Scott and Nick's pit fight

[Dan Rowden]

I don't go near them because they are complete dross. Want me to explain why?

[sschaula]

That would make you seem less lazy.

[sschaula]

I am still also waiting for Nick's reply on all of the contradictions he found.

[Jamesh]

I don't go near them because they are complete dross. Want me to explain why?

If you can do so without appealing to some emotion, sure, otherwise forget it.

[Jason]

The discussion of Woman is all about the undermining of the ego - and nothing is more important than that.
.

Truth is more important.

[sue hindmarsh]

Living directly in Truth is the aim. But that cannot be achieved while the ego remains.
.

[Leyla Shen]

Wow, funny as hell. A whole page of one-liners. That's gotta be a first.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Wow, funny as hell. A whole page of one-liners. That's gotta be a first.

Dan called for brevity and succinctness.
.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth wrote:

Dan called for brevity and succinctness.

Indeed.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Dan, I think you should give Scott another chance. As in, let him hear one more of your explanations, and based on how he reacts to it, decide whether to continue a discussion with him. If it looks like he's willing to engage you in an even exchange, then steam forward.

No one will see you as any worse if you leave Scott alone if he attacks you immediately and unthinkingly on your first serious attempt to engage him, but personally I think your current silence is sending the wrong messages.

Just a suggestion.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Scott,

I look at the world and see a bunch of stupid people, but I also don't see a bunch of fools. I see that everyone thinks rationally...they just do it imperfectly and don't care to do it perfectly. So what? That's no reason to condemn them as some "wise people" do, and try to change them. Before attempt to perfect others, make sure that you are perfect yourself.

Your judgment lacks clarity and refinement. You paint everyone with the same brush to justify resorting back to past conditioning. There is a spectrum of intelligence surrounded by ignorance. Ignorant people are totally controlled by their conditioning, as they have rarely penetrated into the depths of their own consciousness. Their conversations revolve around shallow topics, and they feel threatened whenever a discussion questions the validity of their conditioned animal values.

Intelligent and rational people are not controlled by their conditioning to the same degree as the masses. They are not perfect, but they do possess some degree of self-awareness which varies. Subconscious activity still occurs, but they have the awareness to analyze it, and not allow it to affect their daily actions. Most people have very little self-awareness.

So there is a huge spectrum of intelligence and ignorance, so you should not come to these crude judgments of yours. It doesn’t make any sense to simply state everyone thinks rationally. It is not true, only a minority of individuals are able to think rationally to some degree.

Ironically, you criticize Kelly Jones for mindlessly promoting perfection, but you are on the opposite side of the dualistic tree, as you mindlessly promote imperfection. I agree that one needs to stop striving to find the destination of enlightenment, but this doesn’t mean one should cease being attentive to their daily subconscious activity, and how it affects their daily action.

You just can’t give up by cracking open a beer, getting a girlfriend, joining the army, pumping out a couple kids, and inviting the boys over to watch the super bowl, even though that is what our animal conditioning tells us to do at a subconscious level.

If you are a slave to subconscious thoughts then you are not enlightened. If you are strong enough to negate the validity of subconscious thoughts, and resist action then you are on your way, as you possess some degree of self-awareness. However, this path is not popular to most people as most people value the activity in their subconscious mind because it is their fun, their meaning, and their future.

Without the subconsious mind being the master, the individual has no future, and this is the goal of the seeker of truth. So the path of truth is counterintutive to most people as they are working towards a future, while the sage is working to end his.

So the search ends, but a daily awareness remains, a careful attention is needed to be weary of all the subconscious activity that lingers below the conscious mind.

[sschaula]

Ryan,

Your judgment lacks clarity and refinement.

That doesn't bother me as long as I have understood the basic idea.

You paint everyone with the same brush to justify resorting back to past conditioning. There is a spectrum of intelligence surrounded by ignorance. Ignorant people are totally controlled by their conditioning, as they have rarely penetrated into the depths of their own consciousness. Their conversations revolve around shallow topics, and they feel threatened whenever a discussion questions the validity of their conditioned animal values.

