greatest book ever written I would still be a fool who believes in literal reincarnation like the Dali Lama and his circus ilk. You really have no idea from where they come.

How can you say that with such confidence? What do you really know about me?

I think you're too nice. QRS may be polite, but what they have to say when you get down to it is not nice at all. I am confident in what they say because I traveled down the same thought-paths they laid out. I am also confident because who they are personally has very little bearing on what they point out, other than the fact of having the good grace to be who they are and thus have awareness of truth. I am confident because I have come up to the Impassable Barrier -- Everyone is entirely alone and there is no escape.

Finally, ultimately everything I've said here is a lie and I expect to be hung for these words.

Again I ask: what's that supposed to mean?

In particular, are you recanting your hatred for women?

Everything I've said is a lie because Void remains untouched regardless of any thing. Void neither gains nor loses no matter how many words I throw at it.

I expect to be hung for these words because I am well aware how I appear to those that are more aligned to the general wishes of society. I come across as maligned, dangerous, evil and thus I am a perfect candidate for the noose. Whether or not I actually become enough of a nuisance to make others go out of their way to finish me off is another matter.

[kissaki]

Balance is death. Equilibrium is death. The very existence of things denotes unbalance and the lack of equilibrium. Even supposed appearances of balance and equilibrium are false. After all, what are such notions balanced against? Hah!

[Carl G]

Balance is death. Equilibrium is death. The very existence of things denotes unbalance and the lack of equilibrium. Even supposed appearances of balance and equilibrium are false. After all, what are such notions balanced against? Hah!

Balance is life. Equilibrium is not balance, it is either stasis or a momentary tipping point. The very existence of things denotes balance. Behind appearances of balance and equilibrium can be found balance and equilibrium. Notions balance each other.

[Jason]

Are you two competing for the most vague post?

[kissaki]

Horror: The recognition that enlightenment has just a tinge what you originally desired and is composed mostly of what you never even considered and never wanted.

[Carl G]

Horror: The recognition that the new fall television season has just a tinge what you originally desired and is composed mostly of what you never even considered and never wanted.

[brokenhead]

Horror: The recognition that enlightenment has just a tinge what you originally desired and is composed mostly of what you never even considered and never wanted.

But it should come as no shock, since the road is long and you are increasingly aware all along the way. The real horror is that when you get to a certain point, you realize that you cannot turn back. Even if you were never contemplating turning back as an option, you become aware of that option in retrospect once it has been lost.

[Kelly Jones]

If the path to enlightenment fills one with horror, it's probably from one of two things.

A person might foresee the demands of the path, and know that it's impossible to live up to them totally. He might see some serious mistakes are likely to happen, and that he'll be totally incapable of avoiding them. A person might get upset about engaging in worldliness. This stems from misunderstanding the nature of one's karma. One simply does the best one can, given the circumstances.

The other possibility I'm thinking of is where philosophy seems like a living death. In this case, the person just has to improve his understanding of Reality.

'Wake with the joy of arriving in Heaven. All is well.'

[kissaki]

Kelly,
The horror comes from comfort in things being forever lost. Enlightenment was the carrot-thing that provoked one to Void, and so one is horrified to learn that the carrot must be eventually be given up too. There is a realization that there actually never was a no-enlightenment at any time, it only appeared to exist because one mistook the shapes of clouds as actual things. Comfort in past things located in memory is impossible, as they are again nothing but misidentified clouds. Future comfort is likewise impossible since clouds are now destined to be identified as clouds. What was thought to be gold stowed away for safe-keeping on the way here is revealed to be composed of nothing more than clouds. This is the horror.

Now exiled to the cloud realm forever, horror turns to ... clouds.

[guest_of_logic]

All these things are pretty much mentioned in the Buddha's teachings.

So you say, but you accept that the packaging is different when you write that:

They were coded in ways abstract and specific to the culture he existed in though, and because of that are prone to misinterpretation and such.

Also, what about the things that the Buddha taught that aren't included in QRS teachings - for one thing, vegetarianism?

It's plain to me that QRStianity (to acknowledge Alex's creative contribution) and Buddhism are two different beasts, albeit that one borrows from the other.

guest_of_logic: Why the focus on tearing people down, why not fortify them instead?

kissaki: Because there is enough fortification already: You are a good person. You are valuable. We love you. Think positively. Everything will be ok.

Only for those who are lucky enough to receive it - there are plenty who aren't. In any case, what is your objection to fortification?

