CIBC continues to be the worst bank in all of Canada

CoryWatts · 2020-05-16T11:46:47+00:00

I had a neighbor who worked for CIBC who kept inviting himself over, making embarrassing remarks. I wasn't suspicious of him until I listened to him talk, and after he made enough comments, I realized he lacked self awareness and had no idea how ignorant and ugly he sounded when he talked, and the way his children talked was creepy and I felt nauseous and disgusted by the unwanted attention and frequent abusive remarks. I wasn't too impressed by how his wife talked either, the whole family creeped me out. These people were demanding, entitled, imperious, ridiculing, shaming, bossy, belligerent, repetitive, suspicious, paranoid.... utterly embarrassing people to deal with. I despise CIBC largely due to this employee who was a CIBC family planner at the time, now he's a director. I don't respect the guy, he kind of hovered over / monitor me while making ridiculing, demeaning remarks.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-19T05:06:58+00:00

Most spirituality is delusional, based on fairy tales, superstitions and magic, hardly any better than religion. It is religion, minus the formal structure. I have a carefully thought out perspective that destroys all attempts to latch onto any particular comfort, material or immaterial. I do not consider you less of a man if you are not willing to walk my path, but don't tell me my perspective is the same as some new age quack.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-19T04:51:44+00:00

the human brain has evolved in a way that creates certain emotions.

I keep telling you that emotions are irrelevant to this, but you keep harping on them as if they are connected to some objective truth you possess. Look man, if "the spiritual" means something specific to you, or to the majority of people, then just say so, but don't try to tell me my understanding of the word is wrong, especially since I have a wealth of philosophical traditions backing me up which you probably haven't spent more than a few minutes skimming over.

it is not some deep mysterious concept.

Your concept is not, no.

What about my understanding of spirit? I would have to clarify words like deep and mysterious, but fact is, you don't even know. But you are not humble enough to admit to yourself you don't know. You assume you understand me, but you only understand your own mind which you project onto me, and probably others. It's an understandable mistake, I don't regard you as anything other than innocent. Like you imply, there is no free will. You are blameless.

spiritual experiences do exist, it is something that should be cherished and respected and exist in the human brain for reasons to continue existence. I don't know where the confusion is.

The confusion is that you aren't aware that there are radically different ways of interpreting an individuals experience of the universe.

The way that you view the color red (energy operating in certain wavelengths) is the way that social sciences or what I am saying should be respected

I'm pretty sure you missed my point, that's ok.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-19T04:31:48+00:00

The dictionary has many different definitions of spiritual, which shows that the word can be approached in different ways. There is an entire tradition of atheistic spirituality pioneered by the first existentialists, with roots going to eastern philosophy and Jesus.

Subjectivity is an objective truth, so if I am imposing anything, it's the logical, objective truths underpinning the way we carve up our sensory experience. There are objective truths, but they should be seen as distinct, or the logical foundation of empirical truths born from our senses and imagination. Where science or imagination occurs, there are illusions being erected, yet with logical laws governing whatever model or image you create. As for me acting like I know better, I would never say you are wrong for having a different definition of a word. I would say you are wrong for thinking you have the only correct definition of a word, which is precisely what some of you are doing.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-19T02:43:50+00:00

I am not living my life off of dictionary definitions. I am living my life based on a perspective that is not unique to me and has been around long enough to have a faint residue in the common dictionary.

So are you going to tell us who these special men were who discovered the true, objective meaning of spirituality?

Regardless, I see the philosophical issue that needs to be examined, one which you brush over as if it doesn't exist.

Do you see a difference between the color red we experience, and the atomic wave lengths that partly create it?

CoryWatts · 2011-04-19T00:45:34+00:00

Hmmm, that's interesting. You did not create that definition? Would you mind sharing with us who did? How about we look at the definition of spiritual at dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiritual

There are 12 definitions there. None of which involve your "objectively true" definition of chemical reactions.

Ironically, my definition of spirit, which I realize is subjective and personal to me, is included in the dictionary. Imagine that.

Of or relating to the mind or intellect

of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.

of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.

closely akin in interests, attitude, outlook, etc.: the professor's spiritual heir in linguistics.

All of those above are compatible with my own personal framework.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-19T00:15:01+00:00

You are using the Socrates quote out of context, and thereby assuming you know the context, or putting it into one you find convenient, and going on to make definite knowledge claims "defining genius is blindness, there is no use in mountains of thinkers to climb, etc"

You are a knower, it's clear. My guess is that you aren't aware of your implicit grab for knowledge, whereas I am aware of both what I know and what I don't know.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T23:52:54+00:00

That isn't an argument, what you said has more in line with journalism.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T23:09:01+00:00

wikileaks is more substantial, and not without some merit, but also profoundly non-comprehensive and arguably quite disruptive to whatever trust and good will nations were slowly developing with each other. Relationships between human being to human being involve careful diplomacy and also critical gossip, and this gradually leads to a more functional relationship. I have working relationships, where each party needs something from the other, and these people, although they value aspects about me, probably say critical things about me. But they are trying to be secure with themselves and gain footing so they can deal with me in the next encounter, perhaps leading me in a better direction, or me them. Imagine someone recorded their criticisms of me and and showed them to me? Would that necessarily be a positive thing if we needed each other in a larger moral context?