You must not talk to many people in real life. It's easy to think of them as stupid when you go up onto the top of the mountain. You see all of their duels and daily dealings as almost entirely unconscious.

I see going up onto the top of the mountain in the same fashion.

Everyone has their reasons for living the way they do. What is your reason for sitting like a slug and posting to a messageboard? See...you aren't so much better than "everyone else". We are all basically the same.

Don't believe me? That's fine by me. This is my opinion and perspective, not what someone else told me was true.

Intelligent and rational people are not controlled by their conditioning to the same degree as the masses. They are not perfect, but they do possess some degree of self-awareness which varies. Subconscious activity still occurs, but they have the awareness to analyze it, and not allow it to affect their daily actions. Most people have very little self-awareness.

I suspect the only reason why "wise people" are disgusted with others is that they feel left out. At least that's how it comes off most of the time.

I have never met a person with no self awareness. I suggest you get to know people, instead of judging them from a distance. If you find them all to be absolutely retarded, then you will know the truth. I've found them to be the same as myself...it just takes some prying to find out who they truly are and how their minds work.

So there is a huge spectrum of intelligence and ignorance, so you should not come to these crude judgments of yours.

Haha, I'd say the same thing to you.

It doesn’t make any sense to simply state everyone thinks rationally. It is not true, only a minority of individuals are able to think rationally to some degree.

Everyone's minds work the same way. We all think mathematically. Things have to make sense for everyone.

I agree that only a minority of individuals are able to think rationally...at least in a productive way. Like I've said before...most people just don't know how to think. I still say they possess the ability.

Ironically, you criticize Kelly Jones for mindlessly promoting perfection, but you are on the opposite side of the dualistic tree, as you mindlessly promote imperfection.

You may want to rethink my stance. I've only said perfection is impossible. I've also said it's only a belief of mine...not something I believe is without a doubt absolutely true. Also, I don't do it mindlessly. Reread and try to keep up.

I agree that one needs to stop striving to find the destination of enlightenment, but this doesn’t mean one should cease being attentive to their daily subconscious activity, and how it affects their daily action.

Did I ever say to quit?

You just can’t give up by cracking open a beer, getting a girlfriend, joining the army, pumping out a couple kids, and inviting the boys over to watch the super bowl, even though that is what our animal conditioning tells us to do at a subconscious level.

I agree entirely.

If you are a slave to subconscious thoughts then you are not enlightened.

I agree with that entirely, as well.

If you are strong enough to negate the validity of subconscious thoughts, and resist action then you are on your way, as you possess some degree of self-awareness.

Exactly. But this constant attention to detail is NOT any kind of attainment. This is why I say calling yourself enlightened is bogus so long as you aren't permanently enlightened.

However, this path is not popular to most people as most people value the activity in their subconscious mind because it is their fun, their meaning, and their future.

I truly believe everyone tries their best to be good and live a noble life. Some people just have no follow through. That's why most of the time you'll find the most subconscious kind of people to be the most fucked up psychologically.

Without the subconsious mind being the master, the individual has no future, and this is the goal of the seeker of truth. So the path of truth is counterintutive to most people as they are working towards a future, while the sage is working to end his.

Not exactly.

So the search ends, but a daily awareness remains, a careful attention is needed to be weary of all the subconscious activity that lingers below the conscious mind.

This is not what I'd call any kind of enlightenment. I wouldn't call someone who is at this level, a "wise person". This is all I'm saying.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I wrote:

Without the subconsious mind being the master, the individual has no future, and this is the goal of the seeker of truth. So the path of truth is counterintutive to most people as they are working towards a future, while the sage is working to end his.

Scott responded:

Not exactly.

Care to elaborate? I propose that unconscious people are working towards a future that is based on fantasy and illusion. They derive their energy through ambition and the promise of material gain. They are constantly hoping, fantasizing and working towards something shallow down the road, and once they achieve it, they move on to another shallow goal. And this activity is what keeps them going, their happiness is always in the future.

For instance: many people I know fantasize about striking it rich, or making money in some sort of easy way, even though they have been ripped off numerous times. This is the sort of unconscious activity I'm talking about. Constantly seeking more finanical security, more wealth, more spiritual attainments, and all the rest of it.

