What is Your Vision?

Post questions or suggestions here.

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby Animus » Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:28 pm

Kelly Jones wrote:Animus.

I'm curious to know whether you regarded my trying to relate my findings about ego-dynamics to you as "reacting with hostility, contempt, or ridicule", in Atum's thread on the consciousness of women. You didn't respond, so I figured you had something to think about.


To be honest, I didn't respond because I couldn't find it. I did think about it and its a tough deliberation. I hadn't really given you all the details of our evolved relationship, myself and my roommate. I didn't think it necessary, but the fact of the matter is we rarely see each other. I work at night and she works in the morning, so we only see each other on the weekends. As far as my job goes I do virtually nothing all night except read and think in total silence. Then I come home and do pretty much the same thing for another 4 hours before killing some time on a game or movie and going to bed. So on average I spend 12 hours a day/5 days a week doing exactly what you suggested I should be doing. And another 20+ hours a week going over stuff with my roommate. The rest of my time is spent sleeping and posting on Genius Forum and Facebook. That is my life in a nutshell. I've read 40 books in the last year, I read a book start to finish today alone. Keeping in mind that none of these books are fictional or novels, with the odd exception. Typically they are philosophy, history or social science, and the occasional bit of biology or physics. I generally keep it pretty mixed up. This week its been Moral Psychology Volume 1 by Walter Sinnot-Armstrong and Experiments in Ethics by Anthony Kwame Appiah, so I've been thinking a lot about ethics and morality.

However, since you now don't mention whether you found all members of this forum to react thusly, or just some, I'm wondering whether you found my analysis unwarranted, but decided to let the matter slip away without mentioning anything.


As above, I simply couldn't find the appropriate thread. I think I know which one it was but it was drowned by a plethora of other posts. I think you tried to fit my situation into a perceptual mold you've created. There is nothing wrong with this, there is not much else you can do and perhaps in most cases it would be dead-on. I submit that it had significance for me, I realize that my relationship with my roommate is a mine-field, I've stepped on a few mines already. The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent, if I just wall myself up in nowhereland all the time then I can't cut my character on anything tangible, I just become a recluse thinking he's got it all figured out. My struggle at the moment is in balancing my desire to spew truthful speak from my mouth, the problem is it can act as fire and burn people. Now, for me this is fine, I've accepted my position inside the fire. I'm happy to be burned, but they can't handle it, and I'm learning that it does me nor them any good to try to push them in. In the end they'd rather kill me than accept what I have to say. I've learned that it can be fruitless to speak of things and have began resolving to keep quite. I don't think this simply as a matter of ego-preservation, its not of fear of loss of relations that I think this. Its the fact that I have already destroyed or warped all of my relations. I have to sit here bound and gagged because they can't and won't accept it. Alternatively I can be a "good shepherd" and try to lead the flock to my understanding through a common method of deception, appeal to the ego.

Just going on a hunch here. I can't be sure. For instance, IJesusChrist posted his distaste about "men's egos" in Atum's thread, presumably meaning that he thought all misogynistic views were ego-driven, and then declared he'd be leaving because of the size of "internet egos". But he never addressed his challenge to me directly, I guess because he couldn't wrap his head around the "all misogynists are egotistical, therefore a female misogynist is.... um....". Thus, he says nothing, and slips away without openly addressing the matter at all.

So my hunch is that you hold a similar view: that criticising women's unconsciousness and analysing all the facets of its egotism, is only egotistical drivel. If so, would you like to investigate it openly, rather than leaving with these matters unspoken?



Of course, if my hunch is wrong, then no drama. Your first post in this thread seems to indicate I might be, but then if you find the forum to be characterised by people who maliciously attack the messenger who bears good news, then that would indicate I might not be......


I don't think that criticizing "women's unconsciousness" is all ego-driven, but I think it is in-part. It doesn't need to be framed in such an offensive manner, unless the goal is to offend women, in a dialectic fashion I can see the thought behind doing so, but by-and-large this won't be an effective means of communicating ideas to the likes of say Kunga. Now, within that nifty framework of masculine-feminine consciousness its enough to say that Kunga is too feminine minded to grasp the concepts and her offense is in-fact evidence of that. But this then is just a self-fulfilling prophecy, whether or not there was the intention to offend, it is interpreted with offense and thus the common reaction is one that fulfills the philosophy. The problem is that as such its not very effective at all with communicating new ideas, it more or less represents preaching to the choir on many occasions. The whole issue could be tackled from a different framework, substituting "feminine" with "Primary" and "masculine" with "Secondary" or if you don't like the feel of the word "Secondary" call it "Transcendent", then again if you are truly masculine minded why give a fuck what its called. You can still make the correlation between the behavior of women and the primary consciousness prototype. You can still say women tend to operate within that framework more than men, without making it sound like an inescapable defining characteristic of being a woman. In this way talking about it in such offensive terms can serve to elicit the opposite of a desirable outcome. It would be desirable that women were more masculine minded, but saying it in those terms only gets their guard up. This is a general problem I've been facing, as I illustrated above. I personally don't feel like I need anyone to cry to or lean on, I'm content being a philosophical hermit. My reasons for interacting with others are generally out of a drive to honor and glorify truth at any cost, which has led me slightly astray, I haven't achieved much in regards to glorifying truth as all my words fall on unprepared ears.

