Jed

[Loki]

In the 'purely self-realized' man where would be the urge to,say,post this response? What is the "pay-off" for the fully enlightened man to do anything?

How do you define pay-off? And why do you assume that all human action necessitates this pay-off?

[Dan Rowden]

To be honest, I'm not all that impressed with the character of Brett, nor with McKinna's writing in general. Brett seems to be a mish mash of U.G Krishnamurti and Marsha Faizi (a former long-time poster to this forum). Lots of abuse towards others, a trenchant postmodernist outlook, a holier-than-thou attitude, and lots of confusion in her ramblings.

That was my immediate concern as well. I'd have to see more of the text to make a real judgement, but her character seems to be an hyperbolist and not much else. I mean, I can relate to the content of the hyperbole, but such rhetorical devices and assertions ultimately have to be accompanied by some arguments and evidence (which she demands of others). Maybe that evidence and argument is elsewhere in the book.

I was also a little disconcerted by some of the emotional responses McKenna was indicating in his observations and responses to her. They seemed a little incongruous with a person who claims to be enlightened.

[Dan Rowden]

DQ:In a pure self-realized man, the antics don't continue. But some people are greedy and want it all. They want the power of enlightenment and the ego antics as well. To them, that would be Paradise.

In the 'purely self-realized' man where would be the urge to,say,post this response? What is the "pay-off" for the fully enlightened man to do anything?Saying that he would be caused to;or he's is just reflecting the nature of the infinite;or 'Inshallah' doesn't seem to cover it.

One would still need to chop wood, carry water to keep the body alive, but where does the will-to-proselytize come from?

This seems relevant:

- Why does an enlightened sage value truth? -

If enlightenment involves the realization that everything lacks inherent existence, including truth itself, then why does the sage continue to promote truth after his enlightenment? Why not promote something else - such as selfish pleasure, for instance?

Jason: You have said that one reason emotions cease to exist for the sage is because they realise the fundemental non-inherent-existence of the self. By following that same reasoning the sage would also see the fundemental non-inherent-existence of the propogation of wisdom. So why should a sage choose a certain non-inherently-existing thing over any other? Why would they choose promotion of truth, instead of emotional fulfillment of self, when both things are inherently non-existent?

David Quinn: The opposite question could just as easily be asked: Why should the sage promote the emotional fulfullment of self, instead of the promotion of truth, when both things are inherently non-existent?

The main factor which leads a person to evolve into a sage is his unconditional valuing of truth and wisdom. It is his valuing of these things which propels him into the realization that everything lacks inherent existence in the first place. Since there is nothing in this realization to inform him that he must stop valuing truth and wisdom, he has no reason to stop valuing them. As such, it is only natural that he places the promotion of wisdom above the promotion of seflish fulfilment.

Jason: But Truth and self both lack inherent existence according to the sage. Why dump self and not truth? If the sages realization informs him not to stop valuing truth, why does it inform him that he must stop valuing self?

David Quinn: Precisely because he continues to value truth. You have to keep in mind that the sage, like everyone else, has to value something. It is impossible to stop valuing altogether. Valuing one thing at the expense of another is part and parcel of having a mind. Even to value nothing at all is form of valuing something.

So the sage chooses to continue valuing truth because he sees no reason to stop valuing it. To him, the promotion of truth is the least irrational thing that he can possibly do in life. And so he swans about the world promoting the non-inherently-existing truth that all things are non-inherently-existing.

Jason: Frankly, it seems like you must play a game of chance to decide which non inherently existing things will be caused to continue after enlightenment.

David Quinn: Not at all. A person grows into a sage by virtue of the fact that he abandons a self-centered existence in favour of a truth-centered one. He comes to value truth wholeheartedly, without a sherrick of selfishness to stand in the way. As such, he can no more promote the self than an apple tree can start growing oranges.

[Ataraxia]

In the 'purely self-realized' man where would be the urge to,say,post this response? What is the "pay-off" for the fully enlightened man to do anything?

How do you define pay-off? And why do you assume that all human action necessitates this pay-off?

Because that is my observation of the world. It isn't yours?

Does the capacity for unadulterated altruism exist in humans?

[Dan Rowden]

But the world isn't populated by fully enlightened men, is it?

[Ataraxia]

But the world isn't populated by fully enlightened men, is it?

Sure.Hence my questions.

That conversation you pasted doesn't quite cover what I'm getting at.I can understand the valuing of truth ,what I asking about is where is the will to diseminate it arise from,if not the ego?

For example,I can easily discern where a fellow like Nietzsche's 'will-to -truth',or 'will-to-power' arises from.Passion and emotion just drip from his every word.He never denies the emotional aspect of what it is to be human,in fact he revels in it.

[Dan Rowden]

But the world isn't populated by fully enlightened men, is it?

Sure.Hence my questions.