So the sage is without this sort of ambition, without a future. He doesn’t value subconscious fantasies that tell him happiness is just down the road after he achieves something. Whether it is a material attainment or spiritual one.

This is why I agree with you when you suggest that the search has to end, and the ideal of perfection isn’t all that useful, however one still must be able to recognize flaws in thinking and behavior and adjust them or end them one by one if it is at all possible.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan, I think you should give Scott another chance. As in, let him hear one more of your explanations, and based on how he reacts to it, decide whether to continue a discussion with him. If it looks like he's willing to engage you in an even exchange, then steam forward.

No one will see you as any worse if you leave Scott alone if he attacks you immediately and unthinkingly on your first serious attempt to engage him, but personally I think your current silence is sending the wrong messages.

Just a suggestion.

Oh, I intend to reply. I'm not currently silent, I'm just currently overwhelmed with life's annoying little practicalities - like finding a place to live.

[sschaula]

Ryan,

You: Without the subconsious mind being the master, the individual has no future, and this is the goal of the seeker of truth. So the path of truth is counterintutive to most people as they are working towards a future, while the sage is working to end his.

Me: Not exactly.

You: Care to elaborate?

Sure. 1) It's not true that an individual has no future without the subconscious mind being the master. 2) It's not true that being without a future is the goal of the seeker of truth. 3) It's not true that the path of truth is counterintuitive to most people. 4) It's not true that the sage is working to end his future.

1) The future always comes regardless of anything. Even without the subconscious mind being the master, a person's life can change. Everyone has a future.

2) The seeker of truth seeks understanding, not destruction of anything, such as his future. Finding truth doesn't involve suddenly not having a future.

3) The path of truth attracts many people, and I'd argue that by nature people want things to make sense and they want to understand why things are the way they are. It's just that not everyone is into philosophy.

4) The sage, if there was one, does no work. With all unconscious tendencies gone, there's nothing left to pursue...no reason to move. Also, a sage should have ended his future already. I would never call an imperfectly enlightened person, a sage. That'd be like someone calling me a sage. It'd be retarded. If you meant "a philosopher", then I'd argue that he also wouldn't be trying to end his future. A philosopher would simply be thinking of truth as he lived his life. Only suicidal people try to end their futures, and they are pretty unsuccessful at it seeing as how when they die their bodies still have a future...in a cemetary or into ashes and spread...

I propose that unconscious people are working towards a future that is based on fantasy and illusion. They derive their energy through ambition and the promise of material gain. They are constantly hoping, fantasizing and working towards something shallow down the road, and once they achieve it, they move on to another shallow goal. And this activity is what keeps them going, their happiness is always in the future.

That is definitely an unconscious activity, and many people do it.

Do seekers of truth not do this?

For instance: many people I know fantasize about striking it rich, or making money in some sort of easy way, even though they have been ripped off numerous times. This is the sort of unconscious activity I'm talking about. Constantly seeking more finanical security, more wealth, more spiritual attainments, and all the rest of it.

I love how you said "more spiritual attainments". Exactly!

So the sage is without this sort of ambition, without a future. He doesn’t value subconscious fantasies that tell him happiness is just down the road after he achieves something. Whether it is a material attainment or spiritual one.

I agree with you but this really just comes down to how I don't like defining things like this in religious terminology. I'd just call that person, "someone who has thought about it".

I know, it doesn't have any kind of a ring to it. Whatever...I like communication to be precise and not so obscure.

This is why I agree with you when you suggest that the search has to end, and the ideal of perfection isn’t all that useful, however one still must be able to recognize flaws in thinking and behavior and adjust them or end them one by one if it is at all possible.

One doesn't have to do anything.

[Dan Rowden]

Jimbo posted a bunch of stuff. Here's my response to each point:

[...]It became clear that everything I had done towards the philosophical path had been moronic, and that there wasn't any actual path.

I hear this so often it becomes tiresome after a while. Of course there's a path: it's called the path of the renunciation of delusion. It's the only path there is.

That the entire path I had been on was simply the ego trying to bring meaning to life.

