Value and Women

[Thanatos13]

2 minutes ago, SageModeAustin said:

@Thanatos13 False. There is definitely something wrong with demonizing people for being ugly. Like what leo said, "Also realize that when you call anything in reality "ugly" you are actually disowning that aspect of reality, of yourself. Because the truth is, that ugly thing you hate is actually, literally, metaphysically, your very self. So you are placing yourself in an adversarial relationship with reality, with yourself! Which is the very definition of neurosis."

Wrong, wrong on all of that. 

[SageModeAustin]

34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@SageModeAustin Maybe rather than basing your attraction purely on looks, you give more weight to her personality and her level of consciousness, and you focus more on how you can give her love rather than how she can please you.

This is a LOT easier said than done though..especially when everyone around you is playing the value game. It just feels bitter-sweet to me, but i do see your point. It's certainly better than how i was thinking.

[SageModeAustin]

3 minutes ago, Thanatos13 said:

Wrong, wrong on all of that. 

okay let me restate it. Sure there is no 'wrong' inherently. I can agree with that. BUT there is a wrong inherently to me, how it can hold me back from expanding my self, etc. In this sense it is wrong. I mean, why wouldn't you want to self actualize yourself as much as possible? 

Edited September 2, 2018 by SageModeAustin

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Thanatos13 said:

They call that moral nihilism.

Yup, nonduality = nihilism

But it's not negative the way your mind is painting it out to be.

There is no morality in a video game.

[Thanatos13]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yup, nonduality = nihilism

But it's not negative the way your mind is painting it out to be.

There is no morality in a video game.

Technically there is morality in a video game, that doesn't mean life is one. But nonduality is not nihilism though, for nondual has to assign meaning. Without meaning your videos don't have knowledge or wisdom (still don't actually, full of holes).

 

23 minutes ago, SageModeAustin said:

okay let me restate it. Sure there is no 'wrong' inherently. I can agree with that. BUT there is a wrong inherently to me, how it can hold me back from expanding my self, etc. In this sense it is wrong. I mean, why wouldn't you want to self actualize yourself as much as possible? 

Because there is no expanding the self and there is no self actualization. These are mere phantoms made by humans because we don't like feeling small so we craft these stories. Nonduality has to be the biggest one yet. I am not self actualizing myself because it's just reaching for what one believes that to be. We are relative creatures and the best we can hope for is agreeing on reality, and even that does not pan out. 

Despite what nondualists claim, they use a framework and concepts (even if they aren't words) to interpret experience. Otherwise you would have "noise" that leads you nowhere. However when they talk about it they act like they know, but to be honest one cannot be sure. Any magician will tell you personal experience isn't a good measure of truth. Any claim about seeing the Absolute is, imo, a lie.

[Leo Gura]

@Thanatos13 Dude, stop arguing your position and open your mind to the things being taught.

You are a like an arrogant freshman who thinks he knows more than the professor teaching the class, trying to school the professor. It's just naive arrogance.

I am pointing you to things you have clearly not become conscious of yet. I'm not here trying to brainwash you into my dogma. You just haven't done enough inner work or research to understand the complexity of these issues yet.

This is not personal, or a debate. You just need to be willing to learn and explore new perspectives. That is all. There is no need to get defensive. I am here to help you. You are not being asked to believe anything here on blind faith. You are being invited to inquire deeply and openmindedly into the true nature of what meaning, value, and morality are. Not what you think they are. Not what you want them to be. But what they ACTUALLY are: constructions of your mind.

[Thanatos13]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Thanatos13 Dude, stop arguing your position and open your mind to the things being taught.

You are a like an arrogant freshman who thinks he knows more than the professor teaching the class, trying to school the professor. It's just naive arrogance.

I am pointing you to things you have clearly not become conscious of yet. I'm not here trying to brainwash you into my dogma. You just haven't done enough inner work or research to understand the complexity of these issues yet.

This is not personal, or a debate. You just need to be willing to learn and explore new perspectives. That is all. There is no need to get defensive. I am here to help you. You are not being asked to believe anything here on blind faith. You are being invited to inquire deeply and openmindedly into the true nature of what meaning, value, and morality are. Not what you think they are. Not what you want them to be. But what they ACTUALLY are: constructions of your mind.

Arguing positions is the only way we really get anywhere. If you reach a stalemate then that says more about truth than debate. 

The whole point of knowledge is to debate the professor, since the only difference between you and him is a few letters (and even that does not make him right). If it's not a debate it means that one would have to back up their claims, which you don't seem to do. You have not really said anything that other scholars have not already. 