That conversation you pasted doesn't quite cover what I'm getting at.I can understand the valuing of truth ,what I asking about is where is the will to diseminate it arise from,if not the ego?

Purpose is part of discriminative consciousness just like valuation. The wise person will have whatever purpose most reflects his nature. So, it might be the survival and propagation of wisdom, for example. Basically, it's not so much about will to disseminate as it is about the sage just being what he naturally is.

For example,I can easily discern where a fellow like Nietzsche's 'will-to -truth',or 'will-to-power' arises from.Passion and emotion just drip from his every word.He never denies the emotional aspect of what it is to be human,in fact he revels in it.

I don't really agree with that. Nietzsche was more about authenticity of spirit than emotional revelry. But that aside, the sage acting to disseminate wisdom would constitute his will to power - the free expression of his nature (absent of attachment, of course).

[DivineIntercourse]

Basically, it's not so much about will to disseminate as it is about the sage just being what he naturally is.

...But he got that way through will.

Nietzsche was more about authenticity of spirit than emotional revelry.

I don't get that. Mind showing me the difference? (please)

[Dan Rowden]

Basically, it's not so much about will to disseminate as it is about the sage just being what he naturally is.

...But he got that way through will.

So? My point is that the sage doesn't function on the basis of willful desire, he just spontaneously expresses his nature.

Nietzsche was more about authenticity of spirit than emotional revelry.

I don't get that. Mind showing me the difference? (please)

There's nothing authentic about the emotions. They are irrational responses to stimuli. i.e. they are effects of stimuli having control over you. You are a mere puppet to them. An authentic self doesn't get buffeted around by such forces. Such a one expresses himself freely and authentically at all times. Have you ever noticed that highly emotional people aren't "real" people at all? That they are simply a plastic bag blown in the swirling wind; they belong to the wind.

[Ataraxia]

I don't really agree with that. Nietzsche was more about authenticity of spirit than emotional revelry.

I agree,but the distinction would seem self serving to me.'Authenticity' is a favoured concept, in particular but not exclusively, amongst the existentialists.None of whom prized non-emotionality.

But that aside, the sage acting to disseminate wisdom would constitute his will to power - the free expression of his nature (absent of attachment, of course).

Thats what I'm saying,but it still does not explain why said will would arise,in someone totally devoid of ego.

[Loki]

How do you define pay-off? And why do you assume that all human action necessitates this pay-off?

Because that is my observation of the world. It isn't yours?

Hey, you didn't define pay off.

My observation of the world is that it possibly contains human action that doesn't necessitate pay-off.

Btw, I define pay-off as a positive emotion (gratification, pride, happiness).

If you are someone who has thought about life very deeply, I can imagine how all emotional enjoyment could be undermined.

Does the capacity for unadulterated altruism exist in humans?

I am not sure. Personally, I am normally a very emotional person, but I have tried mood-stablizing medication which has made me extremely emotionally flat and desire-less.

It's conceivable that there are people out there whose action is guided strictly by values, and not by emotions at all.

[Dan Rowden]

I don't really agree with that. Nietzsche was more about authenticity of spirit than emotional revelry.

I agree,but the distinction would seem self serving to me.'Authenticity' is a favoured concept, in particular but not exclusively, amongst the existentialists.None of whom prized non-emotionality.

Or reason.

But that aside, the sage acting to disseminate wisdom would constitute his will to power - the free expression of his nature (absent of attachment, of course).

Thats what I'm saying,but it still does not explain why said will would arise,in someone totally devoid of ego.

It depends on what is meant by "will" here. There's the will of the ego, which is what desire refers to, then there's the natural functioning of consciousness.

[Dan Rowden]

Personally, I am normally a very emotional person, but I have tried mood-stablizing medication which has made me extremely emotionally flat and desire-less.

It's conceivable that there are people out there whose action is guided strictly by values, and not by emotions at all.

That's an important point. People tend to speak of the lack of motivation they experience when they artificially suppress emotion as evidence that emotions drive will and motivation etc. But this is poor reasoning. It just means they lack sufficient conscious purpose, valuation, etc, to replace the drive they get from their emotions. Basically, there's no transition from emotional being to rational being, so when the emotion is suppressed, there's sort of no person there at all. It's like when you cut the strings of a puppet.

[Ataraxia]

Or reason.

haha,fair enough.

[DivineIntercourse]

I think you're constructing boundaries where there should not be any boundaries. It's all very intertwined (the physical universe is very complex in deed - if it wasn't, then why is so little known about the brain? Why is there no cure for schizophrenia? Btw, you should keep in mind that a schizophrenic naturally appears emotionless). Thinking of it differently only brings about delusional thinking.

[DivineIntercourse]

So? My point is that the sage doesn't function on the basis of willful desire, he just spontaneously expresses his nature.

..I'm saying that he got to that point through will (ex. reading, discussing philosophy, meditation, etc).

There's nothing authentic about the emotions.

