Re: baby goes home
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 4:29 am
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/
And that could indeed happen, as Alex does not enjoy being in good graces with the 3 admins like you do. Even Dan, who is the friendliest of the 3, does not seem to like Alex.PS - Be careful, Alex, he just may try to marshal support (from Cory, Diebert, Carl, Foresta Gump etc.) and get you kicked off Genius Forums...
The reason he gets lumped in is because he includes himself in that list. Pay more attention to the posts and you'll see for yourself.I don't know why Carl gets lumped in with the wise ones here. I think much more of him than that.
Shahrazad,I don't know why Carl gets lumped in with the wise ones here. I think much more of him than that.
Quite right, and if Iolaus had paid more attention to what has happened on the forum then she wouldn’t get caught making incorrect claims. And if you want a reason as to why she fancies Carl so much, it probably has to do with the fact that they both seem to fancy supernatural explanations of reality, rather than explanations grounded in reason.I can't be bothered to look it up for you, but I think there's an example of that in the "judging others" thread: after Ryan makes a list of "the 6 GF sages", Carl dumps Cory from the list to add himself.
Alex’s main problem is that he doesn’t have much backbone as a philosopher. He is very imaginative, but his imagination is his biggest enemy, as he uses it for ego gratification, rather than what it should be used for – ego eradication. The highest function of the imagination is to simply reflect the behavior of the self back onto the ego in the most serious and direct manner.And that could indeed happen, as Alex does not enjoy being in good graces with the 3 admins like you do. Even Dan, who is the friendliest of the 3, does not seem to like Alex.
I do this to make a point about the capriciousness of the list, and the silliness of Ryan putting himself on it.Shahrazad wrote:iolaus,
The reason he gets lumped in is because he includes himself in that list. Pay more attention to the posts and you'll see for yourself.I don't know why Carl gets lumped in with the wise ones here. I think much more of him than that.
I can't be bothered to look it up for you, but I think there's an example of that in the "judging others" thread: after Ryan makes a list of "the 6 GF sages", Carl dumps Cory from the list to add himself.
-
In that case, you could have replaced Ryan by someone else, such as ataraxia, brokenhead or Maestro.I do this to make a point about the capriciousness of the list, and the silliness of Ryan putting himself on it.
I disagree, I have only seen Ryan speaking, what he believes to be correct and true, regardless of whatever reaction his posts might cause. So in a sense he is quite the despised fearless sage.Shahrazad wrote: So Ryan's idea that robots would do a better job at raising children than women is complete bullshit. But then, most of us here do not expect him to speak any truth.
That is an interesting point about Huxley. Many times, these drug-inspired humanists tend to reject technology altogether because they initially associate all technology with the world of ambition, business, greed, corporate excess, and so on. As they see the damage technology causes to the environment, and so they blame technology as the sole cause of humanities plight. However, they do not understand that this is a problem caused by overpopulation, and not by the existence of technology alone. And because they miss this point, they tend to yearn for a more natural farm life, a return to a more rural way of doing things. They believe sustainability is a regression to a return to land movement, devoid of technology.I disagree, I have only seen Ryan speaking, what he believes to be correct and true, regardless of whatever reaction his posts might cause. So in a sense he is quite the despised fearless sage.
A lot of his posts though reflect a yearning of the kind of mechanical and ordered setup portrayed in "Brave new world". Huxley wanted the reader to have a strong repulsion for this kind of a society. However, when I read that book and then compared it to millennia of human history filled with disease, ignorance, despair, warfare, insecurity, brutality and misery, I actually wished that I lived in that world.
The utility of it is that we need to agree what direction we should be moving in for the sake of our future selves. So if you prefer an outcome in the future for your future self that is different from the present, then that knowledge is your compass of what actions need to be taken to achieve your desired goals. For instance: Such a vision outlined above requires a drastic reduction in population, a drastic acceleration of technological process, a drastic maturity of consciousness, a drastic overhaul of our agriculture systems, a drastic revamping of what energy sources we use, and so on. We need to be the conscious creators of our future selves. And because, we are our environment, we must understand the vital parts of that environment, as it pertains to the health of our collective consciousness.I fail to see the utility of speculating on technological utopias to enlightenment. It is just fantasy, just the pure land Buddhists who speculate about the pure lands where they will be reborn as gods with bodies of energy and enlightenment will be easy with little suffering.
A person speaking what he believes to be correct and true does make him a sage. It may just as well make him a fool. And in Ryan's case, here in this cyber medium, I don't see cause to surmise that he is despised or fearless.maestro wrote:I disagree, I have only seen Ryan speaking, what he believes to be correct and true, regardless of whatever reaction his posts might cause. So in a sense he is quite the despised fearless sage.Shahrazad wrote: So Ryan's idea that robots would do a better job at raising children than women is complete bullshit. But then, most of us here do not expect him to speak any truth.
To radically alter the course of the world requires you to have god-like powers and vision. Otherwise it is just in the realm of fantasy.Ryan Rudolph wrote:The utility of it is that we need to agree what direction we should be moving in for the sake of our future selves.
Just by talking about all the causes of a problem changing the way large amounts of people see the problem. That is all I’m saying. Understanding the solution to a problem eventually results in action. I think we are probably headed for tough times, which is going to pressure us to come up with innovative solutions. So I’m just predicting what I suspect will be the future anyway. However, by talking about it better prepares people for it.To radically alter the course of the world requires you to have god-like powers and vision. Otherwise it is just in the realm of fantasy.
Better to work on a problem in which there is some chance of success.
Circumstance.dejavu wrote:And what is that hairs-breadth difference David?David: There is only a hairs-breadth difference between spiritual black gospel singing and angry, violent rap.
David Quinn wrote:There is only a hairs-breadth difference between spiritual black gospel singing and angry, violent rap.
dejavu wrote:And what is that hairs-breadth difference David?
Dan Rowden wrote:Rap is about something nominally real.
You are obviously both wrong, Dan and David. Or should I say obliviously wrong.DQ wrote:Circumstance.
Yes, I got back from church quite a while ago. Almost 40 years ago, in fact.Carl G wrote:Back from church already, Broken?
How was this Sunday's service?