Merged: Nobody's insulted in this thread: Is insulting another person even a bad or morally reprehen

[Jennywocky]

Can you find one for me.
I have some experimental purposes.

Why is there never a good Insulter when we need one?

Maybe we should have a rotating pool of Professional Insulters, just as a community service. (See? The value of community.)

 

[The Void]

This is kind of getting at more of the "big picture" of abrasive environments.

it probably shouldn't be surprising for people who participate on an INTP forum to view social interactions in the frame of "me" and "everyone else" as the only two entities, with "me" as the central figure. (and by "me" I don't mean me specifically, I mean "the individual" in general.)

In that sense, it seems rational for each individual to worry about shoring up their own defenses and not having any kinds of insecurity to worry about. Everyone is 100% responsible for themselves. The group isn't really a community where individuals relate to each other as people, it's just a group of separate individuals who come together to exchange whatever commodity is valued, and people try to maximize their return on what ideas they put in. Each person remains full protected within their individual bubble, and there is no personal connection or friendship to worry about.

There are pro's and con's to this approach. One of the pro's is being in total control of oneself and not being impacted by anything anyone else says or does; one of the con's is remaining in isolation and a rather solipsist existence. Which is fine if that is what one wants, but I'm kind of amazed at times how people who inhabit forums like this tend to fall either into the smaller group of isolationists who are fine with that and don't desire more vs another group that tends to bemoan how lonely they are and how they wish they had friends and people in their lives and usually withdraw into isolation simply because they're frustrated at their inability to function outside their own boundaries. "Oh, I wish I had someone who loved me [romantically!" or whatever other bullshit.

There are benefits and negatives to every approach to life. The isolationist approach is simply that, if you block off the roads or don't give a shit, then no traffic comes in even if you're cool with no traffic coming out. You can grow in terms of the exchange of ideas, but only ideas you already value. you're not going to be situations where you have to learn the things that you don't feel like learning, so there will be aspects of humanity that you will never understand. If you don't give a shit about human interactions, you're losing information that can frame a lot of the big picture of how the world actually works with a diversity of people... you've just limited your perspective.

You're also kind of a shit if you're willing to play by your own rules and take advantage of a group to get what you want without giving back in ways that others in the group can appreciate. The independent person isn't independent if he is taking without giving; he's just a parasite. Your options are to find a small enough group somewhere where everyone has the same perspective and approach as you, so that you all give and get in accordance with expectation, or being a little more flexible and taking other people's perspectives and values into account while expecting them to learn from yours.

moving on to how groups work: Homogenous groups can be strong in the sense they share the same process and goal, they are also very very weak in that there is nothing to shore up the shared weaknesses... the group is horribly vulnerable. heterogeneous groups, diverse groups, have the benefit of shoring up any weak spots and covering all the bases, challenging people with new ideas and approaches so that we are all independently pushed to grow, but at the same time you have to accept that your approach is not necessarily an approach that works for others and everyone has to listen, learn, and flex. You automatically give up a bit of your own sense of identity in order to understand and play a role within the larger group, even if you don't need to allow yourself to be completely subsumed (nor should you, as the group would no longer be diverse). But at that point, yeah, you DO need to start giving a shit about how your approach impacts others and they need to care about how their approach impacts you.

There's also consideration of your own enlightenment. Sure, maybe someone else shouldn't be bothered by your insults if they were 100% secure, but at the same time, what kind of person are you if you know something bothers someone else and you abuse them anyway? think about your own character a minute, even if you think their character is weak. Is that who you are? Someone who specifically targets someone in an area of weakness or simply doesn't give a shit? It doesn't mean cater to someone, but it does mean being perceptive and having a point rather than just crapping over someone else because you can. And to hit you where it might hurt -- that kind of interaction deadens and slows the exchange of diverse ideas. If you want ideas and experiences to ponder that you might normally not be privy to in your own head, then you need to be willing to flex as part of the exchange of hearing about those ideas and experiences. How many groups -- forums, families, workplaces, friendships -- does one have to be in before they realize that the kind of approach where you can say and do whatever you want at someone else's expense inevitably derails and dissolves the group?

To put it in a nutshell: most of the premise of this thread is perfectly doable if you are willing to go off by yourself and live in the woods alone, not taking and not giving to anyone. As soon as you enter into an exchange with someone who is not your clone, sorry, you're going to have to flex a bit. That's the cost you pay for interacting with other human beings. That's how I see it. If you don't want to pay the cost, don't engage. if you're happy being alone and independent and totally in control of your life, fine... but why are you here in a group then?

And now, to tie this back to the actual thread question: I don't see "moral" as relevant here, my entire explanation revolves around whether it's SENSIBLE in terms of the big picture. Moral is all based on a person's individual morality, and I can't answer that question, I just care about how things actually work or don't work.

I don't have any control over life.
Control is almost an illusion.
I had thought deep about thoughts and I was perplexed by it's mechanisms.
Things just happens. They come then they go.
I dont care for control anymore.
Life is like a movie. This things I am writing is just spontaenous automatic pretty much,
The best I can do is guide how I react to things, just watch the movie without reacting to pain by suffering.

One can go to a jungle but still be mentally attached to poops and one can live in a
family and do society's job, and still be detached and free.

And I am not talking about extremes but the middle path.

The more you realize about the true nature, the more the sufferings lessens, this mind and body is almost like a robot (there is something that is more than that within), it does it job automatically.

I have noticed I don't have to care anymore.