Morality being part of the mind is not news, that's pretty much sociology, philosophy and psychology. They amount to little more than because I say so. however "mental construct" is not the same thing as not real. I am willing to explore perspectives provided people can back them up. But again, morality comes down to "because I say so". Same thing with meaning. You could say that the experience of psychedelics is just a mental construct since we assign meaning to the experience. Of course then you get to the "so what" factor of it being a mental construct. That doesn't take research or inner work, it's basically beginner philosophy. Of course there is the bias that we assume contemplation leads to truth but that's another matter.

Your claims seem to be based on faith since you don't really prove a point but assume it to be true, but don't provide the basis for it. 

Debate is how people get closer to truth, where claims and ideas are tested. Those who abstain seem more interested in their world than truth. Yet even then it isn't a guarantee that the end result is truth. Even the ones who started nondualism were open to debate for if their ideas could not survive tests then it was dogma, mere belief. Doesn't mean I agree with them. 

[SageModeAustin]

@Thanatos13 Dude what? You sound like you don't really know what your talking about.

[Thanatos13]

11 minutes ago, SageModeAustin said:

@Thanatos13 Dude what? You sound like you don't really know what your talking about.

I have to organize my thoughts. 

What I am getting at is that morality doesn’t have the solid foundation that we think. Ought and should basically boil down to “I say so”. It’s incorrect to say that morality, values, don’t exist because they are constructs of the mind. By that logic you can say the same about knowledge, wisdom, nonduality, etc.. What really matters is whether they are rooted in anything that says why one ought to do so. 

The argument can be made that inherently there is no morality or values, and there is strong support (but it could be said that it has not been demonstrated in every case). However this doesn’t matter, since we don’t live objective lives no matter how hard we try. We act based on values, regardless of what they are. But what I am saying is that when you question the reasons behind the values you find what shaky ground they stand on. Saying something is good doesn’t tell my why it is so, same for bad. It’s definitely complicated. 

So while there isn’t (yet) “objective” good and bad, there is subjective and that’s all that really matters (or doesn’t depending on your stance). The same for values. The value of “self actualization” is the same thing. It’s not inherently better than anything else (and I’m not going to argue about it’s truth claims here). 

 

[Haumea2018]

The Absolute is beyond non-duality.

It is transcendental duality. It is a reconciliation of opposites (duality and non-duality.)

So as Leo said above, something can simultaneously have Absolute value and no Relative value for you.

The contradiction is resolved in a synthesis.

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Haumea2018

[Thanatos13]

2 minutes ago, Haumea2018 said:

The Absolute is beyond non-duality.

It is transcendental duality. It is reconciliation of opposites (duality and non-duality.)

So as Leo said above, something can simultaneously have Absolutely value for you and no Relative value.

The contradiction is resolved in a synthesis.

 

He can say that, doesn’t make it so. The Absolute is certainly a good story, but that’s about it. All that can be said is that it is a state of mind reached through certain acts and beliefs, but it cannot truly be said to be truth. Ah but the stories make it seem so. 

I’m beginning to see the wisdom in Pyrrho’s philosophy 

[Capital]

Remember that your biology play a role on constructing values into the world , for example you construct a higher value to food objects than to no food objects , why ? Cause food will make your body survive even tho objectively they are equally valuable ,same with a hot woman and an unhealthy woman , a healthy woman will make your genes reproduce in a healthy way so you construct a higher value into her than the fat woman who has less potential doing that  , don't try to work against the human instincts and evolution , instead work with them ! 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Capital

[Thanatos13]

12 minutes ago, Capital said:

Remember that your biology play a role on constructing values into the world , for example you construct a higher value to food objects than to no food objects , why ? Cause food will make your body survive even tho objectively they are equally valuable ,same with a hot woman and an unhealthy woman , a healthy woman will make your genes reproduce in a healthy way so you construct a higher value into her than the fat woman who has less potential doing that  , don't try to work against the human instincts and evolution , instead work with them ! 

Technically objectively they are still more valuable then non food since biology is pretty objective. You don’t reallt have control over it. 

The hot and unhealthy is inaccurate as well for if you observe animals their biology dictates mates as well, again fairly objective. They have no say. 

Wel I guess it could be a bit of both, not really sure.