This forum and its members suffers from a series of problems which are inevitable. With respect to my understanding, I just don't see a lot to be gleaned from repetitive debates on the objectivity of thought or the offensive nature of the debate around masculine-feminine duality. This is generally what goes on this forum, with a few exceptions. I got people telling me that consciousness is the intersection of energy and information and to me that is incoherent. You don't get anywhere with that, whoever thought that was a good idea is sorely mistaken. And yet, they are so sure of themselves that they can't hear any alternative, and that is the primary problem facing this forum or any forum or all of humanity. Not being open to other explanations. Now, I've considered the idea that consciousness is "energy and information", but the statement and supporting statements don't actually seem to solve anything, so I don't get how its intended to answer anything. So when 90% of what you see is pure garbage or unnecessarily offensive you, or at least I do, resolve to interacting with the forum less.

I'm looking at ways of refining viewpoints and appealing to different mindsets and furthering the evolution of human consciousness whole-scale. I don't plan to repeat the same mantra over and over again to myself hoping that other people might become enlightened from it, because I know that's not likely to happen and would be rare if it did. Besides that role is already being fulfilled billions of times over.
Animus
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby Animus » Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:55 pm

On the topic of small-mindedness there is an almost ubiquitous distaste for anything that isn't purely rational. For myself this isn't entirely inappropriate. I am personally more inclined to the works of Quinn, Solway and Rowden and I've learned a considerable amount from them. More than I could ever express with any gratitude. The issue I have with them is their juxtaposition to other traditions of thought, as in religion. I listened to this sermon earlier (Link) within which the preacher Paul Carter adequately characterizes the significance of crucifixion and baptism as ego-death. He says you must die to yourself and the world and explains what is meant by this, drawing on the oft cited Matthew 10 ("Do not think I have come to bring peace...", "If anyone come after me and does not hate father and mother..."). I disagree with Carter on several points and prima facie he seems to be isolated within a Christian mindset, but in reality I have no way of knowing if this is not an appearance made for the sake of the congregation and that Mr. Carter himself is not bound by Christian doctrine. There is a difficulty in determining what the significance of various appearances are in religious traditions, as they take the route of appealing to the ego in order to lure it to its own destruction. Or so I have found in my rather open-minded studies. As above, this may prove to be a far more effective and universal means of achieving the same ends as QRS or any bare-bones rationalist.

QRS have a tendency to frame such traditions in negativity and rarely express an appreciation for their craftiness in achieving the same ends. Of course it is open to the possibility that QRS do not perceive of religion as achieving the same ends, and that is a matter we could debate, but I don't see us coming to any resolution on. I've found the surest way to secure your own isolation and opposition to others is to assume they have it all wrong or that they are less pure and attempt to discredit their approach. Admittedly there is a place for that and that is what QRS have set up here, so I'm not too critical of it. I've just found that its not as universally applicable as religion tends to be, and so they are both effective in their own limited roles.

By the way, I didn't say I was leaving the forum, I just said I'd be appearing less frequently.
Animus
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby Kelly Jones » Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:44 pm

I'm pushed for time, owing to a lightning bolt striking a transformer near my accommodation, and taking the power out. I'm running on batteries. But I think I've managed to respond adequately to your post, Animus.

Animus wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote:I'm curious to know whether you regarded my trying to relate my findings about ego-dynamics to you as "reacting with hostility, contempt, or ridicule", in Atum's thread on the consciousness of women.


Animus: To be honest, I didn't respond because I couldn't find it.

Use the search function. It was working last time I used it 15 months ago or so.