The mind works on, the body moves on, all automatic, a lot of things I have to do are things that I dont particularly enjoy but I am still doing it and in a way better than expected being completely calm and being in the present.

I still have the memories of the past when I was normal. I feel like vomitting remembering that.

I know what sufferings can be. I had faced it. Life was suffering for me. Lived as an outcast, dying for boredom, but in the end all that suffering was from ignorance.

The more clearer the picture becomes the suffering gets cleared too.

Yes I said I feel like vomitting but now when I remember I also feel like yes it was fun and immersive.

Life is just a game.

And we are taking it too seriously.

 

[Jennywocky]

I guess I always pictured the middle path as being able to care without being attached to the outcome. Otherwise, you're either a frustrated manipulator or an indifferent rider.

I've been through my share of barely endurable agony for years at a time, where I just wanted to die but couldn't quite give up; yet it taught me a difference nuance.

If you've ever read Donaldson's "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant," that's far more where I live -- walking through the eye of the paradox, maintaining belief and disbelief simultaneously. But I can't explain it better than that right this moment, it's difficult to put into words.

If you're not attached to anything in this life whatsoever (not to the degree where you desire to control it, but just simply interested and wanting to engage it on a personal level), then why live at all? It really doesn't matter either way in terms of your life right now. Or is there something you actually are caring about on some level? You don't sound particularly happy or like you're living life to the fullest and enjoying it, you just sound like you're drifting right now until it finally ends, due to past suffering that you were not able to resolve. (Please correct me on that point, I might be misreading this.)

 

[The Void]

I guess I always pictured the middle path as being able to care without being attached to the outcome. Otherwise, you're either a frustrated manipulator or an indifferent rider.

I've been through my share of barely endurable agony for years at a time, where I just wanted to die but couldn't quite give up; yet it taught me a difference nuance.

If you've ever read Donaldson's "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant," that's far more where I live -- walking through the eye of the paradox, maintaining belief and disbelief simultaneously. But I can't explain it better than that right this moment, it's difficult to put into words.

If you're not attached to anything in this life whatsoever (not to the degree where you desire to control it, but just simply interested and wanting to engage it on a personal level), then why live at all? It really doesn't matter either way in terms of your life right now. Or is there something you actually are caring about on some level?

Those who insults others to intentionally hurt others or quickly gets involved in revenge cycle or resorts to anger and all that have some unresolved issue or are ignorant of themselves and controlled mostly by the unconscious mind.
Most of the time anger and all the behaviours are unconscious and later the mind does backward rationalization to make them sane.

Yes caring without attachment to outcome it is kinda like take.

It is kinda paradoxical caring without caring.

About following the natural flow within.

When mind is balanced enough the mind is not focused in making chaos and killing others not the mind is obsessed about justice and morality.

It is like how the Tao say, without they just do what they do and end up doing good things, keeping things in harmony because they work with the natural flow within.

Conscience is there. Why resist it and why kill and torture others?

Neither the insulter nor the offended are really at peace. There is a void within both of them.

Those walking the middle path don't care and that is why mostly never does conventionally bad things, like killing, forcing, snatching things away, and bla bla bla

lot of such deeds are just done by obssesed manipulators, or extreme furstrations.

But still the void masters don't care really but still does morally right things.

The masters do without doing anything and that is why their work is so great.

The state of a void master is full of paradoxes but that is the way it is.

The Void masters works for highest harmony without caring about highest harnony, morality or without having any direction or having any motive or wish for any outcome.

They just do.
Things just happen.

That is the middle path. Probably.

 

[Helvete]

Re: Is insulting another person even a bad or morally reprehensible thing to do?

You fail to account for other possibilities (like being offended that someone knows you SO little that they could come up with such spurious insults).

Expand your imagination, insect.

Thought I'd join the nitpicking and resizing and bolding of text

What do you know of insects imagination?

EDIT: didn't notice 3 pages aha *gets reading*

 

[The Void]

I guess I always pictured the middle path as being able to care without being attached to the outcome. Otherwise, you're either a frustrated manipulator or an indifferent rider.

I've been through my share of barely endurable agony for years at a time, where I just wanted to die but couldn't quite give up; yet it taught me a difference nuance.

If you've ever read Donaldson's "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant," that's far more where I live -- walking through the eye of the paradox, maintaining belief and disbelief simultaneously. But I can't explain it better than that right this moment, it's difficult to put into words.

If you're not attached to anything in this life whatsoever (not to the degree where you desire to control it, but just simply interested and wanting to engage it on a personal level), then why live at all? It really doesn't matter either way in terms of your life right now. Or is there something you actually are caring about on some level? You don't sound particularly happy or like you're living life to the fullest and enjoying it, you just sound like you're drifting right now until it finally ends, due to past suffering that you were not able to resolve. (Please correct me on that point, I might be misreading this.)

I don't think about all that things about living and die.
Why live? Why die?
Why not live? Why not die?
this questions balances each other and leaves only void.
I just care about answers of questions I dont know.
But even though I care I dont care at the same time and that is how I can live at the present.
Yes I don't live life to the fullest.
I lived once. I know what I am talking about.
But I went beyond into the Void (pure awareness).
Yes I am not particularly happy, but I don't even seek happiness or like it.
I don't remember happiness even. The conventional happiness is just more of a overexcited peak. A fleeting emotion. Nothing much to invest.
But nor I am sad, or anything.
But it is a state I myself don't understand. It is the state of Void. And I just try to focus on this state, the body and mind works on, but there is this something beyond that is the Void state the primary self. I cannot explain.

