GENIUS NEWS

GENIUS NEWS

The Newsletter for Dangerous Thinkers

Welcome to the latest edition of Genius News, a monthly newsletter based on the world's liveliest email forum: Genius-L, now incorporating material from the world's most intelligent web forum, Genius Forum. Genius-L and Genius Forum are forums dedicated to the nature of genius, wisdom and Ultimate Reality, to the total annihilation of false values and the femininity in all of us. That is to say, they are realms intended solely for those who value consciousness.

A spiritual friendship is no ordinary friendship. Your best spiritual friend must also be your best enemy, for they will challenge you, and pinch and poke you into action. Spiritual friends do not wish to flatter you, and make you stronger, but to undermine your false prides and make you weaker; because only the weak are strong enough, and sensitive enough for God. Only the weak can have doubts, a chink in the armour through which God can enter. Only the weak can transcend goodness, for the strong are content to do their good, but good always turns bad within samsara.

Keith: I have stopped participating in the discussions here. For a list with this name and professing to discuss some of the high minded and apparently enlightened and spiritual issues that are raised here I am really very puzzled at how egotistical and offensive some of the posts are.

David Quinn: Personally, I'm surprised and disappointed just how inoffensive most of the posts are. There seems to be nothing in them

Keith: I see no generosity or compassion coming from those people only distain and a sneering contempt for those who differ in there view or who offer a point of view that does not concur with them. One of the true signs of spiritual and perhaps even 'human' development is a highly developed sense of compassion I would have thought.

David Quinn: What is compassion exactly? Is it merely ego-stroking, as most people seem to think? Or is it something more? I personally define "compassion" as the act of rescuing people from samsara, and thus an act of genius.

Christian compassion: the act of gaining pleasure from the humiliation of others. A form of sadism.

Giselle Morgan: David, if you look at the originel Greek meaning of the word compassion, it literally means to 'suffer with'. So if we are to try and understand where each of us is or how we feel, we could try some compassion....it really is a verb.

It is over used and often simplified, to me it conjures the idea of a certain lifestyle.....to suffer with those around me no matter who they are can be draining and at times confusing. One would hope that compassion might be shared around the world amongst people, but it is a lot of work now isn't it? I know that John Embling and Heather Pilchard who work for Families in
Distress are definitley examples of compassion as is their Atheist Director, Philip Adams. None of these guys are Christians. Dr Patch Adams, another friend of mine is very compassionate, and a busy person with it!

David Quinn: If we engage in "suffering with those around us" are we not simply increasing the amount of suffering in the world? My vicarious suffering (with them) only adds to the suffering and doesn't really help anyone.

To me, if compassion is to mean anything substantial at all, it needs to be more than simply understanding another's plight and feeling it with them. At the very least, it should involve the formulation of intelligent conceptual tools that can enable us to minimize suffering, or even eliminate it altogether. In other words, compassion cannot really arise without the prior existence of wisdom (i.e. the understanding of Reality).

Giselle Morgan: Christ actually had the above copmpassion for the people around him...whether you are Christian or not, the stories in the Gospels just ooze him living with others in community and attempting compassion....he was a community development worker, and like any good CD Worker you really only get three good years at it..which if you count them, Jesus had them..from the age of 30 years until they cricified him at 33!!

David Quinn: You must have a different New Testament to me. My copy emphasizes the need for total devotion to God, even at the expense of "community" values. For example:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple."

"Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on, there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother ....... "

"All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

"Who is my mother and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his diciples, Jesus said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

And so on. Unsurprisingly, Christians tend to ignore these sorts of quotes.

Giselle Morgan: I don't consider my Christian compassion to be an act of sadism.....I at times am narcisissic, but then all my compassion has gone!! I would hope that when I am most compassionate I am not humiliating others.

David Quinn: I sometimes wonder what Christians would do if there was no suffering in the world. What would they do with themsleves? What would be their virtue? Wouldn't they simply disappear into obscurity?

If you experience any pleasure at all in helping others, then you are engaging in sadism. Deep down, I think that most Christians want suffering to keep occuring in the world so that they may continue to experience the joys of "helping those less fortunate than themselves". Such is their sadistic mentality.

The world is full of pretenders, wanna-bes, would-be if they could-bes and claim-to-bes. Being able to discern an authentic spirit from a false one is important in that it can save the truth seeker from wasting precious time and effort by not involving himself in any way with such a person. The following is a general guide and warning for those rare seekers who might want to avoid the ignominy of taking seriously one, who is, themsleves, not serious, and who is ultimately cancerous to the spirit:

# Beware him whom speaks often and loudly, for such a one can neither think nor listen and seeks only to bring attention upon himself. Such a one is full of ego and cannot stand to be out of the sun's glare.

# Beware him who speaks of his detachment but whose actions are full of attachment and petty meanings, for his soul is corrupt.

# Beware him who speaks in noble terms when he is weary of the world but who embraces and revels in all things worldly and trivial when his energy is high, for he is but a dilletante.