I did think about it and its a tough deliberation. I hadn't really given you all the details of our evolved relationship, myself and my roommate. I didn't think it necessary, but the fact of the matter is we rarely see each other. I work at night and she works in the morning, so we only see each other on the weekends. As far as my job goes I do virtually nothing all night except read and think in total silence. Then I come home and do pretty much the same thing for another 4 hours before killing some time on a game or movie and going to bed. So on average I spend 12 hours a day/5 days a week doing exactly what you suggested I should be doing. And another 20+ hours a week going over stuff with my roommate. The rest of my time is spent sleeping and posting on Genius Forum and Facebook. That is my life in a nutshell. I've read 40 books in the last year, I read a book start to finish today alone. Keeping in mind that none of these books are fictional or novels, with the odd exception. Typically they are philosophy, history or social science, and the occasional bit of biology or physics. I generally keep it pretty mixed up. This week its been Moral Psychology Volume 1 by Walter Sinnot-Armstrong and Experiments in Ethics by Anthony Kwame Appiah, so I've been thinking a lot about ethics and morality.

Your life sounds ideally organised, apart from the 20+ hours a week of discussions with your roommate. You wrote that you welcomed the debates with your room-mate, and I was curious on that point. 20+ hours is a heck of a lot for a silent person, especially with regard to the fact that she's not aware of her own egotism (as you said).

Are you actually sharing your bedroom with her? Is the rent so expensive that you can't live alone, or have your own bedroom?

Kelly: However, since you now don't mention whether you found all members of this forum to react thusly, or just some, I'm wondering whether you found my analysis unwarranted, but decided to let the matter slip away without mentioning anything.

Animus: As above, I simply couldn't find the appropriate thread. I think I know which one it was but it was drowned by a plethora of other posts. I think you tried to fit my situation into a perceptual mold you've created. There is nothing wrong with this, there is not much else you can do and perhaps in most cases it would be dead-on. I submit that it had significance for me, I realize that my relationship with my roommate is a mine-field, I've stepped on a few mines already. The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent, if I just wall myself up in nowhereland all the time then I can't cut my character on anything tangible, I just become a recluse thinking he's got it all figured out. My struggle at the moment is in balancing my desire to spew truthful speak from my mouth, the problem is it can act as fire and burn people. Now, for me this is fine, I've accepted my position inside the fire. I'm happy to be burned, but they can't handle it, and I'm learning that it does me nor them any good to try to push them in. In the end they'd rather kill me than accept what I have to say. I've learned that it can be fruitless to speak of things and have began resolving to keep quite. I don't think this simply as a matter of ego-preservation, its not of fear of loss of relations that I think this. Its the fact that I have already destroyed or warped all of my relations. I have to sit here bound and gagged because they can't and won't accept it. Alternatively I can be a "good shepherd" and try to lead the flock to my understanding through a common method of deception, appeal to the ego.

I think there's another possibility, where you don't sit gagged, but you recognise the differing capacities of people. It is not deception on your part, but recognising that it would actually be wasting your own energy, not to mention cruel to others. People are not all the same, and it isn't actually that intelligent to treat others as if they ought to understand you somehow. It's just Nature. Like you say, you'd probably be put to death by some thugs, or prisoned, if you tried to feed low-level minds with your own food. It's not their fault, nor yours, but Nature's to blame for everything. It would also be far more efficient to deal with those of higher capacity.

Kelly: Just going on a hunch here. I can't be sure. For instance, IJesusChrist posted his distaste about "men's egos" in Atum's thread, presumably meaning that he thought all misogynistic views were ego-driven, and then declared he'd be leaving because of the size of "internet egos". But he never addressed his challenge to me directly, I guess because he couldn't wrap his head around the "all misogynists are egotistical, therefore a female misogynist is.... um....". Thus, he says nothing, and slips away without openly addressing the matter at all.

So my hunch is that you hold a similar view: that criticising women's unconsciousness and analysing all the facets of its egotism, is only egotistical drivel. If so, would you like to investigate it openly, rather than leaving with these matters unspoken?

Of course, if my hunch is wrong, then no drama. Your first post in this thread seems to indicate I might be, but then if you find the forum to be characterised by people who maliciously attack the messenger who bears good news, then that would indicate I might not be......


Animus: I don't think that criticizing "women's unconsciousness" is all ego-driven, but I think it is in-part. It doesn't need to be framed in such an offensive manner, unless the goal is to offend women, in a dialectic fashion I can see the thought behind doing so, but by-and-large this won't be an effective means of communicating ideas to the likes of say Kunga.

Well, actually it's never addressed to women / unconscious people generally. What good would that do (see above)? Yes, if it were, it would be ego-driven (probably).

