Notes on the Great Ones

First and foremostly, I believe that Jesus existed. In fact, I am quite fond of Jesus and look at Jesus as a brother, just as I do Buddha. Although I look at them as very respectable brothers who I have much to learn from. The primary thing to learn being absolute self-control and discipline.

I have no doubt in my mind that there is one correct system of beliefs that exists for humans in their current evolutionary state. I believe this so wholeheartedly that if I am presented with anyone who claims to be a fully devoted ______ (anything) I generally look at that person as needing a truth more than wanting the truth.

This is because I have not yet encountered one system of beliefs that holds all the important values that are necessary for humans.

I feel that both Jesus and Buddha had extremely similar ideas, manifested similarly.

----------

One of the largest mistakes people do, in my opinion, is look at Jesus or Buddha as dieties or super humans rather than highly achieved humans. For that is all they were to me. This does not detract in the slightest from their greatness and achievement - it does however lend us the hope and understand and desire to be as clear in thought and spirit as they were. If we approach learning from them from the perspective that they are somehow inherently better than us, we will always justify our weaknesses and therefore, never truly achieve their level of greatness.

----------

I therefore suggest what I deem to be a highly accurate description of the basis under which both Buddha and Christ's thoughts were created, and how they led to unquestionably humanitarian idealogies: Logic.

I put forth the idea that both these people were in a reasonably great deal of pain in their youth. I put forth the idea that they were both isolated. I put forward the idea that they were faced with, uniquely, the forced habit of critical thought which brought upon the observation of very widespread "illogic". I theorize, that at some point in their lives they decided upon some undeniable basis which provided a stable footing from which to determine further more critical and pure thoughts.

I theorize that they both spent a great deal of time fighting the very same vices that plague people today including lust, self-loathing, and envy. I theorize that they both experienced times when they despised the fact that they could not assimilate into the world as everyone around them did.

I theorize that the basis of these thoughts, and what initial logical premise they derived related in some way or another to the right for every individual human to have freedom.

---------

I theorize the people like Gandhi, Lincoln, and people who authored the constitution were similarly enlightened. Perhaps not to the pure degree that Jesus or Buddha were, but on the same path: Logic and freedom.

I theorize that if one were to research people in history, they would find very similar footprints where in some unique isolated society there existed a person with almost identical idea to one in a completely different society at a completely different time.

This does not denote magical or religious intervention - it denotes a univeral thought pattern that is based in mathematics. It denotes that morality is not something you decide upon because you "feel" it is the right thing to do or you fear hell - it is the only logical path to pursue given all the premises of the world.

Therefore, Jesus and Buddha were happy, wonderful people - not because they were nice, but because they were extremely intelligent.

quote:

---

Therefore, Jesus and Buddha were happy, wonderful people - not because they were nice, but because they were extremely intelligent.

---

This is a fine idea, and I choose to believe it.
I back up my belief by personal experience of those intelligent individuals I have encountered (its also why I value higher education, because I believe it develops intelligence).

One thought still niggles me though...
While it is comforting (in a way) to say Hitler and Bush lack this kind of intelligence, they could be just upfront figureheads.
Decoys to conceal a sinister intelligence lurking behind.

But should we call this intelligence? or is master-minding wars, plotting for power, manipulating masses, something else entirely?

I like the idea of a Universal underlying Truth, something like mathematics and science. Something that's just there irrespective of all else: Intelligence!

But how in principle is this different from the notion of God?

Fantastic post, in spite (or perhaps because) of the fact that it has a dubious whiff about it. (As Nietzsche might say, you ask many questionable questions).What you appear to have commissioned is a view of morality predicated on pure reason qua MAN. We are enjoined to perform those injunctions which express our natures as universal beings. In the manner of immutable truths of logic, ethics renders us sub specie aeternatatis, and shatters the fetters of contingency. And for this you require a highly specific conception of human nature, one which is either metaphysical or tautological. That is to say, either morality is purposed to align man with how he ought to be, without reference to how he is; or, alternatively, we might rend the distinction asunder and assert that acting morally is simply acting in accordance with our true nature. Which one do you favour?

