GENIUS FORUMS

A very important point by Kevin:

A sage continues to possess some of the same qualities as a typical alpha-male, yet they are transformed and of a higher order.

Rather than deriving egotistical enjoyment over dominating other male's egos in crude forms of competition, the sage derives subtle satisfaction of speaking the truth very clear, concise, as a means to make the truth known, debunk the others confused thinking, and hopefully enlighten someone out of it.

The ego wants to win over other males, whereas the sage speaks not to win personally, but to cause other egos to lose, to lose their delusions and emotional attachments.

However, an important point: Both activities are dominating. Both an alpha-male and a sage take charge of their environment, but for different reasons.

To summarize: deluded men usually take charge over others and their environment to profit either financially, sexually, to feel sadistic pleasure, or to inflate their self-image - to inflate their ego, and give it energy derived from dishonesty.

An interesting video: one of Kevin's best.

To me the point and the video are trite. It is like saying an unconscious man is interested in pancakes and a conscious one is interested in wisdom. So what.

The Monty Python clips didn't help.

You think it useless to challenge people's motives?

I didn't see him doing that. Perhaps I should view it again. Surely unconscious people would not be watching that video, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Maybe highly unconscious people, but there are lots of folk who may benefit from having their conscience tweaked a little. If that benefit doesn't exist then there's little reason to speak at all about anything.

Dan Rowden:
You think it useless to challenge people's motives?

Carmel:
hypothetically speaking, I would say that if it's useful to challenge other people's motives then, it would logically follow that it is useful for them to challenge our motives, as well.

and that the inverse of that is true...if it's not useful for us, then it's not useful for them, but either way these concepts should be applied equilaterally.

That's my objective viewpoint, but I think the subjective reality becomes more complicated and convoluted than those statements would imply.

Ultimately, perhaps it is wiser to examine our own motives than to focus on other people's motives.

The attempts to tweak others' reasoning does not preclude the continuous efforts to maximize our own reasoning.

Indeed. Unfortunately, Kevin's video has been somewhat overshadowed by the recent crusade by the peanut gallery. I wish I could find some entertainment value in it, but it's a little too disturbing for that.

Carmel,

Ultimately, perhaps it is wiser to examine our own motives than to focus on other people's motives.

There is ultimately no difference, my motives are your motives. We are mirrors of the same consciousness, it doesn't matter.

I think you hate an asshole.

Carmel:
Ultimately, perhaps it is wiser to examine our own motives than to focus on other people's motives.

Ryan:
There is ultimately no difference, my motives are your motives. We are mirrors of the same consciousness, it doesn't matter.

Carmel:
I have no issue with that, as long as it's applied equally. i.e. You examine my motives, I examine yours. ;)

Carmel,

I have no issue with that, as long as it's applied equally. i.e. You examine my motives, I examine yours. ;)

what you need to understand is that when I criticize motives, I do not do it for the egotistical enjoyment of knocking someone down, I do it to inspire wisdom, and I am only able to do it because I have criticized my own motives to the same degree.

no person should ever claim to be enlightened, they'd be oozing with bullshit.

You're saying enlightened people should not say what they are? Why not?

Perhaps you feel it should be like the custom of some Native Americans, where a shaman does not refer to himself as such; it is for others to say that he is a shaman.

In this case other enlightened persons. A unenlightened person would not be able to correctly ascertain it.

all i'm saying is, purity comes through no longer desiring object, enlightenment is equivalent to this. you cannot live if you do not desire. i think desire is part of human, and those who do not desire are not human. they are not superior to human, but instead non-existent. one could argue that perfection is non-existent, therefore not non-existence is perfection. to not desire would be perfect. to be enlightened would be perfect.

I think that an enlighened person knows what desires he can be a master of, and what desires need constant fulfillment. And he can be certain of this, and therefore he can be certain of his own enlightenment, and he can claim enlightenment as a means to steer others in the right direction.

Humility doesn't mean denying what you are, or pretending you are not what you are, it is merely being able to engage in argument without a lot of ego, and ill emotions towards the other.

The clip addressed personal insults as something negative but when you wanna 'pwn' an dilettant hipster who cant/wont differentiate between subjective vs objective because his POV is an extension of his lame personality & not a matter of Truth, you must attack the personality to attain pwnage by credibly tying it to the dilettant's POV without descending into pure Onanism. Its hard but I've done it repeatedly.