Now, within that nifty framework of masculine-feminine consciousness its enough to say that Kunga is too feminine minded to grasp the concepts and her offense is in-fact evidence of that. But this then is just a self-fulfilling prophecy, whether or not there was the intention to offend, it is interpreted with offense and thus the common reaction is one that fulfills the philosophy. The problem is that as such its not very effective at all with communicating new ideas, it more or less represents preaching to the choir on many occasions.

This is an extremely difficult subject, and it needs to be explored over and over to fish out all the secret demons hiding in the threads of the mind. It's not preaching to the choir, that sounds rather self-glorifying. To my knowledge, there is no one who has finished fishing, so there is no choir.

The whole issue could be tackled from a different framework, substituting "feminine" with "Primary" and "masculine" with "Secondary" or if you don't like the feel of the word "Secondary" call it "Transcendent", then again if you are truly masculine minded why give a fuck what its called. You can still make the correlation between the behavior of women and the primary consciousness prototype. You can still say women tend to operate within that framework more than men, without making it sound like an inescapable defining characteristic of being a woman. In this way talking about it in such offensive terms can serve to elicit the opposite of a desirable outcome. It would be desirable that women were more masculine minded, but saying it in those terms only gets their guard up. This is a general problem I've been facing, as I illustrated above. I personally don't feel like I need anyone to cry to or lean on, I'm content being a philosophical hermit. My reasons for interacting with others are generally out of a drive to honor and glorify truth at any cost, which has led me slightly astray, I haven't achieved much in regards to glorifying truth as all my words fall on unprepared ears.

This forum and its members suffers from a series of problems which are inevitable. With respect to my understanding, I just don't see a lot to be gleaned from repetitive debates on the objectivity of thought or the offensive nature of the debate around masculine-feminine duality. This is generally what goes on this forum, with a few exceptions.

I don't think much happens here, consistently, that does actually delve into the actuality of feminine-consciousness and its relation to philosophy. Not like what could happen if the subject were really given justice. All too often, people shut their ears and start yelping excuses. You must be thinking of something else.

I got people telling me that consciousness is the intersection of energy and information and to me that is incoherent. You don't get anywhere with that, whoever thought that was a good idea is sorely mistaken. And yet, they are so sure of themselves that they can't hear any alternative, and that is the primary problem facing this forum or any forum or all of humanity. Not being open to other explanations. Now, I've considered the idea that consciousness is "energy and information", but the statement and supporting statements don't actually seem to solve anything, so I don't get how its intended to answer anything. So when 90% of what you see is pure garbage or unnecessarily offensive you, or at least I do, resolve to interacting with the forum less.

Or you could challenge it, if you see someone with potential going to waste. If you think it's crap, then try to steer the people into the Worldly Matters forum, if they're taking up too much space and aren't helping indirectly (by being unconscious specimens).

I'm looking at ways of refining viewpoints and appealing to different mindsets and furthering the evolution of human consciousness whole-scale. I don't plan to repeat the same mantra over and over again to myself hoping that other people might become enlightened from it, because I know that's not likely to happen and would be rare if it did. Besides that role is already being fulfilled billions of times over.

What kind of mindset do you wish to appeal to?
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby Kelly Jones » Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:51 pm

Animus wrote:There is a difficulty in determining what the significance of various appearances are in religious traditions, as they take the route of appealing to the ego in order to lure it to its own destruction. Or so I have found in my rather open-minded studies. As above, this may prove to be a far more effective and universal means of achieving the same ends as QRS or any bare-bones rationalist.

That's odd. To me Poison for the Heart is full of lovely lures and mind-greasing levers. The aphorism is the perfect tool to help the mind slip imperceptibly into emptiness. It must be me.

And David is probably the most psychological adept of all three, in terms of how he weaves enlightening concepts into psychological moods. He's quite a master, but sometimes I think he goes too far, making things far too easy for people through his "theatrical direction", providing so many character-building and idea-resolving stepping-stones, that it can be weakening, because it's addictive to have someone make your path easier.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby Animus » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:29 pm

Kelly Jones wrote:Your life sounds ideally organised, apart from the 20+ hours a week of discussions with your roommate. You wrote that you welcomed the debates with your room-mate, and I was curious on that point. 20+ hours is a heck of a lot for a silent person, especially with regard to the fact that she's not aware of her own egotism (as you said).

Are you actually sharing your bedroom with her? Is the rent so expensive that you can't live alone, or have your own bedroom?