I sometimes laugh like crazy, I sometimes get serious like crazy.
Sometimes I am seriously humerous sometimes I am humerously serious.
I don't try to find out anymore about what I am, because all these are supeficial identities. There is something deeper than all of these.
Understanding of that deepest part is what I seek yet don't seek at the same time.

Actually the deepest self is uncomprehensible and I know the reason why.

Past sufferings is just a memory and nothing more.

The true self is beyond both body and mind.

I sometimes read jokes, write some things, sleep, meditate, there is no reason to die, not even any reason to live, and in a sense I am dead actually.

I just do things for the fun, without taking stuffs seriously yet prefer to avoid conflict with others.

I am a paradox. I am living oxymoron.

 

[Hawkeye]

I am a living oxymoron.

 

[The Void]

Spoiler

I foresaw that moron part. My psychic sense is returning slowly. Soon the world will be mine.

 

[The Void]

PS: a lot of things I write may not make sense. Because most of the time I don't think while writing. I just write. Blind spamming, you see. I prefer the void. I don't like getting immersed in too much thoughts. It is exhausting. Deal with it.

 

[Jennywocky]

Void:

I am still thinking about what you've said and letting it percolate for a bit. But I just wanted you to know I appreciate your honesty and transparency in sharing your experience.

 

[Goku]

This is kind of getting at more of the "big picture" of abrasive environments.

it probably shouldn't be surprising for people who participate on an INTP forum to view social interactions in the frame of "me" and "everyone else" as the only two entities, with "me" as the central figure. (and by "me" I don't mean me specifically, I mean "the individual" in general.)

In that sense, it seems rational for each individual to worry about shoring up their own defenses and not having any kinds of insecurity to worry about. Everyone is 100% responsible for themselves. The group isn't really a community where individuals relate to each other as people, it's just a group of separate individuals who come together to exchange whatever commodity is valued, and people try to maximize their return on what ideas they put in. Each person remains full protected within their individual bubble, and there is no personal connection or friendship to worry about.

There are pro's and con's to this approach. One of the pro's is being in total control of oneself and not being impacted by anything anyone else says or does; one of the con's is remaining in isolation and a rather solipsist existence. Which is fine if that is what one wants, but I'm kind of amazed at times how people who inhabit forums like this tend to fall either into the smaller group of isolationists who are fine with that and don't desire more vs another group that tends to bemoan how lonely they are and how they wish they had friends and people in their lives and usually withdraw into isolation simply because they're frustrated at their inability to function outside their own boundaries. "Oh, I wish I had someone who loved me [romantically!" or whatever other bullshit.

There are benefits and negatives to every approach to life. The isolationist approach is simply that, if you block off the roads or don't give a shit, then no traffic comes in even if you're cool with no traffic coming out. You can grow in terms of the exchange of ideas, but only ideas you already value. you're not going to be situations where you have to learn the things that you don't feel like learning, so there will be aspects of humanity that you will never understand. If you don't give a shit about human interactions, you're losing information that can frame a lot of the big picture of how the world actually works with a diversity of people... you've just limited your perspective.

You're also kind of a shit if you're willing to play by your own rules and take advantage of a group to get what you want without giving back in ways that others in the group can appreciate. The independent person isn't independent if he is taking without giving; he's just a parasite. Your options are to find a small enough group somewhere where everyone has the same perspective and approach as you, so that you all give and get in accordance with expectation, or being a little more flexible and taking other people's perspectives and values into account while expecting them to learn from yours.

moving on to how groups work: Homogenous groups can be strong in the sense they share the same process and goal, they are also very very weak in that there is nothing to shore up the shared weaknesses... the group is horribly vulnerable. heterogeneous groups, diverse groups, have the benefit of shoring up any weak spots and covering all the bases, challenging people with new ideas and approaches so that we are all independently pushed to grow, but at the same time you have to accept that your approach is not necessarily an approach that works for others and everyone has to listen, learn, and flex. You automatically give up a bit of your own sense of identity in order to understand and play a role within the larger group, even if you don't need to allow yourself to be completely subsumed (nor should you, as the group would no longer be diverse). But at that point, yeah, you DO need to start giving a shit about how your approach impacts others and they need to care about how their approach impacts you.

There's also consideration of your own enlightenment. Sure, maybe someone else shouldn't be bothered by your insults if they were 100% secure, but at the same time, what kind of person are you if you know something bothers someone else and you abuse them anyway? think about your own character a minute, even if you think their character is weak. Is that who you are? Someone who specifically targets someone in an area of weakness or simply doesn't give a shit? It doesn't mean cater to someone, but it does mean being perceptive and having a point rather than just crapping over someone else because you can. And to hit you where it might hurt -- that kind of interaction deadens and slows the exchange of diverse ideas. If you want ideas and experiences to ponder that you might normally not be privy to in your own head, then you need to be willing to flex as part of the exchange of hearing about those ideas and experiences. How many groups -- forums, families, workplaces, friendships -- does one have to be in before they realize that the kind of approach where you can say and do whatever you want at someone else's expense inevitably derails and dissolves the group?

To put it in a nutshell: most of the premise of this thread is perfectly doable if you are willing to go off by yourself and live in the woods alone, not taking and not giving to anyone. As soon as you enter into an exchange with someone who is not your clone, sorry, you're going to have to flex a bit. That's the cost you pay for interacting with other human beings. That's how I see it. If you don't want to pay the cost, don't engage. if you're happy being alone and independent and totally in control of your life, fine... but why are you here in a group then?

And now, to tie this back to the actual thread question: I don't see "moral" as relevant here, my entire explanation revolves around whether it's SENSIBLE in terms of the big picture. Moral is all based on a person's individual morality, and I can't answer that question, I just care about how things actually work or don't work.

If an insult always hurts, then, if something hurts does that necessarily mean it is an insult?

I still think that one could view insults as a good thing overall, used with the type of precision a surgeon has to be effective, and still have the responsibility to use them with good intentions. Isn't it the same thing as having a gun and knowing when best to use it?

 

[Minuend]

Could you give examples of some insults? (wondering if people are on the same page)

 

[Jennywocky]

If an insult always hurts, then, if something hurts does that necessarily mean it is an insult?

Of course not. Something could hurt for other reasons.

But you seem to be advocating for more of, "I'll say what I want and just label it as 'truth' in the manner in which I choose to say it, and so it's always the other person's fault if they're bothered by it." Which I think is pretty lame and avoids all responsibility for your part in the interaction.

I still think that one could view insults as a good thing overall, used with the type of precision a surgeon has to be effective, and still have the responsibility to use them with good intentions. Isn't it the same thing as having a gun and knowing when best to use it?

Now we're getting somewhere, versus what I think your original focus was as restated above.

if you noticed, I do occasionally bitch-slap someone if I think it will get the desired productive effect; it's calculated and what I think will be most effective. I just don't make it my standard mode. That would be like pulling out my gun and shooting people as my first option, rather than just keeping a sidearm and pumping out a bullet at the most effective moment.

 

[Grayman]

I want a video of this!

 

[Jennywocky]

I want a video of this!

How soon can you get here? I'll need a minute to hire a camera crew.

Wear something photogenic.

 

[Cherry Cola]

@The_Void:

Replying to your post on the last page I think that your argument kinda pigeonholes the point of life so that it becomes pleasure, albeit a sublime spiritual one it is; nonetheless, an arbitrary limit to what is meaningful and worth pursuing in life.

To me there are other things which matter as well, I want to understand and I want to achieve (which I think is necessary to understand) even if it wont bring me happiness.

I think that with understanding comes a capacity for -and probably proneness towards- existential suffering. But at the same time if I consider an extreme example, I would definitely not rather live my life as some kind of animal even if it were in the care of the nicest people who kept me fed and happy all through my life. And there's kinda something about the fact that when people inject heroin they don't do anything, they just sit or lie down reduced to sentient bundles of happiness, not all that grand, even if they feel they are at peace with everything, experiencing a true sense of belonging with the cosmos.

 

[BigApplePi]

Could you give examples of some insults? (wondering if people are on the same page)

No way. How's that?

 

[Grayman]

How soon can you get here? I'll need a minute to hire a camera crew.

Wear something photogenic.

Gee, my wife might get jealous if I let someone else bitch slap me. I was going to suggest wonka but I did not want to insult you by suggesting you had low standards.

 

[Jennywocky]

Gee, my wife might get jealous if I let someone else bitch slap me. I was going to suggest wonka but I did not want to insult you by suggesting you had low standards.

maybe your wife can be my stand-in. They'll shoot me from the back, and at the last moment we'll cut, she'll jump in and slap you over and over again to her heart's content.

Then we'll cut again, and I'll leap back into the frame.

I think we can make this work.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Is insulting another person even a bad or morally reprehensible thing to do?

My policy is not to insult anyone because it doesn't seem conducive to getting to know someone or otherwise productive. Therefore it gains nothing for me. I once called "L" (those of you who know who that is) immature. (Not deliberately an insult but who wants to be told that? It could be received that way) I winced inwardly because I didn't want to say it but he seemed intelligent enough to be receptive. He said something in one post about being abused which I thought an honest revelation. I knew darn well he didn't want to engage me, I thought because he was vulnerable. I had mixed feelings because I thought him strong ... he made such powerful posts. But when he admitted vulnerability, looking back, I wanted to lay off. I don't want to deliberately add to a weakness. This sets up a conflict if the person is aggressive. If I'm vulnerable to aggression, and I can be, I want to defend myself.

 

[QuickTwist]

If you put up walls and build an empire then you have better defence but what is lost once the city crumbles?

My point is that, regardless of what many think, I don't care who da guy is, anyone, and I mean anyone can be insulted because we all have an image in our heads who we are at the core and if that identity is messed with or injured there will be something that moves within the person showing signs of weakness.

 

[The Void]

@The_Void:

Replying to your post on the last page I think that your argument kinda pigeonholes the point of life so that it becomes pleasure, albeit a sublime spiritual one it is; nonetheless, an arbitrary limit to what is meaningful and worth pursuing in life.

To me there are other things which matter as well, I want to understand and I want to achieve (which I think is necessary to understand) even if it wont bring me happiness.

I think that with understanding comes a capacity for -and probably proneness towards- existential suffering. But at the same time if I consider an extreme example, I would definitely not rather live my life as some kind of animal even if it were in the care of the nicest people who kept me fed and happy all through my life. And there's kinda something about the fact that when people inject heroin they don't do anything, they just sit or lie down reduced to sentient bundles of happiness, not all that grand, even if they feel they are at peace with everything, experiencing a true sense of belonging with the cosmos.

Existensial suffering is just one level. There are stages beyond that.
I am not trying to take away all subjective purpose of life (point of life? There is none. You make the point.) one can just live life and when suffering appears then one can practice immunity to suffering and learn to enjoy it and do what they really wants instead of crying in suffering.
One really don't need 30 years of meditation to do that.
A will is enough.

Lots of times people get furstrated and gets angray or sad due to mundane things, all one need is to become conscious, is to attain high mental stability to do whatever one does, being mentally immune.

The problem is when people associate peace with some external object.
They start to think without 'that' peace is not possible.
I am alone and without friends peace is not possible.
I can't do that. That is too hard. All that are wrong( I can't define wrong btw) types of thinking.

Peace comes from within. Not much object is needed for peace. It is the excess desire for an outcome that causes the chaos within.

Why is it not so grand for people sitting with herion?
One reason can be that they are now dependant on herion for that.

What will you say about a monk meditating in a cave?
Not that grande?

Why is one supposed to care about grande.

Everything we do is for peace and fullfillment in the end, to satisfy the unsatisfactoriness.

Peace is all that ultimately matters.

People who kills, kills to bring some form of inner peace, people who marry and have kids does that for some inner peace, people who help others sacrificing their own peace also satisfies some part of themselves by doing that and thus inner peace.

But all methods are incomplete. They enter into a loop, a prison.
The killer will suffer from guilt or will still want to kill even more.
The mind gets addicted.
The one who marries now have more responsibility and want money and free time
and all that.

That is only problem with herion , that the mind gets dependant on the external object. the one don't learn to be at peace without anything.

If one finds peace in nothing, one can find peace in everything and do everything much more productively without losing the calm.

But too much peace is boring.

 

[The Void]

@The_Void:

Replying to your post on the last page I think that your argument kinda pigeonholes the point of life so that it becomes pleasure, albeit a sublime spiritual one it is; nonetheless, an arbitrary limit to what is meaningful and worth pursuing in life.

To me there are other things which matter as well, I want to understand and I want to achieve (which I think is necessary to understand) even if it wont bring me happiness.

I think that with understanding comes a capacity for -and probably proneness towards- existential suffering. But at the same time if I consider an extreme example, I would definitely not rather live my life as some kind of animal even if it were in the care of the nicest people who kept me fed and happy all through my life. And there's kinda something about the fact that when people inject heroin they don't do anything, they just sit or lie down reduced to sentient bundles of happiness, not all that grand, even if they feel they are at peace with everything, experiencing a true sense of belonging with the cosmos.

Well to think about it I became how am I more or less spontaneously.
I don't really know if one really has control over oneself, to attain abnormal states like that.
For normal people detaching or even selective apathy can be impossible, mainly because of all the social conditionings.
With meditations people can be a bit better and have more stability but still a normal person will remain attached.
It is for hardcore guys.
Well I don't care. Insulting right or wrong, I don't know, don't care.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The thing is a monk sitting in a cave meditating is dependant on that particular lifestyle as well, and it severely limits his life similarly to heroin even though it isn't dangerous.

 

[The Void]

The thing is a monk sitting in a cave meditating is dependant on that particular lifestyle as well, and it severely limits his life similarly to heroin even though it isn't dangerous.

The void masters are not limited.
They only appear limited and lost but they are free mentally.
They dont do stuff because they dont need to, there is not much desire, there is no compulsion to fullfill desire. The Void masters don't care. They are free from fear and all. They are unlimited, they are here and now, not hoping for a better future or trembling in fear. They are here and now in the moment. Nothing bothers them.
Here's a Void story:

Man1: do you know who I am? I can kill you in a sec without batting a eye.
Void master: So?
Man1 the killed the void master and the void master died.
great! So great are the void masters!

 

[Cherry Cola]

Being free from desire and not needing to or doing anything is limiting even if it means complete peace.

 

[kora]

Re: Is insulting another person even a bad or morally reprehensible thing to do?

Please stop existing you idiot. If you keep posting my IQ will drop so far, I won't even be able to purchase a gun.

+100 INTPf points.

 

[Grayman]

Being free from desire and not needing to or doing anything is limiting even if it means complete peace.

I agree, there is plenty of time for the void later. Right now, I have some ambition I want to fondle.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Being free from desire and not needing to or doing anything is limiting even if it means complete peace.

I disagree, lack of desires, or needs makes you completely free.
there is nothing to limit yourself when you require nothing.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Except you when you require nothing you also don't require to act, and not acting doesn't bode well for learning which you don't require either anyway. By removing all desires you also remove all catalysts.

There's a reason Buddhist monks haven't brought much to the world apart from how to achieve the peace that is the reason. On the other hand christianity for all it's dogmas and limiting grandiose moralism put pressure on people to understand God's creation in order to live the right way, theirs was the creation of the first universities, moreover; they were adamant in their desire to synthesize Christianity and Ancient Philosophy despite their fear of heresy.

 

[The Void]

I agree, there is plenty of time for the void later. Right now, I have some ambition I want to fondle.

One can fullfill ambitions even from the void, the only difference is there is no suffering if the ambition fails,
there is no suffering while walking the path.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I used to think one should be adamant about achieving an inner peace, but lately I've been thinking that ups and downs are actually desirable because they let you experience more and they make you wiser along the way.

Of course it's not black and white, I see both extremes as faulty. If your life totally sucks you wont do much either, if there's just the whip you'll be broken by all the pain and if there's just the carrot you will eventually stagnate once you get your hands on it.

 

[The Void]

Except you when you require nothing you also don't require to act, and not acting doesn't bode well for learning which you don't require either anyway. By removing all desires you also remove all catalysts.

There's a reason Buddhist monks haven't brought much to the world apart from how to achieve the peace that is the reason. On the other hand christianity for all it's dogmas and limiting grandiose moralism put pressure on people to understand God's creation in order to live the right way, theirs was the creation of the first universities, moreover; they were adamant in their desire to synthesize Christianity and Ancient Philosophy despite their fear of heresy.

In your logic only omnipotent people will be unlimited.
Void masters can also use selective apathy. I.E doing anything they want but not suffering while working and not suffering if results go bad, but still doing stuffs to satisfy some desires (here the concept of non-binding desires comes in).

Forget buddhists monks, Void masters are the true masters.

Void masters converts all binding desires to non-binding desires and do whatever they want.

Example
A kid wants candy.
Parent said: No.
The kid cries.

Again a bug guy want candy.
Found out he haz no money.
He said: well okay, no candy. And he moved on, without feeling any sense of sorrow.

Both are cases of desires.
But the kid had binding desire for candy whereas the bug guy had non-binding desire for candy.

Buddhism is not really limited to monk.

Buddhism also consists of many practical rules of living for lay people.
It does not force anyone to choose buddhism, it just has nirvana as final goal.

Why do you think humans are making all these stuff?
Why do we bring light bulbs, computer and all that?

For peace, for fullfillment. That is our ultimate goal.

And buddhism provides just that. It just provides the direct and most solid path to fullfillment.

But the misconception is Buddhism means meditating all day in a cave (though no disrespect for men who does that, because they have super high mental stability to be able to do that and live a secluded life alone)

The main thing is mental defilement and people with a pure mind can focus and do even better practical job.

People who have too much desires, lose focus, lose will, lose everything and ultimately fails to do what they wanted.

Freedom is ability to do whatever you desire.
So in then there is two ways to absolute freedom.

1) losing desire.
2) becoming omnipotent.

Well in the end losing binding desires seems most reasonable to me.

Spoiler

I still have ambitions even though I am in the void.

My ambition: omniscience, omnipotence, universal domination, and all that. Explore the mysteries within the third eye.

 

[Cherry Cola]

In my logic we don't know what unlimited entails and striving to achieve it within life will most likely lead one to be more limited. Omnipotency is not even in the picture.

The problem with this is that Void Masters are hardly human at all seeming more like fantasy creatures. Finally I only see the Void Master as being omnipotent in his own microcosmos nothing more.

Your demonstrative examples are just tiny snippets that don't really consider the complexity of human nature nor what our evolutionary background entails us to in terms of thinking, acting, and feeling.
Basically it's ivory towering.

 

[The Void]

I used to think one should be adamant about achieving an inner peace, but lately I've been thinking that ups and downs are actually desirable because they let you experience more and they make you wiser along the way.

Of course it's not black and white, I see both extremes as faulty. If your life totally sucks you wont do much either, if there's just the whip you'll be broken by all the pain and if there's just the carrot you will eventually stagnate once you get your hands on it.

It is the ups and downs, especially suffering that helps people to gain some depth to see the world on other sides.
Those superficial rich hollow happy people cursing the old, insulting the different judging other people, thinking they are all great needs real suffering to wake up.

Suffering is necessary that is why to wake up from the dream.
It is the realization of suffering that first sets the path to seek liberation.

(1st noble truth)

First one need to understand true suffering, then one will understand peace.

Those who have too much luxury and never suffered enuf may laugh at the monks and all people like that. They will probably think that monks are just furstrated people who haven't enjoyed the true luxury of life.

Yes suffering is necessary.

But this whole universe is a mistake. Even God if there is, is a mistake.
Not a mistake but just a meaningless existence.

Breeding humans, flourishing life, the whole system is meaningless.
One does not have to be unwise in the first place, why suffer in the first place, why not all love and light?

It doesn't matter actually. It is what it is. Nothing to do. And the solution is in our hand.

But true one needs to realizing the meaning of suffering, one needs to realize that even after making millions, making recognitions to the world, there is still suffering somewhere within, there is still fear, there is still all these things they dont wanna think about because they are scared to think, lots of unresolved issues, life can change any moment, a millionaire can end up as a beggar.

They are still vulnerable.

And vulnerability ends only through mastery of the void.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Except you when you require nothing you also don't require to act, and not acting doesn't bode well for learning which you don't require either anyway. By removing all desires you also remove all catalysts.

There's a reason Buddhist monks haven't brought much to the world apart from how to achieve the peace that is the reason. On the other hand christianity for all it's dogmas and limiting grandiose moralism put pressure on people to understand God's creation in order to live the right way, theirs was the creation of the first universities, moreover; they were adamant in their desire to synthesize Christianity and Ancient Philosophy despite their fear of heresy.

That doesn't mean that you are limited. The way I understand this post is that you are trying to portray the progress as something qualitatively better, in fact action cannot be categorically placed above inaction.

The fact that a buddhist meditates or preserves balance isn't better or worse than a fact that a christian colonist colonises north america or invents electromagnets.

 

[QuickTwist]

In my logic we don't know what unlimited entails and striving to achieve it within life will most likely lead one to be more limited. Omnipotency is not even in the picture.

The problem with this is that Void Masters are hardly human at all seeming more like fantasy creatures. Finally I only see the Void Master as being omnipotent in his own microcosmos nothing more.

Your demonstrative examples are just tiny snippets that don't really consider the complexity of human nature nor what our evolutionary background entails us to in terms of thinking, acting, and feeling.
Basically it's ivory towering.

And the same could be applied to you as well. You claim you know what you don't know but give mo credit to those who may have an understanding you don't have. Your lack of giving credit to those who have at least thought through their arguments is resounding, speaking as though you know more about what you know rather than what others know.

 

[The Void]

In my logic we don't know what unlimited entails and striving to achieve it within life will most likely lead one to be more limited. Omnipotency is not even in the picture.

The problem with this is that Void Masters are hardly human at all seeming more like fantasy creatures. Finally I only see the Void Master as being omnipotent in his own microcosmos nothing more.

Your demonstrative examples are just tiny snippets that don't really consider the complexity of human nature nor what our evolutionary background entails us to in terms of thinking, acting, and feeling.
Basically it's ivory towering.

Void masters are real. You may say they are not human. Actually they are more human.
Most of the humans are in animal state of mind.
Void masters had transcended evolutionary conditionings. They are the next step in mental evolution. (but since they rarely make families natural selection will kill them but even then void masters will still appear. Psychopaths will win the game.
Psychopaths and sociopaths are pretty close to void masters actually.
Living in the present, unaffected by psychological emotions, no fear both psychopath, sociopaths and void masters shares the traits)

I only gave two simplest example to give an insight on two types of desire.

Non binding desire, is also what THD says selective apathy I guess.
It is very much possible in real life.

Thats what I use everyday, everytime.

There's nothing complex about it.

I don't understand you limit theory.
Apparently you dont even know what really you mean by unlimited.

But then why bother if a buddhist monk is limited?

Because even if the monk becomes some scientist and all , he will still be limited?

So what is wrong with being limited if unlimited is beyond you?

I assumed that only omnipotence can be unlimited for you the way you were describing limit. That is why I brought omnipotence into picture.

And void masters are not omnipotent. I never said that.

They are just mentally free.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Then again we arrive at the fact that mental freedom isn't necessarily the only desirable in life and that mental freedom just constitutes freedom in ones own microcosm which means missing out on what the whole of the available world has to offer.

Furthermore, show me a void master.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Then again we arrive at the fact that mental freedom isn't necessarily the only desirable in life and that mental freedom just constitutes freedom in ones own microcosm which means missing out on what the whole of the available world has to offer.

Furthermore, show me a void master.

You can be unbound and use what the world has to offer in moderation, simply when it comes to letting go, you let go, nothing dear, nothing gained or lost, when you encounter something you don't reject what you encounter.
This is a matter of personal preference and perception.

Show me a master of worldly desires, nirvana fallacy both ways.
You wouldn't actually have the chance to confirm the freedom of such person.

 

[The Void]

Then again we arrive at the fact that mental freedom isn't necessarily the only desirable in life and that mental freedom just constitutes freedom in ones own microcosm which means missing out on what the whole of the available world has to offer.

Furthermore, show me a void master.

Who says mental freedom is the only desirable?
In a sense lots of craps are more desirable than mental freedom.
When one is mentally free, nothing really changes, one still works, still do whatever they does, or one can just meditate... one can do whatever they want, but without suffering without any fear. Who says one misses out everything the world has to offer, on the contrary one will be able to enjoy the world even more, but with too much balance one may feel so peaceful that one may not need to move at all.

But peace is the ultimate goal towards which everyone is moving.
Whatever one does one does to gains some form of peace.
Desire arose, unsatisfactoriness arise, and then people starts seeking for peace and satisfaction.

Void master? Here I am. Muahhahahh!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisargadatta_Maharaj
This guy knows the Void (or may be pretending?)

"All Search for Happiness is Misery"

http://www.anandavala.info/miscl/I_Am_That.pdf

This is the teachings of the Void the supreme state of mind Hail the Void!

Spoiler

Void master is a joke. But selective apathy and non-binding desire is possible. I have crushed my fear of losing anything. If my mother dies, or my brother I don't care anymore. (my father is dead and I know death. And I dont care too. They comes and then they comes, there's no big deal about anything.) I am ready for any poop life throws at me. I am forced to do somethings, and I do, I don't think too much, thinking too much about negativities causes problem, when I am insulted, I laugh, but I will not say I am a master. I may be just an asshole sociopath. But that is not my concern. I am still researching (why? Why not?). Just saying selective apathy and non-binding desires are possible. Also I mastered pateince. I remain sitting for hours but didn't feel bored. Also I expeinced i week of full life (which I don't experience anymore). At that time everything, everything in the present moment seemed holy. Completely perfect. Every warmth of sunshine felt so loving and beautiful. Every sec I enjoyed. That was perfection. Completeness. Ultimate bliss. But then I got into a better or may be worse state a state of just nothing. This body had turned spontaneous. Body and mind works like a robot, but I remain somewhere else. So I spoke from my experience.

Spoiler

I was extremely sensitive in past. The slightest change in the wind could make me cry. I suffered everyday in fear of future. Then there was existensial despair. I created my own hell. Little insults created out of joke made me cry. But my mind went on evolving. Mere will can change the mind. Impossible mental states can be acheived. Then I saw a vibrating reflection. In normal cases I would have been scared as hell. But at that time I laughed. Some people said me to suicide, did I give a fuck , no I didn't. My brother called me hypocrite, ye thank you. If an overly sensitive messed up kid like me can achieve it anyone can do it. Suffering is ridiculous. Suffering is only important for the realization of the lack, to motivate one to gain real inner peace.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The Void master seems to preach Nihilism :O

 

[The Void]

The Void master seems to preach Nihilism :O

No...but kinda... more like free to make your own purpose...or actually they don't, they just live, live life.
Now I remember. I know a void master.
There is an old woman.
I have never seen her sad.
Always an open happy face. Free. Purely free. She lies anywhere.
DO whatever she wants.
Her walking style is unique, unconventional, and it shows that she don't cares.
Dogs like her too. Dogs bites her cloths.
She sometimes trolls around silly people here and there.
She is the perfect example of how living in the present is like.

Spoiler

She is a lunatic

Spoiler

literally

Spoiler

Sanity is not worth it

 

[Cherry Cola]

Eccentricity isn't insane it's saner than what's considered sane :P the wiki article on it is pretty awesome for a wiki article. The way you describe her really brings it to mind. Love those people.

"The mind and memory are responsible for association with a particular body; awareness exists prior to both mind and memory. It is only the idea that we are the body that keeps us from living what he calls our "original essence" He describes this essence as pure, free, and unaffected by anything that occurs. He likens it to a silent witness that watches through the body's senses, yet is not moved, either to happiness or sadness, based on what it sees."

Seems sort of purposeless, then again the guy seemed pretty damn far out so I can't really say I understand him, nor you for that matter. But you gotta try anyway and I don't mind trying when its trying in order to understand.

I like how he doesn't preach dualism like so many others, instead being content with awareness preceeding mind and memory.

 

[The Void]

Eccentricity isn't insane it's saner than what's considered sane :P the wiki article on it is pretty awesome for a wiki article. The way you describe her really brings it to mind. Love those people.

"The mind and memory are responsible for association with a particular body; awareness exists prior to both mind and memory. It is only the idea that we are the body that keeps us from living what he calls our "original essence" He describes this essence as pure, free, and unaffected by anything that occurs. He likens it to a silent witness that watches through the body's senses, yet is not moved, either to happiness or sadness, based on what it sees."

Seems sort of purposeless, then again the guy seemed pretty damn far out so I can't really say I understand him, nor you for that matter. But you gotta try anyway and I don't mind trying when its trying in order to understand.

I like how he doesn't preach dualism like so many others, instead being content with awareness preceeding mind and memory.

She is not insane due to eccentricity.
She is 'literally' insane (not total insane like people who craps (literally) around the road. She fluctuates too. Sometimes get sane sometimes more insane. Chases guys trolls, and rarely even attacks.)
She is literally official lunatic.
But she may be supersane too, I don't know

 

[Pizzabeak]

What types of drugs has the Void experimented with in the past? Some of what he says might have some merit but it seems to just cancel out into some aspect of mindfulness. Might as well try and "live in the moment" and not force things too much (wanting candy so bad with no money, go out of the way to get money and then that candy) but then again I'd have to be concerned with how much free will is actually involved. It seems to be related to making the right choices but it's somewhat difficult to determine whether that's an actual thing or one of those mere human constructs, assuming those are deserving of being targeted. Sometimes I do feel kind of bad for seemingly letting others down or being partially responsible for not allowing certain things to come to fruition, but people say things to make one feel better such as, you know, "don't worry, if it's meant to be it'll be; etc" and so it's semi difficult to tell if I'm not putting in the proper amount of work despite being partially interested or if certain things truly are not the right path due to the so called forcing involved... But then certain things could still be said to be involved in the process of one's path or what have you, and so it would make sense not to be bothered by a slight disappointment or someone forcing something because they would supposedly learn from the experience and it would all have been a part of the plan, unless something weird happens. As it goes, I'm a proponent of things not being handed out on a silver platter, but there does seem to be "paths" and "right choices" of sorts, yet they would still require an amount of work or effort; it isn't just automatic, but maybe more inviting, whatever that can be referred to as.. You know, maybe humans evolved to perceive things that way because it could potentially help produce more offspring :/

 

[The Void]

What types of drugs has the Void experimented with in the past? Some of what he says might have some merit but it seems to just cancel out into some aspect of mindfulness. Might as well try and "live in the moment" and not force things too much (wanting candy so bad with no money, go out of the way to get money and then that candy) but then again I'd have to be concerned with how much free will is actually involved. It seems to be related to making the right choices but it's somewhat difficult to determine whether that's an actual thing or one of those mere human constructs, assuming those are deserving of being targeted. Sometimes I do feel kind of bad for seemingly letting others down or being partially responsible for not allowing certain things to come to fruition, but people say things to make one feel better such as, you know, "don't worry, if it's meant to be it'll be; etc" and so it's semi difficult to tell if I'm not putting in the proper amount of work despite being partially interested or if certain things truly are not the right path due to the so called forcing involved... But then certain things could still be said to be involved in the process of one's path or what have you, and so it would make sense not to be bothered by a slight disappointment or someone forcing something because they would supposedly learn from the experience and it would all have been a part of the plan, unless something weird happens. As it goes, I'm a proponent of things not being handed out on a silver platter, but there does seem to be "paths" and "right choices" of sorts, yet they would still require an amount of work or effort; it isn't just automatic, but maybe more inviting, whatever that can be referred to as.. You know, maybe humans evolved to perceive things that way because it could potentially help produce more offspring :/

I never had any drugs, alcohol or anything. So sad.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Did you make that decision before or after entering the void?

 

[Grayman]

Did you make that decision before or after entering the void?

So rude!

 

[The Void]

Did you make that decision before or after entering the void?

What decision? About drugs?
never had a choice...