# Beware him who appears generous but ultimately demands more than he gives, for he is like the incubus.

# Beware him who speaks in embittered tones of Woman, for whilst there may be truth in his words, there is also delusion and ego within his motivation for speaking. If he does not speak of Woman in a matter of fact manner, but instead speaks with the twisted tongue of a moral serpent, he is unworthy of attention.

# Beware him who exaggerates his place in the world and who wishes ill-will to be wrought against himself, for he is plainly an idiot.

# Beware him whose soul has no centre, for he is buffeted by the flux of the world and has no mind for God. Such a one is but a feminine woman.

# Beware him who holds in his heart no room for valid praise but only for false flattery and knavery, for his soul is small and bitter.

# Beware him whose mind dwells in logic in the ninth hour, but dwells in emotion in the tenth, for he has no centre.

# Beware those who merely mirror your values, for they are but pale reflections; mere echos of spirit.

# Beware those whose behaviour sometimes seems insane, for I tell you they are not merely acting!

# Beware those who are tolerant of most things, for they are yet intolerant of one thing - the soul.

# Beware him who reaches up from the mud of the earth to grasp at the noble man who passes above, for he means not to raise himself up but to drag the noble man down.

# Beware those who pay homage to the Eagle, for they will be consumed by the Eagle.

But more important than any of these things, beware of the existence of any of these traits in yourself. Strive to seek them out and eliminate them, for they bring nothing but disease to the spirit.

Sean: "There is no architect of genius" - Well, maybe there is if we're talking about this board. I came up with that quote a day or two ago. Does it hold any meaning for you? I was just thinking I could make a topic out of it, so I'll see what you come up with first(!).

David Quinn: A genius is nothing other than an architect of genius. He is continually laying down the seeds for future genius to arise. He uses his own genius to create even more genius. This is why people hate him so much. His existence is an affront to unconsciousness and mediocrity, the essence of humanity.

Sapius: It depends what you mean by "architect", and "genius".

In a way there is no "architect", as in an "entity", sitting in some corner and planning so.

On the other hand, it is Nature who is the "architect", and it too does not "think" as we understand from the word "thinking", but nevertheless, it is an inherent and blind quality of Nature, imbedded in the flow of Energy, changing from one form to another, also know as cause and effect, which give rise to a balance where life comes into existence, and hence the Mind, which is now nothing more than a product of Nature, and is Nature itself, which is Experiencing its own Existence meaningfully.

Genius or no Genius, All things and beings are products of Nature, and are no more than a manifestation of Nature itself, and in "us", Nature becomes a "thinking", "Alive", "Realizing", and "Experiencing" - all that Exists, and that is, its own "Self".

Its like Nature going through an Inherent Universal Evolution, where it reaches a point of Mental Existence, in us, and can now literally Realize itself, meaningfully.

Nature is not Blind, Deaf or Dumb in that sense. All our perceptions and intellectual communications put together are nothing more than meaningful electrical impulses traveling through and making sense to a MIND of Nature.

It is simply a meaningful "Experience" of Existence, and "good" and "bad", are both an intense "Emotional Joy" to it, and hence, actually hold no inherent difference, or meaning.

Nature is Alive; don’t be fooled by "your" perception and emotions, and an illusion that it is we who perceive, or come to any logical conclusion, it is Nature doing and Experiencing all that, in the literal sense, and that is the Truth and Reality.

Insulting to us humans perhaps, but all that exists, including "us", are no more than tools that Nature uses to Experience its own existence. If one thinks, S/he is a Genius, so be it. It does not make a difference to Reality; not the least bit.

Sean: I've often thought along the same lines as you, where any of our perceptions are grossly out of proportion with the true reality. Perhaps there is no architect of genius. What makes any one of us a genius?

David Quinn: Full consciousness of Ultimate Reality. Success in dismantling ego fortresses.

Sean: A person who can process twice as much knowledge than any other person? Someone who is better in a particular field such as physics (Stephen Hawking). Or maybe it is the person who can theorize beyond all conventional and unconventional means?

David Quinn: Since conventional and unconventional theories make up the sum total of all possible theories, a person would be doing well to go beyond both.

More likely, a genius is the person who is able to engage in the unconventional thought-processes which lead to full comprehension of Truth.

Sean: Personally I believe that genius is only apparent if you are seen to be it by other people. It's easy for me to say "Wow, nobody else has thought of that...geez, I must be a genius". If I'm the only person who thinks that, then am I truly a genius, or simply an egotistic person with an inferiority complex?

David Quinn: Are non-geniuses capable of recognizing genius? Surely, they are unqualified by definition.

WolfsonJakk: If no one else sees the fact that you are a genius, except yourself, would that unique vision qualify you as genius?

David Quinn: It may do, if everyone around you was dead or mentally incapacitated.

At bottom, the answer to this question depends on whether you really were a genius. If you were, then you would naturally have the clarity and vision to perceive that you were in fact a genius.

In other words, if a person is incapable of realizing for himself that he is genius, then by definition he isn't a genius.