I'm not sure how pertinent my living situation is going to be. I don't actually share a room with my roommate, I rent a house with her and sleep in the loft, she sleeps downstairs. On my own I was pretty much dying, consumed in thought I forget to take care of myself. That's my main motivation for living here, that and its cheaper rent because its my brother's house. My brother does not live here however, and honestly if he did I would probably have to move out. My roommate is actually quite open to a lot of discussion, we've talked a lot over some 6 years. We see each other on the weekends and typically sit around talking or watch a thought-provoking film. Things have gone sour recently because I offended her and her friends. But that relates to my fire-breathing.

Kelly Jones wrote:Use the search function. It was working last time I used it 15 months ago or so.


Yea, I thought about it, when I said I couldn't find it, I didn't say how hard I looked.

Kelly Jones wrote:I think there's another possibility, where you don't sit gagged, but you recognise the differing capacities of people. It is not deception on your part, but recognising that it would actually be wasting your own energy, not to mention cruel to others. People are not all the same, and it isn't actually that intelligent to treat others as if they ought to understand you somehow. It's just Nature. Like you say, you'd probably be put to death by some thugs, or prisoned, if you tried to feed low-level minds with your own food. It's not their fault, nor yours, but Nature's to blame for everything. It would also be far more efficient to deal with those of higher capacity.


Sounds good in theory, but in practice its not so easy.
Kelly Jones wrote:I don't think much happens here, consistently, that does actually delve into the actuality of feminine-consciousness and its relation to philosophy. Not like what could happen if the subject were really given justice. All too often, people shut their ears and start yelping excuses. You must be thinking of something else.


Maybe I'm trying to tell you why that's the case.

Kelly Jones wrote:Well, actually it's never addressed to women / unconscious people generally. What good would that do (see above)? Yes, if it were, it would be ego-driven (probably).


How many conscious people are there?

Kelly Jones wrote:What kind of mindset do you wish to appeal to?


Well, all of them. The human mindset. I more or less just can't interact with people you see, I annoy them, irritate them long-term. But I mean, I have a long history of that.

Kelly Jones wrote:That's odd. To me Poison for the Heart is full of lovely lures and mind-greasing levers. The aphorism is the perfect tool to help the mind slip imperceptibly into emptiness. It must be me.

And David is probably the most psychological adept of all three, in terms of how he weaves enlightening concepts into psychological moods. He's quite a master, but sometimes I think he goes too far, making things far too easy for people through his "theatrical direction", providing so many character-building and idea-resolving stepping-stones, that it can be weakening, because it's addictive to have someone make your path easier.


Key words here are "to you", as I said I find their writings appropriate to my thinking. But, I never-the-less find them in opposition to other schools of thought which from my perspective are basically the same thing. The issue here is all mine, I'd rather not get into lengthy justifications for why I am where I am and look at where I am instead. I've more or less just realized that its perceptibly pointless in most cases to explain anything. I think I do just need a break from the idea of communication.
Animus
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:42 am

Animus made a decent point earlier: This entire thread was started with the intention of positive ego stroking.

The whole process of one person guessing what type of person the other is has an incredibly dishonest quality to it. For instance: The person guessing only uses positive qualities and derives a lot of pleasure from attributing qualities to the person that are either outright false, or so general that they are not worth mentioning. And the receiver of the guesses is getting their ego stroked, and enjoying the positive attention.

probably why fortune tellers and horoscope businesses still scam millions out of their hard earned money. Humanity loves a fun delusion.

Such activity probably served an evolutionary purpose, as individuals who were good as positively kissing ass and proping up others egos could better climb the social ladder, form powerful networks of allies, and ensure secure survival connections.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby Kunga » Fri Feb 05, 2010 10:37 am

or maybe it's just a good idea sometimes to be sociable to people that are lonely and need the support of others in their lives......it just might be that a little cordial social intercourse and ass kissing will make someones day...or would you want to be responsible for a depressed persons drive to end it all ? Sometimes it's more important to be kind and play the game, than to criticize, making your ego-truth happy. Intensions are everything.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby mensa-maniac » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:24 pm

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Animus made a decent point earlier: This entire thread was started with the intention of positive ego stroking.

The whole process of one person guessing what type of person the other is has an incredibly dishonest quality to it. For instance: The person guessing only uses positive qualities and derives a lot of pleasure from attributing qualities to the person that are either outright false, or so general that they are not worth mentioning. And the receiver of the guesses is getting their ego stroked, and enjoying the positive attention.

