Is moderation actually a sign of wisdom?

Jack Harris3 said:So, did someone swoop in and pour some extra "wisdom" into your head while you weren't looking? Or is it just the same old stuff, you've just started seeing more of it—like you're finally shifting gears and picking up speed? 😁

OH, YEAH, I DID. (Because at the end of the day, YOU'RE the one calling the shots).
I provided my own damn wisdom.
Look, if your intelligence stayed exactly where you claim it is, you’d still be stuck in first gear. Period. The very fact that you've tapped into the rest of what you know means you've taken that tiny bit of available insight you had before and cranked it up. Once you hit third gear, there's no going back to first. You're changing COMPLETELY now, and after this, any attempt to act like you're back in first gear is just plain acting.

What does knowledge even have to do with the mixer (aka all that stuff)?😕

Paul Campbell3 said:What does knowledge have to do with a mixer (basically all of this stuff)?😕

🙂 Well, you're the one doing the mixing, aren't you? And if you want any kind of enlightenment, you actually have to use your whole brain. It's pretty simple, right? 😉

Paul Phillips4 said:🙂 You're just a blender. If you want actual enlightenment, you need to use your entire brain. It's pretty simple, right? 😉

Aha.
So, what we have here is you pushing this theory of "independent intellectual enlightenment for blenders," while Jack Harris3 insists nothing happens until you get hit by a 220V surge from an outlet.
😁

I think I’ve finally settled on my PhD topic in philosophy—something along the lines of "The Influence of Household Appliances on 21st-Century Modern Thought." 😉

Jack Harris3, the sheer depth and scope of your thoughts seem directly tied to how much you actually know. That’s really why we study—because even if some truths are meant to be discovered personally, ignorance acts as this massive, natural barrier whenever we try to articulate those realizations in our own minds.

Beyond that, even when we *do* grasp certain truths, there’s no point in just "wandering" around them aimlessly—unless, of course, you have a way to step inside someone else's mind. Your perspective is uniquely yours, and honestly, you're probably more tethered to it than you realize. This is where books come in; they allow us to "enter" an author's consciousness and, if only for a moment, view the world through the lens of their work rather than just our own limited awareness. Experiences like that change us—if nothing else, they teach us just how incredibly diverse the world truly is.

So, please, find a little more value in the written word—without that recorded thought, you wouldn't have a single thread to keep you company while you're lost in a book. 🙂

hollowviper72 said:Jack Harris3, the depth and scope of your thoughts are directly proportional to the depth and scope of your knowledge.

What does that even mean???
I know you’re speaking in generalities here, but if you look at me as a case in point... well, my knowledge is maybe six inches deep, but my thoughts? They're like a tunnel straight to China. 😂
I just can't sign off on that, sorry. 😁

But I get where you're coming from... is that part of it? 😁

Oh, and about that whole spectator thing. My perspective is mine, you're right there. But just walking around looking at things doesn't mean I'm changing who I am... I'm just observing. 😁
In the end, I'll always find my way back to my own spot.

Paul Campbell3 said:...until you get struck by an external 220V current.

The number 220 corresponds to the line count in the
Book of Law , that tantric-magical text from the prophet of the new aeon (who, for the uninitiated, is Aleister Crowley). It was composed in Cairo back in 1904, dictated by an intelligence known as Aiwass.

The letter V represents the sign of Typhon, Set, Satan, the Devil's hoof...

Alternating current itself is the discovery of Nikola Tesla; through gematria, TESLA transforms into AL-SET. AL equals God, Liber AL is the Book of Law, and SET is that ancient Egyptian deity we could debate endlessly. Furthermore, NIKOLA is a blatant allusion to "no one"—nothingness—referencing the idea that "nothing is where I am" (a quote from the Book of Law describing God, and so on). LA equals AL... and the patterns continue. 😁

It is truly a terrible thing when one reads far too many books. 😈

Hmm, what exactly does any of this have to do with moderation? Absolutely nothing... because in the quotes provided by hollowviper72, I don't see a shred of moderation. Instead, I see total, concentrated action directed toward a single result—something fundamentally incompatible with the concept of moderation.

Heh, in that case, you're seeing something that simply isn't there. But look, I’m genuinely curious about how you’re interpreting those quotes—could you dive a bit deeper and walk me through your thought process? Just so I can follow your logic, okay?

I haven't waded through all the heavy philosophy regarding moderation, but for the most part, I'm on the same page as Jack Harris3 and the concept of equilibrium. 🙂

The kind of "moderation" hollowviper72 is talking about feels more like mediocrity to me. We don't actually need "moderation."
A wise mentor 😉 once told me that the best way to live is to be like a fighter jet: constantly adjusting to the conditions mid-flight. Basically, when it’s time for passion and intense action, go all in—be fierce and driven. When it’s time for stillness or downtime, just be calm. And when you need balance, then you find that center. Once you live like that, all these endless debates about what "moderation" really means just seem pointless. 😛 😉

hollowviper72 said:Heh, then you're seeing something that simply isn't there. But I am genuinely curious about your interpretation of those specific quotes—could you elaborate on your reasoning?

To put it plainly: the text discusses the total elimination of sensation. It is through this elimination that we achieve true equilibrium. One must understand that elimination is fundamentally distinct from mere moderation.

If we’re going to use household appliances as a metaphor for aviation—fine—then a fighter jet is NEVER a symbol of moderation. A fighter jet is inherently loud, aggressive, always charging forward, and notoriously difficult to steer off its path; it's a nightmare to control, and honestly, even harder to bring to a halt. It gulps down fuel like there's no tomorrow, completely indifferent to any obstacles in its flight path, burning through everything in a flash. It flies far, sure, but you can't really see much from the cockpit because everything passes by way too fast. It craves altitude, yet it can never truly settle in at the top.

No, if you want an example of a moderate person, look to the glider. It glides elegantly and silently, observing everything, never rushed or frantic. Because of how it's built, it understands the wind currents perfectly, allowing it to travel wherever there is open sky. A glider can go both far and high, turning with ease and grace. And because it's quiet, it can actually hear the sounds of the world around it—it isn't deafened by its own internal racket. It isn't aggressive, but it will get exactly where it wants to go, moving at its own steady pace.

Moderation is born from wisdom, because a wise person is a thoughtful person—and a thoughtful person is never impulsive or combative. You are all mistaken if you confuse gentleness with weakness, or moderation with mediocrity; you're simply wrong because you fail to grasp the true aspirations of a wise soul, blinded by the ego-driven belief that you have already attained wisdom. I know enough to realize I am not wise—I know that I don't truly understand what I think I know—and so, I dampen my own noise just so I can listen to the heavens and learn the path of wisdom. But you? You fighter jets, caught up in your own strength and tension, see nothing beyond the narrow line you tear through the sky, hearing nothing but the deafening roar of your own engines.

It's pointless to try and convince you, because you're simply deaf to anything else. 🙂

Ryan Wilson2 said:In short... it’s talking about eliminating sensation. We reach balance through elimination. Elimination has nothing to do with moderation.

That is completely off base. Honestly, I have no idea where you got that from—it's almost as if you didn't even bother reading my interpretation of those quotes, which I specifically laid out right there just so you wouldn't have to spend half an hour staring at them trying to figure out what they mean.
The middle doctrine might only be a few pages long, but you could spend days lost in it.

hollowviper72 said:Moderation is born from wisdom, because a wise man is a thoughtful man, and a thoughtful man is never impulsive or aggressive.

But what kind of person was that "wise man" before he actually became wise? 😁

You’re all making a mistake if you confuse gentleness with weakness, or moderation with being mediocre.

When people try to force gentleness and moderation through sheer willpower, or treat them like some rigid set of rules to follow... then they aren't really those things anymore. 😁
If they actually flow from true wisdom—which, let's be honest, probably follows a lifetime of everything that *isn't* wise, gentle, or moderate—then nobody is going to misinterpret them in the first place.

Look, I don't have an issue with being gentle or moderate. But I can't stand the theory that you "ought to be" that way just for the sake of it... it just doesn't hold up.
You should just be who you are, and in my book, that doesn't mean being "the same" all the time.🙂
For instance, if something doesn't bother you, then stay calm. But if something makes you angry... well, get angry. Don't try to force yourself to stay peaceful while you're actually boiling inside... why would you be moderate then?
As long as the same thing can still trigger you, then everything is working exactly as it should.
And once you finally become wise, it becomes pretty much impossible for anyone to get under your skin... and that's that. 😁
Anyway, that's just how I see it... 😂

hollowviper72 said:You are completely off base. I have no idea where you found that logic, though I suspect you didn't even bother reading my interpretation of those quotes—which, I might add, I provided specifically so you wouldn't have to waste half an hour contemplating their meaning.

Honestly... I don't see what there is to contemplate when the point is laid out so plainly and directly. Furthermore, I don't see any mention of moderation anywhere in there.

You’ve got quite the imagination there. Someone actually posed the question in this thread, asking "why moderation is a sign of wisdom."

Your point is that a person should simply be who they are.

And honestly, I couldn't agree more—at the end of the day, a person can't really be anything other than what they truly are.

But here's the thing: my entire argument has been about why moderation serves as an indicator of wisdom— not that moderation ought to be some universal North Star for every single soul on this planet. As I’ve pointed out a few times now, moderation is a characteristic of wisdom, not its fundamental cause. Yet, everyone (or at least everyone on the "other side" of this debate) seems to have jumped to the conclusion that I'm peddling some kind of one-size-fits-all recipe for being wise. For whatever reason. I suppose people on this forum aren't exactly used to reading posts that stretch beyond five sentences. 🙄

To put it bluntly, I keep writing and writing, only to have my words constantly stripped of their context and twisted around. The only thing keeping me tethered to this discussion is my own warped sense of humor. 😉

Baphomet said:Honestly... I don't see what there is to contemplate when everything is laid out so clearly and simply.

Ah, well—therein lies the rub. That's exactly why you've misread the situation. You shouldn't approach Taoist (or even Confucian) philosophical texts like you're reading a standard novel... instead, you take a single passage and really sit with it. You chew on it. Once you feel like you've truly grasped the core essence of the message, then—and only then—do you move on. This is precisely why even the most straightforward sentence can demand hours of deep reflection. Some parts of these texts are incredibly difficult to interpret correctly without a solid grasp of Chinese history and the specific era in which they were penned. These works definitely aren't meant for a superficial skim, which is why I posted my comment in the first place—I actually assumed no one would bother taking the time to truly ponder the quotes themselves.
And if you look at my comment, you'll see there isn't even a mention of suppressing emotions.

hollowviper72 said:I’m right there with you on that. Honestly, you can't really be anything other than who you actually are...

Maybe you can't just "be" it, but trying to force yourself into a mold? That usually ends badly... 😁

But my whole point was that moderation is a sign of wisdom— not that moderation should be the north star for every single person on this planet.

Sorry, but from where I'm sitting, it doesn't seem like I'm the only one who took it the way you intended... 😁
The way I read it was that you need to practice moderation if you want to become wise. 😁
If you had said that moderation is a byproduct of wisdom, I wouldn't have said a word...

If we all misunderstood you, then maybe there's some truth to what you meant, but if it's just me... well, I guess I'll just have to sit with that... 😂

Look, if you take a step back and look at this whole thread, it’s pretty obvious that half the people here totally missed my point—and I mean really missed it. As for the other half? Well, they seem to have some personal hang-ups about me, so you can probably guess how many of them actually bothered to read what I was saying before jumping in to try and "tear me apart." 😉

I’ve mentioned a few times now that moderation is an outcome, not just a random trait. Honestly, I don't have the energy to sit here and write a three-mile-long dissertation on the poet's underlying intent. 🙂

So, hopefully, it’s crystal clear now: a wise person is a moderate one. That’s because moderation is simply the result of wisdom.

I really should have just laid it out like that from the jump. Serves me right for trying to be all eloquent and fancy. 😵 😁

hollowviper72 said:I’ve mentioned a few times now that moderation is just an outcome.

Well, I said the same thing a long time ago. You didn't exactly jump on board right away, though... you kind of just let me ramble on for five pages before agreeing, didn't you? 😁

I mean, are we even on the same wavelength here? It feels like I'm doing all the listening and you're just nodding along... 😂

We might need to work on our communication skills a bit... 😛

If we’re comparing household appliances to aviation, then a military jet is NEVER moderate. A fighter jet is loud, aggressive, constantly charging forward, and incredibly hard to steer—let alone stop once it gets going. It gulps down fuel like there’s no tomorrow, showing zero regard for anything in its flight path, burning through everything in a flash. It covers massive distances, but you don't actually see much because everything happens too fast. It wants to soar high, but it just can't stay up there.

And once again, instead of actually grasping the point, we’re all just digging our heels in, right? 😂

hollowviper72, of course you aren't getting it (seriously)—you just twist everything to fit your own personal philosophy, pushing these extremes that have nothing to do with what was actually said. Not to mention, you really don't know how to listen to anyone else. Honestly, it’s pointless... I'm done trying here. Sapienti sat.