Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment process

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Sun May 01, 2011 5:24 am

cousinbasil wrote:The exchange of information obviously does not require consciousness, or even life, as computers do it all the time.


Information basically means that you have to be conscious of what you are seeing or hearing, or displaying in whatever form to others. Computers aren't conscious of what we define as "information" contained in them, so they certainly don't exchange information in that sense. "Information" and "communication" are used in a different way than in ordinary language in the IT world, as you yourself probably know very well.

If you take the conscious aspect out of information exchange, then anything whatsoever that is exchanged between "two or more", as Cahoot so astutely put it, can be called information, and a part of the "communication"(Cahootian definition) that is taking place. Chimps baring their teeth at each other do exchange of information, but not in the sense of information that requires consciousness, but in the same sense that a mug and a bucket of water exchange information.

The problem with this discussion is, as with most others on this forum, that words are not defined properly and used arbitrarily in order to try to prove personal opinions.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby cousinbasil » Sun May 01, 2011 6:51 am

jupiviv wrote:The problem with this discussion is, as with most others on this forum, that words are not defined properly and used arbitrarily in order to try to prove personal opinions.

Yes, I agree words here are not always defined properly or that a "meeting of the minds" has not occurred as to the definition of a word or words being used in a discussion. I don't think, though, that their use - even when they cause disagreement or misunderstanding - is arbitrary, as a rule.

If you take the conscious aspect out of information exchange, then anything whatsoever that is exchanged between "two or more", as Cahoot so astutely put it, can be called information, and a part of the "communication"(Cahootian definition) that is taking place.

I do not agree that "anything whatsoever" being exchanged between "two or more" can in any sense be called communication, since that "anything whatsoever" is not exclusive enough for any kind of reasonable definition of information.

What is exchanged between computers is always information. A simple example is the construction of the header of a typical packet that has been transmitted. It containes information on how the recipient computer must treat the data or payload contained in the rest of the packet. It also identifies itself as part of a specific stream of incoming transmission, since the recipient computer is probably getting inbound traffic from more than one sender. Moreover, it tells the recipient computer its correct position when the rest of the packets are received and reassembled.

This is clearly an exchange of information, as the behavior of one of the "two or more" will be determined by signals sent from another of the "two or more." Communication has clearly occurred.
"Information" and "communication" are used in a different way than in ordinary language in the IT world, as you yourself probably know very well.

It is true that ordinary words are used loosely sometimes in IT. For example, when there is a pause in data output while a computer is processing something, one might remark that the computer is "thinking." But words like information are actually more rigorously defined, as one would hope since IT is "Information Technology."

My problem with your viewpoint, jup, is that you seem to see no difference between two computers on a network and two apples on a table (assuming the apples are the fruit and not IMacs) because in neither scenario is there consciousness. Photons reflecting back and forth between the apples, say, is not communication. No information has been transmitted.

You seem to be saying the apples are no different from the chimps either, since consciousness is not involved.

I am not sure we agree on what constitutes consciousness.

For example, can one say an ostrich is conscious?
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Sun May 01, 2011 7:08 am

cousinbasil wrote:I do not agree that "anything whatsoever" being exchanged between "two or more" can in any sense be called communication, since that "anything whatsoever" is not exclusive enough for any kind of reasonable definition of information.


The definition would be reasonable if it were clearly defined, but the problem is that it is not, in this case.

A simple example is the construction of the header of a typical packet that has been transmitted. It containes information on how the recipient computer must treat the data or payload contained in the rest of the packet.


You are conscious that this is the case. Where is the evidence that either the packet or the computer(or both) is aware of it? The mass of a rock tells the earth to make it fall towards it with relative speed - that is not communication of information(in the sense of being conscious,) but it would be so in the Cahootian sense.

My problem with your viewpoint, jup, is that you seem to see no difference between two computers on a network and two apples on a table (assuming the apples are the fruit and not IMacs) because in neither scenario is there consciousness.


Well, I see no difference in terms of consciousness, since no consciousness seems to be present in either case.

I am not sure we agree on what constitutes consciousness.

For example, can one say an ostrich is conscious?