Mensa says: I disagree with your whole insight into this Ryan, because none of it is right. What is a dishonest quality, there's no such thing. If a person is dishonest that is not a quality. Did you ever stop to think that a person such as myself prefers to see only the positive in people, and it is not outright false, you are mistaken and negative. And just because you are genius at the abilities you have doesn't make you correct on your assumptions! And who wouldn't like to get their ego's stroked and enjoy the positive attention?

probably why fortune tellers and horoscope businesses still scam millions out of their hard earned money. Humanity loves a fun delusion.

Mensa says: I've never charged anyone ever, never held meetings, don't believe in horoscopes, fortune tellers, or any crap like that. All I did was say things to people through conversation online, what I saw in them, and of course they agreed, feeding my ego. The truth here is I actually see things which happens to be positive, but I also mentioned I can see negative things in people too, but, I prefer to tell people the positive things I see in them. The truth of the vision I see, depends on the receiver's honesty.

Such activity probably served an evolutionary purpose, as individuals who were good as positively kissing ass and proping up others egos could better climb the social ladder, form powerful networks of allies, and ensure secure survival connections.


Mensa says: What you say sounds about right! But, not in my case! However, I do have people who believe in me, and would support me.

I've kissed ass for many years, letting people think they were right when I knew they were wrong. I was in the wrong for not correcting them. I don't kiss anybodies ass now, nor would I expect anybody to kiss my ass. I'm honest with anyone now, regardless if they accept my honesty or not, it's their problem if they don't.
mensa-maniac
 

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby mensa-maniac » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:47 pm

Kunga wrote:or maybe it's just a good idea sometimes to be sociable to people that are lonely and need the support of others in their lives......it just might be that a little cordial social intercourse and ass kissing will make someones day...or would you want to be responsible for a depressed persons drive to end it all ? Sometimes it's more important to be kind and play the game, than to criticize, making your ego-truth happy. Intensions are everything.


Mensa says: I wouldn't give anyone the power over me, that I would become depressed or commit suicide by anything derogatory they slew from their undisciplined yappers. Being a recluse, I am happy, therefore, I'm not sad or lonely. I have plenty of support, but mainly I support myself through my own intelligence to do so.

What you say Kunga is righteous, and is better suited for people in need of attention.
mensa-maniac
 

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby Carl G » Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:42 am

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Animus made a decent point earlier: This entire thread was started with the intention of positive ego stroking.

You don't know this.

The whole process of one person guessing what type of person the other is has an incredibly dishonest quality to it.

This isn't about guessing. It is about reading another person.

For instance: The person guessing only uses positive qualities

All persons do this? A ridiculous generality.

and derives a lot of pleasure from attributing qualities to the person that are either outright false, or so general that they are not worth mentioning.

All persons reading another person deal only in falsity and generalizations? And derive pleasure from dishonesty? Give us a break, Ryan. Your infantilism is showing again.

And the receiver of the guesses is getting their ego stroked, and enjoying the positive attention.

probably why fortune tellers and horoscope businesses still scam millions out of their hard earned money. Humanity loves a fun delusion.

Again, all readers are phoney, and all patrons are fools?

Such activity probably served an evolutionary purpose, as individuals who were good as positively kissing ass and proping up others egos could better climb the social ladder, form powerful networks of allies, and ensure secure survival connections.

Ah, the hypothesis. But see how poor thinking begets poor scientific posturing?
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby Kelly Jones » Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:11 pm

Animus wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote:Your life sounds ideally organised, apart from the 20+ hours a week of discussions with your roommate. You wrote that you welcomed the debates with your room-mate, and I was curious on that point. 20+ hours is a heck of a lot for a silent person, especially with regard to the fact that she's not aware of her own egotism (as you said).

Are you actually sharing your bedroom with her? Is the rent so expensive that you can't live alone, or have your own bedroom?

I'm not sure how pertinent my living situation is going to be. I don't actually share a room with my roommate, I rent a house with her and sleep in the loft, she sleeps downstairs. On my own I was pretty much dying, consumed in thought I forget to take care of myself. That's my main motivation for living here, that and its cheaper rent because its my brother's house. My brother does not live here however, and honestly if he did I would probably have to move out. My roommate is actually quite open to a lot of discussion, we've talked a lot over some 6 years. We see each other on the weekends and typically sit around talking or watch a thought-provoking film. Things have gone sour recently because I offended her and her friends. But that relates to my fire-breathing.

If "fire-breathing" means that other people become offended or shocked when you are communicating your own true thoughts with passion, then this is not your problem, but theirs. If a harmonious relationship with someone depends on you suppressing your true thoughts, then they're raping you intellectually. If fire-breathing means being intentionally cruel and malicious, then sort out what's going on there --- but you don't seem to have shown any indication that you are such a person.