It's unnerving seeing all the flesh puppets dancing and understanding there is no puppeteer controlling them, no true origination to their actions.

I once met a woman who claimed to have seen the exact opposite. She said that in an altered state she once saw the literal strings of the puppeteers controlling each person's body. It's probably not what you're referring to, but the idea scared me more than a little - the thought that what seems to me to be free will is actually the control of a stronger entity, such that I cannot ever discern that such is the case. I'm not sure that there's even a way for me to prove it false.

I simply got sick of their corrections and what amounted to nothing more than being led around on a leash like a dog. Jump through the hoop! Stand on one leg! Lower the toilet lid when you're finished peeing! To hell with them.

If women try to control me in ways that I don't like then I just respond with sharp humour (if I'm in the mood - otherwise I just ignore it). There's no need for hatred. Assert yourself and you'll get respect.

I hate on women because it's the only thing standing between me and an altar with some arbitrary female.

But it's not. You can use your reason rather than your hatred - i.e. "as much as I would gain emotional satisfaction from long-term cohabitation with a woman, I value my independence even more highly."

I've always seen it as a trade off. I want sex and they want bullshit.

I wouldn't pretend to have much of a clue when it comes to seducing women, but I do know that women have sex drives just like men - they want sex too. Perhaps, though, you're saying that they want sex only under certain conditions. If so, then please describe the conditions that women typically place on you for sex. The one that you've already asserted, that:

Women demand your life -- every time.

...is pretty vague.

Do you know what's stopping men from uploading themselves to robotic space battle suits and fighting each other like our mythical gods of old? One is the physics, and two is women bitching and nagging said men to death from going: "Take out the trash!" or "What will I and the kids do without you?" or "Don't go, I love you!"

That's a pretty stereotyped view of women. Some women are into science fiction. Some women are really independent and adventurous. Some women will treat you according to how you treat them - if you respect them as independent individuals then they'll extend the same respect to you.

Women construct barriers for men every single step of the way in pretty much any endeavor. What's worse, the barriers are all seemingly pleasant and lovable. Women to me it seems just want to create these caricatures of men that they then can place on their mantle piece to show off to their friends, family, and society.

Some women think that men want to do something like that (at least it seems somewhat equivalent to me, if not identical) to women - i.e. to create an idealised version of them to worship. Doesn't it cut both ways? And aren't there individuals of both sexes who buck the trends, and shouldn't you be encouraging them?

Once a suitable replacement is found for these rotting obsolete flesh vehicles then all bets are off, and women's only carrot, her fleshy body, becomes irrelevant.

Perish the thought. A woman's fleshly body is desirable to men, and nothing's going to change that, nor would I want it to.

I think you're too nice.

"Too"? What exactly is the problem as you see it? If you think that niceness comes above truth/honesty to me, then think again.

Everything I've said is a lie because Void remains untouched regardless of any thing. Void neither gains nor loses no matter how many words I throw at it.

That doesn't make it a lie. You seem to be using more than a little poetic licence when you construct your sayings, perhaps to the point where they're not even true.

I expect to be hung for these words because I am well aware how I appear to those that are more aligned to the general wishes of society. I come across as maligned, dangerous, evil and thus I am a perfect candidate for the noose. Whether or not I actually become enough of a nuisance to make others go out of their way to finish me off is another matter.

Somehow I doubt it, but maybe I'm just "too nice" to finish you off.

[brokenhead]

Hi kissaki.
I like your posts because, while somewhat dour, they are refreshingly without guile or pretense. However, I noticed that in guest_of_logic's last reply to you, he may have indeed been too nice. Though I do appreciate polite "guests," I thought I'd take a crack at replying to some of your points.

kissaki: Because there is enough fortification already: You are a good person. You are valuable. We love you. Think positively. Everything will be ok.

It annoys you to have to be reassuring. Wah. You are whining about people who whine. Don't be so humorless. You sound too intelligent to be humorless.

Since I can clearly distinguish this thing from that thing I shall number the things: 1 thing, 2 thing, 3 thing and so on.

Why bother? Void is right. You are unspeakably empty.

This composes the action of my mind, and so may be correctly seen as alpeh-null, the countably infinite set of my mind things.

See? You've already run out of things to do. You're bored. As I was reading this, I knew you were going to go right for aleph-one somehow. It turns out the counting bores you, which it should, so you turn A=A into an excuse for feeling that everything is futile, the aleph-one mind-set which is forever beyond your reach because it's bigger. You have managed to convince yourself that because you are being logical, that means your frustration is rational.