Consciousness is the awareness of things, as distinguished from merely having sense perceptions. An ostrich can have sense perceptions, which influence its behaviour, but it will not be aware of those sense perceptions if it does not have consciousness, which it does not seem to.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby cousinbasil » Sun May 01, 2011 7:59 am

Consciousness is the awareness of things, as distinguished from merely having sense perceptions. An ostrich can have sense perceptions, which influence its behaviour, but it will not be aware of those sense perceptions if it does not have consciousness, which it does not seem to.

So when the male ostrich drums on his back with his head to attract a female, no communication has occurred, in your view. That's where I believe our disagreement lies. I think the ostrich indeed communicates, as do ants when they build a colony and fish when they swim in a school.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Sun May 01, 2011 10:56 pm

cousinbasil, that’s a good point about computers communicating.

When one computer transmits information to a second computer, and when the second computer receives that information, there is communication. In addition to the actual physical transmission of data, processing or interpretation of that data is also a factor in determining whether what is received is stimulation, or information.

What information the second computer receives depends on its capacity for reception, and interpretation via processing. If the transmission is wireless, and the second computer is not tuned into the sender’s transmission frequency, then the second computer is not a receiver. Thus in such an instance there are two computers, one sender, no receiver, and no communication of information.

The receiver can also have faulty, or limited reception capacity, in which case it receives partial or corrupted transmissions, partial and corrupted being defined in relation to what is being sent.

Faulty or limited reception capacity is influenced by a number of factors.

*

This process also applies to sentient beings.

Sentient beings have the capacity for self-awareness, which is not to say that all sentient beings are self-aware.

If we condense a bit by skipping over all the possible individual scenarios, then we can arrive at the premise that with sentient beings, all that is ever being transmitted or communicated is Reality. (Totality, the Infinite, God, etc.)

With attention to semantics, the Totality, since it encompasses all, includes sender, receiver, and communication.

Which means that Reality is the sender, Reality is the receiver, and Reality is the communication.

The extent to which this is realized depends upon the interpretation of sensory data, which depends upon capacity for interpretation. Capacity is uncorrupted when obstacles in the sender and the receiver are removed. Communication is uncorrupted when obstacles (such as static) in the transmission itself are removed, and these obstacles are many. For example, if the sender transmits in Japanese words, and the receiver is tuned to English words, then communication is limited to the non-conceptual.
If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite.

For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narow chinks of his cavern.


-William Blake
from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Mon May 02, 2011 12:26 am

Sphere70 wrote:Ok, the explanation in bold is understandable.

And about attention in Norquist's state (and in similar processes) - it could actually be discussed that it is very much about attention - that is attention being the state itself after the 'somebody' being attentive has disappeared, when its falseness and disruptive nature is directly realized. So the state could in a way be crudely explained as an undivided attention to whatever is in the field of consciousness at any given moment - without discrimination from a so-called separate entity.

"the state"

Consider that the so-called shift is not a state, but a realization of that within which all states exist.

As Sri Ramana Maharshi analogized Reality with the cinema: Reality is the blank canvas and the images that appear are the play of maya, often misinterpreted as reality.

In line with this discussion, that misinterpretation is due to faulty reception that results in a corrupted transmission. Static in the attic.
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby cousinbasil » Mon May 02, 2011 12:29 am

Cahoot wrote:With attention to semantics, the Totality, since it encompasses all, includes sender, receiver, and communication

But there is either none of these, or else there is all three, if consciousness is to exist. See that, jupiviv? Three.

jupiviv thinks: You're not going to start that again, are you...?
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: A Life Of Illusion

Postby Tomas » Mon May 02, 2011 2:19 am

Blair wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Have a look at KIR, where pictures run rampant. The place is spiritually dead.

I disagree that KIR is spiritually dead.

But it zeems like the owner might himself, be, dead? Mwaha!

As far as David says, reminds me of when I was just a kid and having to go to a conservative (both religiously and worldly-politically) non-mainstream lutheran church and listen to the pastor spout wise for 15-20 minutes, not necessarily fire and brimstone but a verse from the king james bible of 1611. With one ear tuned to the pastor, I'd reach for the 66-book bible and browse the pictures - they'd be "images" such as the winged-angel at the risen-savior's tomb - the angel would have the halo (the sun) positioned above its head signifying that it was suitable for Pagan's (in this instance, 'christians') to worship. Another instance would be "the image" of jesus sitting in the garden doing (whatever the artist was portraying him doing) some hand signals all with that background yellowish-light illuminating.