Stupidity is authentic.

they are effects of stimuli having control over you

Dan, how do you know that I don't control my emotions? What do you think thoughts are? Do you really have control over your thoughts when you yourself are a construct of your brain? I don't understand why this separation has to happen.

[DivineIntercourse]

An authentic self doesn't get buffeted around by such forces. Such a one expresses himself freely and authentically at all times. Have you ever noticed that highly emotional people aren't "real" people at all? That they are simply a plastic bag blown in the swirling wind; they belong to the wind.

Trying telling that to a rape victim.

[DivineIntercourse]

Be free, be yourself, let others notice you and use you... That right, makes sense!

[DivineIntercourse]

Have you ever noticed that highly emotional people aren't "real" people at all?

How would you know? Some act, while some don't! As social being, we have masks... What's wrong with that? It's a perfectly valid natural security system.

Man, you must have been raised in a safe haven! (luck you, we should all be so lucky)

[Dan Rowden]

I think you're constructing boundaries where there should not be any boundaries. It's all very intertwined (the physical universe is very complex in deed - if it wasn't, then why is so little known about the brain? Why is there no cure for schizophrenia? Btw, you should keep in mind that a schizophrenic naturally appears emotionless). Thinking of it differently only brings about delusional thinking.

I've never met or known a schizophrenic who appeared the least bit unemotional.

[Dan Rowden]

they are effects of stimuli having control over you

Dan, how do you know that I don't control my emotions?

I read your posts.

What do you think thoughts are?

Most of us can control the level of an emotion once it's entered conscious awareness, but this is not the same as controlling emotions, per se. It is just using the conscious mind to suppress them a little.

Do you really have control over your thoughts when you yourself are a construct of your brain?

Nature has control over my thoughts.

I don't understand why this separation has to happen.

I don't see what separation you're talking about.

[Dan Rowden]

An authentic self doesn't get buffeted around by such forces. Such a one expresses himself freely and authentically at all times. Have you ever noticed that highly emotional people aren't "real" people at all? That they are simply a plastic bag blown in the swirling wind; they belong to the wind.

Trying telling that to a rape victim.

What has that got to do with the nature of an emotional person?

[maestro]

Just so everyone knows, David Quinn is a total fraud.

Dan and Kevin don't acknowledge this, but here's the scoop: The deal with David is that he has a personality disorder which mimics certain characteristics of spiritual realization - namely, non-emotionalism. David doesn't experience emotions to any appreciable degree because he is psychologically disordered. His precise diagnosis is Schizoid Personality Disorder, which has the following diagnostic criteria:

* Emotional coldness, detachment or reduced affection.
* Limited capacity to express either positive or negative emotions towards others.
* Consistent preference for solitary activities.
* Very few, if any, close friends or relationships, and a lack of desire for such.
* Indifference to either praise or criticism.
* Taking pleasure in few, if any, activities.
* Indifference to social norms and conventions.
* Preoccupation with fantasy and introspection.
* Lack of desire for sexual experiences with another person.

Why is that a defect. It is just a state of affairs.

If you ask David, he will admit that he has been diagnosed with Schizoid Personality Disorder, but he will insist that it is because society characterizes genuine enlightenment that way.

I am sure a psychologist will also diagnose McKenna as suffering from a cocktail of disorders, which would include this one.

[Dan Rowden]

Buddha was batshit!

[Unidian]

On second thought, it occurs to me that calling David out as a fraud might not be helpful to everyone. Some might also be interested in my answers to his objections.

Unidian: When the ego is abandoned and no longer invested with belief, its antics can be observed without being acted upon. For example, my ego is cautioning me against making this post because someone might think I am bullshitting or "posing as enlightened."

DQ: That's because, deep down, you already think this yourself.

Yeah, that's what I said. The ego is concerned that I will be seen that way. And if the ego is concerned that it is actually true, what difference would that make? Egotistical concerns are egotistical concerns.

In a pure self-realized man, the antics don't continue. But some people are greedy and want it all. They want the power of enlightenment and the ego antics as well. To them, that would be Paradise.

I don't care whether ego-antics occur or not. They are inconsequential.

When the ego is exposed as a fiction, it becomes comic relief rather than a dictator. I wouldn't care if my ego evaporated completely today, although life would probably be less amusing without it.

The ego is concerned about whether I've made this post convincing enough. Have I presented myself as sufficiently non-attached? Have I distracted people from the fact that I appeared to attack David in egotistical self-defense earlier? Oh my, what are people thinking? Horrors! Does my hair look alright? Do these jeans make my ass look fat?

The ego is a comic genius. And if you expect anyone to believe that David or Jed McKenna or anyone else doesn't have a little voice that inspects their own writing thinking the same sorts of things, I've got a bridge to sell you.

And finally, just to settle any nonsense, I'm not "enlightened." I'm what McKenna might call a "human adult."