Sean: Which ego fortresses would the genius dismantle? If it's his/her own, then surely that would go against the notion that a genius would be complete and of a higher ego in the preceedings?

Dan Rowden: The genius dismantles all and every ego fortress, for the simple reason that he dismantles all things that are false. However, for an individual to be of the type that has scope for genius (enlightenment) he must have a kind of "higher" ego. One could characterise this higher ego as a tremendous will to individuality. It is the kind of ego that wishes to stand alone in the face of Reality; to face that Reality on its own terms with no filters of passivity and submissiveness to others or social conventions.

Sean: I wish for this, but I'm not sure whether I would have the strength to withstand any truths that I might not be ready for. I suppose the only way to know is to attempt to stand before reality, and see what happens.

Dan Rowden: Yes, I think so, otherwise how would you know what you're actually ready for? The philosophic life is a life of psychological risk taking; there's no doubt of that and I would never want to say anything that indicated otherwise. The question is: is one possessed of psychological necessity such that those risks are things that ones invites with the fullness of one's soul?

Paradoxically, it is this kind of ego, and only this kind of ego, which can begin to dismantle false notions regarding itself, as if to will its own destruction. It is a rare type of ego indeed that has sufficient will to truth to be able to destroy itself in the process of establishing that truth.

Sean: In my mind, I try to be as open to myself and the world as I possibly can; this means the forfeit of morals and any strong beliefs in order to make room for philosophical revelations, whether acquired through deep thought and observation or from other philosophical beings.

Dan Rowden: One certainly has to be "open" to all kinds of potentially valid data, but more important than that is the value one places on one's own reason. That is imperative. And, as you suggest, one cannot rest in beliefs of any kind. All things must be examined including reason itself. No stone can be left unturned, no attachment left standing, no thought whatsoever can be passively excluded from our analysis of Reality.

Sean: I often sense when I take notice of my surroundings that I'm seeing the same thing. It's as though I can take it for granted because I'm familiar with it all.

Dan Rowden: Do you have any ideas as to why you experience that? When you understand the basis of existence and know the way in which all things exist and arise, then there is a sense of the fundamental sameness of everything. Although the secondary characteristics of things are different, their essential nature is the same in that all things are finite, exist relative to what they are not (i.e. are caused) and are given their differentiated existence through the defining process of consciousness itself. In the latter sense, one can see how this feeling of familiarity might arise. Our connection to things is so utterly intimate that it could not really be otherwise.

Sean: I have alot of faith in my individuality, I tend to do and think things differently in the extreme, say if someone was to do something different than the norm, I would try and do it even more differently. Which is I suppose why I'm unemployed, because I feel that if I had a job, I would lose whatever individuality I have now.

Dan Rowden: I think you need to be careful here. Wanting to be different from everyone else is not real individuality. This is because you are measuring yourself against others at all times. The only difference between you and others in this scenario is that their response is to be like others, whereas yours is to be unlike others. However, both responses stem from an egotistical comparing of self and other. The real individual stands in solitary fashion before Nature. He may at times behave in ways that are similar to how others behave or he may behave in ways that are very different, but at all times he is simply being who he is and is not gaining his standard for who he is by way of contrast to others.

In other words the individual is not in a state of egotistical dependence on others; it matters not one whit, ultimately, what others are like and what they are doing (though, in a practical sense this may impact on the individual). Any posture one adopts that involves contrast with others is a form of dependence on those others and not what I regard as true individuality.

Sean: I have always thought that throughout history a man's/woman's word of ultimate truth has never been potent enough until that person has perished.

Jesus....Otto....Martin Luther King.

Is there any room for a living genius in this world?

Dan Rowden: Of course! But in my view the genius of such people (I certainly wouldn't include Luther King) becomes diluted and lost as soon as they die. Jesus died, Christendom arose; Buddha died, the Sangha arose, Lao Tzu died, religious Taoism arose. The whole point is to become a genius onself, live as a genius and leave the mediocrity to those who know nothing else.

Sean: I have found myself psychologically drawn towards merging my ideals on life and actual reality.

Dan Rowden: Could you say something about what those "ideals" are?

Sean: My ideal world would be where we would be free from all religion. I do not appreciate being ruled over by leaders who endorse and promote religious ideals upon the rest of their society. I sense it as the ultimate attack on individuality.

Dan Rowden: At times it does seem amazing that the religious mentality still survives, but when you begin to understand the essential workings of human psychology you see that it is something that will endure, in various forms, for a long time to come. Even the non-religious express a religious mentality without being aware of it. The herd runs very, very deep.

David Quinn quoted Weininger on genius: "The scientific man ranks, as I have already said, and as I shall presently prove, below the artist and the philosopher. The two latter may earn the title of genius which must always be denied to the scientific man. Without any good reason having been assigned for it, it has usually been the case that the voice of genius on any particular problem is listened to before the voice of science. Is there justice in this preference? Can the genius explain things as to which the man of science, as such, can say nothing? Can he peer into depths where the man of science is blind?"