As far as KIR Inc. goes, I have my favorites over there and check in most every day to see 'what's up' but like most everything on the 'Net take mostly with a grain of salt (with no offense toward anyone in particular) as they are not real people strictly speaking; I've some hometown friends, relatives in Cyberville who are flesh-and-blood who I email back and forth blah bla.

----------

Elizabeth is correct to a certain point as KIR's has five separate areas for "conversation" and Genius Forums has two separate areas for "conversations" to take place. Both sites have differing agendas (social mores run rampant at both)... with folks going to-and-fro for their "gotcha" moments.

To Elizabeth's credit, she uses her real name and has (had) a photograph of herself posted as does David, Kevin & Dan use their real names - ditto Laird, Dave (from Philly), Cory , Ryan and Donna from Canada, Alex, Nick and our own Diebert does, too.

I would, too, if I didn't have a wife and minor child to look out for. Straight up.

I know of none who do at KIR .. but I do know Naturyl's real name. Possibly Robert's, but the others dwell (lurk) behind those rose-colored curtains.

----------

Prince's (cheap-shot) comment was what it was regarding Natural (and his wife) coming through several twisters of which I have experienced firsthand while living in North Dakota..

My life's "moment(s)" occurred while I was in Vietnam, killing people who I didn't hate but just wanted to get back to the real world. Because I know Naturyl's real name I used (bought some time on a) Real Time satellite to check how his mobile home came through the devastation. He is "poor by choice" and I've no positive or negative criticism to direct his way as I've always enjoyed reading his commentary for some ten years now. Like all folks, we all have "issues" to deal with and Nat's doing his (right here - right now) in real life.

Yuh'all can go back to your own regularly scheduled dramas, subscribers (and Net readers alike), here at Genius Forum. I'll go back to the Worldly Forum and 'lull in suspended reality'.

Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason

Vietnam veteran - 1971

If you have ghosts, then you have everything.

.
Last edited by Tomas on Mon May 02, 2011 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4321
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Mon May 02, 2011 6:05 am

cousinbasil wrote:So when the male ostrich drums on his back with his head to attract a female, no communication has occurred, in your view.


Not in the conscious sense.

cousinbasil wrote:
Cahoot wrote:With attention to semantics, the Totality, since it encompasses all, includes sender, receiver, and communication
But there is either none of these, or else there is all three, if consciousness is to exist. See that, jupiviv? Three.


I don't think he's talking about consciousness specifically over there....or is he? I'm really not sure. Cahootian metaphysics is hard to understand.

Cahoot wrote:With attention to semantics, the Totality, since it encompasses all, includes sender, receiver, and communication.

Which means that Reality is the sender, Reality is the receiver, and Reality is the communication.


If Reality includes all things, then Reality cannot individually be the sender, receiver and communication(whatever you define them to be). Those things are all parts of Reality.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby cousinbasil » Mon May 02, 2011 6:40 am

cousinbasil: So when the male ostrich drums on his back with his head to attract a female, no communication has occurred, in your view.
jupiviv: Not in the conscious sense.

How do you explain things like Koko, the signing gorilla? Remember her Time magazine photo, "My cat good"...?

There is quite a range of cranium capacities between the tiny ostrich head and Koko's anvil-sized noggin. Somehow I am not comfortable viewing all of her long signing career in Pavlovian terms.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Mon May 02, 2011 7:02 am

jupiviv wrote:
Cahoot wrote:With attention to semantics, the Totality, since it encompasses all, includes sender, receiver, and communication.

Which means that Reality is the sender, Reality is the receiver, and Reality is the communication.


If Reality includes all things, then Reality cannot individually be the sender, receiver and communication(whatever you define them to be). Those things are all parts of Reality.

Infinity divided by x = Infinity.
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Mon May 02, 2011 5:01 pm

Cahoot wrote:Infinity divided by x = Infinity.


If "x" is defined as a finite thing, and "infinite" as everything, then that equation means that if everything is divided into groups of single finite things, then there is everything. It doesn't mean that a single thing is everything.

cousinbasil wrote:How do you explain things like Koko, the signing gorilla?