It means that if you take cause and effect all the way through to its end then ultimately these appearances of individual people with bounded traits and characteristics are seen as mere phantoms. Afterwords, you need only account for such phenomenon for practical purposes only, and never as something to reside or confide in. It's unnerving seeing all the flesh puppets dancing and understanding there is no puppeteer controlling them, no true origination to their actions.

Most people look past you. They first scan you to see what they can get out of you, find nothing, then look past you. You resent people for being predictable. And when they are not, they are annoying. Even worse, you are doing the same thing they are.

I had what you could call positive women in my life while I was growing up, the upstanding and respectable to society and well-liked by their peers type.

The horror.

This is precisely the reason I developed so much angst and resentment towards the vast majority of females. I always got this sickly feeling around them that I was inferior to them and pressured to continually prove myself to them in order to gain all the various forms of female approval.

Not one of them can piss standing up.

I hate on women because it's the only thing standing between me and an altar with some arbitrary female. It's a tool to help me make a successful run through this dangerous phase of life. Once my neurons are fully reprogrammed then I am finished with the tool.

Nice to see romance isn't dead.

Yes, but ultimately the conversations end on the same note: they are not interested in any of the ideas I am and vice-versa.

Either try being interesting or try being interested. You have a colossal lack of empathy. You need to get rich. That way, you can buy the things and people you need to fill up your world. It will be a cluttered Void, but not to worry, it will still be Void.

Women construct barriers for men every single step of the way in pretty much any endeavor. What's worse, the barriers are all seemingly pleasant and lovable. Women to me it seems just want to create these caricatures of men that they then can place on their mantle piece to show off to their friends, family, and society.

That's right. Won't you be just adorable right next to the glass swans on the knick-knack shelf.

Men have the capability of gods. Once a suitable replacement is found for these rotting obsolete flesh vehicles then all bets are off, and women's only carrot, her fleshy body, becomes irrelevant. All this talk of women being the ultimate, or representing life, or being untouchable because they happen to carry the birthing circuitry is complete and utter bullshit.

Somebody is watching too much TV.

It's the propaganda of a deluded tyrant aimed at securing a hold on an entire species.

Oprah, to be exact.

Women, and most men, have mistaken the physical female appearance as originator and sole representative of Nature.

Okay, maybe not Oprah.

I am confident in what they say because I traveled down the same thought-paths they laid out. I am also confident because who they are personally has very little bearing on what they point out, other than the fact of having the good grace to be who they are and thus have awareness of truth.

Listen to what you are saying: They are as miserable as I am, therefore they have to be right. They stand very little to lose personally by saying the things they say, so the things they say carry extra weight with me.

Everything I've said is a lie because Void remains untouched regardless of any thing. Void neither gains nor loses no matter how many words I throw at it.

No, this quote is the only lie you've told so far. You're not very good at it. It stands out.

I confess I have not read all of your posts, but that's not surprising. I haven't even read all of mine. So if my take on your Void is either obvious or off the mark altogether, no big deal. But it sounds as if there is more Bushido than Buddha in your veins. And that's fine, marriage isn't for everyone, as I seem to be discovering for myself. Just one bit of advice: here in the West, we don't eviscerate Wifey if she leaves a ring in the bathtub.

[Iolaus]

Kissaki,

You better unravel your love.

[kissaki]

guest_of_logic and brokenhead,

I think both of you are correctly sensing some weaknesses in my thinking. I'll reply to your posts but I need a little more time to think about my response.

Iolaus,

What do you mean by 'unravel your love' ?

[brokenhead]

guest_of_logic and brokenhead,

I think both of you are correctly sensing some weaknesses in my thinking. I'll reply to your posts but I need a little more time to think about my response.

If it helps at all, I think I disagree with this. You do not come across (to me, at least) as a weak thinker or anything of the sort. I wouldn't look for weaknesses as much as consider that perhaps there is some incompleteness that is resulting in drawing premature if not completely incorrect conclusions.

A warrior's day is never done.

[Iolaus]

Guest,

Iolaus,

What do you mean by 'unravel your love' ?

Love is the only emotion, and his is very tightly coiled,

[guest_of_logic]

Actually it was kissaki who asked you that question, Anna, but no harm done.

I'm curious to know kissaki's view on love, now that you've brought it up. I can probably guess though...