Ryan Rudolph:
what you need to understand is that when I criticize motives, I do not do it for the egotistical enjoyment of knocking someone down, I do it to inspire wisdom,

Carmel:
If that's true, then I respect that position, and I'd be more than happy to engage with someone who is willing to exchange ideas, but I don't benefit from engaging with people who are trying to shove their views down my throat like some crazed Jehovah's Witness who has "The Truth"(they call it that too.) It's just plain obnoxious.

Ryan:
and I am only able to do it because I have criticized my own motives to the same degree.

Carmel:
I hope so, Ryan. If you approach me with that frame of mind, I'm far more likely to consider your message..I still may reject it, but I would at least give it a chance.

Actually, I generally agree with most of your viewpoints, except for the whole misogyny bit, but I don't really care to get into that right now. To be honest I explored that issue in depth in my 20's and have made peace with it. In general, the subject bores me senseless.

Why are you so threatened by JWs? They're EASY to pwn & they never shove their POV down anyone's throat, they're quite polite. I usually tear apart their concept of an equally omnipoten, omniscient AND simultaneously benelovent god, while sincerely aplauding them for not being immoral hedonists, so they end up leaving with alot of doubts that way...and thats how Kevin defined propper pwnage in his clip.

Ryan,

You missed the point of the video.

It's about sticking to the facts in a debate and not attacking the person, but rather attacking their logic. He may be refering to some of the "bullies", flame wars etc...people who throw mud around in Youtube discussions. He's condemning this behavior.

Ideally there'd be no need for personal attacks but if they point to a lack of character in the victim & showing hidden ulterior motives for his POV, then it's a valid personal attack & you can claim pwnage. If an attack on you is so crafted but fails to meet those criteria, you should look forward to refuting it. I do. BUT if the attack meets the criteria, accept that you've been pwned.

Carmel to Ryan wrote:Actually, I generally agree with most of your viewpoints, except for the whole misogyny bit, but I don't really care to get into that right now. To be honest I explored that issue in depth in my 20's and have made peace with it. In general, the subject bores me senseless.

How did that work actually: making peace with it followed by getting bored with it, which would imply some level of anxiety again?

The "issue" has always been there for me in the background, growing up and maturing always wonderfully connected to women without trouble but it grew slowly more obvious upon further exploration and experiences. Those who start looking at the world in search of depth are bound to see that the particular view on women you seem to refer to here cannot be avoided. It can only be tuned or tweaked, perhaps even transcended into innocence. But even the oldest myths relate of how men are seduced by women who get in turn taken in by the world worm. It's a truth that could transcend all gender but rarely really does.

That said, what you don't hear much around here is the notion that men end up being more self-absorbed, powerless and generally more stupid than the women in this world. So my practical view on women would be surprisingly favorable and in many cases I prefer dealing with them. Still I cannot find much wrong with Quinn's Woman article on his site. Interesting thing is, since according to that article women are not capable of developing real interest toward the infinite, it's also natural that it's not of particular concern to them if they'd really be somehow "excluded" from it. But then comes this odd phenomenon: some women and those blindly dedicated to them always will challenge exclusion as a threat and offense of some kind, they will even include the whole topic as being important to them while actually it isn't - unless of course they can wear it.

dejavu:
lol

We find Diebert waffling on as is his wont. Women? As if anyone can be excluded from infinity!

Let's talk about exclusion. What do you find wrong with the article?

Carmel:
lol! yeah, I chuckled at that, too. I don't know, Diebert, that did seem like "waffling" or like you're trying to play both sides of the fence. The other possibility that occured to me is that you want me to spank you, symbolically speaking.;) ...lol! ok, I couldn't keep a straight face while typing that.

Anyway, I'll respond seriously to your post at a later time...

dejavu wrote:As if anyone can be excluded from infinity!

That's not in my post or the article I was talking of. Are you having a fever?

Carmel wrote:Anyway, I'll respond seriously to your post at a later time...

Joking around is always the easy part which easily bores so I'll look forward to some substance as I'm sure you're capable of it. As for "sides of the fence", to me there are no sides but those temporary created by proper argumentation or fencing.

It might be better to start a separate thread on the subject in the main forum.