I don't know. But....magnets - how the hell do they work?
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Mon May 02, 2011 7:58 pm

Finite is a semantical and conceptual construct that defines the limitations of perception and relates to changeable form, jupi.

Totality does not change, it permeates all, all comprise totality, and the changing of form does not change totality.
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Mon May 02, 2011 8:32 pm

@cousinbasil, About Koko - I didn't know who Koko was until now. I watched a few videos of her. Are you seriously suggesting that gorilla exhibits signs of consciousness? Because to me it just seems like she has been habituated to express certain impulses in the form of sign language. Her predicament is actually quite pathetic, if you ask me. Human beings exhibit very little conscious behaviour themselves, and the unconscious element in them sometimes wants to bond with other unconscious things. As a result, they frequently project conscious qualities onto unconscious things.

On a lighter note, did you know that William Shatner has met Koko?
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Sphere70 » Tue May 03, 2011 3:45 am

Sphere70
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby cousinbasil » Tue May 03, 2011 5:04 am

jupiviv wrote:On a lighter note, did you know that William Shatner has met Koko?
You don't need an opposable thumb to make the "live long and prosper" sign... BTW, speaking of unconscious behavior, Shatner nearly reached for Koko's left tit during their embrace - he actually looks like he had to stop himself!
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby cousinbasil » Tue May 03, 2011 7:41 am

jupiviv wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that gorilla exhibits signs of consciousness? Because to me it just seems like she has been habituated to express certain impulses in the form of sign language. Her predicament is actually quite pathetic, if you ask me. Human beings exhibit very little conscious behavior themselves, and the unconscious element in them sometimes wants to bond with other unconscious things.

I am aware from reading your posts that you believe the vast majority of human behavior is not conscious. I often think that myself - and not infrequently concerning my own behavior. Certainly, using a criterion of completely rational behavior at all times, very few people would qualify as consciouss beings.

What I am suggesting is that often nonhuman creatures exhibit behavior not very different from this lower standard that we nonetheless consider human.

Let me give you a case in point, another incident I saw on one of those shows about marine life. So far I have been unable to find this clip on YouTube, but I am still looking because if you could see it, what I am relating would make more sense. A woman diver was being filmed "interacting" with some in-the-wild sea creatures. At one juncture, as she dove with no scuba gear, just a mask and snorkel, she came across this large sea mammal. It must have been 20 feet long, and looked liked a huge, bulky porpoise. Well, this dumb shit diver just had to get her footage, so she approached it from the rear and began to gently touch it, as if she were at a petting zoo. The creature became stock still for a few seconds. Suddenly, in a startlingly swift motion, it spun around, clamped her in its massive jaws, and dove straight down to the bottom in a flash, so far down she would never be able to get back to the surface in time to get air. But without stopping, the creature then raced her back to the surface like a rocket, and spat her out.

Now you might be tempted to say this creature was exhibiting a purely automatic, mechanical response - that it identified the diver as potential food, then did not eat it because it found her unpalatable, perhaps because of her clothes and snorkel.

But if you had seen the episode, you might conclude differently, as I found myself doing. For all the world, it appeared as if the creature were trying to give her a message, trying to frighten the hell out of her. Despite its rows of nasty teeth, she was completely unscathed, as if there was never any intention to masticate. It also seemed to be aware that if it released her on the bottom, she would likely die. I believe the sensation of her touch was very unsettling to the creature, and it was saying to her, "See, that's what that just felt like to me." Its response was evidently retaliatory, but when taking the thing's size and power into consideration, there was apparent restraint.

I am giving this as an example of inter-specific communication. The frightened diver indeed got the "message": don't fuck with me. I regard her intention to experience - and film - the sensation of caressing a mammoth sea creature, as an example of low human consciousness. It is clearly not a rational thing to do. I regard the reaction of the creature as a response with purpose. It seemed to have intent. I wish I could find this clip so you could see for yourself, because if what that intent was could be debated, that there was intent could hardly be.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Tue May 03, 2011 8:36 am

Is this the one, cuz?

http://animal.discovery.com/videos/unta ... tacks.html

(search words: woman snorkel petting whale)
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue May 03, 2011 8:54 am

cousinbasil wrote:
Diebert wrote:Perhaps it needs explaining ...everything is as it is already by definition... nothing is what it is...