Sean: Maybe it's because the scientist rejects imagination. If humans had no ability to imagine, where would we be now?! It has just struck me...that is a very big question...I am in awe of it as I type. whew...man, that's a bombshell I wasn't expecting. I suppose it's all interconnected...imagination = progress = knowledge = perception = imagination = genius (?)

Dan Rowden: It's not so much a matter of imagination than the different realms that science and genius dwell in. Science is and can ever only be concerned with finite models of how Nature functions within itself; it is never actually concerned with Nature itself. Science works with systems of relationship which always constitute less that Reality and which are always contingent. The genius is concerned, primarily, with matters of ultimate import. He is concerned with what is ultilately true of Reality. A man of science may well become a genius but he must step beyond the scope of science to achieve it.

Sean: I always thought imagination is the core script we follow when our desires kick in. In a sense, our imagination is the window to an infinite number of possible futures, never one being defined until it has been completed. Even if scientists care only about the face of true reality - and not the meaning of it - they still do employ a degree (albeit small) of imagination in order to paint a continuous picture of the face of true reality. In essence, they only touch the surface.

Dan Rowden: That's right, they only touch the surface and that's all that science can ever do. And I agree that imagination plays an important role in the development of thought especially in terms of science because imagination is what enables us to propose new models and hypotheses. Imagination in this sense is extremely valuable.

Sean: I think the reasons how objects are to be may take several millions of years to realise, maybe not even at all.

Dan Rowden: I don't think I'm entirely getting your meaning here. My view is that at a fundamental level an understanding of how things are and will always be is within our grasp right here and now. Which is to say an understanding of the ultimate nature of existence is available to us. How things will be in terms of physical detail (i.e. where evolution is taking the world) is actually not a meaningful question as there can be no final result.

The hair on the back of women's necks often stands on end when they first discover Dr Warren Farrell - he admits it. The self-confessed men's rights warrior has earned a reputation for provocative research, the most recent of which espoused that children of divorced couples do better with single fathers than single mothers.

The American author says kids being raised be dads do better in all academic areas, particularly science and maths, are less prone to depression and other mental illnesses and are more likely to display empathy than those living with mum. Farrell says he has compiled 13 years of research and has drawn on studies from around the world and found children in single father families are more assertive and less aggressive, less likely to miss days at school because of illness and are more likely to go to bed on time.

Farrell says a key reason his research ranks single fathers above single mothers is that many women become sole parents by default wheras single dads have often fought hard to get their kids and are, therefore, highly motivated to parent them. "Single fathers (also) tend to be older and have more income and education," Farrell said.

Farrell's new book's biggest message is that dads have unique, effective and valuable parenting skills which often go unnoticed. "Mums need to know the value of tough love and dads do that intuitively," he says. "The picture that emerges is that dads nurture differently. For example, dads use games and fun to teach and deprive the child of games and fun if the child is selfish, too aggressive or otherwise behaves inappopriately."

University of Queensland Family Centre director Professor Pat Noller agrees that the value of fathers in the family has been wrongly downplayed for many years. "In Australian culture, fathers have been pushed to one side and there's often a situation where it's mum and the kids and dad is held out as seperate," she says. Noller says keeping fathers on the fringe has probably been a way for women to retain some power but, in the end, the different parenting skills dads offer often means kids are better balanced behaviourly.

In Farrell's other book, Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, he sets out communication strategies for couples but also challenges people to analyse their deep-seated beliefs of men which he says are created by societal stereotypes and reinforced through the media. He finds research to debunk many of the myths about men which, Farrell says, are at the core of many familial conflicts. For instance, Farrell says surveys conducted over the past 25 years in five different countries found men are not the main perpetrators of violence in the home. "Women and men batter each other about equally, or women batter men more," he says. "In addition, almost all studies found women were more likely to initiate violence and much more likely to inflict severe violence."

The United States is seeking to avert further criticism over the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan by warning the Afghan people not to confuse unexploded bombs with food drops.

Embarrassingly, the bombs' yellow casing means that from a distance they are hard to distinguish from the emergency food parcels wrapped in yellow plastic that US planes have been dropping over the last few weeks.

US psychological operations (Psy-ops) radio broadcast a message seeking to reassure the Afghan people that the possibility of confusing the two was minimal, as bombs and food parcels were not being dropped in the same areas and most bombs would explode on impact with the ground.

However, it said that people should still be aware of the difference in appearance: "Attention, noble Afghan people," the message - which was broadcast in Dari and Pashto - began. "As you know, the coalition countries have been air-dropping daily humanitarian rations for you," it continued. "The food ration is enclosed in yellow plastic bags. They come in the shape of rectangular or long squares. The food inside the bags is Halal and very nutritional. In areas away from where food has been dropped, cluster bombs will also be dropped. The colour of these bombs is also yellow."

US Psy-ops radio: "All bombs will explode when they hit the ground, but in some special circumstances some of the bombs will not explode. The cluster bombs are 6 cm in diameter and 16 cm in length and they are cylindrical in shape. Of course in future cluster bombs will not be dropped in areas where food is air-dropped. However, we do not wish to see an innocent civilian mistake the bombs for food bags and take it away believing that it might contain food."

The radio urged its listeners to exercise special caution when approaching yellow-coloured objects, especially in areas where bombs had already fallen: "We would like you to take extra care and not to touch yellow-coloured objects thinking that they might be food bags. This issue is highly important, especially in areas where bombs have been dropped. You should not forget and take additional care. Do not confuse the cylinder-shaped bomb with the rectangular food bag," the message concluded.

Earlier in the week, the Psy-Ops radio had broadcast detailed instructions on how to eat the items contained in the drops - explaining that the butter should be taken out of its packet and spread on bread - and Taleban radio had countered by accusing the US of dropping food packages "in areas full of land mines".

Forty percent of Americans believe supernatural intervention will bring an end to human history, according to a recent poll.

Half of 1,000 Americans polled are not convinced the physical world will end someday and another 10 percent are not sure, according to a Barna Research Group poll conducted in June. Of the 40 percent who believed in a supernatural end to the Earth, two-thirds of them said it was "very likely" Jesus Christ would return. Another 15 percent said it was "somewhat likely" He would come back. The most fervent believers in a physical return of Christ were evangelical Christians (75 percent), followed by mainline Protestants (69 percent), then Catholics (55 percent).

Several of those polled said the world would end either through an environmental disaster or by war. The poll was commissioned by Tyndale House Publishers, which was issuing a line of "Left Behind" books, an apocalyptic series on the end times.

When asked if countries in the Middle East would be entangled in events surrounding the end, 48 percent said it was "very likely" and 26 percent said it was "somewhat likely." Of those who believed in the world's end, half said it was "very" or "somewhat" likely it would happen in their lifetime.

When asked what would happen to them should there be a Second Coming, 61 percent of those who believed in a world's end said they would go to heaven. Twenty-eight percent said they did not know. Protestants far outpolled Catholics (71 percent to 53 percent) as confident they would go to heaven.

Australia's boxing bosses have agreed to back Anthony Mundine should he wish to appeal against the World Boxing Council's decision to drop him from their ratings. Australian National Boxing Federation spokesman Brad Vocale told Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio: "If he wants to put in a reinstatement application, we are more than happy to support that and back him.

"The WBC is the most respected and most powerful of all the sanctioning organisations and if he really wants to get on in the sport then he needs to be with this organisation." He acknowledged that he was disappointed with Mundine's remarks, but said that he did not feel the WBC was justified in stripping him of his title.

I condemn killings on any side and all acts of terrorism. I am against any form or any shape of violence or killing

Anthony Mundine, The Australian super-middleweight, ranked 26th by the WBC, said on Monday that the United States had brought the 11 September terrorist strikes upon itself.

As a result, WBC president Jose Sulaiman said that the council was suspending him indefinitely from the WBC ratings.

He said: "Such statements are unbelievable, intolerable and seriously hurt world society and boxing."

In response, the WBC cited their constitution, which allows fighters to be penalised for any act that "tends to bring disrepute upon the WBC, its officers or the sport of boxing." Mundine later apologised for the statements to any person who may have been offended and said that the comment had been taken out of context by the Australian media.

"I condemn killings on any side and all acts of terrorism. I am against any form or any shape of violence or killing," he said, "My heart and soul goes out to those families who lost loved ones in New York."

Mundine is scheduled to fight International Boxing Federation super-middleweight champion Sven Ottke at Dortmund, in Germany, on 1 December. IBF officials said that title fight would go ahead as scheduled but they reserved the right to strip Mundine of the title at a later date, should he win it, if he repeated his controversial statements.

Comment: The truth is that apart from a few people in the boxing fraternity, the silence has been deafening with respect to Mundine's treatment at the hands of the WBC. What it demonstrates in the thinness of the veneer of virue with which we cover ourselves when it comes to proclamations of democratic freedoms and rights of freedom of thought and speech. Mundine may be a fool, but that is not the point. He ought have the right to voice a dissenting view without fear of punishment. It is a travesty for a society to puff itself up with claims of superiority because of its alleged freedoms only to attempt to forceably silence a man who dares to make us of them.

Warning!: this site is not suitable for children as it contains adult material. Well, actually, it's possibly more accurate to say it contains material of a quasi-sexual nature rather than being particularly "adult". However, it may be quite suitable for children as an example to them of the superiority of western culture, of our more enlightened attitude towards women, and of what women can do when given the freedom and opportunity to do it:

Sean: Let's say you are walking down a street at night, and you approach a man, bleeding heavily on the pavement.

There is no one else around, and it is left up to you to do something about it.

Do you:

a) Call an ambulance and try to keep the man comfortable until it arrives;

b) Or do you keep walking?

c) Something else...

I would choose B. My reasons being that I did not ask for this responsibility, and this is not because I shy away from it (I babysit my 4 year old nephew alot), it's because I want to prove to myself that I can escape the psychological chains of society.

How else would I satisfy this need by doing something else in order to prove it to myself?

This probably sounds like a lame reason, and I wouldn't be surprised if I got alot of disrespect for it. But I'm not going to change what I think for anybody.

WolfsonJakk: Upon knowing this, I may very well pass you by if you were left bleeding on the street. This is the reason for not doing this. It is housed in an ancient survival mentality where we once actually needed each other to make it. I contend it is a skill that is best not forgotten.

Sean: If you did pass me in the street, and if I understood your reasons at that time, then I wouldn't have any regrets.

WolfsonJakk: ...but chances are I wouldn't know your mentality when I encountered you bleeding, so I would probably help you, simply because I can.

My point was, that if other humans saw you pass by another while in dire need, your chance for survival historically, would have been much slimmer. Nowadays, you have a better chance of getting away with it.

Marsha Faizi: It is certainly admirable that you [Sean] wish to escape the psychological chains of society. The realm of genius is filled with renegades from society's chains.

It is your right and prerogative to walk past an injured human being. As you mentioned, you did not ask for the responsibility of assisting such an injured person. You are, therefore, justified in walking away. No one could blame you for doing so. In fact, in walking past an injured person, you are justified in so doing because most people would do the same. Most people are capable of any act that they can justify. The morality of acts are not important. It is justification of acts that matter and, obviously, because of your desire to break from the chains of society and because you did not ask for responsibility, you are justified.

In this way, you are quite a herd animal. In your egotistical need to distinguish yourself from the herd, you justify your position within the herd. You are cow-like and sheep-like.

To become a true individual and not merely a cheap replica of one, it is necessary to realize that purpose and reason do not require justification. Reason does require consciousness of decision.

I would not walk past a human being bleeding on the sidewalk without attempting to assist him.

I have absolutely no justification for stating this to be the case. I would not attempt to assist such a person to justify either my delusion of compassion or my delusion of goodness. In doing so, I would not consider such obvious societal chains.

As a thinking and aware human being, I do not require justification for my actions. I act or do not act according to my sets of priorities. I have no vested, egotistical interest in justifying either my reason for electing to assist or electing to bypass. I am not interested in making a display either of my willingness or my unwillingness. I am not interested in making a display of my lack of display.

One of the most difficult lessons of life is learning to act without ego; to think without ego; to admonish without ego; to agree without ego. That is true individualistic thought -- not the lame justification of breaking away from psychological chains in order to prove a point.

I have no need for justification. The morality of acts are not important.

Sean: ...Maybe not to you, but it is to other people who we rely on to socialise with, and if we do something that goes against their ego, then it'll make life difficult for us. I could be blamed and be judged upon by people who - because of their ego - believe I should have helped the injured guy.

You may not need justification for your actions, but what if society demands a justification? Are you willing to take all the hassle and abuse and them saying you're full of s!h"t (no offence)? Are you willing to jeopardise any friendships you have with the immediate people around you?

Marsha Faizi: I cannot see how this could be a concern for you since you are electing to rail against the psychological chains of society.

No, the morality -- the ethical concerns -- of acts is not important to most people. It is the justification of actions that are important to people. Most people could not care less about ethical certainty. They have no ethical certainty. Most people are unethical and they are moral cowards.

It is notable that you mention that "we" rely on other people to socialize "with." It is curious that you place yourself within the category of "we" when you have been writing about breaking out of the psychological chains of society. Given the fact that you see yourself as breaking these chains, it is curious that you are concerned about other people with whom you -- as a part of a group -- must socialize.

My priority is to think and to act with consciousness in all things -- not from egotistical desire or whim but from wisdom -- love of philosophy; love of knowledge; love of ethical decency.

I have failed that many times in the past and I am certainly far from perfect now but I stive toward that ideal. Through my mistakes, I have learned to set high standards for myself and to keep them and to expect such standards from others

Sean: I suppose I'm not quite as independent from society as I would like to be. Maybe I wish I could be, and this is my own way of attempting to rebel against it.

Dan Rowden: The idea that one has to engage in behaviour that is always different from what everyone else is doing to be an individual is pretty foolish. If a raging fire is heading my way and everyone is fleeing for their lives, does that mean I have to stay there and be incinerated? I don't think so. The behaviour of an enlightened person, for example, can appear, on the surface, to be like that of others where in reality it is not. The difference is in his motivation and the overall psychology he brings to his actions.

In the case of religion, one "attacks" its ideas, initially, for the sake of one's own mind and understanding. The interest one takes in the social reality of religion beyond that will depend on one's purpose. If that purpose is to make the world a saner place, then "attacking" religion will become part of what one must do to achieve such and end. Indeed, countering any established falsity will become part of one's endeavours.

The key factor in all of this, whether it is how one deals with a social phenomenon such as religion, or with someone lying bleeding on the street, is that of one's personal motivation and the psychology one brings to the act. If one acts out of ego, then one is acting in a deluded manner.

Whenever I'm at the local pub on a Friday night, I can be sure that the local Salvation Ary officers will be there trying to sell their copies of "War Cry" and looking for donations. Almost everyone gives them something. I do not. I don't because they are a fundamentalist group who are seriously fucked up. I don't do it to be different or to defy convention, I do it because my values are such that I will not support delusional behaviour. However, if they happend to be an organisation that did worthwhile work, I may well give them something. That most others may also give them donations does not make me any less an individual. My motivations are entirely my own and whilst my behaviour may on the surface be like that of others, it is actually entirely different.

Most people who give to the Salvos in these circumstances do so out of the need to follow convention. They need to do "the done thing", to be part of the herd, however much they may in fact be ignorant of who the Salvos really are, what they stand for and what they do with the money you give them. Such is the world.

The true individual concerns himself only with what he knows and values. If that happens to coincide with others, so be it, if not, so be that, too.

Sean: I can see your point, and I do not see myself acting via ego. If I am, please explain it further, as I am young and still learning.

Dan Rowden: If one is acting to preserve or reinforce the "self" then one is acting deludedly. This is why observing one's motivations is very important. Does it make you feel proud to have acted this way? Do you feel justified as a human being for having acted this way? Do you feel validated, acceptable and/or accepted? Do you measure your actions against conventional morality? Or is this action a spontaneous expression of who you are as an individual and also of your goals and values? What emotion, if any, do you bring to any such action?

Sean: But unless people know your motives, what purpose does this serve you - other than to be self satisfied that you have made your decision(s) in a somewhat different psychological climate than the rest of us?

Dan Rowden: But that different psychological environment is everything. It is the difference between bringing bad or good karma into the world. The reasons one has for taking any action is very important; motivation is important. I probably should say that there's really no organisations in the world that I would give money to other than those I've helped create! But my point is that if you know what an organisation does and it fits with your own values and goals, then it is legitimate to help them out. But most people have no idea, they just hand over money for the egotistical, herdly kudos it earns them. It's the difference between being conscious of what one is doing and the consequeneces of one's actions and being unconscious of these things.

Sean: I too don't give donations to people in my city centre who shake a box as if I'm a f*****g dog with a newspaper in my mouth. I don't know whether I'm doing this just to be different, or whether there is some other motive that I have not yet realised.

Dan Rowden: That's an honest response. I see no point in giving to an organisation of any kind without knowing exactly what they do and if your money will really end up in the right place. And, of course, your motivation for giving in the first place is something that one should think hard about. Most people give indiscriminantly to charities precisely because their motivation for doing so is to feel good about themselves; to grant themselves the moral kudos that they think they are due.

Sean: How long will a person be an individual - until everyone else thinks like him/her? I think individualism is a temporary thing, where it fades away when the general populace is thinking along the same lines.

Dan Rowden: The true individual always remains an individual. This is because he is not measured against the nature of those around him. His relationship to Reality is entirely personal. All those others could disappear tomorrow and nothing about him would be different. All those others could suddenly change their values and goals and nothing about him would be different.

Also, people may act in a way that suggests certain thought patterns, but we cannot know for sure whether our inferences are valid. We may know that we love our wife, but we can never know that she loves us, if you know what I mean.

Sean: Do you ever sit down and peer into your own non-existence?

Attempting to fully realise that you will die, and be devastated that your ego/ideals/ philosophies will die with you?

I have peered into death's eyes (not physically), and it's a grim picture. It is also refreshing, it gives you a new perspective on thoughts and emotions that have been left unresolved or misunderstood.

To do this, you need a very good imagination, and you also need to be intuitive. One more thing is you need to be psychologically strong. Do not stare death in the eyes if you think you cannot handle what you might see.

Death will show you the truth, sparing all the frills and fancy perceptional clouds that on a daily basis make the world a foggier place.

Try it...or if you have, please tell me what you resolved or understood.

Dan Rowden: Well, I peered into the eyes of life, only to discover that I am already dead.

Sean: Were there any specific factors included in your conclusion?

Dan Rowden: When I looked into the essence of existence itself, I realised that life and death are fundamentally the same in that everything that is - even the state of death - is driven by causal forces. The nature of my existence which I label "life" is as much a product of deterministic forces as is the state I label "death".

Then there's the observation that there is no point at which this thing we call "life" actually came into being; that is, no precise, distinct moment. Can one be alive if life never really came into being? So, to be more accurate than my original statement, I consider my true nature to be beyond life and death. My true and ultimate nature is beyond such dualities.

When I am said to be dead, my basic nature will be no different from when I was said to be alive. I'll just look and smell a little different.

Sean: I understand.

It's important to grasp that a thing can appear real to us and yet be an illusion. For example, the sun "rising" and "setting" each day is a reality to our minds and senes, and yet it is an illusion of relativity. Similarly, the will is a reality in our everyday lives - it definitely exists as an experienced phenomenon - and yet it is ultimately an illusion of causality. David Quinn

But I think you have to be aware that leftism can be very dangerous. The leftist easily falls into the compassion trap where he unquestioningly believes his ideas superior, but actually he merely believes himself to be smarter than all those who don't hold his own particular political view. Rather than strictly right or left, it would be better to borrow components from one or the other and apply them at the correct time/place in a more or less apolitical
fashion. Bob Willis

Wisdom is just another human state of being, along with love, happiness, compassion, abundance or any other state of being we can imagine or devise. David Cook

Yes, it's undeniable that wisdom is just another human state, as is ignorance and unconsciousness. What I find interesting, though, is that if a person were to announce that he is the happiest person alive, no one would blink an eyelash. In fact, the chances are, he would receive much hearty congratulations and warm approval. But if he were to say that he was the wisest person alive, it would be a totally different story. You cuuld guaratee that the reception he would receive would be extremely cold and hostile. So it's all very well saying that wisdom is just another human state, but very few believe it. David Quinn

I made the point about sanctions against Iraq, as an example of America's willingness to wag "war" upon a helpless population, on a local talk radio show just the other day and many of the callers that followed made the point that humanitarian "qualifications" regarding the sanctions were instituted so as to save the Iraqi people from death and degradation (even though it meant that their entire nation might be falling apart around them) and that it was Saddam Hussein's behaviour that prevented those "qualifications" from having the desired effect. That is the worst bit of buck-passing I've ever heard. If there is one thing we know emphatically, it is that Saddam Hussein is a murderous thug who cares not one whit for the welfare of his own population. We know that. We know also know that these sanctions don't really effect him and his regime. They do not suffer as a consequence of the sanctions as does the general population. We know that he and his regime will not make the sorts of the decisions that the sanctions are designed to bring about. Again, we know that, and if we don't then our will to ignorance on the matter condemns us.

Given this, it is utterly obvious that these sanctions can have only one effect, and that is the death and degradation of a people who are probably wondering if there is anyone in the world who will treat them with something other than murderous contempt. They could easily be forgiven for thinking that there is not. They could easily be forgiven for looking at bin Laden as someone who will at least be a voice for their cause and plight (even if, in truth, bin Laden doesn't give a true rat's either).

If part of what terrorism is is the targeting of the general population of a nation rather than its military or legislative arms, then what are these sanctions other than a decade long reign of terror upon the Iraqi people? It's not as if they have any capacity to rise up against the ruling regime. Indeed, given that have little capacity to do much of anything expect starve and die, it is understandable that they would turn for support to the regime, that, whilst treating them abysmally, nevertheless employs rhetoric that suggest something more supportive. If you're a wife who feels like the world has turned against you and forgotten you, it is understandable that you might turn for support to a husband who is prone to beating the shit out of you when he feels like it.

Next to those of Hussein himself, the greatest crime of the Gulf War was leaving him and his regime in place. I can only think that there were underlying political reasons for doing so, whatever the hell they could have been; I find it difficult to conceive of those reasons being military in nature. Is it any wonder that parts of the world view the West with cynicism when it is prepared to throw the world into potential chaos because Americans get killed, but do little but ring their hands when thousands of Iraqis die, or thousands of Kurds (remember them?) or Tibetans or whoever else. What we are saying in a rather unequivocal way is that we place more value on the lives of westerners than anyone else. That's to be expected, I guess, and we're certainly not alone in that mentality, but I think we could probably drop some of the ennobling rhetoric we indulge in when we're motivated by little more than chauvinism. Dan Rowden

Most people -- even fairly philosophically developed ones -- are so concerned with the feeding of their egos that they are unwilling to disrobe or to dismantle. I do understand that disinclination and, as much as possible, I am sympathetic to it. Many people have trouble simply unzipping their cranium and spilling the contents; examining the coils of their cerebellum
thread by thread. It makes them feel uncomfortable. They did not venture to the Genius list for the purpose of psychic inspection. They came here to discuss Quantum Physics or Set Theory or whatever. They came here to prove that they are smart.

I don't think that genius has as much to do with smartness as it does with what I define as compassion -- the burning desire to know. Marsha Faizi

The world is full of pretenders, no doubt of that, but the claims of others regarding enlightenment ought be of no consequence to us - either way. It's interesting, however, that most would be more likely to take seriously the one who claims that there is no enlightenment than the one who claims to be enlightened. It's always easier to be satisfied with nothing because one can thereby do (and risk) nothing. Dan Rowden

All images in this publication are taken from "The Devil's Gallery" http://www.theabsolute.net

Compiled and edited by David Quinn davidquinn000@optusnet.com.au and Dan Rowden danrowden@optusnet.com.au

Disclaimer: editorial opinions expressed in this publication are those of its authors and do not, necessarily, reflect the views of subscribers to Genius-L. Dialogues adapted from Genius-L and Genius Forum have been edited for the purpose of brevity and clarity. Certain spelling mistakes and typographical errors have been corrected to preserve meaning.

In the News	No Architect of Genius	Editorial	Compassion and Sadism
Subscription Information	Genius at a glance	Peering into Death's Eyes	Ponder This....