I have two more questions. Firstly, what are the political implications of this scheme? As far as I can see, there are two alternatives: (1) Libertarianism â€' you say that the state is permitted to intervene only insofar as it is needed to secure basic human rights or (2) Anti-aggression, what I might call an anti-political approach, where we effect a sort of self-abnegation from worldly affairs, eschewing the internecine battle for political power and pre-eminence, and retiring into ascetic self-sufficiency.

My second question is: how do you answer the communitarian objection that it is impossible to detach morality and the social and political order in which they originate? Moral values, so the argument goes, are embedded in an ongoing discourse; to try to understand them apart from this, in terms of some universally conceived human nature, would not just be wrong, but dangerous (see Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies).

Finally, you make a good empirical point about the confluence of religious thought in these figures. There are others who fit the bill: Hsung Tzu, Krishnamurti, Seneca and Socrates, to name but a few.

Good post. I believe Jesus lived. He was a great man. Its unfortunate what has been done in his name.

I get what you're getting at here. The last point you make is that all these men were intelligent. Do you think this is the most important factor? There is one word that appears in all religions and that word is faith- the question is faith in what?

Chiron:

quote:

---

But should we call this intelligence? or is master-minding wars, plotting for power, manipulating masses, something else entirely?

---

A good question (that altough has quite a simple answer, it is probably one of the most clear confusions that seem to create an air of divinity within people who are enlightened).

And the simple answer is, Bias. As I stated early in my post, self-discipline is one of the greatest things that separates pure thinkers from wishy washy thinkers. This self-discipline is geared towards one concept and on concept only: the removal of bias.

The removal of bias creates the most accurate and clear sub-conscious thought patterns. These operate in quick flashes and bursts, linking information, analyzing information, and creating new information. If certain areas are closed off because you are greedy, or angry, or guilty, you cannot access information in there. This is the core detractor to bias.

That isn't to say emotion is a bad thing. But logic and critical thought must coincide with it, or there must be sufficient proof that it is not based on bias.

Hitler, for example, was a very smart man. And the reason he rose up and succeeded with the rest of Germans was extremely legitimate: The Germans were being socially and economically raped by the winners of World War 1. Okay... there's the premise for revolution. But his personal biases then entered the picture, distorting the "truth" - creating false enemies, projecting anger unto the world... the result of an abused girlfriend cutting her boyfriend's dick off.

The Bush administration is similar... they have been sitting down picking their asses for 8 years while Clinton is in power - the second they come into power, they take what they can. Similarly, like abused children getting their share.

As Leftwood so aptly states (and to paraphrase), "A little intelligence is far more dangerous than none at all". This is wholeheartedly true - the application of every little bit of intelligence is far more important than becomming smarter (unless getting smarter improves your ability to apply what you already know).

quote:

---

But how in principle is this different from the notion of God?

---

Depending on your definition of "God", there is absolutely no difference. This actually explains why very intelligent (and therefore humanitarian) people are worshipped. This is why a Christian God, and a Muslim God, and a Jewish God, and any God based on the Abrahamian religions cannot exist - it defies pure mathematical logic. It defies intelligence, which as I believe, is the base definition of what God is. This is because Abrahamian Gods all force the members to serve through guilt - not through true love. And when one thinks hard and long enough, one realizes that (as Buddha, Jesus, and anyone intelligent would) Guilt opposes free will, for you operate from a debt you can never repay (born sinners). If intelligence is all roughly based on some form of dedication towards pure individual freedoms, then clearly, being a born sinner is an obvious violation of this principle.