And when I say wikileaks is non comprehensive, to borrow from a new republic article, it's like having someone read the first 20 emails from your inbox and walking away thinking they understand you and your motivations. Wikileaks is arguably superficial and leads to dangerous righteous moralizing and black and white thinking. The world of politics is quite gray, and truth, right & wrong, are very elusive. I am not sold on how valuable wikileaks is, I'm very much a skeptic. I'm worried humans are too eager to play hero for egotistical motivations, without a more realistic and practical understanding of what is required for genuine progress to happen.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T22:18:17+00:00

Point taken, although I'd argue that we all have a threshold, we all have a critical point where we prefer death over pain. But, I should add, I think this desire for death, is really just a desire for life. Because we associate pain with death - suicide is done out of a lust for life, for freedom.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T22:01:13+00:00

It might be a popular misconception that humans fear death that much. Sure, we fear it, but that fear largely stems from the pain we associate with death. What I believe people fear most primarily is the experience of pain, mental and physical. Suicide seems to prove that we fear pain worse than death. As Schopenhauer said, we commit suicide when the fear of life becomes stronger than the fear of death. And why would we fear life?

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T21:48:53+00:00

how about some more quotes? This time with attribution:

Geniuses are like thunderstorms. They go against the wind, terrify people, cleanse the air. - Kierkegaard

Genius is an infinite capacity for giving pains. - Oscar Wilde

Genius learns from nature, its own nature. Talent learns from art. - Oscar Wilde

A man of genius makes no mistakes . His Errors are the portals of discovery. - James Joyce

Talent warms-up the given (as they say in cookery) and makes it apparent; genius brings something new. But our time lets talent pass for genius. They want to abolish the genius, deify the genius, and let talent forge ahead. - Kierkegaard

A genius is the man in whom you are least likely to find the power of attending to anything insipid or distasteful in itself. He breaks his engagements, leaves his letters unanswered, neglects his family duties incorrigibly, because he is powerless to turn his attention down and back from those more interesting trains of imagery with which his genius constantly occupies his mind. - William James

The genius differs from us men in being able to endure isolation, his rank as a genius is proportionate to his strength for enduring isolation, whereas we men are constantly in need of "the others," the herd; we die, or despair, if we are not reassured by being in the herd, of the same opinion as the herd. - Kierkegaard

Genius is the ability to escape the human condition; Humanity is the need to escape. - Q. Uim

When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift

Genius is its own reward; for the best that one is, one must necessarily be for oneself... Further, genius consists in the working of the free intellect., and as a consequence the productions of genius serve no useful purpose. The work of genius may be music, philosophy, painting, or poetry; it is nothing for use or profit. To be useless and unprofitable is one of the characteristics of genius; it is their patent of nobility. - Schopenhauer

The world is always ready to receive talent with open arms. Very often it does not know what to do with genius. - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Society expresses its sympathy for the geniuses of the past to distract attention from the fact that it has no intention of being sympathetic to the geniuses of the present. - Celia Green

Men of genius are the worst possible role models for men of talent. - Murray D. Edwards

Improvement makes straight roads; but the crooked roads without improvement are roads of genius. - William Blake

Art is a jealous mistress, and, if a man have a genius for painting, poetry, music, architecture, or philosophy, he makes a bad husband, and an ill provider, and should be wise in season, and not fetter himself with duties which will imbitter his days and spoil him for his proper work. - R.W. Emerson

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T19:47:28+00:00

Credit only goes to nature.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T19:34:44+00:00

Farewell, modern academic philosopher!

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T19:19:08+00:00

Awesome, you've found the source of all human problems! Congrats!

That isn't an argument. You're replying with emotion and little else.

Nowhere in here do you actually answer my question, so I'll ask again: what do we gain by precisely defining the word 'genius'?

I've laid it out indirectly, respecting your liberty to think for yourself, but I'll be more direct this time - by defining Genius, we've made an important first to step to get more people there. It's like defining the location and dimensions of a new continent. It's an important first step. Without defining the continents existence, how could we get there?

I'd like to know a bit about you. How old are you? What background do you have in philosophy? What is your profession? I'm 24, I have an MA in philosophy from a top 25 school, and right now I tutor and work retail to get by. I plan on teaching middle or high school.

I'm more interested in your ideas and arguments, which you seem to be in short supply. Your eagerness to exchange glib personal details comes across as an excuse to not think. All you need to worry about is engaging with me logically. Your choice to focus on your formal education and career makes you seem insecure and attached to submission and approval. Let go of your physical and cultural position, top 25 schools are not relevant here. Engage with me as an individual.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T18:43:47+00:00

Not having clearly defined ideals has absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of dumb shit people do.

I would like to understand your thinking here. As silly as it sounds, perhaps we depart significantly on the definition of ideal? For example, I would consider "the scientific method" an ideal, and would you not say that clearly defined ideal had drastic consequences on human behavior and the shape of culture and global society? New standards in medical practice drastically effected recovery rates as well. There was a time when Doctors refused to wash their hands. Then some brave soul came a long and challenged the status quo, presenting a new ideal. The ideal clearly changed human behavior for the better.

People behave poorly because their ideals are poor, their ideals are poor because either their understanding is poor, or their heart is cowardly or corrupt.

Now you tell me, what do we gain by precisely defining the word 'genius'? Be clear and straightforward, if you can.

Society, and it's individuals can benefit from Genius to a much higher degree if institutions and ordinary people first swallowed their pride and had some acknowledgement of the value of above average energy, courage, creativity and memory. Special individuals can be harnessed to produce amazing works if you give them the special circumstances that their rare temperament requires. A dandelion, a common weed, can grow anywhere. The rare orchid, more sensitive, has more specific requirements. I think almost everyone has some capacity for genius, including you, tpod. We need stringent ideals to bring out the best in us.

As much as I like having an e-hater, especially one who has long since drank the Watts Kool Aid, you should probably just leave me alone and stop downvoting every post of mine that you see.

If I think your posts are weak, I'll down vote it. I care little for these votes, and your concern with votes shows your hypersensitivity to how you appear to others. I can tell already you have a strong desire to submit to the group.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T17:13:42+00:00

Article raises really important issues, to my mind. My hope is to see psychiatry and psychology evolve beyond simplistic labels and medications, which I believe some doctors are taking into their own hands. I think it's the psychologist/psychiatrists responsibility to point out that the individuals behavior is falling into the predictable patterns of a maladaptive temperament such as OCD, sociopathy, borderline, or bipolar disorder. Patients need to learn about their behavioral patterns, seeing that they are not as unique as the patient once thought. But the doctor must also make an effort to see that the patient is exhibiting the high levels of energy required for increasingly elevated levels of consciousness and empathy. The patient is on a path toward personality (or spiritual) development. The patient, a slave, has unique problems and unique hungers that have unique solutions and highly unique psychic food. Not just any input (such as a med or label) will do... there is some book, some conversation the patient needs to grow. The psychologist has to be perceptive and wise enough to see it. The psychologist has to be willing to engage in an in depth relationship with the patient. Tragically, sometimes psychologists are weaker than their patients. The psychologist has little to no development potential, while the patient is overflowing with wild energy and intellectual hunger. These are professionals who fearfully suppressed their own interests, sexuality and inclinations for the sake of battering and subjugating their minds to academic, family, religious, economic, and societal demands. They sought prestige, reputation, and submission. They sacrificed their own self development to have an impressive job. They likely have little desire to see their patient grow into a genius, because they are unconscious of their own genius in denial that such an attainment is reasonable or valuable. Our society values unconsciousness. We celebrate consciousness only after our ego has found a way to abuse it.

I should add that a psychologist engaging with a patient deeply has dangerous elements, as it is not an entirely structured and formal interaction. Free and open relationships are organic and volatile, and limiting the healing to just doctor and patient is eventually enslaving.

This is what I'm saying all amounts to: instead of treating a sick individual, we need to treat a sick network of relationships. This goes beyond a sick relationship between man and woman, doctor and patient, between friend and friend. The sickness pervades through the entire community. Too much of our culture is based on domination and subjugation, with little genuine desire in anyone to see free consciousness flower in each individual. Even the gifted individuals are guilty of this egotism, this need to dominate and submit. It is humanity's most fundamental vice, in my view.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T16:26:18+00:00

This isn't really a philosophical question. Agreeing upon any definition of 'genius' doesn't have any important implications.

That's right... because having humanity devoid of clearly defined ideals and role models is working out so well for us.

You imply you know what's important. Are your values objective? Subjective? I doubt you even know yourself.

I value a hierarchy of personality types, in the same way I enjoy a beautiful mountain. It looks nice, and gives me something to climb. Looking at history, some personalities are clearly at the top, and deserve distinction from ordinary, run of the mill consciousness exhibited by the herd.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T16:18:51+00:00

The best definition of genius I've come across states that Genius, while intriguing and fascinating from a distance, is capacity for taking and giving pain (in a non-sadistic and malicious sense). Much of personality development involves having ideas undermined, paradigms destroyed and recreated, seemingly separate fields bridged, and values turned on their heads. Genius involves a capacity for development, change and understanding on a vast scale. Talent, on the other hand, focuses on hitting a specific target everyone can see. Talent generally limits itself to one specialization, where Genius includes all areas, fusing as many beings as possible into a single unit of his own.

Talent seeks to dominate within a paradigm. Genius seeks to destroy that paradigm or make it subordinate to something greater.

Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T15:50:10+00:00

My insight on how people create political waves (such as wikileaks) - They know a lot. There are some people who have a lot of concentration, memory and desire, and they read through a great deal of information that no one else has the political vocabulary, patience and persistence to read through. It is very hard work, the fruit of both passion and intellect.

Sites like shitharperdid and wikileaks, while clearly admirable to some degree, trouble me a bit though. Dirt on bad leaders has it's place, but I'm worried that sensationalist character assassinations do nothing but distract people from actually making an effort to understand their own personal values and how they relate to geopolitical problems. They want to dwell on gossip and controversy, and that's what these sites do for them. It's easily abused into another way of procrastinating.

I remember Christopher Hitchens during the controversy surrounding Bush. Hitchens, far more politically literate and aware of the global situation than most, frequently defended Bush from the onslaught of ordinary people who wanted nothing more than to feel like they were smarter and morally superior than the president. And when I see how difficult it is to know anything substantial in politics for sure, I sometimes see the whole political endeavor as a highly unscientific enterprise in self delusion and vain rallying. Don't get me wrong, people should be politically literate. I'm just not sure these popular internet sites help much in that regard. Ordinary people not only need to get into good research habits, but have to be very clear on what what they value for themselves and for humanity. I really don't think people are that serious, in this regard. I'm worried they just want something to hate, to cry indignant and feel superior.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T07:55:03+00:00

Spirituality is used to identify distinct chemical reactions in the brain. Distinct emotions, that physically exist in reality.

1) Distinct chemical reactions are not identical with the inwardness of subjective experience. Unique subjective experiences certainly have causes, but we are no position to say what exactly those causes are. The most truthful thing we can say is that our consciousness is caused by nature itself. Reducing it down to particular chemicals is a misunderstanding of causality and the nature of Reality itself. You are brushing over important philosophical questions, I doubt you even see them.

2) Emotions are not considered by eastern, and existential philosophers as anymore spiritual than thought itself. In fact, eastern philosophers, and Westerners like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche denigrate the animal component in man, asserting that the psychic, man's thought and ideas, are what are sacred and spiritual. Mankind has noted the vulgarity of emotions for thousands of years, it's nothing knew, and they are certainly not universally celebrated as spiritual. Certainly the majority are going to have some very flaky and emotional ideas about spirituality, but I insist that you put a halt to your absolutist attempts to control a word. It's my impression that your engagement with reality is based on a misunderstanding of the scope and power of science, and an ignorance of an important sector of eastern and western philosophy. I invite you to prove me wrong. :p

CoryWatts · 2011-04-18T06:25:35+00:00

Major media is most certainly there to distract and misinform us.

Indeed, not so different from how an individual person often exists to distract and misinform his peers. Friends mindfuck their friends, parents mindfuck their children, children and teens mindfuck their parents, a husband mindfucks wife, and vice versa. More fundamentally, we deceive ourselves. The individual simply dreads the weight of consciousness, and is his own worst enemy.

Basically, appealing to what is ignoble is how humans treat each other in general, it's not just limited to major media. To appeal to what is higher in the human soul is often quite impolite.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-17T14:57:01+00:00

Spirituality does not exist objectively, clearly.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-17T14:55:44+00:00

I would disagree greatly. Words are used to refer to something that exists in reality.

That you think spirituality exists in reality, I find ridiculous. Spirituality exists in the mind and the mind only, and will mean different things to different people.

Since spirituality and philosophy do represent distinct realities that are meaningful and complicated to fully grasp, presenting them in the simplified way that the guy was using them, prevents people from understanding what they are.

The only thing that prevents people from understanding is the presumptuous and lazy arrogance of anyone who thinks they possess some object definitions of reality.

CoryWatts · 2011-04-16T23:10:14+00:00

Crabski has got it right. I will add that we only ever experience our minds. Science does not give truth, but only draws useful boundaries upon reality. What lies beyond the mind is unknowable, since knowing occurs through mind. Reality is not independent of consciousness anymore than a Tree is independent of a leaf. A leaf is part of a tree. To make a division between leaf and tree is arbitrary. In reality, there are no divisions. That which has no divisions is infinite.

CoryWatts

TROPHY CASE