Everything is AS it is, but nothing is WHAT it is.

Yes, the world and things are what they are. One ends up trying to "integrate" something spiritual (as it is) in the world (as it is).

In reality (something which spirituality attempts to chase after) there is no such world and no things to integrate in it.

If it is the act of intergration, then it requies a person to be doing it.

Not really since the person is just another element to be integrated/desintegrated.

They were apparently speaking of promoting such integration, or integrating sprituality into the world (or those parts of it in need of such integration.)

Since you don't visit that site, and I don't - your statement becomes just filler. Obviously I was commenting on a post and its meanings made on this forum only.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby cousinbasil » Tue May 03, 2011 9:44 am

Cahoot wrote:Is this the one, cuz?

http://animal.discovery.com/videos/unta ... tacks.html

(search words: woman snorkel petting whale)

That's it - I may not be the most patient person when it comes to surfing, but I don't know how I missed that.

Now that I have viewed it several times, I am less certain the whale she was petting was the same one which dragged her down, then back up. It's hard to tell. But I still think this is an example of a low-consciousness human ("let's go pet the whales, because they like that") and a non-human that tries to send a message something like we know about you, but this is our place, not yours.

I had forgotten that that species of whale is carnivorous. It could have eaten her and didn't.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Cahoot » Tue May 03, 2011 10:28 am

“No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity.”

“But I know none, and therefore am no beast.”

from: King Richard III
Shakespeare
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Tue May 03, 2011 7:17 pm

cousinbasil wrote:What I am suggesting is that often nonhuman creatures exhibit behavior not very different from this lower standard that we nonetheless consider human.


I agree that nonhuman creatures sometimes behave like humans, but as I said, a lot of what we think of as being part of "humanity" is actually just unconscious, "animal" behaviour. It's sheer arrogance to either classify those things as being somehow separate from animal behaviour just because we also do them, or to conclude that animals too are conscious/moral/rational because they exhibit some of the behaviours of human beings, or to conclude that the unique, conscious elements of human life are actually the same as animal behaviour, just because other aspects of human life are similar to that of animals.

About your whale example - if the whale did do all that because it didn't want the humans in its territory, why should it necessarily be proof of conscious behaviour? Whales probably swallow their prey whole. The taste of the woman's suit probably didn't sit well with it.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby Unidian » Wed May 04, 2011 2:39 am

No sir, Mr. Quinn, KIR is not "spiritually dead." On the contrary, it is your outpatient ashram here which merits that description. A collection of assorted persons united primarily by the presence of one or more diagnosable personality disorders does not constitute "spiritual life." Rather, it constitutes a group of people who would perhaps benefit from the tender mercies of Nurse Ratchet, or at least a few years of less intensive treatment, perhaps with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation rather than Transcendental Quinnological Masturbation.

At KIR, "spirituality" is defined not only in terms of the traditional Buddhist-Daoist-Zen teachings and other well-established and properly interpreted paths in the field of transformative psychology, it is also defined primarily in other terms which the spiritually-diseased, twisted, and malignant culture of the pathologically narcissistic "Genius Forum" abhors. Namely, those terms are compassion, kindness, love, and genuine human feeling, as taught by all authentic traditions which seek to actually relive the suffering to which we all find ourselves bound, rather than endlessly discussing meaningless and solely ego-serving intellectualizations long-since thoroughly established as meaningless and solely ego-serving by the very same Buddhist-Daoist-Zen traditions this forum fraudulently and tragically misrepresents. We all suffer, and therefore we are all bound together in the field of compassion, save perhaps those of us so thoroughly self-deluded as to have renounced the core of our humanity (and therefore the core of our suffering) due to the inherently sociopathic and intensely narcissistic force of pathological "complete enlightenment" fantasies which suggest a need for clinical treatment.

But then, what is the motivation to engage in the difficult path of clinical treatment for one's delusions of grandeur when then Internet, in its many glories, offers the refuge of a GENIUS FORUM where such afflicted persons can not only indulge their pathologies to their hearts' content, but be lionized for doing so, cultivating a comico-tragic and Quixotic self-image as a "dangerous thinker" in possession of Great Lofty Truths with which, decade after decade, they hope to set the world on fire? Surely, for the mentally, behaviorally, and/or spiritually ill and desperate, this can be nothing other than a description of Paradise! Such complexities, mysteries, and challengingly trans-cognitive approaches to problems of the human condition which are integral to genuine spirituality, such as compassion, actual meditative practice, and ongoing cultivation with humility, are not on offer here in this narcissistic version of Heaven.

"Oh Looky! A=A! That's what consciousness is, and now I'm a Big Fucking Sage!" And the longer the years and decades drag on with little more than the feeblest puffs of smoke to show for their Herculean efforts, the more the heroic band of "dangerous thinkers" can retrench in their narcissistic fantasy worlds. Like all such pathologies, it is self-reinforcing. The Great Sages are perpetually ignored by a recalcitrant world, and this can only demonstrate their True Greatness. Little does it occur to them that A=A implies Fail=Fail. Such ideas are thoughtcrime, for the whole purpose of the entire belief structure is the constant maintenance of the narcissistic self-image. Should that all-important line of defense be compromised, the Lofty Sages would risk allowing a crack in their pretensions of Buddha-Nature to expose the underlying and psychologically intolerable Fail-Nature which makes the whole bizarre enterprise necessary to begin with.

Again, no, my dear Dr. Quinn, Maharishi Medicine Woman, it is not we at KIR who are "spiritually dead." Rather, it is you, sir, who are the most flagrantly putrid brain-eating spiritual zombie most of us have had the misfortune to encounter online. It is you who long ago committed spiritual suicide by pronouncing yourself "Fully Enlightened" when in fact you recklessly bastardized the very traditions from which that term is derived in order to bolster the blatantly egotistical delusion of Sagehood, and in the decades since, it is you who has done your damnedest to further support that comforting and aggrandizing self-image by devouring the brains (minds) of the psychologically troubled miscreants who have since been attracted to your lair like moths to a flame. And in this, at least, you have been marginally successful - Genius Forum has for many years been a rather active nest of spiritual zombies made in their creator's image - your image.

Although KIR has had to send an unfortunate number of your creations back to you due to irreparable damage, I'm happy to report that we have managed to provided an inviting, friendly, and very much spiritually living refuge for a few. There are some brains, Mr. Quinn, too resilient for your zombie fangs to tear apart. Those formerly-besieged brains are now under our care and either have been or will be rehabilitated from whatever lingering damage your fetid pit of slavering spiritual undeath has caused. Thanks to the presence of a vibrant, humanistic, and responsive community, which happens to include at least one legitimate practitioner of the real Buddhist-Daoist-Zen traditions, and whom also once famously gave you a beating in a semi-formal debate which you so cluelessly failed to recognize as a beating that you posted it on your own (comical) site, the migrants to KIR who can be helped to recover from Quinnitarianism will be helped - a prospect which I am sure you find deeply repellent. My god, they'll all be turned into women!

And that matter - the matter of your extreme misogyny - is how I will conclude this brief owning, being unwilling to take more time handing your your ass than the Krispy-Kreme-enlarged thing is worth. You call us "spiritually dead" when it is you, Swami Drydick, who maligns, abuses, denies, and in fact wishes even to literally exterminate the entire half of the human race to whom its perpetuation is primarily entrusted. Don't bother denying it, as everyone remembers "strangle female infants at birth" and all the rest, although few here would likely admit it, since they have at least the modicum of sense to keep such embarrassments hidden in the closet of the past. Is that what you consider "spiritual life," O Tathagata Ted Bundy? It should be noted that in making that joke, I'd have to apologize to Mr. Bundy, as he at least believed that women ought to be grown before strangling them to death.

No, the "spiritual life" here, if there can be said to be any, is nothing more than the aforementioned "pit of undeath" into which disturbed individuals fling themselves in a last desperate hope of salvaging what looks certain to be a failed life. The simple prescription you offer is re-framing pathology as spiritual illumination. "Genius Forum" is a place to which Mr. Bundy himself might have been drawn had the internet existed in his heyday - and it is a place which the rest of the world remains continually surprised and thankful has not yet been mentioned in the mass media as a source of inspiration for a modern-day-Bundy figure. That is the "spiritual life" you have here, David. If KIR is "spiritually dead" then I guess it's true - there really is an afterlife. As for you, sir, it is because I know full well that I am no saint that I consider it possible I'll see you in hell. But, with any luck, at least those benefiting from the guidance and friendship of the KIR community will not. Compassion, after all, thinks of others before self - the opposite of GENIUS self-aggrandizement.

I'll close on that magical word - friendship. It is one of many integral aspects of authentic spiritual life belittled and reviled here - but perhaps the one most tragically so. He who is without friends is without compassion, and he who is without compassion is without life - "spiritual" or otherwise. I leave you with a dirge, for it is only a funeral song that can express the tragedy of souls who have come together to commit spiritual suicide, much as your decorated hero Weininger committed the physical act, being unable to tolerate himself a moment longer at the tender age of 23. Bagpipes and black veils are the sights and sounds of your "spiritual life" here, and I leave you to them, preferring the life, warts and all, of a community based primarily on friendship.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby cousinbasil » Wed May 04, 2011 3:17 am

jupiviv wrote:About your whale example - if the whale did do all that because it didn't want the humans in its territory, why should it necessarily be proof of conscious behavior? Whales probably swallow their prey whole. The taste of the woman's suit probably didn't sit well with it.

Why then would it return her to the surface before releasing her?

I am not saying humans are no different from the other animal species. It would be arrogance to ignore the fact that much of our behavior is due to our animal nature, if that was one of your points. But I do not get your view that it would be arrogant to conclude animals have the capacity to be conscious/moral/rational because they exhibit some of tbe behaviors of human beings - even if such a conclusion were incorrect, it could hardly be called arrogance.

If minimizing one's potential for arrogance, I think it is better to admit that no human can possibly know what goes on inside the being of a creature from another species. I do not in any way think a person's consciousness is the same as - or the seat of - his soul. If it were, man would be a much more spiritual being.

But you seem ready to classify most people as unconscious in their behavior, so it is unsurprising you would reject any notion of rudimentary consciousness in other species. Why isn't this arrogance?

This discussion was motivated by what the consideration of what constitutes communication. If you are to be consistent in your view, 90% of phone traffic is not communication, because most of it is banal mindless chatter, not much different from Koko talking about her new cat. When I see a bonehead traffic move because the driver has a cell phone pressed to an ear, I am inclined to agree.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment pro

Postby jupiviv » Wed May 04, 2011 3:32 am

Unidian wrote:No sir, Mr. Quinn, KIR is not "spiritually dead." On the contrary, it is your outpatient ashram here which merits that description. A collection of assorted persons united primarily by the presence of one or more diagnosable personality disorders does not constitute "spiritual life." Rather, it constitutes a group of people who would perhaps benefit from the tender mercies of Nurse Ratchet, or at least a few years of less intensive treatment, perhaps with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation rather than Transcendental Quinnological Masturbation.

At KIR, "spirituality" is defined not only in terms of the traditional Buddhist-Daoist-Zen teachings and other well-established and properly interpreted paths in the field of transformative psychology, it is also defined primarily in other terms which the spiritually-diseased, twisted, and malignant culture of the pathologically narcissistic "Genius Forum" abhors. Namely, those terms are compassion, kindness, love, and genuine human feeling, as taught by all authentic traditions which seek to actually relive the suffering to which we all find ourselves bound, rather than endlessly discussing meaningless and solely ego-serving intellectualizations long-since thoroughly established as meaningless and solely ego-serving by the very same Buddhist-Daoist-Zen traditions this forum fraudulently and tragically misrepresents. We all suffer, and therefore we are all bound together in the field of compassion, save perhaps those of us so thoroughly self-deluded as to have renounced the core of our humanity (and therefore the core of our suffering) due to the inherently sociopathic and intensely narcissistic force of pathological "complete enlightenment" fantasies which suggest a need for clinical treatment.


Wow, Mr. Unidian, I didn't read the entire of your post, but the compassion, kindness, love, and genuine human feeling you've managed to exhibit in these two paragraphs is overwhelming.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron