Serious conversations about important issues, Part I: What is Truth?

[jupiviv]

The ensuing is an expanded version of what was originally intended as a response to Avolith's comment in the latest Trumptopian thread.

What exactly is ideal of spreading truth?

...*I'd say that spreading truth is something different from truth itself, and if truth is the highest value, then spreading truth at least comes in second place or later. Thereby it can't be the primary focus of the genius

Any truthful life will affect other people in various ways. If you can distinguish between truthfulness and its effects - which include specific goals of spreading truth - then something has gone horribly wrong.

It could be that a person's own ideas about truth confuses them. Or their definition of truth is so abstract that spreading it around achieves nothing or even causes harm. Some people might nod along and walk away. Others may interpret it in a way that ends up strengthening their delusions. On the other hand if truth means a specific thing and people are interested in that, they won't be truthful about all the other things. What's the point of making people reject delusions they can afford to do without?

So what is truth? Perhaps it's just a way of pointing out or asserting that something is real. But since *everything* is real, what distinguishes truth from untruth? One might say that denying the reality of everything is untruthful, but who does that? People always deny the reality of *specific* things which inconvenience them somehow. They ignore things which they don't consider very important. They grow attached to other things which they have no problem calling 'real'.

It comes down to whether the affirmation of one part of reality qualifies as "truth" even if it's contingent upon denial of or indifference towards another. If it does, isn't untruth - the denial of some part of reality which is contingent upon the affirmation of another - the same as truth? How can such a definition help people who want to lead *entirely* truthful lives?

We need a useful definition of truth. Can I come up with one? Stay tuned until next time for the exciting answer! (Hint - no.)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

@Avolith I turned my response to you into a series of articles, only the first of which is currently visible due to a glitch caused by Diebert's administrative incompetence.

Not sure what you are on about. Do you mean a board glitch? It's not my board nor am I administrator of it. So please direct your issue elsewhere.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Truth is the measure of correspondence with reality.

Which leads to the question of "what is real"?

That's to a large degree the discussion topic as stated in the forum banner: what is ultimately real and therefore significant?

But since *everything* is real

That doesn't help anyone with the question what is real, significant or meaningful. You perform a trick (it's all good).

[David Quinn]

Since it has been decided to transfer that part of the Trump thread here, we should quote Avolith's post in full:

What exactly is ideal of spreading truth? I'll have a go at putting down some arguments why I think this ideal might be problematic:

*I'd say that spreading truth is something different from truth itself, and if truth is the highest value, then spreading truth at least comes in second place or later. Thereby it can't be the primary focus of the genius
*The execution of spreading truth is a subjective business. The ideal seems abstract to me, but the word 'spreading' implies that there's places and people to be changed from what they are now - in the finite world, which also means it could be done in a million different ways, depending on finite perspectives.
*The ideal of actively spreading truth seems to be more or less directly linked to the valuation of personal ambition. An energy required to achieve goals, generated by a strong desire. And then desire in turn isn't compatible with and enlightened perspective

What about this: the ideal that we won't be contented until all humans are enlightened. It's different from the idea of spreading truth, because:

*It makes it clear that literally achieving this goal is outside of any one human's personal power, making it both ambitious and not ambitious at the same time
*It doesn't focus attention on the 'activity of spreading'. So, the ideal allows for the spreading to happen more spontaneously with less desire/attachment, without forcing you to consciously come up with, say some method or plan of manipulating the finite that will inevitably fail or lead to unforeseen consequences.
*It makes more clear that the end goal is abstract and has no clearly defined definitive form, so the work is endless

I hope someone can point out all the inevitable faults in the above

The sage's desire to spread truth outwardly in the world ultimately derives from his life-long desire to become enlightened in his own mind.

In other words, the tremendous passion needed to overcome one's deepest illusions, and the sheer unstoppable momentum that this generates, continues to exist unabated after one's breakthrough into enlightenment. One naturally wants to continue piercing through illusions wherever they may be found.

We need a useful definition of truth.

Or more accurately, for enlightenment purposes, we need a useful definition for absolute truth. A truth is "absolutely true" when it is utterly beyond all possibility of being refuted by either logic or empirical evidence. In other words, when it is necessarily true in all possible worlds.

[visheshdewan050193]

That doesn't help anyone with the question what is real, significant or meaningful. You perform a trick (it's all good).

Pretty much agree with Diebert here and what he mentioned in his post.

The sage's desire to spread truth outwardly in the world ultimately derives from his life-long desire to become enlightened in his own mind.
In other words, the tremendous passion needed to overcome one's deepest illusions, and the sheer unstoppable momentum that this generates, continues to exist unabated after one's breakthrough into enlightenment. One naturally wants to continue piercing through illusions wherever they may be found.

David, listening to people like Dr. Ravi Zacharias makes it clear that majority of people aligned with Judeo-Christian ideology find 'personal enlightenment' ideologies such as Hinduism/Buddhism to be highly self contradictory in practice with doctrines such as 'extinguishment of all desire', which they take to mean natural drives such as hunger, etc. as well. You've made several clarifications regarding the utility of emotion, the importance of placing precedence on cultivating an understanding of the Infinite rather than engaging in emotional suppression, continuation of valuing Truth as a kind of 'free-fall' effect of being enlightened, etc. but your expressions have been scattered and lend themselves to being inconsistent at times (although it might be deliberate). How best do you think one can undo the mangling of fundamental Eastern religious sentiment by themselves as well as the West?

Does a 'cleansed' passion for the Infinite have no roots in emotional soil? If it doesn't, is it even meaningful to describe it as 'passion'? Perhaps the ideal of 'extinguishing desire' needs to be replaced with the ideal of 'expressing the highest passion for life' ? It might be a good idea to produce some focused writing about this issue.

We need a useful definition of truth.

I think that's already pretty much ironed out here, as well as its meaning by ways of its contextual relationship to at least the rest of the meaningful ideational spirit and narratives of the world (although nuances can be further explored). What has not been addressed in this forum adequately despite a lot of discussion (as something that is realistically abstracted and generalized enough to provide a consistent guiding framework) is the issue of morality, which pretty much has to be grounded in masculine and feminine psychological drives and able to be fleshed out to reflect higher order realities of individual and societal behaviour and proclivities. Even if such a framework has minimal significance in relation to cultivating genius, I think it needs to be done in order for it to have any sort of broader appeal.

Finally, another theme of appeal that religions offer is the notion of exercising choice and meeting destiny. The idea of resurrection for example, offers hope for a better fate, as does rebirth. For people with limited cognitive and abstraction capabilities, wayward drives, etc. that are shaped by evolution, ideas of genetic enhancement and leveraging on tertiary cognitive layers (cue ventures such as Neuralink - https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html) that could be used to 'juice' cortex activity in a manner that would eventually work itself down to the limbic system and whatever neural pathways that need to be affected in order to stoke genius) need to eventually replace this appeal offered by cornerstones of religious sentiment. Heck even the Buddha with all his emphasis on anatta preached to take 'refuge' in the 'Triple Gem'. And it goes without question to say that a stable world order, industrial activity and a sustainable environment and economy fueled by sustainable energy is needed as well, albeit one that bows to wisdom as its primary value.

[visheshdewan050193]

Men of the infinite do affirm *everything* to be indeed real, and expressions of Truth. Besides absolute truths such as causality, differentiating between particular lines of thinking on the basis of 'degree of truthfulness', or half assed attempts in differentiating masculine behaviour from feminine behaviour on the basis of truthfulness such as drawing up a dichotomy between 'rational' or thought driven behaviour and 'irrational' or emotionally driven behaviour (extensive conversations with Kevin about masculinity come to mind, along with Jupiviv's amusing Kevin endorsed youtube video regarding the immorality of sex/prostitution from over 9 years ago) are more like pragmatic and relativistic exercises that we ought not to get too hung up about.

[Pam Seeback]

Vishesh: What has not been addressed in this forum adequately despite a lot of discussion (as something that is realistically abstracted and generalized enough to provide a consistent guiding framework) is the issue of morality, which pretty much has to be grounded in masculine and feminine psychological drives and able to be fleshed out to reflect higher order realities of individual and societal behaviour and proclivities. Even if such a framework has minimal significance in relation to cultivating genius, I think it needs to be done in order for it to have any sort of broader appeal.

Much time has been spent on this forum hashing out masculine-feminine dynamics, both worldly and how they relate to cultivating wisdom of the infinite. Perhaps what might help lurkers or future members is the inclusion of a pinned thread that specifically addresses this dynamic, but that is a decision for admin.

As for morality in relation to wisdom of the infinite, once one knows they are of the infinite causality, morality is not needed. Instead, if a guiding principle of feeling is needed, it would be that of Love of Self/Self Love.

[visheshdewan050193]

Much time has been spent on this forum hashing out masculine-feminine dynamics, both worldly and how they relate to cultivating wisdom of the infinite. Perhaps what might help lurkers or future members is the inclusion of a pinned thread that specifically addresses this dynamic, but that is a decision for admin.

Lol Pam, I've combed through this forum (or in other parlance, rtff) pretty extensively and you'd be kidding yourself if you think what has been 'hashed' out (I did mention there has been a lot of discussion) translates to the complexities of individual and societal behaviour in any other way besides within a limited scope. Most of discussion has been centred around Quinn's 1992 essay, which by his own admission was a (truthful) 'horror child' of a 'long passed development phase' of his life. The positive devolution this forum has seen ever since Quinn came out with his Statement against Solway and Trump is testament to this fact. No particular fault of anybody of course, but it probably has something to do with people focusing too much on the lowest common denominators of society. And don't forget Quinn's admission about flaws regarding the masculine/feminine issue, mainly due to treating it as a form of identity politics.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Now if we would agree that truth functions as a measure of correspondence with reality, two important questions rise together: can we get to know the real and how to get there, which path or method would apply?

The question "what is ultimately real" is important but what most people look for is the application of truth to daily decisions or views, all of those not being absolute finalities or ultimate situations. It's as we look for a way to find objective tools to carve up subjective reality, as to live.

Asking for truth is much like searching for content and yet still discovering more form?

There's only form, ultimately, as nothing can exist to our senses, our mind, our thoughts, otherwise. All form is relative, fleeting, projection and upon closer study even shape-shifting, ambivalent, impossible to pin down like handling air with using only bare hands.

Form can only be addressed with more form. This is how the search for actual, real content goes and one stumbles on endings like "everything is form", "form is absolute" or arrive at treasures like "only causality is", "totality is what's real".

But this all will help little with the original question of what is real, significant or meaningful. All it can provide is helping to challenge, to remove what we once thought was real, significant and meaningful. It can act like nihilism, a destruction, a fire of change when ancient faith-based structures are uncovered within the deepest recesses of formation. There can be no religion built around this, no scripture and no school, obviously.

Any further imagined stage, where many would hope a new, more solid, more true or exact form of reality would arise, will not undo the truth of what was seen before. If all is form, ones own spirituality is also "assumed role", any firm position of insight would be "stage act". Not because anything has changed, as assuming roles and acting out contradicting positions is what "we", you and I, were about, it's how it keeps together.

Some phrases above were not accidental. Truth "functions" like "searching". Asking for truth is then the most immediate expression of truth.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Lol Pam, I've combed through this forum (or in other parlance, rtff) pretty extensively and you'd be kidding yourself if you think what has been 'hashed' out (I did mention there has been a lot of discussion) translates to the complexities of individual and societal behaviour in any other way besides within a limited scope.

You are quite right, that is doesn't translate. And it wasn't intended as much either. And neither has any position on anything been hashed out. Many discussions seem to address the same topics but contain quite different positions and orientations. There's no forum philosophy on this forum.

Most of discussion has been centred around Quinn's 1992 essay, which by his own admission was a (truthful) 'horror child' of a 'long passed development phase' of his life. The positive devolution this forum has seen ever since Quinn came out with his Statement against Solway and Trump is testament to this fact. No particular fault of anybody of course, but it probably has something to do with people focusing too much on the lowest common denominators of society. And don't forget Quinn's admission about flaws regarding the masculine/feminine issue, mainly due to treating it as a form of identity politics.

All you're relaying here is how Quinn seems to have turned away from his writings the moment he felt the true implications blowing up his own identity as a sage or the justifications on how he lived his life. No wise man turns around disavowing or disqualifying earlier wisdom and continues selling his new upgraded version of snake oil. If ones orientation was truthful then, like now, it will remain very powerful and it's not more flawed than any other position on things, as time marches on and every writing is best understood in the time and culture that conceived it.

[visheshdewan050193]

All you're relaying here is how Quinn seems to have turned away from his writings the moment he felt the true implications blowing up his own identity as a sage or the justifications on how he lived his life. No wise man turns around disavowing or disqualifying earlier wisdom and continues selling his new upgraded version of snake oil. If ones orientation was truthful then, like now, it will remain very powerful and it's not more flawed than any other position on things, as time marches on and every writing is best understood in the time and culture that conceived it.

I think you missed a preposition there (of) after 'implications'. I don't really see his words as 'disvowing' earlier wisdom. Perhaps he's simply tapped into deeper recesses of his psyche that have shifted his priorities. Perhaps he's been complacent about extending the application of his wisdom to the broader world. I've often wondered about how character development works before and after enlightenment. As for justifications about how he lived his life, I kind of reflect on Eragon's assessments of Oromis and Glaedr in Eldest (check out Paolini's Inheritance Cycle to figure out the reference). As somebody who does not share his enlightened perspective, I simply cannot pile assumptions about his supposed unhinging. He's provided a platform of articulated wisdom that has been hitherto unmatched, who cares about personal choices regarding work, family, etc.? It gives a chance for the next generations to pave the path forward in terms of relating wisdom to daily living.

Buddha would probably disavow his forest sage ways if he were alive in today's world, wouldn't he?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I think you missed a preposition there (of) after 'implications'. I don't really see his words as 'disvowing' earlier wisdom. Perhaps he's simply tapped into deeper recesses of his psyche that have shifted his priorities.

Fair enough. Personally I read some strong judgement in terms like "horror child" and a product of a "long passed phase", like a product of childishness or ignorance, putting some intentional distance between the work and the author.

Perhaps interesting, in terms of "truth as demonstration", like some fact finding mission, the scientific method or court system is to see if we can dissect this statement on truth value, to see if it reflects or connects sufficiently to reality if we see it from various perspectives. Easiest of course would be David reflecting on it in person of course but in the mean time, one could assess the following observations

Quinn's 1992 essay, which by his own admission was a (truthful) 'horror child' of a 'long passed development phase' of his life.

On the forum we see the article posted and promoted by Dan Rowden and David Quinn in 2003. Not to mention it being clearly compatible and also compiled in with the work of forum owner Kevin Solway' site : or perhaps "disavowed" sage

Now we can see the essay on gender might have been from 1992 but it was promoted openly by its author on the forum 2003 and then got hosted on Quinn's website around 2006, listing right underneath the work "Wisdom of the Infinite" where it could be seen as at least a major product although I'm not sure who compiled that page and ordering.

Then again, we might still talk about publishing and promoting a horror child and passed development stage until around or after 2006, which is fine although we're already 10-15 year further.

But it gets more confusing when I was referring to his article on the forum during a discussion with David Quinn in 2017, lining out how his current insights appeared to be conflicting with a collection of quotes from said work.

David replied "These quotes all back up what I have been saying recently", which could mean that in 2017 David didn't feel the need yet to explain the work as a 'horror child' or a 'long passed development phase' of his life but actually saw at least these quotes as backup to his current outlook.

This is all confusing and contradicting stuff! One solution to this, and I'm actually suggesting this, is to stop looking at people as uniform unchanging positions. And on top of that, people might alternatively try to portray themselves as consistent with their "former selves" and yet distance from it, whatever is the most conductive to the present goal. Seeing this process is also wisdom of the mind.

Which brings us back to the question: "what is truth".

Buddha would probably disavow his forest sage ways if he were alive in today's world, wouldn't he?

Would there be a need to?

[Rhett]

All study outside of philosophy, outside of the logical realm, is by nature empirical, of a scientific nature. It is contextual, and it is based on limited information. As change occurs, and as greater data is gathered, some things will be affirmed, and some things will be lessenned.

There can be trends that are consistent throughout long periods of time, for example, there are likely genetic roots to a lot of male and female behaviour, plus culture is also very re-affirming.

One 'criticism' i have of QRS philosophy, and there arent many, is that they tended to regard women's problematic behaviour towards men as predominantly amoral, that they are unaware of their moral breaches, whereas i would say that a significant proportion of it is immoral, they are aware it is wrong, they just try to get away with it. Women see morality as a male imposition that impinges on women's ability to do what they want. Like a child. It takes the higher order of thinking of man to see how important morality is to civilisation.

[David Quinn]

What has not been addressed in this forum adequately despite a lot of discussion (as something that is realistically abstracted and generalized enough to provide a consistent guiding framework) is the issue of morality, which pretty much has to be grounded in masculine and feminine psychological drives and able to be fleshed out to reflect higher order realities of individual and societal behaviour and proclivities. Even if such a framework has minimal significance in relation to cultivating genius, I think it needs to be done in order for it to have any sort of broader appeal.

I'm not sure why you think this. I believe that Kevin, Dan and I have explored the subject of morality and its relationship to wisdom quite fully on this forum. Dan, in particular, was always very interested in the subject.

My take has always been that all morality is subjective and dependent upon one's deepest value in life. For example, if a person decides that promoting wisdom is the most important thing in life, he will naturally come to develop a very different set of moral values than the person who believes, say, that making money is the most important thing in life. That pretty much covers the whole matter, doesn't it?

I don't really see the value in creating fixed schematas in the manner you describe above. Once you start going down that route, it too easily descends into the banality of academic squabbling or the creation of religious dogma. I would rather people learn to think flexibly on their feet using first principles that are grounded in reality and create their own schematas on the run, as it were. That way they can make their own direct understanding of reality, together with their own logical thought-processes, the source of their authority, as opposed to some kind of fixed, external, socially-approved conceptual system.

I acknowledge my approach here will probably never garner wide appeal. But I still think it is the way to go. As a rule, I prefer quality over quantity.

Quinn's 1992 essay, which by his own admission was a (truthful) 'horror child' of a 'long passed development phase' of his life.

When I said that, I was referring more to the style of the piece, rather than to its content. Looking back, I find it to be a very raw work that came directly out of my own frustrations in dealing with the power of woman in my mind. There is an intensity and an emotionalism and a lot of blood in that work, and I was still very green in terms of my understanding of the Infinite. So it is an immature work, basically.

That’s what I meant by it being a 'long passed development phase' of my life. It’s not a work I could produce nowadays because I no longer experience the kinds of issues and frustrations that I did back then. Woman loomed large in my mind during that phase of my existence, but nowadays she is exceedingly small. This partly due to the fact that I have increasingly become more bored with women as I have grown older, and partly due to the fact that my level of insight into the nature of reality has developed immensely since then and completely blown her charms away.

But I want to stress that I still agree with the underlying content of the essay. I have no problems at all with its central message. There is no way I would ever disavow it for the sake of being popular or “politically correct” or whatever. The issues described in that work are still as pertinent as ever. Every man who embarks on the spiritual path has to deal with the powerhouse which is woman. So I’m glad that I wrote it and I'm glad that others are still finding it to be useful.

As for my recent pro-woman/anti-alt-right/anti-free-speech-warriors stance that I have come to adopt over the past few years, particularly since the Gamergate thing, this is more a reflection of my disdain for how the likes of Solway, Peterson, Yiannopoulos, etc, have been behaving. I consider what they are doing to be deeply dishonest and hypocritical. I particularly dislike the trolling, bullying and hostility by these kinds of men, and of course their climate change denialism can only be described as stubborn-headed and irresponsible. There is a real sickness at the heart of their movement which repulses me. Because of this I cannot support it, even though I do share some of their stated concerns.

[visheshdewan050193]

I'm not sure why you think this.

Perhaps I ought to do a targeted search again to be sure, but I think I did catch most of what was discussed. Right off the bat I can tell you that the motivation for this comes from a skewed cognitive bias of mine, that lends itself towards examining underlying moral norms that people and individuals operate under. Its influence is a bit like if you're holding a float underwater and you slip up just for a fraction of a second, the float comes bubbling up. It's just that, looking at masculine and feminine drives very generally, I can see how different applications of say my cognitive drives (founded in fundamental Jungian theory) can be considered to be 'masculine' or 'feminine' as well, besides the behaviour that you talked about in your essay. You can observe this in people with different cognitive orientations, and if you couple them with other psychological models and general insight into how people's goals tend to become more abstract, long term oriented, scaled up, intricate, etc. you start painting a broader picture of human behaviour. I personally think that the stress of applying myself and developing myself in areas besides just wisdom also does develop my masculine drive, in a way that directly affects my ability to apply it to pursuing wisdom. I'm fully aware though that the activities I pursue are probably not suitable for people with other cognitive orientations, just as I'm also aware people similar to me pursuing similar activities are probably so swamped that they'd never be able to access wisdom.

If the pursuit of wisdom requires a healthy ego and significantly developed masculine drive, why not try and chart out how best different people can go about doing that according to their nature? The very valuing of 'wisdom' could appeal to different people if it is rephrased differently - some would be interested in if it were sold as 'a theory of everything', or 'an understanding of Self', or 'highest virtue', or 'undiminishable or unconquerable sovereignty', 'internal riches', etc.

This sentiment partly reflects my perhaps naive frustration at understanding that there are typically only certain kinds of people who predictably do get involved with wisdom, and that is mostly due to nature's conditioning. If the whole world were to be comprised of just these kind of people, we'd frankly be f@%#ed as a species.

I may be wrong, but perhaps Kevin reflected this sentiment when he once mentioned that besides taking it upon him to preserve wisdom, he also spent his time trying to help people figure out what it was they really wanted to do or achieve with their life.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It’s not a work I could produce nowadays because I no longer experience the kinds of issues and frustrations that I did back then. Woman loomed large in my mind during that phase of my existence, but nowadays she is exceedingly small. This partly due to the fact that I have increasingly become more bored with women as I have grown older, and partly due to the fact that my level of insight into the nature of reality has developed immensely since then and completely blown her charms away.

Wouldn't you agree that any lack of frustrations with the topic would be more remarkable or relevant for a 25 year old guy? Most males over 50 will have grown more "bored" with the idea or image of woman by then, mostly as a result of shifting hormonal levels and the cumulation of experiences, especially if they have involved a certain level of contact, like cohabiting or other sustained interactions, not to mention all the various intimate situations. Only rarely older men would still obsess or be blown away by just the appearance or contact.

My larger point here being: we as human beings are largely a product of chemical balances and experience gathering. Any changes in charms will be largely caused by these processes and perhaps a little wisdom. In this case however, wisdom as influence might be rather neglectable.

But why couldn't you produce such a work any more, David? Is the intensity, emotionalism, rawness and bloodiness so connected with youth? Shouldn't we then see genius as a youthful act altogether? Is it the same reason chess champions peak at 35 and fade more rapidly after 50?

As for my recent pro-woman/anti-alt-right/anti-free-speech-warriors stance that I have come to adopt over the past few years, particularly since the Gamergate thing, this is more a reflection of my disdain for how the likes of Solway, Peterson, Yiannopoulos, etc, have been behaving. I consider what they are doing to be deeply dishonest and hypocritical. I particularly dislike the trolling, bullying and hostility by these kinds of men, and of course their climate change denialism can only be described as stubborn-headed and irresponsible. There is a real sickness at the heart of their movement which repulses me. Because of this I cannot support it, even though I do share some of their stated concerns.

It remains remarkable that you keep on opposing so strongly the very people who are in the mainstream out there pushing out ideas which seem quite compatible with your own stated views on genius, masculinity, decadence and decline. Or at least more compatible than most other speakers in that arena. Admittedly my exposure to these names might have been little.

It's not clear to me where you have seen Solway and Peterson show up to bully or badmouth others in some structural sense. Your own accusations or implications that many others, also on this forum, would be actual racist, even akin child molesters without any convincing reasoning behind it, makes me wonder if you have it the wrong way around about thus bullying and somewhat militant manner of conversing, in terms of declaring and ridicule any hint of potential opposition to ones own view.

My explanation for your behavior is simple: you appear to be a man who developed a strong aesthetic grasp on spiritual topics and also possesses some unusually strong personal sensibilities. Somehow you have come to see certain elements in the world, including masculine realities, as an offense to your aesthetics and your personal sensibilities. Maybe it was because of a lack of real exposure to the world? Or a lack of feedback and resistance in your environment? Truth does not grow in greenhouses like a tomato but needs continuing struggle and challenge including deep questioning. This is not just a "stage" since our circumstances keep changing, as the world, our body and mind is able to trick itself -- it's wired to do so. As such I think you've been sliding back in a more comfortable zone which I can totally understand.

[Pam Seeback]

Vishesh: This sentiment partly reflects my perhaps naive frustration at understanding that there are typically only certain kinds of people who predictably do get involved with wisdom, and that is mostly due to nature's conditioning. If the whole world were to be comprised of just these kind of people, we'd frankly be f@%#ed as a species.

I am glad you mentioned this because it opens us up to consider the thought of survival from the perspective of ultimate causality, that of the survival drive of form appearance, the causation of consciousness.

In relation to your idea that if the whole world were to be comprised of just those who got involved with wisdom that the human species would be f@%#ed as a species, logically, the causality would do everything within its power not to allow this to happen. For example, for the moment, celibacy may be the primary way wisdom is realized, but that in the future, perhaps celibacy will not be required, perhaps the flesh survival drive will be integrated into the wisdom survival drive. After all, as far as we know (making faith-forms of the attainment of a post-flesh, spirit-only body aside), consciousness of form is seeded via biological union of males and females.

Perhaps 500 years from now, conscious males and females forms will not appear as contrasted as they do now. I believe that the current drive of spirit toward a plant-based diet and gender-blending-bending to be a manifestation of this drive to ease or even end, the distracting and pain-causing causation of lust for flesh. Whatever is caused to appear, whether we like its 'face' or not, bottom line is that form will not be silenced.

[David Quinn]

I'm not sure why you think this.

Perhaps I ought to do a targeted search again to be sure, but I think I did catch most of what was discussed. Right off the bat I can tell you that the motivation for this comes from a skewed cognitive bias of mine, that lends itself towards examining underlying moral norms that people and individuals operate under. Its influence is a bit like if you're holding a float underwater and you slip up just for a fraction of a second, the float comes bubbling up. It's just that, looking at masculine and feminine drives very generally, I can see how different applications of say my cognitive drives (founded in fundamental Jungian theory) can be considered to be 'masculine' or 'feminine' as well, besides the behaviour that you talked about in your essay. You can observe this in people with different cognitive orientations, and if you couple them with other psychological models and general insight into how people's goals tend to become more abstract, long term oriented, scaled up, intricate, etc. you start painting a broader picture of human behaviour. I personally think that the stress of applying myself and developing myself in areas besides just wisdom also does develop my masculine drive, in a way that directly affects my ability to apply it to pursuing wisdom. I'm fully aware though that the activities I pursue are probably not suitable for people with other cognitive orientations, just as I'm also aware people similar to me pursuing similar activities are probably so swamped that they'd never be able to access wisdom.

If the pursuit of wisdom requires a healthy ego and significantly developed masculine drive, why not try and chart out how best different people can go about doing that according to their nature? The very valuing of 'wisdom' could appeal to different people if it is rephrased differently - some would be interested in if it were sold as 'a theory of everything', or 'an understanding of Self', or 'highest virtue', or 'undiminishable or unconquerable sovereignty', 'internal riches', etc.

This sentiment partly reflects my perhaps naive frustration at understanding that there are typically only certain kinds of people who predictably do get involved with wisdom, and that is mostly due to nature's conditioning. If the whole world were to be comprised of just these kind of people, we'd frankly be f@%#ed as a species.

That's a good point. If the world was just filled with people who were exactly like me, then as a species we would be truly fucked. No question about that. We do need variety and ideally it would nice if all kinds of people could access the highest wisdom.

I'm not sure if it is possible, though. The path to enlightenment is quite specific, one that involves an abstract ability to reason one's ways into the Infinite. It requires a certain kind of mentality that involves an emotional stability and an intuitive nose for ultimate solutions. So even though you, as a Jungian-inspired teacher, might be able to excite different kinds of people with different kinds of concepts and teachings and thereby bring them to a certain level where they can emotionally connect to a notion of ultimate reality, there will always come a point, a crunch moment, where they will have to leave the concrete world behind and abstract their way into the Infinite. The cold hard realities of the spiritual path will always remain what they are. They cannot be twisted or bent just to suit our needs.

In my experience, when you try to guide nominally "unsuited" people to the beginnings of the spiritual path, they find it very difficult to see anything there. Their abstract abilities aren't developed enough to see the possibilities. Unless those abilities can be developed somehow, you might end up finding that your desire to help such people will be like flogging a dead horse.

Still, I know from talking to you over the past couple of years that you have studied these Jungian categories in a lot of detail, and you obviously find them very helpful, so I don't want to discourage you. It may well turn out that you will be uniquely qualified to integrate them into the kind of wisdom that we talk about here. It may well be that you will be able to help, if not all people, then at least a wider variety of people than someone like myself could. There is no harm in giving it a go.

[David Quinn]

It’s not a work I could produce nowadays because I no longer experience the kinds of issues and frustrations that I did back then. Woman loomed large in my mind during that phase of my existence, but nowadays she is exceedingly small. This partly due to the fact that I have increasingly become more bored with women as I have grown older, and partly due to the fact that my level of insight into the nature of reality has developed immensely since then and completely blown her charms away.

Wouldn't you agree that any lack of frustrations with the topic would be more remarkable or relevant for a 25 year old guy? Most males over 50 will have grown more "bored" with the idea or image of woman by then, mostly as a result of shifting hormonal levels and the cumulation of experiences, especially if they have involved a certain level of contact, like cohabiting or other sustained interactions, not to mention all the various intimate situations. Only rarely older men would still obsess or be blown away by just the appearance or contact.

My larger point here being: we as human beings are largely a product of chemical balances and experience gathering. Any changes in charms will be largely caused by these processes and perhaps a little wisdom. In this case however, wisdom as influence might be rather neglectable.

But why couldn't you produce such a work any more, David? Is the intensity, emotionalism, rawness and bloodiness so connected with youth? Shouldn't we then see genius as a youthful act altogether? Is it the same reason chess champions peak at 35 and fade more rapidly after 50?

I agree that tackling the woman issue is a young person's game, a bit like how rock music is a young person's game. There needs to be grit and grievance and anarchism involved. Otherwise it loses its spark, no matter how much truth is involved. If I, as a 55-year old male who generally spends his days dwelling in a mature and lofty mindset were to write, say, a piece on the "Psychology of the Skirt", it would probably come off as a bit too clinical and creepy.

In any case, I wouldn't say that my boredom with women is due to age. I mean, I've been fundamentally bored with women's minds and women's talk ever since my early twenties. It's more to do with my philosophic interests and development. In my eyes, women have come to resemble little children and thus their powers over me have shrunk as a result. The woman essays I wrote back in the early 90s helped in that process.

I've also come to see men as little children as well, particularly over the past few years. But that's another story.

As for my recent pro-woman/anti-alt-right/anti-free-speech-warriors stance that I have come to adopt over the past few years, particularly since the Gamergate thing, this is more a reflection of my disdain for how the likes of Solway, Peterson, Yiannopoulos, etc, have been behaving. I consider what they are doing to be deeply dishonest and hypocritical. I particularly dislike the trolling, bullying and hostility by these kinds of men, and of course their climate change denialism can only be described as stubborn-headed and irresponsible. There is a real sickness at the heart of their movement which repulses me. Because of this I cannot support it, even though I do share some of their stated concerns.

It remains remarkable that you keep on opposing so strongly the very people who are in the mainstream out there pushing out ideas which seem quite compatible with your own stated views on genius, masculinity, decadence and decline. Or at least more compatible than most other speakers in that arena. Admittedly my exposure to these names might have been little.

It is like passing a fundamentalist preacher on the street who happens, in that moment, to be decrying the degenerate and soulless age in which we live, and you think, "Yes, he's right. We do live in a degenerate and soulless time. A valid point. Well done, sir", and then in the very next moment he starts ranting about "the final judgment and the eternal hell-fire and resurrection of Jesus", and suddenly your whole perception of the moment changes. That is what it is like for me to hear Jordan Peterson or Milo Yiannopoulos or Kevin Solway speak nowadays.

It's not clear to me where you have seen Solway and Peterson show up to bully or badmouth others in some structural sense.

Oh dear. You clearly have a large mental block when it comes to this matter.

My explanation for your behavior is simple: you appear to be a man who developed a strong aesthetic grasp on spiritual topics and also possesses some unusually strong personal sensibilities. Somehow you have come to see certain elements in the world, including masculine realities, as an offense to your aesthetics and your personal sensibilities. Maybe it was because of a lack of real exposure to the world? Or a lack of feedback and resistance in your environment? Truth does not grow in greenhouses like a tomato but needs continuing struggle and challenge including deep questioning. This is not just a "stage" since our circumstances keep changing, as the world, our body and mind is able to trick itself -- it's wired to do so. As such I think you've been sliding back in a more comfortable zone which I can totally understand.

And yet my enlightenment is as deep and as far-reaching as ever.

[Rhett]

This should probably go in a new thread.

That's a good point. If the world was just filled with people who were exactly like me, then as a species we would be truly fucked. No question about that. We do need variety and ideally it would nice if all kinds of people could access the highest wisdom.

Pulling back from the personal specifics of that and looking more generally at what the world would be like if it was composed of only the enlightened, could be an interesting discussion.

Since i havent yet met any of QRS in person i actually dont have those kind of statistics per se on what the world would be like. As for myself, living in a world where everyone is enlightened, gee, that would be unbelievably great. Nirvana like no one has ever imagined in terms of lifestyle. Yes, the world would change dramatically if everyone was similar or exactly the same as myself, but i think it would be an incredible and successful place.

I definitely have weaknesses, i am terrible at drawing or painting art, no talent there. But i dont see any reason why an enlightened couldnt have or develop that ability. I think i could be a great dad, if i took that path, as much as aspects would bore me.

My drug taking amounts to two drags on a joint, two drags on a cigarette, and a few drunked nights and three spews. Rarely been far from a teetotaller. So there would be no significant drug taking issues in my 'replicants'.

I am more than capable in the workforce. Mixing with normal people creates major clashes, relating to ethics, creativity and innovation, learning rates, hierarchichal issues, etc, but if everyone else was enlightened it would be solved. My rate of creativity, adaptability, and focus, would advance all human endeavours at a much faster pace. The world would be so much more exciting. We would be way beyond Mars by now. Imagine if more than 30 years ago scientific and engineering research was focused away from coal and towards renewables.

There would be so, so much fewer BS narratives. There would be no political bunfights based around power politics. The best data, the best argument, would win the day. Large chunks of wasteful expenditure that creates little real benefit simply wouldnt arise. I have no significant instincts towards corruption, indeed, i hate it, and fight against it. So all those corruption related and tedious innefficiencies and fights simply wouldnt arise. Imagine if all the defence expenditure was put towards space exploration.

Kelly once described me as research, research, research. Mistakes would still happen, but the depth of research and thought, problem prevention, and flexibility, that would go into ventures would see a lot less waste and undesired outcomes.

In terms of relationships, my instincts are heavily weighted towards long term mutual care, so it would seem that the whole sex industry wouldnt arise. I havent put a cent towards it so far, for good or bad. With depth of thought and character, depth of commitment, and enlightened women in the world, holy bejeezus relationships would be different. No meaningful sexual politics or power play, no nastiness or destructiveness.

The more i think about it, the more i see how different, and better, things would be.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In any case, I wouldn't say that my boredom with women is due to age. I mean, I've been fundamentally bored with women's minds and women's talk ever since my early twenties.

But you wrote that it’s not a work you could produce nowadays because you "no longer experience the kinds of issues and frustrations that I did back then" and as well that "Woman loomed large in my mind during that phase of my existence".

Now you write that you've been fundamentally bored with women's minds and women's talk ever since your early twenties, I guess up and until the time you initially wrote and then promoted the "Woman" piece. For this reason, it's a bit difficult to follow for me that you were bored with women's minds and women's talk because of your philosophic interests and development, while at the same time, as you wrote, experienced issues and frustrations while "Woman was looming large in my mind".

It would then seem that you were not very bored with her after all, if she at the same time was frustrating and looking large in your mind? Mind you, I just try here to understand your perception of your own work and your development. It just seems conflicting or unclear to me.

...then in the very next moment he starts ranting about "the final judgment and the eternal hell-fire and resurrection of Jesus", and suddenly your whole perception of the moment changes. That is what it is like for me to hear Jordan Peterson or Milo Yiannopoulos or Kevin Solway speak nowadays.

It would be interesting to hear from you some actual examples on what you'd call equivalent of "eternal hell-fire" and "resurrection" when it comes to Peterson and perhaps Solway's public statements. By the way, I thought you were the one worrying about the nearing destruction of the planet.

Just as a kind reminder, here's a thread on Peterson at this very forum. And I've to remark, perhaps to reprogram your convictions, that I was there and elsewhere not especially supportive of Peterson. The only big praise I gave him once on this forum was related to the interview on Channel 4, where he was the voice of reason on the gender gap.

My explanation for your behavior is simple: you appear to be a man who developed a strong aesthetic grasp on spiritual topics and also possesses some unusually strong personal sensibilities. Somehow you have come to see certain elements in the world, including masculine realities, as an offense to your aesthetics and your personal sensibilities. Maybe it was because of a lack of real exposure to the world? Or a lack of feedback and resistance in your environment? Truth does not grow in greenhouses like a tomato but needs continuing struggle and challenge including deep questioning. This is not just a "stage" since our circumstances keep changing, as the world, our body and mind is able to trick itself -- it's wired to do so. As such I think you've been sliding back in a more comfortable zone which I can totally understand.

And yet my enlightenment is as deep and as far-reaching as ever.

Well, I hope you're comfortable there.