The path necessarily begins with egotistical motives. Given that this is necessary and unavoidable, it means nothing to be critical of the fact. If one remains on the path then the ego is undermined naturally. If this does not happen, one is not on the path at all - or making no actual headway.

That there isn't any actual meaning to life...it's just the way things are.

Sure, but this is actually a remedial insight. And as it's being expressed here, a very incomplete one. There is no objective meaning to life, no meaning inherent in reality. However, there is meaning to life inasmuch as meaning is an artifact of consciousness and we therefore bring meaning to life. For some reason we tend to not accept subjective meaning as legitimate or real. It's usually because of a lingering attachment to objectivity as reality. A common delusion.

It isn't some kind of game or movie, or a story...those things all have meaning attributed to them. There's always a plot. Not so with reality. So the main character, myself, had no further purpose in striving for anything imaginary. I simply am.

Philosophy is not about striving for meaning outside of one's self. It's about striving for the truth of things, which includes the nature of meaning.

I found that continuing on with this philosophical path would just be jumping through flaming hoops set up by other egotistical morons, who are just like myself.

Honestly, is that even supposed to mean something? For one thing, what has the philosophical path got to do with jumping through hoops or other people in any way? Other people's ideas can be stimulating, but at bottom it's all about our minds and our consciousness and thinking. Philosophy is an explicitly personal enterprise.

If they challenge my wisdom, that is something absolutely laughable to me...because I've attained everything now.

People will naturally challenge your wisdom if you speak dross.

I am not perfect logically, down to the core.

The core of what? And if you are not perfectly logical what makes you think you have attained everything?

I have never known of anyone who was.

So what? It's not actually an argument for anything. What percentage of the human population have you known? What do you know of the nature of consciousness or reality that shows you that this perfection is in principle impossible? Just one time I'd like to see such an argument because all this bald faced assertion stuff is tedious at best.

Perfection isn't an attainment. It's a dream.

That's not an argument, it's a sentiment, and obviously one designed for the purpose of self-convincing.

It's like eating one candy bar and then imagining the world could be made out of chocolate. Just stupid.

I agree, that statement is just stupid. If certain delusions can be overcome it is a perfectly valid hypothesis that all delusions can be overcome. To argue otherwise you'd have to make a case for those that by definition cannot. Put up or shut up, as they say.

I've grown contempt for people who try to pull it off as if they're perfect

Really? How many have you met, or did you just make that up?

when they're probably more flawed than anyone else.

See, more bald faced bombast - you should go into politics where contempt for logical protocols are the norm. Do you ever put any substance into the claims you make? Flawed in what sense?

It's very misleading.

Are you saying you want or need to be led? What on earth has the supposed flaws of other people got to do with your own personal path and attainments? You're speaking like a child whose papa let him down at some point.

But that contempt is a flaw of mine.

Yes it is, a very big one. What are you going to do about it? Nothing, I suppose... And it's more than just the contempt that is the flaw.

Instead, I should feel sorry for them, because they were treated so bad in their lives that all they have left to hold onto are their delusion of grandeur.

It's funny. That is exactly how you come across.

The reason I feel contempt is that they fool people who are just fine into becoming just like them. It's entirely unnecessary.

This shows you know nothing at all, and certainly nothing about psychology. And you have the temerity to speak of the delusions of grandeur of others. People who are "perfectly fine" don't engage in philosophy at all. They most assuredly don't go looking for insight from others. And besides, deluded people are anything but perfectly fine.

I look at the world and see a bunch of stupid people, but I also don't see a bunch of fools.

Ok, so stupidity is perfectly fine to you. That's your prerogative, but what has that got to do with philosophical goals?

I see that everyone thinks rationally...they just do it imperfectly and don't care to do it perfectly.

This isn't even remotely close to the truth, but it's a sentiment that would likely win you votes in an election. People reason expediently and conveniently. Their reason is driven by motives far other than the valuing of reason or truth or sanity. It means nothing that people think rationality at times. Do you know the difference bewteen utilising reason and being a rational person?

So what? That's no reason to condemn them as some "wise people" do, and try to change them.

I'm sorry, but this is indicative, again, of your complete lack of comprehension of how purpose and meaning and value manifest in the world. It also contains bucket loads of hypocrisy, but you don't see that, do you? When peaceful people try to change warlike people because of their differing values and purpose are they doing something wrong?

Before attempt to perfect others, make sure that you are perfect yourself.

That isn't necessary (besides, you don't even believe in it). It is enough to understand reality. Purpose and value flows naturally from that and such things might involve attempting to wake people up. It's not the wise people who actually change others, it's the others who change themselves. No-one can actually change who you are if you don't let it happen. This is truer with regard to philosophical thinking than anything else.

[sschaula]

Good post, Dan. I will need more time to respond. You will see that I agree with a lot of what you've said.

[sschaula]

Actually, I'm not going to respond. It deserves a response, but really, I've stopped caring anymore about being right or making any sort of argument.

Consider me proven wrong, and a fool.

[Shahrazad]

Chicken.

[sschaula]

No, he got me on a few points. If I were a chicken I'd say "you're stupid, Dan".

[Shahrazad]

Well then, tell us on what points he is right.

[Nick]

Well then, tell us on what points he is right.

Shouldn't you figure that out for yourself?

[Tharan]

Scott has actually made progress in the sense that he knows that some objective Buddhahood is not real. It is frustrating because of the effort put into it. But really that is all part of the process. There is no becoming, there is only awakening. Part of that awakening is to know that all the silly little Nirvana dreams are fantasies. It is a phase most New Agers never reach. From this junction, a person can devolve into hedonism or continue the path regardless of its lack of objective meaning or importance. It really doesn't matter. But there certainly is nothing more important that you could be doing otherwise. Delusion and suffering are with you whether you try or not.

*edit*
And anytime some "opponent" responds with ad hominem one-liners in a debate, don't bother wasting your time with it (unless of course you are just enjoying yourself).

[Jamesh]

Jimbo posted a bunch of stuff. Here's my response to each point:

Scott wrote those and I bolded some of them in support. I'll reply anyway, because in many ways I feel similar misgivings to Scott.

It's my typical freeform style, so I go off in whatever tangent takes my fancy.

[...]It became clear that everything I had done towards the philosophical path had been moronic, and that there wasn't any actual path.

I hear this so often it becomes tiresome after a while. Of course there's a path: it's called the path of the renunciation of delusion. It's the only path there is.

I’m relatively free of common delusions, but not free of ego delusions. I still remain convinced that as temporary beings our aim should be, and our true path always is, is to seek sustainable happiness/contentment. We will always seek the positive over the negative, just as you guys are doing in promoting your truths.

Quote:
That the entire path I had been on was simply the ego trying to bring meaning to life.

The path necessarily begins with egotistical motives. Given that this is necessary and unavoidable, it means nothing to be critical of the fact. If one remains on the path then the ego is undermined naturally. If this does not happen, one is not on the path at all - or making no actual headway.

I am finding that only part of the ego is undermined naturally. While habitualness is preventing me from making headway, so to is nihilism. Choosing one’s own meaning/purpose and value systems seems a little pathetic under the dark cloud of nihilism.
Nihilism is greatly freeing when in the right mood but interest destroying when not. I am often in a bad mood because of my habits (by “bad mood” I mean critical of others, lazy and directionless, shallow and an overriding feeling of disappointment).

In terms of how my memories affect me I have to say I believe in biorhythms as a generally true concept (at least for people who live life consuming poisons). The body has emotional fluctuations. One can even see it occur on the forum – after a period of high interest in topics from multiple posters, the forum tends to quieten down. There always occurs a dead feeling after the heady truth rushes. I am certain even an enlightened person is subject to such bodily-caused ups and downs (which would explain why you guys disappear for weeks at a time – does this point to a retention of ego?).

I do not believe one can exist without an ego. Nor do I think undermining the ego is necessarily a good thing, though channelling it into a certain "set" of directions might be. I purposefully used the word "set", because truth on a day to day experience basis is quite limited and channelling all one’s ego towards something like truth seems to send too many folks crazy. There has to be more to humanity than boring old truth. I can see no form of totally accurate truth that does not encompass this normal human relationship side, which in turn requires an emotional ego – and the QRS truths do not, except it does for you dudes cause you have assumed the role of master teachers.

Quote:
That there isn't any actual meaning to life...it's just the way things are.

Sure, but this is actually a remedial insight. And as it's being expressed here, a very incomplete one. There is no objective meaning to life, no meaning inherent in reality. However, there is meaning to life inasmuch as meaning is an artifact of consciousness and we therefore bring meaning to life. For some reason we tend to not accept subjective meaning as legitimate or real. It's usually because of a lingering attachment to objectivity as reality. A common delusion.

Well for me that is because objectivity is partially the true state of existence. There is a realness to objectivity that only a deluded person rejects. Forget about the form or inherency and all that other stuff, there is still the fact that we are caused by externalities to experience a somewhat non-chaotic unity with reality. I am a believer in limited objectivity. That other people and things only exist in an A=A fashion in our heads does not mean that objectivity does not exist. I trust intuitive logic and this logic tells me my brain could not create the causal chain that would lead to such a vast range of creations of human imagination and the vast range of life and patterns of existence. In a purely subjective world I would never be surprised by anything as they would all be my own creation in the first place.

In terms of attachment to objectivity of self, which may have been what you are referring to, then you might be deluding yourself. If there is observed differentiation then there exists a self, until such stage as that self can no longer observe. If there is valuation relative to this self then there is an ego present. If there is memory present in thought then there is objective connection of the self to reality.

Objectivity is as equally valid AS reality, as subjectivity is.

Let me say though that I have difficulty knowing how best to apply the word "objectivity".

There is an objective reality that is external, the reality of effects, A=A. It is external to our consciousness, but it is not causally external, thus this external world comes and goes when we sleep or die. Our consciousness is an effect, it is a type of form caused by the differentiation and layerisation of causes. We do not observe objective causes per se, we observe the flow of causes that appear as effects. Such patterns are no less real that what created them, causes, they are just a different form of reality. These patterns flow and change just like the causes that create the patterns flow and change.

They are the reality of One, rather than the Twofold causal reality.

The infinite operates exactly like sex. Two come together and create a separate third one that contains elements of both causal parents and thus has a different pattern of existence. Is a child any less real than its parents.

Quote:
It isn't some kind of game or movie, or a story...those things all have meaning attributed to them. There's always a plot. Not so with reality. So the main character, myself, had no further purpose in striving for anything imaginary. I simply am.

Philosophy is not about striving for meaning outside of one's self.

So why are you guys promoting truth? (rhetorical)

It's about striving for the truth of things, which includes the nature of meaning.

Not really. A striving for truth, like every other human endeavour, is about striving for the highest ratio of positive emotions above negative ones over one’s lifetime. Not knowing something one feels they should know produces a negative emotion.

Quote:
If they challenge my wisdom, that is something absolutely laughable to me...because I've attained everything now.

People will naturally challenge your wisdom if you speak dross.

Wouldn’t you be taking an illusionary objective viewpoint to judge what Scott said as dross?

If someone feels they know everything, which may or may not include the viewpoint that attaining anything means nothing, then that is how they feel.

I feel this way myself. It is like knowing enough of the English dictionary to be able to express anything you want (albeit perhaps quite badly), and therefore ceasing the study of it, other than when a particular word takes your emotional interest. You know enough of what is there to know where to go if a new experience arises.

Although with "general truth" one learns new details about things, like new words, one can take or leave these truths, they are either emotionally interesting or not. Truths of reality are just generalisations, which after applying them to things are always found to be rational, but they are so few in number that one loses interest (definitional truths can all be generalised to the one truth, A=A).

Quote:
I am not perfect logically, down to the core.

The core of what? And if you are not perfectly logical what makes you think you have attained everything?

For me this would mean my emotional core, and to be honest I can’t say I'm the least bit logical in this regard.

If I relate Scotts statement to what I see as the possibilities for forms of enlightenment then I come up with the following.

"Informational Enlightenment" would be the term for having placed truths of reality into some form of mental hierarchical structure, so that each truth is properly related to the others. This is a "conscious" only form of enlightenment, as in "only when one thinks about reality, does the brain process new experiences in concert with truths of reality". Nor may it do so all the time, lacking as it does the subconscious automation of the other forms of enlightenment listed below.

I would say that’s where I am, as I feel I have not learnt any new truths of reality for some time, apart from the one's I've created in relation to my Dualistic theory. This form of enlightenment has not learnt to control, or does not desire to control, the ego. I know enough of this dictionary of reality. This form comes at the cost of a loss of purpose and some ordinary pleasures.

"Rational Enlightenment" is where you'd place yourself. You believe you are practically non-delusional, and the informational enlightenment ego structure directs your thoughts. This means that you automatically apply truths of reality to experiences including the experience of recalling memories. This form comes at the cost of a wide range of emotional satisfactions. For myself, being only informationally enlightened, this form appears like being robotic.

"Emotionally Enlightened" is where one controls their emotions so that they principally add positive emotional value to one's life. One controls their emotions by minimising the ego as a catalyst for desire. Such folks do not tend to be either informationally or rationally enlightened, but will have limited degrees of both understandings.

In no way however would I class myself as rationally or emotionally enlightened, but I'm sure you don't even think I'm informationally enlightened.

Quote:
I have never known of anyone who was.

So what? It's not actually an argument for anything. What percentage of the human population have you known? What do you know of the nature of consciousness or reality that shows you that this perfection is in principle impossible? Just one time I'd like to see such an argument because all this bald faced assertion stuff is tedious at best.

Perfection in any thing is impossible.

Our thoughts utilise memories. Memories contain emotional switches (speculation, but probable). A certain large percentage of memories will have been formed prior to reaching an absolute logical stage and thus may contain tainted instructions, some of this will get through the enlightenment program screening process.

Just like a computer bad data may not necessarily produce the most rational thoughts, though the data may be processed logically.

Quote:
Instead, I should feel sorry for them, because they were treated so bad in their lives that all they have left to hold onto are their delusion of grandeur.

It's funny. That is exactly how you come across.

It seems to be natural outcome of those who think they know every important thing about reality. The positive feeling of grandeur is involved whenever one feels they are right. Generalise enough and it becomes easy to be always right.

Quote:
The reason I feel contempt is that they fool people who are just fine into becoming just like them. It's entirely unnecessary.

This shows you know nothing at all, and certainly nothing about psychology. And you have the temerity to speak of the delusions of grandeur of others. People who are "perfectly fine" don't engage in philosophy at all. They most assuredly don't go looking for insight from others. And besides, deluded people are anything but perfectly fine.

David does this when he uses words like "glorious" when referring to the infinite . It makes one want the green grass on the other side of the fence, however the closer one gets understanding how to get over the fence the less attractive the grass is as it turns brown and bland.

Even the words Genius Forum and the descriptor "A Forum for Dangerous Thinkers" is attractive as a challenge to the masculine side of many people. As is what Scott is saying where the ordinary person is constantly demeaned on the basis of perfectly concrete truths ONLY made real as a result of their perfect abstractness (ahh the paradoxes of duality raises itself again, thankfully duality explains everyone of these so called paradoxes).

What I perceive or project, rightly or wrongly, is that Scott thinks he will be fucked for the rest of his life, the green grass was all where he came from, not in the purgatory where he finds himself now. Quite rationally he wants people in his life and he wants to be able to appreciate them and not be overly concerned about their small delusional fallibilities. But he feels he can’t do this now as truth has made him more distant from others, and he feels dealing with them is all an act because he just isn't able to forget truth and enjoy the innocence of peoples actions. Just as a high level of dumbness sets a person aside from others, so to does a high level of truth.

The desire to be part of the herd is perfectly rational - you can't really apply the term "delusion" to such a concept. It is rational unless the manner in which one attempts to achieve herd comfort is subjectively damaging to one's future.

[Dan Rowden]

Actually, I'm not going to respond. It deserves a response, but really, I've stopped caring anymore about being right or making any sort of argument.

Consider me proven wrong, and a fool.

Nah, I have no need to think any such thing especially. I think you're considering matters. If you decide at some point to respond that will be welcome.