Peolle need to stop using the word objective because humans aren’t objective creatures. We even experience reality very limitedly through our senses. Magicians play on the gaps and flaws of humans to appear to defy reality, which is why I heavily doubt claims about an absolute. Other animals can experience sensations we cannot. This just further casts doubt upon personal experience as a measure of truth.

[Haumea2018]

Hey, my advice to any spiritual skeptics is, as always, if your beliefs, whatever they are, are working for you, that's fine.

No-one's going to force you to change.

"If you like your ego, you can keep your ego."

[Thanatos13]

5 minutes ago, Haumea2018 said:

Hey, my advice to any spiritual skeptics is, as always, if your beliefs, whatever they are, are working for you, that's fine.

No-one's going to force you to change.

"If you like your ego, you can keep your ego."

Well that’s and there’s the possibility that spirituality takes one further from the truth. Something to consider.

[Capital]

2 minutes ago, Thanatos13 said:

Technically objectively they are still more valuable then non food since biology is pretty objective. You don’t reallt have control over it. 

The hot and unhealthy is inaccurate as well for if you observe animals their biology dictates mates as well, again fairly objective. They have no say. 

Wel I guess it could be a bit of both, not really sure.

Peolle need to stop using the word objective because humans aren’t objective creatures. We even experience reality very limitedly through our senses. Magicians play on the gaps and flaws of humans to appear to defy reality, which is why I heavily doubt claims about an absolute. Other animals can experience sensations we cannot. This just further casts doubt upon personal experience as a measure of truth.

No ! Objectively and universally human food are not more valuable than a non human food, for example why would meat be more valuable than a chair to a mountain or to a vegan animal for example , they both equally meaningless or equally meaningful , so to the absolute perspective everything is equally valuable , but biology filters that valuable equality to benefit its survival agenda , which I have nothing against actually ! 

[Haumea2018]

Quote

Well that’s and there’s the possibility that spirituality takes one further from the truth. Something to consider.

Considered and rejected.

[Forestluv]

19 hours ago, Thanatos13 said:

Arguing positions is the only way we really get anywhere. If you reach a stalemate then that says more about truth than debate. 

The whole point of knowledge is to debate the professor, since the only difference between you and him is a few letters (and even that does not make him right). 

Whoa. I’m a college professor and this is way off base. Most professors have spent tens of thousands of hours studying, discussing and researching their field. Do they have more to learn? Yes. Can they expand their consciousness to develop complex system modes of thinking? Yes. . . Yet, the idea that students and professors are on the same level and the only difference is a few letters is incredibly naive and ignorant. One of the most challenging aspects of teaching for a professor is meeting a student at their lower level of thinking and knowledge. Go spend 40,000 hours of intense study and research into any topic and see for yourself how your perspective changes.

Regarding debates: I’ve found open-minded discussions are MUCH better for learning than debates. Debates tend to get ideological, defensive and contracted. I’ve found that students who want to debate are generally locked into either / or thinking (stage blue) and are unable to see more complex, nuanced modes of thinking such as rational thinking with shades of grey (orange level) or relative modes of thinking (green and yellow levels). As well, students motivated to debate with professors often lack awareness of how little they know.

Blue/orange-level debates are like drinking gutter water compared to the juice at yellow-level discussions. Seriously, you have no idea what you are missing.

[Shadowraix]

17 hours ago, Thanatos13 said:

Technically objectively they are still more valuable then non food since biology is pretty objective. You don’t reallt have control over it. 

The hot and unhealthy is inaccurate as well for if you observe animals their biology dictates mates as well, again fairly objective. They have no say. 

Wel I guess it could be a bit of both, not really sure.

Peolle need to stop using the word objective because humans aren’t objective creatures. We even experience reality very limitedly through our senses. Magicians play on the gaps and flaws of humans to appear to defy reality, which is why I heavily doubt claims about an absolute. Other animals can experience sensations we cannot. This just further casts doubt upon personal experience as a measure of truth.

The value of food is not objective. That is very surface level. For value you have to set some sort of goals which can be very relative to arbitrary. 

The value of food being higher is a matter of valuing biological needs and survival as higher. Valuing the remedy of the sensations that come with the lack of those things as higher.

[Forestluv]

On 9/1/2018 at 5:28 PM, SageModeAustin said:

Thank you everyone for your insights, extremely helpful. Especially @Emerald hit the nail on the head for me. I just realized i'm extremely brain-washed by pickup culture so this made me view sex as the central importance in my worldview. I can definitely see how this has caused a lot of suffering.

 

Emerald is so skilled in this area. ?