In regards to the university comment - I agree with you in an idealistic manner, but university does not do this. Along with the fact that most people don't go there to learn, but to get a piece of paper, there is so much conditioning appropriated to the pursuit of a degree that it almost entirely destroys the individual ability to think. In other words, it conditions you to be biased in the exact manner employers want you to be. It teaches you to fight for the team, to deathly oppose other teams, to be competitive, and to cheat if you can't win legitimately. Also, it teaches you to despise yourself if you are not up to par. I personally detest university, as what I have observed so far is what I describe as a "spirit crushing experience".

Witt:

quote:

---

That is to say, either morality is purposed to align man with how he ought to be, without reference to how he is; or, alternatively, we might rend the distinction asunder and assert that acting morally is simply acting in accordance with our true nature. Which one do you favour?

---

It's actually a clear mergence of the two - taking into account who man is, who man was, what a dog is, what a plant is, what a whale is etc., you determine how man ought to be right now, with absolute clarity given to man's abilities. Meaning that the universal truth discovered individually by so many people always, at it's base, begins with the question "What is man supposed to do, given what man can do?".

You see man's nature is changing... we have wisdom teeth but do not require them anymore. There are many genetic traits we do not need. Therefore, similarly, mentally we have the capacity to behave in manners that are traditional... but just like the removal of wisdom teeth, vestigial concepts like violence, monarchy, masochism - they are all just as necessary and useful in this world as wisdom teeth are (which exist because cavemen used to lose their teeth far more often due to their lifestyle).

The universal truth takes into account what man was, and what man can, realistically, be, to optimize all the factors that make up reality.

quote:

---

1) Libertarianism â€' you say that the state is permitted to intervene only insofar as it is needed to secure basic human rights or (2) Anti-aggression, what I might call an anti-political approach, where we effect a sort of self-abnegation from worldly affairs, eschewing the internecine battle for political power and pre-eminence, and retiring into ascetic self-sufficiency.

---

This is something I think casually about, but do not spend too much time analyzing. The reason is that although there certainly is the best answer to that question, it is of little relevance - the relevance right now is based in such simplistic terms that the entire effort and revolution of thought must take place within the confines of the society we live in now. Therefore, concerning oneself with the utopian form of social structure isn't, and won't be important for some time to come.

Also, i feel such things will fall into place once people, as an organism, operate in a more intelligent and non-destructive manner. You could idolize the concept of the Star Trek universe, but still, there is a clear lack of freedom even there.

I certainly do subscribe to the idea of Libertarianism as the closest, most describable form of change that must take place in our current structure - that is that gays should marry, people should fuck each other in any way they want, abortions should be legal, euthanasia should definitely be legal, drugs should be legal etc. But then various minor issues arise - what if there arises a drug that, once injected, renders the victim void of free will? Should they be permitted to take it again? Should this be legalized?

Such questions are very difficult to determine, and I denote such difficulties to a lack of technology. Therefore, I further suggest that worrying about the form of government and the specific rules is irrelevent - once resources are devoted towards technology that actually helps people, not kill them, the answer to when a baby in the womb is finally an individual and not under the jurisdiction of the mother will be more clearly answered.

In regards to your specific two choices, I do not think the universal truth includes the segregation of man - it specifies the unity. Therefore, self-sufficiency should be irrelevent - everyone is our brother, and we affect everyone else. Therefore, we must, as a unit, optimize all our existences, and choose to do so of our free will. And worldly affairs are certainly of relevance to everyone and anyone... or they should be.

quote:

---

how do you answer the communitarian objection that it is impossible to detach morality and the social and political order in which they originate?

---

I don't think I fully understand your question... but I will try. If there is a universal truth, and underlying mathematical logic to morality and humans, then they "originate" from, in essence, the universe. There is no political or social order to them.

Also, there is no ongoing discourse - that isn't to say it is not an ongoing purification process, but already determined truths will not be questions in the same manner twice. The base definition and ideology behind any scientific pursuit (and determining morals scientifically is certainly what people like Jesus and Buddha did) is questioning premises with as open a mind as possible. If the removal of personal biases exists, then there is no ongoing argument - it is settled, and humans re-examine them as a unit, with absolutely no personal interests or egos.

I think you are asking for very specific answers to questions relating to the exact nature of this "universal truth" and how it answers certain questions. This is certainly a valid discussion, but I think the purpose of this post, initially, was to propose the idea that there indeed is a universal truth, it is based on logic, and it is accessible within completely isloated societies as its premises are based in the consistency of human nature, and the sciences of the universe, both extremely consistent premises.

Heyjme: Faith's only purpose is to overcome societal and personal vices - the faith in oneself. Faith has no reason to exist outside of personal battles as the universe has so much consistency, so much interconnectivity that 'faith' in logic is so abundantly clear that questioning it is for entertainment only.

In other words, there is certainly a math to everything - the way birds fly, why they fly, why bears have fur, why plants look the way they do, why there is wind, why Americans are killing Iraqis - there is math to it. It doesn't just make sense - it makes perfect sense. It had to be this way, and no other.

This is what you discover as you absorb more and more unquestionable and probable facts.

Therefore, I say once again that the only difficult faith to attain nowadays, is the faith that you too have the capacity to be Buddha, or Jesus. That you are as great, and holy, and as close to God, and as important. Such an odd, alien thought even as I type it... isn't that sad?

Imagine facing a new situation. Something hard to think of a solution. Lets say its a grieving person and you don't know what to say. Where do you get the answer?

btw: is it sad or is it a challenge?

I theorize that if you logically convince someone that things are going to be okay, that they are for the better, that everything in the universe is still moving and that they are a part of that wholesome connection, that the person died is also a part of that wholesome connection, that the effect on this grieving person will be 10 fold over saying "She's with Jesus now."

And your second question is fantastic: It's a challenge. Not just for the grieving person... why think of that? Think of yourself as the grieving person. The challenge is to see the truth and light in everything that happens. Sadness is resulted from confusion... from fear... from guilt... from self-loathing. If you know you loved that person, and you believe that person should know that you loved them, then say farewell and smile because you loved them so.

yes I agree with you. My question is not really what you do but how.

I believe that everyone has the potential to be Jesus, Buddah, etc. but that it starts from within oneself. i.e. everything is a challenge to the self. But how do you act best in a way to be like Jesus? My feeling is with the conscience, that is, that if we did what we 'feel' is the best option in any given moment, and I believe this best option occurs simultaneously thinking about all ideas and concepts. I think we all know an answer to a situation, which isn't the best one, but by going with that option, we get to a point when we automatically present a better option each time, until it becomes more akin to perfection - or harmonious as in the logic you talk of. I guess where this links in with your point is in understanding yourself - that is understanding yourself in any situation means that you can help another person in that situation - empathy if you will.

If you do agree with me, I just wonder if intelligence is like a footstool to this process.

So, assuming there is a univeral morality that all humans are optimized to adhere to, how does one achieve it. Well, we've already ponted out the central stipulation that includes within it all others: The removal of bias.

I think if we want to continue this discussion, it should be in another thread. I think I will say that bias, in as broad a sense as possible, includes any emotion that has the capacity to overwhelm logic. The primary emotion that causes this, in my opinion, is guilt. This is asserted by the high use of guilt to coerce large groups of people into thinking and doing things absolutely ridiculous. I theorize, therefore, that guilt is the abolute culprit humans face, and guilt (self-loathing) creates the largest capacity for the human mind to accept ideas that make absolutely no sense from a neutral perspective.

Examples to prove my point exist everywhere and anywhere. However, the immense feeling of satisfaction peasant Christian crusaders felt as they gutted and sliced open the necks of infidel Muslims in Jerusalem was more real than any drug - they would shower themselves in the blood of the Muslim women, children and men and truly believed that they were now blessed... as the Pope had decreed that all those who fought and died to eliminate the heathen Muslims would have all their sins purged.

The guilt can create such a large bridge leading away from reality that you can cut the throat of a baby, spray all the sputtering blood on your face, and feel like it is holy water.

Self-loathing is the most efficient, incredible, and powerful jailer in existence.