Kelly Jones wrote:I don't think much happens here, consistently, that does actually delve into the actuality of feminine-consciousness and its relation to philosophy. Not like what could happen if the subject were really given justice. All too often, people shut their ears and start yelping excuses. You must be thinking of something else.

Maybe I'm trying to tell you why that's the case.

This forum is a designated place for truth-speak. It's a place for thinking and critique. There are often occasions where open wounds are touched, and people react protectively. However, some people are able to summon up sufficient personal dignity to deal with it as their own issue, rather than reacting aggressively in envy or resentment, while others seem too happy to wallow in their own demoralisation to face the challenge of personal growth.

Kelly Jones wrote:Well, actually it's never addressed to women / unconscious people generally. What good would that do (see above)? Yes, if it were, it would be ego-driven (probably).

How many conscious people are there?

The forum has a mixed bag, and the members who are active at any time vary in terms of character and moral strength. But overall, I would say that there are a decent enough number of conscious (striving) people on the Forum to make the analysis of feminine consciousness very helpful and useful.

Kelly Jones wrote:What kind of mindset do you wish to appeal to?

Well, all of them. The human mindset. I more or less just can't interact with people you see, I annoy them, irritate them long-term. But I mean, I have a long history of that.

Do you mean all people?

Regards the rest of your reply, perhaps you have been whipped by those with tall poppy syndrome. But then, if you've accepted that false morality, then it becomes something you need to address, and not them.

Kelly Jones wrote:That's odd. To me Poison for the Heart is full of lovely lures and mind-greasing levers. The aphorism is the perfect tool to help the mind slip imperceptibly into emptiness. It must be me.

And David is probably the most psychological adept of all three, in terms of how he weaves enlightening concepts into psychological moods. He's quite a master, but sometimes I think he goes too far, making things far too easy for people through his "theatrical direction", providing so many character-building and idea-resolving stepping-stones, that it can be weakening, because it's addictive to have someone make your path easier.

Key words here are "to you", as I said I find their writings appropriate to my thinking. But, I never-the-less find them in opposition to other schools of thought which from my perspective are basically the same thing. The issue here is all mine, I'd rather not get into lengthy justifications for why I am where I am and look at where I am instead. I've more or less just realized that its perceptibly pointless in most cases to explain anything. I think I do just need a break from the idea of communication.

Well, I wouldn't make things harder for yourself than they necessarily have to be, if I were you. Guilt can be a useful corrective, but one shouldn't get bogged down into it. Just keep things simple, find the task, and commit to it. We all have to accept our limitations and work out the most appropriate means. Some can replace their blood with poison quicker than others, because they seem to have a deeper natural connection to the truth, and haven't built up so many delusional habits.

I do wonder how it would affect you if you ceased communication with your flatmate, and whether your ongoing debates with her are holding you back.

All the best with it.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby mensa-maniac » Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:13 am

Kelly Jones wrote:
Animus wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote:Your life sounds ideally organised, apart from the 20+ hours a week of discussions with your roommate. You wrote that you welcomed the debates with your room-mate, and I was curious on that point. 20+ hours is a heck of a lot for a silent person, especially with regard to the fact that she's not aware of her own egotism (as you said).

Are you actually sharing your bedroom with her? Is the rent so expensive that you can't live alone, or have your own bedroom?

I'm not sure how pertinent my living situation is going to be. I don't actually share a room with my roommate, I rent a house with her and sleep in the loft, she sleeps downstairs. On my own I was pretty much dying, consumed in thought I forget to take care of myself. That's my main motivation for living here, that and its cheaper rent because its my brother's house. My brother does not live here however, and honestly if he did I would probably have to move out. My roommate is actually quite open to a lot of discussion, we've talked a lot over some 6 years. We see each other on the weekends and typically sit around talking or watch a thought-provoking film. Things have gone sour recently because I offended her and her friends. But that relates to my fire-breathing.



If "fire-breathing" means that other people become offended or shocked when you are communicating your own true thoughts with passion, then this is not your problem, but theirs. If a harmonious relationship with someone depends on you suppressing your true thoughts, then they're raping you intellectually. If fire-breathing means being intentionally cruel and malicious, then sort out what's going on there --- but you don't seem to have shown any indication that you are such a person.

Mensa says: I've always appreciated your insight and wisdom Kelly.

Kelly Jones wrote:I don't think much happens here, consistently, that does actually delve into the actuality of feminine-consciousness and its relation to philosophy. Not like what could happen if the subject were really given justice. All too often, people shut their ears and start yelping excuses. You must be thinking of something else.

Maybe I'm trying to tell you why that's the case.


This forum is a designated place for truth-speak. It's a place for thinking and critique. There are often occasions where open wounds are touched, and people react protectively. However, some people are able to summon up sufficient personal dignity to deal with it as their own issue, rather than reacting aggressively in envy or resentment, while others seem too happy to wallow in their own demoralisation to face the challenge of personal growth.

Kelly Jones wrote:Well, actually it's never addressed to women / unconscious people generally. What good would that do (see above)? Yes, if it were, it would be ego-driven (probably).

How many conscious people are there?

The forum has a mixed bag, and the members who are active at any time vary in terms of character and moral strength. But overall, I would say that there are a decent enough number of conscious (striving) people on the Forum to make the analysis of feminine consciousness very helpful and useful.

Kelly Jones wrote:What kind of mindset do you wish to appeal to?

Well, all of them. The human mindset. I more or less just can't interact with people you see, I annoy them, irritate them long-term. But I mean, I have a long history of that.

Do you mean all people?

Regards the rest of your reply, perhaps you have been whipped by those with tall poppy syndrome. But then, if you've accepted that false morality, then it becomes something you need to address, and not them.

Kelly Jones wrote:That's odd. To me Poison for the Heart is full of lovely lures and mind-greasing levers. The aphorism is the perfect tool to help the mind slip imperceptibly into emptiness. It must be me.

And David is probably the most psychological adept of all three, in terms of how he weaves enlightening concepts into psychological moods. He's quite a master, but sometimes I think he goes too far, making things far too easy for people through his "theatrical direction", providing so many character-building and idea-resolving stepping-stones, that it can be weakening, because it's addictive to have someone make your path easier.

Key words here are "to you", as I said I find their writings appropriate to my thinking. But, I never-the-less find them in opposition to other schools of thought which from my perspective are basically the same thing. The issue here is all mine, I'd rather not get into lengthy justifications for why I am where I am and look at where I am instead. I've more or less just realized that its perceptibly pointless in most cases to explain anything. I think I do just need a break from the idea of communication.

Well, I wouldn't make things harder for yourself than they necessarily have to be, if I were you. Guilt can be a useful corrective, but one shouldn't get bogged down into it. Just keep things simple, find the task, and commit to it. We all have to accept our limitations and work out the most appropriate means. Some can replace their blood with poison quicker than others, because they seem to have a deeper natural connection to the truth, and haven't built up so many delusional habits.

I do wonder how it would affect you if you ceased communication with your flatmate, and whether your ongoing debates with her are holding you back.

All the best with it.
mensa-maniac
 

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby Tomas » Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:10 am

Animus wrote:
Tomas wrote:
Animus wrote:I partied with David Berkowitz a couple times while he was (supposedly) killing those people in New York City. Was back in North Dakota for a visit and visiting some friends-of-friends who were tripping with Dave and John Carr. I remember he didn't blink but once. Now, he's a haunted man (born again jesus freak). Go figure.

Oh great, that resolves all the dilemmas of moral responsibility. Its all seamless now that I know you partied with Berkowitz.

True story, you care for more detail about the incidental encounters with the Son of Sam?
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: What is Your Vision?

Postby GodsDaughter1 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:57 pm

I said it once before I think cousinbasil is Dan, but I realize I might be wrong!

I think cousinbasil makes a heck of alot of sense, he's smart, daring, competitive, likeable, able to give correct critism, intelligent, a bit of an a-hole sometimes, but an all around nice person to be around.

Dan on the other hand is an a-hole right off the hop, different from cousin, he's more authoratative and I hate authorative a-holes, but Dan does have a good side to him too. The good side is that he knows how to have fun I can clearly see that. Dan is a deep thinker, very intelligent, distinguished--set apart from the others. Dan has a great mind!

Kevin Solway is the active one, he's a loner from way back, seemingly coming out-of-his-shell sort-of-speak, using his brain creating videos and much more from his towering imagination. Kevin is a mans man full of intellectual stimulosities for the brain. There is no room for boredom in Kevins kingdom, for his insights entertains himself, reclused into his own unique desires of learning, his perspectives are that of someone of higher intellectual capacity and capabilities and attracts the same to himself.

David is an awesome person with the tolerance of divinity. His nature is that of a saint, worthiness is his valuable asset. He plays acknowledging the child within him as we all should, his character is pleasurable and knowing. He likes to have fun, while maintaining control of himself at all times. David is insightful, the greatest male writer with the best ideas.
GodsDaughter1
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:12 am

Previous

Return to Help Desk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests