| | | Author | Comment | Naturyl 
Proficionado
Posts: 253
(3/2/04 1:58)
Reply
 | Re: The Play-By-Play
Yes, that was I problem I also noticed, but declined to comment on because I want to avoid 'polluting' the debate by exerting undue influence on its course. Robert will see the circularity in any case, and while I gave David a 7, Robert is set up to score considerably higher than that in his rebuttal, assuming he takes advantage of the opportunity you pointed out and others like it. 
| ksolway
Visitor
Posts: 1
(3/2/04 2:39)
Reply | Edit
 | Re: The Play-By-Play
Quote:
"enlightenment is what I say it is because I am enlightened, you cannot know if I am enlightened because you are not enlightened, therefore lets only talk about what enlightenment is- which you cannot know, because you are not enlightened."
Very true! That logic is faultless. And it is a marvelous truth.
You have made a correct interpretation of the state of affairs. At best David can only offer us a teaching, and hope we gain something from it. For this we should be thankful.
Indeed, only by becoming enlightened can we understand enlightenment. How can it be any other way?
| alarabi7
misplaced koan
-Administrator
Posts: 1983
(3/2/04 2:48)
Reply
 | Re: The Play-By-Play
Quote:
That logic is faultless.
hmmm... never thought of circular logic as faultless. The Bible is true because the bible says it is true and if you believe you will know the bible is true.
| SPQR Anarchy
Revolutionary
Posts: 258
(3/2/04 3:10)
Reply | Re: The Play-By-Play
Finally some sense around this dump. Geez, all it took was the wisdom of dear sweet David. Where can I buy this enlightenment. It seems to be my ticket outta here.
SPQR
| WolfsonJakk
Inductee
Posts: 10
(3/2/04 3:27)
Reply | Re: The Play-By-Play
It might be.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 21
(3/2/04 4:42)
Reply
 | Re: The Play-By-Play
Kevin Solway: Very true! That logic is faultless. And it is a marvelous truth.
It is about as marvellous as the Chinese state doctrine:
"What is good for the peasants and workers is what the governement says. It is because we are the government and therefore we know what is good. Peasants and workers do not know what is good for them, because they are not the government."
Brilliant logic indeed. The working class is cheering.
Thomas
| ksolway
Visitor
Posts: 2
(3/2/04 6:02)
Reply | Edit
| Re: The Play-By-Play
alarabi7 wrote:
Quote:
hmmm... never thought of circular logic as faultless.
All purely logical and philosophical truths are circular (including that very sentence, if you care to analyze it).
Such truths are of the following form:
"A thing is the way it is, because of the way it is."
Here's a random example from the Buddha (Dhammapada): "Hate is not conquered by hate."
| Victor Danilchenko 
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
 
Posts: 1939
(3/2/04 10:29)
Reply
 | Re: The Play-By-Play
I would like to add that Quinn is naively, stupefyingly wrong about science being grounded in the vulgar materialism as he describes (the belief that matter objectively independently materially exists).
What he is describing -- the vulgar materialism -- is a very outdated view; which Quinn would know if only he was not so adamant in rejecting outright 20-th century philosophy.
The modern equivalent is physicalism, the position which explains sensory data not in noumenal (and thus incoherent) terms, but which rather focuses on the fact that perceived interactions are what defines 'physical', thus typically treating sensory world as a closed system rather than a reflection of the noumenal reality.
In short, one doesn't need to believe that atoms really exist in order to do nuclear physics; what one has to believe is that physics theories predict a certain class of future observations. That Quinn doesn't understand this is just one more testament to how his rationalistic 'enlightenment' is worthless when disconnected from the real world. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1940
(3/2/04 10:42)
Reply
| Re: The Play-By-Play
Solway,
Quote:
All purely logical and philosophical truths are circular (including that very sentence, if you care to analyze it).
No. All analytic truths are tautological. That is not the same as being circular, although the difference may be lost on someone like you 'geniuses' who never bothered to understand how actual logic works, instead proudly proclaiming that their ignorantly naive concept of 'logic' is all that's needed (remember Russell's paradox in Cantor/Frege set theory? Intuition has pitfalls...)
The problem with tautologies of course is that they generally cannot tell us anything useful about the world, largely because empirical experience cannot be formalized.
Quote:
Such truths are of the following form:
"A thing is the way it is, because of the way it is."
That's a circular statement which also happens to be a tautology. Here is a tautology which is not a circular statement, and thus is at least marginally useful:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal.
Quote:
Here's a random example from the Buddha (Dhammapada): "Hate is not conquered by hate."
And that's not a tautology; it's not even sound. That the a thing cannot be conquered with itself is a blatant assumption, and a false one -- for example, fire can be fought with fire (that's how many indigenous people living in steppe environment usually combat fires, in fact).
Fire can be conquered by fire. Evil can be conquered by evil (if they destroy each other). Sound can be conquered by sound (if the waves are correctly synched).
You just unwittingly demonstrated exactly why trying to build philosophy on tautologies is such a worthless enterprise: most of the time it's either sound but useless, or useful but unsound.
it's possible that hate cannot be conquered with hate, but you would need to do far more to support such a contention, than merely fallaciously proclaim it to be tautologically true. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Rando the Considerable
Guru
Posts: 603
(3/2/04 12:08)
Reply
 | Re: The Play-By-Play
I'm betting 900 TPG bucks on Robert and 100 on Quinn. In addition, just to show I'm a nice guy, I'll be awarding the winner of this debate (if there is one) a whopping 10,000 Rando points. In the case that DQ wins, he will be welcome to enter the TPG or KIR Rando Contest, as one is not being held in the Genius Forum. 
| birdofhermes
Visitor
Posts: 1
(3/2/04 14:07)
Reply | The Home Team
Well, the gang's all here : )
Just to be contrary, I'll put all 1,000 of my points on Quinn, simply because I understand his feminine mind more easily.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1942
(3/2/04 14:26)
Reply | Re: The Home Team
P.S. Welcome to the forum, Anna. Post often, think much. Edited by: Victor Danilchenko at: 3/2/04 14:27
| Tales to Astonish
Follower
Posts: 21
(3/2/04 14:55)
Reply
 | Re: The Home Team
I'm afraid I've never met Robert Larkin but I've read some of David's writings. They're mostly odd, so I'm hoping to maybe understand his point of view better from this discussion.
-Tales Edited by: Tales to Astonish at: 3/2/04 15:15
|  Opto Ergo Sum
Innovator
Posts: 107
(3/2/04 15:01)
Reply
ezSupporter
 | Re: The Home Team
Darn, I was hoping this would be an interesting and "formal" debate. Guild laid out the rules nicely. But it's just another pissing contest.
(whew...one less thread to keep up with)
| Biggier
Innovator
Posts: 220
(3/2/04 16:26)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Having waded though both metaphysical thickets as best I could all I can say is this: may the best self-delusion win.
If this pedantic, ossified exchange does not encompass the irrelevancy to which much that passes for contemporary "philosophy" has sunk, I'm at a loss to imagine it sinking much lower. Is it any wonder that, with each passing year, fewer and fewer folks are willing to give philosophy a fair shot?
Let the next debate at least touch down occasionally in the real world.
Remember that?
Biggie
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1945
(3/2/04 16:50)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
biggier,
Dude, that debate has many flaws, but being too academic and formal, or too representative of modern philosophy, is most assuredly not one of them...
That debate is in fact not philosophical at all. David Quinn is being pseudo-philosophical in the finest continental tradition of making bold proclamations without any support or relationship to reality, and Larkin is essentially arguing scholastically (in the medieval sense of the word)... Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him.Edited by: Victor Danilchenko at: 3/2/04 16:54
| Murray Graham
Rind of the Ancient Mariner
-Study Moderator
Posts: 1001
(3/2/04 17:29)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Ouch.
Regards,
M. Graham As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list--I've got a little list ..... the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
-The Mikado, Gilbert & Sullivan Edited by: Murray Graham at: 3/2/04 17:29
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 646
(3/2/04 18:03)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Anyone here who knows me knows enlightenment is my main interest. So here are my thoughts on what so far is a less than stellar debate.
Comments on Quinn:
Q points to the delusion of separate existence. Okay, that's a start. But what about saying why we are under this delusion? To merely assert it does not give anyone access to the concept you want us to understand.
Next he points to what enlightenment perceives. This is a bit dicey since talking about emptiness as a perception could be misleading. What does it mean to perceive emptiness? Q doesn't say.
Some characteristics are described, beyond emotion, beyond religion, infinitely powerful knowledge. Religion needs no comment but emotion is something else. If an enlightened person still has a body, why not a mind? Why expect emotions to disappear? It is the identification with emotion that might disappear. One then has the ability to respond or not to a feeling rather than merely react. Also why assume infinite knowledge? Knowledge is an aspect of mind and duality; enlightenment has nothing to do with either.
He says it brings wisdom that can't be found in any text. No problem but trivial. Same with the argument about whether scripture should be trusted. People trust experience, not somebody else's words.
Finally he wraps it up by saying it is not about him but his words. Okay. But the words aren't doing it for me.
Comments on Robert:
Robert starts by focusing on Quinn. *Yawn* Okay, Quinn isn't enlightened, move on.
He says scriptures should be considered. Well, I thought you were arguing against enlightenment, not just Quinn's enlightenment. If it's only about Quinn, why are you wasting our time?
He asks how we can question enlightenment (Q's version) without being enlightened. You don't need to be enlightened to ask whether someone's concepts are conveying any meaning. If they are not, point out the meaning that is lacking and why.
Robert then asserts no argument has been made. Okay, I didn't much like his argument either but at least in telling me why you don't, you could refer to it. Instead you give us a link to someone else's. Why not stick to Q's?
R proceeds to digress into Buddhism. I don't see the relevance. Nor the men of straw argument. It is not on point.
R sums up that Q is merely asserting based on authority and contradicts Buddhism.
All in all, both sides seem pretty weak. On a scale of 1 to 10, Quinn gets a 3, some principles correct, some not, poorly developed concepts, trivial points. Roberts gets a 2, ad hominem, arguing against what was not presented, not addressing the main point, why we shouldn't believe in enlightenment. I didn't give you a 1 because at least you showed up.
Edited by: samadhim7 at: 3/2/04 18:10
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 25
(3/2/04 18:29)
Reply
 | Re: Debate Comments
You're forgetting, Samadhim, that this is a debate which is designed to last over four rounds. My opening statement was precisely that - an opening statement. To expect me to outline the entirety of my thought in an opening statement is surely a bit unrealistic. It is like rejecting a book simply because it didn't spill its entire contents in the first chapter.
I also have no confidence that Robert has the knowledge and skill to conduct a proper analysis of enlightenment, and so I tried to keep it at a basic level that he could understand - which is mainly texts and scholarship.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 649
(3/2/04 18:48)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Okay, well you're still ahead. I'm certainly open to revising grades as developments warrant. | |  | | | | | | Author | Comment | Biggier
Innovator
Posts: 221
(3/2/04 18:50)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Victor,
You know me. My MO respecting philosophy revolves around the extent to which an idea can be attached to something that can, in turn, be reasonably embedded in actual human social discourse. If someone isn't saying something that allows me to understand human interactions more or less existentially then, in my view, they are not saying much at all that is relevent TO human transactions. The debate, in my view, is, thus far, mental masturbation of the worst sort. I have, in fact, been going back and forth with David in the Genius Forum and I find he is positively allergic to anything that could not be wholey construed by a someone who never left his house---ever.
Robert [again, thus far] appears to have gone out on the back porch and perambulated around the yard a few times but I don't see sort of thinking that would lead me to believe he is not just one more Academic Scholar. That may change down the road, of course.
Intellectuals run the philosophy departments of the world. And I will never tire of pointing out how philosophy will continue to be incrreasingly irrelevant in the world until that starts to change.
Biggie
| drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 91
(3/2/04 18:56)
Reply
 | Re: Debate Comments
I suspect no-one will give a toss about this opinion but I see the formalisation of a "debate" about enlightenment with attendant concepts of winning and losing to be something over which one ought properly despair. Seems like petty egostism to me.
But - as I seem to be saying quite a bit lately - whatever......
Dan Rowden
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7849
(3/2/04 19:26)
Reply
 | Re: Debate Comments
The winning and losing bit is more of a game than anything serious. Just because this is a philosophy forum doesn't mean we can't have some fun.
I think Nat's running commentary provides worthwhile additional entertainment. And I'm not just saying that because he gave me 1000 units of "currency". 
Accidence happens. | ksolway
Visitor
Posts: 2
(3/2/04 19:32)
Reply | Edit
| Re: The Play-By-Play
Victor wrote:
Quote:
The problem with tautologies of course is that they generally cannot tell us anything useful about the world.
According to the definition of "tautology" ("a needless repitition"), they never can. But clearly such repitition is often very useful.
Quote:
Here is a tautology which is not a circular statement, and thus is at least marginally useful:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal.
There are three statements of truth here. Let's take each one individually. "All men are mortal". Why are all men mortal? Because a characteristic of men is being mortal So the statement is really saying "Something which has the characteristic of being mortal is mortal", or "Something which is mortal is mortal". This is both circular and "tautological".
The same can be said for "Socrates is a man" ("The man, Socrates, is a man").
Now let's look at the most important truth of the three, the conclusion "Socrates is mortal".
What do we have? "The mortal, Socrates, is mortal".
Once again, both circular and "tautological".
You might claim that these statements are not "circular", but they are certainly circular - it's just that they make a very tight circle.
Quote:
K: Here's a random example from the Buddha (Dhammapada): "Hate is not conquered by hate."
V: And that's not a tautology;
Let's examine "Hate is not conquered by hate".
Actually, it's not possible to break this down any further, as it is already in its simplest state.
It is like saying "You can't refrain from eating, by eating", or "Not eating is not the same as eating".
Once again, both circular and "tautological".
|  Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1487
(3/2/04 19:44)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
I don't believe there have been any other debates so this is an opportunity to test the waters. The debate will play itself out over several more posts and perhaps some of the objections here, those anyway not preening and useless like Opto Ergo Sum's and Victor's most recent, will find solutions. You can only do so much in a single post without risking boring everyone to tears. If others can do it better let's hope we shortly see a demonstration.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 23
(3/2/04 22:05)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Kevin: According to the definition of "tautology" ("a needless repitition" , they never can. But clearly such repitition is often very useful.
Tautologous means propositionally correct here.
Kevin: You might claim that these statements are not "circular", but they are certainly circular - it's just that they make a very tight circle.
It's not circular: (1) mortal(m) for all m of M, (2) S is element of M, (c) -> mortal(S).
Have a look at https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/anwar/www/ai/lecture7.ppt.
Thomas
| Opto Ergo Sum
Innovator
Posts: 109
(3/2/04 22:16)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
“The format of the debate is as follows. First, each side is to make two constructive arguments, beginning with the Affirmative (David), and alternating. These arguments are not intended to respond to each other, but merely to put up arguments for each side's case. Then, there will be two rebuttals each, beginning with the Negative (Robert) and alternating. Rebuttals are intended to respond to the arguments brought up earlier; rebuttals may bring in new information, but may not make new arguments.”
This is the format I was looking forward to.
First shot out of the box, David makes some obscure historical comments about Robert visiting another forum, and whose idea this was, blah, blah,...; then something to do with Enlightenment; then some attacks on Robert about ideas and methodology that haven’t been presented yet. Yawn…
Not to be out done, Robert opens with a comment about how popular “enlightenment” is; then jumps all over David (with more historical commentary and LINKS to the historical smoking gun).
Didn’t you guys ever wonder what the debate team was doing in high school? Did you ever see the episode of “Gilmore Girls” where they had a debate?
This isn’t a debate; it’s a playground fight. And not a very interesting one.
(will there be half-time commercials? Maybe some boobs?)
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 254
(3/2/04 22:35)
Reply
| Play-by-play, part II
Robert's response is what debate should be about.
Robert advances his argument and counters David's statements with aplomb. His tone is not overly harsh, and yet it is not subdued and shows no sign of intimidation. One gets the the sense when reading Robert's post that he is responding as though David has set himself up as something like a bully, but Robert is determined to cower not. It is clear that no claim of enlightenment, no matter how self-confidently advanced, will dissuade Robert from applying the full force of critical inquiry. In this, he reinforces his reputation as a man who demands the highest standards of intellectual honesty.
I can find no factual errors in Robert's entry. Additionally, he is careful to supply a great deal of reference material to back up his statements. This is an effective strategy in light of the fact that David provided no outside material in his initial post, relying only on his own authority, a fact which Robert uses to good advantage.
Robert covers all of the essential bases in his post, pointing out the strawmen which David erected, as well as the circular logic he employed to establish his claim of enlightenment. While it is the responsibility of each reader to decide for himself/herself whether Robert was successful in establishing that David's claim to enlightement should be dismissed out of hand, he provided a strong argument to that effect. If he is able to sustian this level of refutation, he is poised to do very well in this debate.
Robert's somehat lyrical and nostalgic writing style may be somewhat unfamiliar to those not acquainted with his contributions elsewhere. Because of this, I would have to cede David the edge in terms of straightforward verbal clarity. However, the aesthetic quality of Robert's rather poetic style of writing may make up for this, as readers become more accustomed to his mode of presentation.
In summary, it is clear that Robert went to considerable effort in formulating his entry, and it is the opinion of this commentator that he was thorough, effective, and incisive. He took full advantage of all the material David left for him to work with, and he presented the appearance of a well-informed, realistic person with no interest in self-aggrandizement. Overall, I give his entry a nine.
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 255
(3/2/04 22:55)
Reply
| Re: Play-by-play, part II
Samhadim and Opto Ergo Sum,
This is not a high school debate. If you want boring rubbish of that nature, I'm sure there are several high schools in your area who would be glad to have you attend their debates.
This is a message board debate, which is an entirely different animal. It is a contest of verbal skill, knowledge, and argumentative ability. It is not some long-winded, boring spectacle of academia. It is intended chiefly to entertain an audience of community participants.
Samhadim, aren't you the guy I pistol-whipped about naturalism a few months ago? And Opto, aren't you the guy who showed up at KIR for 2 days and then left in a huff because we rejected your New Age rubbish?
Regardless, the two of you are both looking at this thing all wrong. It is a contest, a duel, a fight. It is intended to produce a winner and a loser, and we, the audience, get to watch the fireworks. The two of you need to stop complaining and enjoy the show.
| Opto Ergo Sum
Innovator
Posts: 110
(3/2/04 23:13)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Play-by-play, part II
I came back to edit my post above because I wasn't very proud of some of the things I said (just in one of those moods), but since it's been responded to, and there are "RULES" I'll let it stand.
Nat: I still hold that this "debate" had a format as defined by Guild and it has not been adhered to. The fact that it is a fight is the reason I object. I've had all the board fights I need to last a life time. One of the reasons I like TPG is the atmosphere is more congenial. The fact that you like it might give you a clue as to why my stay at KIR was so brief. And for the record; every time some uses the word "spiritual" in a sentence it doesn't make them "New Age".
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 256
(3/2/04 23:32)
Reply
| Re: Play-by-play, part II
I use the word 'spiritual' frequently. That isn't what makes you New Age. As I recall, you advocated things like universal consciousness, etc.
It doesn't matter, though. I'm not here to bicker with TPG users. In fact, I really have no business on TPG at all, but this debate interests me and I am here to comment on it. When that commentary is complete, I will leave again and return to my own forum, which although nearly abandoned, remains true to its original vision and is in fact the direct precursor of this board and several others like it.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1488
(3/2/04 23:55)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Play-by-play, part II
As a clarification, 'constructives' are meant for the development of the issues in the debate and also for refutation of the opponent's position. One certainly does not ignore the opponent in this phase else we would have four posts before there was any direct confrontation.
'Rebuttals' are entirely that, rebuttals of the opponent's issues and support for one's own. New issues cannot be introduced in rebuttals although new supporting material can be.
Guildenstern's description was thus slightly off. I ignored it and so did David. No harm, no foul.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7856
(4/2/04 0:00)
Reply
| Re: Play-by-play, part II
My fault, then, for not knowing anything about actual debate format. I misinterpreted Robert's description of how it ought to work.
Accidence happens. | ksolway
Inductee
Posts: 3
(4/2/04 0:12)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Circular reasoning
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
Kevin: You might claim that these statements are not "circular", but they are certainly circular - it's just that they make a very tight circle.
T: It's not circular: (1) mortal(m) for all m of M, (2) S is element of M, (c) -> mortal(S).
I define circular reasoning as "reasoning that goes in a circle", which is the same as "reasoning that ends where it began"
In the case of "Socrates is mortal", the word "Socrates" contains the information "mortal". Ie, part of the meaning of "Socrates" is "mortal". So we essentially have "That which is mortal, is mortal", and we have gone round in a circle, and ended where we began. That's why the reasoning is circular.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 24
(4/2/04 1:23)
Reply
| Re: Circular reasoning
Kevin: I define circular reasoning as "reasoning that goes in a circle", which is the same as "reasoning that ends where it began"
Well, then you are wrong. A valid deductive argument derives conclusions from any number of premises by making operations on them in accordance with the rules of logic. The conclusion of a valid deduction is not merely a restatement of the premises. By contrast, in a circular (fallacious) argument, the deduction is implicitely (or explicitely) contained in a single premise.
The reasoning that David employs: "I know what enlightenment is because I am enlightened" is therefore circular. Circularity does not mean that what is stated is false, it just means that the form of the argument is invalid. Basically, it's a non-argument and it can thus be rejected.
Thomas Edited by: Thomas Knierim at: 4/2/04 2:19
| ksolway
Inductee
Posts: 4
(4/2/04 2:26)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Circular reasoning
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
Kevin: I define circular reasoning as "reasoning that goes in a circle", which is the same as "reasoning that ends where it began"
Well, then you are wrong.
My definition can't be wrong, as no definition can be wrong, so I presume you think I am wrong in my application of it. But I don't know why, as your explanation didn't disprove my previous examples of circular reasoning.
Quote:
The reasoning that David employs: "I know what enlightenment is because I am enlightened" is therefore circular, just as the sentence "You don't know what enlightenment is, because you are not enlightened." Circularity does not mean that what is stated is false, it just means that the form of the argument is invalid. Basically, it's a non-argument and it can therefore be rejected.
All reasonings (ie, circular reasonings) are used to dispel ignorance. For that reason alone they are not "invalid" or "non-arguments".
I don't believe David has said "I know what enlightenment is because I am enlightened", but if he did, it would be to teach someone that the only way you can know what enlightenment entails is if you are enlightened. In other words, it would be a teaching to dispel a person's ignorance in thinking that a non-enlightened person can understand enlightenment. In that case such a teaching would be useful.
Quote:
a valid deduction is not merely a restatement of the premises.
It is a restatement of the information contained in the premises (or premiss). In other words, the form may be different, but the information, the content, is the same.
Quote:
By contrast, in a circular (fallacious) argument, the deduction is implicitely (or explicitely) contained in a single premise.
Nevertheless, an argument can't be fallacious if it is true, and useful.
Here is a common example of fallacious circular reasoning:
"Gregory always votes wisely, because he always votes Libertarian."
And I would agree that that is an attempt at circular reasoning. But that sentence would only be true if "wisely" contained the information that a person votes Libertarian - which of course is arguable.
Edited by: ksolway at: 4/2/04 2:54
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 257
(4/2/04 2:34)
Reply
| Re: Circular reasoning
Rubbish is good and you can't dispute this because you aren't me, so you don't know how I am defining "rubbish." This statement dispels ignorance because I say it does. Therefore, I am right, rubbish is good, and nothing you say can refute me.
| BrainMan50
Ponderer
Posts: 103
(4/2/04 2:48)
Reply | Re:
I think it would be helpful to define enlightenment as "my head was set on fire, enightening me".
But as it is, I think we must ask ourselves if enlightenment could be anything but circular should David be correct. Obviously, being stated as circular, it couldn't. Thus, enlightenment must be circular.
No really. Let us suppose David is enightened. Let us further suppose that enlightenment cannot be taught- only obtained personally. What should his arguments look like? How would a non-circular argument be better? And wouldn't it be wrong if it wasn't circular in some sense?
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 25
(4/2/04 3:34)
Reply
| Re: Circular reasoning
Kevin, you don't have a case here. Your definition of circular reasoning digresses from the commonly accepted definition of circular reasoning, therefore it is wrong. It is wrong for a good reason, namely because the description "reasoning that goes in a circle" is ambiguous. It can mean circularity and it can mean tautology. You are confusing these two notions. All formalized arguments are -in a strict sense- tautologies, but they are not circular.
Kevin: All reasonings (ie, circular reasonings) are used to dispel ignorance. For that reason alone they are not "invalid" or "non-arguments".
To what end an argument is used is beyond the argument itself. That's on a meta-level. An argument -whether valid or wrong- can as well be used to conjure up illusions which is what you and David seem to engage in here.
Kevin: Nevertheless, an argument can't be fallacious if it is true, and useful.
This is not so. In formal logic, fallacy is an erroneous argument structure, which is independent of the truth values of the conclusion and the premise. For example, I can say "Weininger died young because he shot himself." This argument is fallacious, although it is true that Weiniger died young and that he shot himself.
Thomas
| ksolway
Inductee
Posts: 4
(4/2/04 4:15)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Circular reasoning
Quote:
Your definition of circular reasoning digresses from the commonly accepted definition of circular reasoning . . . All formalized arguments are -in a strict sense- tautologies, but they are not circular.
An argument that ends at the same place where it began is circular in anyone's language.
Quote:
Kevin: All reasonings (ie, circular reasonings) are used to dispel ignorance. For that reason alone they are not "invalid" or "non-arguments".
To what end an argument is used is beyond the argument itself.
Not true. An argument has an end inherent in the argument itself - namely, a conclusion, and hopefully a truth. All arguments are used to arrive at truth, and hence to dispel ignorance.
Quote:
Kevin: Nevertheless, an argument can't be fallacious if it is true, and useful.
This is not so. In formal logic, fallacy is an erroneous argument structure, which is independent of the truth values of the conclusion and the premise.
Yes, but I was talking about a true argument. A true argument is not fallacious, has true premises, and arrives at a true conclusion.
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 25
(4/2/04 4:22)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
It looks like I'm going to have provide commentary on my own comments . . . .
Opto Ergo Sum wrote:
Quote:
First shot out of the box, David makes some obscure historical comments about Robert visiting another forum, and whose idea this was, blah, blah,...; then something to do with Enlightenment; then some attacks on Robert about ideas and methodology that haven’t been presented yet. Yawn
I don't think you've made the effort to understand the arguments I presented, which were very tight and very deep. There was no hint of an attack on Robert in my opening statement. I simply articulated the logic involved in being unenlightened - which is that one has no means of comprehending what enlightenment is and no means of judging which parts of the scriptures are valid, if any. In light of this, the phrase "dubious, second-hand joke methods" was not referring to any specific method that Robert might employ, but to the fact that any method of validation which is performed by the unenlightened mind is, by definition, a dubious, second-hand joke method.
--
Naturyl wrote:
Quote:
It is intended chiefly to entertain an audience of community participants.
Just for the record, this is not why I am here. Any entertainment that the audience experiences is merely a spin-off, and not the chief purpose of the debate.
| ksolway
Inductee
Posts: 4
(4/2/04 7:03)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Comment on Robert's opening entry
Robert begins his argument by stating that he doesn't know whether enlightenment exists, shooting himself in the foot from the word go . . . but earning one point for honesty.
Robert then argues that David, when in discussion with others, and when asked directly whether he is enlightened, should not reveal the truth. But Robert fails to provide any reason why this truth should be deliberately hidden.
I happen to know that Robert himself goes out of his way to ask enlightened people whether they are enlightened, and when they answer in the affirmative, Robert then accuses them of "boasting".
Robert then made the highly dubious claim that "the literature is reasonable evidence and it ought to be considered.". Although heaven knows why he would make such an uncalled for and wild claim.
Robert then made the curious claim that "circular reasoning cannot prove itself." And why can't circular reasoning prove itself? Answer: because it's circular!
A lot of Robert's argument centres on David's supposed desire to have his enlightenment taken on faith by all. But this "claim" seems to have been taken from thin air, as nowhere in David's essay did he say that no-one should question his enlightenment, and nor did he state that people should take his enlightenment on faith. Indeed, David's enlightenment would seem to be irrelevant to David himself, but is highly significant only to Robert.
Robert then proceeds to criticize David for basing his philosophy on his own reason. Another shot, this time in the other foot . . . but again, this earns one more point for honesty.
Robert then quotes some words, written by somebody else, about enlightenment. But as Robert has already honestly admitted that he doesn't know whether enlightenment exists, this would seem to be doubly pointless.
All of a sudden, Robert seems to know what enlightenment is, and claims, in his own words "Enlightenment is quite simply ineffable." Go figure.
Robert then claims that "words are not true". So what are we to make of those very words? . . .
Having consumately defeated his own argument (shooting himself in the foot a third time?), Robert then claims that David's conception of enlightenment is inhumane. But does he provide any reasons or evidence for this claim?
None.
It seems to me an act of compassion that David is even participating in the discussion with Robert, but Robert is not appreciative.
On the positive side, it wasn't badly written from a technical standpoint, and showed some spirit.
Overall score: 2 points for honesty Edited by: ksolway at: 4/2/04 9:03
| lbartoli
Posts: 1
(4/2/04 9:07)
Reply | Comment on Robert's opening entry
Well, that's pretty much how it appears to my mind (K Solway post), as it would to anyone with a high degree of rationality.
But i don't see this fellow being so honest, not really. For instance, i dont think his challenge was sincere-- ie. I dont think he went into it with the belief that anything substantial would or could be accomplished. Let me explain:
I think his intention was simply an egotistical desire to strut his stuff amongst friends and aquaintances, knowing well in advance that in this place at the end of it all HE will be awarded the victory, and not just over any man, but over a self-proclaimed genius of geniuses--none other than the mighty Quinn himself! Thereafter, Mr Larkin could expect to be held in high esteme.
Quite immature, it is, and rather sickening, earning Robert -2 points.
If i were David i would not be forced by any rules or person to continue this useless exercise beyond the point where he feels any benefit could be derived by any honest man.
Leo
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1953
(4/2/04 9:40)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
biggier,
Quote:
My MO respecting philosophy revolves around the extent to which an idea can be attached to something that can, in turn, be reasonably embedded in actual human social discourse.
I agree, but I think you have too myopic a view of what considerations can be embedded in human social discourse. Today's abstract meanderings might be tomorrow's policy-setting principles. It's like with science -- a lot of 'pure science' has no imaginable practical applications now, but similarly apparently useless pure science of yesteryear is the basis of most of our modern technology.
Quote:
If someone isn't saying something that allows me to understand human interactions more or less existentially then, in my view, they are not saying much at all that is relevent TO human transactions.
So you see, you reject something as useless because it's not obviously useful to you -- and not obviously useful at this time. You might as well hop into the time machine and tell Maxwell that his electro-magnetism unification is a waste of time... it was certainly seen thusly back then.
The position that i take is that much of philosophy is indeed crap, but we have no way of telling which part until it plays itself out; so let philosophers do their thing, and see what develops out of it down the road.
Quote:
The debate, in my view, is, thus far, mental masturbation of the worst sort.
I agree; but you seem to be drawing parallel between this debate and actual philosophy, which i find to be, at minimum, deeply misguided attempt to create guilt (of philosophy) by association (with this debate).
Quote:
I have, in fact, been going back and forth with David in the Genius Forum and I find he is positively allergic to anything that could not be wholey construed by a someone who never left his house---ever.
Quinn is pretty much explicitly rationalistic -- just like Aristotle, he believed that the greatest truths can be derived by thought alone, without reliance on the sensible world.
Quote:
Robert [again, thus far] appears to have gone out on the back porch and perambulated around the yard a few times but I don't see sort of thinking that would lead me to believe he is not just one more Academic Scholar. That may change down the road, of course.
I don't know whether he is a scholar, but his contribution thus far has had basically no philosophical component. Quinn has tangentially touched upon a couple of ideas, but I think he is too ignorant to recognize the truly interesting topics he merely bounced off of.
Quote:
Intellectuals run the philosophy departments of the world.
Not the sorts of intellectuals who hold debates such as these... Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | ParadiseChild
Postulator
Posts: 326
(4/2/04 10:19)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
As a long time "student" of enlightenment myself, I found Quinn's 2nd discourse particularly cogent and well balanced. I give Quinn an 8 for his efforts so far. I place 800 units of "currency" on him to win (and 200 on Robert).
I've found Robert's contribution so far dubious-- that is to say, weak and unfocused, as though he really hasn't decided what point(s) to make, and is just sniping at Quinn, hoping for a lucky shot. I give him a 4, and look forward to his second salvo.
I've found the comments thread more interesting than the debate so far, and do appreciate all the fine minds at work here. Jolly good fun.
For the record, I pretty much agree with Quinn's stance on enlightenment (though this is the first I've read him).
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1954
(4/2/04 11:31)
Reply
| Re: The Play-By-Play
Solway,
Quote:
According to the definition of "tautology" ("a needless repitition" , they never can.
Dude, check out the logic definition of tautology -- that's the one which is relevant in philosophical debate.
Any purely deductive argument is a tautology. Any mathematical theorem is a tautology. Pythagorean theorem for example is such -- but the fact that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 in Euclideanspace is a useful fact, despite it being implicit in the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
This is yet another case where your ridiculous refusal to understand logic bites you in the ass.
Quote:
There are three statements of truth here. Let's take each one individually. "All men are mortal". Why are all men mortal? Because a characteristic of men is being mortal
Now this is pure useless circularity. You are restating the same phrase without producing anything actually userful. 'a characteristic of men is being mortal'. Yeah, a profound improvement on 'all men are mortal'.
Quote:
Once again, both circular and "tautological".
it's tautological, but not circular, because its conclusion is different from its premises. This syllogism takes the information which is implicit in the premises, and makes it explicit. it's tautological, but not circular, and in explicating the implicit information, it's useful -- just like the Pythagorean theorem.
Quote:
You might claim that these statements are not "circular", but they are certainly circular - it's just that they make a very tight circle.
You can take any statement and make a circular argument out of it, but that doesn't mean that the statement is itself a circular argument. usually, it's just a premise, asserting a relation -- an assertion, a postulate, not an argument.
You could really benefit from studying elementary logic -- actual logic, the real thing, not your silly genius bellybutton lint that you pretend is useful for more than stroking your egos.
Quote:
Let's examine "Hate is not conquered by hate".
Actually, it's not possible to break this down any further, as it is already in its simplest state.
It is like saying "You can't refrain from eating, by eating", or "Not eating is not the same as eating".
No, it's not. You are implicitly asserting that the original relationship -- 'conquered' -- is the same as inequality. So, let's call this relation, 'conquered', C.
Hate = Hate
simple identity. However, this doesn't imply:
^(Hate C hate)
and I gave you examples which explicitly demonstrate that relation C is not the same as inequality (e.g. you can conquer fire with fire).
Quote:
Once again, both circular and "tautological".
it's neither. Your claim is based on implicitly asserting certain characteristics of the relation C ('conquerable').
And once again, you demonstrate exactly what I was talking about -- that you abuse logic, claiming that you use it to arrive at ultimate truth, when in fact you use a veneer of logic (rather bad one in fact) to lend undue credibility to your assumptions.
Quote:
In the case of "Socrates is mortal", the word "Socrates" contains the information "mortal".
This is the case with all deductive arguments -- the conclusion is implicit in the premises. The point of the argument is to make it explicit.
Quote:
My definition can't be wrong, as no definition can be wrong
Yes, it can. In using English language, you implicitly consent to a set of common definitions which make the very communication possible. Your habit of redefining terms is simply one more instance of the intellectual dishonesty you rely on for your arguments. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him.Edited by: Victor Danilchenko at: 4/2/04 11:34
| voce io
Inductee
Posts: 44
(4/2/04 12:16)
Reply | ...
Based on various sutras and texts, a person can get the idea that "enlightenment doesn't inherently exist to an enlightened person", which makes nearly all of David's second post false.
| Bene Tleilax
Poet Laureate
Posts: 958
(4/2/04 12:44)
Reply
 | Re: ...
I agree that Robert made a silly mistake. He should have developed his own opposing, positive assertion rather than simply a negative assertion angled at breaking down David's opening comments. There is something to be said for this being the first debate here of this kind though. Can you really blame him for mussing the rules a bit?
I think the problem with David's proposed notion of self-validation is not it's circularity, but rather it's own general incredibility. In order for any method of validation to be reliable there need to be some sort of non-subjective criteria on which to base the validation. Becoming aware of your own enlightenment should require more than just "feeling like" you're enlightened. The method for validating one's own enlightenment is only meaningful if it can be used to validate the enlightenment of others. If there is no meaningful way of validating the enlightenment of others, then there is no meaningful way of validating one's own enlightenment. Be warned: Understand nothing. All comprehension is temporary.
- Mentat Fixe (Adacto)Edited by: Bene Tleilax at: 4/2/04 12:44
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 654
(4/2/04 14:00)
Reply | Re: comments on commentary
Nat,Quote:
Robert's response is what debate should be about.
Except that Robert did not address the argument which happens to be the existence of enlightenment.
Quote:
Additionally, he is careful to supply a great deal of reference material to back up his statements.
All of which was irrelevant, not to mention antithetical to his position that enlightenment does not exist.
Quote:
In summary, it is clear that Robert went to considerable effort in formulating his entry, and it is the opinion of this commentator that he was thorough, effective, and incisive. He took full advantage of all the material David left for him to work with, and he presented the appearance of a well-informed, realistic person with no interest in self-aggrandizement. Overall, I give his entry a nine.
I think you're an apologist. You completely miss the fact that he didn't even state, much less argue his own position
Quote:
Samadhim, aren't you the guy I pistol-whipped about naturalism a few months ago?
Uh, no. After a discussion, we agreed that the difference in our positions was a matter of emphasis rather than substance. We can always go to the thread if your memory fails.
Quote:
Regardless, the two of you are both looking at this thing all wrong. It is a contest, a duel, a fight. It is intended to produce a winner and a loser, and we, the audience, get to watch the fireworks. The two of you need to stop complaining and enjoy the show.
I am enjoying the show, thus my commentary. Nevertheless, I have a real interest in the topic and if it is poorly presented, I will point that out.
| WolfsonJakk
Inductee
Posts: 10
(4/2/04 14:41)
Reply | Re: ...
Bene wrote,
Quote:
In order for any method of validation to be reliable there need to be some sort of non-subjective criteria on which to base the validation.
Which of course would be impossible to find. First of all, there must be a definition of "enlightenment" on which all could agree. Secondly, using non-subjective methods of testing a state that is entirely subjective might be hard to achieve.
Essentially, we are left with the fact that anybody can claim enlightenment. Using David's definition, could any claimant be said to be completely free of delusion? What if they are lying? What constitutes delusion on a granular level? All of these issues would be significant hurdles to overcome in developing non-subjective criteria for the term "enlightenment."
Tharan Edited by: WolfsonJakk at: 4/2/04 14:46
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1959
(4/2/04 15:37)
Reply
| Re: ...
... All of which is why you can't really talk about enlightenment. Quinn pays lip service to ineffability of enlightenment, its purely experiential quality, but he doesn't practice what he preaches.
The ultimate issue here is that if we take buddhism at face value, then we can rationally determine what enlightenment isn't, but not what it is; to which end Larkin is employing the available sources, to show that Quinn is wrong about enlightenment, while not claiming to have the correct answer himself. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1489
(4/2/04 15:40)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
Samadhim,
I am not arguing there is no enlightenment. One of the problems in this debate is that David Quinn and I are both supporters of various eastern views although we understand them differently. Consequently some of the elements of David's conception I would not ordinarily oppose at all - this is an inherently difficult debate in that respect and it is also part of why I am intentionally making David Quinn part of the debate, since he has claimed to be enlightened. It would have been easier to have argued there is no enlightenment but since I do not know that the assertion is true I have chosen not to be a weasel.
David gave an unsupported interpretation which being unsupported cannot stand on its own. While the argument 'enlightenment is ineffable' might seem negative it is still a positive assertion and one which is backed by Buddhist authority. I might not be able to win every issue here, especially since to be thorough would exhaust me and probably bore the reader, but I'll be satisfied with winning sufficiently and I hope I can adequately communicate.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1490
(4/2/04 15:53)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
Again, there are no debates I've ever seen or read (or in which I've participated; I've been a debater, judge, and coach) where the opposition is ignored in the developmental phase. G. took the definitions literally; he then corrected the error. At that point there would have been no harm, no foul since David could not have begun with refutation anyway, although he did attempt to rebut past arguments.
No rules were broken here. It was a strategic problem to limit the post as I did - we have only so much reasonable length before we invite annoying the reader, and there is a second developmental post to come anyway. It is sort of "an organic thing" and since it will pass on shortly anyway let's try to avoid killing it prematurely.
Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 4/2/04 15:55
| birdofhermes
Inductee
Posts: 6
(4/2/04 16:02)
Reply | Re: ...
Quote:
I will leave again and return to my own forum, which although nearly abandoned,
I don't know about that, but the black on white format kills my eyes.
Quote:
If there is no meaningful way of validating the enlightenment of others, then there is no meaningful way of validating one's own enlightenment.
This is the difficulty with his position.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 656
(4/2/04 16:12)
Reply | Re: my comments
Robert,
Thanks for the clarification. You should have addressed Guild's intro to the debate then as inaccurate.
Whether Q has claimed enlightenment somewhere else, he hasn't claimed it here so I think it's irrelevant to the debate. As an aside, I think it is silly to debate someone claiming to be enlightened on whether he is enlightened since such a claim itself tells you all you need to know. Enlightenment is not a distinction, it is the end of distinctions so claiming distinction by way of enlightenment is not to even understand what the term means.
I don't think his interpretation of enlightenment is being addressed by your bringing up Buddhist scripture. I don't see the gist of what he is saying as being contrary to scripture. I just see it as being weak on its face. That enlightenment is only "known" by enlightenment is a tautology. Nevertheless, enlightenment must be indicated by some behavior or influence, otherwise it is no different than ordinary consciousness. Q's argument on that point is laughable. I hope you choose to address it.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1960
(4/2/04 16:59)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Now, Quinn's latest post in the debate, which I finally bothered to read...
He doesn't understand the nature of objection WRT enlightenment. Granting Quinn's premises on enlightenment, the problem here is that there is no way to tell the difference between the true statement by an enlightened individual, 'I am enlightened', and the false statement by an unenlightened individual, 'I am not enlightened'.
Note that there is no way to verify the difference either for others or for one's self. If one sincerely believes themselves to be enlightened, one cannot tell whether they are indeed enlightened or deceiving themselves.
This is why self-verification of enlightenment doesn't work -- not because the enlightened individual cannot verify their enlightenment, but because the unenelightened individual cannot verify their lack thereof.
The only falsification possible is when the unenlightened individual attains enlightenment, at which point they can say; 'Aha, I was not truly enlightened before, but I am now!' However, this still suffers from indeterminacy problem -- you still cannot tell whether you are truly enlightened, or merely deluded in a new and different way.
Since nothing guarantees than a given individual will ever experience such a state of transition, much less that such a transition will be from unenlightenment to genuine enlightenment, there is nothing -- nothing -- that an individual can reliably base their self-determination of enlightenment on. Which is to say, self-determination of enlightenment is useless towards the end of determining whether one is actually enlightened -- it only tells us whether one thinks they are enlightened, and nothing more.
So, when Quinn proclaims that there is no other method to verify enlightenment besides self-verification, he doesn't realize that self-verification isn't such a method either; that there is no way to determine if one is enlightened. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | birdofhermes
Inductee
Posts: 7
(4/2/04 17:26)
Reply | Re: my comments
Quote:
-- not because the enlightened individual cannot verify their enlightenment, but because the unenelightened individual cannot verify their lack thereof.
Yes, this is the crux of the problem.
Quote:
and the false statement by an unenlightened individual, 'I am not enlightened'.
You are of the opinion that everyone is already enlightened?
Quote:
So, when Quinn proclaims that there is no other method to verify enlightenment besides self-verification, he doesn't realize that self-verification isn't such a method either;
What is your take on the enlightenment question?
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 656
(4/2/04 18:48)
Reply | Re: Q2 commentary
For those interested in a play-by-play:
Q's long post today tried to explain why only enlightenment can know itself as enlightened. His argument was basically, only an enlightened mind is without delusion and since a deluded mind cannot recognize its own delusion, neither can it recognize that which is without delusion. Sorry, Q, not buying. I'm not the most intelligent person on this board yet that doesn't mean I can't recognize greater intelligence when I see it.
Before you can exclude recognition of enlightenment by those not so graced, you must say what it is. You refer to delusion of inherent existence. What does non-inherent existence mean? You play with words without actually saying anything. If a person is enlightened, some quality of his or her nature is different from that of an ordinary human being. That quality should be discernible on some level, whether a complete understanding of it is possible or not. Otherwise enlightenment would make no difference at all.
You refer to a crystal clear mind free of false interpretations. Are you saying enlightenment is mental? If so, then clearly it is conditioned as all mental states are conditioned and subject to change. If it is not mental, then a crystal clear mind has nothing to do with enlightenment. You don't seem to have a good idea of your own subject.
Your last paragraph is a description without foundation. Not seeking happiness in phenomena, nor truth in concept nor desire in outcome is fine but why should we believe it? What is enlightenment that these should be given up? What replaces them? Why should it compel our interest? Saying we are deluded and unconscious is merely labeling, without providing access to your concept you are giving us the wrapping and withholding the gift.
Sorry Q, another 3. Arguing your concept cannot be understood or recognized by us ordinary folk (why are you here then?), failing to explain nebulous concepts, misapprehending your own concept, okay description but no basis for it.
| ksolway
Inductee
Posts: 5
(4/2/04 18:57)
Reply | Edit
| Re: The Play-By-Play
Victor wrote:
Quote:
Any purely deductive argument is a tautology.
We are in agreement on this.
Quote:
. . . it's not circular, because its conclusion is different from its premises.
In form (ie, mere words) only, but not in content.
Quote:
This syllogism takes the information which is implicit in the premises, and makes it explicit.
I don't draw the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit". If there is information contained in premises, then that information is "explicit" as far as I'm concerned - that is to say, it is expressed. "Implicit" means unexpressed, but if something is expressed by the premises, just as the name "Socrates" expresses mortality, it is explicit. If something were not expressed by a premise, then we would not be able to access it.
Quote:
You could really benefit from studying elementary logic
I reject the classifications of modern academic logic, for some of the reasons listed above.
Quote:
K: Once again, both circular and "tautological".
Your claim is based on implicitly asserting certain characteristics of the relation C ('conquerable').
Yes, but I would call them "explicit".
Quote:
K: In the case of "Socrates is mortal", the word "Socrates" contains the information "mortal".
V: This is the case with all deductive arguments -- the conclusion is implicit in the premises. The point of the argument is to make it explicit.
I hold that it is already explicit.
Quote:
K: My definition can't be wrong, as no definition can be wrong
Yes, it can. In using English language, you implicitly consent to a set of common definitions which make the very communication possible.
A definition can be impractical, if nobody else uses it, but not wrong. My definition of a circular argument - an argument which ends at the place where it began - or which contains the conclusion in its premises - is a useful definition, shared by many.
| WolfsonJakk
Inductee
Posts: 10
(4/2/04 19:03)
Reply | Re: my comments
If we can neither speak nor conceptualize this thing called enlightenment, then obviously we bring it's existence into question. What was Buddha speaking of? Jesus? Bodhidharmma?
Alternatively, what is the fundamental purpose of the pursuit of Western knowledge? I argue both have historically pursued a very similar goal; namely the transcendance of misery and suffering yet only differring in method. The Western method is roughly one of empiricism; bringing the outer world in. The Eastern (Buddhist) method is roughly one of subjective understanding; bringing the inner world out.
To his credit, I don't believe David considers himself a Buddhist. One can begin in a particular place yet end up elsewhere. Both methods ultimately point to the fusion of dual states; of east/west, male/female, right/wrong.
Tharan |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Bene Tleilax
Poet Laureate
Posts: 972
(4/2/04 19:11)
Reply
| Re: my comments
I reject the classifications of modern academic logic, for some of the reasons listed above.
So that's why you're so much fun to talk to! :) Be warned: Understand nothing. All comprehension is temporary.
- Mentat Fixe (Adacto) | ksolway
Inductee
Posts: 6
(4/2/04 19:16)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Q2 commentary
samadhim7:
Quote:
Q's long post today tried to explain why only enlightenment can know itself as enlightened. His argument was basically, only an enlightened mind is without delusion and since a deluded mind cannot recognize its own delusion, neither can it recognize that which is without delusion. Sorry, Q, not buying. I'm not the most intelligent person on this board yet that doesn't mean I can't recognize greater intelligence when I see it.
Actually, David didn't say that the unenlightened person can't make any judgements at all concerning enlightenment, but that "The judgments made by everyone else will always be twisted and distorted by the presence of their own delusions. At best, they can only make a few blind guesses in the dark, but that's about it."
Indeed, a person can make determinations about spheres higher than their own, but the accuracy of those determinations might be wanting. However, those same determinations might also have a good deal of truth to them. The "nose" is often a good thing to follow, when it is dark.
Quote:
Are you saying enlightenment is mental? If so, then clearly it is conditioned as all mental states are conditioned and subject to change.
Even Buddhas are conditioned, for if Buddhas were not caused to become Buddhas they would not have become Buddhas (as opposed to those who were caused to remain ignorant). A Buddha's mental state is caused to be what it is, the same as for a normal person, and a decapitation will put a stop to that particular mental state, the same as for any normal person.
Quote:
Not seeking happiness in phenomena, nor truth in concept nor desire in outcome is fine but why should we believe it? What is enlightenment that these should be given up?
I agree that David hasn't fleshed these things out. But remember that Robert is ready to pounce like a hyena on any positive or affirmative statement David makes about anything. However I'm sure that David will throw caution to the wind, like I have done above, very soon, for the sake of the reader, and regardless of Robert.
Quote:
Enlightenment is not a distinction, it is the end of distinctions so claiming distinction by way of enlightenment is not to even understand what the term means.
Nevertheless the Buddha claimed to be enlightened and to have conquered ignorance. If enlightenment and ignorance were not distinctions we would not be able to speak of them.
Edited by: ksolway at: 4/2/04 20:05
| ksolway
Inductee
Posts: 7
(4/2/04 19:45)
Reply | Edit
| Re: ...
Voce Io wrote:
Quote:
Based on various sutras and texts, a person can get the idea that "enlightenment doesn't inherently exist to an enlightened person", which makes nearly all of David's second post false.
David hasn't claimed that enlightenment inherently exists, only that it exists.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 26
(4/2/04 19:58)
Reply
| Re: Q2 commentary
Samadhim wrote:
Quote:
Q's long post today tried to explain why only enlightenment can know itself as enlightened. His argument was basically, only an enlightened mind is without delusion and since a deluded mind cannot recognize its own delusion, neither can it recognize that which is without delusion. Sorry, Q, not buying. I'm not the most intelligent person on this board yet that doesn't mean I can't recognize greater intelligence when I see it.
True. People are not all uniformally ignorant. Some are closer to the brink of enlightenment and can perceive things with relatively little distortion, while others are completely blind and will never experience an inkling of what Truth is.
A lot of it is luck. A person might have a "nose" for Truth, as Kevin puts it, but he still cannot be sure that it is a reliable guide. Only by taking the plunge and following this guide all the way will he able to reach a conclusion one way or the other. If, by good fortune, his "nose" is reliable, then as he progresses his delusions will start to fade away and he will become more consciously aware of the true direction. He will reach a point where his conscious reasoning takes over and he can begin to zero in on enlightenment like a smart bomb.
Quote:
Before you can exclude recognition of enlightenment by those not so graced, you must say what it is. You refer to delusion of inherent existence. What does non-inherent existence mean? You play with words without actually saying anything.
Well, I did explain that it meant the belief that things objectively or independently exist. I admit that I didn't expand on this in great detail, but there is only so much one can include in a short essay. I'll try to explore this issue more fully in the next round.
Quote:
Your last paragraph is a description without foundation. Not seeking happiness in phenomena, nor truth in concept nor desire in outcome is fine but why should we believe it? What is enlightenment that these should be given up? What replaces them?
Okay, I'll try to go into this as well.
Quote:
Sorry Q, another 3. Arguing your concept cannot be understood or recognized by us ordinary folk (why are you here then?), failing to explain nebulous concepts, misapprehending your own concept, okay description but no basis for it.
Ah, you're a tough taskmaster. Keeping me on my toes, you are. It's good to see.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 27
(4/2/04 21:48)
Reply
| Re: Q2 commentary
Evidently, I misread one of Samadhim's comments:
Quote:
Before you can exclude recognition of enlightenment by those not so graced, you must say what it is. You refer to delusion of inherent existence. What does non-inherent existence mean? You play with words without actually saying anything.
Non-inherent existence is what a thing possesses when it lacks the capacity to exist in and of itself. A shadow, for example, doesn't "inherently exist" as it derives the whole of its existence from external sources - such as the sun, the ground, the object casting the shadow, etc. Take any of these things away and the shadow disappears. Everything is like this.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 657
(4/2/04 21:48)
Reply | Re: Q2 commentary
ksolway,Quote:
Indeed, a person can make determinations about spheres higher than their own, but the accuracy of those determinations might be wanting. However, those same determinations might also have a good deal of truth to them. The "nose" is often a good thing to follow, when it is dark.
What an ordinary person can do is note the difference in behavior and words with ordinary human behavior and expression of someone who claims or is designated by others as enlightened. If there is nothing that stands out, then there is no reason to point to enlightenment. What stands out can be examined.
Quote:
Even Buddhas are conditioned, for if Buddhas were not caused to become Buddhas they would not have become Buddhas (as opposed to those who were caused to remain ignorant). A Buddha's mental state is caused to be what it is, the same as for a normal person, and a decapitation will put a stop to that particular mental state, the same as for any normal person.
Body and mind are conditioned, enlightenment is beyond both. Enlightenment is not caused; it can only exist now being unconditioned. The sun always shines but on a cloudy day we just don't see it. Clouds are the identification with mind and body. When the clouds dissolve, the sun appears. Identification is conditioned, what is behind it is not.
Quote:
I agree that David hasn't fleshed these things out. But remember that Robert is ready to pounce like a hyena on any positive or affirmative statement David makes about anything. However I'm sure that David will throw caution to the wind, like I have done above, very soon, for the sake of the reader, and regardless of Robert.
Let's hope so. He hasn't said much yet.
Quote:
I wrote: Enlightenment is not a distinction, it is the end of distinctions so claiming distinction by way of enlightenment is not to even understand what the term means.
You replied: Nevertheless the Buddha claimed to be enlightened and to have conquered ignorance. If enlightenment and ignorance were not distinctions we would not be able to speak of them.
We don't know what the Buddha said, we know what people have said about him.
The sense of distinction I point to as false is "my" enlightenment. There is no my enlightenment and your enlightenment, there is enlightenment which all share right now. What is it? The contents of awareness may vary from person to person but that which is aware is not yours or mine. To claim it as such is nonsense.
Enlightenment is not in contrast to ignorance! Knowledge and ignorance are in duality, the movie if you will. Enlightenment is the light which makes the movie possible. No one on the screen owns it, but whatever they think or say is made possible by it.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 25
(4/2/04 22:02)
Reply
| Re: The Play-By-Play
Kevin: I don't draw the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit".
The you are wrong again. You are blinded by semantics. Look at the argument structure (1) P -> Q, (2) Q -> R, (3) P -> R. The last statement is not explicitely contained in the first and second. P -> R is a new statement.
Kevin: If something were not expressed by a premise, then we would not be able to access it.
And that's why it is tautologous. As mentioned before, you confuse tautology and circularity. Apparently the commentaries on circularity which were given previously in this thread had an effect on David's second argument. Hilariously, he is defending circularity by saying something to the effect that you can deduce that something is true because it is true. He doesn't even realize that the truth content of statements in an argument is independent of the argument structure and that an argument structure can be fallacious regardless of the truth value of the premises and conclusion. That's a gaping hole it has to be expected that Robert will exploit this grand failure ruthlessly.
Kevin: I reject the classifications of modern academic logic, for some of the reasons listed above.
It is a "blue pill / red pill" situation, Kevin. You can either continue to ignore logic and use suggestive prose and muddled reasoning to gloss it over, or you can study logic, and subject your own arguments to logical scrutiny. Only the latter will result in sound arguments. The former will result in pedestrian prose. David is pretty much in the same situation. His book is actually a case study of common fallacies, a true gold mine in this regard.
Thomas
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 657
(4/2/04 22:02)
Reply | Re: Q2 commentary
Quinn,Quote:
True. People are not all uniformally ignorant. Some are closer to the brink of enlightenment and can perceive things with relatively little distortion, while others are completely blind and will never experience an inkling of what Truth is.
It is not a question of ignorance, it is a question of identification. And you're right, some are more identified than others.
Quote:
Non-inherent existence is what a thing possesses when it lacks the capacity to exist in and of itself. A shadow, for example, doesn't "inherently exist" as it derives the whole of its existence from external sources - such as the sun, the ground, the object casting the shadow, etc. Take any of these things away and the shadow disappears. Everything is like this.
Okay, good analogy. So what is casting the shadow? I understand that body and mind are the shadow. What is the "substance"? This should have been your first point.
Quote:
Ah, you're a tough taskmaster. Keeping me on my toes, you are. It's good to see.
Lol. I'm glad you're not taking my comments personally. I just have a real interest in enlightenment and some very good teachers.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 28
(4/2/04 22:10)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Victor wrote:
Quote:
Now, Quinn's latest post in the debate, which I finally bothered to read...
He doesn't understand the nature of objection WRT enlightenment. Granting Quinn's premises on enlightenment, the problem here is that there is no way to tell the difference between the true statement by an enlightened individual, 'I am enlightened', and the false statement by an unenlightened individual, 'I am not enlightened'.
Note that there is no way to verify the difference either for others or for one's self. If one sincerely believes themselves to be enlightened, one cannot tell whether they are indeed enlightened or deceiving themselves.
The enlightened person can tell the difference - and that's all that matters as far as the enlightened person is concerned.
You might tell people that you love Chopin, but other people can't verify whether you are mistaken or not. Only you can verify it inwardly.
Quote:
This is why self-verification of enlightenment doesn't work -- not because the enlightened individual cannot verify their enlightenment, but because the unenelightened individual cannot verify their lack thereof
The failings of an unenlightened person have no bearing one way or the other on the enlightened person's awareness and knowledge, just as the fumblings of the scientific illiterate have no bearing on the awareness and knowledge of the expert scientist.
| ksolway
Apprentice
Posts: 8
(4/2/04 22:25)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Logic
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
Kevin: I don't draw the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit".
T: You are blinded by semantics. Look at the argument structure (1) P -> Q, (2) Q -> R, (3) P -> R. The last statement is not explicitely contained in the first and second. P -> R is a new statement.
You have only proven that P -> R is not a new statement, as all the information is contained in P -> Q, and is explicit in it.
Quote:
Kevin: If something were not expressed by a premise, then we would not be able to access it.
T: And that's why it is tautologous.
I have already agreed that it is tautologous - there's no debate there . . . .
Quote:
. . . you confuse tautology and circularity.
No, it's the academic logicians who fail to recognize circularity. I suspect they fail to do this because it would make all of their work seem pointless, and would eat away at their pride.
It would also make them have to think twice before they casually dismiss other people's arguments as "circular reasoning", before they have even tried to understand them, which would really throw a spanner in the works.
Quote:
. . . That's a gaping hole it has to be expected that Robert will exploit this grand failure ruthlessly.
We'll see.
Quote:
Kevin. You can either continue to ignore logic . . .
It is not I who am ignoring logic, but the modern academic "logicians". Only an enlightened person can be properly logical. An ordinary ignorant person will always be flailing about helplessly, regardless of whether they are a "logician" or not.
Quote:
His [David's] book is actually a case study of common fallacies, a true gold mine in this regard.
Yet you have so far failed in revealing a single such fallacy.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 29
(4/2/04 22:28)
Reply
| Re: Q2 commentary
Samadhim wrote:
Quote:
DQ: Non-inherent existence is what a thing possesses when it lacks the capacity to exist in and of itself. A shadow, for example, doesn't "inherently exist" as it derives the whole of its existence from external sources - such as the sun, the ground, the object casting the shadow, etc. Take any of these things away and the shadow disappears. Everything is like this.
S: Okay, good analogy. So what is casting the shadow?
Nature's causal processes.
Quote:
I understand that body and mind are the shadow. What is the "substance"? This should have been your first point.
Well, I did make this point, but I don't think you discerned it. Everything is a shadow, not just body and mind, but utterly everything. Whatever exists, in whatever form, is caused to exist and is ultimately an illusion. Because of this, there is no subtance. There is only the eternal restlessness of cause and effect.
| ksolway
Apprentice
Posts: 8
(4/2/04 22:53)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Q2 commentary
samadhim7 wrote:
Quote:
If there is nothing that stands out, then there is no reason to point to enlightenment. What stands out can be examined.
That sounds reasonable enough. But what often happens is that an ignorant person fails to perceive anything "standing out" because their ignorance makes them blind to it.
Quote:
Enlightenment is not caused.
If enlightenment is defined as the shedding of delusions, or even the dissolution of "clouds" from the "sun", then it is certainly caused.
But the "light" itself is not caused. I'll grant you that.
Quote:
The sense of distinction I point to as false is "my" enlightenment.
There is no problem with "my" enlightenment when the person is truly enlightened - as he knows who he really is.
Quote:
There is enlightenment which all share right now.
The Light is everywhere right now, but, unfortunately, not the enlightenment - otherwise we would all be fully enlightened Buddhas. I wish that were the case, but it's not.
Quote:
Enlightenment is not in contrast to ignorance!
This is a common mantra that many people chant nowadays. Similarly with "No-one is better than anyone else", "Everyone is of equal value", "Nothing is true", "Words are not true", etc, etc. Unfortunately they do this to make themselves feel better, and to make them feel that they have no further work to do.
I don't believe you mean it in that way, however it is extremely important to point out the vast gulf between ignorance and wisdom, even though the Truth is everywhere, in front of people's noses, and as Jesus says: "The Kingdom of Heaven is right here on Earth".
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 25
(4/2/04 22:54)
Reply
| Re: my comments
David: ...suddenly, though the sheer workings of chance, his mind stops experiencing false thoughts and he enters into a period of enlightenment. ...It might have been the result of a quantum fluctuation or whatever.
That's hilarious. Hot tea science.
David: The enlightened person can tell the difference - and that's all that matters as far as the enlightened person is concerned.
Unfortunately this is no the only possibility. The other possibility is that the person is not really enlightened but thinks that she is, like the people in various institutions who adamantly believe they are Napoleon. For this reason, first-person verification doesn't work.
Anyway, the claim of yours that one must be enlightened to recognize the marks of enlightenment is patently flawed. One does not need to be a mathematical genius to recognize a mathematical genius. One does not need to be a great musician to recognize a great musician. It is sufficient if one understands the criteria that define mathematical geniuses or great musicians and it is possible to judge these criteria by observing performance. If someone is able to mentally calculate the square root of a five-digit number then that is proof for great mathematical talent. If a child gives a thrilling rendition of Beethoven's Hammerklavier that's proof for great musical talent.
I concede that it is trickier when it comes to enlightenment. However, the "performance criteria" for enlightenment are clearly laid out in Buddhism. They are called the "ten perfections" and they are usually listed in the following order: 1. generosity (dana), 2. morality (sila), 3. renunciation (nekkhamma), 4. wisdom (panna), 5. energy (viriya), 6. patience (khanti), 7. truthfulness (sacca), 8. resolute determination (aditthana), 9. loving kindness (metta), and 10. equanimity (upekkha). According to Buddhism, these are the qualities of an enlightened person. I included the Pali words because the English does not always represent the full meaning of the word. Obviously the problem with these qualities is that the "performance criteria" can be faked. What is more, they can be faked with greater ease than mentally calculating square roots. But, it would be quite difficult for someone to fake the ten perfections consistently and convincingly over a longer period of time. So, given enough time it is likely that fakes are debunked.
What does this mean? It means that we can never quite know about enlightenment with certainty. After all, enlightenment is just an idea. It has no physical form. But, it also means that we have a way to corroborate enlightened behavior by way of observing the ten perfections.
Thomas
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 26
(4/2/04 23:09)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Kevin: Only an enlightened person can be properly logical. An ordinary ignorant person will always be flailing about helplessly, regardless of whether they are a "logician" or not.
Well, I rest my case and hope you will get reasonable enjoyment out of this phantasy.
Kevin: Yet you have so far failed in revealing a single such fallacy.
You must certainly be joking. Naturyl and I had exposed some of the fallacies in David's book at length on the Genius list. Off the top of my head I remember post hoc ergo propter hoc, circularity, non sequitur, perhaps others? I am not going to go through it again.
Thomas
| birdofhermes
Apprentice
Posts: 10
(5/2/04 0:06)
Reply | Re: Logic
Quote:
(1) P -> Q, (2) Q -> R, (3) P -> R.
What I can't figure out is why didn't you just use the letters QRS?
Quote:
I just have a real interest in enlightenment and some very good teachers.
My teacher is the Holy Spirit. Who have yours been?
| BrainMan50
Ponderer
Posts: 106
(5/2/04 2:04)
Reply | Re:
Quote:
You must certainly be joking. Naturyl and I had exposed some of the fallacies in David's book at length on the Genius list. Off the top of my head I remember post hoc ergo propter hoc, circularity, non sequitur, perhaps others? I am not going to go through it again.
I am just amazed that it has been discussed at such length. That alone says something, doesn't it?
| ksolway
Apprentice
Posts: 9
(5/2/04 2:34)
Reply | Edit
| Re: my comments
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
David: The enlightened person can tell the difference - and that's all that matters as far as the enlightened person is concerned.
T: The other possibility is that the person is not really enlightened but thinks that she is, like the people in various institutions who adamantly believe they are Napoleon. For this reason, first-person verification doesn't work.
Both the enlightened and unenlightened might think they are enlightened, but only one of them is right. And the one who is right has successfully (ie, correctly) verified his own enlightenment. This reveals the irrationality of your statement above.
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 259
(5/2/04 3:16)
Reply | Re: my comments
It does? It sounds like more nonsense to me, Kevin.
| ksolway
Apprentice
Posts: 10
(5/2/04 3:28)
Reply | Edit
| Re: my comments
Quote:
It does? It sounds like more nonsense to me, Kevin.
Then allow me to expand a little more.
I presume that you agree that the enlightened person has correctly verified his enlightenment, while the unenlightened person has incorrectly verified theirs, right?
Well it doesn't matter what the unenlightened person thinks. He can think whatever he wants. It doesn't change anything.
This is hard to grasp, but it's not impossible. Seriously.
If I expand any more I'll only be duplicating what David has written.
| Muthaiga
effete slob
Posts: 1852
(5/2/04 4:21)
Reply
 | Re: my comments
1,000 TPG Funbucks on 'rain stopped play'.
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | jimhaz
Visitor
Posts: 1
(5/2/04 6:12)
Reply | Re: my comments
I believe that what many of these folk want to see in terms of someone who is enlightened is some form of aura. They expect your words to be so outstanding that the truth will appear before their eyes.
They also want to see empirical evidence that you are greater in some regard. They want the 12 disciples and the hoards of worshippers, or some other form of physical evidence that you, rather than just your words, are worthy of thinkling intensely about.
Causes like the 'religionizaton' of the words of past sages by those who don't fully understand the import of the words and the mystical images included in books create these illusions in their mind.
They expect the enlightened person to induce awe in them, but I'm afraid true enlightenment is not like this. From what I can gather, there is no awe, however there is respect and surety for their wisdom. I hope they understand how difficult a task this is in a debate such as this with varying degrees of closemindedness.
Although I believe in the overall wisdom of the QRS I have never adequately understood the following statements, that David made in his opening essay:
The mind is deluded when it falsely imagines things to be existing, when in reality they do not….(such as) …the belief that the Universe…..exists in a physical, objective sense.
What the enlightened person perceives is the formlessness of Reality, sometimes referred to as "emptiness" or "the Void".
There is nothing to seek or grasp, nothing to explain or resolve, nothing to uncover or know.
While I agree that 'things' have no permanent existence, and that the way we view things is a complete illusion, and that they depend on other matter to exist and so they are caused, my quite logical belief that the universe MUST exist in a physical sense in some form therfore does not allow me to imagine other than that 'things' are clusters of varying patterns of the same elementary matter that fills the universe. If they are clusters with pattern, then they exist.
The only non-inherent parts of it is the lack of permanency and the fact that the edges of any things pattern blurs into another different pattern. I suggest, no I don't I know, that there are inherent patterns of matter in some form in the universe. Even the process of cause and effect is a pattern otherwise there is no universe. Does this process inherently exist - YES.
Science is trying to show empirically what those patterns are, so I support scientists although only about 10 in the preceding millennium have done so. The problem I have with academic scientists nowadays is that none, even Hawkings, adequately puts all the knowledge together. However this debate is not about the merits or otherwise of scientists.
If you can put more detail about the above into your second essay David, well and good, otherwise for me it will remain a case of "I can’t see it because you are wrong as what you say defies all I consider logic", in which case enlightenment is pure luck as it won't be something I'll learn from any spiritual textbook. If the only answer is that you can only see it once you are near enlightenment, then I will be disappointed, although I accept that may be the case, after all isn't that what the buddhists say?.
It seems to be a key element. A complete understanding of Cause and Effect doesn't appear as if it will induce understanding of the above.
With regards to the comments of others in this thread, I wish to make sure that everyone takes note of the passage below. Can you now see why David would have made such a comment in his initial essay, does that not indicate some level of wisdom?:
In concluding this opening essay, I believe that the debate should not focus on whether or not I, David Quinn, am enlightened. That is a pointless exercise because it can only be resolved by the reader becoming enlightened himself and thereby developing the means to make his own authoritative judgments in the matter. Instead, the debate should focus on the question of the nature of enlightenment and the manner in which it can be attained. I mean, honestly, who cares whether I am enlightened or not? That's just gossip. The only thing that matters is the quality of our actions and words - not just mine, but everyone's. Only by all of us contributing in this way, do we have a chance of building a saner, more intelligent world.
I would also request the Robert attempt to refrain from personalising this debate to make it into a battle of words. It is not a battle of words like the Thomas/Solway discussion on this thread, but a battle for understanding of such a difficult subject. (Edit. Yes to be fair, David did make a few unnecesary negative statements about the ability of Robert or others here to make judgements, but not to the extent that Robert did, by making it into a debate about whether david was enlightnend or not and using many words and phrases with negative connotations).
In my opinion Roberts response took the form of a concluding argument, like a whip rather than an opening statement where one sets first sets down their understanding. Otherwise the debate will continue to be Robert, posting rebuttals of what David has said.
If the 24 hours turnaround is making things difficult I would suggest making it 48 hours. David after all is a full-tine sage. I don't know about Robert.
Edited by: jimhaz at: 5/2/04 6:37
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1492
(5/2/04 6:41)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
Jim,
I don't hedge my bets so my $1,000 'bate Bucks are all on me. While David is I am sure a 24-hour something, 'sage' is not the word that comes to mind.
I'm also sure you could understand, if you would, that people who announce they are nigh onto divine ought to be questioned on it. David Quinn made himself a proper subject for debate long before he got here. He's enjoyed the rewards of being a divine - he's gotten himself some sycophants like yourself - and now he can experience the other side of it, the responsibility.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1494
(5/2/04 8:39)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
Fortunately I have not claimed I am enlightened or divine - a few minutes before posting time I remembered the board is EST; I'm CST.
| ksolway
Apprentice
Posts: 10
(5/2/04 8:49)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Roberts Second post
I honestly thought Robert would be able to contain himself till at least his third post before getting down into the gutter and slinging mud. But it seems it has begun already!
"Nazis" indeed. What fun!
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7876
(5/2/04 8:52)
Reply
| Re: Roberts Second post
Muthaiga:
1,000 TPG Funbucks on 'rain stopped play'. In chat yesterday we decided they are to be known as e-doubloons. We didn't tell anyone, though, so your egregious error is excused. ;P
Accidence happens.Edited by: Guildenstern at: 5/2/04 8:53
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1495
(5/2/04 8:57)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Roberts Second post
Kevin,
Just claim that since you are enlightened you must be beyond reproach. None of us are qualified to reproach you. Might work.
| jimhaz
Visitor
Posts: 1
(5/2/04 9:04)
Reply | Re: my comments
I'm also sure you could understand, if you would, that people who announce they are nigh onto divine ought to be questioned on it.
'Divine' - he has never said this as far as I know - your use of the word is emotionally based
Sure question him about it, of course. But not on the supposedly higher level closed thread above.
He's enjoyed the rewards of being a divine - he's gotten himself some sycophants like yourself - and now he can experience the other side of it, the responsibility.
'rewards of being divine' - to me this is a reflection of some form of jealousy, a person in control of their emotions IMO would phrase the responsibilty part of your comment as the main focus.
'sycophants'
So I'm a sycophant because I happen to for the most part believe in their philosophy. That would make everyone who is has different opinions to you a sycophant. As you said it negatively I can assume you believe your wisdom is the greatest presently around, except for those buddhist's who have been decreed as enlightened. Is that the nature of the Buddhism that you believe in? Is that what it allows people to do, go around calling people who have different opinions sycophants? How wonderful.
I hope you realise that you have completely ignored what i said above.
(edited for clarity) Edited by: jimhaz at: 5/2/04 9:08
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1496
(5/2/04 9:26)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
Jim,
I did not completely ignore what you said. Matter of fact I agree that 24 hours is quite the bitch; I almost missed the deadline and I had more that I could not get in.
"Divine" was humor. I am sure he has never referred to himself as 'divine'. It is overstatement of what he has said, that he is enlightened. It is probably a legitimate comedy technique with both "textual backing" and "standup backing". That was also humor.
And Jim, I am really not jealous of David Quinn nor can I understand how anyone could be jealous of him.
Anyway, I wish you well. Remember, get away from the keyboard, go for a walk, and see the beauty in nature; always a great part of the day and the beauty is always there.
| WolfsonJakk
Inductee
Posts: 10
(5/2/04 9:31)
Reply | Re: my comments
It is easiest to ignore "sycophants." Just label them and move on. Another good way is to demand non-subjective proof for something that is completely subjective. Your own sycophants are more easily able to stay in line as a result and you have protected your little place at the top of the hill for another day.
What a bunch of emotional children.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1965
(5/2/04 9:39)
Reply
| Re: my comments
bird,
Quote:
You are of the opinion that everyone is already enlightened?
No, it was an error -- i meant to speak of the false statement by the unenlightened 'I am enlightened'. i originally stuck the extra 'not' in there my accident. I think the context of my message made it clear.
Quote:
What is your take on the enlightenment question?
To quote Wittgenstein, that which we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence. Anyone expounding on what enlightenment is, its nature, their own enlightenment, etc. is necessarily not speaking about enlightenment, and probably isn't enlightened (not if they seriously think they are speaking about enlightenment).
I don't know if enlightenment exists; frankly, I think the very concept is meaningless. There are certain important philosophical ideas which entail surrender of commonsensical illusions (such as the illusion of our perceptions being ontologically representative), and those ideas are indeed real and verifiable. I will stick to those, and stop worrying about whether I am any closer to enlightenment or not. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | jimhaz
Visitor
Posts: 2
(5/2/04 9:40)
Reply | Re: my comments
If anyone wishes to view a 'less personal' - and I'm being nice - debate on Buddhism than Roberts in the 'debate' above there is a radio interview on the Minefield site Robert mentioned in his response.
Guests:
Do-Kwang Su nim - Zen monk
Mervin Thomas - Buddhist practitioner
Hosts:
Kevin Solway & David Quinn
www.theabsolute.net/minefield/j14.html
Although this may mean David is left with less directly relevant material to include in his response - personally I'd post it as my response - perhaps it will allow David to concentrate more on the methods leading to enlightenment.
| Rairun
Visitor
Posts: 1
(5/2/04 9:43)
Reply | ...
Sometimes I post in the genius forum, and I disagree with the QRS "teaching" a lot. I don't think there is one post of mine that doesn't expose an idea that in some way do not conform to their teaching.
But seriously, Robert's effort is laughable.
| WolfsonJakk
Inductee
Posts: 12
(5/2/04 9:46)
Reply | Re: my comments
Victor wrote,
Quote:
I don't know if enlightenment exists; frankly, I think the very concept is meaningless.
Finally, a snippet of wisdom. What would one call the lack of delusion?
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1498
(5/2/04 9:51)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
Why yes, Rairun, I believe you to be an independent voice supporting only what is right and fair.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1500
(5/2/04 9:59)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
Wolfson, don't condescend. You can play that on Genius Forum but you're too easily observed here playing spiritual games.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 14
(5/2/04 10:04)
Reply | Re: ...
Jeez...too much.
Sorry, Robert, didn't mean to offend you.
*edit*
I just noticed the tags you guys use relating to the number of posts. I am a "follower." LOL.
You will never see "jokes" like that at Genius Forum. What is expected is to read outside of the forum, develop yourself, and bring something to the table. Not to be told how to think. Quinn is but one voice. Edited by: WolfsonJakk at: 5/2/04 10:08
| ksolway
Apprentice
Posts: 10
(5/2/04 10:05)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Robert's second post - a blow-by-blow account
Overlooking a rather ordinary opening paragraph, we find that Robert is banking on the arguments of Nagarjuna, and quotes, not from Nagarjuna, but from an article in "The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" written by a Douglas Berger, whose credentials are not listed - but one would think are unlikely to include enlightenment. Nevertheless, Berger's comments on Nagarjuna just might be somewhere in the ballpark as regards Nagarjuna's thoughts - it's a big gamble on Robert's part.
To Robert's credit, he earns a point just for mentioning Nagarjuna's name. For unknown to Robert, there is inherent good in words themselves.
However, Robert fails to demonstrate how Nagarjuna's teachings are any different to those of David.
In a rash move, Robert asserts that David fails to understand that concepts lack inherent existence, but fails to provide any supporting evidence.
Now presuming to interpret Nagarjuna's thought himself, Robert says that Nagarjuna regards any teaching about enlightenment to be at best "a relatively efficacious conceptualization". This would seem to be far from the famous "direct pointing" of the great Zen Masters, who encapsulate the Great Enlightenment in a single word. And indeed there is a Buddhist sutra which is a teaching of only one word, and yet another, containing only a single letter.
Robert then accuses Nietzsche of sexism in the following quote, which you can judge for yourselves:
Quote:
Someone took a youth to a sage and said: "Look, he is being corrupted by women." The sage shook his head and smiled. "It is men," said he, "that corrupt women; and all the failings of women should be atoned and improved in men. For it is man who creates for himself the image of woman, and woman forms herself according to this image." "You are too kindhearted about women," said one of those present; "you do not know them." The sage replied: "Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes - truly, a hard law for women. All of humanity is innocent of its existence; but women are doubly innocent. Who could have oil and kindness enough for them?" "Damn oil! Damn kindness!" Someone else shouted out of the crowd; "women need to be educated better!" - "Men need to be educated better," said the sage and beckoned to the youth to follow him. - The youth, however, did not follow him. - Nietzsche, 1882
This statement strikes me as being compassionate above all, certainly not "sexist" or "condescending".
Robert then makes the claim that David holds women to be, not only inferior in some regards, but just inherently inferior - a big claim - but Robert provides no quotation to back it up.
Interestingly, Robert then tries to win more readers for David's book, by advertising some of the chapter headings: "Why Dissect Women?", and "A Peek at Sexual Intercourse".
Robert then proceeded to quote a number of passages from David's book, which were a delightful read, and earning Robert another point.
Moving on, Robert advertises my own translation of Weininger's writings (which I sell without profit, incidentally) - obviously knowing I will give him one more point.
In a very roundabout tactic, Robert then quotes isolated parts of the writings of Otto Weininger, who, himself a Jew, criticizes cultural aspects of his people. But Robert does't mention that Weininger praises certain Jews for their great genius - namely, Jesus, and to some extent Spinoza.
Robert finishes by accusing David (and my good self) of supporting "racist" and "sexist" materials - accusations that are wholly unfounded. While I myself have been involved in translating some of Weininger's writings into English, I don't regard myself as qualified to judge the veracity of Weininger's views on his own people.
So 3 points, minus 1 (for the last bit) = 2 points!
Edited by: ksolway at: 5/2/04 10:29
| Rairun
Visitor
Posts: 1
(5/2/04 10:09)
Reply | ...
I will explain why I think that Robert is taking the wrong line of thought.
Everything that David is saying isn't based on his so-called enlightenment. His so called enlightenment is based on the things he says. He made up a philosophy and, by his definition, the person who understands that philosophy is considered enlightened. Robert, if you want to disprove anything, you have to focus on showing the logical inconsistency of his philosophy, not on whether he is enlightened or not.
I personally don't care to take my time to find said inconsistencies, if there are any. I will keep doing with my life what I please. The only difference is that by saying that, I don't claim to know anything at all. Ohh my pride, it hurts, I don't know the truth. What you are doing is trying to say that your own ideas about enlightenment are right, without giving any reasons why he is wrong. As I said, focus on the ideas that make him "enlightened", not enlightenment itself.
If you don't feel like doing that, or can't, here's something I posted on the genius forum a while ago:
Quote:
The things I said weren't meant to sound aggressive, so I'm sorry if they did. What I was saying is that I don't think everything discussed here needs to be dragged to this male vs female conflict. I don't think that misogyny is the primary bedrock of the QRS philosophy either. I'd say it's closer to intolerance than anything else.
It seems to me that their considerations about women are secondary to their actual philosophy. All they want to do is to make people more conscious (as they define it), eliminating all the unconsciousness that anyone might have. The misogyny only starts taking place when they label the conscious as masculine and the unconscious as feminine, but I could easily overlook that. Even though it's an awkward choice of words in my opinion, they are just words. If it stopped right there, it wouldn't be an misogynist statement at all to say that femininity (as they defined it) should disappear. They don't stop there though, and that's where they really become misogynists in my eyes. They say that actual women are less conscious than men, and I don't agree with that at all. I really don't see women in general as less conscious than men.
But even disagreeing with their misogyny and thinking that they could mantain their philosophy without it, that doesn't change the fact that I still wouldn't agree with it if they changed it. QRS say that what they call dellusions cause suffering, and define enlightenment as "the abandoment of all dellusions". Their objective would be to turn all people into enlightened beings, though they recognize that it's virtually impossible for them to do that through their efforts. I have no problem with defining enlightenment as they do, as they could easily use another word for it. But I still have other 3 disagreements. First of all, I disagree that dellusions as they define it cause suffering. Second, I disagree that everyone should want to attain their enlightenment. Third, I disagree that their enlightenment is the same as the one expressed in traditions such as the taoist one.
It's obvious why I said that the QRS philosophy is intolerant. They define a goal, and consider everyone who doesn't choose it as inferior. Yes, I guess it is a fact that a lot of people are indeed inferior when compared to the standard they set, but their standard in itself is arbitrary. Still, they act like their arbitrary standard should be adopted by all people and that the ones who don't conform to it should be phased out. I perceive that they have a self righteous attitude when they speak about what should and shouldn't be done, not only by those who choose their path, but by everyone.
Whole thread here:
pub86.ezboard.com/fgenius...=232.topic Edited by: Rairun at: 5/2/04 10:21
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1967
(5/2/04 10:16)
Reply
| Re: The Play-By-Play
solway,
Quote:
[its conclusion is different from its premises] In form (ie, mere words) only, but not in content.
if by content you mean the theoremic space implicit in any axiomatic set, then you are correct; but some datum being hidden in the said axiomatic set doesn't mean that you know it, only that you have means of figuring it all out.
The existence of irrational numbers was a major discovery for Pythagoras, yet their existence was always implicit in number theory. Russell's paradox was implicit in Cantor/Frege set theory, but its discovery was a major change of course. Goedel's incompleteness theorems were always implicit in number theory and predicate logic, but their proof changed the course of history, so to speak.
Your cavalier rejection of the distinction between tautology and circularity simply shows that you haven't the foggiest clue about logic. You keep claiming that your view is based on logic, but you don't have any idea about how logic actually works...
Quote:
I don't draw the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit". If there is information contained in premises, then that information is "explicit" as far as I'm concerned - that is to say, it is expressed.
Yeah. Just as Goedel's 1st incompleteness theorem was expressed in Peano axioms and predicate logic, available to all at the turn of the century. Funny how Russell and Whitehead missed it when writing Principia Mathematica...
Quote:
"Implicit" means unexpressed, but if something is expressed by the premises, just as the name "Socrates" expresses mortality, it is explicit. If something were not expressed by a premise, then we would not be able to access it.
Dude, you really need to learn the basics of logic. You are making pronouncements with the veridical value of my bellybutton lint.
Quote:
I reject the classifications of modern academic logic, for some of the reasons listed above.
yeah, because your delusional self-gratification, such as what was expressed in the posts above, allows you to think that you are doing something interesting -- you just can't face the fact that your mental gymnastics are profoundly, irrepairably flawed. Understanding what logic actually is, would get in the way of your delusions.
Understand this: You cannot reject 'academic logic', any more than you can reject Russell's paradox in order to cling to Cantor/Frege set theory. like it or not, Russell's Paradox kills Cantor/Frege set theory, so you have no logical choice but to accept either ZFC or VNBG set theory, or formulate another one that addresses Russell's paradox.
Similarly, when you say that you reject 'academic logic', you simply show yourself to be in denial, driven by ego and delusion to turn away from unpleasant problems in your worldview; just as you would be, if you proclaimed that you reject 'academic set theory' and stay with Cantor/Frege set theory..
Quote:
I hold that it is already explicit.
And you are wrong. had Goedel's 1st incompleteness theorem, implicit in predicate logic and number theory, been explicit, it would not have come as such a stunner to the mathematical community.
Sometimes the difference between implicit and explicit is tremendous, and to reject it is simply ignorant, an act of childish rebellion which merely demonstrates the narrowness of your horizons, the puerile simplicity of the subjects to which you turn your thought. it merely shows that you have never considered logical problems which are actually serious, instead limiting yourself to trivial playthings, the stuff od Reader's Digest puzzle sections trather than the subject of serious thought.
Think about it this way: The message hidden in an encrypted transmission is usually implicit in the said transmission -- you just have to know how to decode it (this is the case for pretty much all ciphers); yet decoding a good code is a big deal, and proclaiming that the hidden message is explicit is simply laughably wrong.
You claim to want to 'decode' the profound truths of the universe, to steal fire from the gods so to speak, yet you refuse to consider ciphers more powerful than the trivial letter substitution.
Quote:
My definition of a circular argument - an argument which ends at the place where it began - or which contains the conclusion in its premises - is a useful definition, shared by many.
Not the way you explained it, it's not; because according to your explanation of what you meant by ending where it began, every single formal argument is circular; which is a profoundly useless definition not shared by pretty much anyone.
Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1502
(5/2/04 10:18)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert's second post - a blow-by-blow account
Douglas Berger, whose credentials are not listed - but one would think are unlikely to include enlightenment. - Kevin
What, you don't know? Don't you guys have special handshakes or something?
"However, Robert fails to demonstrate how Nagarjuna's teachings are any different to those of David.
"In a rash move, Robert asserts that David fails to understand that concepts lack inherent existence, but fails to provide any supporting evidence." - Kevin
In my first post I linked to arguments from David and from you insisting on the truth of words.
"This would seem to be far from the famous "direct pointing" of the great Zen Masters, who encapsulate the Great Enlightenment in a single word." - Kevin
And the word is?
'This statement strikes me as being compassionate above all, certainly not "sexist" or "condescending".'
Strikes me as being paternalistic and condescending.
"Robert then makes the claim that David holds women to be, not only inferior in some regards, but just inherently inferior - a big claim - but Robert provides no quotation to back it up."
What about how while few men have any spiritual promise hardly a single woman could claim any?
'Interestingly, Robert then tries to win more readers for David's book, by advertising some of the chapter headings: "Why Dissect Women?", and "A Peek at Sexual Intercourse".
'Robert then proceeded to quote a number of passages from David's book, which were a delightful read, and earning Robert another point.'
Mostly I paraphrased and the fact you enjoyed them ...
"Robert then advertises my own translation of Weininger's writings (which I sell without profit, incidentally) - obviously knowing I will give him one more point."
I'm much more altruistic than that; you can keep the point.
"Robert then quotes isolated parts of the writings of Otto Weininger, who, himself a Jew, criticizes cultural aspects of his people. But Robert does't mention that Weininger praises certain Jews for their great genius - namely, Jesus, and to some extent Spinoza."
Well that's mighty Aryan of him.
"Robert finishes by accusing David (and my good self) of supporting "racist" and "sexist" materials - accusations that are wholly unfounded. While I myself have been involved in translating some of Weininger's writings into English, I don't regard myself as qualified to judge the veracity of Weininger's views on his own people."
That's real impressive. One does not often run across your like.
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1968
(5/2/04 10:29)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Quinn,
Quote:
The enlightened person can tell the difference - and that's all that matters as far as the enlightened person is concerned.
No, what matters is figuring out whether you are one of those enlightened.
let me break it down for you.
let's take person X who thinks they are enlightened. There are two possible explanations for this:- X is enlightened, and correctly thinks; 'I am enlightened'
- X is not enlightened, and incorrectly thinks: 'I am enlightened'
You have no way of telling whether you are #1 or #2. Saying that enlightened person can tell is simply begging the question. You need a way to know if you are enlightened, first.
Let me put it even more bluntly (and i don't know how much simpler I can make it): you have no way of knowing whether your self-evaluation, 'I am enlightened', is correct.
Quote:
The failings of an unenlightened person have no bearing one way or the other on the enlightened person's awareness and knowledge, just as the fumblings of the scientific illiterate have no bearing on the awareness and knowledge of the expert scientist.
The difference is that an expert scientist can verify that they are such, by means more definitive than mere subjective opinion of themselves. Contrawise, those who evaluate their scientific expertise by subjective opinion and deduce themselves to be experts -- various quacks -- are usually not expert scientists.
With science, we have objective method of checking the veracity of self-evaluation; with enlightenment, we don't, and so you can't tell whether you are the enlightenment equivalent of a scientist or a quack. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him.Edited by: Victor Danilchenko at: 5/2/04 10:43
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1969
(5/2/04 10:35)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Jakk,
Quote:
Finally, a snippet of wisdom. What would one call the lack of delusion?
One could call it 'enlightenment' of course, but that would be a different usage from one that it in effect here. QRS have clearly shown that what they mean by 'lack of delusion' is in fact nothing of the sort, too...
What would I call 'lack of delusion'? 'Lack of delusion' seems pretty good to me. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1970
(5/2/04 10:41)
Reply
| Re: ...
rairun,
Quote:
Everything that David is saying isn't based on his so-called enlightenment. His so called enlightenment is based on the things he says. He made up a philosophy and, by his definition, the person who understands that philosophy is considered enlightened. Robert, if you want to disprove anything, you have to focus on showing the logical inconsistency of his philosophy, not on whether he is enlightened or not.
I had exposed numerous logical inconsistenmcies in QRS 'philosophy' -- that was the approach I took from the beginning, years ago -- but to people who refuse to understand logic, logical refutations are fruitless. QRS live in their own little insulated world of self-referrential delusion, and refuse to entertain intrusions from reality. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Rairun
Visitor
Posts: 2
(5/2/04 10:45)
Reply | ...
Quote:
I had exposed numerous logical inconsistenmcies in QRS 'philosophy' -- that was the approach I took from the beginning, years ago -- but to people who refuse to understand logic, logical refutations are fruitless. QRS live in their own little insulated world of self-referrential delusion, and refuse to entertain intrusions from reality.
Robert needs to do just that! It doesn't matter if QRS refuse to believe it. If he needs help, you could tell him what those inconsistencies are. He just needs to post them and he wins. It's easy.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1971
(5/2/04 10:46)
Reply
| Re: ...
I don't need to tell them to Robert, many are already exposed in this thread, and he is aware of them anyway I suspect (although with Larkin's PoMo leanings, one can never know). Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1504
(5/2/04 10:46)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
Calling George Romero!
| Rairun
Inductee
Posts: 3
(5/2/04 10:48)
Reply | ...
That's actually what I was interested in seeing here. I've never studied formal logic and, to be honest, I'm not interested in that. Still, I wanted to see how his philosophy defends itself from people who actually know it. Robert's response let me down, he just ranted aimlessly.
| Biggier
Innovator
Posts: 222
(5/2/04 10:50)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Victor,
I make a clear distinction between natural science and social "science" respecting the relationship between theory and praxis. I therefore reject the analytic/rationalist contention that what they are doing IS science. And it is certainly not the sort of philosophy I would like to see.
Science evinces natural law---the relationships that exist between mindless matter. Mindless matter, however, does not concern itself with ethical/political interaction, emotional/psychological states, identity/self, aesthetics/art, political economy/power.
Therefore theoretical constructs pursued by natural scientists may or may not be applied "down the road" without impacting on the objective nature of these relationships. And it is only in the application process itself that it may or may impact on actual human interactions out in the real world. But to engage in philosophical exchanges that barely touch on these profoundly existential human contexts is preposterous, in my view. Especially when the discussion revolves around what it does or does not mean to be "enlightened". If someone is going to prooffer an Ultimate Reality or react to it, fine. But let me see them attach these perspectives TO actual human interactions. Robert does so in raising points about sexism and racism in his last post. This I can relate to. But the rest of it is still just Dueling Definitions of the sort that are learned in books or in philosophy classrooms, by and large.
I do agree with many of the other points you raise. And, in turn, I will readily admit my reaction to psuedo-philosophers like David Quinn is an engrained prejudice. I'll probably take it to the grave, no doubt.
Biggie
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1505
(5/2/04 10:53)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
Danilchenko, whatever is PoMo?
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1972
(5/2/04 10:54)
Reply
| Re: ...
Oh come on, Robert, surely your memory is not so holey.  Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1506
(5/2/04 11:00)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
It does sound familiar but I have been up all night ...
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1507
(5/2/04 11:02)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
Politically Moronic!
| alarabi7
misplaced koan
-Administrator
Posts: 1998
(5/2/04 11:02)
Reply
| Re: ...
I find it a bit creepy that these dejected, single men could gain a following. I smell sour grapes when I read the anti-women material at the website. I wonder what complete suppression of emotion does to the mental health of a person, and I see it in comments where "the truth" is lauded higher than the well being of humanity, where supposedly vacuous women are given volumes of bitter consideration, and where the contest of enlightenment is a penis measuring affair- except penises can be measured.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1508
(5/2/04 11:12)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
I've been jokingly mentioning George Romero, director of Night of the Living Dead, but it's not been entirely a joke. Some of the people writing in the thread have lost it just a bit I think. I think the Genius Forum, where delusion is encouraged, is probably harming a few people.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1973
(5/2/04 11:18)
Reply
| Re: ...
it's very likely that you are right -- such mutually-reinforced delusion is bound to spill over into meatspace sooner or later... Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7877
(5/2/04 11:34)
Reply
| Synopsis thus far
Here is how I perceive the debate thus far:
David Quinn's first post:
In his first paragraph he feels the need to provide an "excuse" for participating in the debate, and attempts to preemptively undermine Robert by painting his posts to follow as mere emotional reactions to Quinn's earlier writings. In the second paragraph he notes the irrelevant fact that an unbiased venue is a myth, and takes a snipe at TPG, but gives his thanks for the forum hosting the debate anyway, which I have no reason to assume is insincere.
In the body of his opening post, David begins with a clear definition of enlightenment, with which one would be hard put to disagree: "Enlightenment is what the mind experiences when it is no longer deluded about the nature of existence." He then goes on to expound a worldview that is essentially solipsism. However, he does not explain on what basis he presumes to know what about the nature of existence is deluded or not; he focuses on the delusion that noumena exist without explaining how concludes that this is a delusion.
In my opinion the issue of noumena is moot, and as such David Quinn's entire basis of enlightenment is a red herring, because the interactions between the "delusions" of reality are the same whether things objectively exist or not; our experience of reality can be explained without the assumption of objective existence, merely referring to relational laws instead. All of physics can be described in terms of phenomena without reference to noumena, and as such the objective existence of noumena is completely irrelevant.
David then tries to preempt Robert's "textual backing" strategy by writing, "This wisdom is not something that can be found in books." And in one sense, he is right; writings in the Buddhist and Taoist traditions do assert that writings themselves cannot describe enlightenment (for example, the famous line, "The Way that can be told is not the Way"). But the writings are meant only to point one in the right direction, and as Robert will get to later, can still be useful when making conclusions about enlightenment. To bolster his position, David Quinn explains that the reason Buddhist scripture cannot be used is because there is no good way to interpret it properly; that is, there is no guaranteed way of discovering the writers' original intent.
David then asserts circularly that the enlightened person knows he is enlightened because he knows he no longer holds any delusions about reality; this is circular because David does not provide any basis for deciding what elements of reality are delusions, and so what it boils down to is that someone knows he is enlightened because he feels that he knows he is enlightened.
Robert Larkin's first post:
Robert begins by asserting that David Quinn is a reasonable subject for debate, because David Quinn asserts himself to be enlightened. Therefore, David Quinn is himself a useful case study which can help elucidate whether David Quinn's concept of enlightenment is consistent with Buddhist scripture. By asking "What would an enlightened person be like?", Robert opens the road for examining Quinn's general behavior, and making deductions as whether it is in line with the expected behavior of an enlightened person. Robert then provides some links, one to the Genius Forum main page, and others to posts of Dan Rowden and Kevin Solway, whose relevance I cannot guess. He also mentioned Nazis and terrorists, whose relevance I can also not guess, but on the whole he succeeds in establishing that Quinn and his personal writings elsewhere are valid subjects in a debate on the nature of enlightenment.
Robert then expounds that claims such as "I am enlightened" should be rejected out of hand, be they uttered by David Quinn or elsewho. This is a perfectly rational assertion; any and every positive claim should be questioned until it is supported rationally (except in extreme cases where swift action is needed, of course, but that is not here).
He then moves on to the "textual backing" strategy, using quotes from Buddhist writings to show how David Quinn is at odds with them. There are a few mild ad homs in here but the logic is sound: Robert establishes that David Quinn's behavior is not in accordance with what Buddhist writings claim are the qualities of an enlightened person.
David Quinn's second post:
David begins, as expected, by noting that Robert failed to justify why Nagarjuna, or even Buddhism, should be taken as an authority on enlightenment. I think David has failed to see the crux of Robert's argument, but I will get to that later.
David proceeds by explaining his earlier advocacy of circular reasoning to verify one's own enlightenment. He states that only an elightened mind is capable of judging whether one is enlightened, which is a reasonable enough thing to say. But how can one be sure that one is not simply deluded into thinking one is enlightened? Again, David fails to provide a means of distinguishing delusions from realities, and merely asserts that his views are not delusional. You can pat yourself on the back all you want, but when you claim to someone else, "I am enlightened", you cannot prove it; the only methods of "proof" here are empirical and subjective.
To further bolster his case for rejecting Buddhist texts, David explains his view of the Buddhist patriarchal system. Presumably he thinks that Robert intends to justify the use of Nagarjuna's writings by arguing that Nagarjuna was enlightened, using the succession of patriarchs as evidence. David also touches on the "popularity contest" validation principle, that a master is considered enlightened because a large number of people agree that he is. I agree with David that neither of these methods are logical, but this still does not establish that self-validation is any more logical. If anything it just shows, as Victor has put it earlier in this comment thread, that enlightenment is meaningless; it is an entirely subjective feeling, and not a proper subject of rational discourse.
He then explains more on circularity using the example of a hot cup of tea: "It is hot because energy was injected into the system causing the constituent molecules of the tea to become more randomly energetic and active." His argument for circularity that follows is completely fallacious. I can explain why, but it is properly the subject of a new thread.
David then goes on to explain a few instances of what enlightenment is not, and why people chase after these "false gods", as it were. Perhaps David presumes Robert will try to characterize enlightenment as one of these things; other than that, I do not see the purpose of including them.
David ends by explaining the nature of enlightened compassion in Buddhist terms, which strikes me as contradictory given his earlier condemnation of Buddhist texts as they pertain to the nature of enlightenment.
Robert's second post:
Robert begins by continuing the point that David's claim to enlightenment should be rejected out of hand.
Next, Robert moves on to a historical exposition of Nagarjuna, to establish Nagarjuna's importance in Buddhist tradition. On the way, he shows that David's behaviors and opinions are not consistent with Nagarjuna's. Note carefully Robert's clarification of his point of argument: "I do not ask you to agree with Nagarjuna but only to understand what he was getting at, and that it is opposed to what David Quinn is getting at."
Robert then proceeds to discuss Weininger, and Quinn's approval of Weininger, and in general Quinn's writings and their chauvinistic quality. This is mainly to accentuate the disagreement observed earlier between Nagarjuna and Quinn.
My thoughts:
What good can it possibly do Robert to demonstrate Quinn's disagreement with Buddhist texts, when he does not demonstrate the validity of those texts in the first place? Many of the other comments in this thread seem to be hinged on that question. I think that the "geniuses" have failed to see what Robert is getting at.
The point is that Buddhism is the tradition which concocted this idea of "enlightenment", nirvana. It is therefore Buddhist texts which define what Buddhist enlightenment is. When one claims to be enlightened, but one's actions do not agree with Buddhist descriptions of what an enlightened person ought to be like, then one is effectively working under one's own definition of "enlightenment", which is at odds with the Buddhist one. That is to say, one has taken terminology from Buddhism, but transfigured it to meet one's own purposes; one has redefined the term such that one can claim ownership of it. But by using the term "enlightenment" from Buddhism, one tries to clothe themselves in the trappings of Buddhism while in reality being something entirely different.
There are many here who realize that the Bible can be used in an argument against Christianity, even when that sect of Christianity is not inerrantist. The argument simply takes a different form; namely, that that sect is really just reading their own interpretations into the Bible for self-serving reasons, while claiming to be deriving their views from the Bible instead. They are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
Robert's argument is parallel to this; that David Quinn is reading his own interpretations into "enlightenment" such that he may call himself enlightened, while continuing to pretend that his enlightenment is what the Buddhist masters were getting at, but failed to express.
One needn't believe the scriptures are true in order to use them to show hipocrisy.
Accidence happens. | WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 15
(5/2/04 11:37)
Reply | Re: ...
Alarabi wrote,
Quote:
I smell sour grapes when I read the anti-women material at the website.
The choice of language used here to portray a point is not one I agree with, but the point itself is valid; namely, the attachments people hold dear. I too have been offended by this in the past. (I am married with an 8 year old daughter.) Once I realized that the transcendance of these attachments is what they are actually talking about, I calmed down. I then realized how silly my reaction was in the first place. I was protecting something (which was their point all along).
Tharan
| alarabi7
misplaced koan
-Administrator
Posts: 1999
(5/2/04 11:59)
Reply
| Re: ...
There is nothing about this site ( www.theabsolute.net/minefield/woman.html ) that suggests non attachment from women- but rather a brooding obsessiveness.
Edited by: alarabi7 at: 5/2/04 12:05
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1509
(5/2/04 12:12)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
Tharan,
You are rationalizing their actions. What wisdom is there in promoting a mentally ill self-loathing anti-semite as a genius? Read the Weininger - he's no genius.
| Rairun
Inductee
Posts: 4
(5/2/04 12:15)
Reply | Re: Synopsis thus far
Guildenstern, I agree with your summary.
Quote:
However, he does not explain on what basis he presumes to know what about the nature of existence is deluded or not
I think David could explain that point in the next thread, so Robert can atempt to find flaws in it.
Quote:
David then asserts circularly that the enlightened person knows he is enlightened because he knows he no longer holds any delusions about reality; this is circular because David does not provide any basis for deciding what elements of reality are delusions, and so what it boils down to is that someone knows he is enlightened because he feels that he knows he is enlightened.
I agree that simply saying you can validate your enlightenment because you are enlightened is meaningless. But I think his point is that his philosophy doesn't have logical flaws, so he is not deluded. If he is not deluded, he is enlightened.
Quote:
Robert then expounds that claims such as "I am enlightened" should be rejected out of hand, be they uttered by David Quinn or elsewho. This is a perfectly rational assertion; any and every positive claim should be questioned until it is supported rationally
Agreed, but I don't think QRS simply claim to be enlightened.
Quote:
Again, David fails to provide a means of distinguishing delusions from realities, and merely asserts that his views are not delusional.
Yes, but like I said, he has presented reasons in the past. I don't know how valid they are, and it'd be nice to see them analysed by Robert.
Quote:
David ends by explaining the nature of enlightened compassion in Buddhist terms, which strikes me as contradictory given his earlier condemnation of Buddhist texts as they pertain to the nature of enlightenment.
It's not necessarely contradictory, because he is not agreeing with Buddhism as a whole, he is just using some of their words that fit his concept of enlightenment (if they are interpreted in a certain way).
Quote:
The point is that Buddhism is the tradition which concocted this idea of "enlightenment", nirvana. It is therefore Buddhist texts which define what Buddhist enlightenment is. When one claims to be enlightened, but one's actions do not agree with Buddhist descriptions of what an enlightened person ought to be like, then one is effectively working under one's own definition of "enlightenment", which is at odds with the Buddhist one. That is to say, one has taken terminology from Buddhism, but transfigured it to meet one's own purposes; one has redefined the term such that one can claim ownership of it. But by using the term "enlightenment" from Buddhism, one tries to clothe themselves in the trappings of Buddhism while in reality being something entirely different.
Yes, I agree with that, but I don't think David would claim to be sure that his enlightenment is the same as the buddhist one, even though he likes to think that Buddha shared his ideas. He would not care if it was proved that Buddha didn't agree with him. He would simply say that Buddha was wrong.
That's why I think Quinn's concept of enlightenment should be discussed as a completely different thing. He calls it enlightenment, but he could just as easily call it "ksjdjfiweomc". |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1510
(5/2/04 12:25)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
"The extraordinary way in which woman can be influenced by external agencies is similar in its nature to her suggestibility, which is far greater and more general than man's; they are both in accordance with woman's desire to play the passive and never the active part in the sexual act and all that leads to it. [Footnote:] The quiescent, inactive, large egg-cells are sought out by the mobile, active, and slender spermatozoa."
Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, 1906, p. 159-60.
| alarabi7
misplaced koan
-Administrator
Posts: 2000
(5/2/04 12:26)
Reply
| Re: ...
| 1Mike S
Follower
Posts: 78
(5/2/04 12:36)
Reply | Re: ...
Quote:
"The extraordinary way in which woman can be influenced by external agencies is similar in its nature to her suggestibility, which is far greater and more general than man's; they are both in accordance with woman's desire to play the passive and never the active part in the sexual act and all that leads to it. [Footnote:] The quiescent, inactive, large egg-cells are sought out by the mobile, active, and slender spermatozoa."
seems like 'ol otto never met my wife, too bad . . . Mike
www.notcreatedequal.com | Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7879
(5/2/04 12:41)
Reply
| Re: Synopsis thus far
Rairun:
Quote:
That's why I think Quinn's concept of enlightenment should be discussed as a completely different thing. He calls it enlightenment, but he could just as easily call it "ksjdjfiweomc".
Perhaps, but "ksjdjfiweomc" is decidedly more difficult to pronounce.
In general, though, I tend to distrust people who claim to be "enlightened", whatever they mean by it, because even if they've completely redefined it, they are still trying to use the positive connotations of the word to their advantage. One thing I find annoying about QRS is that they argue a lot by redefining words in this way (well, and perhaps in other ways). They begin by saying something that sounds profound at face value, but when you actually examine what they've said, using their definitions, it is something obvious and inane.
Accidence happens.Edited by: Guildenstern at: 5/2/04 12:41
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 15
(5/2/04 12:44)
Reply | Re: ...
Robert wrote,
Quote:
You are rationalizing their actions. What wisdom is there in promoting a mentally ill self-loathing anti-semite as a genius? Read the Weininger - he's no genius.
Perhaps I am, perhaps not. I have no interest in Weininger, never have. But to think that this point is all they are about is really very wrong. In fact, he has not once mentioned Weininger, women, or the dreaded femininity in his debate with you.
If you take the time, you will discover that they are very well read in Eastern and Western philosophy. Quinn himself has mentioned his opinion that Weininger showed "promise" through his writings but burned out way too early. I think you will find he holds individuals such as Siddartha, Jesus, Huang Po, Nietzche to a much higher regard. On this I would certainly agree.
Believe me, I have thrown every volley in my arsenal at David.
Tharan
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1974
(5/2/04 12:57)
Reply
| Re: ...
jakk,
Quote:
If you take the time, you will discover that they are very well read in Eastern and Western philosophy.
I don't take much interest in the eastern philosophy, but I know a fair bit about the western philosophical traditions (and mind you, I am rank amateur in that regard) -- and I assure you that QRS are profoundly ignorant of western philosophy. They grab a couple of tidbits of the continental tradition, and ignore pretty much everything else -- including ignoring 20th-century philosophy wholesale, which is about as stupid a proposition when doing philosophy, as ignoring 20th-century physics would be if you were trying to study physics. Carnap, Wittgenstein, Russell, Quine, Kuhn, Popper, Nagel -- all of those people and many more, their profound contributions to philosophy and all, are completely off QRS's radar.
Now I freely admit to a strong analytic bias in philosophy, but I am passingly familiar with the continental tradition as well, and QRS have consistently failed to evidence the adequate degree of philosophical breadth and sophistication, not even within an order of magnitude of commensurability with their stated philosophical aspirations.
Having read Nietsche, Plato, and Kant (and I am not sure about their familiarity with the latter two, to be honest) does not constitute being well-read in western philosophy, me lad.
Quote:
Believe me, I have thrown every volley in my arsenal at David.
No offense, but despite my best efforts to the contrary, I have never quite managed to be impressed with your philosophical arsenal -- or with QRS's philosophical arsenal, for that matter. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him.Edited by: Victor Danilchenko at: 5/2/04 12:59
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 15
(5/2/04 13:25)
Reply | Re: ...
If I remember correctly, Victor, you too have thrown your quite impressive intellect in the ring at Genius Forum to no discernable effect.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 16
(5/2/04 13:29)
Reply | Re: ...
Quote:
Having read Nietsche, Plato, and Kant (and I am not sure about their familiarity with the latter two, to be honest) does not constitute being well-read in western philosophy, me lad.
Oh, the condescension. Are you sure no offense is intended?
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 661
(5/2/04 13:58)
Reply | Re: Quinn
Hard to keep up in here. All of a sudden enlightenment seems to be hot.
Quinn,Quote:
I wrote: Okay, good analogy. So what is casting the shadow?
You replied: Nature's causal processes.
No, nature's causal processes are the shadow. What is the "substance." What are YOU?
Quote:
I wrote: I understand that body and mind are the shadow. What is the "substance"? This should have been your first point.
You replied: Well, I did make this point, but I don't think you discerned it. Everything is a shadow, not just body and mind, but utterly everything. Whatever exists, in whatever form, is caused to exist and is ultimately an illusion. Because of this, there is no substance. There is only the eternal restlessness of cause and effect.
You're talking about form. Yes, everything is cause and effect but what about the formless, that out of which form arises? In your eagerness to point out illusion, you are missing that out of which illusion arises, namely, YOU. How can you miss YOU in a debate on the nature of enlightenment?
Edited by: samadhim7 at: 5/2/04 13:59
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1975
(5/2/04 14:02)
Reply
| Re: ...
Jakk,
Quote:
If I remember correctly, Victor, you too have thrown your quite impressive intellect in the ring at Genius Forum to no discernable effect.
Lack of effect does not imply lack of meaningful contribution. Lack of effect can stem from either insufficient ability to create the effect, or from excessive resistance to change... and I believe you already know which one I ascribe to QRS.
Quote:
Oh, the condescension. Are you sure no offense is intended?
Well, the condescention was certainly intended; whether QRS take offense at that or not, is none of my business. I am rather more interested in giving them a clue than an offense.
Honestly, QRS know hardly anything about western philosophy -- being able to toss Nietzche and Plato quotes about may be impressive to some, but really, you give them too much credit (and in doing so, implicitly overstate your own ability to judge their philosophical facility). Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 661
(5/2/04 14:09)
Reply | Re: ksolway
ksolway,Quote:
But what often happens is that an ignorant person fails to perceive anything "standing out" because their ignorance makes them blind to it.
Like attracts like. Ego attracts ego. Enlightenment will never attract the world of ego. Nevertheless, you can say what the egoless state is. What it certainly is not is a declaration of specialness beyond understanding.
Quote:
I wrote: Enlightenment is not caused.
You replied: If enlightenment is defined as the shedding of delusions, or even the dissolution of "clouds" from the "sun", then it is certainly caused. But the "light" itself is not caused. I'll grant you that.
Right. Identification is certainly conditioned, what you are is not. But enlightenment is not the shedding. Taking credit for that is more identification!
Quote:
I wrote: The sense of distinction I point to as false is "my" enlightenment.
You replied: There is no problem with "my" enlightenment when the person is truly enlightened - as he knows who he really is.
There is no "my" because there is no person! Q himself says everything is shadow. Then how the hell can a shadow speak of its own enlightenment? As soon as there's light, the shadow disappears!
Quote:
The Light is everywhere right now, but, unfortunately, not the enlightenment - otherwise we would all be fully enlightened Buddhas. I wish that were the case, but it's not.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're missing the point. It's like saying, daylight is everywhere, but only I know it; everyone else just sees what they see. "Seeing" daylight as daylight doesn't make one iota of difference with another who sees only objects. Both see whether what makes seeing possible is realized or not.
Quote:
I wrote: Enlightenment is not in contrast to ignorance!
You replied: This is a common mantra that many people chant nowadays. Similarly with "No one is better than anyone else", "Everyone is of equal value", "Nothing is true", "Words are not true", etc, etc. Unfortunately they do this to make themselves feel better, and to make them feel that they have no further work to do.
You are making enlightenment into an achievement, something to gain, understand or otherwise incorporate. Gaining implies losing, understanding implies misunderstanding. This is duality. Enlightenment is not in duality. When you dream, no achievement or understanding within the dream can reveal awakening. It is not part of the dream, it is outside of it.
Quote:
I don't believe you mean it in that way, however it is extremely important to point out the vast gulf between ignorance and wisdom, even though the Truth is everywhere, in front of people's noses, and as Jesus says: "The Kingdom of Heaven is right here on Earth".
You say that while at the same time drawing the distinction between wisdom and ignorance. If it's right HERE, it's right HERE within ignorance and wisdom. It is not about ignorance or wisdom, it is only about awakening to what is present HERE in this moment.
| ParadiseChild
Postulator
Posts: 337
(5/2/04 14:10)
Reply | Re: ...
hmmm.
Is philosophy the only route to enlightenment? What about metaphysics? What about the shaman in the jungle who reaches enlightenment without ever hearing of Buddhism or the Western philosophers?
I'm a bit disappointed that the debate is so focused on Buddhist definitions.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 662
(5/2/04 14:21)
Reply | Re: bird
bird,Quote:
My teacher is the Holy Spirit. Who have yours been?
Nisargadatta and Adya.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 17
(5/2/04 14:40)
Reply | Re: ...
Victor wrote,
Quote:
Well, the condescention was certainly intended; whether QRS take offense at that or not, is none of my business. I am rather more interested in giving them a clue than an offense.
What noble intent. I suspect you and David have more in common than you think (certainly in regards self-image). From a psychological perspective, it then makes sense the hostility you display. Interestingly, David shows no such hostility. Why might that be?
Tharan Edited by: WolfsonJakk at: 5/2/04 14:41
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1976
(5/2/04 14:47)
Reply
| Re: ...
Jakk,
Quote:
What noble intent. I suspect you and David have more in common than you think (certainly in regards self-image).
I am sure that both of us desire to regard ourselves as profound and wise. However, I am not so foolish as to take my desires to be the truth; which is why I don't claim to be wise, enlightened, etc. At most, I claim to be right -- and only on subjects on which I have put some effort into ensuring that I know whereof I speak.
Quote:
From a psychological perspective, it then makes sense the hostility you display. Interestingly, David shows no such hostility. Why might that be?
I know why I do act thusly. I don't give a flying fuck about how others think I am supposed to act, that's why. If I feel contempt, I will say so. QRS set my hypocritical ignorance meter off the scale, hence I don't hesitate to show just how silly and ignorant their pretensions are.
I am profoundly hostile to arrogant ignorance, you see. It's a character flaw. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 18
(5/2/04 16:10)
Reply | Re: ...
Quote:
It's a character flaw.
Agreed.
| Whirling Moat
Revolutionary
Posts: 200
(5/2/04 16:22)
Reply | Danilchenko and Aspectsign.....
Peace...
It seems that I suggested a debate thread in the past and I was told that such a thing was impossible. Victor you even said that you doubt whether such a thing was possible on EZ board. So what gives?
The Moorish crescent
Whirling Moat
| Hayzen
Guru
Posts: 568
(5/2/04 16:32)
Reply
 | Re: Danilchenko and Aspectsign.....
It's all part of this board's godless heathen's sinister plot to stick it you, Whirling Moat.
| Whirling Moat
Revolutionary
Posts: 201
(5/2/04 16:44)
Reply | Re: Danilchenko and Aspectsign.....
Peace...
It's all part of this board's godless heathen's sinister plot to stick it you, Whirling Moat. -Hayzen
Heeeeyyyyy....are you being sarcastic?
The Hungry Cat
Whirling Moat
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7882
(5/2/04 16:52)
Reply
| Re: Danilchenko and Aspectsign.....
We didn't have a good way of doing it then, I think. But after seeing this debate, I've got some ideas for rules that should work if you would like to debate somebody after the current debate is over.
Accidence happens. |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 30
(5/2/04 17:42)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Victor wrote:
Quote:
DQ: The enlightened person can tell the difference - and that's all that matters as far as the enlightened person is concerned.
Victor: No, what matters is figuring out whether you are one of those enlightened.
let me break it down for you.
let's take person X who thinks they are enlightened. There are two possible explanations for this:
X is enlightened, and correctly thinks; 'I am enlightened'
X is not enlightened, and incorrectly thinks: 'I am enlightened'
You have no way of telling whether you are #1 or #2.
Let's transpose this to an area you're familiar with:
- Person X correctly understands the truth of 1+1=2 and correctly thinks that he understands it.
- Person Y incorrectly thinks that 1+1=3 and incorrectly believes that his thinking is sound on the matter.
Does the mere existence of Person Y constitute validate grounds for Person X to conclude that his own knowledge of 1+1=2 is uncertain or unprovable? No, it does not. This is because Person X is able to validate the truth of 1+1=2 directly with his own mind.
The same principle applies in the case of the enlightened person.
Quote:
Let me put it even more bluntly (and i don't know how much simpler I can make it): you have no way of knowing whether your self-evaluation, 'I am enlightened', is correct.
The unenlightened person may have no way of knowing, but the enlightened person surely does.
The trouble with your analysis is that you're incorrectly presuming that the knowledge that the enlightened person enjoys has the same groundless and unsupported status as the incorrect beliefs of an unenlightened person. That is to say, in your attempt to equate the two, you are factoring out the quality and clarity and infinite depth of enlightened perception.
Quote:
DQ: The failings of an unenlightened person have no bearing one way or the other on the enlightened person's awareness and knowledge, just as the fumblings of the scientific illiterate have no bearing on the awareness and knowledge of the expert scientist.
VL: The difference is that an expert scientist can verify that they are such, by means more definitive than mere subjective opinion of themselves.
And I argue that the enlightened person also has a more definitive means of validation than "mere subjective opinion". Where he differs from the expert scientist is that his expert, definitive vaildation occurs inwardly, out of sight from everyone else. But that is of no consequence. The validation he engages in just as objective as science (or in truth, even more objective than science, since science is confined by the limitations of our senses and always operates in the realm of uncertainty).
Quote:
Contrawise, those who evaluate their scientific expertise by subjective opinion and deduce themselves to be experts -- various quacks -- are usually not expert scientists.
With science, we have objective method of checking the veracity of self-evaluation; with enlightenment, we don't, and so you can't tell whether you are the enlightenment equivalent of a scientist or a quack.
Let me ask you this: In what way have you established that the mainstream scientific community is not entirely composed of quacks?
| ksolway
Apprentice
Posts: 11
(5/2/04 19:03)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Philosophy
Victor wrote:
Quote:
. . . and I assure you that QRS are profoundly ignorant of western philosophy.
There is no such thing as "Western philosophy" and "Eastern philosophy". There is just philosophy.
Most of what is called "Western philosophy" is in fact not philosophy at all. And of all the so-called Western philosophers, the 20th-century Western philosophers would have to be by far the worst candidates of all. Modern academic philosophy has a philosophy content of, roughly, nil.
Of the Western crowd, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Weininger, would certainly qualify as true philosophers.
There is a big difference between science and philosophy, in that science generally advances, building on previous knowledge, while it is far more easy for philosophy to decline and go backwards. That is what has happened over the last hundred years. In the West, at least, philosophy has almost become extinct, and it certainly has in the academic world.
Quote:
1. X is enlightened, and correctly thinks; 'I am enlightened'
2. X is not enlightened, and incorrectly thinks: 'I am enlightened'
You have no way of telling whether you are #1 or #2.
1. X correctly thinks 1 + 1 = 2
2. X incorrectly thinks 1 + 1 = 3
How does X tell whether he is #1 or #2? He certainly can't ask anyone else, as what they tell him might be bunkum. He can only rely on his own mind.
| ksolway
Apprentice
Posts: 11
(5/2/04 19:30)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Quinn
samadhim7
Quote:
I wrote: Okay, good analogy. So what is casting the shadow?
David: Nature's causal processes.
S: No, nature's causal processes are the shadow. What is the "substance." What are YOU?
I imagine David is busy composing his third post, so allow me to offer an answer.
Nature's causal processes are not the shadow. They are what is casting the shadow. Nature's causal processes are nothing in particular.
Quote:
What is the "substance"?
Everything. Including all the shadows.
Quote:
Nevertheless, you can say what the egoless state is. What it certainly is not is a declaration of specialness beyond understanding.
Enlightenment is understood by the enlightened person himself, so it is not beyond understanding. And it is "special" only in the sense that it is extremely rare, and very difficult for an ordinary mind to understand.
Quote:
There is no "my" because there is no person! Q himself says everything is shadow.
To the contrary, the enlightened person is the only person who truly exists. He is the only one who has a "my". Everyone else are like ghosts by comparison.
Quote:
Then how the hell can a shadow speak of its own enlightenment? As soon as there's light, the shadow disappears!
Simply by saying "I am enlightened".
Quote:
You are making enlightenment into an achievement, something to gain
No, that's what you are doing, and that is why you are loathe to say "enlightenment is something to be gained". You are afraid of it.
Quote:
Enlightenment is not in duality.
Duality is in enlightenment.
| drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 92
(5/2/04 19:41)
Reply
| Re: Quinn
I'd just like to know who this Rowland fellow is? Man, he's copping it from Robert big time.
Poor bastard
Dan Rowden
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1511
(5/2/04 20:04)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Quinn
Mr. Rowden, it certainly wasn't my intent to get your name wrong - one hates to appear a git. But inquiring minds would like to know how you can promote a mentally ill self-loathing anti-semitic misogynist as a genius? The question of pathology has been considered and it should be pressed, and not just the pathology of the follower.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 663
(5/2/04 20:17)
Reply |  Re: debate?
I think it’s time to call a charade a charade. What’s been going on here is hardly a debate. I had hoped for a substantive discussion but what’s happening is more akin to "I am enlightened, no you’re not!" Yikes! Have a good time, kids!
| birdofhermes
Apprentice
Posts: 11
(5/2/04 20:20)
Reply | Re: Quinn
Quote:
How can you miss YOU in a debate on the nature of enlightenment?
It's because he does not believe in the existence of that which you call You, Samadhim.
| birdofhermes
Apprentice
Posts: 11
(5/2/04 20:34)
Reply | re
Nisargadatta and Adya.
I have a book by the first guy. Haven't heard of the second.
IQuote:
'm a bit disappointed that the debate is so focused on Buddhist definitions.
I agree, but that is where they are coming from.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 30
(5/2/04 21:05)
Reply
| Re: debate?
Samadhim wrote:
Quote:
I think it’s time to call a charade a charade. What’s been going on here is hardly a debate. I had hoped for a substantive discussion but what’s happening is more akin to "I am enlightened, no you’re not!" Yikes! Have a good time, kids!
It is actually a very important issue and has nothing to do with how you're characterizing it. It goes to the heart of what it means to be enlightened.
I know you try to sweep it under the carpet by constantly deferring to your "very good teachers", but the issue of enlightenment-validation is always present nonetheless. It has to be dealt with.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1512
(5/2/04 21:24)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: debate?
That would not be my interpretation of what this debate is all about but I will certainly agree that samadhim got it extraordinarily wrong.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 664
(5/2/04 21:35)
Reply | re: validation
Q,Quote:
I know you try to sweep it under the carpet by constantly deferring to your "very good teachers", but the issue of enlightenment-validation is always present nonetheless. It has to be dealt with.
The teachers I refer to never talk about enlightenment in terms of an "I." The personal "I" is what enlightenment reveals as false. Self-inquiry is always pointed to as the primary means to enlightenment. Why do you think that is?
Your making enlightenment about the teacher misses the whole point. The teacher and student are not separate. Making enlightenment a personal accomplishment destroys the very thing that it is which is impersonal. You don't seem to understand your own teaching. You say there is no inherent being and then make big point about who is enlightened and who isn't. There is no who!
Validation is an issue if someone chooses to blindly follow another's words. Nevertheless, self-inquiry is the antidote. What is true is present now and no one can show it to you, because it IS you, but not you as a person. All the teachings in the world can only point to what is; realization is yours alone.
| Hayzen
Guru
Posts: 572
(5/2/04 21:38)
Reply
| Re: re: validation
samadhim,
It isn't about being right or wrong. It's about different perspectives.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 665
(5/2/04 21:42)
Reply | Re: validation
Anyone can believe anything. It isn't a question of right or wrong, it's a question of more or less useful
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 666
(5/2/04 21:46)
Reply | Re: teachers
Quote:
I have a book by the first guy. Haven't heard of the second.
Adya teaches in the Bay area. If you're around here, I think you would enjoy him.
| 1Mike S
Follower
Posts: 79
(5/2/04 21:55)
Reply | Re: debate?
Quote:
It is actually a very important issue and has nothing to do with how you're characterizing it. It goes to the heart of what it means to be enlightened.
"Enlightened" people populate the earth and earn unbelievable money from their sheep -- this does not diminish, nor change, what true enlightenment is, it is simply something beyond the grasp of most intellectual people. Now, I do not mean to put anyone down - we all come from what we are (heriditary/educational influences that determine what we appear as) - but one person's ability to experience something that others are unable to in no way diminishes that experience - it only verifies the REALITY that some people experience things that others are denied the ability to SEE . . . . Mike
www.notcreatedequal.com | ksolway
Apprentice
Posts: 12
(5/2/04 22:02)
Reply | Edit
| Re: re: validation
Quote:
The teachers I refer to never talk about enlightenment in terms of an "I."
That's the problem.
Quote:
The personal "I" is what enlightenment reveals as false.
No. Enlightenment reveals an inherently existing self as being false, not the personal "I". People continue to exist, as people, and to converse with each other, and speak of each other, after they are enlightened. However, their view of what the "I" is, has changed.
Quote:
Self-inquiry is always pointed to as the primary means to enlightenment. Why do you think that is?
Because it is the only way. That is in fact the thrust of David's argument.
Quote:
You say there is no inherent being and then make big point about who is enlightened and who isn't.
It is irrelevant who is enlightened and who isn't. The important thing is what enlightenment is, and how one goes about validating enlightenment, and especially one's own enlightenment.
Quote:
Validation is an issue if someone chooses to blindly follow another's words.
Not when you want to validate your own thoughts.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1513
(5/2/04 23:05)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
Solway,
You've validated Weininger's thoughts. How about an update on an anti-semite you've proclaimed a genius? Would reasonable people, learning that Weininger was a mentally ill crackpot, then have reason to suspect your powers of discrimination might be lacking?
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 27
(5/2/04 23:14)
Reply
| Re: Dude, where is my debate?
Guildenstern: The point is that Buddhism is the tradition which concocted this idea of "enlightenment", nirvana. It is therefore Buddhist texts which define what Buddhist enlightenment is.
Bullseye!
I regret to express my discontent, but this debate is not what it promised to be. Remember the label on the package? Guildenstern's introduction verbatim: "The question is on the nature of enlightenment..." Now, what have we got about enlightenment so far?
Okay, we have busted David's first-person enlightenment claim, since David was naive enough to offer no support except circular verification. Big deal! How hard was that? Can we move on, please? Enlightenment is a very important Eastern concept. It appears in all strands of Buddhism, as well as in most Indian philosophical schools where it is contained implicitly in concepts such as 'moksha' or 'unity with Brahman'.
Before we can argue what enlightenment is not (it is obviously not what is being advertised by QSR!) it may seem a good idea to investigate the concept of enlightenment in somewhat greater depth. The Buddhist traditions offers a rich variety of texts and doctrines to that end. I already mentioned the "ten perfections" of the Hinayana tradition in my previous post:
1. generosity (dana)
2. morality (sila)
3. renunciation (nekkhamma)
4. wisdom (panna)
5. energy (viriya)
6. patience (khanti)
7. truthfulness (sacca)
8. resolute determination (aditthana)
9. loving kindness (metta)
10. equanimity (upekkha).
These "perfections" are presented as the marks of an enlightened being in the Buddhist teaching. Mahayana (and Vajrayana) Buddhism analogously offers the "six perfections" (trick question: are Mahayana Buddhists therefore less perfect?):
1. The Perfection of Generosity
2. The Perfection of Ethics
3. The Perfection of Patience
4. The Perfection of Effort
5. The Perfection of Concentration
6. The Perfection of Wisdom
Please also take note of the (Theravadian) teaching of the "seven factors of enlightenment", which are developed from the Mahasatipatthana Sutta in the Sutta Pitaka, the second book of the Tripitaka:
1. Mindfulness
2. Investigation of mental objects
3. Energy
4. Joy
5. Relaxation of body and mind
6. Concentration
7. Equanimity
Or, if you should prefer Mahayana, explain the various concepts and degrees of enlightenment in Buddhism, such as the ones attained by arhants, bodhisattvas, and Buddhas.
Or, if Buddhism is not to your palate, we could also discuss enligthenment from the perspective of psychoanalysis. What if the idea of enlightenment is only a Leitbild? A product of the Freudian super-ego? A Jungian archetype? What about the theosophical view of enlightenment? Blavatsky, Purucker & Co.?
Thomas
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 13
(5/2/04 23:26)
Reply | Edit
| Re: validation
Robert wrote:
Quote:
You've validated Weininger's thoughts. How about an update on an anti-semite you've proclaimed a genius?
A very short time ago I clearly explained to you that I didn't regard myself qualified to judge the veracity of Weininger's views on his own people. So why do you now say that I've validated Weininger's thoughts which you claim are anti-semitic? That is very dishonest on your part.
Do you know how Weininger defines Jewishness? I doubt it.
You have very simplistic views Mr. Larkin.
Quote:
Would reasonable people, learning that Weininger was a mentally ill crackpot . . .
Your judging someone to be a "mentally ill crackpot" doesn't hold much weight with me I have to say.
Dr Morris Rappaport, a psychologist who knew Weininger, says of Weininger's writings - including the writings he made right up to the time of his death - “They contain far-reaching thoughts which are not darkened by the slightest touch of insanity; there is not one word that is not well-considered.”
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1514
(5/2/04 23:48)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: validation
Wow, a psychologist who back in 1903 Vienna somehow verified far-reaching anti-semitic thinking? Solway, you're really out of your element.
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Jens Kristian 
Postulator
Posts: 61
(6/2/04 0:30)
Reply
ezSupporter
 | Re: validation
Solway,
Quote:
Dr Morris Rappaport, a psychologist who knew Weininger, says of Weininger's writings - including the writings he made right up to the time of his death - “They contain far-reaching thoughts which are not darkened by the slightest touch of insanity; there is not one word that is not well-considered.”
So, by your standards, being labelled as "Not insane" is backing?
The assessment is the academic equivalent of taking a leak in someone else's face without wanting to state it directly. Getting the "support" of a statement which reads: "There is not one word that is not well-considered." Is academia-babble for "Research was done for it." or "He stated his case."
Most writers would take that as a direct insult.
Cheers
Jens-Kristian
All I can do is shout
Keeping It Real | ksolway
Follower
Posts: 13
(6/2/04 0:32)
Reply | Edit
| Re: validation
Mr Larkin, it seems that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an anti-semitic, homosexual, racist, sexist, cultist, misogynist, mentally ill, Nazi, lackey, sycophant pretender!
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 14
(6/2/04 0:39)
Reply | Edit
| Re: validation
Quote:
So, by your standards, being labelled as "Not insane" is backing?
Well, personally speaking, I think most people are insane, so "not insane" would be a great thing indeed. But I digress . . .
As Weininger commited suicide there was naturally the question of Weininger's sanity. The people who knew Weininger, including Rappaport, could not detect any insanity in Weininger. Their opinion of him, as is the opinion of many, was that he was a spiritual genius. Rappaport's comment was a response to the speculation about Weininger's sanity, and how it manifested in his writing.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 31
(6/2/04 0:41)
Reply
| Re: re: validation
Samadhim wrote:
Quote:
DQ: I know you try to sweep it under the carpet by constantly deferring to your "very good teachers", but the issue of enlightenment-validation is always present nonetheless. It has to be dealt with.
S: The teachers I refer to never talk about enlightenment in terms of an "I." The personal "I" is what enlightenment reveals is false.
Sure, but the term is still useful nevertheless. Just as an enlightened person will say to another person, "pass me my hat, " or "pass me my bag, " or, "listen to my teaching", when it is appropriate and useful to say these things, he is also perfectly willing to talk about himself in the appropriate circumstances.
For example, the Buddha:
As long, Disciples, as the absolutely true knowledge and insight regards these Four Noble Truths was not quite clear in me, so long was I not sure whether I had won to that supreme Enlightenment which is unsurpassed in all the world with its heavenly beings, evil spirits and gods, amongst all the hosts of ascetics and priests, heavenly beings and men. But as soon as the absolutely true knowledge and insight as regards these Four Noble Truths has become perfectly clear in me, there arose in me the assurance that I had won to that supreme Enlightenment unsurpassed.
- Samyutta-Nikaya
-"I have realized this Truth which is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand . . . comprehensible by the wise. Men who are overpowered by passion and surrounded by a mass of darkness cannot see this Truth which is against the current, which is lofty, deep, subtle and hard to comprehend."
- Majjhima-Nikaya
--
There is nothing wrong with using the words "I" and "my" as long we remember that the reality they refer to doesn't inherently exist.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1515
(6/2/04 1:01)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
"As Weininger commited suicide there was naturally the question of Weininger's sanity. The people who knew Weininger, including Rappaport, could not detect any insanity in Weininger. Their opinion of him, as is the opinion of many, was that he was a spiritual genius. Rappaport's comment was a response to the speculation about Weininger's sanity, and how it manifested in his writing."
It was the opinion of many that Weininger was a spiritual genius? Has that opinion remained current? He was a Jew who hated Jews and women. A crackpot. A loon. A man who makes a point of blowing out his brains in the room where Beethoven died is ... tetched. And anyone who thinks Weininger was a spiritual genius ought to be looked at askance as well. You don't laud lunatical anti-semites, else you have missed the boat somewhere.
It is disingenous to a fault to say that Weininger's anti-semitic remarks are his own business. That's validation of anti-semitism, Solway. Whatever Weininger's particular pathology might have been, a self-loating Jewish anti-semite is wrong in the head. He was an anti-semite and you're promoting him; reasonable people are allowed here to draw a conclusion about you.
Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 6/2/04 1:06
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 15
(6/2/04 1:32)
Reply | Edit
| Re: re: validation
Robert Larkin wrote:
Quote:
He was a Jew who hated Jews and women.
Some would agree with you, some don't. And I don't.
You are overly quick to jump to "hatred".
"If I could I would shut down this board in an instant." - Robert Larkin, on Genius Forum
Quote:
A crackpot. A loon.
A lot of people are regarded to be crackpots and loons. That doesn't mean they are. The Buddha is regarded to be a crackpot and a loon by many (for claiming to be enlightened for one thing).
Many would regard yourself to be a crackpot and a loon, but it doesn't mean a whole lot.
Quote:
A man who makes a point of blowing out his brains in the room where Beethoven died is ... tetched.
I would say he was definitely dramatic.
Quote:
You don't laud lunatical anti-semites, else you have missed the boat somewhere.
You don't slander spiritual geniuses . . .
Quote:
It is disingenous to a fault to say that Weininger's anti-semitic remarks are his own business. That's validation of anti-semitism, Solway.
Whether Weininger's remarks are anti-semitic is debatable. But here in this thread is probably not the place for such a far-reaching debate.
Quote:
. . . a self-loathing
There is nothing too wrong with self-loathing. That is in fact one of the essentials for spiritual progress - an ashamedness of one's ignorance.
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 261
(6/2/04 1:33)
Reply
| Re: re: validation
Weininger was a "spiritual genius?" Hmm, I have been studying world spiritual traditions for quite some time, and despite my interest in the subject matter, I found myself unable to finish Weininger's book, much less find very much value in what I did read. It's not that I'm biased - for example, I consider Advanced Course in Yogi Philosophy and Oriental Occultism by 'Yogi Ramacharaka' (aka William Walker Atkinson) to be one of the best spiritual works of all time, and I am not a Yogi and quite certainly not an occultist. Atkinson was a Theosophical thinker who believe in some things that I find unlikely, but the core of his teachings is found in his excellent and lucid exposition of what all spiritual thinkers of merit have agreed upon for centuries. Namely, that wisdom and compassion are two sides of the same coin, and that the synthesis of the two constitutes 'enlightenment.' I don't see this synthesis realized in Weininger, nor do I think that it is at all evident in the views of QRS. If Weininger's book, like Atkinson's, had contained "spiritual genius" in my estimation, I would have gladly finsished reading it and praised it accordingly. That I was unable to do so indicates that either I am unable to recognize actual "spiritual genius" (which is what I am sure you will maintain), or that Weininger's book is simply hackeneyed, outdated, prejudicial "gibberish," as Robert has put it. Based on my considerable studies over the last five years, I'm leaning toward the latter. Edited by: Naturyl at: 6/2/04 1:42
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1516
(6/2/04 1:42)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
"Sure, but the term is still useful nevertheless. Just as an enlightened person will say to another person, "pass me my hat, " or "pass me my bag, " or, "listen to my teaching", when it is appropriate and useful to say these things, he is also perfectly willing to talk about himself in the appropriate circumstances."
Hey, Quinn: Talk about your promotion of anti-semitism.
Or, you guys can completely disavow Weininger after admitting you were mistaken to have supported him in the first place.
That's you, Rowden, and Solway; all three of you enlightened promoters of anti-semitism. Now are you going to disavow Weininger, admitting you were very wrong in your assessment of him, or are you going to continue to promote anti-semitism? I'm sure you'll make an enlightened choice.
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 262
(6/2/04 1:54)
Reply
| Re: re: validation
I suspect that they wouldn't disavow Weininger even if it could be shown that he want to exterminate the entire human race. There are two reasons why I feel this way.
Firstly, David himself has advocated strangling female infants at birth, so what can we imagine would cause him or the remainder of QRS to disavow anyone? When you advocate things like that, there isn't much that is going to shock you. Even if we imagine that Weininger wanted to exterminate all Jews, as did the Nazis, how can this compare to David's desire to exterminate the entire female population now and forever? In short, Weininger has nothing on QRS in terms of misanthropy, so there is no reason to suppose that they would consider disavowing him.
Secondly, and as further evidence against their claims of enlightenment, I believe that even if QRS were to somehow recognize the folly of Weininger, they would still be unlikely to dump him. This is due to the psychological phenomena known as 'cognitive dissonance.' Briefly, this process shows that when people are emotionally invested in certain ideas, they will rationalize away problems in order to preserve those ideas. This occurs because people fear having to admit that they were fooled, flim-flammed, or taken in by ideas that are later revealed to be without merit. Rather than face this blow to the ego and self-image, which can sometimes be quite painful, most people would rather make rationalizations which help them to shore up a troubled idea or belief. The extent to which these rationalizations can be carried in order to avoid suffering damage to the self-image can be quite surprising indeed.
These two reasons, and perhaps others that I have not touched on here, indicate to me that the possibility of QRS disavowing Weininger is slim to none, no matter how badly we and others may damage "the great man."
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 262
(6/2/04 2:07)
Reply
| Case in point...
Just tonight, at 11:09 PM, Mr. Solway said this on KIR:
Quote:
Weininger was a truly great man. No matter how much I consider his work, I cannot deny this fact. He was one of the very brightest lights of the last thousand years. That cannot be overlooked, and must fill any person's heart with joy.
I'm sure that everyone of discernment can see the point I was making in my previous post. There is no significant chance of these guys disavowing Weinger anytime soon. The emotional needs of these 'non-emotional' men would prevent it with great certainty. Even 'enlightened sages' cannot escape our common lot of human psychology, just as none of the Napoleons or Christs at the community mental health center can escape it.
| alarabi7
misplaced koan
-Administrator
Posts: 2017
(6/2/04 2:13)
Reply
| Re: Case in point...
These questions raise devastating doubt in the mental health of QRS. They have yet to be able to respond effectively to these chilling accusations. If so called enlightened men support this rubbish- I will choose ignorance thankyou.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 16
(6/2/04 2:39)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Case in point...
alarabi wrote:
Quote:
These questions raise devastating doubt in the mental health of QRS. They have yet to be able to respond effectively to these chilling accusations. If so called enlightened men support this rubbish- I will choose ignorance thankyou.
I should make it clear that I am against all forms of racism and sexism, and do not support such things in any way. And I think David, the subject of the current debate, would echo my sentiments.
Don't be swayed by the mud-slingers.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1517
(6/2/04 2:59)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Case in point...
And will you three be disavowing Weininger anytime soon, or will you continue to pronounce him a genius?
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1518
(6/2/04 3:06)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Case in point...
Quote:
Mr Larkin, it seems that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an anti-semitic, homosexual, racist, sexist, cultist, misogynist, mentally ill, Nazi, lackey, sycophant pretender! - Solway
I hadn't seen this earlier. Would an enlightened person attempt such a laugher? Well, maybe; enlightenment is real mysterious after all. How about this then, 'Would an intelligent person attempt such a laugher?'
Again and again we have examples of how these people simply cannot think well.
| voce io
Inductee
Posts: 46
(6/2/04 3:10)
Reply
 | Re: Case in point...
(edit: point about W shooting himself was previously made) Edited by: voce io at: 6/2/04 3:15
| BaranaOne
Visitor
Posts: 1
(6/2/04 3:13)
Reply
 | Re: Case in point...
Quote:
These questions raise devastating doubt in the mental health of QRS. They have yet to be able to respond effectively to these chilling accusations. If so called enlightened men support this rubbish- I will choose ignorance thankyou
MAkes sense Alarabi-And why are you e-mailing Leon and giving him KIR's Staffroom passwords>?
Edited by: BaranaOne at: 6/2/04 3:13
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 17
(6/2/04 3:16)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Case in point...
Quote:
KS: Mr Larkin, it seems that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an anti-semitic, homosexual, racist, sexist, cultist, misogynist, mentally ill, Nazi, lackey, sycophant pretender! - Solway
Would an enlightened person attempt such a laugher?
Some might find it funny. You have resorted to painting your opponents with every abusive term you can possibly think of, and have even expressed a desire to shut down their discussion forum.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1519
(6/2/04 3:23)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Case in point...
With regard to my comments on the Genius Forum, I would indeed shut them down in an instant. It's rather a disturbing place and everyone is free to go look.
At the top you have three self-appointed enlightened men who pass off Otto Weininger as a genius and who rely on Weininger's Victorian nonsense to further their own cases about the inferiority of women. Weininger was an anti-semite and a misogynist and if you are a moral person you simply do not promote the views of Otto Weininger. Weininger was not a spiritual genius he was a crank whose one book became popular after he shot himself.
We have contortions here about how self-loathing is maybe not so bad, and how should I know if he was an anti-semite; to what service are those contortions being put? Again, we are reasonable people and we can draw reasonable conclusions about the wisdom and the morality of three men supporting a Jewish anti-semite who got his 15 minutes by blowing out his brains.
| BaranaOne
Visitor
Posts: 1
(6/2/04 3:33)
Reply
| Re: Case in point...
 everybody is right
| lbartoli
Inductee
Posts: 7
(6/2/04 4:03)
Reply | disavow Weininger!
disavow Weininger?!
Thats just hilarious, Mr Larkin, and unbelieveable.
Unbelieveable because you actually believe there is a chance that would happen! This just blows my mind, Mr Larkin, that you are silly enuf to suggest and propose even that QRS might want to consider disavowing Weininger! Im in stiches over here!! Disavow Weininger! The more you say, Mr Larkin, the more you reveal how very clueless you are, my friend. I mean, you actually believe there's a chance! There isnt a snowballs chance in hell that they're gonna disavow Weininger, I mean how could they? Cant you see that that would be just insane? This reminds me of
a movie i saw once where these mean fellows were beating up some guy Jesus, telling him to forsake his beliefs to spare himself suffering and spare his life. But he wouldnt do it so they killed him.
What do you think, Mr Larkin, you say you would shut down the Genius forum, let me ask you-- what about killing these guys? dont you think the world would be better off if these guys were put out of their misery?
Let me ask you, what would you do with these guys if they continued to teach these things they believe?
Would you be justified to stop them in whatever way necessary?
You're a riot, Mr Larkin......disavow Weininger! Whats next, admit they really dont believe they are wise and enlightened, that they are just fooling themselves?
Just too much!
Leo
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1520
(6/2/04 4:38)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: disavow Weininger!
Barana,
Good link in the other thread, but you know it should have gone in here.
Leo,
What does one expect of good people at any time? Not that they will be faultless but that if they make a mistake they will not continue making it.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1521
(6/2/04 5:32)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
David jumped the gun; it was in fact my post which was due, an arrangement designed to give him first and last post. The schedule was in the debate thread and also at David's board. However, I have no problem with David posting out of sequence and I have suggested to G. that we shorten the debate by one post, skipping one of my rebuttals. If that is acceptable to the parties then I will have one more post, David making the final post after that.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 27
(6/2/04 6:42)
Reply
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
David: Nor does the number zero have anything to do with the concept of sunyata. After all, Gautama Siddharta and many Hindu sages before him were perfectly capable of comprehending the nature of emptiness without any help from the Greeks and their numbering system.
It was the Greeks who lacked a conception of zero!! The number zero is Indian in origin.
David: It should be stressed that sunyata (emptiness) does not mean "nothingness" or "zeroness".
"Sunyata" means "puffed up void", or simply "void". The Arabic word for it is "sifr" which later became "zefiro" in Italian and "zero" in English.
Gotcha!
Thomas
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 27
(6/2/04 7:08)
Reply
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Robert: At the top you have three self-appointed enlightened men who pass off Otto Weininger as a genius and who rely on Weininger's Victorian nonsense to further their own cases about the inferiority of women.
I'm not sure whether the attribute "Victorian" fits Weininger. I mean, the guy lived in the fien-de-siecle Vienna and he was a Jew. Imperial Habsburg values, a Jewish education, a snobbish, turbulent, and confused society, all that comes to mind. He was completely continental so to speak, quite visibly influenced by Vienna's intellectual elite. In German, you could call him "Wiener Weininger," which sounds funny. As an americanized equivalent I suggest the term "Wheeny-Whiny" which almost sounds the same. Wheeny-Whiny's "Sex and Character" was popular for some time, because psychology was the new "science" on the horizon and Vienna was sort of psychology's world capital at the time. Wheeny-Whiny was just riding on a trend wave without making a greater contribution on his own.
Thomas
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1522
(6/2/04 7:47)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Thomas,
The use of Victorian is out of place - I beg being ... lazy.
I knew that Vienna was the 'psychology capital' and quite honestly my first search in 'Sex and Character' was 'sperm' because I knew it was an (1890's I believe) Viennese medical theory that since sperm are 'active' and eggs 'passive' that various supposedly masculine attributes can therefore be assigned purely to sperm. There was at least an echo of that in the Weininger quote I included earlier:
Quote:
"The extraordinary way in which woman can be influenced by external agencies is similar in its nature to her suggestibility, which is far greater and more general than man's; they are both in accordance with woman's desire to play the passive and never the active part in the sexual act and all that leads to it. [Footnote:] The quiescent, inactive, large egg-cells are sought out by the mobile, active, and slender spermatozoa."
Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, 1906, p. 159-60.
The dashing, slender spermatozoa and the lazy fat egg. Weininger insists even microscopic manhood is superior.
Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 6/2/04 8:03
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 17
(6/2/04 9:04)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Weininger's footnote: The quiescent, inactive, large egg-cells are sought out by the mobile, active, and slender spermatozoa.
Quote:
Weininger insists even microscopic manhood is superior.
That's a ridiculous interpretation of yours, to a side-thought which Weininger placed in a footnote, as possibly having some significance.
Modern science has since revealed that the behaviour of sperm and that of human males in the larger world are not unrelated.
You are hell-bent on interpreting anything you want, out of anything you want. You may as well just make it all up, without bothering to provide references. Edited by: ksolway at: 6/2/04 9:05
| Ogg Oggleby
Exemplar of Eccentricities
Posts: 713
(6/2/04 9:11)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Wow, Kevin, righteous anger.
"Modern science has since revealed that the behaviour of sperm and that of human males in the larger world are not unrelated."
Does that mean masculine qualities are carried by the sperm? It's not the same thing, now is it? By the way, you didn't provide a reference and David has not been providing references to his 'thinking'. I have been linking and providing notes as necessary.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1523
(6/2/04 9:13)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Ogg begs forgiveness for his interruption. I'm usually signed in as Robert.
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 14
(6/2/04 9:21)
Reply | Re: Case in point...
Quote:
alarabi7: These questions raise devastating doubt in the mental health of QRS. They have yet to be able to respond effectively to these chilling accusations. If so called enlightened men support this rubbish- I will choose ignorance thankyou.
I think you are somewhat right in that they have not responded effectively, but have they been asked the right questions either? Well, I suppose I will leave it up to myself to satisfy my curiosity...
David, Kevin, and Dan:
1. Are you Nazis, neo-nazis, anti-semitetic in any way?
2. Are you racist?
3. Are you misogynists?
4. Are you sane, and if so, what makes you believe so?
 Edited by: cassiopeiae at: 6/2/04 9:43
| Muthaiga
effete slob
Posts: 1852
(6/2/04 9:31)
Reply
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Stupid Ogg.
Quote:
Muthaiga:1,000 TPG Funbucks on 'rain stopped play'.
In chat yesterday we decided they are to be known as e-doubloons. We didn't tell anyone, though, so your egregious error is excused. ;P
Then forget the Funbucks, G. (give them to charity), and put my 1,000 e-doubloons on Larko. However, I don't anticipate any concessions from Quinn et al. I'm put in mind of bleary-eyed arguments with Jehovah's Witnesses on my doorstep of a Sunday morning.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 18
(6/2/04 9:39)
Reply | Re: Case in point...
You see, femininity has nothing to do with gender. There are a couple of men here that are being hysterical and all the posts by the women (that I know of) have been rational.
Ask the "QRS" and you will see that they agree.
Tharan
| jimhaz
Inductee
Posts: 3
(6/2/04 9:55)
Reply | Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
I have decided that the QRS are near to enlightenment via circumstantial evidence. I say 'near to' because I think they make the odd written mistake in their writings, and also not being enlightened myself I can see the dilemma in a non-enlightened person trying to judge someone who might be enlightened. There is no problem with the use of circumstantial evidence, as any perception is the same.
Here are some examples, of why I think their views are meritorious of contemplation.
Every so often at the Genius forum some new clown comes in stating that they are enlightened, or someone who is a regular poster to the forum will have some form of feeling of enlightenment and declare that they are enlightened. The interesting thing when this occurs is that both the QRS and each individual person on the forum can clearly see that the person declaring such is delusional. They always have inconsistencies, sometimes obviously, and sometimes it needs to be bought out in them. The point here is that all members of the forum can spot a non-enlightened person pretty quickly, there is always a point in which there reasoning falls down. So far I not seen anything major that clearly shows the QRS stance is not logically consistent (although Thomas and Victor will disagree by using academic pedantry). Which is not to say I always understand their approach or that I think they are perfect. Some of the stuff I don't understand appears to be more a result of my attachments preventing understanding, rather than them being wrong.
The QRS have a consistent approach over time – it is similar to how science theories or religions become accepted. It is a consistency between all three in virtually everything they write.
The QRS have taken bits and pieces from all forms of written wisdom created in the past and formed it into a system that has meaning to them, rather than getting caught up in the constraints of a particular system of belief. There is nothing wrong with this as it shows they have used their own minds to determine what is valid and what is not. That they have great respect for say Buddha, which in a way forms the starting point from which they have added the works of others, indicates to me that they have contemplated matters in great depth.
They do not wish anyone to take what they say for granted.
Desire for wisdom itself rather than is their motivation, not argument for arguments sake – one can see this in the way they phrase things. For the most part they write in a way that is designed to bring out the underlying truth, without the burden of emotions and personal desires making the truth into something which it is not.
They live lives of non-attachment to material things.
I adamantly rejected their reasoning re feminine/masculine for at least 18 months, off and on. I still do a bit, I think there is an emotionalism there that does not need to be there. On the other hand I find they are right about the nature of men/women (or more precisely masculine/feminine) when it applied to everyday situations. It doesn’t matter if one is watching Simpsons, The Matrix, a soapie, the people at work, the birds walking down the street, members of your family, the emotional turmoil of friends – the differences between masculine and feminine thought processes are completely evident.
The readers here should be aware that I rejected the QRS philosophy in much the same manner as you folks are doing now. It is not surprising that people act this way. Their form of philosophy is so ultimate in its requirements for consistency that attachments like a intimate relationships with a women, alcohol and other drugs, unnecessary material possessions, mindless TV and movies etc must have no emotional effects on the way they think. It therefore is only useful - until society itself changes to be more accommodating to wisdom - for those who have difficulties accepting the idiosyncrasies of society and can accept the 'perceived loss' of not having a desire to emotionally interact with ordinary folk. So it suits very few people.
One of the major things the QRS wish people to think about is Cause and Effect. Thinking backwards through what causes each individual 'thing' in general terms of the views of society, male and female phycology, themselves and matter to occur, then allows one to think more clearly about the most appropriate action to make mankind's future better, rather than one's own. One can also use this concept to either reject what they say or not, as I do. They make the occasional error, like the strangle babies comment, which David has since said was not to be taken literally. It was a response to a purely hypothetical question I asked. Nobody is perfect, I imagine the Buddha before he became the buddha, made errors of communication, which simply have not been recorded. Errors will always occur in the development of wisdom - it is how one determines what wisdom is. The QRS do not say they are Buddhas, merely that they are more enlightened than anyone they are aware of in the world today.
I know you will see all the above as me defending them in the manner of a 'disciple', however, I view it differently. I am merely defending myself after being called, as no doubt viewed as, a sycophant. I have never meet them and have no present desire to do so. I don't correspond by email or in any other fashion than the forum. Not much of a disciple. Robert is leading you astray in that regard.
Edited - I posted an earlier version of the above by mistake
2nd edit - I said inconsistent instead of consistent (oops!)
Edited by: jimhaz at: 7/2/04 1:40
| jimhaz
Inductee
Posts: 3
(6/2/04 10:02)
Reply | Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Weininger. I have only read about 50 pages of his work. I consider him to be a genius but not enlightened, as he clearly did not have full control of his emotions. The only thing I got out of Weininger, was the concept that we all have a combination of feminine and masculine traits, but that the masculine was far more creative, and the feminine more passive.
IMO, feminine passiveness provides societal stability and balances out the chaos the masculine creates. The modern world however, is a somewhat different to those times, the degree that the feminine controls the masculine is far too extreme. It is a feminine trait to collect 'things', mostly things that will keep themselves or the male happy and contended (and thus themselves as well), and while in the past this wouldn't destroy the world it now can. The collection and possession of things is a major reason for conflict, and it is a male instinct to provide for the female, for the rewards of sexual gratification and homely comforts. As women gain more and more power, or more and more ability to collect and possess things and males become more feminine in nature, then the drive to collect things becomes obsessive, and so we have the capitalistic, greed filled world as it is today spiralling out of control.
The collection of things is against the teaching of Buddhism, however few people in the West pay any attention to this nowadays, so Buddhism is failing and has become just a religion of like minded.
Edited by: jimhaz at: 6/2/04 10:29
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1524
(6/2/04 10:09)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
The QRS ... The QRS ... The QRS ... The QRS ...
Jim, you're fucked.
| jimhaz
Inductee
Posts: 4
(6/2/04 10:11)
Reply | Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
If I remember correctly, Victor, you too have thrown your quite impressive intellect in the ring at Genius Forum to no discernable effect.
Victor has had a lack of affect, because he has no real compassion. The same applies to Robert.
You can't have true compassion when you have a form of hatred for the views of others that challenge yours. All you can have is the illusion of compassion. Neither can see the whole as they believe the detail provides all the answers.
I can't help but thinking Robert is a ex-school teacher. Is he?
Just curious.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1525
(6/2/04 10:13)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
And I'm serious; go get medical attention.
| jimhaz
Inductee
Posts: 5
(6/2/04 10:17)
Reply | Re: validation
1. The Perfection of Generosity
2. The Perfection of Ethics
3. The Perfection of Patience
4. The Perfection of Effort
5. The Perfection of Concentration
6. The Perfection of Wisdom
It is my view that 4 creates improvements in 5 which can then create 6, which by default leads to 1, 2 and 3.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 28
(6/2/04 10:18)
Reply
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Wheeny-Whiny: [Footnote:] The quiescent, inactive, large egg-cells are sought out by the mobile, active, and slender spermatozoa.
That's hilarious.
Did Weininger consider that it takes the lazy (human) sperm a full seventy-something days to build up before it gets into action?
Thomas
| jimhaz
Inductee
Posts: 6
(6/2/04 10:21)
Reply | Re: validation
The QRS ... The QRS ... The QRS ... The QRS ...
Jim, you're fucked.
ohh, my posts and nearly every other post on this thread, must be on the wrong thread
I'll just have to refer to what my Buddhist texts state.....what my Buddhist texts state...what my Buddhist texts state....what my Buddhist texts state...
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1526
(6/2/04 10:22)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
He also didn't know sperm move well horizontally but without assistance from the female body (cilia) they would never approach the target. Also some sperm, forgive not looking for a reference, never intend to get to the egg. Homos.
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | jimhaz
Inductee
Posts: 7
(6/2/04 10:25)
Reply | Re: validation
And I'm serious; go get medical attention.
Robert go get electric shock treatment. And I'm serious, it would be most useful.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 29
(6/2/04 10:26)
Reply
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
David: It has been remarked by Robert, and backed up by Guildenstern and Thomas Knierim in the commentary thread, that we do not need to know whether Nagarjuna was enlightened, or whether the Buddhist sutras are expressions of wisdom.
Neither did I see Robert making that claim, nor did Guildenstern or I back this up. Do you just fabricate this out of thin air?
David: So if Robert and Guildenstern and Thomas are to be consistent, then they should reject the whole of Buddhism on the grounds that it conflicts with the earlier teachings of Hinduism.
Consistent with what? Consistent with a "first come serve first" strategy? Should one reject Buddhism because Buddhism did not invent the concept of enlightenment? That doesn’t make any sense. In one of my previous posts I mentioned that the Buddhist notion of enlightenment is –although dominant in this discussion– is not the only way to look at enlightenment. I even mentioned theosophy, for Christ’s sake.
David: The fact that conventional, orthodox men such as Robert, Guildenstern and Thomas would turn to an unconventional, unorthodox maverick such as the Buddha…
Okay, so now are “orthodox”? I remember you have been referring to me as “post-modern” on occasion. That would obviously make me an “orthodox post-modernist.” A bit of a contradiction, don’t you think? I am learning new things from you all the time.
David: I can just imagine earlier incarnations of Robert, Guildenstern and Thomas, living during that period as conventional, orthodox brahmans, castigating the Buddha for his individualistic ways.
I don’t castigate people for being unorthodox or unconventional, but I do criticize them for spreading what I perceive to be misinformation, untruths, and propaganda. For example, I believe that the theory of the inferiority of the female mind is ignorant propaganda, and therefore I criticize it. I also protest when you make inaccurate statements about scientific topics or when you misrepresent Buddhism. It’s a compulsive habit…
David: Because Robert, Guildenstern and Thomas correctly claim they are unenlightened…
I haven’t seen any such claims. In fact claiming either enlightenment or unenlightenment seems equally nonsensical.
David: …and therefore not of "one mind" with past Buddhist sages, they are tacitly admitting (even though they will never consciously own up to this) that their interpretation of Buddhist scripture is incorrect.
One doesn’t need to claim enlightenment to “be of one mind with Buddhist sages.” The works and the spirit of the Buddhist sages can be apprehended and appreciated without claiming enlightenment.
Perhaps this is new to you. In the Buddhist Sangha, the claim of spiritual achievements or authority without proper evidence or power being granted by the Sangha constitutes a Vinaya offense. It is one of the first class offenses for which monks can be disrobed.
Thomas
| ParadiseChild
Postulator
Posts: 353
(6/2/04 10:28)
Reply | Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
The Larkin camp is losing badly, I must say, though it doesn't know it. QRS team is keeping cool under pressure and providing unified cogent argument.
I say this based on the debate and the comments thread only, and my own experience on the "path." I have read nothing at the QRS site.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1981
(6/2/04 10:39)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Quinn,
Quote:
Let's transpose this to an area you're familiar with:
Dude, i am familiar with more philosophy and logic than you will ever learn, given the way you are going.
Quote:
- Person X correctly understands the truth of 1+1=2 and correctly thinks that he understands it.
- Person Y incorrectly thinks that 1+1=3 and incorrectly believes that his thinking is sound on the matter.
Does the mere existence of Person Y constitute validate grounds for Person X to conclude that his own knowledge of 1+1=2 is uncertain or unprovable? No, it does not. This is because Person X is able to validate the truth of 1+1=2 directly with his own mind.
ignorance strikes again! :P
You see, I can take Peano axioms, upon which arithmetic is based, and incontrovertibly prove that 1+1=2; there is no subjective validation involved. Had you bothered to learn anything, you would have known that. Contrawise, if you reject Peano axioms, then we simply speak a different language, and your statement "1+1=3" does not actually mean what everyone else would mean by making such a statement.
Quote:
The same principle applies in the case of the enlightened person.
As I said, I can incontrovertibly, formally prove that I am correct in asserting 1+1=2. This is exactly what the problem is with your inane enlightenment claim -- you explicitly disclaim any possibility of opbjective proof, yet you recognize that such purely subjective stuff is exactly the kind of thing that never makes it through the filter of 'truth', unlike statements like '1+1=2' or 'I am a scientist'.
Quote:
The unenlightened person may have no way of knowing, but the enlightened person surely does.
And you simply assume that you are case#1 (enlightened and correct) and not case #2 (unenlightened and incorrect).
Quote:
The trouble with your analysis is that you're incorrectly presuming that the knowledge that the enlightened person enjoys has the same groundless and unsupported status as the incorrect beliefs of an unenlightened person. That is to say, in your attempt to equate the two, you are factoring out the quality and clarity and infinite depth of enlightened perception.
No, David, this is not what I am saying; stop being so dense. What I am saying is that by the rules you laid out (no behavioral verification etc.), an individual cannot determine themselves, by self-evaluation, whether they are enlightened.
So you think your "quality and clarity and infinite depth of enlightened perception" proves that you are enlightened. How do you know that you are unenlightened who deludes himself into thinking that he has those qualities? You don't, and you can't!
Quote:
Where he differs from the expert scientist is that his expert, definitive vaildation occurs inwardly, out of sight from everyone else. But that is of no consequence.
It's of consequence because with external validation (e.g. science), errors and delusions can be caught by cross-checking; but with internal validation, they can't. if you are unenlightened and think yourself enlightened, there is nothing to correct your error.
Quote:
Let me ask you this: In what way have you established that the mainstream scientific community is not entirely composed of quacks?
By checking the predictive power of the scientifc theories. the fact that, say, physics theories allow us to predict hitherto-unporedictable phenomena (and use them to our advantage, e.g. TVs and Internet) proves that scientific community is not composed wholly of quacks. Robert larkin attempted to impose a similarly objective criteria on your 'enlightenment' claim, and you rejected it -- probably because you knew you wouldn't pass the muster. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1527
(6/2/04 10:40)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Jim, this is the last thing I'll write to you. "The QRS" have announced in their great wisdom that Otto Weininger is a spiritual genius. Here are two interesting opinions on Weininger.
Quote:
Though otherwise silent on the work of Otto Weininger, Freud refers to him briefly in 1909 ... as a case of neurosis arising from unresolved castration anxiety. The first full-scale study of Weininger, published in 1946 by David Abrahamsen, M.D., is actually a psychobiography; the study painstakingly collects and arranges biographical material in order to prove that, in fact, Weininger suffered from schizophrenia.
'The "Alluring Abyss of Nothingness": Misogyny and (Male) Hysteria in Otto Weininger',
Misha Kavka, New German Critique, No. 66, Special Issue on the Nineteenth Century. (Autumn, 1995), pp. 123-145.
Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 6/2/04 10:48
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1982
(6/2/04 10:41)
Reply
| Re: Philosophy
Solway,
Quote:
1. X correctly thinks 1 + 1 = 2
2. X incorrectly thinks 1 + 1 = 3
How does X tell whether he is #1 or #2? He certainly can't ask anyone else, as what they tell him might be bunkum. He can only rely on his own mind.
He can perform formal proof, demonstrating that 1+1=2 beyond rational doubt. He can offer the same formal proof to others. You, and your delusional claims of 'enlightenment', enjoy no such distinction. This is why 1+1=2, but you are not enlightened. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1983
(6/2/04 10:44)
Reply
| Re: re: validation
Solway,
Quote:
A lot of people are regarded to be crackpots and loons. That doesn't mean they are.
Yeah, they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Newton, they laughed at Darwin -- but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown...
Guess which category you and your genius buddies come closer to? Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 8
(6/2/04 10:57)
Reply | Re: re: validation
Jim, this is the last thing I'll write to you.
No problems Robert, I've pretty much said all I wanted to say anyway. Although I may respond to others if they point out some error in what I've said, that to me is worthy of a reply.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1528
(6/2/04 11:03)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
Quote:
The Larkin camp is losing badly, I must say, though it doesn't know it. QRS team is keeping cool under pressure and providing unified cogent argument.
I say this based on the debate and the comments thread only, and my own experience on the "path." I have read nothing at the QRS site. - ParadiseChild
You're an odd duck. It should be clear to everyone who read Quinn's last post that he is badly rattled. There was a pronounced hysterical quality to his writing:
Quote:
... I will ignore Robert's insane, frothing-at-the-mouth charges that I promote anti-semitism and racism, and concentrate instead on the topic at hand, which is enlightenment.
He then spent the next five paragraphs talking about me and my conventional orthodox fellows Guildenstern and Thomas, and to them Quinn could not hold a candle.
I think The QRS The QRS The QRS The QRS and all their little zombies ought to refill their thorazine prescriptions now and avoid the evening rush.
By the way, I hear 'truth is a pathless land'.
| ParadiseChild
Postulator
Posts: 357
(6/2/04 11:09)
Reply | Re: re: validation
Quote:
By the way, I hear 'truth is a pathless land'. Rober Larkin
Ah, you hear. You don't know?
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1529
(6/2/04 11:18)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
No, I don't know. Do you know?
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 18
(6/2/04 11:27)
Reply | Re: re: validation
Robert wrote,
Quote:
By the way, I hear 'truth is a pathless land'.
Yes and that statement certainly discounts the scientific method, doesn't it. Welcome to the side of truth, Robert. I find your conversion fullfilling.
Tharan
| voce io
Inductee
Posts: 46
(6/2/04 11:30)
Reply
| Re: re: validation
Jimhaz, you are wrong in so many areas that I don't even care to take the time and point out your errors. You write too much, and it's obvious that you're at least somewhat emotionally attached to the QRS, so it wouldn't be easy for you to let go of the fact that you're wrong.
Of course me saying this is completely stupid, but I just wanted you to know that someone actually does disagree with you.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1530
(6/2/04 11:31)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
Tharan,
1. That is no rejection of the scientific method.
2. The scientific method does not apply here. "It is meaningless to talk about enlightenment."
3. You are not on the side of truth you are on the side of Zombie.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 31
(6/2/04 11:32)
Reply
| Re: re: validation
Victor: You see, I can take Peano axioms, upon which arithmetic is based, and incontrovertibly prove that 1+1=2; there is no subjective validation involved.
I agree with your objection to David's non-argument. However, David could go along and read some mathematical books and come up with a non-Peano arithmetic where 1+1=3. Or he could define a group, field, ring, or whatever in which "+" has a different meaning. I guess we can count out this possibility though...
Thomas
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1531
(6/2/04 11:34)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
Scott, quit thinking in their terms. Go see your girlfriend; listen to some music; masturbate; anything but think the way they do.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 19
(6/2/04 11:36)
Reply | Re: re: validation
Robert wrote,
Quote:
3. You are not on the side of truth you are on the side of Zombie.
Brain-eating zombies?
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1985
(6/2/04 11:42)
Reply
| Re: re: validation
Thomas,
Quote:
I agree with your objection to David's non-argument. However, David could go along and read some mathematical books and come up with a non-Peano arithmetic where 1+1=3. Or he could define a group, field, ring, or whatever in which "+" has a different meaning. I guess we can count out this possibility though...
If you read the entirety of my post, you will see that I accounted for that class of possibilities:
Contrawise, if you reject Peano axioms, then we simply speak a different language, and your statement "1+1=3" does not actually mean what everyone else would mean by making such a statement. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1532
(6/2/04 11:42)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
No, Zombies who have spent so much time thinking in a particular way that they have adopted a shared experience. And now, even when they are not in their regular haunts, they can go out and continue to think in that manner. When that manner of thinking is threatened they can become quite defensive about it.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 20
(6/2/04 11:50)
Reply | Re: re: validation
Zombies playing defense? It is getting more interesting by the second. Thank you for the friday morning entertainment (PST).
Tharan |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 8
(6/2/04 11:52)
Reply | Re: re: validation
Jimhaz, you are wrong in so many areas that I don't even care to take the time and point out your errors. You write too much, and it's obvious that you're at least somewhat emotionally attached to the QRS, so it wouldn't be easy for you to let go of the fact that you're wrong.
Fair enough, that is your opinion and I have mine. I believe nothing I've said is incorrect, although by the very nature of posting on forums it will of course be an incomplete explanation. I am of course willing to be swayed by a good opposing argument.
The mere fact that I 'write too much' indicates to me that there is something in me that desires more wisdom. A sign that the path I seem to be going down might be the right one for me.
Personally I only think I could be wrong if I didn't realise the angst that going down the path of exploring ultimate reality can cause one. There is no definite path as yet though (maybe) and I might at some stage decide to shut off all this newfound way of looking at things, just as you have done.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1533
(6/2/04 11:54)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
And you shall know them by this sign: QRS.
You're welcome, Tharan. I live to amuse.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 20
(6/2/04 11:56)
Reply | Re: re: validation
The Victor wrote,
Quote:
Yeah, they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Newton, they laughed at Darwin -- but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown...
Guess which category you and your genius buddies come closer to?
Uhhhh, ummmm, hold on a second, it is coming to me. Darwin? No, no...Newton? Wait...Mother Theresa?
Interesting how an individual admittedly ignorant in Eastern philosophy can have such strong opinions on the Eastern concept of Enlightenment. But that is what a healthy ego can do for you. I am sure mommy is proud.
Tharan
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1986
(6/2/04 12:01)
Reply
| Re: re: validation
jakk, me lad, I have a strong opinion on QRS concept of enlightenment, which has been pretty conclusively demonstrated to have nothing to do with the eastern concept by the same name. Actually knowing logic allows one quite a degree of versatility in such situations, BTW -- knowledge which QRS explicitly exchew.
Nice try, though. Just like your idols, you think that verbiage is a substitute for rational thought. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1534
(6/2/04 12:03)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
Tharan,
That remark by Victor gave me a wonderful bellylaugh. Only a spoilsport would try to ruin it. Or a Zombie playing defense.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 21
(6/2/04 12:25)
Reply | Re: re: validation
But I AM a zombie playing defense, aren't I?
The Victor wrote,
Quote:
nice try
Thanks
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7909
(6/2/04 12:26)
Reply
| Re: re: validation
In order of appearance...
Robert:
Quote:
David jumped the gun; it was in fact my post which was due, an arrangement designed to give him first and last post. The schedule was in the debate thread and also at David's board. However, I have no problem with David posting out of sequence and I have suggested to G. that we shorten the debate by one post, skipping one of my rebuttals. If that is acceptable to the parties then I will have one more post, David making the final post after that.
This sounds reasonable to me.
TK:
Quote:
"Sunyata" means "puffed up void", or simply "void". The Arabic word for it is "sifr" which later became "zefiro" in Italian and "zero" in English.
It also become "cipher" in English.
Quote:
David: It has been remarked by Robert, and backed up by Guildenstern and Thomas Knierim in the commentary thread, that we do not need to know whether Nagarjuna was enlightened, or whether the Buddhist sutras are expressions of wisdom.
Neither did I see Robert making that claim, nor did Guildenstern or I back this up. Do you just fabricate this out of thin air?
In my opinion, David's most recent post does contain a lot of fabrications and sputterings, but this is not one of them. It was precisely my point that whether Nagarjuna was "actually" enlightened is not so much the issue as is the issue that David's definition of "enlightenment" disagrees with the definition given by the tradition which coined many of the terms David uses.
Quote:
David: Because Robert, Guildenstern and Thomas correctly claim they are unenlightened…
I haven’t seen any such claims. In fact claiming either enlightenment or unenlightenment seems equally nonsensical.
Quite true. I might have said somewhere, "I don't claim to be enlightened", but if David thinks this is equivalent to "I claim to be not enlightened", then David has some serious syntactical issues to work out.
Quote:
David: …and therefore not of "one mind" with past Buddhist sages, they are tacitly admitting (even though they will never consciously own up to this) that their interpretation of Buddhist scripture is incorrect.
One doesn’t need to claim enlightenment to “be of one mind with Buddhist sages.” The works and the spirit of the Buddhist sages can be apprehended and appreciated without claiming enlightenment.
Perhaps this is new to you. In the Buddhist Sangha, the claim of spiritual achievements or authority without proper evidence or power being granted by the Sangha constitutes a Vinaya offense. It is one of the first class offenses for which monks can be disrobed.
It's new to me, TK. I am familiar a little with Buddhism but I have made no study of it in detail. I do recognize that I am unqualified to attempt a proper interpretation, but the examples Robert gave seemed pretty damn straightforward. At any rate, the argument runs the same as the one against non-inerrantist Christians; that if the Buddhist text appears quite clearly to say one thing, and yet David says it means another, on what authority should we trust either to be correct? Certainly not on the authority of David's self-proclaimed enlightenment.
That David insists his "enlightenment" is simply a different interpretation of Buddhist texts rather than admitting it is something different entirely (a new idea of enlightenment, if you will), only shows that David wishes to make his ideas appear Buddhist, so that they are more readily accepted and more highly regarded. Which is further paradoxical, for one expounding the creative genius of masculinity ought be more inclined to claim to have created something new rather than to pretend it isn't...
Paradise:
Quote:
The Larkin camp is losing badly, I must say, though it doesn't know it. QRS team is keeping cool under pressure and providing unified cogent argument.
It is certainly interesting to see how all the people reading can come up with so many different interpretations of the same debate. I don't get the impression at all that QRS are keeping cool; in fact it appears to me rather the opposite. However, I can also see how people can get the same impression out of Robert's contributions.
I myself know that I am keeping cool well enough. Maybe it is best to assume that everyone else is, as well; that the emotions we perceive in them we may well be projecting because we want to see them. That is how I usually try to approach posts, anyway.
Accidence happens. | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1535
(6/2/04 12:29)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
"But I AM a zombie playing defense, aren't I?"
Yes, and very poorly.
| voce io
Inductee
Posts: 46
(6/2/04 12:37)
Reply
| Re: re: validation
Jimhaz,
The mere fact that I 'write too much' indicates to me that there is something in me that desires more wisdom. A sign that the path I seem to be going down might be the right one for me.
If you desire wisdom that surpasses even the QRS, just learn the rules of logic and apply it to your own life situations.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1536
(6/2/04 12:46)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
Quote:
In my opinion, David's most recent post does contain a lot of fabrications and sputterings, but this is not one of them. It was precisely my point that whether Nagarjuna was "actually" enlightened is not so much the issue as is the issue that David's definition of "enlightenment" disagrees with the definition given by the tradition which coined many of the terms David uses. - G.
I agree generally although we could have concepts from differing pursuits - Zen, Taoism - and use that literature. It is the canonical support that is important, to be contrasted with David's reliance on himself. The Nagarjuna was chosen because David had already 'agreed' with him.
I certainly do get emotional but that is not the same as being in error.
| silentsal
Visitor
Posts: 1
(6/2/04 13:15)
Reply | Re: re: validation
Quote:
I certainly do get emotional but that is not the same as being in error.
in some circles it is the very fact that you get emotional that denotes you are in error, not that the emotions are necessarily wrong mind you just that the very nature of them causes confusion
| Qatt
-Parlor Moderator
Posts: 745
(6/2/04 13:24)
Reply
 | Re: re: validation
some circles think that sacrificing cats makes them smarter... ------------------
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.
-Bertrand Russell
| silentsal
Visitor
Posts: 1
(6/2/04 13:33)
Reply | Re: re: validation
Quote:
some circles think that sacrificing cats makes them smarter...
sacrificing cats may be just as smart as thinking you can be something your not
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1537
(6/2/04 13:55)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
"sacrificing cats may be just as smart as thinking you can be something your not" - silentsal
No, it's never smart to sacrifice cats, silentsal, and it's never smart to merely claim you're smart, silentsal, and in general it's better to have a heart, silentsal, so don't lecture to the rest of us because you don't, silentsal.
| silentsal
Visitor
Posts: 1
(6/2/04 15:01)
Reply | Re: re: validation
Quote:
No, it's never smart to sacrifice cats, silentsal, and it's never smart to merely claim you're smart, silentsal, and in general it's better to have a heart, silentsal, so don't lecture to the rest of us because you don't, silentsal.
Hmmm let see here is a perfect example of emotions clouding the mind
although I didn't say it was smart to sacrifice cats, I would have to admit that sometimes it may be the smartest thing to do. I also did not claim I was smart, and as for having a heart, well it's plain to see that I do in fact have a heart.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 22
(6/2/04 15:03)
Reply | Re: re: validation
Silentsal has a heart. She has a big one. Please don't attack another example of a rational female, you kitty sacrificing, penis-waving, no defense playing boob.
I mean that in the most enlightened way, of course.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1538
(6/2/04 16:13)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
silentsal, given there are a lot of people in this thread, why is it you chose to comment on something I'd written? You're obviously from the Genius Forum, another spiritually pretentious individual spreading nonsense here that's taken for substance there.
What a gal, silentsal, oh yeah. (2/7/04 1:56 am)
Now I wish you success in that grand pursuit but since I'm the man who made David Quinn publicly shit his pants last night, why do you think I'd be concerned for anything you could write?
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1539
(6/2/04 16:38)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
"I mean that in the most enlightened way, of course."
I'm sure you do. And I mean in the very most sincere way that in your honor I'm going to put some extra special effort into my next post because I know both you and David would have it no other way.
Y'all like art, don't you?
The 12-armed and 3-headed Heruka Chakrasamvara, the central deity of the mandala, embraced and in sexual union by his female consort, the red Vajravarahi. He wears a tiger skin, standing in the midst of wisdom flames, and tramples on two corpses. ...
Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 6/2/04 16:45
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 23
(6/2/04 16:47)
Reply | Re: re: validation
I will need to check with my idol...errr, David Quinn to see if I am allowed to like art. 
Pretty picture, BTW.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1540
(6/2/04 17:02)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: re: validation
It's a beautiful one.
The herukas all have 'pretty' counterparts and they with pretty consorts - ugliness and beauty, neither of which should be avoided.
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Dave Toast
Inductee
Posts: 6
(6/2/04 21:23)
Reply
 | Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Quote:
David: Nor does the number zero have anything to do with the concept of sunyata. After all, Gautama Siddharta and many Hindu sages before him were perfectly capable of comprehending the nature of emptiness without any help from the Greeks and their numbering system.
Thomas: It was the Greeks who lacked a conception of zero!! The number zero is Indian in origin.
As far as we know, the concept of zero first appeared with the Babylonians, and was certainly present in Greek writings, but only latterly. The Indians definitely brought it to the fore and the Europeans popularised it.
On another subject, what are your perceptions on the debate up to now? If forced to choose, who would you say was scoring the cleaner punches?
On another subject, I saw a link to thebigview.com on a football gaming board the other day (I'm afraid it was only to the past life analyser, though I then encouraged others to look around there). Who would've thunk it.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 32
(6/2/04 21:41)
Reply
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Dave: Who would've thunk it.
Are thy sure? I wouldn't have thunken thus.
Dave: As far as we know, the concept of zero first appeared with the Babylonians.
As far as I know, the Babylonians used empty placeholders on their tableaus for counting purposes in lieu of zero, but they didn't think of it as a valid number, did they?
Thomas
| Dave Toast
Inductee
Posts: 7
(6/2/04 22:10)
Reply
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Quote:
Are thy sure? I wouldn't have thunken thus.
Aye lad, saw it wi me own meat-pies. Check your email@bigview.
Quote:
As far as I know, the Babylonians used empty placeholders on their tableaus for counting purposes in lieu of zero, but they didn't think of it as a valid number, did they?
Quite right, 'empty' placeholders. Not a valid number, but a valid concept. However, I understand your point with regard to Quinn's words, but he said Greeks and was just about right.
And your perceptions on the debate/cleaner punches?
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 9
(6/2/04 22:42)
Reply | Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
I've always been impressed with the way Thomas put the bigview site together. Good work!.
Past life analyser - here is mine
Your past life diagnosis:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how you feel about it, but you were male in your last earthly incarnation.
You were born somewhere in the territory of modern Wales around the year 1750.
Your profession was that of a dramatist, director, musician or bard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your brief psychological profile in your past life:
You always liked to travel and to investigate. You could have been a detective or a spy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lesson that your last past life brought to your present incarnation:
Your lesson is to conquer jealousy and anger in yourself and then in those who will select you as their guide. You should understand that these weaknesses are caused by fear and self-regret.
I agree with the last statement, and feel non-attachment is the way to best achieve this.
I don't believe in reincarnation though, except in terms of changing one's views as time goes by. Every moment of one's life is a reincarnation.
Edited by: jimhaz at: 6/2/04 22:46
| drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 93
(7/2/04 1:23)
Reply
| Re: Case in point...
Cass asked:
Quote:
David, Kevin, and Dan:
1. Are you Nazis, neo-nazis, anti-semitetic in any way?
Apparently, though my politics are entirely left wing oriented. Some have called me a Commie. People like to call people stuff as you know. Anti-semitic? I think Judaism, like all religion, is a crock; I am disturbed by the Jewish people only to the extent that they engage in crockery - though I don't mind if they use plates and stuff. I am anti-semitic in the sense that I am anti-religious. Beyond that I couldn't give a toss.
Quote:
2. Are you racist?
Again, apparently, even though I hold that people of many different racial and cultural backgrounds have provided meaningful substance to the history of spiritual thought, and, that I don't see any reason whatever for believing in any inherent lack of ability when it comes to spiritual matters in any given race. I am, however, somewhat culturalist in that I would argue that some cultures are more "open" than others - i.e. open to the possibility of individuality.
Quote:
3. Are you misogynists?
Undoubtedly. Can't you tell? I hate women so much I want to kill the one I've been sharing a flat with for the past 8 years (she just hasn't figured that out yet) and would like to see put in jail every other woman I've met, even though they generally appear to like me. Women are so naive, you know. Wanting the level of liberation and independence - in every sense - that I would like to see women get almost certainly makes me a misogynist, because it forces me, by way or ethical compulsion, to speak certain truths about things (even if they are only truths as I see them).
Quote:
4. Are you sane, and if so, what makes you believe so?
Yes, I am extremely sane. I know because of my sanity. Eeeeeeek, circularity!! But seriously, my sanity is something for others to judge for themsleves, which they freely do as you can tell.
Thanks for the non-hysterical questions. It is noted and appreciated.
Dan Rowden
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7920
(7/2/04 1:26)
Reply
| Re: Case in point...
I don't think I've seen you funny, before, Dan. Some of those were very good.
Accidence happens. | drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 94
(7/2/04 1:43)
Reply
| Re: Case in point...
To be candid, I'm having trouble taking much of this thread seriously. If I don't find mirth in it I think I'll have to despair instead, and despair makes me feel....well......bad.
Which is not to say I don't still acknowledge the sincerity of Cass' questions.....
Dan Rowden
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 32
(7/2/04 2:13)
Reply
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Thomas Knierim wrote:
Quote:
David: It has been remarked by Robert, and backed up by Guildenstern and Thomas Knierim in the commentary thread, that we do not need to know whether Nagarjuna was enlightened, or whether the Buddhist sutras are expressions of wisdom.
Thomas: Neither did I see Robert making that claim, nor did Guildenstern or I back this up. Do you just fabricate this out of thin air?
Not quite.
Robert:
- Second, I haven't claimed validity of any scriptures. I have quoted Nagarjuna, one of the most important thinkers in Buddhism, while David has relied on ... himself. Nagarjuna, regardless of the accuracy of his statements, puts the lie to David's conception.
- What I actually argue is that the literature is reasonable evidence and it ought to be considered.
- From The Debate thread
Guildenstern:
- The point is that Buddhism is the tradition which concocted this idea of "enlightenment", nirvana. It is therefore Buddhist texts which define what Buddhist enlightenment is.
- From the commentary thread
Thomas:
However, the "performance criteria" for enlightenment are clearly laid out in Buddhism. They are called the "ten perfections" and they are usually listed in the following order: 1. generosity (dana), 2. morality (sila), 3. renunciation (nekkhamma), 4. wisdom (panna), 5. energy (viriya), 6. patience (khanti), 7. truthfulness (sacca), 8. resolute determination (aditthana), 9. loving kindness (metta), and 10. equanimity (upekkha). According to Buddhism, these are the qualities of an enlightened person.
But, it also means that we have a way to corroborate enlightened behavior by way of observing the ten perfections.
- From the commentary thread
Quote:
David: So if Robert and Guildenstern and Thomas are to be consistent, then they should reject the whole of Buddhism on the grounds that it conflicts with the earlier teachings of Hinduism.
Thomas: Consistent with what? Consistent with a "first come serve first" strategy? Should one reject Buddhism because Buddhism did not invent the concept of enlightenment?
No, you should reject it because the Buddha formulated his own criteria for enlightenment, which differed from traditional Hindu one. That's if you want to be consistent with your approach to me.
Quote:
David: The fact that conventional, orthodox men such as Robert, Guildenstern and Thomas would turn to an unconventional, unorthodox maverick such as the Buddha…
Okay, so now are “orthodox”? I remember you have been referring to me as “post-modern” on occasion. That would obviously make me an “orthodox post-modernist.” A bit of a contradiction, don’t you think? I am learning new things from you all the time.
Postmodernism is indeed the current orthodoxy in educated circles.
Quote:
David: Because Robert, Guildenstern and Thomas correctly claim they are unenlightened and therefore not of "one mind" with past Buddhist sages, they are tacitly admitting (even though they will never consciously own up to this) that their interpretation of Buddhist scripture is incorrect.
Thomas: One doesn’t need to claim enlightenment to “be of one mind with Buddhist sages.” The works and the spirit of the Buddhist sages can be apprehended and appreciated without claiming enlightenment.
Regardless of whether one "claims" it, one does need to be enlightened in order to correctly apprehend the works of the past sages, just as one needs to be a qualified quantum phsyicist in order to correctly apprehend the work of past quantum physicists.
Quote:
Perhaps this is new to you. In the Buddhist Sangha, the claim of spiritual achievements or authority without proper evidence or power being granted by the Sangha constitutes a Vinaya offense. It is one of the first class offenses for which monks can be disrobed.
If the claim is genuine, then the enlightened monk in question would have no trouble providing the evidence to his superiors, provided they too ere enlightened. If his superiors aren't enlightened, then they won't be able to recognize the evidence before them and in all likelihood they will commit the terrible crime of disrobing an enlightened man. I have no doubt this has happened many times throughout the history of Buddhism.
Quote:
Anyway, the claim of yours that one must be enlightened to recognize the marks of enlightenment is patently flawed. One does not need to be a mathematical genius to recognize a mathematical genius. One does not need to be a great musician to recognize a great musician. It is sufficient if one understands the criteria that define mathematical geniuses or great musicians and it is possible to judge these criteria by observing performance.
Sure, but the problem is, the genuine criteria for enlightenment is currently almost unknown by the human race, so far is it from wisdom. To use the analogy of music, imagine a group of people who have never heard of music before, have no idea of what it is and are completely tone deaf, trying to judge the merits of a musical genius. He doesn't stand a chance. More likely they will angrily tell him to stop making that God-awful racket.
| voce io
Inductee
Posts: 52
(7/2/04 2:18)
Reply
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
David, does your definition of enlightenment and the path towards wisdom actually match up with the Hindu definition? If you care to take the time, could you give me an example or two? Thanks.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 33
(7/2/04 2:33)
Reply
| Re: re: validation
Guildenstern wrote:
Quote:
TK: In fact claiming either enlightenment or unenlightenment seems equally nonsensical.
G: Quite true.
An unenlightened person claiming unenlightenment is being honest; he is admitting his ignorance.
An unenlightened person pontificating that claims of enlightenment or unenlightement are nonsensical is being dishonest; he is pretending to a knowledge which he does not have. I hope the pair of you are not doing this.
Quote:
I might have said somewhere, "I don't claim to be enlightened", but if David thinks this is equivalent to "I claim to be not enlightened", then David has some serious syntactical issues to work out.
There is no question that you are unenlightened; it shines through your words in everything that you say. You would be better off to come clean and accept this openly, instead of continuing to hide away behind clever word-play.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 17
(7/2/04 2:33)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Voce Io wrote to David:
Quote:
Does your definition of enlightenment and the path towards wisdom actually match up with the Hindu definition?
Which definition? There are probably as many definitions of enlightenment in Hinduism as there are Hindus, and it may be the case that none of those definitions reflect what the writers of Hindu scriptures intended to mean by "enlightenment".
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 34
(7/2/04 2:41)
Reply
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Voce Io wrote:
Quote:
David, does your definition of enlightenment and the path towards wisdom actually match up with the Hindu definition? If you care to take the time, could you give me an example or two? Thanks.
My definitions and concepts match up with every wise tradition of the past, including the wise traditions within Hinduism. I'll post some wise Hindu stuff in the next day or two, when I have time.
| voce io
Inductee
Posts: 53
(7/2/04 2:56)
Reply
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
Cool, thanks.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1542
(7/2/04 3:29)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Quinn Posting Out of Order
"My definitions and concepts match up with every wise tradition of the past, including the wise traditions within Hinduism. I'll post some wise Hindu stuff in the next day or two, when I have time." - David Quinn
What a crock of shit.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 35
(7/2/04 3:48)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Quote:
DQ: Let's transpose this to an area you're familiar with:
VDL Dude, i am familiar with more philosophy and logic than you will ever learn, given the way you are going.
You're certainly more familiar with those parts of philosophy and logic that I find tedious and uninteresting.
Quote:
DQ: - Person X correctly understands the truth of 1+1=2 and correctly thinks that he understands it.
- Person Y incorrectly thinks that 1+1=3 and incorrectly believes that his thinking is sound on the matter.
Does the mere existence of Person Y constitute validate grounds for Person X to conclude that his own knowledge of 1+1=2 is uncertain or unprovable? No, it does not. This is because Person X is able to validate the truth of 1+1=2 directly with his own mind.
VD: ignorance strikes again! :P
You see, I can take Peano axioms, upon which arithmetic is based, and incontrovertibly prove that 1+1=2; there is no subjective validation involved. Had you bothered to learn anything, you would have known that.
What about the person who, while unconsciously accepting the Peano axioms, mistakenly thinks that 1+1=3 and yet believes that his thinking is perfectly correct? How do you personally distinguish yourself from him? Doesn't his mere existence automatically cast doubt upon your "incontrovertibly proof"?
Quote:
As I said, I can incontrovertibly, formally prove that I am correct in asserting 1+1=2. This is exactly what the problem is with your inane enlightenment claim -- you explicitly disclaim any possibility of opbjective proof,
That is your misunderstanding. The enlightened person does make use of objective proof during the process of validating his enlightenment. The objective proof is generated by the perfect clarity of his mind and the lack of bias and delusion. The selfish aspect of his mind has disappeared, along with all of the attendent distortions which undermine objectivity. As a result, the enlightened person is infinitely more objective than even the best of scientists.
Quote:
So you think your "quality and clarity and infinite depth of enlightened perception" proves that you are enlightened. How do you know that you are unenlightened who deludes himself into thinking that he has those qualities?
Because my knowledge and awareness of emptiness cannot be surpassed. There is nowhere further to go.
Quote:
DQ: Where he differs from the expert scientist is that his expert, definitive vaildation occurs inwardly, out of sight from everyone else. But that is of no consequence.
VD: It's of consequence because with external validation (e.g. science), errors and delusions can be caught by cross-checking; but with internal validation, they can't. if you are unenlightened and think yourself enlightened, there is nothing to correct your error.
That's not really true. If a person sincerely values truth and yet mistakenly thinks that he is enlightened, he will sooner or later recognize his error. The limitations of his knowledge will become obvious to him. He will then be in a postion to make further progress.
Quote:
DQ: Let me ask you this: In what way have you established that the mainstream scientific community is not entirely composed of quacks?
VD: By checking the predictive power of the scientifc theories. the fact that, say, physics theories allow us to predict hitherto-unporedictable phenomena (and use them to our advantage, e.g. TVs and Internet) proves that scientific community is not composed wholly of quacks.
Well, given what's mostly on TV and the internet, a case could be made that their invention is a clear example of quackery!
Seriously, though, you didn't really answer the question. What makes you so sure that the practice of mainstream science isn't pure quackery? Making predictions about the future - it sounds a bit mystical to me.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1543
(7/2/04 6:48)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
Dan Rowden answered some questions posed by cass, one of the Genius Forum people. Those questions were not properly formulated and one should certainly not have expected incisiveness. The questions do not ask Rowden, Quinn, and Solway to take responsibility for supporting Otto Weininger who was a Jewish anti-Semite and a misogynist. They certainly do not ask for clarification from Solway who has said he will not comment on Weininger's considerations of his own people, as if it was not patently obvious that those considerations are anti-Semitic. Solway is allowing that Weininger is in better position to judge and he is either ignoring the content, again patently anti-Semitic, or he is implicitly accepting it. He is obviously not specifically condemning the anti-Semitic content in Otto Weininger's writings nor to my knowledge are Quinn and Rowden. Just the opposite, all three of them consider Weininger a spiritual genius.
What would a moral person do? Would a moral person continue to support Otto Weininger? Would a moral person evade the issue? Can we reasonably accept their evasions and continued support of Weininger as tacit acceptance of Weininger's anti-Semitism? The thing that keeps them quiet about Weininger is that once you dismiss the anti-Semitism you must then dismiss the misogyny and which is a development of Weininger's anti-Semitic self-loathing - it is not the misogyny which came first in Weininger, but the anti-Semitism. At the least they'll ignore the anti-Semitism to maintain the dubious support for their misogynistic opinions; at worst they are anti-Semites themselves. Personally I discount the latter although the former is reprehensible.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 18
(7/2/04 6:55)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Robert's summation - flaw-by-flaw
Robert begins by stating that David's writings are . . . "gibberish". . . . That's it . . .
Then Robert claims that Otto Weininger was a source for Nazi thinking. But does Robert think that every person quoted out of context in Nazi propaganda was a source for Nazi thinking? Was Jesus a source for Nazi thinking? Was God a source for Nazi thinking? The Bible, a source of Nazism?
Robert then states that Otto Weininger's writings are . . . "gibberish".
Robert suggests that Weininger's suicide was a result of the lukewarm reception of his masterpiece when immediately it was published. Of the many, many theories attempting to explain Weininger's suicide, does Robert think that he, after several minutes cursory examination, has worked out the real reason? It would seem so.
Apart from falsely naming Weininger as a source of Nazism, Robert procedes to smear him with accusations of being "pathetic", "neurotic", "afraid of castration", "schizophrenic", "a self-loather", "anti-semite", "misogynist", "hysterical", "a product of his time", and quite apart from "a bloated and inflamed anus". (KIR board) and probably many other terms that it would not be appropriate to repeat here.
If Robert had done a little more research he could easily have added all the following accusations to his list: "cowardly", "unoriginal", "a plagiarist", "a loser", "sadistic", "sexually perverted", "politically motivated", and "homosexual".
It occurs to me that it is a great shame how we humans belittle our geniuses, and even put them to death (e.g, Jesus, Socrates), when we ourselves, more often than not, have done nothing of any worth, and have no intention of ever doing so.
Once again Robert claims that David Quinn is in disagreement with Nagarjuna, but again fails to provide any evidence of this. Robert says:
"If you have bothered to read the running conversation on the 'Genius Forum' . . .". Well I have read that very conversation, and it is clear that David's position is identical to that of Nagarjuna.
If David has said anything that would place him at odds with Nagarjuna, don't you think Robert would post it here, so we could all see it? . . . as if there were not enough of David's writings already available for reference right here on this very forum.
Robert quotes Nagarjuna as saying “There is not the slightest distinction between samsara and nirvana." (and by extension, there is no distinction between anything at all) Unfortunately Robert interprets this teaching literally, completely missing its import, and at the same time as distinguishing between his own supposed wisdom, and David's supposed ignorance.
Robert quotes Nagarjuna again:
"No Dharma was taught by the Buddha
At any time, in any place, to any person."
Yet this very teaching of Nagarjuna's, from Roberts level of understanding, and by his own admission, is only a conventional truth, based on distinctions.
By contrast, from the perspective of someone like David, there is no distinction between conventional and absolute, between distinctions and non-distinctions, between concepts and non-concepts, etc.
Robert, approaching the end of his piece, thinks that he'd better throw the word "anti-semite" into the mix again, by claiming that Weininger, a Jew, from a Jewish family, and living in a Jewish community, who worships Jesus (a Jew), was an anti-semite.
Consider this: Would an American, living in New York, who viewed his own people (Americans) to be shallow, materialistic, loud-mouthed, self-centred, arrogant, fat, lacking in depth, devoid of genuine spirituality, etc, be viewed to be the equivalent of an anti-semite? Robert has some serious self-examination to do.
Robert then sums-up by saying that self-validation is a failed concept - successfully undermining the whole Buddhist religion.
I conclude with a few poetic gems, which obviously reflect what Naturyl has called "the aesthetic quality of Robert's poetic style of writing":
"Jim, you're fucked. Go get medical attention." - (In response to a serious, and honest post by Jimhaz)
"Those reasonable people (at the Ponderer's Guild) are now questioning the mental health of Quinn, Rodent, and Solway." - (On the KIR board)
"The QRS and all their little zombies ought to refill their thorazine prescriptions now and avoid the evening rush."
"What a crock of shit."
"Weininger was a bloated and inflamed anus." - (on KIR board)
"The QRS have been shown to be charlatans, men with no discernment." - (On the KIR board)
Edited by: ksolway at: 7/2/04 9:48
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1544
(7/2/04 7:27)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert's summation - flaw-by-flaw
Kevin,
If you and your "fellow colleagues" will give me permission to copy and paste here the necessary writings from Genius Forum, I'll happily explain the issues since you still do not understand them.
You were not so kind as to use my last post from KIR, after you warned me my abuse and gutter language would come back to haunt me and I suppose the above is the attempt:
Quote:
Kevin, your ignorance and pretentiousness has come back to repay you. Either you lied about being in agreement with Nagarjuna or you failed to comprehend him. You people are now publicly shown to be in great error and incapable of defending yourselves.
Now you can try to defend the inane theories of Weininger in intelligent surroundings, unlike your own board, or you can complain about my gutter language. But whether I call Weininger a 'bloated and inflamed anus' or 'a pathetic Jewish anti-Semite who killed himself because no one liked his book', your defense is nowhere to be found.
So let's get on to the anti-Semitism. Reject Weininger or accept his anti-Semitism, right here, right now.
[edit: exchanged "copy" for "cut"].
Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 7/2/04 11:33
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 19
(7/2/04 9:12)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Robert's summation - flaw-by-flaw
Robert wrote:
Quote:
I'll happily explain the issues since you still do not understand them.
Robert, I honestly don't think Nagarjuna would want to have you on his side.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1546
(7/2/04 9:15)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert's summation - flaw-by-flaw
Two things, Kevin:
1. With permission to reproduce the necessary posts you could more ably prove that, so how about it?
2. Anti-Semitism. Either reject Weininger or accept his anti-Semitism.
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1547
(7/2/04 9:23)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert's summation - flaw-by-flaw
Quote:
The thing that keeps them quiet about Weininger is that once you dismiss the anti-Semitism you must then dismiss the misogyny and which is a development of Weininger's anti-Semitic self-loathing - it is not the misogyny which came first in Weininger, but the anti-Semitism. At the least they'll ignore the anti-Semitism to maintain the dubious support for their misogynistic opinions; at worst they are anti-Semites themselves. Personally I discount the latter although the former is reprehensible. - mine, above
Just in case you'd forgotten, Kevin, I wrote this above. Time to deal with the anti-Semitism.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 20
(7/2/04 9:36)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Robert's summation - flaw-by-flaw
Robert, as you have already output many thousands of words in the current debate, you've had ample opportunity to make your case. It is clear that if you haven't made it by now, you're never going to.
I personally think it would be wrong to put you in the position of having to try and interpret Nagarjuna's teachings, so I'm not going to do that. After David has finished his summation you can put the idea to him if you want.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1548
(7/2/04 9:45)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert's summation - flaw-by-flaw
Well then perhaps I'll just paraphrase, but right now I'm interested in the anti-Semitic question you're avoiding. Gonna answer anytime soon or are you going to continue to promote an anti-Semite as a spiritual genius?
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1549
(7/2/04 9:47)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert's summation - flaw-by-flaw
Kevin having gone on a quote spree, let me quote myself from a recent post on KIR:
Kevin and all the Trine continue to avoid responsibility for Weininger's anti-Semitism. A moral person would reject Weininger's anti-Semitism but given the dilemma in which they would find themselves their insistence on misogyny forces them into an immoral choice.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1550
(7/2/04 9:50)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert's summation - flaw-by-flaw
Of course they could just be anti-Semites. All we know is they are not rejecting Weininger's anti-Semitism, instead promoting that idiot as a spiritual genius and his ridiculous book as a 'masterpiece'.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1551
(7/2/04 10:05)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert's summation - flaw-by-flaw
And as the seconds tick the seconds tick the seconds tick they still do not disavow Weininger's anti-Semitism ...
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1552
(7/2/04 10:20)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Clock Is Ticking On Anti-Semitism
... and which means they continue to make an immoral choice.
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 15
(7/2/04 10:29)
Reply | Re: my comments
Quote:
Mr. Larkin: Dan Rowden answered some questions posed by cass, one of the Genius Forum people. Those questions were not properly formulated and one should certainly not have expected incisiveness. The questions do not ask Rowden, Quinn, and Solway to take responsibility for supporting Otto Weininger who was a Jewish anti-Semite and a misogynist. They certainly do not ask for clarification from Solway who has said he will not comment on Weininger's considerations of his own people, as if it was not patently obvious that those considerations are anti-Semitic.
<snip>
I am not a Genius Forum person...The day I subscribed to that particular forum, I subscribed to this one. I just happend to post more on that one. I post where I find something I am interested in, nothing more.
You accuse the three in question of being anti-semitic simply because they endorse the words of Weininger. So, does that mean that because I enjoy and endorse Wagner as a great composer, that I too am anti-semitic? Dan admittedly stated that the only anti-semitism he holds pertains to anti-religion, what more do you need? I understand you are asking Kevin and David also, but when is enough really enough?
You originally set out to prove or disprove your thoughts on so-and-so's enlightenment, all of a sudden, you are changing your focus. You seem intelligent enough, I don't understand the need to dissect each and every philosophical aspect of the basis of a person's beliefs. Where is your basis? Through this whole thing I have yet to figure out what exactly you do believe. For all I know you are a Born Again Christian recreating the crusades. Is it really fair to throw stones without having your hand on the table?
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1553
(7/2/04 11:18)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
Try reading the thread. The issue is The Most Holy Trinity's continued support of Otto Weininger, who was an anti-Semite. The Most Holy Trinity will not disavow Weininger's anti-Semitism; to the extent they continue that refusal they are making an immoral choice. You do agree, right, that it's an immoral choice?
And wouldn't you also agree that an individual who would not disavow anti-Semitic writing could not be enlightened? How could such a person be enlightened? Now do you see the relationship between Weininger and enlighenment? Oh, and answer the questions, please.
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 16
(7/2/04 11:38)
Reply | Re: my comments
Quote:
Mr. Larkin: Try reading the thread. The issue is The Most Holy Trinity's continued support of Otto Weininger, who was an anti-Semite. The Most Holy Trinity will not disavow Weininger's anti-Semitism; to the extent they continue that refusal they are making an immoral choice. You do agree, right, that it's an immoral choice?
And wouldn't you also agree that an individual who would not disavow anti-Semitic writing could not be enlightened? How could such a person be enlightened? Now do you see the relationship between Weininger and enlighenment? Oh, and answer the questions, please.
I have read the thread, and have seen that you have focused on Weininger, and that is about it. Personally, I do not support Weininger, I find most of his writings to be offensive, however, in reading what I have of him there are some things I believe he was on the right track with. Just as there are some things Kant, Descartes, Paglia, etc. were on the right track with, IMO. I think if a person based their ENTIRE philosophy on the works of one philosopher, it would be morally wrong, no matter the philosopher is. There are no perfect philosophers, no one with absolute TRUTHS. That is my opinion. I say morally wrong in the context of being biased in one form of truth. There are many truths and they come in many forms.
A choice is only moral or immoral if you are making it. A person can only judge themselves. There are things in the world I don't like, people I don't care for, ideas I view as perverted. If I spent all of my time worrying about what others did or how others view life, I wouldn't have anytime to figure those things out for myself. It would be against my personal morals to do or believe in certain things, that is why I don't partake in those things. I am not in charge of any other person than myself. If I encounter someone whose views are undesirable, I may give them an example of my view, but it is up to them to figure out what fits in their life, and really, it's none of my business.
As far as enlightenment goes, who cares? If David thinks he's enlightened, let him. It is not my place to tell him otherwise. Most people will run for the hills when someone says "I am enlightened" anyway, if you are "worried" about the influence on the masses. And if so, you have placed them in such a high place of power. So, in actuality, you are contributing to the demise of society, allowing them free press and free reign to those otherwise undisturbed minds...
So now, answer my questions in the previous post...
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1554
(7/2/04 11:42)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
And no, cass, I'm no Christian. I'm an eclectic drawing on Buddhism, particularly Nagarjuna, Zen, Taoism, and other sources.
Note that I am not enlightened and I am only one of several people here who can thrash the Mighty Quinn, and that is itself another comment on his claim to enlightenment - it's not much of an enlightenment.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 25
(7/2/04 11:44)
Reply | Re: my comments
He is hysterically clinging to his last vestige of hope, Cass.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 26
(7/2/04 11:48)
Reply | Re: my comments
Quote:
Note that I am not enlightened and I am only one of several people here who can thrash the Mighty Quinn...
If I remember correctly, there is a "debate" going on that theoretically gives you the opportunity to do this. So do it. You keep bragging like this even though I have yet to see you actually do anything of the sort.
Tharan
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1555
(7/2/04 11:50)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
And I have now seen your previous post, and you're evading the issues. You don't even tell us the aspects of Weininger with which you are in agreement and you are wise to do so. Why do you think The QRS!!! are afraid to talk about him? The man was an idiot.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1556
(7/2/04 12:04)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
'If I remember correctly, there is a "debate" going on that theoretically gives you the opportunity to do this. So do it. You keep bragging like this even though I have yet to see you actually do anything of the sort.'
Really? You didn't notice Quinn's last post in which he fell apart? You did read his post, didn't you? What part of his post will you support for us now?
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 27
(7/2/04 12:08)
Reply | Re: my comments
You try to spin falsehoods so well, you remind me of the current American Presidential administration.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 28
(7/2/04 12:10)
Reply | Re: my comments
"...a failure in providing philosophical evidence cannot be interpreted as lack of philosophcal-related program activites..."
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1557
(7/2/04 12:17)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
That's quite amusing but it's no support for any Quinn point. How about where he characterized my 'insane, frothing-at-the-mouth charges'. Would you like to support that or would you like to admit that it was lunacy? By all means do one or the other.
| Dave Toast
Inductee
Posts: 8
(7/2/04 12:20)
Reply
| Re: my comments
This Be The Verse
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.
Larkin
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 17
(7/2/04 12:23)
Reply | Re: my comments
Quote:
Mr. Larkin: And I have now seen your previous post, and you're evading the issues. You don't even tell us the aspects of Weininger with which you are in agreement and you are wise to do so. Why do you think The QRS!!! are afraid to talk about him? The man was an idiot.
Are you talking to me? Please be more specific. I will answer in the assumption that you are talking to me...
I don't know what you think I am evading, I have been pretty descriptive on what I do or do not believe. As for Weininger, I think he outlined differences between male/female and masculine/feminine rather well, or at least started to. I do not believe that he was correct in making any inferior judgments. It seems to me Weininger got a good idea, then got diarrhea of the mouth...took it in a bad direction. Over analyzing any topic can lead to a skewed outcome. But, that is just my opinion. I don't think anyone is afraid to talk about him...and as far as being an idiot, that is your opinion, I neither agree or disagree, and you know what opinions are like...everybody's got one, mine not being excluded from that...
I do not choose to go any more into detail on Weininger, mainly because he didn't mean much to me and it was pointless for me to pursue any further study. That is as descriptive as I get when it comes to that man. |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1558
(7/2/04 12:24)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
Here's some interesting musing on Otto Weininger although it does contain a direct quotation from Sex and Character, the misogynist and anti-Semitic book that Quinn, Rowden, and Solway will not disavow. I don't believe 'being pig-headed' is one of the qualities of enlightenment.
Quote:
According to Sander Gilman, outsiders [example: Weininger wanting to be Aryan- Robert] accept as reality "the mirage of themselves generated by their reference group," a mirage composed of "an inherent, polar opposition." On the one hand, the reference group extends the promise of equality if the outsider follows the established rules. "Thus outsiders hear an answer from their fantasy: Become like us - abandon your difference - and you may be one with us." On the other hand, however, all attempts made by the outsider to identify with the reference group, to pass unnoticed, actually draw attention to the difference, because being a native ought not require any special effort or cultivated habit of thought - indeed, this is the very definition of native membership. Thus, according to Gilman, "the hidden qualification of the internalized reference group" says: "The more you are like me, the more I know the true value of my power, which you wish to share, and the more I am aware that you are but a shoddy counterfeit, an outsider." (Sander L. Gilman, Jewish Self-Hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins UP, 1986, p.2) This is the classic double bind of ethnic assimilation, and the common response is to repress the conflict and sense of injury rather than to acknowledge insurmountable differences and the costs of dissimulation. Disavowal always exacts its own price, of course. For example, the outsider often defends himself against the realization of his own exclusion by projecting the conflict (his difference) onto other members of his own group. (Gilman, p.3)
Clear expression of this stereotyping mechanism is readily found in the grotesque example of Otto Weininger, himself a Jew. Following the racist subtext of conservative German characterizations, which programatically feminized the Jewish patriarch, Weininger defined the Jew's essential difference as his feminine Otherness. In Sex and Character, a pro-Aryan and anti-feminist polemic on sexuality, Weininger wrote:
Some reflection will lead to the surprising result that the Jew is saturated with femininity, with precisely those qualities the essence of which I have shown to be the strongest opposition to the male nature ... the Jew, like the woman, is wanting in personality; his failure to grasp the idea of a true society is [due to his lack of] {sic - Robert} a free intelligible ego. Like women, Jews tend to adhere together but they do not associate as free independent individuals. - Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, authoritative trans., 6th German ed. (New York: A. L. Burt in conjunction with G. F. Putnam, 1907) 306-08.
The fragmentation of Weininger's identity is manifest: on the one hand, he identifies with masculine Aryanism; on the other, because he fears the sinister influence of the feminine Other within him. In the encoded projection of his own innate difference onto the world, Weininger's sense of the feminine becomes not only an extension of his conception of the Jew, but also a means of separating Weininger the man from the bad (feminized) aspect of his Jewishness. The claim is already hopeless of course; Weininger has acceded to the German stereotype, and it is impossible to escape the blemish of womanliness (the new Other). As Gilman says succinctly enough, "The fragmentation of identity that results is the articulation of self-hatred." (Gilman, p. 3)
Beth Sharon Ash, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof. English and Comparative Literature, University of Cincinnati, "Walter Benjamin: Ethnic Fears, Oedipal Anxieties, Political Consequences", New German Critique, No. 48. (Autumn, 1989), p. 8
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1559
(7/2/04 12:31)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
"I do not choose to go any more into detail on Weininger, mainly because he didn't mean much to me and it was pointless for me to pursue any further study. That is as descriptive as I get when it comes to that man." - cass
Quinn, Rowden, and Solway insist that Otto Weininger was a spiritual genius and that Sex and Character was a masterpiece. Do you dispute either of those two assertions?
By the way, what was your answer to 'would an enlightened man support anti-Semitic writings'?
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 18
(7/2/04 12:40)
Reply | Re: my comments
Quote:
Mr. Larkin: Quinn, Rowden, and Solway insist that Otto Weininger was a spiritual genius and that Sex and Character was a masterpiece. Do you dispute either of those two assertions?
I neither agree or disagree. One person's trash is another's treasure. People can make up their own minds about things in their own way.
Quote:
Mr. Larkin: By the way, what was your answer to 'would an enlightened man support anti-Semitic writings'?
I don't know, I'm not enlightened. But, by what I view enlightenment as being, no...on my personal quest, if I were on a personal quest, I would not support anti-Semitic writings. Saying that, I may get something completely different out of text that is considered desirable or undesirable by another person. It is up to the person to make those judgments and choose to pursue their own enlightenment with their own assertions.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1560
(7/2/04 12:49)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
Candid, cass, and very nice.
"I neither agree or disagree. One person's trash is another's treasure. People can make up their own minds about things in their own way."
So if I think Otto Weininger is pure unadulterated trash that's ok? Do you agree that Weininger was an anti-Semite?
"... It is up to the person to make those judgments and choose to pursue their own enlightenment with their own assertions."
Ok, and if Quinn, Rowden, and Solway are supporting anti-Semitic writing, do you think Quinn, Rowden, and Solway can possibly be enlightened?
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 19
(7/2/04 12:56)
Reply | Re: my comments
Quote:
Mr. Larkin: So if I think Otto Weininger is pure unadulterated trash that's ok? Do you agree that Weininger was an anti-Semite?
That's your opinion...fine by me. As for Weininger being an anti-Semite? Sure, he seems that way to me, but as I have said, I didn't give him much of my study time, so I cannot say for sure. My opinion is based on lack of fact.
Quote:
Mr. Larkin: Ok, and if Quinn, Rowden, and Solway are supporting anti-Semitic writing, do you think Quinn, Rowden, and Solway can possibly be enlightened?
By my personal view of enlightenment, no. My view, however, may or may not be the correct vision. So, I cannot say for sure, as I said before, why does it really matter what they think? If they were running for president or trying to take over a country, I may care, but as to what they are doing now, it means nothing in my pursuit of knowledge.
| silentsal
Visitor
Posts: 2
(7/2/04 14:00)
Reply | Re: my comments
Quote:
Some reflection will lead to the surprising result that the Jew is saturated with femininity, with precisely those qualities the essence of which I have shown to be the strongest opposition to the male nature ... the Jew, like the woman, is wanting in personality; his failure to grasp the idea of a true society is [due to his lack of] {sic - Robert} a free intelligible ego. Like women, Jews tend to adhere together but they do not associate as free independent individuals. - Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, authoritative trans., 6th German ed. (New York: A. L. Burt in conjunction with G. F. Putnam, 1907) 306-08.
can this simply be the pointing to the concept of over identification with community rather than identification with self, individualism itself is lost to someone whose identity is community
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1561
(7/2/04 14:10)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
What it points to is the lunacy of its author. Learn skepticism.
| Rairun
Inductee
Posts: 5
(7/2/04 16:30)
Reply | ...
double post Edited by: Rairun at: 7/2/04 16:32
| Rairun
Inductee
Posts: 6
(7/2/04 16:31)
Reply | morality
Ok, I've heard enough of this here to have to ask - why the hell should truth be moral?!
I'm no misogynist, and I happen not to agree with the way women are portrayed by Weininger at all, but I think I'd start laughing at myself if I ever said he was wrong because what he says is immoral!
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1563
(7/2/04 18:19)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: morality
"I'm no misogynist, and I happen not to agree with the way women are portrayed by Weininger at all, but I think I'd start laughing at myself if I ever said he was wrong because what he says is immoral!"
You people are incredible. You are so devoted to your delusions that you will rationalize anything to avoid taking responsibility for them. On and on the lunacy of Weininger is allowed and the anti-Semitism and the misogyny. Do you think Weininger actually proved his case? Do you think Jews are feminine and lacking value? Everyone of you who will allow Weininger's miserable thinking to escape your notice is a reprehensible human being.
| Bene Tleilax
Poet Laureate
Posts: 1001
(7/2/04 18:37)
Reply
| Re: morality
Truth is neither moral nor immoral. If find it to be a good general rule that any claim that appears to explicitly justify the inferiority/subjugation of other people should be viewed with great suspicion. Be warned: Understand nothing. All comprehension is temporary.
- Mentat Fixe (Adacto) | birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 30
(7/2/04 18:40)
Reply | Re: morality
I suspect you will not agree with me Robert, but it seems my current trouncing on the race thread is similar, only the delusions are a little different, and, arguably, more well-meaning.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7935
(7/2/04 18:57)
Reply
| Re: morality
Yes, you're certainly getting trounced there, Bird.
Accidence happens. | Rairun
Inductee
Posts: 7
(7/2/04 19:07)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
You people are incredible. You are so devoted to your delusions that you will rationalize anything to avoid taking responsibility for them. On and on the lunacy of Weininger is allowed and the anti-Semitism and the misogyny. Do you think Weininger actually proved his case? Do you think Jews are feminine and lacking value? Everyone of you who will allow Weininger's miserable thinking to escape your notice is a reprehensible human being.
You're incredible too, Robert. I've never seen anyone who could misread a single sentence like you just did. Either you weren't paying attention or you're not very bright.
I was going to explain it again here, but I don't think I need to. Read it again, and if you don't understand it, then you can ask what I meant.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1564
(7/2/04 19:12)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: morality
bird, those your delusions you were mentioning?
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1565
(7/2/04 19:22)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: morality
I did reread it, rairun, and there is still no acceptance of the fact that Weininger is first and foremost an anti-Semite. His rejection of women arises from his tortured self-loathing. Now, if you would like to make a case for Weininger's anti-Semitism why don't you get to it? The misogyny is a side-issue. So let's hear how anti-Semitism is the truth, or you can back down.
| Rairun
Inductee
Posts: 8
(7/2/04 19:29)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
I did reread it, rairun, and there is still no acceptance of the fact that Weininger is first and foremost an anti-Semite. His rejection of women arises from his tortured self-loathing. Now, if you would like to make a case for Weininger's anti-Semitism why don't you get to it? The misogyny is a side-issue. So let's hear how anti-Semitism is the truth, or you can back down.
If you reread it and paid attention this time, then you're not very bright. 
I don't know anything about weininger except for a few excerpts on woman, and I don't agree with them at all. I was not aware that he was an anti-semite as well, but I find it hard to believe that one "race" is inferior to others in any way. I never said that anti-semitism is the truth. I just said that it's pretty dumb to say it's wrong because it's immoral! Edited by: Rairun at: 7/2/04 19:30
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1566
(7/2/04 19:56)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
Then show me what is true and immoral.
| drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 95
(7/2/04 20:08)
Reply | Illogic and its relationship to megalomania
Now, Robert, for one so apparantly learned in things like logical discourse it surprises me that you are so unaware of the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. You say that I must disavow Weininger or admit promotion of anti-Semitism. That is just stupid, I'm sorry to say. It does not follow at all that I interpret his musings on the issue in the way you do, not does it follow that I must do so. Get a grip, already.
Also, it is surely expressive of monumental arrogance that you suggest that others are not enlightened and/or are "pigheaded" just because they refuse to bow to your will and agree with you (i.e. in your eyes, your authority).
You are welcome to your moral hysteria, but I for one am scared quite shitless by it (well, not really but I'll say that for the effect). I've met Xian fundies far less morally overwrought and maniacal than yourself.
Enjoy your righteous indignation. It is the most commonly indulged in drug in society, you know.......
Just how high can a kite go I wonder?
It is a thing so obvious as to be unworthy of articulation in circles supposedly intelligent - such as this forum - that real anti-Semitism like that expressed by Nazis is a wholly insane state of mind. It is an absolute no-brainer.
My suggestion is that you take a hint from that famous Russian athlete - Popavalium Andropov
Dan Rowden
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7937
(7/2/04 20:08)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Truth is amoral. There is neither anything true and immoral, nor anything true and moral. Truth is just truth.
Accidence happens. |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 96
(7/2/04 20:19)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
"There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena." Nietzsche
Dan Rowden
| birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 33
(7/2/04 20:26)
Reply | Re: morality
Quote:
Well you're certainly getting trounced there Bird.
I get trounced in a very similar way when I try to explain to the Mennonites why I am not a Christian, or to the Baptists at work. I'm trounced every time. Wonder why that is.
| birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 34
(7/2/04 20:32)
Reply | Re: morality
Robert, why do you think Weininger's anti-semitism is more primary than his misogyny?
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7939
(7/2/04 20:38)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Dan:
Quote:
"There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena." Nietzsche
With this I certainly agree.
We've just started covering Nietzsche in a philosophy course I'm taking (on existentialism, which I took mostly to force myself to read ), and everything about him we've covered so far I agree with. In fact, most of it I had already come up with before...it was a lot like reading my mind.
We've been talking about affirming and negating life, and the inversion of values, etc.
Accidence happens. | drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 99
(7/2/04 20:42)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Guild,
I suspect for the most part you will really enjoy your study of Nietzsche. Of course, if at some point you don't break into a trepidation induced sweat I will be disappointed - if only in the substance of the course....
Dan Rowden
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1567
(7/2/04 20:44)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: morality
Rowden,
Are you going to publicly disavow the anti-Semitism of Otto Weininger or are you going to continue to promote an anti-Semite as a spiritual genius?
Can an anti-Semite be a spiritual genius?
Can the author of a piece of insufferable trash like Sex and Character be a spiritual genius?
Can a man who denies his responsiblities be enlightened?
Are you not in fact a charlatan, a man of poor character who pretends to important spiritual knowledge?
| Rairun
Inductee
Posts: 9
(7/2/04 20:50)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Then show me what is true and immoral.
Guild and Dan already said what I was going to say, but now that I think of it, I realize that I always thought it's morally wrong to consider dogs intellectually inferior to us fellow humans.
(NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT DOGS ARE ACTUALLY SMARTER THAN US, OR MAKING SOME TWISTED ANALOGY COMPARING JEWS TO DOGS. I'M REALLY NOT. PLEASE DON'T BAN ME. I'M SERIOUS. KTHANX.)
Edited by: Rairun at: 7/2/04 20:51
| drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 100
(7/2/04 20:51)
Reply
| Re: morality
Did you not read my previous post, Robert? I am not going to disavow anything. You are truly scary.
Dan Rowden
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1571
(7/2/04 21:00)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: morality
And you are supporting an anti-Semite. You are a man of reprehensible character.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 21
(7/2/04 21:03)
Reply | Edit
| Re: morality
birdofhermes wrote:
Quote:
Robert, why do you think Weininger's anti-semitism is more primary than his misogyny?
Yes, as Robert is framing himself as a Weininger expert, I too would be interested to hear the answer.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1572
(7/2/04 21:31)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: morality
I'd love to answer the question but Guildenstern is now himself allowing that there is no case to my charge that supporting the anti-Semitic Weininger is worthy of consideration. I am afraid I will not stay under those circumstances. By all means consider the debate a win for David Quinn.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 34
(7/2/04 21:36)
Reply | Re: morality
ok
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7941
(7/2/04 21:45)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Rairun:
Quote:
(NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT DOGS ARE ACTUALLY SMARTER THAN US, OR MAKING SOME TWISTED ANALOGY COMPARING JEWS TO DOGS. I'M REALLY NOT. PLEASE DON'T BAN ME. I'M SERIOUS. KTHANX.)
Whoa, chill, there. No one gets banned for holding an opinion. Did you see the rules in Front Desk? It describes in detail the warning/banning process.
Accidence happens. | jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 10
(7/2/04 21:49)
Reply | Re: morality
In discussions like this only the truth can win (more insight gained) or lose (defensive barriers hardened).
Truth hurts eitherway, be it is the cold hard fact that truth does not care about people's feelings and it hurts to accept it, or despair in that others cannot see what is truly true. Edited by: jimhaz at: 7/2/04 21:50
| birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 36
(7/2/04 21:50)
Reply | Re: morality
Robert, why does his anti-Semitism disturb you more than his misogyny?
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 23
(7/2/04 21:50)
Reply | Edit
| Re: morality
Robert wrote:
Quote:
I am afraid I will not stay.
Fair enough. However, I will be staying to see the conclusion of the debate, and David's final summation.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7942
(7/2/04 21:51)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Robert:
Quote:
Guildenstern is now himself allowing that there is no case to my charge that supporting the anti-Semitic Weininger is worthy of consideration.
Just to clarify, this is what I think regarding Weininger, anti-Semitism, and sexism:
As it pertains to the debate, I think it is a valid point. Enlightenment in various traditions is described a certain way and a part of that description is in reference to how an enlightened person is expected to behave; thus, bringing up the moral opinions of those claiming to be enlightened, or bringing up the moral opinions of those whom they exalt, is a valid means of establishing logically that the "enlightenment" which they claim is not consistent with the enlightenment described in scriptures.
But as it pertains to other things, whether someone is an anti-Semite or a sexist does not mean that sensible people should never agree with such a person, as it is always possible that there are things completely unrelated to anti-Semitism and/or sexism which can be agreed upon.
Accidence happens. | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1573
(7/2/04 21:57)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: morality
I'm sure I'll read it but I will not tolerate anti-Semitism or its support in any form. Those who support it are reprehensible individuals and Guildenstern has tonight supported it by declaring that Otto Weininger's anti-Semitism is not itself meaningful.
Of course we could put to Guildenstern a similar dilemma in which Quinn, Rowden, and Solway find themselves. Guildenstern can either deny that the anti-Semitism of Weininger is significant on the face of it or he can admit he was wrong.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 36
(7/2/04 22:05)
Reply | Re: morality
"...You are either For us, or you are AGAINST us..."
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1574
(7/2/04 22:06)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: morality
Please note that Guildenstern did not explicitly condemn the anti-Semitism of Otto Weininger nor did he allow that those who support it are people of low character, as in the persons of Quinn, Rowden, and Solway. Guildenstern is not giving this subject the consideration it deserves. He is avoiding the condemnation of those who support anti-Semitism. His motives for such must be questionable.
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Rairun
Inductee
Posts: 13
(7/2/04 22:10)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Whoa, chill, there. No one gets banned for holding an opinion. Did you see the rules in Front Desk? It describes in detail the warning/banning process.
Sorry, it was just a joke.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7943
(7/2/04 22:19)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Sorry, it was just a joke.
Sorry, I had temporarily lost my sense of humor. Just wanted to clarify.
Accidence happens. | cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 22
(7/2/04 22:27)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Mr. Larkin: Please note that Guildenstern did not explicitly condemn the anti-Semitism of Otto Weininger nor did he allow that those who support it are people of low character, as in the persons of Quinn, Rowden, and Solway. Guildenstern is not giving this subject the consideration it deserves. He is avoiding the condemnation of those who support anti-Semitism. His motives for such must be questionable.
I would advise you take the day off to recollect yourself. You are attacking just about every person on here who makes a move that is unsatisfactory to your "morality". Do you suffer from OCD? Schizophrenia? The world is not out to get you...
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7944
(7/2/04 22:47)
Reply
| Weininger
Blech...
I must admit, I had not heard of this Otto Weininger guy before this debate. I have just looked him up, on the recommendation of a friend. The man is disgusting.
I had no idea QRS actually supported such Nazi tripe. Come on, Dan, you at least seemed logical. What the hell?
Accidence happens.Edited by: Guildenstern at: 7/2/04 22:48
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1575
(7/2/04 22:59)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Weininger
Someone suggested I come back and read this and I am so very pleased I did. I jumped the gun in presuming that Ben had familiarity with Weininger and for that I apologize. This is a very serious issue and I will not tolerate anti-Semitism in even subtle forms. I trust he will again forgive my 'volatility' understanding that it arises from a genuine depth of feeling.
| birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 37
(7/2/04 22:59)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
But then on the other hand, Kevin did say
Weininger was one of the brightest lights of the past thousand years, which fills his heart with joy. So I think that earns more than one black mark, because it is not simply a matter of agreeing and disagreeing with different aspects of a person, as suggested by Guildenstern, but rather a whole hearted admiration, and which endorsement is of a specifically spiritual nature. They consider him a 'spiritual genius,' and those are quite some strong words.
In Kevins's defense, I thought his point was well taken that an American could criticise us for being a lazy, selfish, greedy, people with a low level of public discourse and who are unworthy of the democracy that we are not throwing away so much as absently watching it float downstream, deaf to its cries which are everywhere, because our ears are filled with sitcoms and our mouths are full all of the time, and our bloodstream is fed with Pepsi. Edited by: birdofhermes at: 7/2/04 22:59
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 24
(7/2/04 23:00)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Weininger
Guildenstern wrote;
Quote:
I must admit, I had not heard of this Otto Weininger guy before this debate.. . . The man is disgusting.
What exactly did you find disgusting: the racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, homosexuality, cowardliness, unoriginality, plagiarism, schizophrenia, self-loathing, sadism, sexual perversion, or the fact that he was politically motivated?
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7946
(7/2/04 23:03)
Reply
| Re: Weininger
Quote:
I trust he will again forgive my 'volatility' understanding that it arises from a genuine depth of feeling.
Sure, Robert.
Accidence happens. | Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7947
(7/2/04 23:05)
Reply
| Re: Weininger
Quote:
What exactly did you find disgusting: the racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, homosexuality, cowardliness, unoriginality, plagiarism, schizophrenia, self-loathing, sadism, sexual perversion, or the fact that he was politically motivated?
Racism, anti-Semitism, and misogyny are disgusting.
Accidence happens. | ksolway
Follower
Posts: 28
(8/2/04 1:50)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Weininger
Quote:
Racism, anti-Semitism, and misogyny are disgusting.
We are all certainly in agreement on that.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1582
(8/2/04 2:02)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Weininger
Then since you are openly promoting Otto Weininger, who was openly racist, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic, you will either disavow Weininger or you will be observed to be engaging in immoral action. The lie is then put to your spiritual presumptions and you are publicly known both as immoral and as a charlatan.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7950
(8/2/04 2:04)
Reply
| Re: Weininger
As for the rest:
I don't see any inherent problem with homosexuality and some other things labelled "sexual perversion". Sadism is a bit off the wall, though.
Cowardliness is unfortunate but it doesn't mean a whole lot in and of itself.
Unoriginality is meaningless; there is nothing original. Plagiarism however is wrong.
Schizophrenia is just a mental condition.
Self-loathing is rather silly.
If you agree that misogyny is disgusting, then why do you attach the labels "masculine" and "feminine" to various modes of thought, using "masculine" for those you feel are virtuous and "feminine" for those you feel are not?
Accidence happens. | ksolway
Follower
Posts: 29
(8/2/04 2:17)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Weininger
Guildenstern wrote:
Quote:
I don't see any inherent problem with homosexuality and some other things labelled "sexual perversion". Sadism is a bit off the wall, though.
Cowardliness is unfortunate but it doesn't mean a whole lot in and of itself.
Unoriginality is meaningless; there is nothing original. Plagiarism however is wrong.
Schizophrenia is just a mental condition.
Self-loathing is rather silly.
Guildenstern, these are all things that Weininger has been accused of by people not dissimilar to Robert - it doesn't mean that any of these accusations are true, or that there is any evidence for any of these accusations.
No matter how many times accusations are repeated, it doesn't make them true.
Quote:
If you agree that misogyny is disgusting, then why do you attach the labels "masculine" and "feminine" to various modes of thought, using "masculine" for those you feel are virtuous and "feminine" for those you feel are not?
If you had read Weininger, instead of his critics, I don't think you would be asking this question.
Only because they are useful labels for particular modes of thought. As you would expect, the so-called "feminine" modes of thought are most easily observed in women, while the so-called "masculine" modes of thought are most easily observed in men. But there is a lot of overlap, and no-one has fully "masculine" thoughts or fully "feminine" thoughts. In fact, the so-called "feminine" modes of thought tend to dominate even in men.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1583
(8/2/04 2:20)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Weininger
My turn to assess:
It has been less debate than message board theater and much less debate than slaughter. Quinn lost from the start by failing to establish an argument that any reasonable person would accept. Then instead of taking the opportunity in his second developmental speech to make a case he merely insisted he had done so despite the obvious fact he had not. Going into rebuttals without having established a case it is too late to do so now - a case that would stand on its own would in fact be a new issue. David Quinn does not have, and never has had, any reasonable case. The opposition, however, and if not always at its most effective, has generally proven its points and often at the direct expense of Quinn who was in his first rebuttal reduced to hysterical yammering and the offering of insights into his unorthodox maverick enlightened self.
Other topics are much more conducive to debate and I hope sometime soon a good topic will find its champions and we are treated then to perhaps less theater than debate.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1584
(8/2/04 2:27)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Weininger
Solway, you have had plenty of opportunity to disavow Weininger. You are not a moral man; why do you insist on being here?
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1585
(8/2/04 2:41)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Weininger
Here's some Weininger:
_____
Some reflection will lead to the surprising result that the Jew is saturated with femininity, with precisely those qualities the essence of which I have shown to be the strongest opposition to the male nature ... the Jew, like the woman, is wanting in personality; his failure to grasp the idea of a true society is [due to his lack of] {sic - Robert} a free intelligible ego. Like women, Jews tend to adhere together but they do not associate as free independent individuals. - Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, authoritative trans., 6th German ed. (New York: A. L. Burt in conjunction with G. F. Putnam, 1907) 306-08.
_____
Jews are wanting in personality? Jews lack free intelligible egos? They do not associate as free independent individuals?
The three of you, Quinn, Rowden, and Solway, are publicly exposed as the promoters of a Jewish anti-Semite and as immoral men and as charlatans.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 30
(8/2/04 3:09)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Weininger
"Consider this: Would an American, living in New York, who viewed his own people (Americans) to be shallow, materialistic, loud-mouthed, self-centred, arrogant, fat, lacking in depth, devoid of genuine spirituality, etc, be viewed to be the equivalent of an anti-semite?"
Edited by: ksolway at: 8/2/04 3:19
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1586
(8/2/04 3:17)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Weininger
It's really too late now Kevin but I'll answer that one:
1. Who would the American then attempt to be? Weininger was pretending to be an Aryan.
2. That only works if you assume Weininger's descriptions of Jews are equally accurate. You would have to be anti-Semitic to believe such a thing.
Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 8/2/04 3:31
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1587
(8/2/04 3:28)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Weininger
The debate is now over, Robert winning by a knockout.
| lbartoli
Apprentice
Posts: 9
(8/2/04 3:38)
Reply | Weininger speaks
So there they are, some generalizations about Jews. I have not seen this before. Hard to know, of course, whether this was originally his, or whether someone hasn't doctored it up some. Its a translation, the original was German right?
Anyway, one has to read these things in context, without which knowledge we may be misled as to what was precisely being expressed or attempted to express.
Weininger was Jewish, right?, there is no disagreement there i dont think, and so was Jesus, who i think Weininger thought highly of, so obviously the man didnt hate All jewish people if any, perhaps even his mother he loved!
But yes, it seems he was not much impressed with the minds of most of his people, in particular it seems he is referring to the jewish men, perhaps his circle of jewish acquaintances was not the cream-of-the-crop so to speak, maybe there were many not-so-bright children from poor families in his school, maybe he formed his opinions based on those particular jewish people he interacted with during his short life.
But i get the feeling he would be in agrement if you replaced the word Jew above with the word men, as i doubt he thought much more highly of the average man than he did about the average jew.
Men with certain types of genius, especially when still young, tend to have good-sized egos and can most easily be critical and look-down upon your average joe, or in this case, jew. There seems to be a fair dose of immaturity there but again he was like only 21, barely a man by some measurements.
It is reasonably possible that he had some really bad experiences with some of the people around him as a youngster especially; no doubt as different and odd as he was and must have appeared to his fellow classmates certainly we can expect they probably teased him and made fun of him at the very least, and we can even see him in the early years being deeply hurt by giggling, rejecting girls. Perhaps if we could see what he might have had to endure our hearts would go out to him more than they have.
So maybe there was some degree of humaness and lets-get-even tainting the purity of his ideas, but that doesnt mean some of his ideas wern't great, wernt mostly true.
Ought we be hating those who hate?
Leo
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1588
(8/2/04 3:47)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Weininger speaks
Sorry, Leo. Quinn, Rowden, and Solway are charlatans. There is no way around it, no way out of it.
New Oxford: charlatan, noun, a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.
DERIVATIVES
charlatanism noun
charlatanry noun.
ORIGIN early 17th cent. (denoting an itinerant seller of supposed remedies): from French, from Italian ciarlatano,
from ciarlare ‘to babble’.
Thus, Quinn, Rowden, and Solway are babbling snakeoil salesmen.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 31
(8/2/04 4:59)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Weininger
Robert wrote:
Quote:
Weininger was pretending to be an Aryan.
An extremely arrogant assumption on your part.
Weininger worshipped Jesus, the Jew. Was Jesus too, pretending to be Aryan?
Quote:
K: Consider this: Would an American, living in New York, who viewed his own people (Americans) to be shallow, materialistic, loud-mouthed, self-centred, arrogant, fat, lacking in depth, devoid of genuine spirituality, etc, be viewed to be the equivalent of an anti-semite?"
R: That only works if you assume Weininger's descriptions of Jews are equally accurate.
Presumably you believe it is true that Americans are shallow, materialistic, loud-mouthed, self-centred, arrogant, fat, lacking in depth, devoid of genuine spirituality, etc, because you know what Americans are really like.
But do you equally know what the culture of Weininger's Jewish community was like? I certainly don't, and I don't believe you do either. I think it is highly arrogant of you to believe that you can think for someone else.
| Ogg Oggleby
Exemplar of Eccentricities
Posts: 718
(8/2/04 5:06)
Reply
ezSupporter
 | Re: Weininger
Go away now, Solway, and learn how to be a good person.
Sometimes we must take the bull by the tail, and face the situation.
- W. C. Fields | drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 105
(8/2/04 7:43)
Reply | Re: Weininger
I'm curious, Robert, why do you post under two different identities? So as not to appear to be somewhat manic or to give the false appearance of another person presenting your perspective? Or.........?
I find it rather odd.
Dan Rowden
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 34
(8/2/04 8:57)
Reply
| Re: Weininger
Dave: And your perceptions on the debate/cleaner punches?
Well, Dave, since you asked, allow me a counterquestion: what debate? I didn’t observe much of a debate after the first two rounds. It was more like a bloodbath. But, I guess this had to be expected when the chieftains of antagonistic philosopher tribes meet for a show fight. It is the most likely scenario. After all, the law of the jungle also rules in cyberspace.
I sensed sportsmanship in the opening words of Guildenstern: “Robert Larkin and David Quinn have been looking for "neutral ground" on which to have a civilized, structured debate.” Unfortunately it turned out that the subordinate clause was a bit too optimistic.
Structure existed for some time. Robert rightfully questioned David’s enlightenment claim on account of circularity and David countered with logically weak enlightenment prose. David’s second reply contained many incoherencies that were fairly easy to deconstruct. He provided much attack surface. But, I suppose Robert doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
Instead he took the most “economic” route to dismantle the persona David via the women issue -> Weininger -> anti-Semitism path. Although the efficiency of that method cannot be doubted (David practically discredits himself by supporting Weininger), this is basically a fallacy (i.e. ad hominem). The final issue of anti-semitism is off topic.
I have tried to throw in some Buddhist POVs for ammunition, but I guess the course was already set. In retrospect, I understand how it came to this. Robert is probably not inclined to take any viewpoint seriously that is so obviously and strongly flawed. I can’t blame him for that. On the other hand, I can also see David’s position. The debate must have appeared irrational to him. Perhaps David isn’t aware that the flaws in his philosophy are really quite drastic and that they cause most people to react very emotionally.
Despite of the views of QRS, I should say that not everybody at Genius supports the QRS enlightenment flavor. I have followed the happenings over there on and off (mostly off) for a few years. It seems to me that QRS are facing quite a bit of adverse winds on their own board.
Finally, what’s the result of the debate? It’s not for me to decide, obviously. If I had a vote, I’d vote for tie. Perhaps QRS should stage a home game to decide the matter!?
Good luck!
Thomas
| 1Mike S
Follower
Posts: 86
(8/2/04 10:03)
Reply | Re: Weininger speaks
Quote:
Sorry, Leo. Quinn, Rowden, and Solway are charlatans. There is no way around it, no way out of it.
New Oxford: charlatan, noun, a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.
Thus, Quinn, Rowden, and Solway are babbling snakeoil salesmen.
Isn't it nice to find actual clear meaning of a word? That is it, exactly, and what they are, exactly - they and virtually everyone on this board who is claiming "enlightenment" and/or special knowledge gathered through studying some religiophylosophical intrepretation of something not understood . . . . Mike
www.notcreatedequal.com | Dave Toast
Inductee
Posts: 9
(8/2/04 11:40)
Reply
| Re: Weininger
Quote:
Thomas: Well, Dave, since you asked, allow me a counterquestion: what debate?
Well quite. As I saw it, a football team turned up expecting to play football, only to be confronted by a rugby team who wanted to pick the ball up, run it into the goal, and expect the goal to stand. The football team didn't give a very good account of themselves but they at least seemed to be trying to kick the ball.
Quote:
I didn’t observe much of a debate after the first two rounds. It was more like a bloodbath. But, I guess this had to be expected when the chieftains of antagonistic philosopher tribes meet for a show fight. It is the most likely scenario. After all, the law of the jungle also rules in cyberspace.
I'm not so sure about that. I think that if the true TGP cheiftains, the gifted ones, were to have been involved, the game may have had more structure and less posturing, though we'd probably end up with a score draw as opposed to a no-score draw, considering the subject matter. Thing is though, it was a TGP brave(ado) who picked the fight and consequently, even considering consultation with others in the tribe, the brave was only ever capable of scalping his foe and taking his prize by serendipity. He engaged in hairpulling, hoping the scalp would come away too, and now he walks away with a few hairs in his hand, confidently holding up what he imagines to be a scalp. The chieftains must surely only applaud to placate.
Quote:
I sensed sportsmanship in the opening words of Guildenstern: “Robert Larkin and David Quinn have been looking for "neutral ground" on which to have a civilized, structured debate.” Unfortunately it turned out that the subordinate clause was a bit too optimistic.
Structure existed for some time. Robert rightfully questioned David’s enlightenment claim on account of circularity and David countered with logically weak enlightenment prose. David’s second reply contained many incoherencies that were fairly easy to deconstruct. He provided much attack surface. But, I suppose Robert doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
A glad fool surely; but agreed otherwise.
Quote:
Instead he took the most “economic” route to dismantle the persona David via the women issue -> Weininger -> anti-Semitism path. Although the efficiency of that method cannot be doubted (David practically discredits himself by supporting Weininger), this is basically a fallacy (i.e. ad hominem). The final issue of anti-semitism is off topic.
This was only the most gross of the logical fallacies on show. It was a veritable cornucopia. Of course logical fallacies often stand up in the courtroom though.
Quote:
I have tried to throw in some Buddhist POVs for ammunition, but I guess the course was already set. In retrospect, I understand how it came to this. Robert is probably not inclined to take any viewpoint seriously that is so obviously and strongly flawed. I can’t blame him for that. On the other hand, I can also see David’s position. The debate must have appeared irrational to him. Perhaps David isn’t aware that the flaws in his philosophy are really quite drastic and that they cause most people to react very emotionally.
That's hardly his fault though, the reaction that is.
However the question is begged. If the viewpoint is so obviously flawed, why were it's obvious flaws not laid bare? Perhaps if it were taken a little more seriously. If Brazil were to challenge Lichtenstein to a footy match, and Brazil were beaten on account of not taking their opposition seriously, could we really not blame Brazil for their lackadaisical approach? Perhaps Brazil just wanted to turn up and show their ball skills off, but then a more appropriate analogy would be Denmark's hit-and-hope approach if that were the case.
Quote:
Despite of the views of QRS, I should say that not everybody at Genius supports the QRS enlightenment flavor. I have followed the happenings over there on and off (mostly off) for a few years. It seems to me that QRS are facing quite a bit of adverse winds on their own board.
Was this ever not the case?
Quote:
Finally, what’s the result of the debate? It’s not for me to decide, obviously. If I had a vote, I’d vote for tie. Perhaps QRS should stage a home game to decide the matter!?
That would be fair, as the first leg ground was anything but neutral. I think we, and they, have already seen enough of the present incarnation of the opposition to have no interest whatsoever in the return. Perhaps the opposition could put their first team out, that might be a bit more productive.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 32
(8/2/04 11:51)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Weininger
Quote:
If the viewpoint is so obviously flawed, why were it's obvious flaws not laid bare?
And more particularly, why have they not been laid bare at any time, by anyone, anywhere?
Is it just a case of underestimating the "opposition"?
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7952
(8/2/04 11:55)
Reply
| Re: Weininger
Quote:
I think that if the true TGP cheiftains...
That's TPG, by the way. TGP is something entirely different...
Accidence happens. | MGregory
Visitor
Posts: 1
(8/2/04 12:05)
Reply | Re: Weininger
(This message was left blank) Edited by: MGregory at: 8/2/04 12:21
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 33
(8/2/04 12:07)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Weininger speaks
1Mike S wrote:
Quote:
That is it, exactly, and what they are, exactly - they and virtually everyone on this board who is claiming "enlightenment" and/or special knowledge gathered through studying some religiophylosophical intrepretation of something not understood
Virtually everyone. Virtually. So according to you, there are at least some people on this board claiming enlightenment or special knowledge gathered through studying some religiophylosophical intrepretation of something not understood, who are not charlatans.
Interesting use of words.
Or perhaps I misread you, and you are actually saying that virtually everyone on this board is claiming enlightenment or special knowledge?
And I suppose through your own special knowledge you are able to discern the charlatans from the truly enlightened, and exactly when someone's interpretation of a religious teaching is wrong?
Edited by: ksolway at: 8/2/04 12:17
| Dave Toast
Inductee
Posts: 10
(8/2/04 12:33)
Reply
| Re: Weininger speaks
Quote:
That's TPG, by the way. TGP is something entirely different...
Yes the slip was Freudian, chief.
| 1Mike S
Follower
Posts: 87
(8/2/04 12:51)
Reply | Re: Weininger speaks
Quote:
Virtually everyone. Virtually. So according to you, there are at least some people on this board claiming enlightenment or special knowledge gathered through studying some religiophylosophical intrepretation of something not understood, who are not charlatans.
Not exactly - what I meant to say was that it IS possible for someone to be enlightened, at least for short moments, but that most people who "claim" to have it do not - I do not know anyone posting here, other than by their words, and words are the absolutly worst way to learn about a person . . . .
Quote:
And I suppose through your own special knowledge you are able to discern the charlatans from the truly enlightened, and exactly when someone's interpretation of a religious teaching is wrong?
Of course not - I am an educated person, but not a fool. However, it IS possible to understand things in a clear manner whereby it is simple to observe misguided beliefs/imagined things/qualities/etc. Mike
www.notcreatedequal.com | cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 23
(8/2/04 15:12)
Reply | Re: Weininger speaks
David, your last post in the Debate thread was excellent!
Good show!
| voce io
Inductee
Posts: 60
(8/2/04 15:31)
Reply | ...
Yeah, David's most recent post is good so far (I'm still reading it). I'd just like to point out a few things.
One, David is trying to make Rob look bad because he used Nagarjuna. Obviously, your opponent is going to go to people you claim are correct, to show you where you're in disagreement. It's a good tactic in proving someone else's point of view wrong. I thought this part of David's argument was very very overplayed, saying how Rob interprets Nag's words as "the gospel truth". David, you claimed that Nagarjuna was a good source, so you should have been expecting Rob to use him as an example, and try to show where your concepts contradict.
Two, David constant talks about how Rob's actions and beliefs characterize him. He places Robert in a category based on the way he's been behaving. Now, Rob condemns Weininger for his behavior, actions and beliefs...yet David says Rob is wrong in doing so, that he's missing W's point. Seems kind of funny to me.
Overall, though, a nice argument.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1590
(8/2/04 15:33)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Weininger speaks
Quote:
Despite of the views of QRS, I should say that not everybody at Genius supports the QRS enlightenment flavor. I have followed the happenings over there on and off (mostly off) for a few years. It seems to me that QRS are facing quite a bit of adverse winds on their own board.
Finally, what’s the result of the debate? It’s not for me to decide, obviously. If I had a vote, I’d vote for tie. Perhaps QRS should stage a home game to decide the matter!?
- Thomas Knierem [emphasis mine].
With all respect to Thomas this debate was no tie and that he would have done it differently is no proof it was a tie. He very kindly provided us factors of enlightenment, some of which I had already used, but in comparison the Nagarjuna was a superior argument and not only because it is vastly more significant information but also because Quinn could be indicted for his alleged agreement with Nagarjuna.
If making an issue of the refusal of Quinn, Rowden, and Solway to openly disavow the anti-Semitic writings of Otto Weininger was ad hominen argument we have Thomas suggesting there might be reason in their support of Weininger left unconsidered, yet the issue is their support of an author of anti-Semitic gibberish. At what point does morality, particularly to those touched by Buddhism such as you and I, Thomas, become merely appeal to sentiment? And if it is so for others, how is it so for you and I? Anyway where is it my burden to establish what in Weininger they believe is meaningful, and as if I should lay out Weininger as a man of straw. In having already legitimized the consideration of David Quinn's claim to enlightenment, his support of Weininger's irrationality for his own purposes clearly establishes mine as a purely rational observation and which is still more evidence, along with hysterical writing and poor thinking, that Quinn's claim to enlightenment is mere pretense. In this debate Weininger appeared only as the author of mindless prattle; if there is more to Weininger it is hardly my burden to display it; the implication there might be more to Weininger hardly proves there is, that being a burden of Quinn's which he did not fulfill. Consideration of Weininger was not the only issue here. It was merely a 'tool'. And if Quinn exposed much 'attack surface' what was economical was to point to the obvious, that relying on himself as authority he had no case at all, the Weininger properly understood as part of the 'what is an enlightened man about?' issue.
There is how to debate and then there is how to debate David Quinn. With Quinn openly reduced to writing hysterical gibberish a successful method for debating Quinn has been displayed here. This was no tie. As to debating Quinn elsewhere I have no interest in dealing with such individuals and how Thomas can attempt to legitimize them I do not know. If there are members of the Genius Forum who have not bought the charlatanry of Quinn, Rowden, and Solway others have. Continuing to be virtually in that oppressive place is not something an intelligent person, in Buddhist terms here, Thomas, would do: It would be helping perpetuate ignorance. To do so for one's own amusement is short-sighted.
Quinn, Rowden, and Solway have a standing challenge from Naturyl to debate and it would as well be interesting to see Victor Danilchenko continue his annihilation of them from a Western perspective, but I do not suffer fools gladly nor will I willingly converse with those men; certainly I will not contribute to the continuation of their message board because that would be an irresponsible act - 'right association', Thomas. Ad hominem?
[edits: misspellings]
Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 8/2/04 15:39
| voce io
Inductee
Posts: 61
(8/2/04 15:34)
Reply | ...
Also, it's a pretty damn big stretch to say Rob is like the Athens citizens that put Socrates to death, and the Romans which put Jesus to death. He hasn't killed you, David! He is attempting to have a formal debate, in order to expose your fallacies, so that influenceable people won't be hurt by your system of beliefs. Your type of thought is dangerous, even you've admitted to that I believe.
| MGregory
Visitor
Posts: 2
(8/2/04 17:02)
Reply | Re: ...
That was magnificent David! I am astounded. That was like a hammer that smashed right through me. I can't even believe you wrote that!
I extend my sincerest gratitude to everyone who participated in this lovely event. I had a wonderful time.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1591
(8/2/04 17:14)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
After a quick read of David's last post let me bring up the 'time' issue. It was posted after expiration of the time limit and it was also past time to present a view backed by authority other than David Quinn, Dhammapada or anything else.
Although the last post is meaningless for the debate I do ask you to consider its tone, style, and substance, and let me suggest to you that it is certainly reasonable based on those factors to question whether David Quinn wrote that post. If he did write that post then we are left to add another characteristic to 'enlightenment as displayed by David Quinn', and which is 'inconsistency'.
| MGregory
Inductee
Posts: 3
(8/2/04 17:48)
Reply | Re: ...
I am very familiar with his writing style and that's definitely his writing. I guess I should have phrased that a little differently...I was a little overcome with myself. |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 24
(8/2/04 17:48)
Reply | Re: ...
Oh bother...
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1592
(8/2/04 18:47)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
"I am very familiar with his writing style and that's definitely his writing. I guess I should have phrased that a little differently...I was a little overcome with myself."
Well your opinion is great evidence so then can we conclude that a characteristic of David Quinn's enlightenment is 'inconsistency'?
Apparently enlightened folks can't tell time either.
| drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 106
(8/2/04 19:40)
Reply
| Re: ...
Fair dinkum, Robert. Shame is certainly not something you experience very often, is it? You will obviously go to any lengths whatsoever to try and discredit someone. Suggesting that David did not write his final post is just way beyond silly.
This whole event, interesting as it has been in many ways, actually reminds me of an episode that took place recently on one of those ultra high IQ boards that David and I were invited to. For those interested here is that material and David's analysis of it all:
home.primus.com.au/davidquinn/
*edit* Ooops, meant to also express my gratitude to Guild for al least being willing to host this exercise in.........whatever it actually turned out to be....
Dan Rowden
Edited by: drowden at: 8/2/04 19:42
| MGregory
Inductee
Posts: 4
(8/2/04 19:53)
Reply | Re: ...
Well, let's see what we got here...
Quote:
After a quick read of David's last post let me bring up the 'time' issue. It was posted after expiration of the time limit and it was also past time to present a view backed by authority other than David Quinn, Dhammapada or anything else.
Although the last post is meaningless for the debate I do ask you to consider its tone, style, and substance, and let me suggest to you that it is certainly reasonable based on those factors to question whether David Quinn wrote that post. If he did write that post then we are left to add another characteristic to 'enlightenment as displayed by David Quinn', and which is 'inconsistency'.
Ok, he definitely wrote that post, so we're left with:
Quote:
After a quick read of David's last post let me bring up the 'time' issue. It was posted after expiration of the time limit and it was also past time to present a view backed by authority other than David Quinn, Dhammapada or anything else.
Ok, so it was past time. So he's inconsistent because . . . . because . . . .
Ok, I got it: Because he can't tell time.
Well, I don't think he ever claimed that he could actually tell time. Maybe he can't. I doubt he wears a watch. But maybe he does, maybe he does. I shouldn't prejudge him like that. He may very well wear a watch, and if he does, then he can probably tell time. If he doesn't wear a watch, he may not be able to tell the time. But even if he does wear a watch, even if he does, he may not actually be able to use it to tell the time. "So why would he wear it?" I hear you ask. Why indeed. Why would someone who claims to be enlightened, wear a watch when he doesn't even know how to tell time?
You're right, Robert. That is utterly inconsistent. This debate should be annulled immediately, and all TPG funbucks returned to their original owners post haste.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1593
(8/2/04 19:58)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
Rowden,
If Quinn did write the post he has shown himself inconsistent. I don't personally care whether he wrote it since it is to my advantage either way. Having been hysterical in the first rebuttal and having never used authority contrasted with then using authority and being much less hysterical displays inconsistency, whomever wrote the post. The only way to have been consistent was to ignore authority and continue the gibbering hysteria of the first rebuttal.
If the debate had occurred on my board you would now be banned. There are things much much more offensive than making a personal insult, like the cynical promotion of a mentally ill Jewish anti-Semite so you can use his demented opinions about women.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1594
(8/2/04 20:07)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
MGregory,
One observes the inconsistency in writing by comparing the first and second rebuttals. Either Quinn didn't write the second rebuttal or he changed his approach, style, and tone. Damned if he did; damned if he didn't.
The post was made after the expiration of the 24 hour time limit. Beyond that, for theoretical reasons it was also inappropriate, since in a rebuttal he should have been continuing to insist on his own authority instead of bringing in authority. That constitutes a 'new issue' and which is not permitted in rebuttals and as was spelled out in the rules.
You're now 0-2 and would you like to make any more sensational arguments that lead to further proof that David Quinn got his behind soundly kicked?
| Rairun
Inductee
Posts: 14
(8/2/04 20:20)
Reply | ...
I don't agree with most of the QRS philosophy, but I was never banned from the genius forum for expressing that. I respect that.
I didn't think I'd ever find myself in a position where I'd defend them in some way, but that's the only thing I can do here if I'm not stubborn and let my pride get in the way. One thing is to disagree with them and try to show people they don't need to follow the things they say. Another is to use violence against them because you happen to disagree with their views.
I'd actually use violence if I thought they could have a serious impact on a lot of people. The only difference is that I don't pretend to be all virtuous because of that. You are no saint, Robert. You have hate written all over you.
| drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 107
(8/2/04 20:22)
Reply | That's noteworthy
Well, Robert, I guess it is both informative and instructive that you would ban people merely on the basis of their having interpreted some writer's meaning differently to you - and even without having seen the basis of that other person's interpretation!
I'm tempted to outstrech my right arm and utter a famous German phrase but I'm not sure if that would constitute a personal insult.
But then, I guess I should leave anyway given that you seem to take my very existence as a personal insult.
Goodbye.
Dan Rowden
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 25
(8/2/04 20:44)
Reply | Re: ...
Quote:
Mr. Larkin: One observes the inconsistency in writing by comparing the first and second rebuttals. Either Quinn didn't write the second rebuttal or he changed his approach, style, and tone. Damned if he did; damned if he didn't.
The post was made after the expiration of the 24 hour time limit. Beyond that, for theoretical reasons it was also inappropriate, since in a rebuttal he should have been continuing to insist on his own authority instead of bringing in authority. That constitutes a 'new issue' and which is not permitted in rebuttals and as was spelled out in the rules.
You're now 0-2 and would you like to make any more sensational arguments that lead to further proof that David Quinn got his behind soundly kicked?
As I have seen, though David extended his time frame, this is a silly thing to get your panties in a bunch over.
Inconsistency is generally a valid argument in situations of mis-information, when a person refutes themselves basically, it generally has nothing to do with how one decides to present themselves. There are many different reasons as to why David could have changed his approach. Could have been that he thought he wasn't conveying his perspective in a way that others could understand...could have been that he's just sick of nonsense that's been going on here the past few days...it could have been anything. Personally, I don't find much difference in this post versus the others, but maybe it's just because I am used to reading his posts...
Robert, if nothing else it seems you are still not pleased with the so-called "behind kicking". You, in everything you are saying, obviously know he, in fact, did NOT get his behind kicked, or else you would have put a sock in it a long time ago. It seems as if you are doing nothing but grinding more salt in your wounds.
I'll advise again...recollect yourself and try to hang on to some of your dignity. Edited by: cassiopeiae at: 8/2/04 20:45
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1595
(8/2/04 20:47)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: That's noteworthy
Dan,
The fact you were caught out on Weininger could have been anticipated: not everyone who reads you is dense. You had ample opportunity to disavow his anti-Semitism and which you declined to do. Weininger was a turn of the 20th century tragedy, a man who could not accept himself. That you would then adopt his irrational views to promote your own keeps the tragedy going.
You are in your own way a tragic figure, a man of some intelligence who insists on more, that he be seen as that which he is not, and to that end willing to promote the racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic literature of a Jew who wanted to be an Aryan and who wanted so badly to be seen as a genius that he killed himself in the room where Beethoven died in a ridiculous attempt to prove the point.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7955
(8/2/04 21:56)
Reply
| Re: That's noteworthy
David's last post in the debate is written in exactly the same style as his previous debate posts; I have no reason to believe it is not his own.
Final synopsis:
I do not think the debate turned out well for either side; there were plenty of ad homs launched, and frankly, the posts could have been much, much shorter if each side had stuck to rational arguments. Extracting the actual arguments from the fluff, I see the following:
David's basic argument is that enlightenment entails losing one's illusions, which as I stated earlier is acceptable on the face of it. Regarding David himself being enlightened, David explains that an enlightened person simply "knows"; that enlightenment is such that one can remove one's own subjectivity and see the truth about oneself.
Robert counters by pointing out that self-validation is, well, not valid; that one cannot knowingly lose one's own subjectivity; that one could have the feeling that one is seeing things as they really are when in fact one is mistaken. Robert then brings up Buddhist scripture and examples of David's own opinions to show that David's concept of enlightenment differs from the Buddhist one.
David of course disagrees that his concept of enlightenment differs from the Buddhist one, but on that, Robert and David disagree about what Buddhist enlightenment is in the first place.
In my opinion, we really do have a classic case of self-serving scripture interpretation going on. David insists Robert is taking Nagarjuna too literally; that David knows how Nagarjuna ought really be interpreted. But of course it is David who claims to fulfill the conditions of enlightenment which he sees in Nagarjuna, but which conditions he has himself read into Nagarjuna by interpretation.
As I have pointed out earlier, there is a parallel phenomenon in the interpretation of Christian scripture. A more liberal sect, for example, insists the inerrantists are taking the Bible too literally; that they know how the Bible ought really be interpreted. They know this of course because they know their interpretation conforms to God's Will, but which Will of course they have read into the Bible in the first place by interpretation.
What it boils down to in each case is a subjectivity: each party (David, or the liberal Christian sect) has experienced the feeling that they know exactly what they're talking about, that the meaning of the words, perhaps even the Universe, is crystal clear. This feeling is convincing; I know, because I have felt it, several times. It is the "crystallization" of finally understanding something. But it is just a feeling, and in my personal observation, I have noticed that it is not always a guaranteed indicator of really understanding something. Subtleties have a habit of creeping out into the open when one least expects it, but they are easiest to spot if one does not assume one already knows all the subtleties involved.
This is what I honestly make of David's (and QRS's) personal enlightenment. I am sure they are intelligent people and I am sure they try to live their lives rationally and without being slaves to emotion, and I am sure they are quite successful at that, but I think they have taken the feeling that they understand something to mean they have really understood it, and that they fail to recognize this.
Coming back to the debate, I think that the general public, including our visitors and new members form the Genius Forum, will agree that it is a pointless exercise to try to determine who the "winner" might be. Each side has voiced that they perceive the other as having soundly lost, and clutching for straws. Any attempt at trying to determine a victor will only highlight the factions that already exist. My personal opinion is this:
I think that the points Robert brings up (which I have outlined above) are sound. However, I do not think Robert argued the debate as well as he could have; his style tended to consist of merely showing facts, without explaining a lot to connect them together. He presented the evidence which would allow one to conclude QRS is interpreting Buddhist scripture in a self-serving way, but he did not present a complete argument to lead to this conclusion.
David's debating also had flaws, mostly in that he never actually addressed the argument Robert was trying to make, but instead got sidetracked into issues which were not really relevant to the logic involved. For example, he kept harping on whether Nagarjuna was really enlightened, calling on Robert to demonstrate that he was, when in fact whether Nagarjuna was really enlightened was not important, just is in the Biblical interpretation example it is not important whether the Bible is really divinely-inspired.
Well, there it is.
Accidence happens. | 1Mike S
Follower
Posts: 88
(8/2/04 22:27)
Reply | Re: That's noteworthy
Quote:
You are in your own way a tragic figure, a man of some intelligence who insists on more, that he be seen as that which he is not, and to that end willing to promote the racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic literature of a Jew who wanted to be an Aryan and who wanted so badly to be seen as a genius that he killed himself in the room where Beethoven died in a ridiculous attempt to prove the point.
Well, there you go Dan - shot down by someone so lost in his intellectual diversions and imaginational wanderings that the truth is beyond his grasp! Oh well - its always been that way, and always will be . . . . Mike
www.notcreatedequal.com | drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 108
(8/2/04 22:48)
Reply
| Re: That's noteworthy
Yes, but what Robert doesn't know is that I am wearing my specially designed (and niftily embroidered) "Enlightenment Flak Jacket". Made to special requirements it protects me from bullets save those tipped with genuine philosophical poison.
Fortunately (or unfortunately as the case may be), Robert does not have those in his armory.
Dan Rowden
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 263
(8/2/04 23:15)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Hmm...
The movement seems to be toward decribing this debate as a "tie," a "draw,' a "no contest," or in similar terms. I cannot agree that this is the proper analysis. It is true that as regards "The Nature of Enlightenment," the debate was indeed a 'draw' or better yet a 'no contest' - as would any such debate have been. Whatever 'the nature of enlightenment' may in fact be, it is almost certainly not something which can be meaningfully debated in an adversarial format. So, as regards the alleged subject matter of the contest, I can concede that a 'draw' occured. I believe that an identical outcome would have occured in any such debate held in the past, present, or future.
However, it is my opinion that the 'alleged' subject matter was not in fact the true subject matter. Instead, and from the very beginning, the issue was whether or not David Quinn's own claim of enlightenment ought to be given validity. Although Quinn naturally tried to downplay this aspect of the debate, his own position betrayed him fatally. This is because in order to be qualified to speak about enlightenment, claims Quinn, one must be enlightened. Accordingly, the issue of Quinn's claim to enlightenment became central to the debate, and in this regard, Robert scored a clear and impressive victory. Quinn's criteria for judging his own enlightenment were shown to faulty, Quinn's understanding of enlightenemt was shown to be at variance with some of the world's greatest spiritual thinkers (the very people who defined the term 'enlightenment,' to be specific), and Quinn's refusal to disavow an anti-sementic misogynist all combined to quite effectively reduce to rubble his pretense of enlightenment.
Since, according to David Quinn, the entire validity of his own claims rests on the 'fact' that he is enlightened, I feel that Robert's success in showing otherwise makes it improper to call this debate a 'draw.' In actuality, Robert is the clear winner. Since Robert undermined the very basis of Quinn's own arguments (as they were set forth by Quinn himself), there is no reason to consider this anything but a total win for Robert. If the 'Nature of Enlightenemt' was not decided, the veracity of Mr. Quinn's claims to enlightenment certainly was, and it is Mr. Quinn himself who indicated that an unenlightened man is not qualified to speak of enlightenment whatsover. Our logical consitency meters scream in alarm. The Blue Screen of Death appears. David Quinn has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
This was no draw. If it was a 'no contest,' it was only so in the sense that Quinn provided the means by which his own argument might be demostrated to be fallacious, and handed Robert the win on a silver platter. Whatever 'tonal' squabbles and accusations of 'hysteria' might have existed on either side are of no importance. All that matters is that David Quinn established the qualification that only an enlightened man could speak meaningfully about enlightenment, and Robert showed that Quinn could hardly be considered an enlightened man. That is all it takes to win, because Quinn was arguing the affirmative side in the debate. As soon as a reasonable doubt of Quinn's claim to enlightenment occured (the actual point at which it became clear may appear differently to each reader), Quinn's argument went bye-bye, the debate was for all intents and purposes over, and Robert won.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 34
(8/2/04 23:19)
Reply | Edit
| Re: That's noteworthy
Mike wrote:
Quote:
Well, there you go Dan - shot down by someone so lost in his intellectual diversions and imaginational wanderings that the truth is beyond his grasp! Oh well - its always been that way, and always will be . . . .
Mike, if you want to try and construct a case that Weininger was sexist or anti-semitic - something Robert has not even attempted to do - you are welcome to do so. If you open a thread on the Genius Forum there'll be more chance I'll see it, and be able to respond.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7956
(8/2/04 23:27)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Actually, when I wrote my synopsis earlier, I hadn't considered the implications of Quinn being on the affirmative side of it. Yes, Quinn's argument was, in my mind, shown to be invalid, which is technically enough to garner a win for the negative.
Accidence happens. | birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 42
(8/2/04 23:41)
Reply | Re: That's noteworthy
Quote:
Continuing to be virtually in that oppressive place is not something an intelligent person, in Buddhist terms here, Thomas, would do: It would be helping perpetuate ignorance. To do so for one's own amusement is short-sighted.
Thomas is like a guardian angel, bringing light and hope to the damned.
Quote:
Mike, if you want to try and construct a case that Weininger was sexist or anti-semitic - something Robert has not even attempted to do - you are welcome to do so. If you open a thread on the Genius Forum there'll be more chance I'll see it, and be able to respond.
Well if that don't beat all! I've tried to get you and others a year ago to get into it. I knew you were afraid of me.
Go for it Mike. I'm burned out on Weininger.
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 264
(8/2/04 23:45)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Oh, I almost forgot! Given that I have now announced a verdict, according to my original odds-making, all those who bet 'e-dubloons' on Robert are winners, and the house should now pay even money for their trouble. Anything bet on Mr. Quinn is lost and must be paid by the house to me.
We're in the money.
We're in the money.
We got a lot of what takes to get along.
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 26
(8/2/04 23:50)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Naturyl: This was no draw. If it was a 'no contest,' it was only so in the sense that Quinn provided the means by which his own argument might be demostrated to be fallacious, and handed Robert the win on a silver platter. Whatever 'tonal' squabbles and accusations of 'hysteria' might have existed on either side are of no importance. All that matters is that David Quinn established the qualification that only an enlightened man could speak meaningfully about enlightenment, and Robert showed that Quinn could hardly be considered an enlightened man. That is all it takes to win, because Quinn was arguing the affirmative side in the debate. As soon as a reasonable doubt of Quinn's claim to enlightenment occured (the actual point at which it became clear may appear differently to each reader), Quinn's argument went bye-bye, the debate was for all intents and purposes over, and Robert won.
Would you mind elaborating a bit? I think you are saying, because of reasonable doubt, in Davids "claim to enlightenment", Robert is automatically the winner...???
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7957
(8/2/04 23:51)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
I will bet 200 units of "currency" on David Quinn, and 800 on Robert.
That was my bet. You'll find it on page 1 of this thread, along with the odds you originally offered:
Quote:
I'm giving 4 to 1 odds in Robert's favor. Any takers?
Now pay up!
Accidence happens. |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 265
(9/2/04 0:28)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Would you mind elaborating a bit? I think you are saying, because of reasonable doubt, in Davids "claim to enlightenment", Robert is automatically the winner...???
Well, I've already attempted to explain this as clearly as possible, but perhaps it bears repeating. Robert is the winner because David was arguing the affirmative side of the debate, and he based his authority to argue the affirmative on his personal claim to enlightenment. When his enlightenment was shown to be highly questionable, so was his argument, since he himself maintained that an unenlightened person would not be fit to say anything about the nature of enlightenment. In this way, David practically sawed the legs out from under his own argument, and all that was left for Robert to do was to apply a small amount of force in order to collapse the whole thing. In fact, all he had to do was call David's claim to enlightenment into question, since David himself made this the foundation of his argument's worth from the very beginning. If it will help, I can show you this logic in the form of a syllogism:
1. According to David, if David (or any other person) is unenlightened, that person cannot talk meaningfully about the nature of enlightenment.
2. David failed to prove that he is enlightened, and Robert provided sufficient reason to believe that he is not. In such a case, skepticism demands that we assume the negative in the absence of compelling evidence of the affirmative. The onus of the affirmative was on David, and he failed to satisfy it.
3. Therefore, by David's own criteria, David's writings on the nature of enlightenment are meaningless and of no value.
If you do not now understand why it is clear that David did in fact lose the debate, I'm afraid I can't help you any further.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1596
(9/2/04 0:34)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
Re: Guildenstern's assessment
The final post is most assuredly not written in a style suggesting the preceding posts:
1. The author begins with something we have not seen before, he pays a ritualistic homage to someone other than himself.
2. There is then a quotation from the Dhammapada, the author's first attempt in the debate to bring in authority other than David Quinn.
3. The hysteria is milder.
The point as I have already stated is not whether David Quinn made the post but that the rebuttal posts are inconsistent whoever authored them. If Guildenstern is insistent on giving an opinion on the matter he should at the least have read the preceding arguments and then paid close attention to the actual posts.
Now I do so appreciate that Guildenstern in his synopsis took no note of these remarks by David:
_____
Robert's insane, frothing-at-the-mouth charges that I promote anti-semitism and racism
_____
his hysterical smear campaign against me
_____
The fact that conventional, orthodox men such as Robert, Guildenstern and Thomas would turn to an unconventional, unorthodox maverick such as the Buddha for support in their opposition to an unconventional, unorthodox maverick such as myself is extremely comical. After all, the Buddha committed the very same "crimes" that I have! He too rejected the traditions of the past. He too claimed enlightenment by his own authority. He too redefined traditional concepts for his own purposes.
_____
Because Robert, Guildenstern and Thomas correctly claim they are unenlightened and therefore not of "one mind" with past Buddhist sages, they are tacitly admitting (even though they will never consciously own up to this) that their interpretation of Buddhist scripture is incorrect.
_____
I've decided that I am not going to pay any attention to Robert's views on Weininger. It is clear that he has no interest in understanding Weininger's thoughts or his approach to philosophy. His charge that Weininger was anti-semitic is laughable.
_____
I put it to the members of this forum that Robert's obsession with the anti-semitic issue is simply a tacit admission that he is totally out of his depth as far as the discussion on enlightenment is concerned. He is trying to use the issue as a smokescreen, to distract our attention from the fact that he is losing the debate badly.
_____
This was Hitler's special skill, in fact. He used to whip up crowds into a frenzy by adopting self-righteous poses and snarling at the "despicable" members of humanity. It is hard to see the difference between Robert's frothing-at-the-mouth torrent of invectives and Hitler's frothing-at-the-mouth speeches at rallies. In both cases, a group of people are demonzied, painted as retarded and mentally ill, and virtually told that they barely deserve to live - all for the sake of trying to win a popularity contest. It's pitiful. I'm not saying that Robert is on the same level as Hitler (Robert is far too timid for that), but there are striking similarities in their psychology.
My relationship to Weininger is often misunderstood. In truth, he has had very little influence on my views. I was already a very deep thinker with many years experience before discovering his work.... I regard Weininger as a younger brother. A brilliant, wild, fearless younger brother, not entirely perfect, occasionally given to error, still in the grip of the romance of youth, but nevertheless a breath of fresh air in this overly-stuffy world of ours. Indeed, his work is so rarified and mentally stimulating that I predict that he will do far more to help people develop towards Buddhahood over the next thousand years than most of the Buddhist sutras combined.
_____
I also urge you to consider the possibility that most of the negative commentaries on Weininger have been made by the Robert Larkins of this world - that is to say, by low-grade, unstable individuals with axes to grind. That is particularly true of David Abrahamsen - the author of the shoddy but influential work "The Mind and Death of a Genius" - who is almost a clone of Larkin.
_____
The evidence for my views on female psychology is everywhere in this world. It is in every pattern of behaviour observed in females - in our mothers, sisters, girlfriends, wives, aunts, grandmothers, and work colleagues. If, in the face of such a massive collection of evidence, he refuses to see it, then there is not a lot I can do about it. I can only ask people to read the work for themselves and make up their own minds.
_____
Note that this is not really an argument against my claim of enlightenment because, as I've mentioned previously, Robert would first have to establish that Nagarjuna is enlightened for the argument to work, which he lacks the means to do. Instead, Robert is simply arguing that I am in disagreement with Nagarjuna, as evidenced by our respective teachings.
The problem with this argument is that, in reality, I am in full agreement with Nagarjuna in nearly everything he says. Our understanding of Reality is absolutely identical. Robert is thus hallucinating when he perceives differences between our views. The hallucinations arise because Robert has no awareness of the Source to which each of us is pointing, and thus he gets tangled up in the words. His mind automatically projects conventional and limited interpretations onto each of our words and thus creates differences where none really exist.
_____
In conclusion, I want to examine Robert's overall behaviour throughout this debate, both here on Ponderers Guild and elsewhere, and also the behaviour of Guildenstern and his colleagues. I found their behaviour quite disturbing on a number of levels. Not so much Robert's, because it is obvious that the man is a flake with no inner discipline at all. ... the megalomaniac posturings of self-righteousness, the shrieking howls of insanity that have poured forth from Robert's lips ...
_____
There are some interesting parallels to be drawn between Robert's aggressive behaviour, together with Guildenstern's silent approval of it, and the treatment meted out to Socrates and Jesus by their respective societies.
Jesus was persecuted and put to death mainly because he had no respect for the religious and social leaders of his time and claimed to have the authority of God. ... This exchange bears an eerie resemblance to much of this current "debate". First, there is the claim of authority, then the subsequent demonizing of the individual making the claim by the outraged religious scholars, then the individual's complete and total rejection of tradition, and then the animalistic fury and desire to hurt the individual in any way possible.
_____
Socrates, in turn, was charged with "corrupting the youth" and sentenced to death by the decent, upstanding citizens of Athens. They hated the way that Socrates was causing people to question everything, particularly their values and attachments, and they hated his predilection for showing them just how ignorant and deluded they were. As a result, they wanted to shut down his influence completely. And that meant putting an end to his life. ...
There are many interesting things that we can observe from this. For example, it is highly probable that the killing of Socrates and Jesus was largely orchestrated by Larkin-type individuals - that is, by low-grade, unstable individuals with axes to grind. They are the ones who tend to become the most outraged by spiritual thinkers and, once inflamed, they are the ones who are obsessive enough to pursue such a destructive course of action all the way through to its conclusion.
However, having said that, it is undoubtedly the case that these Larkin-type individuals had the tacit approval of the mainstream leaders. ...
_____
What the "debate" on this thread also suggests is that nothing much has changed over the last two thousand years, despite our much vaunted belief in human progress. People today are still very threatened by the spiritual thinker, and they still have no hesitation in reacting with animalistic fury towards him. Especially when, as in Robert's case, they are already a bit unstable to begin with. The sheer freedom of the spiritual person's mind and his complete indifference to tradition literally freaks the Larkin-types out. It takes them closer to the brink of madness and chaos, and they instinctively come down hard on it in a forceful act of suppression, which naturally results in hysteria. It is a bit like what happens when you push down very hard on a rubber container; the air that comes rushing out on all sides is the hysteria and invariably manifests as violence and abuse.
_____
_____
I could continue to consider Guildenstern's ideas but since it is obvious he and I weren't reading the same debate, what would be the point? The author of the ideas above is suffering, and the insight of Guildenstern, who characterizes some of the lunacy above merely as 'ad homs', is not much better than Quinn's.
After days of work and sometimes profound annoyance his post was a major disappointment. One would have at least expected him to observe the opponents were very different men, that one did not need to characterize the other as being too timid to be a Hitler.
Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 9/2/04 1:11
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 37
(9/2/04 1:34)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Naturyl wrote:
Quote:
However, it is my opinion that the 'alleged' subject matter was not in fact the true subject matter. Instead, and from the very beginning, the issue was whether or not David Quinn's own claim of enlightenment ought to be given validity. Although Quinn naturally tried to downplay this aspect of the debate, his own position betrayed him fatally. This is because in order to be qualified to speak about enlightenment, claims Quinn, one must be enlightened. Accordingly, the issue of Quinn's claim to enlightenment became central to the debate, and in this regard, Robert scored a clear and impressive victory.
How?
Quote:
Quinn's criteria for judging his own enlightenment were shown to faulty,
Where?
Quote:
Quinn's understanding of enlightenemt was shown to be at variance with some of the world's greatest spiritual thinkers (the very people who defined the term 'enlightenment,' to be specific),
Where?
Quote:
Robert is the winner because David was arguing the affirmative side of the debate, and he based his authority to argue the affirmative on his personal claim to enlightenment. When his enlightenment was shown to be highly questionable, so was his argument, since he himself maintained that an unenlightened person would not be fit to say anything about the nature of enlightenment.
You're showing yourself to be just as much of a joker as Larkin is. According to your fabricated debating rules, all the negative side has to do is refuse point blank to consider and understand the arguments put forward by the affirmative side and they have scored a "victory". The affirmative side has "failed" to prove its case.
If it's a cheap, hollow victory that you're after, then you're welcome to it. But what's the point?
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 266
(9/2/04 2:01)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Nah, that's not true at all, David. Had you won the debate, I would have called you the winner. I wouldn't have enjoyed doing so, but I would have done it.
I think that I and others have demonstrated quite clearly how and where Robert calls into question your claim to enlightenment. I further believe that any reader, even one biased toward yourself, can clearly see how this is so. You employed circular reasoning to support your enlightenment claim (despite your claims to the contrary), your understanding of enlightenment was shown to be at variance with that of Nagarjuna and others, and you refused to disavow associations which can be seen as prohibitive of enlightenment (Weininger, misogyny, etc). It is clear beyond any possible doubt that these combined elements are more than enough to throw your claim to enlightenment into serious question. Therefore, as I have already explained twice, your argument is rendered meaningless by your own criteria - only an enlightened man could speak meaningfully about enlightenment, and due to the factors above, it is far from clear that you are in fact an enlightened man. Because you agreed to argue the affirmative position, the onus was on you to establish your case, which you failed to do, for the reasons I have outlined above and in my two previous posts.
Of course you understand all of this. In your heart you realize that the facts cannot be refuted and that despite managing some fairly impressive passages, you lost the debate due to your failure to effectively argue the affirmative position. I won't be bothered to explain this a fourth time. If you wish to continue denying it (as I expect you will), have a ball.
[edited for typos] Edited by: Naturyl at: 9/2/04 2:04
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1597
(9/2/04 2:01)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
Good, Quinn. You don't make a rational argument - and which is admitted everywhere except by you and your folks - and then I'm expected to do what? Spend much time on it? I spent enough time on it to establish that you were a reasonable subject; that we had to reject your authority; that with your authority rejected you could make no reasonable case. Now what's wrong with that?
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 38
(9/2/04 2:04)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Was there ever any doubt that you children would declare yourselves "winners" regardless of anything that was actually said?
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 267
(9/2/04 2:15)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Children? You're hardly one to be throwing around accusations of immaturity, sir. After all, it is you who seek salvation from the gurus QRS. It is you who finds your life so intolerable that you would look to the 'lofty wisdom' of QRS to save you from all of the suffering and all of the life. After all, suffering is life, or so claims the Buddha. Oh, yes, it must be tempting - no emotional problems, none of the nastiness of actually living - just the 'lofty indifference' of being able to sit around in your ignorance and arrogance, calling people 'children.' It is disgusting, sir. It is you who attempts intellectual and spititual suicide. All, including yourself, who seek salvation in gurus and leaders, are no more than infants. The irony of your reference to us as 'children' is deep indeed. Youi haven't a clue, and you've given away your ability to get one in return for the bliss of ignorance. The infuriation caused by ignorant arrogance is exceeded only by the pity it engenders. People like you are in the world to teach compassion, Tharan - but perhaps not in the way you imagine.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1598
(9/2/04 2:16)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
You know you might gain some respect if you'd start admitting the truth to yourselves, and which was that David got beaten. Can we assume absolutely from that beating that David Quinn is not enlightened? No!
Grow up.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 39
(9/2/04 2:27)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Nat the psychic wrote,
Quote:
After all, it is you who seek salvation from the gurus QRS. It is you who finds your life so intolerable that you would look to the 'lofty wisdom' of QRS to save you from all of the suffering and all of the life.
How very enlightening. Please tell me more about myself.
You seem angry, Nat. Frazzled even. Hopefully I didn't offend your sensitve little ego, did I?
Quote:
After all, suffering is life, or so claims the Buddha.
You should try reading him sometime, Nat. Other good writers include Bodhidharmma, Huang Po, and one of my all time favorites, Joseph Campbell. Spending too much time on the boards can lead to a kind of feedback loop. You get caught up in protecting your online image, I think. Let it go. Grow.
Tharan
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1599
(9/2/04 2:44)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
I threw you a bone, Tharan; you should have accepted it graciously. Admit you all were beaten, you will gain some respect, and then there can be exchange. Otherwise you'll continue to pontificate and you'll continue to be annihilated.
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 268
(9/2/04 2:46)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Tharan,
Have you applied for a patent on condescencion? Do you imagine that a man of high spiritual development would speak in condescending and sarcastic tones? I rebuked you as you deserved to be rebuked for spitefully calling us 'children.' Do you understand the value of such rebuke, and why you should be thankful that you received it? Will you do as a wise man should and thank me, or will you you strike back as would a hurt child? I think we've seen the answer, although it is never too late to behave differently.
On a lighter note, I haven't any 'sensitive little ego.' Actually, it's rather the reverse, as people keep telling me - I have a large ego, and I'm insensitive.
Quote:
Other good writers include Bodhidharmma, Huang Po, and one of my all time favorites, Joseph Campbell.
I haven't read much Huang Po. I've read plenty of the others, particularly Campbell. The Power of Myth is re-read several times a year. You shouldn't assume things, Tharan. Of the classic Buddhist works, I have read many, including The Dhammapada, the Diamond Sutra, the Heart Sutra, and a number of others. This need to condescend forces you to assume, which makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me.'
But mostly U, in this case.
Quote:
Spending too much time on the boards can lead to a kind of feedback loop. You get caught up in protecting your online image, I think. Let it go. Grow.
Are you sure these words are really intended for me? Think about it. I suspect some projection occuring here.
You've got to do better than this, Tharan. Edited by: Naturyl at: 9/2/04 2:51
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 38
(9/2/04 2:59)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Nat,
I'm not sure that your skills in bluffing your way through everything are as strong as Robert's. Take care.
You've mentiond in the past that you try to practice a philosophical form of Taoism, which involves attempting to become more refined and civilized towards everyone. Given this, what do you make of Robert's behaviour throughout the course of this debate, particularly on the commentary thread? Do you approve of it?
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1600
(9/2/04 3:07)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
I think Nat should feel free to give an honest assessment. I also think he should feel free to give an honest assessment of your weaseling, pretension, dishonesty, and pig-headedness in failing to graciously admit defeat.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 36
(9/2/04 3:10)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
Also, Naturyl, would you, like Robert, shut down the Genius Forum if you possibly could?
Here's a question for you, and regarding your concept of the "win": If one person shoots another dead, who is the winner?
Robert continues to stress the importance of "annihilating" his opponents - presumably physically (e.g. shutting down their forums), as well as emotionally, via the constant stream of insults. Do you agree with this concept? Edited by: ksolway at: 9/2/04 3:24
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 269
(9/2/04 3:25)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Given this, what do you make of Robert's behaviour throughout the course of this debate, particularly on the commentary thread? Do you approve of it?
No, not entirely. Nor do I approve of your own behavior, David, which was hardly any better. You act as though the personal rancor was one-sided when it clearly was not. For you to ignore this fact is not surprising, I suppose, considering how you have ignored the facts which establish your loss.
Do you approve of you own behavior in these two threads, David? Edited by: Naturyl at: 9/2/04 3:26
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 270
(9/2/04 3:35)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Also, Naturyl, would you, like Robert, shut down the Genius Forum if you possibly could?
No.
Quote:
Here's a question for you, and regarding your concept of the "win": If one person shoots another dead, who is the winner?
Irrelevant. There was no death here. David's ideas have not died in any sense. They were simply defeated in this particular contest, and every contest must have a winner.
Quote:
Robert continues to stress the importance of "annihilating" his opponents - presumably physically (e.g. shutting down their forums), as well as emotionally, via the constant stream of insults. Do you agree with this concept?
I do not agree with physically annihilating anyone - nor does Robert, I'm quite sure. Destroying a forum in cyberspace is not equivalent to killing people, although shutting down the forum is Robert's desire and not mine. I would prefer that debates such as this continue, and that people like Robert continue exposing charlatans.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 39
(9/2/04 3:53)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Nat wrote:
Quote:
DQ: Given this, what do you make of Robert's behaviour throughout the course of this debate, particularly on the commentary thread? Do you approve of it?
Nat: No, not entirely.
Which parts don't you approve?
Quote:
Nor do I approve of your own behavior, David, which was hardly any better. You act as though the personal rancor was one-sided when it clearly was not.
Wasn't it? What's an example?
Quote:
Do you approve of you own behavior in these two threads, David?
Yes. I have done nothing to be ashamed of. Please provide an example if you disgaree.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1601
(9/2/04 4:07)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
As to my supposed 'ad homs' I will happily debate their validity, whether 'gibberish', supporter of an anti-Semite, Zombie, or whatever terms someone can find.
As to shutting down the Genius Forum I would still do so in an instant because while you might not be so foolish as to believe you're 'enlightened' a number of people on that forum do believe it and you are feeding their delusions. That makes you harmful. Additionally, connected to the delusions are various prejudices, as in misogyny, and which are themselves inherently harmful. You are attempting to give religious authority to prejudices and that makes you a dangerous man.
Only someone remarkably confused could mistake shutting down a forum with physical death. Is that forum your life, Quinn, or is it your psychic life?
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 271
(9/2/04 4:09)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Which parts don't you approve?
The name-calling and ad-hominem attacks.
Quote:
Wasn't it? What's an example... I have done nothing to be ashamed of. Please provide an example if you disgaree
Robert already did, but since I can only assume that you missed them the first time, here they are again, with the good bits highlighted by me:
Quote:
Robert's insane, frothing-at-the-mouth charges that I promote anti-semitism and racism
_____
his hysterical smear campaign against me
_____
The fact that conventional, orthodox men such as Robert, Guildenstern and Thomas would turn to an unconventional, unorthodox maverick such as the Buddha for support in their opposition to an unconventional, unorthodox maverick such as myself is extremely comical. After all, the Buddha committed the very same "crimes" that I have! He too rejected the traditions of the past. He too claimed enlightenment by his own authority. He too redefined traditional concepts for his own purposes.
_____
Because Robert, Guildenstern and Thomas correctly claim they are unenlightened and therefore not of "one mind" with past Buddhist sages, they are tacitly admitting (even though they will never consciously own up to this) that their interpretation of Buddhist scripture is incorrect.
_____
I've decided that I am not going to pay any attention to Robert's views on Weininger. It is clear that he has no interest in understanding Weininger's thoughts or his approach to philosophy. His charge that Weininger was anti-semitic is laughable.
_____
I put it to the members of this forum that Robert's obsession with the anti-semitic issue is simply a tacit admission that he is totally out of his depth as far as the discussion on enlightenment is concerned. He is trying to use the issue as a smokescreen, to distract our attention from the fact that he is losing the debate badly.
_____
This was Hitler's special skill, in fact. He used to whip up crowds into a frenzy by adopting self-righteous poses and snarling at the "despicable" members of humanity. It is hard to see the difference between Robert's frothing-at-the-mouth torrent of invectives and Hitler's frothing-at-the-mouth speeches at rallies. In both cases, a group of people are demonzied, painted as retarded and mentally ill, and virtually told that they barely deserve to live - all for the sake of trying to win a popularity contest. It's pitiful. I'm not saying that Robert is on the same level as Hitler (Robert is far too timid for that), but there are striking similarities in their psychology.
My relationship to Weininger is often misunderstood. In truth, he has had very little influence on my views. I was already a very deep thinker with many years experience before discovering his work.... I regard Weininger as a younger brother. A brilliant, wild, fearless younger brother, not entirely perfect, occasionally given to error, still in the grip of the romance of youth, but nevertheless a breath of fresh air in this overly-stuffy world of ours. Indeed, his work is so rarified and mentally stimulating that I predict that he will do far more to help people develop towards Buddhahood over the next thousand years than most of the Buddhist sutras combined.
_____
I also urge you to consider the possibility that most of the negative commentaries on Weininger have been made by the Robert Larkins of this world - that is to say, by low-grade, unstable individuals with axes to grind. That is particularly true of David Abrahamsen - the author of the shoddy but influential work "The Mind and Death of a Genius" - who is almost a clone of Larkin.
_____
The evidence for my views on female psychology is everywhere in this world. It is in every pattern of behaviour observed in females - in our mothers, sisters, girlfriends, wives, aunts, grandmothers, and work colleagues. If, in the face of such a massive collection of evidence, he refuses to see it, then there is not a lot I can do about it. I can only ask people to read the work for themselves and make up their own minds.
_____
Note that this is not really an argument against my claim of enlightenment because, as I've mentioned previously, Robert would first have to establish that Nagarjuna is enlightened for the argument to work, which he lacks the means to do. Instead, Robert is simply arguing that I am in disagreement with Nagarjuna, as evidenced by our respective teachings.
The problem with this argument is that, in reality, I am in full agreement with Nagarjuna in nearly everything he says. Our understanding of Reality is absolutely identical. Robert is thus hallucinating when he perceives differences between our views. The hallucinations arise because Robert has no awareness of the Source to which each of us is pointing, and thus he gets tangled up in the words. His mind automatically projects conventional and limited interpretations onto each of our words and thus creates differences where none really exist.
_____
In conclusion, I want to examine Robert's overall behaviour throughout this debate, both here on Ponderers Guild and elsewhere, and also the behaviour of Guildenstern and his colleagues. I found their behaviour quite disturbing on a number of levels. Not so much Robert's, because it is obvious that the man is a flake with no inner discipline at all. ... the megalomaniac posturings of self-righteousness, the shrieking howls of insanity that have poured forth from Robert's lips ...
_____
There are some interesting parallels to be drawn between Robert's aggressive behaviour, together with Guildenstern's silent approval of it, and the treatment meted out to Socrates and Jesus by their respective societies.
Jesus was persecuted and put to death mainly because he had no respect for the religious and social leaders of his time and claimed to have the authority of God. ... This exchange bears an eerie resemblance to much of this current "debate". First, there is the claim of authority, then the subsequent demonizing of the individual making the claim by the outraged religious scholars, then the individual's complete and total rejection of tradition, and then the animalistic fury and desire to hurt the individual in any way possible.
_____
Socrates, in turn, was charged with "corrupting the youth" and sentenced to death by the decent, upstanding citizens of Athens. They hated the way that Socrates was causing people to question everything, particularly their values and attachments, and they hated his predilection for showing them just how ignorant and deluded they were. As a result, they wanted to shut down his influence completely. And that meant putting an end to his life. ...
There are many interesting things that we can observe from this. For example, it is highly probable that the killing of Socrates and Jesus was largely orchestrated by Larkin-type individuals - that is, by low-grade, unstable individuals with axes to grind. They are the ones who tend to become the most outraged by spiritual thinkers and, once inflamed, they are the ones who are obsessive enough to pursue such a destructive course of action all the way through to its conclusion.
However, having said that, it is undoubtedly the case that these Larkin-type individuals had the tacit approval of the mainstream leaders. ...
_____
What the "debate" on this thread also suggests is that nothing much has changed over the last two thousand years, despite our much vaunted belief in human progress. People today are still very threatened by the spiritual thinker, and they still have no hesitation in reacting with animalistic fury towards him. Especially when, as in Robert's case, they are already a bit unstable to begin with. The sheer freedom of the spiritual person's mind and his complete indifference to tradition literally freaks the Larkin-types out. It takes them closer to the brink of madness and chaos, and they instinctively come down hard on it in a forceful act of suppression, which naturally results in hysteria. It is a bit like what happens when you push down very hard on a rubber container; the air that comes rushing out on all sides is the hysteria and invariably manifests as violence and abuse.
That ought to do it, eh?
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 40
(9/2/04 4:52)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Naturyl wrote:
Quote:
DQ: Which parts don't you approve?
Nat: The name-calling and ad-hominem attacks.
Around 95% of his behaviour, in other words.
Quote:
DQ: I have done nothing to be ashamed of. Please provide an example if you disgaree
Nat: Robert already did, but since I can only assume that you missed them the first time, here they are again, with the good bits highlighted by me ....
You're really clutching at straws if you think that my pointing to Robert's low-brow, abusive behaviour falls into the same category as Robert's low-brow, abusive behaviour. It is like saying that a child who tries to defend himself from a violent rapist is just as hateful and violent as the rapist. Or that the Jews were just as hateful as Hitler because they kept on referring to him as an evil man. |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1602
(9/2/04 4:58)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
God, now you've taken to whining. Quinn you really are weak at this.
Another characteristic of enlightenment as exhibited by David Quinn: 'whining'.
| John
Visitor
Posts: 1
(9/2/04 5:07)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
It's unfortunate that so many insults have been exchanged.
Having watched this debate with interest it seems that most people are emotionally attached one way or the other which does not help promote objective assessments.
It seems to me -
The core of the argument between David and Robert was - is David enlightened? and other than flowery words, David's single argument is that only an enlightened person can know if they are enlightened - no other reference is necessary or valid.
Now, for the simple reason that a deluded person cannot truly know how much or in what way they are deluded any self-referential claim for enlightenment must be discounted.
David's full time job is talking about wisdom so it would be a poor show if he did not present a reasonable picture, but talking about wisdom does not equate to enlightenment.
Anyone who wants to know about QRS (and hasn't already) should spend time at their Genius forum.
John
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 16
(9/2/04 6:14)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
only an enlightened person can know if they are enlightened - no other reference is necessary or valid....any self-referential claim for enlightenment must be discounted
I believe this statement to be logically incorrect, rather it is the opposite as David has said. The only way is for the person to be enlightened themselves. Personally, I think a lack of attachment to emotions and material things other than necessities is the key, as without this you simply cannot be enlightened. They do practice what they preach. Isn't non-attachment one of the core attributes of folks who have been deemed by whoever to be enlightened in the past !!
It is true however that David did not discuss much about the path to enlightenment, but I think that was more to do with the manner in which he was contantly forced to react to Larkin The Closed, constant attacks.
It must be noted that many of the anti-QRS comments here, are from people who have argued against the QRS for long periods of time without changing their views in any way - for instance Naturyl, Thomas, Victor, voce io, Biggier, BirdofHermes (to a degree) have rejected the QRS philosophy for some time.
You have to ask yourself "Why do these people continue to visit the Genius Forum". Do they just like to argue or are they on some sort of crusade because the QRS philosophy affronts their EMOTIONS (attachment).
With regard to the Genius Forum, there is a lot of rubbish in there and certainly some mixed up heads (and I'm not referring to the QRS). It can be pretty 'hard core' at times in that no issue is barred, providing it has something to do with philosophy. People are never barred unless they cause too much disruption, by repetitive, off topic, non-sensical posts - but barring is extremely rare (i can only recall 1 barring).
Rather than the Genius Forum, I feel much better value could be obtained by individuals who have an open mind (rather than those who are pure herd animals) in first visiting the Genius News site.
www.users.bigpond.com/drowden/ Edited by: jimhaz at: 9/2/04 7:12
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 37
(9/2/04 6:25)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
Robert wrote:
Quote:
David Quinn: 'whining'.
Your position seems to be that if a woman, say, is being abused by an aggressive and violent individual, and she fights back, she is "whining". Presumably you think she should just lie back and think of England.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 38
(9/2/04 7:10)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
John wrote:
Quote:
Any self-referential claim for enlightenment must be discounted.
You realize that if your statement is true, then the whole religion of Buddhism is invalidated, as the Buddha validated and claimed his own enlightenment.
"Claims" of enlightenment are never made "to" other people, as those other people cannot verify such a claim - it is useless to them in that regard. There can only be statements of enlightenment, not "claims" as such.
| John
Visitor
Posts: 2
(9/2/04 7:38)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
[i]jimhaz
I believe this statement to be logically incorrect[/i]
Here is the full statement again, show me how it is logically incorrect.
Now, for the simple reason that a deluded person cannot truly know how much or in what way they are deluded any self-referential claim for enlightenment must be discounted.
[i]Isn't non-attachment one of the core attributes of folks who have been deemed by whoever to be enlightened in the past !![/i]
Are you talking about David's non-attachment? If so I reckon you've not been paying attention.
It is true however that David did not discuss much about the path to enlightenment, but I think that was more to do with the manner in which he was contantly forced to react to Larkin The Closed, constant attacks.
David, being enlightened would not have been forced to react but continued to just speak the truth!
It must be noted that many of the anti-QRS comments here, are from people who have argued against the QRS for long periods of time without changing their views in any way - for instance Naturyl, Thomas, Victor, voce io, Biggier, BirdofHermes (to a degree) have rejected the QRS philosophy for some time.
You have to ask yourself "Why do these people continue to visit the Genius Forum". Do they just like to argue or are they on some sort of crusade because the QRS philosophy affronts their EMOTIONS (attachment).
Have you answered that question?
John
| John
Inductee
Posts: 3
(9/2/04 7:48)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
ksolway
John wrote:
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------
Any self-referential claim for enlightenment must be discounted.
-----------------------------------------------------
You realize that if your statement is true, then the whole religion of Buddhism is invalidated, as the Buddha validated and claimed his own enlightenment.
This was discussed a while back on your forum - we have no way to know what Gautama said. It is a fact though that for many hundreds of years self-validation has not been accepted by most Buddhist traditions.
John
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 17
(9/2/04 8:14)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Here is the full statement again, show me how it is logically incorrect.
Now, for the simple reason that a deluded person cannot truly know how much or in what way they are deluded any self-referential claim for enlightenment must be discounted.
As Kevin said, that would mean that you have to discount all past folks who have are now regarded as having been enlightened. That’s logical if you don't believe in enlightenment, but most here do. It applies to all major religions as well, not just Buddhism. One could extend it further and say that if you don't personally understand or don't like the works of any past genius, Einstein, Mozart, Picasso whoever then they should be discounted - it isn't logical.
Discount is the wrong word, 'not take for granted' is more realistic. I don't have any problem with that.
Are you talking about David's non-attachment? If so I reckon you've not been paying attention.
Sure he is not completely non-attached, it is not possible to be so, but the only thing he is significantly attached to is the spread of wisdom and keeping himslef alive.
David, being enlightened would not have been forced to react but continued to just speak the truth!
It is unfair to expect that those who seek to devalue this, by appealing to the delusional discriminations of non-thinkers, should not have their muck and their failings thrown back in their faces. At all times David's writing expresses self-control. Complete passitivity does not work against irrational aggression - ask the Jews.
Have you answered that question?
I knew that someone would jump on that paragraph immediately. As is typical you ignored the fact I was excluding the QRS, and have thus taken it out of context. Come on, if this forum allowed the depth of topics they do and didn't have moderators how long would it last? It is the nature of the internet forums to attract loudmouths and control freaks and other types of delusional people. At least the Genius Forum gives them a chance to perhaps learn something.
The people who make crusades tend to be closed circuits. I have little respect for their so called wisdom, though at the same time I can still have respect for their knowledge (Thomas and Victor for example). Edited by: jimhaz at: 9/2/04 8:17
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1603
(9/2/04 8:32)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
Although the inability of you and your fellows to think rationally failed to impress itself upon a number of people, many of us have noticed it and busted a gut.
If you really wish to draw an analogy between David Quinn being proven a vastly inferior debater and a woman being raped while thinking of England you are missing some steps somewhere. Perhaps it is in showing how Quinn's performance is like thinking about England or much like thinking at all or how it is in fact that Quinn is not raping himself.
No one is forcing David Quinn to whine or to be silent; this is not a physical attack - y'all seem to be confused about the differences between physical assaults and thrilling ass-kicking debate; reasonable defense is not mere whining; you have defined Quinn as a victim and which he is not - if I have harmed him by referring to his irrationality then he has harmed me by suggesting there is a Larkin-type who killed Jesus and Socrates and who foams at the mouth although come to think of it that is an example of the irrationality of which he has been accused.
I will give you advice on argument: it is too late, David Quinn has already whined. Don't attempt to justify the whining since 1. it draws attention to the whining; 2. it gives you another opportunity to write silly analogies.
You were already told how to handle this effectively, you admit defeat or at least stop trying to win what you cannot and you move on; act like decent people and not like crybabies. There are possibilities for debates with Naturyl or perhaps others if you want to display that you can win an argument and at which you likely cannot do worse than you did here. Some people will reject your behavior and others will not care. I am on no vendetta and I don't intend to argue with you. I hope we can put an end to this soon, perhaps by locking the thread, since it has certainly outlived its novelty.
| John
Inductee
Posts: 4
(9/2/04 8:44)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
jimhaz
Now, for the simple reason that a deluded person cannot truly know how much or in what way they are deluded any self-referential claim for enlightenment must be discounted.
As Kevin said, that would mean that you have to discount all past folks who have are now regarded as having been enlightened.
See my reply to Kevin.
Discount is the wrong word, 'not take for granted' is more realistic. I don't have any problem with that.
Oh, right! :)
David, being enlightened would not have been forced to react but continued to just speak the truth!
It is unfair to expect that those who seek to devalue this, by appealing to the delusional discriminations of non-thinkers, should not have their muck and their failings thrown back in their faces. At all times David's writing expresses self-control.
As I said you've not been paying attention.
Have you answered that question?
I knew that someone would jump on that paragraph immediately. As is typical you ignored the fact I was excluding the QRS, and have thus taken it out of context.
Pardon!? All, I said was - Have you answered that question?
Here is the section again.
It must be noted that many of the anti-QRS comments here, are from people who have argued against the QRS for long periods of time without changing their views in any way - for instance Naturyl, Thomas, Victor, voce io, Biggier, BirdofHermes (to a degree) have rejected the QRS philosophy for some time.
You have to ask yourself "Why do these people continue to visit the Genius Forum". Do they just like to argue or are they on some sort of crusade because the QRS philosophy affronts their EMOTIONS (attachment).
Have you answered that question?
John
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 27
(9/2/04 8:49)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
In a federal court, as David would be the defendant, Robert the one who initiated the debate, there would be no way to prove beyond a resonable doubt that David is not enlightened. He would either be acquitted or it would be a mistrial, leading to a draw. The logic used to "prove" Robert as the winner, is just as circular as David's argument on his enlightenment...there can be no winner. The only way to prove that David is in fact not enlightened would be 1) for him to admit it, 2) for the "enlightenment fairy" to come and deem us all enlightened. Neither of which has happened.
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 28
(9/2/04 8:59)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Mr. Larkin: God, now you've taken to whining...
So far, I have not seen David whine, in fact, it would seem to be you that has been whining throughout this thread...
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 39
(9/2/04 9:17)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
John wrote:
Quote:
We have no way to know what Gautama said.
If the Buddha said anything at all that he is reported to have said, then we know he claimed enlightenment, as that claim is made automatically in the authority with which he speaks.
It would be highly immoral for anyone to speak with the authority with which the Buddha does, if he didn't think he was qualified (ie, enlightened).
Quote:
It is a fact though that for many hundreds of years self-validation has not been accepted by most Buddhist traditions.
The only alternative to the Buddha validating his own enlightenment is if he took someone elses word for it. Can you see how stupid that would that be? It would make a farce of the whole Buddhist religion.
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 29
(9/2/04 9:22)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
John: It is a fact though that for many hundreds of years self-validation has not been accepted by most Buddhist traditions.
It has been said that the Buddha's first teaching was actually just that...He encountered a group of monks and upon their questioning of his greatness, he replied "I am the Buddha, the enlightened one." This of course, they did dismiss as ridiculous. The Buddha then realized this was not the way to teach others of the Way. Shortly after, the Four Noble Truths were taught.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1604
(9/2/04 9:27)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
Poor cass: in this debate Quinn had the affirmative position which makes him like the prosecutor and guess what? He didn't make his case.
I have never seen such an extraordinary collection of people; they are incapable of winning even simple arguments. Could it be that their rational abilities are vegetating on the "Genius" Forum?
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 30
(9/2/04 9:33)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
LOL!
| John
Inductee
Posts: 5
(9/2/04 9:34)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
ksolway
It would be highly immoral for anyone to speak with the authority with which the Buddha does, if he didn't think he was qualified (ie, enlightened).
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------
It is a fact though that for many hundreds of years self-validation has not been accepted by most Buddhist traditions.
--------------------------------------------------------
The only alternative to the Buddha validating his own enlightenment is if he took someone elses word for it. Can you see how stupid that would that be? It would make a farce of the whole Buddhist religion.
Allow me to put it another way - why do you think the great teachers of the past insisted that self-validation was not acceptable?
Answer - see what I said originally.
John
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1605
(9/2/04 9:36)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
That's a great way to win an argument, cass. Now look right above your post where it was shown to you that by your logic Quinn was the prosecutor and then make an intelligible answer, if you can do that.
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 31
(9/2/04 9:45)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Mr. Larkin: That's a great way to win an argument, cass. Now look right above your post where it was shown to you that by your logic Quinn was the prosecutor and then make an intelligible answer, if you can do that.
The way I see it, you were the one who challenged him, you were trying to prove he was/is not enlightened. It was him who was put in the defense by your accusation. If the argument would have been on the general view of enlightenment, the roles would have switched. If David were arguing for or the idea of enlightement, David would have been the Prosecutor (the affirmative). Edited by: cassiopeiae at: 9/2/04 9:47
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 32
(9/2/04 9:51)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
To add:
The original topic: David Quinn is not enlightened.
Robert agrees with the above statement. Therefore Robert is the affirmative.
David does not agree with the above statement, therefore he is the negative. |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1606
(9/2/04 9:58)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
David was the affirmative and he was the prosecutor and he lost his argument. And he was the affirmative because he accepted it and then he failed at it. I challenged him and he failed the challenge.
The debate has its rules and you cannot just wish them away.
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 33
(9/2/04 9:59)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Then the debate was flawed in the first place, resulting in a mistrial.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1608
(9/2/04 10:08)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
No, I'm sorry cass, you're wrong again. Those are ordinary debate rules which are like ordinary trial rules. Now you'll have to do better and keep in mind that if you don't win this next argument that David Quinn cannot be enlightened. It's all up to you, so let's go now and give it your best shot!
| cassiopeiae
Follower
Posts: 34
(9/2/04 10:16)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Guild, from the original debate thread: The question is on the nature of enlightenment, David on the affirmative side and Robert on the negative. I unfortunately do not know David's specific views on the nature of enlightenment, so I cannot frame a precise question to which he would answer in the affirmative. But the crux of the matter is to be on the nature of enlightenment and, as Robert puts it, whether David Quinn has "got it".
By the rules set, the original topic was on the nature of enlightenment. David was on the affirmative, as I stated he would have been had it been on the idea (nature) of enlightnement. As you read further, there is another topic, whether David Quinn has "got it" which he would have been on the negative for, had this been treated as a separate topic, as it should have been. Therefore, the debate was flawed from the beginning. Robert, you did not hold an argument as to the nature of enlightenment, only as to whether David was in fact enlightened.
The debate was flawed, there was no debate, due to these words...
Quote:
Guild: ...I cannot frame a precise question to which he would answer in the affirmative.
MISTRIAL!
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1609
(9/2/04 10:19)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
I'm so sorry, cass, but you've lost again. Have a good day.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1990
(9/2/04 10:36)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Quinn,
Quote:
You're certainly more familiar with those parts of philosophy and logic that I find tedious and uninteresting.
Your ennui is surely a typical method of a deluded mind dealing with cognitive dissonance.
Quote:
What about the person who, while unconsciously accepting the Peano axioms, mistakenly thinks that 1+1=3 and yet believes that his thinking is perfectly correct? How do you personally distinguish yourself from him? Doesn't his mere existence automatically cast doubt upon your "incontrovertibly proof"?
No -- it merely proves that there is a person who is demonstrably irrational.
Quote:
Because my knowledge and awareness of emptiness cannot be surpassed. There is nowhere further to go.
... which evaluation of course is correct because you are enlightened.
How many circules can you spin at the same time, David? Looks to me like you could take a prize at the hula-hooping competition...
Quote:
That's not really true. If a person sincerely values truth and yet mistakenly thinks that he is enlightened, he will sooner or later recognize his error. The limitations of his knowledge will become obvious to him. He will then be in a postion to make further progress.
Excellent point! Which brings forth two additional tangents.
- How do you know you are not in 'sooner' stage, soon to realize your delusion, but not having done so yet?
- As far as I can tell, you in fact do not sincerely value truth. What you value is the beliefs which allow you to regard yourself as enlightened, but you have many a time demonstrated your outright hostility to any thought which undermines your delusion, even if the thought in question is pure logical criticism.
So the possible states of you are:- You are enlightened
- You are not enlightened, deluded, but sincere truth-seeker, and you will eventually see through your delusion
- You are not enlightened, nor a sincere truth seeker, but rather an apologist for your self-serving grandiloquent delusion.
I am positive that you are not #1, simply because your beliefs have too many glaring logical holes in them (and I know from logic). I sincerely hope that you are #2 (sincere truth-seeker), but I am pretty sure that you are in fact #3.
Quote:
Seriously, though, you didn't really answer the question. What makes you so sure that the practice of mainstream science isn't pure quackery? Making predictions about the future - it sounds a bit mystical to me.
When relativity postulates time dilation, what it does is predict future observations (e.g. clock desynchronization) under certain conditions. This is how all scientific knowledge is -- all scientific theories are defined and judged by their ability to predict future observations.
Again, had you any genuine interest in truth, you would have figured that out... it's not hard, after all -- even I could do it. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | 1Mike S
Follower
Posts: 89
(9/2/04 10:37)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Mike, if you want to try and construct a case that Weininger was sexist or anti-semitic - something Robert has not even attempted to do - you are welcome to do so. If you open a thread on the Genius Forum there'll be more chance I'll see it, and be able to respond.
Weninger? Is this the Wenninger who used to work for me? A great guy, totally honest, hard working dependable, reliable, etc. etc. - best I've ever come across and a great family man! Would drink a bit too much from time to time though . . .
And the great black cloud of unenlightenment descends to surround this thread . . . Mike
www.notcreatedequal.com | WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 40
(9/2/04 10:46)
Reply | Re: my comments
Robert wrote,
Quote:
David was the affirmative and he was the prosecutor and he lost his argument. And he was the affirmative because he accepted it and then he failed at it. I challenged him and he failed the challenge.
The litigant is always the challenger. The litigant is the declaration or affirmation. The defense is the rebuttal.
[French, from Old French, from Latin ltigns, ltigant-, a disputant, from present participle of ltigre, to bring suit. See litigate.] ...from dictionary.com
Take a class.
Why don't we settle this the democratic way, as I mentioned on Nat's site? If David is voted to have "lost" in the court of popular approval I will concede your glorious intellect and debate skills, Robert. I'll write a tune, strum a few chords, and sing the song to my children and grandchildren. Would that make you feel important? What were yours and Nat's objections to this idea again? I think Nat said something like "No, that would only prove how many people do not know logic" or something like that. I think you objected to some kind of timing/technical issue.
Tharan
*edit*
I just noticed the poll. Good job, Alarabi.
P.S. I dare you all to be fair and only vote once. Edited by: WolfsonJakk at: 9/2/04 10:56
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1991
(9/2/04 11:08)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
solway,
I can't help noticing that you avoided addressing my charge of your confusion of circularity and tautology, and your consequent and profound misunderstanding of logic and the nature of proof. Any particular reason you didn't follow up on my exposition of the indelible gulf between 'implicit' and 'explicit'? or do you still think that computational incompleteness was explicit in Peano axiomatization of arithmetic, even as Russell and Whitehead undertook the monumental programme of completely axiomatizing math in Principia Mathematica?.. or that Russell's Paradox was explicit in Cantor/Frege set theory, even as Cantor and Frege formulayed it?
Just for the record, your own claim about the nature of enlightenment forces me to consider your profound misunderstanding of logic as conclusive evidence of your lack of enlightenment.
P.S. Just to make is clear, the difference between circularity and tautology is that tautology is a semantic equivalence, while circularity is a syntactic equivalence -- the same difference as exists between the terms 'President of the United States ' and POTUS (syntactic transformation turns #1 into #2), and 'President of the United States' and 'Chief Executive of US' (semantic transformation turns #1 into #2). Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 41
(9/2/04 11:14)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
The Victor wrote,
Quote:
...or do you still think that computational incompleteness was explicit in Peano axiomatization of arithmetic, even as Russell and Whitehead undertook the monumental programme of completely axiomatizing math in Principia Mathematica?.. or that Russell's Paradox was explicit in Cantor/Frege set theory...yadda, yadda, yadda...
I wonder if Siddartha, Bodhidharmma, Huang Po, or heck even the Dalai Lama is aware of these irrelevancies to the subject of enlightenment.
Tharan
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1992
(9/2/04 11:28)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Jakk,
I am sure they weren't; but they didn't make the idiotic claim that circularity is equivalent to tautology, because the implicit is the same as the explicit. Solway did make such claims, thus casting even graver doubts (as if the problem with self-verification wasn't enough) on his claim of enlightenment.
I am surprised that you failed to understand such an elementary point. In a futile effort to appear to have a clue about logic, Solway dug his own grave... his vain, egoistic delusion exposed itself as a vain, egoistic delusion.
Better to let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, as they say... Solway opened his mouth yet once again. As had Quinn and Rowden, for that matter. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him.Edited by: Victor Danilchenko at: 9/2/04 11:30
| SPQR Anarchy
Revolutionary
Posts: 273
(9/2/04 11:28)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Maybe they were never enlightened either.
SPQR
Hey it is fun to pick on other peoples gods.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 43
(9/2/04 11:40)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Maybe no one was ever enlightened and never will be and the whole idea of achieving a non-delusional state is but a huge delusion. What then is the point of this forum or any philosophy at all for that matter?
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1610
(9/2/04 11:45)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: my comments
Are you an attorney, Tharan? If not then go to law school. This was a debate and not a trial so even if you could find a reason by which trials could be excluded you could not automatically exclude the debate based on that reason. The fact I was humoring poor cass does not mean you've got any argument about trials anyway.
Quinn accepted the affirmative's "burden of proof" in the debate. Whether it was one issue, two issues, or 17 issues, he accepted the burden and we had a debate. And why should it trouble him, being an enlightened man, a knower of great wisdom, to establish rational cases and let them first stand and then defend them? But Quinn established no case about enlightenment and no case that he was himself enlightened. He is not even half-way there and he has accepted the burden of reasonably proving both issues - and again, as Quinn is a great Genius, from the Genius Forum, why was this a problem? Whether or not I proved that enlightenment is ineffable - and which was not in fact ever my burden - I did most certainly prove reasonably that David Quinn is not enlightened else the factors of enlightenment include cynical support of an anti-Semite, sexism, stubbornness, hysteria, poor reasoning, etc., and lately we have observed inconsistency, lack of punctuality, whining, and weaseling. David Quinn proved nothing; I could have posted punctuation marks and won that debate yet I successfully gave reasons by which to question his enlightenment, Quinn enlightenment factors being ironic at best.
In attempting so hard to escape the debate to which he agreed, Quinn is firmly establishing pettiness as still another factor of enlightenment according to David Quinn, a self-proclaimed enlightened man. If Quinn wants another chance at debate let him accept Nat's challenge, let him challenge Victor Danilchenko or others. If Quinn just wants to weasel out of this one, too bad.
This was on the face of it not a good debate but it was nifty theater. Don't argue about the debate; every time you show up you present another losing argument. The fact you cannot hold even simple arguments ought to clue you in that you are not getting good instruction. If Buddhism aims to give you a strong intellect for use in those situations where intellect is appropriate, and which is frequently, then what you are getting is improper instruction at least as Buddhists would see it. The mindless learning of mere ideas about enlightenment is no substitute for good thinking; you would be better off in any number of pursuits, whether law, medicine, the sciences, philosophy, or the humanities than in pursuing a 'discipline' in which you are not only wasting your brain but in which you are learning pettiness.
As to votes and polls that's not my decision and I'm not opposed to them.
I am opposed to my writing any more on this topic.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7961
(9/2/04 11:48)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
My reason for starting the board is for entertainment. Philosophy is something to occupy the mind with, whether it reaches any meaningful conclusions or not, and I strongly encourage anyone who is not getting at least the benefit of entertainment from an online forum not to further waste their time.
Of course, there is the occasional meaningful conclusion, and the occasional person saved from the occasional delusion, but these are more side effects than explicit intents.
Accidence happens. | Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7962
(9/2/04 11:50)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
David Quinn did accept to be on the affirmative side when Robert and he were discussing the debate at Genius Forum. Ordinarily one would presume the challenger to take the affirmative but it was David who agreed otherwise this time.
Accidence happens. | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1611
(9/2/04 12:11)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
I challenge you to a duel and then I fire first? :)
If I were to challenge you to debate gun control where you are in favor of the total prohibition of guns and I favor the current system, then by going first I would have not only the first and last speeches but also the 'presumption', i.e., the status quo, which is presumed an inherent virtue. It is currently a workable system whereas your ideas might not work at all. It is in fact the negative who holds the status quo. In this debate it could not be reasonably assigned so Quinn as the affirmative had the 'burden of proof' balanced by the first and last words whereas the negative had no presumption as compensation and also later gave up a post.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1993
(9/2/04 12:27)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
jakk,
Quote:
Maybe no one was ever enlightened and never will be and the whole idea of achieving a non-delusional state is but a huge delusion.
perhaps the idea of achieving non-delusional state, framed in terms of 'enlightenment', is a huge delusion. The buddhism and QRS, you see, keep describing enlightenment as a qualitatively different state, radically different from the unenlightened state of mind. In my opinion, that's kinda like saying that you are either a 'good athlete' or 'not a good athlete', ignoring the reality of athleticism being a complex property comprising many different aspects -- a gradually emerging composition of multiple distinct physical characteristics, rather than a qualitatively different physical state.
In short, I think that 'enlightenment' is simply a fundamentally fucked-up framework, profoundly unsuited for understanding the questions of truth, knowledge, faith, delusion, etc. It's simply the wrong way to go about addressing those issues, IMO.
Quote:
What then is the point of this forum or any philosophy at all for that matter?
See above. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7968
(9/2/04 12:29)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
So in that way, VD, would you say "enlightenment" is something like "race", as we have been discussing with Birdofhermes in Hayzen's race thread?
Accidence happens. | Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1994
(9/2/04 12:32)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Pretty much, yeah -- I think it's an artificial and abitrary construct that attempts to take the complex continuous multidimensional reality and squeeze it into an finite integer set (not even a real line). Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 44
(9/2/04 12:47)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Victor wrote,
Quote:
In my opinion, that's kinda like saying that you are either a 'good athlete' or 'not a good athlete', ignoring the reality of athleticism being a complex property comprising many different aspects -- a gradually emerging composition of multiple distinct physical characteristics, rather than a qualitatively different physical state.
Hmm, it is a subjective judgement, is it not? I always considered myself a "good athlete" which I derived from athletics in school and Judo competitions later. I was not a "great athlete" as I didn't always win it all or compete in the Olympics or anything like that.
Yet you are trying to quantify this subjective opinion into some sort of mathematical model which is not the point. In fact, this whole debate thing takes this form. It is impossible to logically prove/disprove a completely subjective opinion of a person's self-image, yet some here are gloating as if they did just that. Whatever.
You may say "I am smart, and I know it." Any attempt for me to then "prove you wrong" would be misplaced energy. You are entitled to your opinions of yourself.
Perhaps I should not have voted from the neutral stance to leaning Quinn's way and voted for this being nothing but a mudslinging contest; with the appropriate gloating and endzone dancing one might expect from the "winner."
Quote:
In short, I think that 'enlightenment' is simply a fundamentally fucked-up framework, profoundly unsuited for understanding the questions of truth, knowledge, faith, delusion, etc. It's simply the wrong way to go about addressing those issues, IMO.
Please describe for my little brain a less-fucked up framework.
Tharan
| MGregory
Inductee
Posts: 5
(9/2/04 12:54)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
John: Here is the full statement again, show me how it is logically incorrect.
Now, for the simple reason that a deluded person cannot truly know how much or in what way they are deluded any self-referential claim for enlightenment must be discounted.
It either assumes that all people are deluded, or it assumes that a self-referential claim to enlightenment is a deluded thing to do. On top of that, it assumes that a deluded person can make claims about enlightenment without having experienced it. Why? Because that statement was necessarily made by a deluded person, otherwise it would contain an implicit claim to enlightenment and discount the statement itself. A self-referential claim to enlightenment is not sufficient to discount itself. It is asserting its own authority, which is not a false thing to do if that authority truly exists.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 686
(9/2/04 13:03)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Victor,Quote:
I think that 'enlightenment' is simply a fundamentally fucked-up framework, profoundly unsuited for understanding the questions of truth, knowledge, faith, delusion, etc. It's simply the wrong way to go about addressing those issues, IMO.
I think you got it. The whole problem with the debate was the beginning assumption that enlightenment can be known. Enlightenment has nothing to do with knowledge. By assuming it does, we get the nonsensical assertions that "I am enlightened and you're not." Why? "Because I know I am!" It comes back your original disagreement with me that the self can be known. Q seems to agree with you and thus the nonsense he talks about. The self cannot be known and enlightenment can be seen as nothing more than coming to rest in that mystery.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1995
(9/2/04 13:12)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
jakk,
Quote:
Hmm, it is a subjective judgement, is it not? I always considered myself a "good athlete" which I derived from athletics in school and Judo competitions later. I was not a "great athlete" as I didn't always win it all or compete in the Olympics or anything like that.
So which one is the greater athlete -- Maurice Green (the sprinter) or Michael Jordan (the basketball star)? or perhaps it's Ian Thorpe, the swimmer?
Do you see what I am leading to? How ridiculous it becomes to even frame the discussion in these terms? Trying to define a qualitatively distinct category 'good athlete' misses the point of what athleticism is.
When I was a child, I often concerned myself with questions like: if a tiger and an anaconda fight, which one will win? When I grew up, I realized that I was asking the wrong question, that 'who will win in a fight' is a wrong framework to approach biology in.
So who is more enlightened, Quinn or Nagarjuna?
Quote:
You may say "I am smart, and I know it." Any attempt for me to then "prove you wrong" would be misplaced energy. You are entitled to your opinions of yourself.
Indeed. QRS are entitled to view themselves as enlightened -- and I am entitled to view them as ridiculous.
Quote:
Perhaps I should not have voted from the neutral stance to leaning Quinn's way and voted for this being nothing but a mudslinging contest; with the appropriate gloating and endzone dancing one might expect from the "winner."
perhaps you should have engaged in more thought and less rationalizing cognitive dissonance resolution through the contest...
Quote:
Please describe for my little brain a less-fucked up framework.
Epistemology in general; more specifically, simply the idea that there are many beliefs and paradigms, some are more or less explanatory, some more or less predictive, some more or less complex, and some more or less consistent.
You seem to be asking for another framework to take the place of 'enlightenment' and be in a certain sense equivalent to it, a drop-in replacement so to speak; but I see no need for such, any more than I see the need to, upon ditching the naive old pseudo-sceintific definition of 'genius' as someone with IQ above a certain number, replace it with another, comparably naive and myopic and unidimensional, definition of 'genius'.
There is no binary delineation into 'genius' and 'non-genius'; 'great athlete' and 'non-great athlete'; 'deluded' and 'enlightened'. Those concepts, if extant at all, are simply results of our intellectual sloth, an exceedingly oversimplified conceptual shorthand; a product of our desire for simplistic answers to replace the complex, multidimensional reality. By asking for a better concept to serve as a drop-in replacement for enlightenment, you are asking the wrong question. Better to simply ask how accurate your beliefs are, how well-grounded and how explanatorily powerful and how predictively accurate, and stop yakking about QRS enlightenment; just as you don't concern yourself with how good an athlete you are when you practice judo or do gymnastics or mountain-climb. You just do those things, and if you become a better athlete as a result -- cool beans.
Mu, Jakk. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1996
(9/2/04 13:15)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
samadhi,
Quote:
The whole problem with the debate was the beginning assumption that enlightenment can be known.
Ok so far...
Quote:
Enlightenment has nothing to do with knowledge.
And then you go and disappoint me so. Obviously you haven't understood what I have been objecting to. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 45
(9/2/04 13:39)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Victor wrote,
Quote:
So who is more enlightened, Quinn or Nagarjuna?
Yes, exactly my point. It is a ridiculous comparison. But I don't think Quinn was doing this. He was challenged to defend his (personal) claim of enlightenment and he did so. Inevitably, it always depends on one's own definitions. There is no refuting that and there is no possibility of winning a debate on the matter.
Quote:
perhaps you should have engaged in more thought and less rationalizing cognitive dissonance resolution through the contest...
...asking me not to piss in a pissing contest? No fair!
Quote:
You seem to be asking for another framework to take the place of 'enlightenment' and be in a certain sense equivalent to it, a drop-in replacement so to speak...
I am asking you to define your point of view on the subject. Your opinion probably won't sway my own.
Quote:
There is no binary delineation into 'genius' and 'non-genius'; 'great athlete' and 'non-great athlete'; 'deluded' and 'enlightened'. Those concepts, if extant at all, are simply results of our intellectual sloth, an exceedingly oversimplified conceptual shorthand; a product of our desire for simplistic answers to replace the complex, multidimensional reality.
Not a bad definition, IMO. Thanks.
Tharan
| MGregory
Inductee
Posts: 6
(9/2/04 13:56)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
samadhim7: The whole problem with the debate was the beginning assumption that enlightenment can be known. Enlightenment has nothing to do with knowledge. . . . The self cannot be known and enlightenment can be seen as nothing more than coming to rest in that mystery.
I would call that "unconsciousness" but to each his own.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1997
(9/2/04 13:57)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Jakk,
Quote:
Yes, exactly my point. It is a ridiculous comparison. But I don't think Quinn was doing this. He was challenged to defend his (personal) claim of enlightenment and he did so. Inevitably, it always depends on one's own definitions. There is no refuting that and there is no possibility of winning a debate on the matter.
Don't you see how stupid the QRS definition game is? if I define my personal sense of 'enlightened' as 'able to hold breath for 2 minutes', then I am enlightened by definition... better yet, defining "you" to mean US government, it's the case that 'you owe me $3000 dollars of tax return'.
This is a tangent, but the QRS idiotic definition game has always bugged me -- I just can't stand such intellectual dishonesty. Just had to vent a little.
Quote:
...asking me not to piss in a pissing contest? No fair!
Well, no, I was asking you not to spit and pretend your saliva to be piss, in a pissing contest.
Quote:
Not a bad definition, IMO. Thanks.
You sound surprisingly conciliatory all of a sudden. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 688
(9/2/04 13:59)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Victor,Quote:
And then you go and disappoint me so. Obviously you haven't understood what I have been objecting to.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, how do I know that, right? As I've said before, it's not what I know, it's what I am. I understand this is nonsense to you. Enlightenment is nonsense to you because it cannot be situated as a concept. This is where your perspective leaves off and mine begins.
Edited by: samadhim7 at: 9/2/04 14:00
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 47
(9/2/04 14:33)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Victor wrote,
Quote:
This is a tangent, but the QRS idiotic definition game has always bugged me -- I just can't stand such intellectual dishonesty. Just had to vent a little.
It doesn't bother me. It might if it were all they were about or all they ever said. But it is not.
Quote:
You sound surprisingly conciliatory all of a sudden.
Do I? I don't feel anymore conciliatory.
Tharan
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 690
(9/2/04 14:36)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
MG,Quote:
I wrote: Enlightenment has nothing to do with knowledge... The self cannot be known and enlightenment can be seen as nothing more than coming to rest in that mystery.
You replied: I would call that "unconsciousness" but to each his own.
You can only know what you are not, what you are is beyond concept and cannot be known.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1998
(9/2/04 14:39)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
jakk,
Quote:
It doesn't bother me. It might if it were all they were about or all they ever said. But it is not.
it's what they use to make their pronouncements, which are usually either trivial or outright wrong, appear profound. I would take that seriously if I were you. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 48
(9/2/04 15:17)
Reply
 | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
So in that way, VD, would you say "enlightenment" is something like "race", as we have been discussing with Birdofhermes in Hayzen's race thread.
Quote:
Pretty much, yeah -- I think it's an artificial and abitrary construct that attempts to take the complex continuous multidimensional reality and squeeze it into an finite integer set (not even a real line).
Ah, and you wonder why I post at Genius? My detractors in the race thread are continually bringing up the cut of the emperor's suit, the quality of the thread, the type of cloth, the skill of the weavers...
I battle with the founders of GF because the warrior seeks worthy adversaries...they make you stronger.
Perhaps tomorrow, if this incredibly active thread is not deemed to have outlived its usefulness, I will be able to post a truly objective opinion as to the debate, since I am the only person I know capable of that. Edited by: birdofhermes at: 10/2/04 0:54
| Whirling Moat
Revolutionary
Posts: 214
(9/2/04 15:18)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Peace....
This thread reminds me of that movie (can't think of the name of it) with Ben Stiller as a superhero on a team with other misfit heroes. One of the characters had the ability to turn invisible. The only catch was he could only turn invisible while no one was watching, even himself. Was is the point of such an ability?
To be enlightened without the ability to prove it, or adequately describe it, is kind of funny.
The Corsair
Whirling Moat
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 694
(9/2/04 15:41)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Moat,Quote:
To be enlightened without the ability to prove it, or adequately describe it, is kind of funny.
Well, to be conscious without the ability to prove it, or adequately describe it, is kind of funny too.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 41
(9/2/04 17:04)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Guildenstern,
I believe that the Debate thread should remain locked at the top of the page until all discussion about it has finished. By allowing it to slide off the front page, you're making it more difficult for people to refer to it. Newcomers will have no idea what is going on.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 42
(9/2/04 17:15)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Samadhim wrote:
Quote:
The whole problem with the debate was the beginning assumption that enlightenment can be known.
In your view, then, no one knows what enlightenment is? Not even the Buddha, not even your own teachers?
Quote:
Enlightenment has nothing to do with knowledge.
It certainly has nothing to do with academic and speculative knowledge. But it does involve a profound, boundless knowledge of the Infinite.
Quote:
By assuming it does, we get the nonsensical assertions that "I am enlightened and you're not." Why? "Because I know I am!"
That is not the argument I have presented. Rather, the argument is:
Sighted person: I am not a blind person. I can see.
Blind person: Why?
Sighted person: Because my eyes are functioning poperly. I am not blind like yourself.
Blind person: How do you know that you're not just another blind person deludedly believing that he can see.
Sighted person: Because it is a fact that I can see.
Blind person: That is a circular argument!
Sighted person: I am simply speaking the truth.
--
Victor wrote:
Quote:
I think [enlightenment] is an artificial and abitrary construct that attempts to take the complex continuous multidimensional reality and squeeze it into an finite integer set (not even a real line).
As I have shown above with the example of blindness, not all divisions in Reality are fuzzily continuous. Some are sharp and distinct. There is a qualitative difference between a person who can physically see and someone who cannot.
Similarly, there is a world of difference between the person who makes the all-important breakthrough in his thinking and enters into enlightenment, and the person who doesn't.
The nature of Reality is such that one either understands it completely, or not at all. There is no third alternative, no inbetween. One either fully comprehends the nature of all things in a single flash of thought, or one continues to miss it completely.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7975
(9/2/04 17:18)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Bird:
Quote:
Perhaps tomorrow, if this incredibly active thread is not deemed to have outlived its usefulness, I will be able to post a truly objective opinion as to the debate, since I am the only person I know capable of that.
Yes, of course, Bird, you have a perfectly objective opinion. I seriously doubt there is any such thing. But this thread will not be locked, so feel free to come back to it.
Accidence happens. | Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7976
(9/2/04 17:18)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
David:
Quote:
I believe that the Debate thread should remain locked at the top of the page until all discussion about it has finished. By allowing it to slide off the front page, you're making it more difficult for people to refer to it. Newcomers will have no idea what is going on.
Good point; I have re-stickied it.
Accidence happens. | DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 43
(9/2/04 17:45)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
John wrote:
Quote:
Kevin: The only alternative to the Buddha validating his own enlightenment is if he took someone elses word for it. Can you see how stupid that would that be? It would make a farce of the whole Buddhist religion.
John: Allow me to put it another way - why do you think the great teachers of the past insisted that self-validation was not acceptable?
If any of them did say this, then they were not great teachers.
Keep in mind that it is very much in a guru's interest to speak against self-validation, as he does not want to interfere with his desire to have a worshipful following. The last thing he wants is for everyone to start thinking for themselves.
It is also in a devotee's interest to speak against self-validation, as he does not want to interfere with his own desire to submit to a guru. The last thing he wants to do is to start thinking for himself.
Religion is very much a mutually-benefiting relationship between the guru and his following, which is what makes it a farce.
Quote:
Answer - see what I said originally......
For the simple reason that a deluded person cannot truly know how much or in what way they are deluded any self-referential claim for enlightenment must be discounted.
This reasoning automatically invalidates your own Zen religion, since it is equally true that a deluded person cannot truly know how much or in what way another person is enlightened. A blind person is not in a position to judge who is sighted and who isn't.
Let me ask you this, John:
When a person goes to his local Zen temple and prostrates himself before his "Master", in what way has he determined that the "Master' is enlightened and knows what he is talking about? Or doesn't he care?
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 695
(9/2/04 17:48)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Q,Quote:
In your view, then, no one knows what enlightenment is? Not even the Buddha, not even your own teachers?
You can only know what you are not. What you are, you can only be. Nevertheless, it is not what you know that is important, it is what you don't.
Quote:
It certainly has nothing to do with academic and speculative knowledge. But it does involve a profound, boundless knowledge of the Infinite.
See above.
Quote:
That is not the argument I have presented. Rather, the argument is:
Sighted person: I am not a blind person. I can see.
Blind person: Why?
Sighted person: Because my eyes are functioning properly. I am not blind like yourself.
Blind person: How do you know that you're not just another blind person deludedly believing that he can see.
Sighted person: Because it is a fact that I can see.
Blind person: That is a circular argument!
Sighted person: I am simply speaking the truth.
A sighted person doesn't argue with a blind person about sight. Nor does an enlightened person argue with one who is not. The experience of seeing is direct and non-conceptual, the same with enlightenment. To argue whether one is or not shows a lack of understanding.
Quote:
Similarly, there is a world of difference between the person who makes the all-important breakthrough in his thinking and enters into enlightenment ...
You keep insisting enlightenment is a mental state. Do you understand the contradiction of this?
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 44
(9/2/04 19:40)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Samadhim wrote:
Quote:
DQ: In your view, then, no one knows what enlightenment is? Not even the Buddha, not even your own teachers?
Samadhim: You can only know what you are not. What you are, you can only be.
Do you believe, then, that self-knowledge is impossible? Have you concluded that the many Eastern teachers who preached the famous dictum , "Know thyself!", were misguided?
Quote:
What you are, you can only be. Nevertheless, it is not what you know that is important, it is what you don't.
Sure, it is always better to face up to the reality of one's ignorance, should that ignorance exist.
Quote:
Sighted person: I am not a blind person. I can see.
Blind person: Why?
Sighted person: Because my eyes are functioning properly. I am not blind like yourself.
Blind person: How do you know that you're not just another blind person deludedly believing that he can see.
Sighted person: Because it is a fact that I can see.
Blind person: That is a circular argument!
Sighted person: I am simply speaking the truth.
Samadhim: A sighted person doesn't argue with a blind person about sight. Nor does an enlightened person argue with one who is not.
He does if he thinks it is necessary. You seem to place a lot of rules on what an enlightened person does and does not to, Samadhim, but he is not bound by your rules. He is a free person. He behaves as he sees fit, and it is often at odds with how people want him to behave.
Imagine this situation:
A sighted person is living in a world where most people are blind. He sees that their blindness is not due to physical cases, but to the fact that they refuse to open their eyes. For them, the very idea of opening their eyes is scary and they much rather huddle around blindly with other blind people.
When the sighted person speaks, he speaks with the authority of one who can see. The blind people scoff at him because of this and mockingly ask if he really thinks he can see. The sighted person replies that he can indeed see because he has opened his eyes. He adds that anyone can see if they too open their eyes.
This creates all sorts of mirth amongst the blind people. Some of them make the claim that it is physically impossible to open one's eyes. Others say that even if a person could open his eyes, he would have no way of knowing whether his eyes were open. Yet others point to the oral teachings given by the elders which state that it is impossible to open one's eyes without the help of a (blind) elder. And others try to teach that the point of life is to try and find contentment in one's blindness. In other words, they hide behind their mental blocks and try to ignore him.
But this doesn't deter the sighted person, who spends each day encouraging everyone he meets to cure their own blindness by opening their eyes.
Quote:
DQ: Similarly, there is a world of difference between the person who makes the all-important breakthrough in his thinking and enters into enlightenment ...
S: You keep insisting enlightenment is a mental state. Do you understand the contradiction of this?
I can see how it contradicts your belief that all mental states are conditioned and therefore anyone who experiences them is deluded. But that has nothing to do with the truth.
Enlightenment is not a specific mental state, I grant you. It's not as if the enlightened person permanently immerses himself in a frozen conceptual realm. Quite the opposite, he ceases to engage in that kind of immersion altogether. If most people can be thought of a domesticated conceptual home dwellers - be it in the Christian framework, or the scientific framework, or the Buddhist framework, or whatever it may be - then the enlightened person is the one who is homeless and free. He is free to enter into any of these homes whenever he wants, and, because he is not attached to them, he can leave whenever he wants.
At the same, though, the enlightened person never leaves the realm of mental states altogether. To the degree that he remains conscious, he is always dwelling in one mental state or another - no matter how temporarily and detachedly. This is because consciousness is literally composed of mental states.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 40
(9/2/04 19:49)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
samadhim wrote:
Quote:
You keep insisting enlightenment is a mental state.
Enlightenment is the state of being "awake". Being "awake" is a mental state, contrasted from being "asleep" (ie, ignorant).
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 41
(9/2/04 20:01)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
John wrote:
Quote:
Why do you think the great teachers of the past insisted that self-validation was not acceptable?
All great teachers insist precisely on self-validation. For example, Jesus, and the Buddha.
If self-validation is a mistake, don't you think the Buddha would at least have given some warnings about its dangers?
There's a funny story about the Zen Master Hakuin, who was confirmed as "enlightened" by some qualified Zen Master. At a later time Hakuin actually did become enlightened, and in doing so realized that the so-called Zen Master who had confirmed his enlightenment was in fact not enlightened himself, which invalidated his own official confirmation of enlightenment!
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 42
(9/2/04 20:23)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
Victor wrote:
Quote:
I can't help noticing that you avoided addressing my charge of your confusion of circularity and tautology
I have replied. You must have missed it.
Circularity and tautology are the same.
For this reason some philosophers choose to clearly distinguish between "circular argument" and "begging the question" (petitio principii).
And with the ones who don't make this distinction, they have a very serious problem, in that when the accusation of "circular argument" is mistakenly made against arguments that are truly tautologous, enough times, then "circular argument" loses its meaning, and it becomes indistinguishable from "tautology". In many cases, that is what has happened. That is, a failure to understand a tautology leads to it being known as a "circular argument".
Quote:
Any particular reason you didn't follow up on my exposition of the indelible gulf between 'implicit' and 'explicit'?
Either I did, or I didn't see it, or you didn't make a case. I'm not sure which.
Quote:
. . . or do you still think that computational incompleteness was explicit in Peano axiomatization of arithmetic, even as Russell and Whitehead undertook the monumental programme of completely axiomatizing math in Principia Mathematica?.. or that Russell's Paradox was explicit in Cantor/Frege set theory, even as Cantor and Frege formulayed it?
I don't have time to decipher all that. If you can give some clear argument I'll consider it.
Quote:
circularity is a syntactic equivalence
Yet that is different than "begging the question".
Edited by: ksolway at: 9/2/04 20:50
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 699
(9/2/04 20:40)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Q,Quote:
Do you believe, then, that self-knowledge is impossible? Have you concluded that the many Eastern teachers who preached the famous dictum , "Know thyself!", were misguided?
What do you know when you know yourself? You know thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Are you a thought, feeling or perception?
Quote:
He does if he thinks it is necessary. You seem to place a lot of rules on what an enlightened person does and does not to, Samadhim, but he is not bound by your rules. He is a free person. He behaves as he sees fit, and it is often at odds with how people want him to behave.
Indeed. Nevertheless, ego is ego and is easily recognized as such.
Quote:
Enlightenment is not a specific mental state, I grant you.
So why do you keep talking about it in terms of knowledge? The extent of your knowledge is knowing what you are not, hardly something to brag about.
K,Quote:
Enlightenment is the state of being "awake". Being "awake" is a mental state, contrasted from being "asleep" (ie, ignorant).
Being awake is not a mental state! Awareness is not mental (i.e. conceptual), it is what makes those states possible.
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 18
(9/2/04 21:23)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Content deleted.
I was partly wrong about my understanding of debate 'constructives'. Nearly left it in for a stir though.
Edited again: Ohh why not, even if i'm wrong.
Robert the Lark imo lied and changed the rules to suit himself
Here is what he said on the Genius forum
"The tentative format will be 'four constructive posts' followed by 'four rebuttal posts'. The order:
Constructive:
David
Robert
David
Robert
Rebuttal:
Robert
David
Robert
David
The difference between the two: Issues are developed in the constructive while rebuttals serve only to support and rebut prior arguments. This means that while 'new information' can be introduced in the rebuttals new issues cannot. I could not, for instance, in my last post suddenly throw in the argument 'David's view is heterodox in Buddhism.' If I had earlier introduced the argument, in my first or second post, I could not only continue to consider it in the rebuttals but also introduce new evidence."
(2/2/04 3:50 pm)
Then, after his first post in the debate ended just being mostly just in the form of a rebuttal - although he did do some cut and pastes from various buddhist definitions (big deal, where was his own interpretation) - he then posted here and changed the rules to:
"As a clarification, 'constructives' are meant for the development of the issues in the debate and also for refutation of the opponent's position. One certainly does not ignore the opponent in this phase else we would have four posts before there was any direct confrontation.
'Rebuttals' are entirely that, rebuttals of the opponent's issues and support for one's own. New issues cannot be introduced in rebuttals although new supporting material can be.
Guildenstern's description was thus slightly off. I ignored it and so did David. No harm, no foul."
Make what you will of it. If it wasn't for the risk of being banned, Larkin would have copped it in a very personal manner from me, I can think of no positive things to say about him.
Actually - I admit I am probably quite wrong about the format of contructives, and should delete this post, but who cares, it is worth a stir. This whole thing is too much of a joke now.
The Negative Constructive
Because part of this speech is used towards refuting the affirmative case, you want to limit your own case to about 3 to 3.5 minutes, or at the most 4 minutes. Your introduction should be no longer than 30 seconds. It should focus less on introducing the resolution (as that has already been done), and more on your case.
As the negative, you have the right to counter the affirmative's definitions with your own. You should only exercise this right when a given definition is abusive, too limiting, too inclusive, or taken out of context. By not giving a counterdefinition, you tacitly agree to the affirmative's definition. When counterdefining, remember to state why the affirmative definition is unacceptable. In doing so, always appeal to common sense and the framer's intent (that is, the framers of the resolution). Remember, arguments like, "Your source is Webster's 1994, whereas my source is Webster's 1995 and thus better" hold no weight in Lincoln-Douglas debate.
You should always begin your constructive by establishing your case, then refuting the affirmative's. This approach gives your refutation something to build from, and allows you to cross-apply arguments where possible.
Edited by: jimhaz at: 9/2/04 21:39
| 1Mike S
Follower
Posts: 92
(9/2/04 22:15)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
Enlightenment is the state of being "awake". Being "awake" is a mental state, contrasted from being "asleep" (ie, ignorant).
yeah well, close - but Awake/Asleep is not about knowledge - go back to jesus, buddha, et al and realize what they were referring to (plato if you have a problem with those who's thought's/knowledge/understandings have bern intrepreted by people who have put too much of a religious "spin" on it for you) Mike
www.notcreatedequal.com | ksolway
Follower
Posts: 43
(9/2/04 22:54)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
Mike wrote:
Quote:
K: Enlightenment is the state of being "awake". Being "awake" is a mental state, contrasted from being "asleep" (ie, ignorant).
M: yeah well, close - but Awake/Asleep is not about knowledge
"Know thyself" has everything to do with knowledge.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1612
(9/2/04 23:15)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
So who is more enlightened, Quinn or Nagarjuna?
- Victor
While I am attempting to avoid contributing more to this thread the above does bear comment. Ordinarily the eyes-askance icon would be entirely fitting. It is a meaningless question 'who is more enlightened, Quinn or Nagarjuna?' While he did not clarify it explicitly I'm sure Victor is not suggesting I asked that sort of question in the debate and which I did not. Quinn having claimed enlightenment, then Nagarjuna, Lao-tzu, the Buddha, and others from various eastern disciplines are legitimate authority in the context and they are good evidence, despite your opinion whether they are otherwise loons. If Quinn had claimed to be Jesus Christ then calling in the Pope is dandy evidence, regardless of your opinion of Christianity or whether the concept of 'messiah' is meaningless.
From the start I never asserted there was such a thing as enlightenment and I noted it would have been easier to have denied it and to force Quinn to attempt to prove there was, and it would then have been much less a debate.
The comments of intelligent folk do influence our understanding of the debate and I hope those who are commenting will do so accurately. For instance, Guildenstern has failed to discern a difference between Quinn's irrational thoughts on women being appropriately labeled gibberish and Quinn referring to me as frothing-at-the-mouth insane. Guildenstern also made an uncalled-for and entirely incorrect suggestion as to who ought to have been assigned which side and as if somehow he knew whereof he wrote. Those unjustifiable oversights and interferences, still uncorrected as far as I know, can improperly influence understanding, just as could failing to properly make clear that while Quinn vs. Nagarjuna is ordinarily a meaningless question in this debate it was substantive, and even that it was Quinn who had claimed enlightenment then demanded proof of Nagarjuna's (and then gone on to 'agree' with him anyway).
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 38
(10/2/04 0:31)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Victor: . . . or do you still think that computational incompleteness was explicit in Peano axiomatization of arithmetic, even as Russell and Whitehead undertook the monumental programme of completely axiomatizing math in Principia Mathematica?.. or that Russell's Paradox was explicit in Cantor/Frege set theory, even as Cantor and Frege formulayed it?
Kevin: I don't have time to decipher all that. If you can give some clear argument I'll consider it.
Kevin,
You should actually take the time to "decipher" that, because it will lead to a real understanding of tautology and -if you put enough time into it- as a side effect you will also understand the "dilemma" of incompleteness. Given your present disposition, this may be one of the best time investements you can make. The mentioned topics are treated in a simple and unpretentious way in Devlin's brilliant book "Mathematics: The Science of Patterns". There are more complete books about logic, but this one is a concise overview and a delightful read.
Thomas
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 45
(10/2/04 1:21)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
Kevin: I don't have time to decipher all that. If you can give some clear argument I'll consider it.
T: You should actually take the time to "decipher" that, because it will lead to a real understanding of tautology
Tautology is very easy to understand, in all its various definitions. One doesn't require to jump through hoops.
It's a bit like asking someone to learn Tibetan in order to understand the principles of Tibetan Buddhism. It is unnecessary.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 39
(10/2/04 4:42)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Tautology is very easy to understand, in all its various definitions. One doesn't require to jump through hoops.
Since it is evidenced in your previous posts that you don't understand why circularity is a fallacy while a tautologous argument is a formally correct argument, it seems to me that the matter is not as easy as you pretend it to be. It's certainly not as easy as looking up the word tautology in an encyclopedia. As with everything in life, understanding arises from looking at a concept from various angles and applying it in various situations. You and David have demonstrated your lack of understanding of logic here and on countless previous occasions on Genius. Otherwise, how could you possibly maintain that something meaningful can be derived from the statement A=A?
Kevin: It's a bit like asking someone to learn Tibetan in order to understand the principles of Tibetan Buddhism. It is unnecessary.
When you make statements such as A=A, or statements about the nature of tautology you are conversing in terms of formal logic. To be conversant in logic you need to study formal logic. If you're not, then it's like attempting to speak Tibetan without actually understanding Tibetan.
Thomas
| 1Mike S
Follower
Posts: 93
(10/2/04 5:17)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
"Know thyself" has everything to do with knowledge.
Although "Know thyself" could have something to do with being Awake (one would need to be Awake in the true sense of the word to begin to understand oneself) it is not that achievement in itself. Awake/Enlightenment has to do with the cause/effect nature of mankind - the fact that man only reacts to prior events, whether hereditary or acquired throughout the accidents and circumstances of one's existance. Mike
www.notcreatedequal.com | lbartoli
Apprentice
Posts: 11
(10/2/04 8:32)
Reply | observation
David Quinn wrote:
You're really clutching at straws if you think that my pointing to Robert's low-brow, abusive behaviour falls into the same category as Robert's low-brow, abusive behaviour. It is like saying that a child who tries to defend himself from a violent rapist is just as hateful and violent as the rapist. Or that the Jews were just as hateful as Hitler because they kept on referring to him as an evil man.
LB: This really ought not be ignored. It certainly appeared to me that Mr Larkin was insulting Mr Quinn while Quinn's slams were more on the order of pointing to Larkin's abusive words and describing his agressive mental state. There's a world of difference there.
This kind of dynamic usually occurs when one guy is feeling anxiety that he possibly loosing the battle, out of desperation the worst of him manifests. One can but imagine how severe the condition may actually be given the ease with which it may be hidden here on the internet.
Im sorry Mr Larkin, but your behaviour strikes me as exceptionally immature, and i think any objective party would see it likewise.
Leo
| Impressivelynameduser 
Sage
Posts: 684
(10/2/04 8:53)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quinn,
"Have you concluded that the many Eastern teachers who preached the famous dictum , "Know thyself!", were misguided?"
I think you'll find it was the Greeks. "Know thyself!" was inscribed above the oracle at Delphi. </pedantry>
Ed comments:
This thread seems to be about the nature of enlightenment, presupposing enlightenment exists. Does it? In which level of hell do you belong?Edited by: Impressivelynameduser at: 10/2/04 9:09
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 2002
(10/2/04 9:17)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Quinn,
Quote:
Sighted person: I am not a blind person. I can see.
Blind person: Why?
Sighted person: Because my eyes are functioning poperly. I am not blind like yourself.
Blind person: How do you know that you're not just another blind person deludedly believing that he can see.
Sighted person: Because it is a fact that I can see.
Blind person: That is a circular argument!
Sighted person: I am simply speaking the truth.
Boy, you really are a genius!
have you considered that a sighted person can prove that he is sighted? say, he can recognize the shape of an object at a distance, which shape can then be confirmed via touch. if i were blind, i wouldn't trust a person who says they are sighted, unless they could prove that they are sighted.
You cannot prove that you are enlightened, and you don't even seem to be capable of grasping the role of verification in such a question. Your examples undermine your claim in two respects -- first of all they repeatedly show that in cases of any other meaningful claim of this sort, verification is possible; and secondly, the fact that you keep bringing up such idiotic and counter-productive examples, shows that you are not free of delusion, that you are not enlightened.
Quote:
As I have shown above with the example of blindness, not all divisions in Reality are fuzzily continuous. Some are sharp and distinct. There is a qualitative difference between a person who can physically see and someone who cannot.
The difference between your enlightenment and sight is that a sighted man can prove to the blind that he can see, while you cannot prove to the unenlightened that you are enlightened. What's more, you are using the example of a sensory modality that we all know exists and is common, thus underhandedly biasing your argument by appeal to common sense. A better example would be you claiming to possess a totally new for humans sensory modality (say, echolocation), but stating that even though you know you possess it, you cannot prove it (by, say, demonstrating the ability to recognize shapes at a distance in total darkness), that we just must take your word for it.
You are indeed a 'genius', David. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | ksolway
Follower
Posts: 46
(10/2/04 9:47)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
Victor wrote:
Quote:
Have you considered that a sighted person can prove that he is sighted?
He can prove it to himself, but he can't necessarily prove it to others. It doesn't matter how much evidence he presents to others, they might not be able to understand what he is getting at, or they might simply ignore it, because they don't want to believe that anyone can see.
This sort of things happens all the time - eg, the creationists who ignore all the evidence for evolution.
Quote:
You cannot prove that you are enlightened
An enlightened person can prove to themselves they are enlightened, or to someone else who is enlightened. The other person must be enlightened in order to know what evidence to look for, what to make of the evidence, and in order that they don't have any blind spots or project anything false onto the evidence. Edited by: ksolway at: 10/2/04 9:56
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 2003
(10/2/04 9:47)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
solway,
Quote:
I have replied. You must have missed it.
Circularity and tautology are the same.
Yes, I saw your assertion to that end, and I gave you clear examples of the tremendous gulf between implicit and explicit relations in formal argument, which counterpoint you entirely ignored. You ignored the fact that discovery of pythagorean theorem, irrational numbers, Russell's paradox, or goedelian incompleteness all came as great stunners, despite all of them being implicit in their respective formal systems.
Quote:
And with the ones who don't make this distinction, they have a very serious problem, in that when the accusation of "circular argument" is mistakenly made against arguments that are truly tautologous, enough times, then "circular argument" loses its meaning, and it becomes indistinguishable from "tautology".
Just a moment ago you said that circularity and tautology are the same, and now you are saying that taking them to be the same is an error. Yeah, the clear rational thought is wafting copiously off of every post of yours...
Quote:
Either I did, or I didn't see it, or you didn't make a case. I'm not sure which.
perhaps you didn't see it; so at the top of this post, I again enumerated a number of examples showing how wide a gulf between implicit and explicit it, above. In my original post I also added that your blindness to the said difference merely shows that you have never considered any really serious logical questions, instead confining yourself to the trivial ones where the distance between the implicit and explicit is inconsequentially small.
Quote:
I don't have time to decipher all that. If you can give some clear argument I'll consider it.
i did give you a clear example; more than one. the fact that you are ignorant of elementary logic and mathematics does not constitute lack of clarity on my part. Rather, you are once again proving the narrowness and myopia of your intellectual endeavors, pretty conclusively demonstrating that you had never turned your mind to any but the most trivial logical tasks.
I will put it simply for your genius mind; I will explain the Russell's paradox.
First, there was 'commonsensical' set theory -- AKA Cantor/Frege set theory; a set of logical axioms and rules for manipulating sets. then Bertrand Russell showed that Cantor/Frege set theory is actually inconsistent, because it allows for a paradox (if a set contains all sets that don't contain themselves, does it contain itself?) Since i am sure you understand neither set theory nor Russell's paradox, think of it as the barber's paradox: if a male barber of Seville shaves all men of Seville who don't shave themselves and only those men, does he shave himself? The point of Russell's paradox was to demonstrate that our intuitive concept of a set is logically inconsistent. This inconsistency was always implicit in Cantor/Frege set theory, but it took decades to find it, and it caused a furor, eventually leading to two alternative formulations -- Zermelo-Frankel[-Choice] set theory, and VonNeumann-Bernays-Goedel set theory.
Or think of an even simpler example. Existence of irrational numbers (numbers like the square root of 2, which cannot be expressed as a finite fraction) has always been implicit in arithmetic, but it was such a stunner to Pythagoreans that they threatened with death anyone who revealed that mystery to the world. It was certainly not obvious that there can be such things as irrational numbers.
In both of those cases, we see that there is a tremendous gulf between the implicit and the explicit in formal systems. The tautology can bridge this gulf, which is why many tautologies are useful, circularity does not bridge this gulf, and is thus completely useless.
Quote:
Yet that is different than "begging the question".
yes, it is. Begging the question can be circular, but isn't necessarily so. Its distinguishing characteristic is that the premise is at least as questionable as the conclusion. For example, the argument "The wisest man in the world should be heeded by the rulers, I am the wisest man in the world, therefore I should be heeded by the rulers" is a typical case of begging the question -- the second premise is what is being begged, that I am the wisest man in the world.
However, begging the question is a tangent which you are introducing. Don't try to evade the circularity/tautology distinction (i.e. implicit/explicit relations distinction); and for pan's sake, listen to Thomas -- you really could broaden your horizons, if you bother to understand what logic actually is, instead of curling into a foetal ball and refusing to deal with its real complexities. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 2004
(10/2/04 9:52)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
solway,
Quote:
He can prove it to himself, but he can't necessarily prove it to others. It doesn't matter how much evidence he presents to others, they might not be able to see what he is getting at, or they might simply ignore it, because they don't want to believe anyone else can see.]
So what is this evidence that we keep stubbornly and irrationally ignoring? What is this evidence proving you to be enlightened? And are you disagreeing with Quinn, who said that self-verification is the only way enlightenment can be verified, thus implying that empirical verification, of the sort I demand and you imply to exist but be rejected by me, is in fact impossible to produce?
Quote:
An enlightened person can prove to themselves they are enlightened, or to someone else who is enlightened. The other person must be enlightened in order to know what evidence to look for, what to make of the evidence, and in order that they don't have any blind spots or project anything false onto the evidence.
but a person does not have to be sighted, in order to be able to recognize the evidence for another's sight! Some simple carefully designed experiments will do. This is the critical difference that you keep ignoring. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | ksolway
Follower
Posts: 47
(10/2/04 10:18)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
Victor wrote:
Quote:
So what is this evidence that we keep stubbornly and irrationally ignoring?
Understand that we are in no way trying to prove to anyone that we are enlightened. It would be irrational for us to do so. And it would be pointless for me to explain to you what evidence to look for, because even if you had an idea of some of the things to look for, you wouldn't have the other necessary qualifications to judge enlightenment that I listed in my last post.
Obviously the main sign of enlightenment is that a person knows and speaks the Truth. But an unenlightened person cannot recognize this sign.
Quote:
And are you disagreeing with Quinn, who said that self-verification is the only way enlightenment can be verified
Self verification is necessarily the only way, since the only other possible way would be to take someone elses word for it, and their word could only be correct if they were enlightened. And the only way you can judge if they are enlightened is if you are enlightened yourself - in which case you wouldn't need them to judge you.
Quote:
. . . empirical verification, of the sort I demand and you imply to exist but be rejected by me, is in fact impossible to produce?
The enlightened person is providing empirical evidence of his enlightenment all the time, but only a qualified person can make sense of it.
Quote:
but a person does not have to be sighted, in order to be able to recognize the evidence for another's sight!
True. David's analogy doesn't stretch that far. However, the blind person needs to have an openness of mind, enough knowledge, enough intelligence, and enough clarity of mind, to seek the evidence, process it, reach conclusions, and act on them.
Quote:
Some simple carefully designed experiments will do.
There is a very simple experiment indeed to decide whether a person is enlightened. Namely, does a person know the highest truth, and is this knowledge evident in their behaviour? The enlightened person is producing the evidence continually, but there are very few who can take this evidence and make sense of it.
On a cruder level, there is evidence for evolution absolutely everywhere, yet a subsection of society cannot see this evidence for the life of them.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 2005
(10/2/04 10:26)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
solway,
basically you are saying that we should toss out the standards of evidence that we apply to everything else in our life, and simply take your word for it -- because this is the sole datum you are willing to offer -- for your being enlightened.
In short, you are talking ignorant, hypocrtiical, intellectually dishonest, delusional caca. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | ParadiseChild
Postulator
Posts: 388
(10/2/04 11:12)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Quote:
In short, you are talking ignorant, hypocrtiical, intellectually dishonest, delusional caca. --Victor
It more seems to me he is speaking in another language, one that is perhaps beyond the realm of your understanding.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1614
(10/2/04 11:21)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
"It more seems to me he is speaking in another language, one that is perhaps beyond the realm of your understanding." - Paradise
What he's been doing here is to presume to argue in Victor's language when Solway's illiterate. See Thomas's comment about trying to speak Tibetan when you don't know the language.
Edited by: Robert Larkin at: 10/2/04 11:24
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1617
(10/2/04 11:51)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
If Quinn, Rowden, and Solway hadn't set themselves up as enlightened they could accept the opportunity to learn. Instead they must insist they already know the truth and then suffer having it disproven again and again. Beyond this obvious failure there is the failure of presenting their 'enlightenment' in such a way that it precludes learning, as in being able to embrace Western formal logic instead of claiming to already understand it, and as if an enlightened man somehow knows everything; the realm of the gods.
It is dishonesty and hubris and their 'enlightenment' is continually revealed to be a very curious thing indeed.
| WolfsonJakk
Follower
Posts: 51
(10/2/04 13:11)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
C'mon Robert. I know you are probably a lonely old guy, but give it up already, would ya? You got beat by "Pissing Match" anyway, so the gloating should stop.
Tharan
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1618
(10/2/04 13:29)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
Old, tired man is more like it. And it wasn't gloating. If you'll actually read it you might find the implications worthwhile. Might not. But since I like to read my own posts, I posted.
| Rando the Considerable
Guru
Posts: 648
(10/2/04 13:38)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Bollocks! Edited by: Rando the Considerable at: 10/2/04 13:39
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1619
(10/2/04 13:48)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
"Bollocks!" - Rando the Considerable and his trusty companion, Biff the Wonderboy.
As a rule 'Bollocks!' is a worthwhile mantram and should be repeated for 20 minutes at high volume while walking down the street. Also, frequent spitting into the air as you walk and shout will help clean the spiritual passages of astral mucous.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 701
(10/2/04 13:54)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Ksolway,Quote:
There is a very simple experiment indeed to decide whether a person is enlightened. Namely, does a person know the highest truth, and is this knowledge evident in their behaviour? The enlightened person is producing the evidence continually, but there are very few who can take this evidence and make sense of it.
Again, you are presuming enlightenment is a mental state involving knowing. The "highest" truth, even is such a thing could exist, can only be conceptual by definition. Whatever you can know, you can forget, duality is inherent in knowledge. By continually arguing from that standpoint, you describe an enlightenment that is obviously dualistic and thus no more meaningful than any other kind of knowledge as Victor and others have shown. Your assertion that this knowledge can't be understood by the unenlightened only shows you have no understanding of what you're saying. Knowledge isn't special. Neither is enlightenment.
Enlightenment isn't something to know, it is something you are. If I were to say "I am thirsty" and you asked me, "how do you know that?" all I could say is, "I don't know it, I am it." You might ask, "how would I know that I am thirsty?" all I could say is, "there is no knowing thirst, there is only being thirsty." Thirst is a quality that is directly apprehended without a conceptual basis.
I happen to agree with you that enlightenment for the most part goes unrecognized. This isn't because it can't be recognized but because there is no interest in its recognition. If one is solely interested in ego and its accomplishments, lack of ego will appear merely as ordinary if not deficient. If I am interested in football, then anyone who does not recognize football will appear ordinary to me. Football is where it's at. If the mind is exalted and someone does not show reverence to its accomplishments, how can that person be recognized? They can't be. They will just be someone who doesn't understand what is really important.
Your own non-recognition here is because you place your "accomplishment" within the realm of mind and then fail to abide by the standards by which achievement of mind is recognized. And I do not recognize you because trying to "prove" enlightenment is not only misguided, it reveals an ego antithetical to what you're trying to prove.
| birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 51
(10/2/04 18:16)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
All right, here it is, The Real Scoop. I did not vote, my opinion being that David did not lose and Robert did not win. I did start out with a bias in favor or Robert. The below is of course only my opinion based on my own best inner understandings, but at least I feel I can say it is devoid of bias.
To begin with, the allegations that either side was off topic is not so. Prior to the debate Robert stated:
"Then I assume the current plan is David and myself, and to be debating the nature of enlightenment and whether QRS (or Q without consideration of RS if you prefer that) has 'got it'?
We have as well David who claims to be enlightened and his conceptions can certainly be compared with canonical interpretations. In addition his ideas will be subjected to analysis of the order of 'Would the Buddha quote Weininger?' "
DAVID AGREED, and so it continued, with David focusing more on enlightenment and Robert more on David’s lack thereof. Thus the sense of lack of focus in the debate.
*************
ROUND ONE:
David does not lay out his topic, rather just dives in. He makes the points that the enlightened can be known by their manner of speech, but that at the same time he does not expect to be understood. He explains that the crux of enlightenment is understanding the delusion of inherent existence, from which all will follow in a sudden fashion. This is [one of the] the all-or-nothing forms of enlightenment, to which I do not subscribe, albeit profound understandings are indeed sudden.
He then goes on to say that enlightenment amounts to truly seeing all in terms of the Void. I find this questionable, but neither have I taken this thought process to its limits. Next point is that this leaves the enlightened without emotion. This is a very debatable point I think, and one I would like to see us all talk about. It passed quietly. He now makes a very flowery couple of sentences about the fabulousness of understanding this void, but somehow I am not inspired. No detail. I want details.
Next, he moves on to the idea of personal wisdom versus scripture, stating that the scriptures cannot be understood unless one is enlightened. I feel that this is overstating the case, it not being quite that stark, but it has a lot of validity. He says it takes wisdom to understand texts due to the shortcomings of language. I don't think he adequately makes the point that it is also an inner recognition that allows the wise to interpret them.
I find his two points about “enlightenment backing” and personal wisdom to be among his best points in the debate. To give an example, Jesus said to love your enemies. These words have inspired Christians for centuries, and they inspired me (I used to be Christian). I thought I understood them, I really did. Yet it was only after I had my own awakening experience that I understood what they could mean, and, more to the point, be implemented.
If the words of Quinn here are not true, then truth is not a pathless land. That truth is a pathless land means that every one ultimately meets truth alone, relies upon her own wisdom and has her own inner compass. There is no other way.
About wisdom I can’t speak. I’ve tried before to find words to explain it, and I cannot find a way. Wisdom is ineffable.
This should not imply that I think Quinn has achieved the above.
Next, he expresses the wish that the debate not focus on his own personal enlightenment. Well, tough.
ROUND TWO
Robert begins by saying that enlightenment is a transcendence of ordinary consciousness. I’m afraid David would disagree, and call that a mystical experience, which he tends to denigrate, albeit I find him a mystic who loves God.
At any rate, Robert drops the idea for now and moves on, saying David is a fit subject for scrutiny. Since David says only the enlightened can judge enlightenment, I am afraid this is a fair, and indeed necessary point. He next denies that he believes only texts can be admitted, which if memory serves, this is not the first time he has explained, and so I find this a false accusation. Next he makes 3 points as to the circularity and therefore uselessness of David’s enlightenment claims. These points are accurate on the face of it, however, not entirely, as all that has been proved so far in the comments thread is that David COULD be deluded into thinking he is enlightened, and that he has no way of knowing which camp he is in. But I think no one here would actually make the claim that “No one is enlightened until someone else says they are.”
Robert says David made all statements upon his own authority. Well, so what. He has a right to do that. Next Robert complains that David’s definition (no delusions) is a bit vacuous. But he then gives a weak bit of expounding on enlightenment which is no better. Next he counteraccuses David of relying on mere words, which accusation I also find false. He also accuses David of having an inhumane conception of enlightenment, which perhaps has some merit. I find David’s various assertions about enlightened compassion, lack of emotion and etc. to be quite inconsistent and unrealistic.
Robert made a few good points in D. Hoisting Him on his own Pitard, but he did not even begin to show that David’s ideas don’t match Nagarjuna’s.
Edited by: birdofhermes at: 10/2/04 19:03
| Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 690
(10/2/04 18:25)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
What's the point in this enlightenment concept?
It seems to be defined as a nebulous, featureless, unknowable, only available to the faithful state of something that is important for no particular given reason. Kinda like 'god'. In which level of hell do you belong? | DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 48
(10/2/04 18:46)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Samadhim wrote:
Quote:
DQ: Do you believe, then, that self-knowledge is impossible? Have you concluded that the many Eastern teachers who preached the famous dictum , "Know thyself!", were misguided?
S: What do you know when you know yourself? You know thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Are you a thought, feeling or perception?
You are beginnng to sound like your teachers with this sort of dosh. In my view, pre-scripted analysies with predetermined outcomes, particularly those from modern Hinduism/Buddhism, are not very interesting.
The false "self" is whatever we imagine it to be - e.g. our identity as a particular human being, or our consciousness within the brain, or our soul, or whatever it may be. Our true "self", on the other hand, is Nature, the totality of all there is. Wisdom is what arises when one no longer identifies with false selves.
Quote:
DQ: He does if he thinks it is necessary. You seem to place a lot of rules on what an enlightened person does and does not to, Samadhim, but he is not bound by your rules. He is a free person. He behaves as he sees fit, and it is often at odds with how people want him to behave.
S: Indeed. Nevertheless, ego is ego and is easily recognized as such.
Do you think that Jesus was being egotistical when he argued with the religious leaders and claimed that he personally knew God?
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 48
(10/2/04 18:48)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
Victor wrote:
Quote:
Basically you are saying that we should toss out the standards of evidence that we apply to everything else in our life
Absolutely not! The very same rules apply as in normal life. In order to judge something, you need the evidence, and you need to be qualified to recognize it and make sense of it.
Quote:
. . . and simply take your word for it
I have never tried to prove that I am enlightened, and nor do I ever ask anyone to take my word on anything.
Quote:
-- because this is the sole datum you are willing to offer -- for your being enlightened.
Everything I say and do is data which can be used for assessing whether I am enlightened, if you are qualified to conduct such an assessment.
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 49
(10/2/04 19:07)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Debate Comments
samadhim7 wrote:
Quote:
Again, you are presuming enlightenment is a mental state involving knowing.
Samadhim, you are quibbling over the definition of the word "knowing". Definitions naturally become modified and extended when applied to enlightened individuals. Their manner of "knowing" is different to that of the ordinary person, but not so different that we need to abandon the use of the word altogether, or create a new word.
Quote:
The "highest" truth, even if such a thing could exist, can only be conceptual by definition.
By your definition perhaps, but not by my extended definitions.
When the Buddha says, "I have realized this Truth which is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand . . . comprehensible by the wise", he is not speaking of the mere finite concepts of which you are speaking, when you blandly say "Knowledge isn't special".
Quote:
Trying to "prove" enlightenment is not only misguided, it reveals an ego antithetical to what you're trying to prove.
Nobody here has been trying to prove they are enlightened.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 49
(10/2/04 19:18)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Victor wrote:
Quote:
DQ: You're certainly more familiar with those parts of philosophy and logic that I find tedious and uninteresting.
Victor: Your ennui is surely a typical method of a deluded mind dealing with cognitive dissonance.
Or it could be that I simply have a different set of priorities. I think that, while we are both highly logical people, we each apply our logical skills in entirely different areas of life. Each thinks the other is being trivial.
Regarding the issue of self-verification, you wrote:
Quote:
DQ: What about the person who, while unconsciously accepting the Peano axioms, mistakenly thinks that 1+1=3 and yet believes that his thinking is perfectly correct? How do you personally distinguish yourself from him? Doesn't his mere existence automatically cast doubt upon your "incontrovertibly proof"?
V: No -- it merely proves that there is a person who is demonstrably irrational.
And how do you know that you're not that person? The fact that you use the word "demonstrably" doesn't mean anything. After all, the deluded person also thinks that he has proven your position is "demonstrably irrational".
Quote:
DQ: Because my knowledge and awareness of emptiness cannot be surpassed. There is nowhere further to go.
... which evaluation of course is correct because you are enlightened. How many circules can you spin at the same time, David?
No more than the scientist, or your good self. Everything is a matter of self-verification, even within science.
Quote:
DQ: That's not really true. If a person sincerely values truth and yet mistakenly thinks that he is enlightened, he will sooner or later recognize his error. The limitations of his knowledge will become obvious to him. He will then be in a postion to make further progress.
Victor: How do you know you are not in 'sooner' stage, soon to realize your delusion, but not having done so yet?
How does a sighted person know that he doesn't have to open his eyes any wider to prove that he can see?
Quote:
DQ: Seriously, though, you didn't really answer the question. What makes you so sure that the practice of mainstream science isn't pure quackery? Making predictions about the future - it sounds a bit mystical to me.
Victor: When relativity postulates time dilation, what it does is predict future observations (e.g. clock desynchronization) under certain conditions. This is how all scientific knowledge is -- all scientific theories are defined and judged by their ability to predict future observations.
Sure, but you still haven't explained how you've established that science isn't quackery.
Time dilation - it sounds like you have taken too many drugs to me.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 705
(10/2/04 19:27)
Reply | Re: what is enlightenment
INU,Quote:
What's the point in this enlightenment concept?
It seems to be defined as a nebulous, featureless, unknowable, only available to the faithful state of something that is important for no particular given reason. Kinda like 'god'.
I see the continuing interest in enlightenment for the following reasons:
1. Realization of self which comprises abandonment of the identification of self with the body, mind, spirit or any combination thereof.
2. End of suffering which comes when the self can no longer be threatened by loss or fear of loss.
3. End of craving which comes about when it is seen that the self cannot be enhanced, that all that it is, it is right now.
4. Realization of being in which, love, joy and peace are intrinsic rather than dualistic (arising from conditions)
To discount it on grounds of unknowability is to appoint the mind as arbiter of existence and concept as the ultimate being. Since being itself is beyond concept and unknowable, the mind cannot offer the ultimate judgment on what is or is not.
Importance is relative to interest. If one's interest is in accomplishment, recognition, social status, education, work, physical appearance, possessions, special abilities, relationships, belief systems including politics, nationalism, race or religion, enlightenment does not offer anything to feed these identities. Thus it can hardly be recognized much less understood. The vast majority of people focus on these interests and so can never give credence to enlightenment. It will never be mainstream. Nevertheless, the inevitable loss of identity and consequent suffering in whatever one pursues is the fertile ground out of which a real desire for enlightenment continues and will continue to flourish.
Edited by: samadhim7 at: 10/2/04 19:29
| Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 692
(10/2/04 20:17)
Reply | Re: what is enlightenment
"1. Realization of self which comprises abandonment of the identification of self with the body, mind, spirit or any combination thereof."
I do not accept this is possible. No Self can exist without with body, nor be realised without consciousness: which arises from our conceptual interactions with the world.
You argue against dualisms, yet accept the greatest of all: seperation of Self from its constituting factors.
"2. End of suffering which comes when the self can no longer be threatened by loss or fear of loss."
I can achieve this through social-political-philosophical means.
I do not place value in material possessions, they are merely means to an end: living life.
I accept the ephemerality of life and love. Change is constant. This can be validated by most contemporary thought: which also allows for progression of knowledge and participation in life and love both of which canonical buddhism is opposed to.
"3. End of craving which comes about when it is seen that the self cannot be enhanced, that all that it is, it is right now."
I will never be more than human. This realisation does not require buddhist thought. However the body of internalised concepts which I rely on to function can be enhanced by study of thought and experience of life. I can become more knowledgeable and compassionate; whilst accepting that my knowledge will be disproven and my compassion challenged.
"4. Realization of being in which, love, joy and peace are intrinsic rather than dualistic (arising from conditions)"
They can be. If you condition yourself to require no stimulus to respond with joy then you can experience permanent joyousness. This however is not intrinsic: left in a void wihtout buddhist mind-conditioning you would not be joyous at being freezing cold and hungry.
I would argue that the peace/anxiety relationship is a cultural construct, relating to psychological development. It is irrelevant to enlightentment: if enlightenment truly is 'the rejection of conceptions' (which is impossible through paradox).
Who knows what love is? I'd say I'm in it but I dont have a clue why.
"If one's interest is in accomplishment, recognition, social status, education, work, physical appearance, possessions, special abilities, relationships, belief systems including politics, nationalism, race or religion, enlightenment does not offer anything to feed these identities. "
I can be interested in them and yet not bound to them. Uncertain in uncertainty I can espouse politics and destroy them. I can take care of my body and yet know that it will disintegrate and my mind suffer. I am not worried about this precisely because I know it will occur: knowledge is freedom, not chains. I can look at beliefs and deconstruct them, whilst learning from them: if only the inaccuracy of their tenets and how to avoid them. I can accept logic and appreciate it's use in matters, and yet step outside it realising that all formal systems are inherently flawed.
Do you see the point: I can go beyond impotent asceticism and participate in life whilst retaining the detatchment which is so prized by canononical buddhism.
I can realise I'm in this house of conceptual cards called a 'reality' and yet make the most of the experience: because in the end that's all we can do. I'll have my cake and enjoy eating it.
There's stuff I've not covered but I realise that in a finite lifetime knowledge is finite, and I'm, at the moment, content with that.
In which level of hell do you belong? | samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 708
(10/2/04 21:31)
Reply | Re: what is enlightenment
INU,Quote:
I wrote: 1. Realization of self which comprises abandonment of the identification of self with the body, mind, spirit or any combination thereof."
You replied: I do not accept this is possible. No Self can exist without with body, nor be realised without consciousness: which arises from our conceptual interactions with the world.
Okay, it all starts here and we don't have to get into it. This alone would have made for a good debate on the thread and yet it wasn't even approached. Shame on Q and L for ignoring the pivotal point.
Quote:
You argue against dualisms, yet accept the greatest of all: separation of Self from its constituting factors.
The appearance of form within the formless is not dualism per se. Dream arises within consciousness. It does not mean dream (form) is separate from consciousness (formless).
Quote:
I wrote: 2. End of suffering which comes when the self can no longer be threatened by loss or fear of loss."
You replied: I can achieve this through social-political-philosophical means.
Really? What about death or losing your toothbrush?
Quote:
I accept the ephemerality of life and love. Change is constant. This can be validated by most contemporary thought: which also allows for progression of knowledge and participation in life and love both of which canonical buddhism is opposed to.
Change is not denied by Buddhism, in fact it is one of the three characteristics (suffering, impermanence, no self). By all means accept it. But then don't deny no self in the same breath.
Quote:
I will never be more than human. This realisation does not require buddhist thought. However the body of internalised concepts which I rely on to function can be enhanced by study of thought and experience of life. I can become more knowledgeable and compassionate; whilst accepting that my knowledge will be disproven and my compassion challenged.
By saying you can become more knowledgeable and compassionate, you are identifying with your concepts. You can know more, you can behave differently, you cannot be more.
Quote:
I wrote: 4. Realization of being in which, love, joy and peace are intrinsic rather than dualistic (arising from conditions)"
You replied: They can be. If you condition yourself to require no stimulus to respond with joy then you can experience permanent joyousness. This however is not intrinsic: left in a void without buddhist mind-conditioning you would not be joyous at being freezing cold and hungry.
Conditioning yourself does not take you beyond conditioning. Beyond conditioning means what it says. When you are identified, the body and mind condition you, without identification, how can you be conditioned?
Quote:
I would argue that the peace/anxiety relationship is a cultural construct, relating to psychological development. It is irrelevant to enlightentment: if enlightenment truly is 'the rejection of conceptions' (which is impossible through paradox).
I would disagree about the cultural construct. Anxiety is not cultural. Enlightenment is not the rejection of concept, it is the disidentification with what you are not.
Quote:
Who knows what love is? I'd say I'm in it but I don't have a clue why.
You won't find me talking about love, peace and joy of enlightenment since it is outside my experience. All realized beings nevertheless point to it as our intrinsic nature and thus it is worthy of mention.
Quote:
I wrote: If one's interest is in accomplishment, recognition, social status, education, work, physical appearance, possessions, special abilities, relationships, belief systems including politics, nationalism, race or religion, enlightenment does not offer anything to feed these identities. "
You replied: I can be interested in them and yet not bound to them. Uncertain in uncertainty I can espouse politics and destroy them. I can take care of my body and yet know that it will disintegrate and my mind suffer. I am not worried about this precisely because I know it will occur: knowledge is freedom, not chains. I can look at beliefs and deconstruct them, whilst learning from them: if only the inaccuracy of their tenets and how to avoid them. I can accept logic and appreciate it's use in matters, and yet step outside it realising that all formal systems are inherently flawed.
I mentioned the above because most people's identities are bound up in them. I could have added survival. Knowing you can suffer and will die does not mean you accept suffering and death.
Quote:
Do you see the point: I can go beyond impotent asceticism and participate in life whilst retaining the detachment which is so prized by canononical buddhism.
I can realise I'm in this house of conceptual cards called a 'reality' and yet make the most of the experience: because in the end that's all we can do. I'll have my cake and enjoy eating it.
I am not advocating asceticism or withdrawal from life nor does a belief in enlightenment require them. By all means make the most of your experience. My only point is that identifying with your experience will create craving if your experience gives you what you want and suffering if it does not. Only the enlightenment of self-realization can take you beyond both.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1626
(10/2/04 22:02)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: what is enlightenment
Quote:
... Shame on Q and L for ignoring the pivotal point. - Samadhim
Samadhim, if you knew the pivotal point wouldn't you be enlightened? So, are you enlightened?
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 699
(10/2/04 22:27)
Reply | Re: what is enlightenment
"The appearance of form within the formless is not dualism per se."
I agree to an extent, within what I read as it's original context. Form IS formlessness and vice versa, they are inseprable. Just as content and structure constitute a literary text and are indvisible, body and mind are the inseprable constituents of your 'Self'. You haven't addressed the point of how your idea of Selfhood can exist without body or the level of social conditioning (conceptualisation) required to germinate self-awareness.
"Really? What about death or losing your toothbrush?"
I'm going to die anyway. Unfinished affairs are sad, but all mortals leave them so there's no profit in worrying about them or fantasising about their continuation in an afterlife.
Losing my toothbrush would mean my teeth going unbrushed, I believe I could live with this. I do not fancy gum disease so I would probably buy another. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
"Change is not denied by Buddhism, in fact it is one of the three characteristics (suffering, impermanence, no self). By all means accept it. But then don't deny no self in the same breath."
Suffering is a problematic concept, and one which I do not agree with: see my views on non-participation in life and love which the principle of suffering enforces in the popular notion of buddhism.
Impermanence is a concept to which I am allied through what seems good evidence. We all die, relationships break down or change in nature, paradigm shifts occur etc.
No self is one of our key ambiguities. It means something different to you than me. No self to me represents accepting the constructed, yet often reasonable nature of self. Your Self does not exist in my world model, other than as a concept which splits body and mind up and looks at some non-existent observer behind it all.
"By saying you can become more knowledgeable and compassionate, you are identifying with your concepts. You can know more, you can behave differently, you cannot be more."
You have a point to an extent. I am identifying with concepts, for they are me. They are you also, whether you like it or not. They have been internalised by you throughout your life, some so deeply that you cannot see you possess them.
I can expand my knowledge and to that extent can be more. However I will not pass into some secret world which is more than human. Unlike the popular concept of enlightenment which expressly is being more than human,with perfect knowledge, infinite wisdom, boundless compassion and so on.
This is impossible if you accept the imperfection of self, and leads to the frustration of buddhism. The thought at the bottom is buried under piles of misreadings, and will continue to be so due to its high levels of ambiguitity and openness to ritualistic and formal interpretations. In which level of hell do you belong?Edited by: Impressivelynameduser at: 10/2/04 22:28
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 40
(10/2/04 22:42)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Kevin: Understand that we are in no way trying to prove to anyone that we are enlightened.
Then what are we talking about? - Just admit that you aren't.
Kevin: It would be irrational for us to do so.
It is indeed.
Kevin: And it would be pointless for me to explain to you what evidence to look for, because even if you had an idea of some of the things to look for, you wouldn't have the other necessary qualifications to judge enlightenment that I listed in my last post.
And it would be pointless for me to demonstrate the mechanism of self-deception, since you already convinced yourself that you are not deceiving yourself. Obviously a case of recursion. You haven't convinced many others, though, and that is the fundamental difference between QRS and Lao Tzu.
Kevin: Obviously the main sign of enlightenment is that a person knows and speaks the Truth. But an unenlightened person cannot recognize this sign.
My little nephew also knows and speaks the truth. I like him, but I don't think he is enlightened. Your statement sounds profound, but it isn't. I suggest to introduce the term "begging profundity" for this class of sentences.
David: No more than the scientist, or your good self. Everything is a matter of self-verification, even within science.
Science relies on third-party testing, not on self-verification. A scientist is required to phrase her hypothesis in a falsifiable way, quite unlike your enlightenment claim.
David: you still haven't explained how you've established that science isn't quackery.
I think this is self-evident. But, if the difference between science and quackery is unclear to you, I am sure that Victor has a few enlightening words on this.
Thomas
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 50
(10/2/04 22:44)
Reply
| Re: what is enlightenment
Samadhim wrote:
Quote:
INU: No Self can exist without with body, nor be realised without consciousness: which arises from our conceptual interactions with the world.
S: Okay, it all starts here and we don't have to get into it. This alone would have made for a good debate on the thread and yet it wasn't even approached. Shame on Q and L for ignoring the pivotal point.
It was fully dealt with in my analysis of emptiness (i.e that things lack inherent existence), which I don't think you have a good understanding of.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 8013
(10/2/04 22:56)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Quote: TK
Your statement sounds profound, but it isn't. I suggest to introduce the term "begging profundity" for this class of sentences.
Ooh, nice. "Begging profundity"...hmm...
Accidence happens. | ksolway
Follower
Posts: 52
(10/2/04 23:07)
Reply | Edit
| Re: my comments
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
Kevin: Understand that we are in no way trying to prove to anyone that we are enlightened.
Then what are we talking about?
We are primarily talking about the nature of enlightenment, the necessity of self-validation, the violence of the Larkin-types (eg, the desire to shut down Genius forum, the abuse and insults, etc), and the deluded support the Larkin-types have from others.
We would never even consider trying to prove our enlightenment to anyone, as the idea of self-validation, in all things, is primary to our whole way of thinking. No one must take anyone elses word on anything. That is the whole point.
Quote:
You haven't convinced many others, though, and that is the fundamental difference between QRS and Lao Tzu.
Thomas the "Numbers Man", shows himself again!
Quote:
Science relies on third-party testing
The individual has to verify whether the third-party testing is valid.
Or do you believe in "group think"?
| birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 52
(10/2/04 23:15)
Reply
| Re: what is enlightenment
The Real Scoop - Part 2
ROUND THREE
Here David accuses Robert of indulging in rebuttal prematurely. I'm afraid it's true, but after all, David was his topic anyway, and perhaps he forgot the structure. I am overrulling the objection.
Next, David states that Robert's points about Nagarjuna and Buddhist compassion and Buddhist enlightenment should have been butressed by reasoned opinions of his own to support them. Based on what I saw of David's arguments on Nea Plus Ultra with Beckwith, I think we can expect that insistence from David.
Of course, I do tend to argue in that style (using my own thoughts as primary) and we must wonder why David has always made only negative remarks about my own abilities. But we all know damned good and well why.
David reasserts that it takes one to know one, and he says that Buddhism gets around the problem with a system of Patriarchal succession, which he proceeds to debunk. Ugh, where have I heard that before (apostolic succession)? So yeah, down with the Patriarchy. But seriously, I had not heard of this before, so if I understand it aright, then it is a point in David's favor. Here's why. If this Pat-succession says that an enlightened master is needed to verify someone's enlightenment, then it is in agreement that it takes one to know one, and that we are probably not up to the task. Now we are all in trouble. In the case that someone becomes enlightened in the absence of such a master, who is to verify it? Somehow, I don't thinkthe idea of David and Solway and Dan all verifying one another is going to go over too well. Just a hunch.
Of course, David is quite free in calling us "ordinary, ignorant" people and that is not so. Surely there are a few people here in the event zone of enlightenment who have some sort of clue. [Event zone is black hole theory jargon and I like it.]
David now discusses why all reasoning is circular. I'm afraid I'm caught in the middle of this logical quagmire, since I am not qualified to decide.
He now makes, or attempts to make, a distinction between his understanding of self-validation of enightenment, versus the circular reasoning based upon a (possibly) false premise to which we all object.["As soon as enlightenment exists, it has, by its very nature, the capacity to judge that it exists."] My opinion of that is -- maybe. I do like the way he winds up this particular argument though, when he says that people are frightened of taking personal responsibility for understanding Reality. Well, I agree.
His next paragraph is another topic that bears more discussion. He states the idea of living in the now or abandoning all concepts is a form of unconscousness and a false spirituality. I can see where it can be, yet the spiritual literature is also quite full of advice to live in the now.
I also disagree that civlization is necessary to enlightenment, or even more condusive to it, but that's my bag. I'm against civilization.
Now he gives a sermon on compassion, and I find it accurate, as to the kind of understanding that an enlightened one would have toward people. But why would this person feel anything at all, and why do they promote escape from suffering and at the same time not care at all what happens to the world?
Edited by: birdofhermes at: 10/2/04 23:36
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 51
(10/2/04 23:26)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
David: No more than the scientist, or your good self. Everything is a matter of self-verification, even within science.
Thomas: Science relies on third-party testing, not on self-verification.
Before that can happen, one has to validate for oneself that (a) third-party testing is a valid form of testing in the first place, and (b) the party doing the testing is properly qualified. Both of these require acts of self-validation. One has to personally validate them with the authority of one's own mind.
Quote:
A scientist is required to phrase her hypothesis in a falsifiable way, quite unlike your enlightenment claim.
No, the enlightenment claim is just as falsifiable as the scientific claim. The enlightened person asks, "Is my enlightenment really genuine? Do I really understand the nature of Reality? Have I really gone all the way?" , and then proceeds to test his understanding. If his enlightenment is genuine, he will clearly see that it is impossible to refute.
(The enlightened understanding is impossible to refute because it is impossible to formulate an objection to it without creating false assumptions about it. In other words, the very attempt to challenge it is based on the misguided belief that enlightenment exists as an identifiable object with a particular form. All objections disappear the moment one realizes or recalls that it is entirely formless.)
Quote:
David: you still haven't explained how you've established that science isn't quackery.
Thomas: I think this is self-evident.
If it was self-evident, then everyone on the planet, including fundamentalist Christians, would be fully accepting of science.
Quote:
But, if the difference between science and quackery is unclear to you, I am sure that Victor has a few enlightening words on this.
Let's hope so. But I won't be holding my breath. So far, he has been trying to avoid the issue like the plague. Just like you.
I've noticed, for example, that, being a Buddhist sympathizer yourself, you have completely avoided the issue of the Buddha's enlightenment and how he came to know that he was enlightened. You have avoided it because you don't want to face up to the truth that the entire religion of Buddhism rests on a process of self-validation. I would like to see you deal with this issue more honestly, just as I would like to see Victor deal more honestly with the truth that self-validation is at the core of science.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 42
(10/2/04 23:53)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Kevin: the idea of self-validation, in all things, is primary to our whole way of thinking. No one must take anyone elses word on anything.
Well, for once I agree with you. If you take the meaning of "self-validation" to be the actability of some sort of test available to the individual in order to assert a given statement, then I don't have any objections. However, the method of self-verification you have previously described is pretty much the opposite of that. You stated that methods of verifying your (and David's) enlightenment are not available to us, since we are deluded. According to this logic, we lack the possibility to self-validate your claim. This is just as absurd as saying that you have unified the consciousness of your parallel existences in multiple universes. I cannot self-validate that either. I simply reject the premise. There are no parallel Kevins and I am not deluded.
Kevin: Thomas the "Numbers Man", shows himself again!
Everything is numbers. I'm with Pythagoras. :-) But seriously, even if the first-person experience of enlightenment is ineffable, there must be objective measurable criteria that indicate its presence. From the absence of these criteria we can justifiably infer the absence of enligthenment.
Kevin: The individual has to verify whether the third-party testing is valid.
Quite right. However, what matters is the actability of third-party testing, meaning if you wanted to prove a claim for yourself, then the proponent is dutybound to provide a method of verification.
Thomas
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 43
(11/2/04 0:22)
Reply
| Re: my comments
David: Before that can happen, one has to validate for oneself that (a) third-party testing is a valid form of testing in the first place, and (b) the party doing the testing is properly qualified.
The same I just told Kevin applies here. The decisive criterion is TESTABILITY, not who actually performs the test. Unfortunately, much of what you claim eludes testability, such as the concept of ultimate reality.
David: No, the enlightenment claim is just as falsifiable as the scientific claim. The enlightened person asks, "Is my enlightenment really genuine? Do I really understand the nature of Reality? Have I really gone all the way?" , and then proceeds to test his understanding. If his enlightenment is genuine, he will clearly see that it is impossible to refute.
Are you familiar with the term "auto-suggestion"?
David: If it [the scientific method, TK] was self-evident, then everyone on the planet, including fundamentalist Christians, would be fully accepting of science.
Of course it does require rationality.
David: I've noticed, for example, that, being a Buddhist sympathizer yourself, you have completely avoided the issue of the Buddha's enlightenment and how he came to know that he was enlightened.
IMO Buddha's enlightenment is irrelevant to the Buddhist teaching, although I see that the devotional aspect plays an important role for many adherents. The philosophical depth of Buddhism speaks for itself. The brilliance of Buddhist ethics speaks for itself. The rejection of metaphysics speaks for itself. In addition, Buddhism provides a number of psychological methods for self-development that I consider extremely useful. I might conclude that Gautama was enlightened, not because he said he was, but because of what he taught.
Thomas
| lbartoli
Apprentice
Posts: 12
(11/2/04 0:23)
Reply | QRS Enlightenment
Why do so many folks still have trouble with this? Its not very complicated, allow me please....
People (in this instance Mr Larkin) tend to doubt it when someone appears to consider himself wise and enlightened, speaks with authority, and will often times challenge the alleged sage to "prove it". But what form is this proof supposed to take? Nobody is saying, are they? No, folks just say "I dont believe you, convince me you're enlightened".
But this is impossible to do UNLESS the challenger can confirm to himself the wisdom in the words of the sage.
Now why is this so difficult to understand, to accept?
Furthermore, no one here is saying "Hey, I'm enlightened and i can prove it", no, what has happened is someone challenged someone else who is widely known to consider himself enlightened. Everyone knows that David Quinn considers himself to be wise and enlightened, he has no need to go around claiming it, and neither will you find that he has gone around claiming it, the subject came up because Mr Larkin does not believe it, not because Mr Quinn is trying to convince somebody. I have not seen any of these Genius forum owners try to convince others of their enlightenment, they are just going along with everyones desire to examine the issue and examine themselves, they have been entirely open to scrutiny, knowing damn well that at the end of it all the challengers and doubters will remain in doubt.
The wise person knows who has potential to understand him and who does not, so while it appears he is trying to justify himself to the extreme doubters what he is really attempting to accomplish is something else, he is using the challenge as an opportunity to open the eyes of the very few with a willingness to see.
It really amazes me that so many intelligent men insist on some sort of proof, as if it were possible.
Now why are the doubters, the extreme disbelievers, doubting? Why do the doubters think they are qualified to say "No, you're not enlightened"? Its because they regard themselves as superior and wiser than the alleged wiseman. Of course they dont say or admit this. Then there are those who say "I dont know if you are enlightened or not", and these people are being honest. This is the only reasonable approach to take when challenging someone, but what is really happening is the challengers from the start have already firmly decided that the supposed wiseman is deluded, they have no intention of keeping an open mind and perhaps learning something, they are sure the supposed wiseman is not really wise and they figure sooner of later he is going to say something so universally stupid that just about everyone will see that he, the challenger, was right all along.
Unfortunately for the challenger, when he has challenged a true wiseman then things are not going to work out as he planned, hoped and expected.
But to accept the arguement of the supposed wiseman, or a part thereof, is to admit ones own lack of wisdom, and this is not something that many a challenger will do (f.e. Robert, Thomas, Victor), the most deluded wont even admit it to themselves. Their entire well-being depends on believing in themselves, believing in their greatness and intelligence, that they are reasonable and as sane as one gets. So to really try to see the points of the other and consider them deeply and seriously would be fatal, consequently it never occurs with these extreme relativists and therefore their opinion of the genuine sage is entirely without worth.
Now, there is the matter of an enlightened person seeing the enlightenment of another, and yes this is true but it is not 100%, only the individual can confirm his enlightenment with 100% accuracy. But still it is not difficult to see who is potentially enlightened and who is not.
Take for instance the philosopher JJ van der Leeuw. Clearly he is Enlightened. In fact I would maintain that he was far wiser at the time of his death than the Buddha himself was at the time of his enlightenment, and perhaps at any point thereafter.
Now anyone who is wise can see this, so i have no recourse but to question and seriously doubt-- as Mr Larkin and some others have done-- the claim of the Genius Forum owners, since you'ld be hard-pressed finding a single quote from the great Dutch philosopher anywhere on their web-site. This shows their tendency to play favorites, to discriminate without reasonable justification, pointing to the existence of healthy egos.
Leo
| lbartoli
Apprentice
Posts: 13
(11/2/04 0:33)
Reply | Thomas asserts
"I might conclude that Gautama was enlightened, not because he said he was, but because of what he taught."
Thomas
LB: Ok, here we have Thomas suggesting that after reading this Buddha's teachings, he has concluded that the man was really enlightened.
Now the question comes to my mind:
? Does Thomas realize that to spot the wisdom in the Buddhas teaching, to regard Gautama enlightened, he himself, Thomas himself, must be enlightened ?
What you say to this, Thomas?
Leo
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 46
(11/2/04 1:00)
Reply
| Re: Thomas asserts
Leo: Now the question comes to my mind: ? Does Thomas realize that to spot the wisdom in the Buddhas teaching, to regard Gautama enlightened, he himself, Thomas himself, must be enlightened ? What you say to this, Thomas?
I would say this constitutes a fallacy, or better a definition error. The human capacity of understanding is (by definition) not the same as enlightenment. Buddhism calls the capacity of understanding "Buddha nature". Participating in Buddha nature is not the same as being enlightened, at least not in Buddhist terms.
Thomas
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 54
(11/2/04 1:14)
Reply | Edit
| Re: my comments
Thomas:
Quote:
You stated that methods of verifying your (and David's) enlightenment are not available to us, since we are deluded.
If you become enlightened then you won't be deluded, and then you can verify a person's enlightenment - specifically, your own, as other enlightened people won't require your opinion.
While an ordinary deluded person does not currently have the ability to make such judgements, that is not to say that they will never have such an ability.
Quote:
According to this logic, we lack the possibility to self-validate your claim.
In your current state, yes. Only by becoming qualified to make the judgements can you make the judgements.
Quote:
But seriously, even if the first-person experience of enlightenment is ineffable . . .
Enlightenment and Truth is not beyond the reach of words for the enlightened person. All true words reach the Absolute in the mind of the enlightened.
Quote:
. . . , there must be objective measurable criteria that indicate its presence.
Indeed there is. An enlightened person can "measure" whether a person knows the Truth, and how much that knowledge manifests in their natural behaviour.
Quote:
From the absence of these criteria we can justifiably infer the absence of enligthenment.
Yes. If the enlightened person judges that a person doesn't know the Truth, then he will judge the absence of enlightenment.
Quote:
If you wanted to prove a claim for yourself, then the proponent is dutybound to provide a method of verification.
The method is to become enlightened yourself, and then to judge the evidence. On the Genius Forum, and other places, we even provide detailed instructions on how to become enlightened, which are not dissimilar to the instructions given by many other people of wisdom.
| lbartoli
Apprentice
Posts: 14
(11/2/04 1:24)
Reply | Quinns sad conclusion
Well, i just read the last of the debate, in particular Mr Quinn's conclusion, and i found it rather freightening!
Along with the biblical verses cited, one could add the time Jesus was being harassed and he said something about society killing the prophets before his day, that people did not listen to them any more than they would listen to him. So apparently it was not just Jesus and Socrates who were murdered for their love of God. I dont have my bible here but maybe David could dig it up and even post it.
Yes, its terribly disappointing to be reminded of how much animal remains in the human race, and how little integrity.
I have enjoyed my time here, and im sure there is more to discover worth discovering, but i too am shocked at the lack of fair (though very polite!) moderation, and I reckon there's a reason we arnt aware of to explain it.
People are so extremely dependent of being well-favored by others; to do anything unpopular and risk loosing that favor and friendship is not easy. Until such time as people become wise to what is real and what is illusion they will continue to seek self-protection over what is right and fair.
This weakness does not bother us like it used to, as the race has come to accept its animal nature, not seeing that it can indeed be transcended. We say "i know i wasnt fair, but you would have done likewise in my shoes". Everyone is more than ever before, 'out for themselves.' The trend toward Individualization has not yet peaked and may be a long way off.
Im counting on re-birth, myself!
Leo
| lbartoli
Apprentice
Posts: 15
(11/2/04 1:48)
Reply | Re: Thomas asserts
Thomas,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leo: Now the question comes to my mind: ? Does Thomas realize that to spot the wisdom in the Buddhas teaching, to regard Gautama enlightened, he himself, Thomas himself, must be enlightened ? What you say to this, Thomas?
TK:
I would say this constitutes a fallacy, or better a definition error. The human capacity of understanding is (by definition) not the same as enlightenment. Buddhism calls the capacity of understanding "Buddha nature". Participating in Buddha nature is not the same as being enlightened, at least not in Buddhist terms.
LB: Thomas, I hope you realize that even if a person has never even heard of the Buddha or Buddhism, that they can attain the same thing the Buddha calls enlightenment. You do understand this, dont you?
With that out of the way, let me respond by saying...
The human capacity to "understand" is one thing, the human capacity to 'distinguish truth' is another.
Im not up to speed on Buddhism, but i can believe that the 'Buddha nature' is that divine part of us that recognizes truth, wisdom, etc. And we can say that there is a bit of that nature in all or most all people, but that is not the same as saying one has a sufficient dose of it to distinguish the highest truths-- those that set the enlightened person apart from the rest.
So to make a call on enlightenment of another-- which is to say you can see that ALL that other says or teaches is true and substantial, is to admit to a large dose of this Buddha nature. To agree with all the enlightened person says is to know just as the enlightened person knows. This is really that simple.
So the more definitive your claim of another enlightenment, the closer you are to that attainment yourself.
But if you are saying "Im not enlightened, but it appears to me that Gautama was", yes you can make that assesment and you may even be right, but the closer you are to that enlightenment yourself the surer you will be and the more accurate, and if you happen to really be enlightened, then you're in the best position to make the call on another. Then you are least likely, all else being equal, to be mistaken. Does that make sense to you?
Leo
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 56
(11/2/04 1:49)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Quinns sad conclusion
Leo wrote:
Quote:
Along with the biblical verses cited, one could add the time Jesus was being harassed and he said something about society killing the prophets before his day, that people did not listen to them any more than they would listen to him. So apparently it was not just Jesus and Socrates who were murdered for their love of God.
"Woe to you, because you build the tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them! So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did. They killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets shed since the beginning of the world." (Luke 11:47)
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 58
(11/2/04 3:53)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Thomas asserts
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
The human capacity of understanding is (by definition) not the same as enlightenment.
There you go again, implying that the Buddha was not human. What do you think he was, an alien from another planet? Or did he all of a sudden cease being human the moment he became enlightened? I don't think so.
The Buddha was a human being, with human understanding.
Human beings have the capacity for enlightenment.
It is only deluded understanding that is not the same as enlightenment, by definition.
Quote:
Buddhism calls the capacity of understanding "Buddha nature".
This statement is plainly false.
A rock has just as much "Buddha nature" as you or I, or indeed, a Buddha, yet how much capacity does a rock have for any kind of understanding? Not much.
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 22
(11/2/04 4:19)
Reply | Re: Quinns sad conclusion
Although a bit sick of this for the present, I'd like to see a different form of debate if it were to occur again. Basically, the format I'd suggest would be:
Debate 1 -
Topic - The nature and usefulness of Ultimate Reality and how it changes one's life.
1. Impressivelynameduser asks David Quinn 4 questions related to the above to answer in detail
2. Response from David Quinn
3. Rebuttal from Impressivelynameduser
4. Closing Response from David Quinn
5. Option for both negative and positive commentary by whomever is chosen by general forum agreement
6. Thread closed
Debate 2 - The negative and positive attributes of masculine/feminine thought (or what ever the participants agree upon)
This debate would commence 1 day after the above debate starts.
1. Kevin Solway asks samadhim7 4 questions to answer in detail
2. Response from samadhim7
3. Rebuttal from Kevin Solway
4. Closing Response from samadhim7
5. Option for both negative and positive commentary by whomever is chosen by general forum agreement
6. Thread closed
All responses must clearly keep within the boundaries of the four questions.
If samadhim7, Impressivelynameduser don't want to do it, then they can be replaced by Thomas or Victor, Rando, Birdy, Naturyl…then whoever might be interested and is willing to have a go at a decent response.
I'd leave it up to the participants on the timeline for responses. However, whoever chooses to oppose David or Kevin should be allowed double time for responses, after all Kevin, David may have more available time. 24 hours is too short.
Whoever chooses to participate must refrain from posting responses that are directly related to the subject matter on the General Comments threads for each debate.
If no-one is willing to respond and rebutt all 4 questions it can be agreed beforehand to break up the questions between two participants.
Anyone above willing to give it a go or is everyone all talked out?
Edited by: jimhaz at: 11/2/04 4:22
| Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 701
(11/2/04 6:02)
Reply | Re: Thomas asserts
KSolway
"There you go again, implying that the Buddha was not human. What do you think he was, an alien from another planet?"
Canononical buddhism holds that sidharta performed miracles: counting all the sand in the world, shooting arrows blind - that kinda stuff I believe. It also holds that you can pray to him, precluding 'mortality' as I understand it.
Quote:
The Buddha was a human being, with human understanding.
Human beings have the capacity for enlightenment.
It is only deluded understanding that is not the same as enlightenment, by definition.
Human understanding is flawed. Look at your own precept of impermanence, nothing is perfect. So Buddha, being human, had imperfect understanding. Therefore he could not have been 'enlightened' because his understanding would be necessarily deluded.
Oh and Jim, I don't know, I suspect that they have said all they have got to say, which isn't alot. There isn't any middle ground of ideas between their position and mine on which to convince them. They take it on faith that they have the Truth, and as such don't even understand why they are possibly massively wrong.
In which level of hell do you belong?Edited by: Impressivelynameduser at: 11/2/04 6:08
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 59
(11/2/04 6:29)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Robert asserts
Robert wrote:
Quote:
Human understanding is flawed.
Speak for yourself.
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1628
(11/2/04 10:47)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert asserts
Links or cites, Solway.
I will gladly speak for myself as a human being and you can continue to make of yourself a lofty thing with no flaws in his understanding. Yet that is itself a flaw, that you have pretended enlightenment is some state where you can make no error. Here's some advice: An intelligent person makes mistakes but they do not keep repeating them.
By such a definition you are not an intelligent person because you continue making the same mistakes. In face of rational analysis you continue demanding you're correct. You continue to deny responsibility for supporting Weininger's anti-Semitic and misogynistic trash and insisting instead Weininger is a spiritual genius while never bothering to prove the point. You write silly analogies; you argue with your betters in areas like formal logic in which you are ignorant; you continue to insist the debate should be reseen in this or that vapid light instead of getting over it. Your understanding is flawed or you would not keep making the same mistakes over and over and over; you are walking around with a sign on your back reading, "Kick me, please."
At least Rowden has enough sense not to make himself a target. Better then, like Rowden, to be a lofty thing where no one intelligent can see you and where you can play genius all the doodah day.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 47
(11/2/04 10:47)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
Thomas: The human capacity of understanding is (by definition) not the same as enlightenment.
Kevin: There you go again, implying that the Buddha was not human.
Well, there you go again misunderstanding logic.
The structure of my statement quoted above is simple. When I say that human understanding does not equal enlightenment that does not imply that enlightenment is superhuman. Nothing is said about whether enligthenment is human or not. If Buddha is human then enlightenment is a human. Predicate logic.
Thomas
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1630
(11/2/04 10:50)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert asserts
Thomas, you are a consistently thoughtful contributor.
| ParadiseChild
Postulator
Posts: 400
(11/2/04 11:03)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
KSolway has admirably fended all attacks so far.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1631
(11/2/04 11:13)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert asserts
Quote:
Debate 1 -
Topic - The nature and usefulness of Ultimate Reality and how it changes one's life. ...
Debate 2 - The negative and positive attributes of masculine/feminine thought (or what ever the participants agree upon)
If samadhim7, Impressivelynameduser don't want to do it, then they can be replaced by Thomas or Victor, Rando, Birdy, Naturyl…
24 hours is too short.
-jimhaz
The first topic will immediately come under criticism because it will be rightfully asserted that if there is such a thing as Ultimate Reality Quinn, Rowden, and Solway couldn't possibly know it. Since they couldn't handle 'enlightenment' why proceed to a similar topic?
The second topic could immediately come under criticism because Quinn, Rowden, and Solway rely for support on Otto Weininger who has been shown up here as a deranged Jewish anti-Semite who when depressed no one liked his silly book blew his brains out.
With all respect to birdofhermes she is likely a member of that group of Genius Forum participants described by Victor Danilchenko:
Quote:
... Most of those folks seem to me to be of the 'loyal opposition' nature, disagreeing with QRS on lesser issues but accepting the fundamental lunatic hoodwinkery of their worldview.
In that sense, while they may disagree with QRS on some issues, they disagree far more with those -- like many tepegians -- who reject the bullshit fundament of the QRS delusion.
- V. Danilchenko, Enlightenment Debate.
A debate against Quinn, Rowden, or Solway would be better undertaken by individuals who buy into none of their delusion and so can refrain from giving them a status to which they are not entitled.
I certainly agree 24 hours is a ballbreaker time limit although why Quinn's writing doesn't leap complete from his forehead I do not know. Does he type with his fingers or with his mind? We already know that an enlightened man would not have to edit else Solway would have to admit being less than perfect; 'perfect in wisdom, perfect in spelling', that's what I always say.
| Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 702
(11/2/04 11:23)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
"KSolway has admirably fended all attacks so far."
And I've written an objective thesis for Life the Universe and Everything.
He answers nothing because he knows nothing. Indeed he cannot allow himself to know anything, he must remain within a state of puritan ignorance.
By claiming 'perfect undertsanding' publicly he either has an obligation to explain his perfect understanding: its grounds, content, method of acquisition. Or he can admit that his claim is subjective (his 'perfect understanding' may not be valid outside of his head), and therefore only answerable to himself.
What he is doing is doing is claiming universal knowledge (applicable to all) and backing it with his subjective experience (applicable to only himself). It occurs to me that KS and Quinn are simply too bound within their closed minds to bother attempting to understand things. They chose the solidity of a closed system, rather than the vulnerability of a more accurate, flexible one. In which level of hell do you belong? | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1634
(11/2/04 11:44)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert asserts
I see now that when Solway attributed "Human understanding is flawed" to me he should have attributed it to Impress, or perhaps he assumes I am also Impress, and which I am not. Or contrariwise, I am everyone, Solway, and we're all against you.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 8023
(11/2/04 11:47)
Reply
| Re: Robert asserts
No, that can't be true, because we're all Rando.
Accidence happens. | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1635
(11/2/04 11:48)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert asserts
Let me belatedly mention Jens's fine posts above which again pointed out the fundamental hypocrisy of Quinn, Rowden, and Solway, men who claim great spiritual knowledge while willing to promote Weininger for their own purposes.
I could have emailed Jens a note and in the bargain had the opportunity to really insult Quinn, but having noted the post count average was on 299 I thought I would do my part to get it above 300.
| Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 703
(11/2/04 11:54)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
I Understand Perfectly that I am Guildenstern. In which level of hell do you belong? | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1637
(11/2/04 12:04)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert asserts
As I have personally been assigned Master of the Fifth Rando Level - Rando himself occupying the Ultimate Tenth Level - I know for certain that I am not Rando although nonetheless I have a very powerful position in the Rando Universe.
| silentsal
Inductee
Posts: 3
(11/2/04 12:58)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
I see that the stimulus for people to become stuck is like eddy’s of consciousness, as form we move unfortunately identification with a crowd/idea has the effect of spinning us in circles. The crowd may be more dangerous because it feeds what should be starved, idea’s are usually easier to shake off because when you fall on your ass alone you must take responsibility for it.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 710
(11/2/04 13:03)
Reply | Re: the pivotal point
Quote:
I wrote: ... Shame on Q and L for ignoring the pivotal point.
Larkin wrote: if you knew the pivotal point wouldn't you be enlightened? So, are you enlightened?
No, but it doesn't take much to understand the pivotal point. All religion and spirituality point to the question, "who am I?" Much of it is indirect as in Christianity. In enlightenment teaching, it is the first question.
Quote:
Quinn wrote: It was fully dealt with in my analysis of emptiness (i.e that things lack inherent existence), which I don't think you have a good understanding of.
True, you did mention it. You did not debate it (I know, Larkin never challenged you). And I understand it better than you think.
Edited by: samadhim7 at: 11/2/04 13:05
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1639
(11/2/04 13:36)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: the pivotal point
Quote:
... it doesn't take much to understand the pivotal point. All religion and spirituality point to the question, "who am I?" Much of it is indirect as in Christianity. In enlightenment teaching, it is the first question. - Samadhim
If it was a meaningful point it would have produced meaningful results. You cannot have 'crossed over' - should there be such a thing - and say beforehand what is meaningful or if anything is meaningful. The difference between you and Quinn is that he takes the next step, giving up claiming to know important things and claiming instead that he knows it all.
| birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 55
(11/2/04 13:49)
Reply
| Re: Robert asserts
Quote:
With all respect to birdofhermes she is likely a member of that group of Genius Forum participants described by Victor Danilchenko:
... Most of those folks seem to me to be of the 'loyal opposition' nature, disagreeing with QRS on lesser issues but accepting the fundamental lunatic hoodwinkery of their worldview.
But guess what folks, if I grovelled before Larkin as all HIS loyal team, I'm sure he would be right pleased. Why do I suspect he said the above because I admitted that I don't see a clear winner in the debate? Well, it just isn't that simple. Of course QRS are not wrong about absolutely everything. Hardly anyone is. I've learned some things there, mostly about the nature of the void, the concept of emptiness, and how to continue learning to think nondualistically. I enjoy being there because I don't often run into people in real life who like to think about ideas. I was interested in the subject of masculinity and femininity before I came to their board, and I use it as a kind of trial by fire.
I did not know about KIR or PG until just recently, and I am pleased at the discovery, but I must say that the atmosphere here is more stifling and PC than at Genius.
It is ridiculous to suppose I can't argue with them on the topic of misogyny, since that is what I have done most there, and began a formal cage debate with Dan, which he dropped after 3 rounds. Were I to debate them and they were to use Weininger, that would be greatly to my advantage as Weininger is easy to deflate. We have Thoughtful Thomas' word for it that he has seen me reduce him to rubble on more than one occasion, and that is not even the main effort I put in, which got no response. The Weininger writing, by the way, which turned me off and lost my any possible respect for him as a highly evolved human being, was neither about Jews nor women, but dogs! Now that was a neurotic piece of writing.
However, I'm too burned out on the topic right now to consider a debate, and also won't be around much for the next couple of weeks. I do find it aggravating to have two men debating the topic of feminine and masculine thought. I would be willing to nominate Naturyl for this.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 711
(11/2/04 14:10)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
Robert,Quote:
If it was a meaningful point it would have produced meaningful results. You cannot have 'crossed over' - should there be such a thing - and say beforehand what is meaningful or if anything is meaningful. The difference between you and Quinn is that he takes the next step, giving up claiming to know important things and claiming instead that he knows it all.
It has produced meaningful results, to those who have realized. You just do not recognize results for the reasons I have already mentioned. And it isn't my claim. You yourself have an answer to that question and act on the basis of that answer. Everyone acts with an understanding of who they are. The answer creates your reality. You don't need me to tell you that. However you do seem to assume your answer is the final answer. All I'm saying is, why not look some more?
| MGregory
Inductee
Posts: 7
(11/2/04 14:16)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
Robert wrote:
Quote:
I am everyone
Yeah, no shit. That's what these people have been trying to tell you for the past week. It's good to know you're starting to see the truth of the situation.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 712
(11/2/04 14:21)
Reply | Re: what is enlightenment
INU,Quote:
I wrote: The appearance of form within the formless is not dualism per se.
You replied: I agree to an extent, within what I read as it's original context. Form IS formlessness and vice versa, they are inseparable. Just as content and structure constitute a literary text and are indivisible, body and mind are the inseparable constituents of your 'Self'. You haven't addressed the point of how your idea of Selfhood can exist without body or the level of social conditioning (conceptualisation) required to germinate self-awareness.
You are you whether you dream or not but you cannot know yourself without a dream. Dreaming allows a perspective. A perspective can be transcended. That is self-knowledge. It cannot arise without form because without form there is no distinction and nothing to transcend. If your question is really, what exists without form, the only possible answer is to look and see for yourself.
Quote:
I wrote: What about death ...
You replied: I'm going to die anyway. Unfinished affairs are sad, but all mortals leave them so there's no profit in worrying about them or fantasising about their continuation in an afterlife.
Right. We all die. Intellectually, you can say you are not threatened by it because it is a fact. But if someone were to pull a gun on you or someone in your family, how would you react? Then you will know how much you feel threatened.
Quote:
I wrote: ... or losing your toothbrush?
You replied: Losing my toothbrush would mean my teeth going unbrushed, I believe I could live with this. I do not fancy gum disease so I would probably buy another. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
The point was, everything you have you will lose at some point. No political, social, or philosophical construct can protect you from that. How does it feel when you lose what you identify with as yours?
Quote:
Suffering is a problematic concept, and one which I do not agree with: see my views on non-participation in life and love which the principle of suffering enforces in the popular notion of buddhism.
I'm not sure whether you're actually trying to deny suffering. I hardly think that position is tenable.
Quote:
No self is one of our key ambiguities. It means something different to you than me. No self to me represents accepting the constructed, yet often reasonable nature of self. Your Self does not exist in my world model, other than as a concept which splits body and mind up and looks at some non-existent observer behind it all.
You seem willing to admit to self-concepts but then throw them all together and call it the self, provisional though it may be. You seem unwilling to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion. To what does the self-concept appear? When you close your eyes in a dark room and no thought arises in the mind, are you still aware that you exist? What is that awareness? Is it non-existent, or is it in fact the only "thing" that does exist?
Quote:
I wrote: By saying you can become more knowledgeable and compassionate, you are identifying with your concepts. You can know more, you can behave differently, you cannot be more.
You replied: You have a point to an extent. I am identifying with concepts, for they are me. They are you also, whether you like it or not. They have been internalised by you throughout your life, some so deeply that you cannot see you possess them.
This is identification. It is easier to see with something external like a possession that you call yours. If the possession is internal like a thought, is it any more yours than the car? What makes you say so?
Quote:
I can expand my knowledge and to that extent can be more. However I will not pass into some secret world which is more than human. Unlike the popular concept of enlightenment which expressly is being more than human, with perfect knowledge, infinite wisdom, boundless compassion and so on.
Enlightenment is not about infinite human attributes! It is about realization of self beyond form. It is not about being more human; it is about being less.
Quote:
This is impossible if you accept the imperfection of self, and leads to the frustration of buddhism. The thought at the bottom is buried under piles of misreadings, and will continue to be so due to its high levels of ambiguity and openness to ritualistic and formal interpretations.
Buddhism has been turned into a religion. Nevertheless, at the core is still the question, who am I? You seem to think you know who you are and no further search is needed. This is where most people are. Fine. As long as you are satisfied with who you are, you will not question who you are. You need some motive to search. That motive is usually dissatisfaction. Life is always the ultimate teacher.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 8027
(11/2/04 14:22)
Reply
| Re: Robert asserts
Quote: Bird
However, I'm too burned out on the topic right now to consider a debate, and also won't be around much for the next couple of weeks. I do find it aggravating to have two men debating the topic of feminine and masculine thought. I would be willing to nominate Naturyl for this.
Nominate Naturyl for what?
Accidence happens. | birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 56
(11/2/04 14:22)
Reply
| Re: Robert asserts
Actually, I've changed my mind. I would like to see someone other than myself debate the gender topic. |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 709
(11/2/04 15:17)
Reply | Re: what is enlightenment
Sam,
"If your question is really, what exists without form, the only possible answer is to look and see for yourself."
I take this to mean, 'yes I believe I have an Eternal Self'. There is no Eternal Self, Perfect Self, or any other capitalised combination of platitudes; they don't exist. I take it as this because no matter how much I prod you, you never deny your belief in a disembodied Self.
"how would you react?"
I'd kick their ass if I could because I quite like partaking in this meaningless game of formalisms. Also being a human I have instinctual drives which tell me to live where possible, and protect my blood interests. Just because there isn't any Grand Meaning to our lives doesn't mean we shouldn't live them.
If you attach no value to human life through entertainment/involvement/compassion, why don't you go and slash your wrists and avoid the bother of hanging around another fifty years?
No I thought not.
"How does it feel when you lose what you identify with as yours?"
In reference to political/social/philosophical constructs I welcome change and the replacing of a rdundant system with a more accurate one. You however cling to buddhism even though it has been superceded.
"I'm not sure whether you're actually trying to deny suffering. I hardly think that position is tenable."
The buddhist perception of suffering is profoundly negative and goes against normal(ish) human life. The One Who Avoids Suffering, does not participate in relationships, or true friendships, or the pursuit of knowledge. Suffering completely ignores that there is beauty in decay and loss. It seeks to isolate itself from the world in order not to be hurt by it, not only is isolation from the world impossible it also frustrates the practicioner through tempting them with what is 'forbidden'. This breeds a host of psychological difficulties.
"To what does the self-concept appear?"
Itself, it is self referential like all formalisms.
You display ignorance of language. You would not be able to articulate self-knowledge without language, neither would you even understand the concept of no language. Language is a self-referential system.
This is one of those key anti-human aspects if buddhism, the demonizing of thought (which it relies upon to articulate itself). Buddhism displays a paradox, it hates thought but uses thought to hate thought.
Now you answer me 'to what does the self concept appear?'
"It is easier to see with something external like a possession that you call yours."
No that is just a gross analogy, you identify identification with capitalist materialism. In your personality you will identify yourself with things. You will watch TV and see the buddhists and internally ally yourself with their image, manners of speech, terminology, ideology, politics.
Identification with concepts makes up our constructed behaviour. We just have to be careful what to identify with.
You also fail to provide any accurate reason why identification itself is Bad.
"It is about realization of self beyond form."
A meaningless platitude. Considering that no human will ever be able to function beyond bodily or mental form.
Quote:
You seem to think you know who you are and no further search is needed. This is where most people are. Fine. As long as you are satisfied with who you are, you will not question who you are. You need some motive to search. That motive is usually dissatisfaction. Life is always the ultimate teacher
You consistently come back to this accusation.
1) Your notion of Self is dualistic metaphysical twoddle. As I have argued at great length and tire of repeating.
2) Your notions are so nebulous that I could not GIVE an answer. 'Satisfied with who you are' what is who? My knowledge? My values? My possessions? My identifications? (Don't bore me by making me explain again how I also see these as ephemeral yet necessary)
You can question what these (and you do) are and how accurate but only under my system (concepts, language, thought) in your system you are a powerless, marginalised nothingness consigned to rest at the back of head which may or may not be real.
Ed: I have work to do again, may not return to this debate. If you really want to know what I think get some readers on 20th century science/psychology/philosophy. I've read all kinds of Buddhist stuff, and that is why I know its failings. You too should accept the possibility that you may be wrong and honestly inquire into disciplines. In which level of hell do you belong?Edited by: Impressivelynameduser at: 11/2/04 15:27
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 54
(11/2/04 17:24)
Reply
| Re: my comments
Thomas Knierim wrote:
Quote:
David: Before that can happen, one has to validate for oneself that (a) third-party testing is a valid form of testing in the first place, and (b) the party doing the testing is properly qualified.
Thomas: The same I just told Kevin applies here. The decisive criterion is TESTABILITY, not who actually performs the test.
Is that what you've self-validated?
Quote:
David: No, the enlightenment claim is just as falsifiable as the scientific claim. The enlightened person asks, "Is my enlightenment really genuine? Do I really understand the nature of Reality? Have I really gone all the way?" , and then proceeds to test his understanding. If his enlightenment is genuine, he will clearly see that it is impossible to refute.
Thomas: Are you familiar with the term "auto-suggestion"?
I don't know. Let's ask the Buddha.
Quote:
David: I've noticed, for example, that, being a Buddhist sympathizer yourself, you have completely avoided the issue of the Buddha's enlightenment and how he came to know that he was enlightened.
Thomas: IMO Buddha's enlightenment is irrelevant to the Buddhist teaching, although I see that the devotional aspect plays an important role for many adherents. The philosophical depth of Buddhism speaks for itself. The brilliance of Buddhist ethics speaks for itself. The rejection of metaphysics speaks for itself. In addition, Buddhism provides a number of psychological methods for self-development that I consider extremely useful. I might conclude that Gautama was enlightened, not because he said he was, but because of what he taught.
So you believe that the Buddha created a brilliant philosophy of incredible depth, even though he somehow made the "glaringly obvious fallacy" of determining for himself that he was enlightened? How could such a brilliant man make such a logical clanker?
He probably had a bad hair day. Yes, that explains it.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1641
(11/2/04 17:38)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert asserts
'Why do I suspect he said the above because I admitted that I don't see a clear winner in the debate?' - birdofhermes
Actually it was a prompt to cut the cord to the 'geniuses'. They are no good for anyone's thought processes and as their own well indicate. If you will assume for a second I am not being petty you might then allow that someone who doesn't believe them at all could be more effective - there would be no need to defer to them in the slightest. And I didn't know you thought it was a 'no winner' until you mentioned it just now. I only read little bits and pieces of posts this morning, being pressed for time.
Otherwise it would certainly be fitting for women to participate and I hope future TPG debates aren't seen as 'Boys' Sports'*. Regarding Weininger, women and particularly Jewish women were victimized by that lunatic's writings.
*Consider Arianna Huffington, former president of the famous Cambridge Union debating society.
| birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 57
(11/2/04 18:02)
Reply
| Re: Robert asserts
Quote:
Nominate Naturyl for what?
For the proposed (by Jimhaz) future debate on the topic of feminine and masculine thought with someone from QRS.
(Jimhaz has gone off the deep end in the past few weeks and is acting like Rhett these days. But I don't think he'll ever be quite that goofy.)
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 8035
(11/2/04 18:19)
Reply
| Re: Robert asserts
But Bird, didn't you say it aggravated you to have two men debating about masculine and feminine thought? I don't see how the nomination of Naturyl makes sense in that context...
Accidence happens. | birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 59
(11/2/04 18:41)
Reply
| Re: Robert asserts
I did indeed, but I also said I changed my mind, because, you see, I've been talking about this stuff for a year, and while I have developed a lot of thoughts due to the stimulus, it is getting a bit old. So I thought the right person could bring in some fresh insight to the matter.
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 23
(11/2/04 18:47)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
The debate was just a thought Birdy. I think we are all burned out a bit. Insufficient interest has been displayed - which I suspected would be the case - so I'll just drop it.
Jimhaz has gone off the deep end in the past few weeks and is acting like Rhett these days. But I don't think he'll ever be quite that goofy.
This comment is a result of me saying you are not open and therefore not smart. And you are not, wisdom-wise at least, you're more open to irrational ideas than wise concepts. I think I've been saying a lot of interesting things of late, on Genius Forum at least, that only appear to be crap because of my lack of any detailed scientific knowledge, which makes them a bit disjointed at times. The important thing though is that overall they make logical sense (most of the time) and they come from my own mind - unlike feminine minded folk like you who rely just about entirely on the works of others.
Not to worry, wisdom-wise I've had you in the 'lost cause' category for about 12 months now, but your posts do sometimes contain some interesting general knowledge so I keep reading and reacting to them. I see virtually no progression in you at all, in terms of your future apptitude for enlightenment.
I find Rhett Okay, but he is a bit too ernest and straightforward, whereas I like to be bit more of a stirrer.
Edited by: jimhaz at: 11/2/04 18:51
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 8039
(11/2/04 19:39)
Reply
| Re: Robert asserts
How positively condescending, Jimhaz...
Accidence happens. | samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 714
(11/2/04 19:52)
Reply | Re: enlightenment
INU,Quote:
I wrote: If your question is really, what exists without form, the only possible answer is to look and see for yourself.
You replied: I take this to mean, 'yes I believe I have an Eternal Self'. There is no Eternal Self, Perfect Self, or any other capitalised combination of platitudes; they don't exist. I take it as this because no matter how much I prod you, you never deny your belief in a disembodied Self.
The dreamer is disembodied in its dream when it is dreaming. And it also exists in the dream as both the dream and the dream character. If I told you this in your dream, you would say, "show me this dreamer. It doesn't exist!" No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. It's your choice what you believe.
Quote:
I wrote: But if someone were to pull a gun on you or someone in your family, how would you react?
You replied: I'd kick their ass if I could because I quite like partaking in this meaningless game of formalisms.
You miss the point. You're not in control of your death. If you're not threatened by it, you won't care when it comes. Today or fifty years makes no difference.
Quote:
If you attach no value to human life through entertainment/involvement/compassion, why don't you go and slash your wrists and avoid the bother of hanging around another fifty years?
Why do you say that? Because I am not the body, I should kill the body? What kind of logic is that? The body is not you. It doesn't mean you should destroy it (suicide is nothing more than identification after all, destroying that which you believe yourself to be), just don't identify with it.
Quote:
In reference to political/social/philosophical constructs I welcome change and the replacing of a redundant system with a more accurate one. You however cling to buddhism even though it has been superceded.
For the record, I'm not Buddhist although I respect most of its teachings.
Quote:
The buddhist perception of suffering is profoundly negative and goes against normal(ish) human life. The One Who Avoids Suffering, does not participate in relationships, or true friendships, or the pursuit of knowledge. Suffering completely ignores that there is beauty in decay and loss. It seeks to isolate itself from the world in order not to be hurt by it, not only is isolation from the world impossible it also frustrates the practitioner through tempting them with what is 'forbidden'. This breeds a host of psychological difficulties.
Trying to avoid suffering by avoiding life merely perpetuates it. What you resist, persists. I have no problem enjoying beauty. Nevertheless I don't deny the existence of suffering. You cannot just merrily skip over it as if it is some psychological problem for someone other than you.
Quote:
I wrote: To what does the self-concept appear?
You replied: Itself, it is self-referential like all formalisms.
This is nonsense and you know it. And idea is not self-aware, it is what you are aware of. You will never find one appearing without a "you" in which it appears.
Quote:
You display ignorance of language. You would not be able to articulate self-knowledge without language, neither would you even understand the concept of no language. Language is a self-referential system.
Your point?
Quote:
This is one of those key anti-human aspects if buddhism, the demonizing of thought (which it relies upon to articulate itself). Buddhism displays a paradox, it hates thought but uses thought to hate thought.
Buddhism does not hate thought! It suggests that you are not your thoughts. It doesn't mean stop thinking. It means, be aware of what you're thinking. Without awareness, there is just unconscious identification.
Quote:
Now you answer me 'to what does the self concept appear?'
You. Which is all I ever point to. But not you as a person. There is nothing personal in "I am."
Quote:
I wrote: It is easier to see with something external like a possession that you call yours.
You replied: No that is just a gross analogy, you identify identification with capitalist materialism. In your personality you will identify yourself with things. You will watch TV and see the buddhists and internally ally yourself with their image, manners of speech, terminology, ideology, politics.
Why bring in capitalistic materialism? This isn't about politics or economics. When you call an object yours, do you understand that is identification? It is the linking of self and object by thought. That is all it is.
Quote:
Identification with concepts makes up our constructed behaviour. We just have to be careful what to identify with.
Yes. We agree, hallelujah! Except that I am saying enlightenment is no identification whatsoever.
Quote:
You also fail to provide any accurate reason why identification itself is Bad.
Identification is NOT bad. I am only pointing to it and saying, if you want to be enlightened, identification is what has to go. If you aren't interested in enlightenment, identify with anything you want, no one is going to stop you.
Quote:
I wrote: It is about realization of self beyond form.
You replied: A meaningless platitude. Considering that no human will ever be able to function beyond bodily or mental form.
You are the one who said enlightenment is about possessing infinite human attributes. That is not only meaningless, you are making it up! You keep insisting that the "you" I point to is a person, a human being. That is not what I am pointing to. No, as a human being you cannot exist without a body. Are you a human being? What makes you say so? Human being is an experience, not an identity.
Quote:
1) Your notion of Self is dualistic metaphysical twoddle. As I have argued at great length and tire of repeating.
You keep insisting you are a body. Are you aware that every cell in your body dies within seven years, and most much sooner than that? If you're fifty years old, you've already gone through at least seven bodies. Which one was you?
Quote:
2) Your notions are so nebulous that I could not GIVE an answer. 'Satisfied with who you are' what is who? My knowledge? My values? My possessions? My identifications? (Don't bore me by making me explain again how I also see these as ephemeral yet necessary)
You are satisfied with all your concepts because you believe them to be true. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I only point to what I see. If you're interested in enlightenment, you will investigate for yourself. If you're not, you won't.
Quote:
You can question what these (and you do) are and how accurate but only under my system (concepts, language, thought) in your system you are a powerless, marginalised nothingness consigned to rest at the back of head which may or may not be real.
You are missing the meaning of enlightenment. Nothing is everything. Everything arises out of nothing and returns to it. A dream appears in nothingness and returns to nothingness. When you dream, you are a person. When you wake up, you are not only the dream itself but every dream you have ever dreamed and ever will dream. You are infinite.
Quote:
Ed: I have work to do again, may not return to this debate. If you really want to know what I think get some readers on 20th century science/psychology/philosophy. I've read all kinds of Buddhist stuff, and that is why I know its failings. You too should accept the possibility that you may be wrong and honestly inquire into disciplines.
I know what you think. You have told me. What you know is what you believe. It isn't wrong nor am I right. Those are beliefs as well. What we believe is what we see, that's all.
I hope you return. Our little debate I think has been more fruitful than that other one that got so much hype.
Oh yeah, check out Adya's awakening on the "Are We Being Dreamed?" thread. Maybe you'll have your own.
Edited by: samadhim7 at: 11/2/04 19:54
| birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 62
(11/2/04 19:53)
Reply
| Re: Robert asserts
You often say interesting things Jimmy. I only meant your attitude of late has become sanctimonious, and you've fallen deeper into this "femininity is the problem" with which I happen to disagree.
My personal assessment of myself is that I am unusually open-minded, and that I have a tremendous number of theories and ideas that I come up with on my own, although there is certainly lots of input I get from the environment. It is more often that I put things together in a new way than come up with something really unique, but then, I would suppose that would be normal, being a lot easier.
The main reason you think I don't make progress, so far as I can tell, is because I haven't accepted the worthlessness of women.
What did you think of my debate assessment so far?
You are messing up our united front Jim! Edited by: birdofhermes at: 11/2/04 22:31
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 49
(11/2/04 22:06)
Reply
| Re: Robert asserts
Anna: We have Thoughtful Thomas' word for it that he has seen me reduce him to rubble on more than one occasion, and that is not even the main effort I put in, which got no response.
Well, since I have been watching the GF for some time, I can confirm that. Anna has debated the misogyny and Weininger issues tirelessly and she has defeated the trinity (plus ynithrix) on most occasions, although they would probably not admit that. I perceive Anna's displeasedness with QRS to be very similar to that of Robert, since both take great offense (and who wouldn't?) in the discrimination issue. Although she is a determined defender of humanity, she honestly acknowledges debate points that the other party scores. Occasionally, QRS make interesting and profound points. That doesn't mean that their outlook is fundamentally sound, and it should not give rise to the impression that Anna is influenced by the QRS philosophy.
ParadiseChild: KSolway has admirably fended all attacks so far.
Yes, he is quite a wizard. It also surprises me how he weathers the onrush of devastating arguments while maintaining perfect posture. This must be the result of years of practice. He is an artful dodger. You can throw any argument at him, regardless how carefully constructed, how subtle, how pertaining. He will either pretend the argument is not valid, or that it doesn't apply, or that he doesn't "see" it. If this strategy should not work, he will try to distort and skew your words to a degree where you don't recognize them anymore. The ultimate weapon is then, of course, change of definition in mid-debate. He will pretend that the words he was using previously meant something different. This is a technique he has brought to perfection and the title "wizard" is therefore perhaps merited.
Thomas
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 25
(11/2/04 22:32)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
Birdy, I can be a bit hard on you at times - but you can take it.
your attitude of late has become sanctimonious
True, I must be careful about this. I often do say things as if I were enlightened, when I'm not.
and you've fallen deeper into this "femininity is the problem"
Yes, I have, but I do agree with you that unstrained masculinity would be worse, just as I see unrestrained feminity as destructive. it is just that the direction the western world is going in is towards feminine ways of looking at things. Any move to more masculine thinking in the general population or in leadership would need to include compassion gained through wisdom.
It does not mean that i think women are worthless at all - typical spin around! - I just think they are less able to think and initiate the required changes that would be necessary to improve everyone's level of consciousness. I feel they are getting to much control over the advancement advantages that males can offer, and they are.
Unfortunately this 'masculine style compassion' may mean that some people have to be hurt to achieve the best result for everyone, but this is against the feminine type of compassion, which is more about helping all people out so that they survive the next few years, rather than the next few millenium or indefinately.
What did you think of my debate assessment so far?
I read it - some things I agreed with, some I didn't. The overall tone was negative and I felt a sense of you jumping on the bandwagon in order to 'get at' the QRS. Thought about having a go at responding, but have been a bit tired of late (can't seem to sleep enough hours) and didn't get around to it.
You are messing up our united from Jim!
I'm clearly on the QRS side in regards to what true wisdom actually means, you aren't, so there was no united front.
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 26
(11/2/04 22:40)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
How positively condescending, Jimhaz...
Probably so, but sometimes you have to be condescending to folks who think they know it all. Birdy wants to be enlightened but she is not taking the mental steps to do so, other than persistantly arguing pretty much the same case for the last couple of years. She's just better at arguing the same concepts than before.
At least she is trying though, which shows she has character and stamina. I get annoyed with her because of this persistancy, it kinda affects me like nagging (another condescending comment) and IMO she takes things out of context to make her arguments, just like Robert, yourself, Rando, Thomas..and so on.
| lbartoli
Follower
Posts: 16
(11/2/04 23:38)
Reply | Thomas asserts
Thomas, would you respond to this...I'll copy it here:
Re: Thomas asserts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leo: Now the question comes to my mind: ? Does Thomas realize that to spot the wisdom in the Buddhas teaching, to regard Gautama enlightened, he himself, Thomas himself, must be enlightened ? What you say to this, Thomas?
TK:
I would say this constitutes a fallacy, or better a definition error. The human capacity of understanding is (by definition) not the same as enlightenment. Buddhism calls the capacity of understanding "Buddha nature". Participating in Buddha nature is not the same as being enlightened, at least not in Buddhist terms.
LB: Thomas, I hope you realize that even if a person has never even heard of the Buddha or Buddhism, that they can attain the same thing the Buddha calls enlightenment. You do understand this, dont you?
With that out of the way, let me respond by saying...
The human capacity to "understand" is one thing, the human capacity to 'distinguish truth' is another.
Im not up to speed on Buddhism, but i can believe that the 'Buddha nature' is that divine part of us that recognizes truth, wisdom, etc. And we can say that there is a bit of that nature in all or most all people, but that is not the same as saying one has a sufficient dose of it to distinguish the highest truths-- those that set the enlightened person apart from the rest.
So to make a call on enlightenment of another-- which is to say you can see that ALL that other says or teaches is true and substantial, is to admit to a large dose of this Buddha nature. To agree with all the enlightened person says is to know just as the enlightened person knows. This is really that simple.
So the more definitive your claim of another enlightenment, the closer you are to that attainment yourself.
But if you are saying "Im not enlightened, but it appears to me that Gautama was", yes you can make that assesment and you may even be right, but the closer you are to that enlightenment yourself the surer you will be and the more accurate, and if you happen to really be enlightened, then you're in the best position to make the call on another. Then you are least likely, all else being equal, to be mistaken. Does that make sense to you?
Leo
| 1Mike S
Follower
Posts: 96
(12/2/04 1:13)
Reply | Re: Thomas asserts
my apologies for not having the time to keep up . . . .
Quote:
Maybe no one was ever enlightened and never will be and the whole idea of achieving a non-delusional state is but a huge delusion. What then is the point of this forum or any philosophy at all for that matter?
nah -- not a delusion, what you seek IS possible-- you just will not find it where you are looking; all of what you are looking for IS there, keep looking and you may find it. I know, weird, but true. Just draw back from anyone who claims to "know" - he/she doesn't (I have NEVER found anyone who contains a glimsp of truth): look, rely on your own ability to discern what is REAL from someone's imaginational wanderings . . .  Mike
www.notcreatedequal.com | lbartoli
Follower
Posts: 17
(12/2/04 3:35)
Reply | enlightenment, who what where
One of the arguments seems to be: Just coz someone claims to be wise and enlightened, doesnt mean they are (right)!
And this is true, in fact i reckon many who have been lgiht-years from IT, who have claimed IT, or who secretly believe they are, were and are mistaken, deluded (I wont name names!).
But there is an altogether nuther category, namely the genuinely enlightened person. If he were asked about IT, unless he sees a good reason to lie or remain silent, he would simply say Yes, I am (a phrase that Jesus used, btw, that got him in heaps of trouble). This isnt bragging, this is just being honest.
But i agree with Kevin, there is the little 'e' enlightenment (such as myself), and there is the big 'E' Enlightenment, which is the person really living and thinking truthfully to a high degree, the former being one with complete understanding (at some point) that has yet to infiltrate his entire psyche. Both can readily spot wisdom whereever it lay, in whom ever, or the lack thereof.
So anyone of us, after observing some other, his words, can tell you about his enlightenment, but it cannot be certainly correct, only the individual himself can be certainly correct about his enlightenement. Still, its obvious to me whether someone is rather wise or extremely deluded. We have all types here.
Leo
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 53
(12/2/04 3:51)
Reply
| Re: Thomas asserts
Thomas: The decisive criterion is TESTABILITY, not who actually performs the test.
David: Is that what you've self-validated?
Sure. Testability means oportunity to prove it for yourself. Validation must be available to everyone, otherwise it is epistemologically useless.
Thomas: Are you familiar with the term "auto-suggestion"?
David: I don't know. Let's ask the Buddha.
You're dodging.
David: So you believe that the Buddha created a brilliant philosophy of incredible depth, even though he somehow made the "glaringly obvious fallacy" of determining for himself that he was enlightened? How could such a brilliant man make such a logical clanker? He probably had a bad hair day. Yes, that explains it.
Did I just detect traces of humor? Oh, I like that! At once, it makes you sound more enlightened.
To answer your question, it isn't a "fallacy" to notice enlightenment, but it is irrational to proclaim it, or even state it. Have you looked at it from the perspective of communication theory?
Let's try it. Let's assume that you are a sage, a philosopher, a spiritual master. Let's further assume that you have developed a system of thought which you think is beneficial for humanity and that you want to communicate it. Under this assumption, there are four possible scenarios:
Scenario 1 - you are enligthened and your audience is sympathetic to your enlightenment claim
In this case, you would obvsiouly not lie when you say that you are enlightened, since you are truly enligthened. However, in terms of communicating your message there is no advantage gained from announcing your enlightenment. Because the audience is already sympathetic to your views; it is unnecessary to claim authority. In fact, making such a claim might have opposite (undesired) effects. It may inspire feelings of suspicion, distrust, or envy in your unenlightened audience. The audience might accordingly change its sympathetic stance. Hence, it is not rational to claim enlightenment in such a situation.
Scenario 2 - you are enlightened but your audience is not sympathetic
In this case, communicating to the audience is more difficult. As long as trust hasn't been established, the audience will not accept what you say at face value. It is therefore not inclined to accept your claim of enlightenment, even though it may be true. You are simply out of luck. The only way to change the opinion of the audience is by making your point and communicating your system of thought. If your speech is that of an enligthened thinker, chances are that the audience becomes more sympathetic to your truths while you expound them. Claiming enlightenment in such a situation is counterproductive and therefore it is not rational.
Scenario 3 - you are not enlightened and your audience is sympathetic
This scenario is more common. For example, we find it in present day sects led by self-proclaimed gurus. These gurus have convinced themselves that they have an important message for humanity. They might think of themselves as great prophets and spiritual leaders. They might thus claim spiritual authority by saying that they are enlightened. However, since these Gurus are not really enlightened, their claim is delusional, because it rests only on their imagination. The claim is therefore not rational. Although claiming enlightenment might seem rational to them, it is not.
Scenario 4 - you are not enlightened and your audience is not sympathetic
This scenario may be even more common than scenario 3. It is also the one most rife with conflict. If an unenlightened person pronounces an enlightenment claim towards a hostile audience in the hope of gaining authority, the claim is doubly irrational. Not only is the claim delusional, but it also achieves the opposite effect. The most likely reaction of a hostile audience is to try to debunk the enlightenment claim. Since the claim is not real, this attempt will probably be successful. Consequently, the audience will become even more unsympathetic to that person. Hence, claiming enlightenment in such a situation is likewise irrational.
Summary: There is no situation in which claiming enlightenment is rational.
Thomas Edited by: Thomas Knierim at: 12/2/04 4:05
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 54
(12/2/04 3:56)
Reply
| Re: Thomas asserts
Leo: Thomas, I hope you realize that even if a person has never even heard of the Buddha or Buddhism, that they can attain the same thing the Buddha calls enlightenment. You do understand this, dont you?
I'd agree with that.
Leo: ...the closer you are to that enlightenment yourself the surer you will be and the more accurate... Does that make sense to you?
Sure, it does.
Thomas
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 29
(12/2/04 4:22)
Reply | Re: Thomas asserts
So where do those accepted as enlightened under the buddhist system fit into your scenarios?
Claiming enlightenment, or even answering in the positive when asked the question, is simply a way of saying to others
"Yes enlightenment is real, it can be obtained".
If you were asked if you were of above average intelligent, would you not answer in the affirmative?
Edited by: jimhaz at: 12/2/04 4:29
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1642
(12/2/04 4:27)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert asserts
Quote:
Occasionally, QRS make interesting and profound points. That doesn't mean that their outlook is fundamentally sound, and it should not give rise to the impression that Anna is influenced by the QRS philosophy. - Thomas
I'm not insistent that Annabird should be seen this way or that. There are those who write on 'Genius' Forum and who do not buy what Quinn, Rowden, and Solway put out, including Thomas, John, and perhaps others.
However, if the Quinitry can make a profound point it is likely not theirs but instead regurgitated material they have adopted to promote their own enlightenment and anyway only expression of the principle that a stopped clock is rarely accurate. If the subject of their writings is themselves then whatever they write is hardly profound.
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | ksolway
Follower
Posts: 71
(12/2/04 4:35)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Thomas asserts
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
Scenario 2 - you are enlightened but your audience is not sympathetic . . . Claiming enlightenment in such a situation is counterproductive and therefore it is not rational.
This is for the enlightened person to decide, not yourself.
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 30
(12/2/04 4:39)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
Have you forgotten that you quoted material from others in your debate?
Is not everything that one says a form of "regurgitated material"? We all take from what we've read of heard. Original thought or art comes from the way you combine things already existing. Being original in terms of enlightenment is harder because the truths are more timeless, once a truth has been stated it tends to survive the ages.
The truth of the matter is that everything is regurgitated, everything once existed in a different form, than it does now.
David's work in the WOMAN is far less regurgitated than anything I've seen you write. It was certainly original to me.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1643
(12/2/04 5:07)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert asserts
Samadhim,
Quote:
Someone asked Nasrudin to guess what he had in his hand.
'Give me a clue,' said the Mulla.
'I'll give you several,' said the wag. 'It is shaped like an egg, egg-sized, looks, tastes, and smells like an egg. Inside it is yellow and white. It is liquid within before you cook it, coalesces with heat. It was, moreover, laid by a hen ...'
'I know!' interrupted the Mulla. 'It is some sort of cake.'
Idries Shah, The Sufis, p. 76
_____
One night the Mulla was busily searching for something and a villager asked him what he was about. 'I'm looking for my keys,' Nasrudin answered.
'Where did you lose them?' asked the man.
'Over there.'
'Then why are you looking here?'
Nasrudin replied, 'Because this is where the light is.'
[after Shah]
So Samadhim, I thought I would share my cake with you although it's never very satisfying. It's some sort of Lite Cake with very little taste and nothing that sticks to your ribs.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1645
(12/2/04 6:47)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert asserts
Quote:
... Is not everything that one says a form of "regurgitated material"? ...
David's work in the WOMAN is far less regurgitated than anything I've seen you write. It was certainly original to me. - jimhaz
Not surprisingly you missed the substance of what I wrote, and I wrote, '... regurgitated material they have adopted to promote their own enlightenment ...'
If the material in Quinn's delusional musings are original to you then you have not looked at the musings of other deluded individuals as in those in Vienna over 100 years ago. There is nothing original about irrationally making 'feminity' a 'woman of straw' and then attacking it, and which is what we refer to as 'misogyny'. Nor is there anything original about being deluded, Quinn, Rowden, and Solway being examples of men who delude themselves into thinking they're important and who whine and complain when you insist they be reasonable.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 56
(12/2/04 7:39)
Reply
| Re: Robert asserts
Kevin: This is for the enlightened person to decide, not yourself.
Was that a slap on the wrist of the unenlightened?
OUCH!
Thomas
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 31
(12/2/04 8:04)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
regurgitated material they have adopted to promote their own enlightenment ...'
They are more concerned with promoting the deepest levels of wisdom. Their lives are devoted to the attainment of enlightenment by others, while yours seems to be devoted to self-gratification and domination. It suits you for others to be sheep.
I'm not saying they don't have strong ego's as well, although they may deny such, but even so, it is not the sort of ego that seeks dominance over others.
If the material in Quinn's delusional musings are original to you then you have not looked at the musings of other deluded individuals as in those in Vienna over 100 years ago.
It is true that I have not studied philosophy in real depth (and I know comments such as that means that folks will automatically therefore regard me as ignorant...but I don't particularly care).
I simply find contemporary things of more immediate value, as was David's book (mind you I am not in full agreement with it, as I have not been for any book i've read). The problem with historical texts is that too much chaff tends to be added on, and presently I have a preference to just read the relevant quotes on forums.
There is nothing original about irrationally making 'feminity' a 'woman of straw' and then attacking it, and which is what we refer to as 'misogyny'.
Wise men know that when reasoned opposition to one's beliefs is presented to a group of like believers, as all folk seem now seem to be in regard to women's virtues, then a few will sit up and take notice. The QRS would dearly love a few women to do so. Opposition makes one stronger, but only if if makes one think for themselves, rather than retreat to group thought.
It may be that they are tinged with a touch of misogyny, I know I can be, but to be perfectly honest I think all men are at times, however as femininity is so attractive most masculine men learn to repress it quite early. Just the simple phrase 'battle of the sexes' indicates a desire to 'best' the other sex. I think it is better to be a misogynist against the often overpowering power of femininity, than to be a misogynist attempting to harm women as you try and paint them out to be. The QRS are not anti-women, and I believe them when they say they are mostly indifferent to women, but they are anti-femininity.
My stance on this is that I associate the shallowness of materialism to femininity, either through women's desire to collect things, or man's desire to provide these things due to the appeal of femininity. To me femininity is just sex and homely comforts - the very things that everyone seems to strive for thses days. Life should be more than that.
Edited by: jimhaz at: 12/2/04 8:05
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1649
(12/2/04 8:14)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert asserts
Quote:
It is true that I have not studied philosophy in real depth (and I know comments such as that means that folks will automatically therefore regard me as ignorant...but I don't particularly care). -jimhaz
Jim, Weininger's writings are not a philosophical issue. They are historical and sociological (and perhaps also psychological) in their import. Weininger's thinking was the product of the Vienna of his time and his own anti-Semitism, and they went on to influence Nazi racial ideas. The 'philosophy' itself is ridiculous and today it is entirely discredited, except on the 'Genius' Forum.
If people would not assume Quinn, Rowden, and Solway are necessarily giving them important things to consider it would then be easier to realize the three are charlatans, as a look into the nature of Otto Weininger will help confirm.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1651
(12/2/04 8:28)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Robert asserts
Quote:
They are more concerned with promoting the deepest levels of wisdom. Their lives are devoted to the attainment of enlightenment by others, while yours seems to be devoted to self-gratification and domination. It suits you for others to be sheep. - jimhaz
Jim, what suits me is to show over and over that Quinn, Rowden, and Solway have no wisdom. They are devoted only to themselves and it is to that end they have fooled some believers, individuals who will not accept the overwhelming proof shown here on The Ponderer's Guild that Quinn, Rowden, and Solway are irrational and unethical men.
| Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 712
(12/2/04 9:47)
Reply | Re: Robert asserts
Sam this is getting too fleshy (especailly as IE crashed and lost a big reply of mine). I'll do a trimming.
1)
There is no Erternal Self. No Self Beyong, no Unseen Observer. You believe in a dualism of self, all other issues arise from this dichotomy. You believe in something objective to which you can reach, but which sadly, doesn't exist.
There is just consciousness based on self referential, internalised language.
a good read but not comprehensive on philosophy/language
You will not be able to move on and resolve your dualisms without overcoming this. In which level of hell do you belong? | Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 2012
(12/2/04 12:18)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
lbartoli,
Quote:
no one here is saying "Hey, I'm enlightened and i can prove it", no, what has happened is someone challenged someone else who is widely known to consider himself enlightened.
No, dude, what happened was that Quinn used his supposed enlightenment as a basis for his arguments about enlightenment. He basically said: 'Here is what enlightenment is, I know because I am enlightened'. This of course makes rejection of his enlightenment directly relevant to his claim, since the said enlightenment is a critical premise in Quinn's argument.
Quote:
Now why are the doubters, the extreme disbelievers, doubting? Why do the doubters think they are qualified to say "No, you're not enlightened"? Its because they regard themselves as superior and wiser than the alleged wiseman.
Indeed. My understanding logic for example is roughly an order of magnitude better than the logic comprehension of QRS combined.
And I don't reject QRS enlightenment because of generic doubt, or dislike, or anything of the sort. I take one of the criteria of enlightenment they proposed -- perfect rationality -- and show that they, having demonstrated profound ignorance of logic and incorrigible refusal to think deeply and critically, have disqualified themselves from possessing enlightenment by their very own criteria. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 2013
(12/2/04 12:36)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
solway,
I can't help noticing that you once again utterly failed to address my explanation regarding the difference between implicit and explicit, circularity and tautology. How come?
Quote:
Everything I say and do is data which can be used for assessing whether I am enlightened, if you are qualified to conduct such an assessment.
I am qualified to assess validity of logical arguments, and you display abysmal misunderstanding of logic. I can no more seriously entertain your claim of being enlightened, than I could I could do so if you claimed that there is the highest prime, or that there are more rational numbers than integers.
Quinn
Quote:
And how do you know that you're not that person? The fact that you use the word "demonstrably" doesn't mean anything. After all, the deluded person also thinks that he has proven your position is "demonstrably irrational".
Ah yes, how quaint. Acontextual skepticism.
Well, I am enlightenedly certain that you are my dog Buddy with aliens' telepathic implants. I self-validate this claim.
Quote:
No more than the scientist, or your good self. Everything is a matter of self-verification, even within science.
Only in the sense that we 'self-validate' our sensory data; but that if of course an incorrect claim betraying deep ignorance of epistemology (big surprise).
Quote:
How does a sighted person know that he doesn't have to open his eyes any wider to prove that he can see?
he doesn't; he instead can prove to the blind that he can see, a teeny-tiny point which your genius mind must have blotted out of consciousness for reasons of mental hygiene.
Quote:
Sure, but you still haven't explained how you've established that science isn't quackery.
Time dilation - it sounds like you have taken too many drugs to me.
Time dilation is a phenomenon if time flowing at different rates in different frames of reference. When atomic clocks come down from satellites slightly behind the ones that were left on earth, it's evidence that relativity is not quackery.
Your enlightenment claim is quackery. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 715
(12/2/04 12:48)
Reply | Re: enlightenment
INU,Quote:
There is no Eternal Self. No Self Beyond, no Unseen Observer. You believe in a dualism of self, all other issues arise from this dichotomy. You believe in something objective to which you can reach, but which sadly, doesn't exist.
I never said there was. All I have asked is who are you? You have given me your answer. I accept it.
Larkin,
Did you have a point?
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1661
(12/2/04 12:54)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: enlightenment
Quote:
Larkin,
Did you have a point? - Samadhim
Apparently not. You run into that when you try to share very important cake.
| Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 718
(12/2/04 13:22)
Reply | Re: enlightenment
"I never said there was. All I have asked is who are you? You have given me your answer. I accept it."
Whoa. If I interpret this optimistically.
In which level of hell do you belong? | DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 55
(12/2/04 17:15)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Victor wrote:
Quote:
DQ: And how do you know that you're not that person? The fact that you use the word "demonstrably" doesn't mean anything. After all, the deluded person also thinks that he has proven your position is "demonstrably irrational".
Victor: Ah yes, how quaint. Acontextual skepticism.
Bulls-eye skepticism, rather. How do you demonstrate that you're not an irrational human being with a warped understanding of formal logic? If you can't demonstrate it, then it obviously means that you are an irrational human being with a warped understanding of formal logic.
Quote:
Well, I am enlightenedly certain that you are my dog Buddy with aliens' telepathic implants. I self-validate this claim.
Irrelevant.
Quote:
DQ: No more than the scientist, or your good self. Everything is a matter of self-verification, even within science.
Victor: Only in the sense that we 'self-validate' our sensory data; but that if of course an incorrect claim betraying deep ignorance of epistemology (big surprise).
Another self-validated claim, with circular reasoning to boot! You can't stop yourself, it would seem.
Quote:
DQ: How does a sighted person know that he doesn't have to open his eyes any wider to prove that he can see?
Victor: he doesn't; he instead can prove to the blind that he can see, a teeny-tiny point which your genius mind must have blotted out of consciousness for reasons of mental hygiene.
The trouble is, most blind people have no idea what seeing actually is. They cannot even begin to formulate the appropriate test.
A sighted person might mention to the blind people that he can see, which prompts the blind people to say, "If that is the case, then you should be able to whistle Beethoven's 9th symphony". Or, "You should be able to clap your hands 500 times a minute" . Or, "You should be able to speak backwards in seven different languages". And when the sighted person doesn't do this, they excalim, "Ah ha! That proves you're not enlightened!"
Quote:
DQ: Sure, but you still haven't explained how you've established that science isn't quackery.
Time dilation - it sounds like you have taken too many drugs to me.
Victor: Time dilation is a phenomenon if time flowing at different rates in different frames of reference. When atomic clocks come down from satellites slightly behind the ones that were left on earth, it's evidence that relativity is not quackery.
When a Christian preacher lays his hands upon a sick person and the sick person automatically starts to feel better, that is surely proof that Christianity isn't quackery. That is the essence of your argument, so far.
Apart from anything else, your standards of what constitutes non-quackery appear to be very low.
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 32
(12/2/04 17:43)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
Time dilation is a phenomenon if time flowing at different rates in different frames of reference. When atomic clocks come down from satellites slightly behind the ones that were left on earth, it's evidence that relativity is not quackery.
It proves nothing, except that science allows measurement. Until we know whatever the void is, or the smallest possible particle, one can't know whether such things are causing interference to the atomic clock.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 2014
(12/2/04 17:45)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Quinn,
Quote:
Bulls-eye skepticism, rather.
I see Pyrrho is yet another philosopher you lack familiarity with.
Quote:
How do you demonstrate that you're not an irrational human being with a warped understanding of formal logic?
You don't, you can't -- and you have no choice but to assume that that is not the case. it's a necessary presupposition, the assumption that you have apply syntactic transformations correctly. It's possible thatyou are insane and cannot do so, nor can perceive your insanity because it's consistent; but if you cannot perceive your insanity, then by definition you cannot perceive your insanity -- you cannot raitonally think your way out of it, because you lack rrational facilities. You have no choice but to assume your thinking sound on a certain fundamental level, just as you have no choice but to breathe.
Quote:
If you can't demonstrate it, then it obviously means that you are an irrational human being with a warped understanding of formal logic.
just as your inability to demonstrate absence of indebtedness to me means thast you owe me $1000.
Quote:
Irrelevant
it's a perfectly relevant claim -- it exactly epistemically mirrors your assertion about enlightenment.
Quote:
Another self-validated claim, with circular reasoning to boot!
You didn't even understand what i actually said, did you, you poor thing?..
Quote:
The trouble is, most blind people have no idea what seeing actually is. They cannot even begin to formulate the appropriate test.
Sure they can.
Sighted: Sight is ability to process directional electromagnetic radiation in certain spectrum. Most solid surfaces reflect various subranges of visible EMR. Sight is sufficiently high-resolution to allow one to perceive shape of an object.
Blind. So you are saying that if I pick an object and put it a few feet away from you, you will be able to tell me what shape it is?
Sighted: Only if the path between the object and my eyes is unobstructed, and if there is enough ambient visible EMR, or igf the object radiates light. I should be able to fulfill your criteria in daytime in an open area.
Quote:
A sighted person might mention to the blind people that he can see, which prompts the blind people to say, "If that is the case, then you should be able to whistle Beethoven's 9th symphony". Or, "You should be able to clap your hands 500 times a minute" .
Don't you see how dishonest you are being? A sighted person might explain testable characteristics of sight to the blind person, and the blind person might use those characteristics to devise an experiment. Contrawise, your enlightenment possesses no such characteristics, instead requiring others to (among other things) believe your concept of enlightenment, and claim to possess it, before you will grant them the ability to 'verify' your claim.
The sighted man can describe what sight is, in terms which bear relevance to the sensible world, terms which can be tested. Your can do nothing of the sort regarding enlightenment. It's precisely because your 'enlightenment' is so fundamentally meaningless and dishonest, that you cannot come up with any criteria comparable to the sightedness criteria I outlined above -- there aren't any, your 'enlightenment' is a crock of shit the sole function of which is to let you delude yourself into thinking that your life had attained some meaning, rather than having been a self-imposed wasteland of painful delusions and deep-seated sense of inadequacy.
Quote:
When a Christian preacher lays his hands upon a sick person and the sick person automatically starts to feel better, that is surely proof that Christianity isn't quackery. That is the essence of your argument, so far.
The trouble is that sick people under preachers' hands do not necessarily start to feel better. The preacher can make no reliable predictions -- and scientist can. Ability to make reliable, testable predictions is exactly what differentiates science from quackery -- predictive power is what defines the notion of scientific theory; the ability to make predictions (i.e. falsifiability) is the key test for well-formedness of a hypothesis.
but of course such basic epistemology is beyond your genius ken.
Quote:
Apart from anything else, your standards of what constitutes non-quackery appear to be very low.
Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 2015
(12/2/04 17:55)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
jimhaz,
Quote:
It proves nothing, except that science allows measurement.
it proves that science predicts measurement. Did you miss the predictive part?.. Yes, sure you did, there's a good boy.
Quote:
Until we know whatever the void is, or the smallest possible particle,
Get a clue.
Quote:
one can't know whether such things are causing interference to the atomic clock.
it doesn't matter whether scientific theories are 'really really' -- noumenally -- true; in fact, it's a meaningless question. What matters, what defines science, the the derivation of a predictively powerful model. Newton knew nothing about atroms, but Newtonian mechanics was good, powerful, useful stuff -- i.e. non-quackery. it turned out ot be incomplete, having been superceded by relativity; and relativity will itself be superceded, I am sure. Such iterative supercession is inherent in the very sensory mechanism by which we acquire data -- the world is a black box, we only see the inputs (our actions) and the outputs (sensory data), and we guess the mapping from inputs to outputs. The entire scientific process is a series of exhaustive curve-fitting excercises, we repeatedly attempt to devise a model to explain and predict data, a curve that would fit the available datapoints and predict future ones. Even if we devise a way to fine-tune the inputs to as to conceptually separate the balck box into two new, smaller black boxes, we are still dealing with black boxes; there is no bottom to this pyramid.
What matters is not whether a given theory is true or false -- that is the thinking of a child who doesn't understand what 'truth' and 'falsehood' can and cannot be, in empirical context. No, what makes science be science, is the fact that it resultws in an ability to make predictions -- precise, quantitatively accurate predictions.
Could it be that the time dilation is caused by as-yet-unknown fundamental feature of the universe, which is the underlying mechanism that unified relativity and QM? Sure it is -- in fact, it's almost certain; that, however, has absolutely nothing to do with relativity being quackery or not, just as Einstein's work did not turn Newton into a quack. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 33
(12/2/04 20:00)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
Victor
It has become a rather pointless argument. Clearly you believe both that that scientific theory is both absolutely correct due to it’s predictive powers and potentially incorrect due to it’s limitations of what is known.
Clearly you don’t believe in enlightenment, or if you do that it contains nothing of the nature of genius or any real value, as that is the basis upon which all you arguments come from.
I can except that, as I feel the same way but to a lesser degree, I won’t know whether it exists or not or how useful it might be to me until I notice sufficient change in my mental processes to be able to judge same.
In my view the predictive powers of science you speak of are the equivalent of the consistency in the application of wisdom which individuals see in people who acknowledge themselves enlightened. I take the same approach as you – I must be able to predict essentially the core of what they will say or the actions they may take.
I don’t actually have a problem with science. The application of scientific principles is in everything we physically do. If I drive through an amber traffic light, I am predicting that it will be safe to do so. If I throw a ball my brain automatically applies measurements of distance and force. Science is just the extension of these things into greater detail and predictability allowing us technology that will increase (or evolve) our opportunities to make the environment do what we want. But it is not real, it is merely symbolic or an illusion of the real. Science is merely evolution of our physical powers, but not our mental or spiritual evolution.
.....Sure it is -- in fact, it's almost certain; that, however, has absolutely nothing to do with relativity being quackery or not, just as Einstein's work did not turn Newton into a quack.
No, what makes science be science, is the fact that it results in an ability to make predictions -- precise, quantitatively accurate predictions.
I don’t think you can say that and carry on with the argument. Just as you don’t know which scientific theories may turn out to contain segments of quackery, neither should you reject the WHOLE of the QRS concept of what enlightenment is because you feel it contains elements of quackery. Like science they are just trying to build on the work of past giants. Much of what they say has been said and accepted before by geniuses of the mind and sometimes the masses, just as your gods are Newton and Einstein and so on. It is wisdom as compared to the predictable knowledge that science allows.
Science has no inherent wisdom, although it uses logic. Although ‘science’ is in everything we physically do, we know that our senses are limited and what we see and do is illusory as to what is ultimately real, so one must try and look into the mind to see what is actually real – I don’t believe science fully allows this, although it can give one clues as to why things are illusory by allowing one to look at things more as a whole IF a person combines bits and pieces of empirical data stored in memories to form that 'whole'.
I see enlightenment as a state of being existing in sections of the white matter of the brain, or the RAM portion, but that a 'fully-debugged-enlightenment program’ must be stored in grey matter or memory sections for th RAM to refer to. Science cannot create this enlightenment ‘program’, but philosophy can.
A lack of control over emotions does not allow the program to be created either. Yes (Thomas) what I've described is auto-suggestion, but it is auto suggestion based on logic and organised memories as opposed to the mixed up auto-suggestion of non-enlightened folk. The acceptance or rejection of any new concept can only be based on the 'auto-suggestion' effect of what is stored in one's memories. Edited by: jimhaz at: 12/2/04 20:05
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 56
(12/2/04 22:07)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Victor wrote:
Quote:
I see Pyrrho is yet another philosopher you lack familiarity with.
There are a lot of medieval philosophers that I am unfamiliar with.
Quote:
DQ: How do you demonstrate that you're not an irrational human being with a warped understanding of formal logic?
VD: You don't, you can't -- and you have no choice but to assume that that is not the case. it's a necessary presupposition, the assumption that you have apply syntactic transformations correctly. It's possible thatyou are insane and cannot do so, nor can perceive your insanity because it's consistent; but if you cannot perceive your insanity, then by definition you cannot perceive your insanity -- you cannot raitonally think your way out of it, because you lack rrational facilities. You have no choice but to assume your thinking sound on a certain fundamental level, just as you have no choice but to breathe.
If it really is the case, Victor, that you're not sure you are sane, then why do you constantly attack religious fundamentalists with such pomposity and aggression? That's a bit pathological, isn't it?
Obviously, your mind is still very compartmentalized, which means that the doubts you express here (into your own level of rationality) haven't yet filtered through to the rest of your being.
In any case, your point doesn't have any relevance to the enlightened person. Questions of sanity and insanity are meaningless to the enlightened person because he doesn't cling to any knowledge or perception. Rather, he allows Nature, which is beyond sanity and insanity, to determine everything for him. He no longer grasps at anything to retain for himself, and hence there is nothing inside him that can be used to measure his level of sanity.
Quote:
DQ: Another self-validated claim, with circular reasoning to boot!
VD: You didn't even understand what i actually said, did you, you poor thing?..
You said:
Quote:
DQ: No more than the scientist, or your good self. Everything is a matter of self-verification, even within science.
Victor: Only in the sense that we 'self-validate' our sensory data; but that if of course an incorrect claim betraying deep ignorance of epistemology (big surprise).
Which translates as:
"DQ is incorrect about the nature of knowledge because he is ignorant about the nature of knowledge."
A meaningless, circular argument. Nice one, Victor!
Quote:
DQ: The trouble is, most blind people have no idea what seeing actually is. They cannot even begin to formulate the appropriate test.
Victor: Sure they can.
Sighted: Sight is ability to process directional electromagnetic radiation in certain spectrum. Most solid surfaces reflect various subranges of visible EMR. Sight is sufficiently high-resolution to allow one to perceive shape of an object.
Blind. So you are saying that if I pick an object and put it a few feet away from you, you will be able to tell me what shape it is?
Sighted: Only if the path between the object and my eyes is unobstructed, and if there is enough ambient visible EMR, or igf the object radiates light. I should be able to fulfill your criteria in daytime in an open area.
The trouble is, blind people are not rational beings. So even when the sighted person states openly that "Sight is ability to process directional electromagnetic radiation in certain spectrum. Most solid surfaces reflect various subranges of visible EMR. Sight is sufficiently high-resolution to allow one to perceive shape of an object", the blind people still insist, "yes, but can you hum Beethoven's 9th?"
You're like this, Victor. Even when Kevin and I talk about the nature of Reality in the clearest possible terms, you still say, "Yes, but you don't know anything about Pyyrho", or " You don't know anything about non-Euclidean axioms." Or, "You are ignorant about Godel". Or some other equally irrelevant response.
Quote:
The sighted man can describe what sight is, in terms which bear relevance to the sensible world, terms which can be tested. Your can do nothing of the sort regarding enlightenment. It's precisely because your 'enlightenment' is so fundamentally meaningless and dishonest, that you cannot come up with any criteria comparable to the sightedness criteria I outlined above -- there aren't any,
Nice try, but you're only trying to paper over your own limitations here. Your pride makes it impossible for you to entertain the possibility, even for a moment, that here is a realm of knowledge which goes completely over your head.
As Kevin and I have both emphasized, there is plenty of evidence that the enlightened person provides to the world. For example:
- Speaking truthfully in all subjects without compromise.
- Constantly pointing with one's words and actions to the nature of Reality.
- Articulating profound insights into the nature of human psychology and egotism.
- The ability to follow dangerous lines of thoughts with ease.
- Displaying no attachment to anything at all.
And so on.
These are all signs that a person is enlightened.
Quote:
DQ: When a Christian preacher lays his hands upon a sick person and the sick person automatically starts to feel better, that is surely proof that Christianity isn't quackery. That is the essence of your argument, so far.
VD: The trouble is that sick people under preachers' hands do not necessarily start to feel better. The preacher can make no reliable predictions -- and scientist can. Ability to make reliable, testable predictions is exactly what differentiates science from quackery -- predictive power is what defines the notion of scientific theory; the ability to make predictions (i.e. falsifiability) is the key test for well-formedness of a hypothesis.
So if a Christian predicts that he will experience pleasure whenever he opens the Bible, and the prediction is invariably proven to be true time and time again, then that is a sign he isn't engaged in quackery?
I don't know, Victor. It sounds a bit loopy to me.
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 109
(12/2/04 22:12)
Reply | The nature of debate
I'm just curious as to why there is this near obssession with debate being about "reducing" people. What kind of a person has that as their motivation? Formally, I can get the winning/losing thing, but even that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But "reducing people" seems like an awfully petty motive to me.
I don't see how any decent person could possibly feel good about such a thing.
Call me old fashioned....
Dan Rowden
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 2016
(13/2/04 10:37)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
jimhaz,
Quote:
It has become a rather pointless argument. Clearly you believe both that that scientific theory is both absolutely correct due to it’s predictive powers and potentially incorrect due to it’s limitations of what is known.
I have never once claimed that any scientific theory is absolutely correct, and I have no idea which ass you pulled that interpretation out of.
Quote:
I don’t think you can say that and carry on with the argument. Just as you don’t know which scientific theories may turn out to contain segments of quackery
It seems you didn't understand what I said. A scientific theory is one that makes good predictions within the correspondingly limited range or inputs. Just because Newton's physics was wrong, doesn't make it quackery; contrawise, phrenology was quackery. A preedictively powerful and properly corroborated theory is not quackery regardless of whether it will be superceded at some point in the future -- and this is the case because it's predictively powerful. 'Quackery' is not the same as 'incorrect' or 'incomplete'.
Quote:
neither should you reject the WHOLE of the QRS concept of what enlightenment is because you feel it contains elements of quackery.
I don't reject the whole of their view. For example, I agree with QRS that there is no absolutely certain empirical knowledge -- just as I would agree with a phrenologist that human skulls do indeed have bumps and dips and other features; and just as I would disagree with phrenologist about the material features of their beliefs, about the significance of the said bumps, so I disagree with QRS about the material features of their beliefs, those being the nature of knowledge, ultimate reality, enlightenment, etc.
Understand that the key principles, the material features of QRS beliefs, are wholly without support. That some QRS positions are reasonable means nothing if those positions are not the differentiating material ones, the ones that define their belief as opposed to other beliefs.
Quote:
Like science they are just trying to build on the work of past giants.
No, they don't. they accept a couple of past giants, and ignore the rest. To say that they build on the work of past giants and thus present a meritorious view, is like saying that a modern-day alchemist presents a meritorious view because his work in based on the work of Hippocrates and Paracelsus.
No, QRS approach is nothing like the scientific 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.
Quote:
Much of what they say has been said and accepted before by geniuses of the mind and sometimes the masses
Indeed. And Hippocratic theory of humors had been thusly accepted for a while; yet it's wrong. QRS explicitly disclaim any interest in the 20-th century philosophy, yet it's only with advent of 20th century, when logic and its limits had finally become understood better, when language was finally analyzed deeply, when scientific process had been around for a while to serve as the set of case studies for understasnding the progression of knowledge, that the greatest philosophic advances had been made.
QRS will say that their 'wisdom' is timeless, and does nto depend on the advances of 20-th century philosophy. that's true -- but only because it's meaningless. Their 'wisdom' is timeless in the same way a Frankenstein revitalizing machine is timeless -- because it's not real, it never worked in the first place, it never had to withstand a challenge by reality, and thus never needs to adopt and change. The knowledge not amenable to future advances is not knowledge, jim.
Quote:
just as your gods are Newton and Einstein and so on. It is wisdom as compared to the predictable knowledge that science allows.
It's not wisdom, it's bullshit. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | birdofhermes
Follower
Posts: 74
(13/2/04 10:50)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Victor, are there any 20th century philosphers you reccomend?
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 2018
(13/2/04 11:09)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Wittgenstein, Carnap, Popper, Quine... Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 725
(13/2/04 11:18)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
Quinn:
Quote:
As Kevin and I have both emphasized, there is plenty of evidence that the enlightened person provides to the world. For example:
- Speaking truthfully in all subjects without compromise.
- Constantly pointing with one's words and actions to the nature of Reality.
- Articulating profound insights into the nature of human psychology and egotism.
- The ability to follow dangerous lines of thoughts with ease.
- Displaying no attachment to anything at all.
And so on.
These are all signs that a person is enlightened.
"Speaking truthfully in all subjects without compromise."
Interesting. You think you know the truth? What truth is that? How do you know it is the truth? Do you have any good arguments as to why it is the truth?
I expect an answer of, I know because I know, I can't tell you because you don't know, and because it is ineffable, although I eff about it.
"Constantly pointing with one's words and actions to the nature of Reality."
Pfff... looks like you've failed on that count. You've said very little, other than you know alot. You haven't told us what you know, nor offered arguments for it being so. I assume what you 'know' (in the most general sense of the word) is, a) a lie b) wrong.
"Articulating profound insights into the nature of human psychology and egotism."
I've not seen a single glimmer of a shred of a profound insight from you. Just the QRS misogyny and race stupidity, combined with arrogance, ignorance, and hypocrisy.
"The ability to follow dangerous lines of thoughts with ease."
If dangerous means inaccurate and easy means with the ease of the dogmatic...
"Displaying no attachment to anything at all."
You constantly display attachment to your dogmatic and outmoded and subsumed methods of thought. You are also attached to your phoney 'spiritual' personalities.
"These are all signs that a person is enlightened."
You should have kept to obfuscation of your ignorance. The list really was a mistake for you.
In which level of hell do you belong?Edited by: Impressivelynameduser at: 13/2/04 11:20
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 718
(13/2/04 12:16)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
I was about to post and then I read this:Quote:
You constantly display attachment to your dogmatic and outmoded and subsumed methods of thought. You are also attached to your phony 'spiritual' personalities.
INU, you seem to have nailed it.
| Mr Jive Bo Jingles
Inductee
Posts: 72
(13/2/04 14:27)
Reply
 | "Effing"
Quote:
because it is ineffable, although I eff about it.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 2026
(13/2/04 16:19)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Quinn,
Quote:
There are a lot of medieval philosophers that I am unfamiliar with.
Pyrrho was a hellenic, not medieval, philosopher; and being familiar with a wide range of philosophical ideas is useful in order to be able to place various concepts in their full historical and philosophical context. You can understand acontextual scepticism better if you understand how it was developed. You clearly don't understand it...
Quote:
If it really is the case, Victor, that you're not sure you are sane, then why do you constantly attack religious fundamentalists with such pomposity and aggression? That's a bit pathological, isn't it?
No, it's not. Read again what I wrote about the 'presupposition' part.
Quote:
"DQ is incorrect about the nature of knowledge because he is ignorant about the nature of knowledge."
A meaningless, circular argument. Nice one, Victor!
Actually, while that was not what I said, your deliberately obtuse paraphrase doesn't constitute a circular argument either. It says that DQ doesn't understand knowledge, therefore he is wrong about knowledge -- a fallacious argument to be sure (good thing i didn't make it!), but not due to circularity, as 'ignorant of' and 'wrong about' are not equivalent propositions.
Once again you show that you don't have the intellectual facility to handle logic adequately. You are too mushy, too imprecise in your thinking. Your mind appears to be a too lax, like a limp noodle when it should be a steel razor; a noodle dried-up and hardened through encrustation, perhaps, but still very much unsuited for handling logic adequately.
Quote:
The trouble is, blind people are not rational beings. So even when the sighted person states openly that "Sight is ability to process directional electromagnetic radiation in certain spectrum. Most solid surfaces reflect various subranges of visible EMR. Sight is sufficiently high-resolution to allow one to perceive shape of an object", the blind people still insist, "yes, but can you hum Beethoven's 9th?"
Dude, why do you lie? You have not once given me a verification criterion that I could authenticate; you yourself said that it takes enlightenment to be able to verify your claims. Regarding your metaphor, this translates into the sighted man telling the blind man that he can see colors, and arrangements of stars in the sky. Somehow, surprisingly, the sighted man -- you -- seems to be utterly incapable to proving that he can do something as empirically verifiable to the blind man as recognizing object shapes at a distance...
Quote:
You're like this, Victor. Even when Kevin and I talk about the nature of Reality in the clearest possible terms
But you don't, david. You babble on and on, but your babbling has no logic, no reason behind it -- only egoistical grandioloquence stubbornly clinging to your self-aggrandizing delusions. This is exacerbated by the fact that you -- presumably unconsciously -- refuse to recognize the point I am making, that the claim of possession of an entirely different sensory or cognitive modality is meaningless unless it's verifiable to those who don't possess it, just as a claim of possession of sight can be proven to the blind person, and would be meaningless otherwise.
All your claims amount to saying that you are enlightened because you know that with certainty, and you know it because you are enlightened.
Quote:
Nice try, but you're only trying to paper over your own limitations here. Your pride makes it impossible for you to entertain the possibility, even for a moment, that here is a realm of knowledge which goes completely over your head.
if I claim to understand how gravity works, I can support my claim by making prdictions about its behavior. If I claim to understand chemistry, I can support my claim by making various interesting chemical compounds with predictable properties. Your 'knowledge', on the other hand, is utter poppycock, devoid of any substance.
Quote:
As Kevin and I have both emphasized, there is plenty of evidence that the enlightened person provides to the world. For example:
- Speaking truthfully in all subjects without compromise.
- Constantly pointing with one's words and actions to the nature of Reality.
- Articulating profound insights into the nature of human psychology and egotism.
- The ability to follow dangerous lines of thoughts with ease.
- Displaying no attachment to anything at all.
Ah, a good thing you opened your mouth and removed all doubt, so to speak!
Do you realize that you fail your own criteria list on multiple counts?..
Quote:
So if a Christian predicts that he will experience pleasure whenever he opens the Bible, and the prediction is invariably proven to be true time and time again, then that is a sign he isn't engaged in quackery?
it's a sign that his beliefs about his emotional attachment to the bible are not quackery. That says nothing about the quackery of the biblical beliefs themselves of course.
Again your thinking is inexcusably sloppy... but I have long ago come to expect such an abysmal performance from you. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 61
(13/2/04 17:36)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Impressivelynameduser wrote:
Quote:
DQ: "Speaking truthfully in all subjects without compromise."
IMU: Interesting. You think you know the truth? What truth is that?
The greatest truth is emptiness, which forms the nature of Reality. The first step towards understanding this great truth is uncovering the lesser truth that all things are illusory.
Quote:
How do you know it is the truth?
By thinking.
Quote:
Do you have any good arguments as to why it is the truth?
None that will convince you, I'm sure.
But for the sake of other readers . . . .
All things are like shadows, in that they are causally created and lack any kind of inherent existence. Whatever existence they appear to have comes from outside of themselves, just as the existence of a shadow is generated from outside itself - e.g. the sun, ground, object casting the shadow, etc. All things are like this, including ourselves. Nothing ultimately exists.
Quote:
DQ: "Constantly pointing with one's words and actions to the nature of Reality."
INU: Pfff... looks like you've failed on that count. You've said very little, other than you know alot. You haven't told us what you know, nor offered arguments for it being so.
Reread the debate. My material is constantly pointing to the nature of Reality.
Quote:
DQ: "Articulating profound insights into the nature of human psychology and egotism."
IMU: I've not seen a single glimmer of a shred of a profound insight from you.
I can't answer for your limitations.
Quote:
DQ: "Displaying no attachment to anything at all."
IMU: You constantly display attachment to your dogmatic and outmoded and subsumed methods of thought.
Either that or I am trying to help people break their attachment to the shallow, soulless mythologies which currently dominate society.
Quote:
You are also attached to your phoney 'spiritual' personalities.
Given your emotionalism, the only one displaying such an attachment is your good self.
Quote:
In which level of hell do you belong?
What is hell?
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 62
(13/2/04 18:22)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Victor Danilchenko wrote:
Quote:
DQ: There are a lot of medieval philosophers that I am unfamiliar with.
VD: Pyrrho was a hellenic, not medieval, philosopher; and being familiar with a wide range of philosophical ideas is useful in order to be able to place various concepts in their full historical and philosophical context. You can understand acontextual scepticism better if you understand how it was developed. You clearly don't understand it...
Who cares?
Quote:
DQ: If it really is the case, Victor, that you're not sure you are sane, then why do you constantly attack religious fundamentalists with such pomposity and aggression? That's a bit pathological, isn't it?
VD: No, it's not. Read again what I wrote about the 'presupposition' part.
Yes, you presuppose, or pretend, that you are fully sane, and then promptly forget that it is a pretence and proceed to go ape-shit over some poor religious fundamentalist, who is openly insane.
The fact that the pretence is a necessary one doesn't change matters. It still makes your attitude towards religious fundamentalists (the aggression and the emotionalism) look very weird.
Quote:
DQ: "DQ is incorrect about the nature of knowledge because he is ignorant about the nature of knowledge."
A meaningless, circular argument. Nice one, Victor!
VD: Actually, while that was not what I said,
It was what you said, when boiled down to its essence.
Quote:
your deliberately obtuse paraphrase doesn't constitute a circular argument either. It says that DQ doesn't understand knowledge, therefore he is wrong about knowledge -- a fallacious argument to be sure (good thing i didn't make it!), but not due to circularity, as 'ignorant of' and 'wrong about' are not equivalent propositions.
You were saying that because I am ignorant of the right understanding of knowledge, I am wrong about it.
Quote:
DQ: The trouble is, blind people are not rational beings. So even when the sighted person states openly that "Sight is ability to process directional electromagnetic radiation in certain spectrum. Most solid surfaces reflect various subranges of visible EMR. Sight is sufficiently high-resolution to allow one to perceive shape of an object", the blind people still insist, "yes, but can you hum Beethoven's 9th?"
VD: Dude, why do you lie?
I wish it was a lie! Alas, it is pretty much the story of my life.
Quote:
You have not once given me a verification criterion that I could authenticate; you yourself said that it takes enlightenment to be able to verify your claims. Regarding your metaphor, this translates into the sighted man telling the blind man that he can see colors, and arrangements of stars in the sky. Somehow, surprisingly, the sighted man -- you -- seems to be utterly incapable to proving that he can do something as empirically verifiable to the blind man as recognizing object shapes at a distance...
Seeing the arrangements of stars in the sky is the analogous equivalent of seeing that everything, without exception, is an illusion. Both are realities that the blind and the unenlightened cannot see respectively. Just as a blind man cannot see the stars without opening his eyes, an enlightened person cannot perceive the illusory nature of all things until he opens his mind.
Quote:
DQ: You're like this, Victor. Even when Kevin and I talk about the nature of Reality in the clearest possible terms
VD: But you don't, david. You babble on and on, but your babbling has no logic, no reason behind it -- only egoistical grandioloquence stubbornly clinging to your self-aggrandizing delusions.
This is the true meaning of the Christian phrase "speaking in tongues".
Quote:
DQ: So if a Christian predicts that he will experience pleasure whenever he opens the Bible, and the prediction is invariably proven to be true time and time again, then that is a sign he isn't engaged in quackery?
VD: it's a sign that his beliefs about his emotional attachment to the bible are not quackery. That says nothing about the quackery of the biblical beliefs themselves of course.
To him, it's a sign that the bible is inspired by God - which is proof, as far as he is concened, that God exists and therefore that he isn't engaged in quackery.
It's not much different to the scientists who experience emotional pleasure whenever one of their predictions turn out to be true, which in turn convinces them that they are engaging in valid work.
| MC ill Logic
Innovator
Posts: 109
(13/2/04 20:33)
Reply
 | Re: QRS Enlightenment
I am enlightened, and I see that Victor is enlightened as well.
| sirbytor
Guru
Posts: 573
(13/2/04 20:44)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
David,
Quote:
To him, it's a sign that the bible is inspired by God - which is proof, as far as he is concened, that God exists and therefore that he isn't engaged in quackery.
the Xian in your example has constructed a theory to explain an observation (his experience of pleasure which is associated with reading the Bible). how does he know that his theory is "true" in a provisional scientific sense? by comparing its predictive powers with those of competing theories. for example, there's an alternative biological explanation of the pleasure he experiences; and that alternative theory is better than the "God" theory, since it makes all sorts correct predictions which it was not designed to make.
Quote:
It's not much different to the scientists who experience emotional pleasure whenever one of their predictions turn out to be true, which in turn convinces them that they are engaging in valid work.
your reasoning here is flawed for at least two reasons. first, it's not the emotional experience associated with an observation which convinces a scientist that her method is valid. often, scientists are disappointed when observations falsify their own pet theories (and confirm competing ones). the scientist's emotional responses to experimental outcomes are (ideally) quite irrelevant. second, the analogy to the Xian in your other example isn't appropriate, since the scientist isn't attempting to explain her emotional response to the outcome of an experiment (in contrast to the Xian in your example, who invents God to explain his emotional reaction to the Bible).
when a scientist invents a theory to explain a set of observations X, she attempts to make predictions about a different set of observations Y. if those predictions turn out to be true, then the scientist is confident that the theory is "true" in a provisional sense (until a falsifying observation is made), regardless of her emotional reactions to the outcomes of experiments.
do you see the difference? -S
--
"All space, all time,
(The stars, the terrible perturbations of the suns,
Swelling, collapsing, ending, serving their longer, shorter use,)
Fill'd with eidolons only."
-Walt Whitman | DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 65
(14/2/04 3:44)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Sirbytor wrote:
Quote:
DQ: To him, it's a sign that the bible is inspired by God - which is proof, as far as he is concened, that God exists and therefore that he isn't engaged in quackery.
S: the Xian in your example has constructed a theory to explain an observation (his experience of pleasure which is associated with reading the Bible). how does he know that his theory is "true" in a provisional scientific sense? by comparing its predictive powers with those of competing theories. for example, there's an alternative biological explanation of the pleasure he experiences; and that alternative theory is better than the "God" theory, since it makes all sorts correct predictions which it was not designed to make.
I agree with you. But remember that the overriding context of this entire debate has been the issue of self-validation. That is why I've been asking all these questions of Victor.
To recap:
Victor argues that it is impossible for an enlightened person to validate his own enlightenment because of the fact that deluded people can mistakenly conclude that they are enlightened. Thus, there is no way for anyone believing they have reached enlightenment to judge whether they are indeed enlightened or deluded.
Now I have been using the example of the Christian who mistakenly thinks he is being rational and perceiving truth as a contrast to the scientist who also thinks that he is being rational and perceiving truth. If we were to use Victor's argument above, we would have to conclude that the scientist has no way of judging that he is rational and perceive truth, simply because there are irrational Christians who also think they are being rational and perceiving truth.
Obviously, I consider this argument to be nonsensical. The scientist can indeed judge that he is being rational and perceiving truth by making use of his own intelligence. It doesn't matter one iota that irrational Christians exist. His understanding and self-knowledge remain unaffected.
The same principle also applies in the case of the enlightened person.
| Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 733
(14/2/04 9:37)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
Quinn.
You're last post to me seemed the work of a desperate man.
"The greatest truth is emptiness, which forms the nature of Reality. The first step towards understanding this great truth is uncovering the lesser truth that all things are illusory. "
If all is emptiness then there is no great truth. I am familiar with the heart sutra, and you sir have distorted it.
"By thinking."
Right then under your system:
I think I am telling you the truth, therefore I am right. Now have a nice cup of stfu.
Quote:
All things are like shadows, in that they are causally created and lack any kind of inherent existence. Whatever existence they appear to have comes from outside of themselves, just as the existence of a shadow is generated from outside itself - e.g. the sun, ground, object casting the shadow, etc. All things are like this, including ourselves. Nothing ultimately exists.
If all things lack inherent existence then nothing can causally create them. Otherwise something does inherently exist: the thing which causes others to exist. If then there is something with inherent existence then the statement is false.
This is what we can call dualism. You don't believe in physical reality but you do believe in the ultimate. You abstract yourself away from what you actually see and know and are and put your faith in something which doesn't exist: Ultimate Reailty.
"Reread the debate. My material is constantly pointing to the nature of Reality."
You don't have any material. You are two left shoes in a choclate teapot.
"I can't answer for your limitations."
You don't even know what my limitations are. Neither do I, or I would work against them. You also evidently refuse to acknowledge your own limitations which I have been showing you in order to spare yourself the intellectual effort of dealing with them.
Then again you evidently don't understand much of what I say.
"Either that or I am trying to help people break their attachment to the shallow, soulless mythologies which currently dominate society."
Shallow soulless mythologies which dominate society? And which might they be, and where would be your critical analysis of them, that I can see how you show them to be shallow and soulless? And where would I find proof that you are trying to help the break attachments?
On the other hand you are attached your own mythology, that of ultimate, reachable reality through an arcane and anti-human process with hypocritical, closed system thinking.
"Given your emotionalism, the only one displaying such an attachment is your good self."
That was not only a lame attempt at ascribing activities to my good self, but a defensive projection of your own anxieties about the validity of your system.
"What is hell?"
lol- you think I'm a christian. I can barely express how ridiculous this assumption make you look.
In which level of hell do you belong?Edited by: Impressivelynameduser at: 14/2/04 9:53
| Guildenstern
p-zombie
-Founder
Posts: 8082
(14/2/04 11:15)
Reply
 | Re: QRS Enlightenment
Note: I have just moved the original debate thread to the Philosophy Archives. You will find it here.
Accidence happens. | sirbytor
Guru
Posts: 575
(14/2/04 16:18)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
David,
Quote:
Obviously, I consider this argument to be nonsensical. The scientist can indeed judge that he is being rational and perceiving truth by making use of his own intelligence. It doesn't matter one iota that irrational Christians exist. His understanding and self-knowledge remain unaffected.
The same principle also applies in the case of the enlightened person.
i've read and understood your exchange with Victor. the disagreement you have with him revolves around the definition of "knowledge". Victor asserts that an experience cannot be considered "knowledge" unless is can be formulated in the context of a predictively powerful theoretical structure. you countered that this would imply that the Xian in your example has "knowledge" (i.e., is not engaged in "quackery") by virtue of the fact that he can predict that he will experience pleasure whenever he reads the Bible. when Victor pointed out that you should be careful not to confuse the Xian's predictions of his future emotional states with his belief that the Bible is true, you argued that the Christian is, indeed, using his emotional state to construct a "God theory" which is predictively powerful. i then pointed out that the "God theory" is clearly inferior to alternative biological theories of the Xian's emotional state, since those biological theories not only explain and predict (in principle) his emotional states but also make many other predictions which weren't "built into" the theory explicitly (the way the "God theory" builds in the emotional state of the Xian from the outset).
you've not yet addressed Victor's argument that predictive power is what separates "knowledge" from "quackery". the scientist doesn't rely on intelligence alone to distinguish "knowledge" from unsupported intuition. predictive power is the key.
in fact, without defining "enlightenment" in the context of a predictively powerful mathematical structure, then your asserting that you have experienced enlightenment doesn't constitute knowledge for the same reasons that a Xian's assertion that he experiences the "holy spirit" fails to count as knowledge of any sort.
i suppose one could define both "enlightenment" and "holy spirit" as experiences in a biological sense (i.e., we can hook you up to an MRI machine and image your brain in order to understand more about the experience you refer to as "enlightenment"). but then we'll likely just find that "enlightenment" is associated with some rather common patterns of neuronal firings in your temporal lobe; probably those patterns will be similar to the patterns associated with the Xian's experience of the holy spirit. -S
--
"All space, all time,
(The stars, the terrible perturbations of the suns,
Swelling, collapsing, ending, serving their longer, shorter use,)
Fill'd with eidolons only."
-Walt Whitman | DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 67
(14/2/04 16:59)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Impressivelynameduser
Quote:
You're last post to me seemed the work of a desperate man.
Men become desperate when faced with the impossible.
Quote:
DQ: "The greatest truth is emptiness, which forms the nature of Reality. The first step towards understanding this great truth is uncovering the lesser truth that all things are illusory. "
IMU: If all is emptiness then there is no great truth.
You have it backwards. The great truth is all is emptiness.
Quote:
I am familiar with the heart sutra, and you sir have distorted it.
According to your argument, there is no heart sutra.
Quote:
DQ: All things are like shadows, in that they are causally created and lack any kind of inherent existence. Whatever existence they appear to have comes from outside of themselves, just as the existence of a shadow is generated from outside itself - e.g. the sun, ground, object casting the shadow, etc. All things are like this, including ourselves. Nothing ultimately exists.
IMU: If all things lack inherent existence then nothing can causally create them.
No, things lack inherent existence because they are causally created.
And why are things causally created? Because they lack inherent existence!
Quote:
This is what we can call dualism. You don't believe in physical reality but you do believe in the ultimate.
Physical reality and ultimate reality are one and the same.
Quote:
On the other hand you are attached your own mythology, that of ultimate, reachable reality through an arcane and anti-human process with hypocritical, closed system thinking.
Not at all. The path to enlightenment is one of breaking down all closed systems of thinking and allowing the mind to rest in what is left. There is nothing antiquated about this. It is timeless and applies just as much to the closed systems of today as it did to the closed systems of centuries past.
Quote:
DQ: "What is hell?"
IMU: lol- you think I'm a christian. I can barely express how ridiculous this assumption make you look.
You're totally on the wrong track. I was merely indicating that not everyone lives in hell.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 68
(14/2/04 17:09)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Sirbytor wrote:
Quote:
you've not yet addressed Victor's argument that predictive power is what separates "knowledge" from "quackery". the scientist doesn't rely on intelligence alone to distinguish "knowledge" from unsupported intuition. predictive power is the key.
He uses his intelligence to validate the idea that predictive power is the key to knowledge. A Christian, by contrast, uses his intelligence to validate the idea that understanding the Bible is the key to knowledge. Given this, how does the scientist ascertain to himself that his validation is valid while the Christian's isn't?
Quote:
in fact, without defining "enlightenment" in the context of a predictively powerful mathematical structure, then your asserting that you have experienced enlightenment doesn't constitute knowledge for the same reasons that a Xian's assertion that he experiences the "holy spirit" fails to count as knowledge of any sort.
Before we discuss this point, I would like to resolve the above issue first. That okay with you?
| sirbytor
Guru
Posts: 576
(15/2/04 9:01)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
David,
Quote:
He uses his intelligence to validate the idea that predictive power is the key to knowledge. A Christian, by contrast, uses his intelligence to validate the idea that understanding the Bible is the key to knowledge. Given this, how does the scientist ascertain to himself that his validation is valid while the Christian's isn't?
and how would the scientist validate his validation that predictive power is the key? how does one avoid an infinite regress of justifications? at some point, one simply makes a methodological choice for which there is no logical justification. for example, after reading Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery, one might ask: and why should we value methodologies which tend to increase the predictive powers (increase the falsifiability) of our theories? there's no logical answer to that question.
one might come at this from a natural selection perspective: those methodologies are "superior" which are more likely to be propagated to future generations. in that sense, science is clearly one of the more powerful "cultural organisms" in existence. religion and mysticism, in contrast, are arguably parasitical: they succeed to the extent that they make use of the fruits of scientific methodology, even as they condemn it (e.g., the use of communication satellites and computer networking by evangelical Xians).
but one might go further and ask: why should we value the ability of an idea to replicate? why should we value self-sustaining methodologies over parasitical ones? ultimately, it comes down to an unjustifiable value judgement. one makes a choice; and then one lives with the consequences.
of course, the jury is still out on the question of whether the success of the scientific methodology (from the sheer "idea replication" perspective) is such a good thing. that methodology has produced such things as hydrogen bombs and synthetic polio. but it has also allowed us to explore our solar system; and that will ultimately mean the difference between human extinction in 10 million years or so (by a planet killing asteroid) and human access to the infinite universe. neither religion nor mysticism can offer humanity such access to the infinite. -S
--
"All space, all time,
(The stars, the terrible perturbations of the suns,
Swelling, collapsing, ending, serving their longer, shorter use,)
Fill'd with eidolons only."
-Walt Whitman | Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 741
(15/2/04 12:57)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
"Men become desperate when faced with the impossible."
Try actually expressing something that isn't a platitude.
"You have it backwards. The great truth is all is emptiness."
Your problem is that you rely on archaic terminology that doesn't actually say alot, and leaves no room for clarity of purpose.
Your 'all is emptiness' statement doesn't really shock me. That assumption has been covered already in many other posts within this thread. If you read my posts you'd see how I think the buddhist position can be improved. Though the difference between your kind and sam is quite a gulf.
I don't actually have it backwards but I think you do. You believe in a state of perfection, 'enlightenment'. This goes against the impossibility of anything Ultimate.
It's like playing a game and me saying 'All rules are false, I know the Ultimate rules'. If all rules are false you can't know anything Ultimate.
"No, things lack inherent existence because they are causally created."
This is where buddhist philosophy of mind and phenomenology fall apart. Buddhism doesn't have the technical will or framework to take a close look.
I think what you are trying to say is 'things don't exist on their own, they are caused to exist by an outside agent'.
Why don't they exist on their own? If all is an illusion, yet illusiuon is all that is available to us the very concept of illusion in regards to phenomena becomes one big fat redundancy.
The concept of illusion is only useful in two senses, 1) if you believe in dualisms, a perfect, Ultimate, state such as enlightenment, or 2) if you arguing with somebody who does believe in dualisms.
How can things be caused by an outside agent without resorting to dualism? I expect your position to be 'mind causes them to exist'. Is mind then not an illsuion? See previous paragraph.
Even by wandering into the land of 'all is empty' you're bound to end up commiting yourself to meaningless statements, because is all was Truly meaningless, you'd have nothing to say. This is one facet of your alienation, you have the impetus to judge and know, the will to power, yet you can't reconcile it with nihilistic terminology.
Even illusion is reality. Because reality is the only thing there can be; this is not to place any particular value or judgement upon it, but simply to recgonise that something is.
"Physical reality and ultimate reality are one and the same."
Oh so enlightenment is impossible then? Because as I understand it humans can't necessarily reach the Ultimate Truth about reality.
"Not at all. The path to enlightenment is one of breaking down all closed systems of thinking and allowing the mind to rest in what is left. There is nothing antiquated about this. It is timeless and applies just as much to the closed systems of today as it did to the closed systems of centuries past."
Well that's strange because if you look around at the intellectual work being done these days you'll see that their whole point is to be constructive without being closed. Whereas you consider all advancement on your thought 'illusory' or 'attached', equally meaningless platitudes which sour you against genuine truth-seeking; becuase you think you already have Truth, thus everyone else is wrong.
In which level of hell do you belong? |
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 70
(15/2/04 17:27)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
IMU wrote:
Quote:
DQ: "You have it backwards. The great truth is all is emptiness."
IMU: Your problem is that you rely on archaic terminology that doesn't actually say alot, and leaves no room for clarity of purpose.
When one perceives the true meaning of terms like "emptiness", one sees that they do say a lot, and they do provide plenty of room for clarity of purpose.
Quote:
Your 'all is emptiness' statement doesn't really shock me.
I'm not surprised. You haved a manufactured understanding of it which is tightly confined to a small compartment of your mind. You have neither understood the true meaning of it, nor allowed it to filter through to the rest of your existence. As such, you have not given it a chance to "shock".
Quote:
I don't actually have it backwards but I think you do. You believe in a state of perfection, 'enlightenment'. This goes against the impossibility of anything Ultimate.
It's like playing a game and me saying 'All rules are false, I know the Ultimate rules'. If all rules are false you can't know anything Ultimate.
Poor analogy. The truth that "all is emptiness" is not the same as saying "all is false". The former addresses the nature of existence, while the latter addresses the truth content of statements. For some bizarre reason, you're conflating the two.
Quote:
DQ: "No, things lack inherent existence because they are causally created."
IMU: This is where buddhist philosophy of mind and phenomenology fall apart. Buddhism doesn't have the technical will or framework to take a close look.
I think what you are trying to say is 'things don't exist on their own, they are caused to exist by an outside agent'.
Yes.
Quote:
Why don't they exist on their own?
Because it is logically impossible. At the very least, a thing is necessarily dependent upon the existence of its constituent parts. This alone proves that things cannot exist on their own. A thing is also logically dependent upon the existence of things like time, space, the Big Bang, etc. Or to put it more succinctly, upon the existence of the rest of Nature.
Quote:
If all is an illusion, yet illusiuon is all that is available to us the very concept of illusion in regards to phenomena becomes one big fat redundancy.
It does, yes, but it is still a meaningful statement nonetheless. Things are illusory in the sense that they have no real existence, that they are causally created, that they are no more than mirages. But they are ultimately real in the sense that they are direct manifestations of Reality, which forms the totality of all there is.
Quote:
The concept of illusion is only useful in two senses, 1) if you believe in dualisms, a perfect, Ultimate, state such as enlightenment, or 2) if you arguing with somebody who does believe in dualisms.
Yes, I am constantly in the position of number 2).
Your number 1) is incoherent. The ultimate state of enlightenment is only found when one does away with all dualisms.
Quote:
How can things be caused by an outside agent without resorting to dualism?
Because the outside agent is itself caused. Thus, in reality, there is no outside agent.
Quote:
I expect your position to be 'mind causes them to exist'. Is mind then not an illsuion?
Yes, the mind too is a causally created thing.
Quote:
DQ: "Physical reality and ultimate reality are one and the same."
IMU: Oh so enlightenment is impossible then? Because as I understand it humans can't necessarily reach the Ultimate Truth about reality.
Whoever told you that was misguided.
Quote:
DQ: "Not at all. The path to enlightenment is one of breaking down all closed systems of thinking and allowing the mind to rest in what is left. There is nothing antiquated about this. It is timeless and applies just as much to the closed systems of today as it did to the closed systems of centuries past."
IMU: Well that's strange because if you look around at the intellectual work being done these days you'll see that their whole point is to be constructive without being closed.
If these intellectual systems are founded on the deluded view that things really exist (and, unless they are constructed by Buddhas, they always are), then they will be closed. The only truly open system of thought is the one that is steeped in the boundlessness of Reality. Such a system isn't really a system. It is a loose series of spontaneous wise lines of thought that appear momentarily before vanishing again.
| Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 745
(15/2/04 18:30)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
"When one perceives the true meaning of terms like "emptiness", one sees that they do say a lot, and they do provide plenty of room for clarity of purpose."
Humbug... 1) True meanings don't exist 2) Emptiness doesn't exist and 3) your thought relies on obfuscation in order to reamain useful.
"You haved a manufactured understanding of it which is tightly confined to a small compartment of your mind."
No you did it - no you did it first - no it's you doing it. Manufactured, by what? Tightly confined? How? Small compartment of my mind? Which? Whereas I show you how you are thinking wrongly, and how you are alienated, and the problems of your arguments, you don't have an incling about me.
"The former addresses the nature of existence, while the latter addresses the truth content of statements."
Ah, but under your version of "the nature of existence" you have automatic privileges to discern, "the truth content of statements." I.e. the two are conflated.
"Because it is logically impossible. At the very least, a thing is necessarily dependent upon the existence of its constituent parts. This alone proves that things cannot exist on their own. A thing is also logically dependent upon the existence of things like time, space, the Big Bang, etc. Or to put it more succinctly, upon the existence of the rest of Nature."
So if nature is dependant on nature then saying so is pretty much pointless, your statement of "causally created" is a miss as it implies an outside agent of somekind. Nature is not outside nature. Thus we come back to my point of 'something is'. We are now free to go find specifics.
"Things are illusory in the sense that they have no real existence, that they are causally created, that they are no more than mirages. But they are ultimately real in the sense that they are direct manifestations of Reality, which forms the totality of all there is."
This is the paragon of meaningless statements. If nature is not real, but Reality is then you are engaging in dualism. If nature is reality, you are engaging in hypocrisy.
Thirdly you could be deperately clinging to your pointless rubbish. You sound like you're trotting off Plato's Cave. Stop it.
"Yes, I am constantly in the position of number 2).
Your number 1) is incoherent. The ultimate state of enlightenment is only found when one does away with all dualisms."
But accepting the concept of ultimate anything in a context of 'no-dualisms' renders you hypocritical, as nothing ultimate is reachable. This puts you back in a the position of '1)'. You, David Quinn, are incoherent.
"Because the outside agent is itself caused. Thus, in reality, there is no outside agent."
Then there is another outside agent. And if that is caused, another.
"Thus, in reality, there is no outside agent."
Oh I agree. But you don't evidence this through your posts, it seems you completely believe in unreal 'Ultimates' 'Truths' 'Essentials' et cetera et cetera. You will in turn say this is a Great Truth, again commiting to the fallacy. We can carry on until you admit there is nothing 'Ultimate'. But then you'd have to give up your pet superiority theories and then your whole house of cards would crumble. So you'll continue to engage in the negation of Ultimates while believing yourself to be among them.
"IMU: Oh so enlightenment is impossible then? Because as I understand it humans can't necessarily reach the Ultimate Truth about reality.
Quinn: Whoever told you that was misguided. "
Here you basically admit you believe there can be Perfection. If you believe in a Perfect State, you ARE, whether you like it or not, engaging in dualism. Moreover a dualism that is self-contradicting the idea of inherent illusion. You are not allowed to use the word ALL if there is an EXCEPTION to the RULE. How long will it take you to understand this?
Quote:
If these intellectual systems are founded on the deluded view that things really exist (and, unless they are constructed by Buddhas, they always are), then they will be closed. The only truly open system of thought is the one that is steeped in the boundlessness of Reality. Such a system isn't really a system. It is a loose series of spontaneous wise lines of thought that appear momentarily before vanishing again.
"If these intellectual systems are founded on the deluded view that things really exist"
You just argued (and negated) this point. If you actually believe assertion number 1) that nature depends on Reality and that Reality is nature, then you are a hypocrite. If you believe 2) that nature depends on Reality, then you are dualist and a hypocrite because something - Reality - really does exist.
"(and, unless they are constructed by Buddhas, they always are)"
Look to what I think about 'Perfect States'.
"then they will be closed."
Your system (buddhist variant) is closed as it can learn from no other. It clings to one dualist central tenet and disregards all other knowledge.
"The only truly open system of thought is the one that is steeped in the boundlessness of Reality."
If you decapitalise Reality and its dualist connoations I can sympathise. However you do not share this, as evidenced through your posts, you are not open, you and only you hold the truth, thos who do not agree with you cannot hold the truth, subordination is required to access the truth, there are no truths, only Truth, this Truth is a Truthy Truth on Truth. Your argument is boundless, but only in ad nauseum
"Such a system isn't really a system. It is a loose series of spontaneous wise lines of thought that appear momentarily before vanishing again."
I pity you if you think you've had any flashes of wisdom. The only wisdom you have evinced is stolen from the core of buddhism and then tortured to almost non-recognition, by itself and its mother.
In which level of hell do you belong? | jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 36
(15/2/04 19:01)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
David: The ultimate state of enlightenment is only found when one does away with all dualisms.
Things are illusory in the sense that they have no real existence, that they are causally created, that they are no more than mirages. But they are ultimately real in the sense that they are direct manifestations of Reality, which forms the totality of all there is.
But isn't you existence / non-existence defined logic itself dualism?
I have never got the point you keep making in regard to non-existence. Things are more than mirages, because we can use them. It doesn't matter that each thing is connected to other things and thus exists because it is not other things and it existence is transient and ever changing. The group of properties exist and are held together for a time, so there is existence. It is irrelevant that our minds determine what the properties are that create existence, there is still something different in a thing as to what surrounds it. It is irrelevant that we are not aware of all the properties of things.
I just think you guys have created a logical system which allows you not to think about the universe. Your ultimate reality theory is just saying that the question is wrong.
Basically you theory is that, if the universe is everything that can be conceived or otherwise, it is infinite and therefore not a thing, and therefore cannot have a cause, and without a cause it cannot exist, and if the universe does not exist then nothing exists.
To me the word exists is more than just what humans can sense or imagine. Something must underlie what we are able to sense in the first place. To me existence is that which is not nothing, but does not include nothing, whereas you want to include nothing because it is something we can conceive of - but the thing is we can’t conceive of nothing because when we try we give it a dimension, namely ‘space’, which it couldn’t have.
| Impressivelynameduser
Sage
Posts: 750
(15/2/04 19:11)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
He can't (or less likely, won't) understand constructive thought. He can only negate and alienate himself, from the world, from himself, from thought, from his own thought. In which level of hell do you belong? | DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 71
(15/2/04 20:15)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Jimhaz wrote:
Quote:
DQ: The ultimate state of enlightenment is only found when one does away with all dualisms.
Things are illusory in the sense that they have no real existence, that they are causally created, that they are no more than mirages. But they are ultimately real in the sense that they are direct manifestations of Reality, which forms the totality of all there is.
Jimhaz: But isn't you existence / non-existence defined logic itself dualism?
One has to use dualisms to do away with all dualisms. Being dualistic beings, we don't have any choice in the matter. The dualism of inherent existence, which nearly everyone falsely believes in, can only be unravelled by making use of the dualism of reasoning.
Quote:
I have never got the point you keep making in regard to non-existence.
It is a very important point!
Quote:
Things are more than mirages, because we can use them.
Mirages come in all shapes and sizes, and can be used in a variety of different ways, but they are still mirages nonethlesss. We are mirages too, able to make use of other mirages in all sorts of different ways.
We can make use of shade, for example, to keep ourselves cool. Or a coffee cup to quench our thirst.
Quote:
It doesn't matter that each thing is connected to other things and thus exists because it is not other things and it existence is transient and ever changing. The group of properties exist and are held together for a time, so there is existence.
There is certainly the appearance of existence, but it is still an illusion nonetheless.
When a person swirls a burning ember around and around in the dark, he creates a ring of light which you can perceive with your eyes. Even though you are able to perceive this ring directly, and it is as plain as day, it is still an illusion. There is really no ring at all.
Everything is like this.
Quote:
I just think you guys have created a logical system which allows you not to think about the universe. Your ultimate reality theory is just saying that the question is wrong.
No, it is far deeper than that.
Quote:
Basically you theory is that, if the universe is everything that can be conceived or otherwise, it is infinite and therefore not a thing, and therefore cannot have a cause, and without a cause it cannot exist, and if the universe does not exist then nothing exists.
The final part of your summary is wrong. Since Reality is the totality of all there is, it cannot be said to either exist or not-exist.
It does not fall into the category of non-existence, since we clearly experience a reality every day (the empirical world) that is not nothing whatsoever. But it does not fall into the category of existence either, since, by definition, there is nothing beyond Reality that could act as a contrast and bring it into existence. This means that Reality transcends the duality of existence/non-existence.
Quote:
To me the word exists is more than just what humans can sense or imagine. Something must underlie what we are able to sense in the first place.
True. Reality is not nothing whatsoever.
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 72
(15/2/04 23:04)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Sirbytor,
You seem to be suggesting that it is our values which serve as determiners of truth. For example, you wrote:
Quote:
why should we value self-sustaining methodologies over parasitical ones? ultimately, it comes down to an unjustifiable value judgement. one makes a choice; and then one lives with the consequences.
Consider two competing theories, one created by science and another created by Christians, which conflict with one another - for example, evolution by natural selection and biblical creationism. Both parties believe that their theory best fits the evidence and both think the other is engaging in quackery.
Evolution by natural selection is a very solid scientific theory that is supported by lots of evidence from many different sources - paleontology, geography, biology, micro-biology, physiology, etc. Creationism, by contrast, mainly finds its support form the words of one book, which are regarded by its adherents as expressing the thoughts of God. Are you suggesting that the validity of either of these two theories ultimately hinges on an arbitrary decision on our parts as to what we should value in life?
| jimhaz
Apprentice
Posts: 39
(15/2/04 23:55)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
DQ: The ultimate state of enlightenment is only found when one does away with all dualisms. One has to use dualisms to do away with all dualisms. Being dualistic beings, we don't have any choice in the matter.
I don’t know how to do this. I sense that the universe is telling us it’s nature through dualism, I mean after all cause and effect is a dualistic process itself. I sense it needs this dualism to be infinite at least time-wise. However, infinite also usually also means infinite size-wise, and I admit cause and effect does not explain how this could be, unless the concept of infinity size-wise is simply a fantasy.
My mind always wants to explain the universe as being a circular dualistic process at it’s most basic level, positive matter flowing into negative matter then changing back to positive or existing things flowing into not-existing which then creates a new existing thing. The properties of the universe could only be infinite only where one has a dualistic base from which to build up different combinations of properties.
DQ: Mirages come in all shapes and sizes, and can be used in a variety of different ways, but they are still mirages nonethlesss…..There is certainly the appearance of existence, but it is still an illusion nonetheless.
Everything is like this.
Umm, so each individual ‘it’ is a circular mirage, with one mirage causing or creating other mirages or the appearance of things in an endless loop fashion, and the totality of this process becomes what is the universe.
Still, I tend to think of mirages as illusions of the mind, where as a shadow for example is not a mirage but an absence of a property compared to what is near it. A coffee cup is still made up of atoms of various types.
Physical things do exist, but the illusion is only one of categorisation by mental conception not an illusion of existence.
So the universe is just what is. And to an observer it can also be what it is not.
DQ: No, it is far deeper than that.
Maybe, but your explanations on this topic don’t leave me feeling any sense of deepness.
It does not fall into the category of non-existence, since we clearly experience a reality every day (the empirical world) that is not nothing whatsoever. But it does not fall into the category of existence either, since, by definition, there is nothing beyond Reality that could act as a contrast and bring it into existence. This means that Reality transcends the duality of existence/non-existence.
Ok, this sounds good. There is probably no other realistic 'answer'. It still seems to be a definitional problem though, in that the word existence is intended to apply to things. Maybe we just incorrectly apply this word to the universe.
My mind still wants to think “well then, the universe must be some form of inherent balance between existence and non-existence, it can’t transcend or be different to what existence/non-existence is because that would make it separate (and under your definition of universe nothing can be separate), and if it is separate then it is not actually part of the universe, and if it is not part of the universe then it is what god is. While I believe that the universe is what god is, I still want to know what god’s properties are”. I’m still looking at existence and non-existence in terms of being some form existing process.
No need to reply if it just means going over old territory again. If what you say has meaning, maybe it will come to me in time.
| sirbytor
Guru
Posts: 578
(16/2/04 20:46)
Reply | Re: QRS Enlightenment
David,
Quote:
Evolution by natural selection is a very solid scientific theory that is supported by lots of evidence from many different sources - paleontology, geography, biology, micro-biology, physiology, etc. Creationism, by contrast, mainly finds its support form the words of one book, which are regarded by its adherents as expressing the thoughts of God. Are you suggesting that the validity of either of these two theories ultimately hinges on an arbitrary decision on our parts as to what we should value in life?
not at all. i'm defining knowledge to be the complex web of interdependent propositions which constitutes the predictively powerful mathematical structure i use to organize my experiences. whether that structure is predictively powerful or not is an empirical question, not a value judgement. "knowledge" is just a label which i attach to that mathematical structure. creationists have obviously define knowledge differently. so be it. these are mere labels. when the creationist points to "evidence" that Earth is 6000 years old and labels it "truth", i label it "pseudoscience". that doesn't change the fact that we're both referring to the same, predictively useless theoretical structure. the value judgement comes in when one asks: is it better to pursue evolution or creationism as a means of organizing one's experiences of the natural world? that's a meaningless question until one specifies some criteria for "better". and that's a value judgement. i happen to value predictive power. creationists obviously do not. and they don't have to when their world view can flourish parasitically off of the fruits of scientific discovery.
the bottom line is that i see tremendous beauty and power in the mathematical structures which science has created to organize my experience of the world. ultimately, that is why i pursue science. creationists find the very same structures abhorrent (even though they make use of them to spread their ideas every day). given that they don't place much value in predictive power, i cannot argue that they should prefer evolution to creationism. i can only assert that they have pretty shitty taste in ideas.
-S
--
"All space, all time,
(The stars, the terrible perturbations of the suns,
Swelling, collapsing, ending, serving their longer, shorter use,)
Fill'd with eidolons only."
-Walt WhitmanEdited by: sirbytor at: 16/2/04 20:48
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 2032
(19/2/04 18:28)
Reply
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
solway,
I just had a genuine genius insighty into the nature of your utter failure to address my point about intrinsic/extrinsic distinction.
For those joining late:
Solway has asserted that the relations implicit in a set of formal premises -- i.e. the conclusion of any logical argument for example, or any mathematical theorem -- are in fact explicit; that there is no difference between relations explicitly stated in the premises, and relations implicitly present but derived through logical or mathematical manipulations. He used this assertion to buttress his claim that there is no meaningful difference between a circular argument (a logical fallacy) and a tautology (even though every formal argument is a tautology). Solway rejected my statement that circular argument is one that starts and ends with the same explicitly stated relation, while a tautology is one that starts with such relation being implicit, and makes it explicit in the course of the argument or proof.
Now, I don't care to address the obvious lunacy of a position that denies the importance of things like irrational numbers (which drove Pythagorians nuts), Russell's paradox (which caused redefinition of entire set theory) or Goedel's incompleteness theorem (which was arguably the biggest mathematical upset of 20th century). Asserting that all of those results were explicitly present in the premises (by denying the implicit/explicit distinction) is obviously idiotic, but that is not what I am interested in today.
What I care about is the psychological foundation of such a ludicrous belief; and I believe it to stem from QRS 'methodology'. You see, they love to argue by definitions -- they take a common term like 'causality', and redefine it in such a way that they can derive a seemingly profound statement from it -- I say 'seemingly', because that statement would only seem profound if interpreted in the context of normal English word usage, rather than the QRS redefinition. This approach is very obviously reliant on constructing a conclusion first, and then figuring out the definitions which, when used as premises, would allow one to draw their predetermined conclusion. Now QRS would of course deny such an intellectually dishonest approach vehemently, as it would, in a very fundamental way, put lie to their overt claims of searching for truth; and there is no definitive evidence for what goes on inside their heads.
However, Solway's denial of implicit/explicit distinction gives a strong circumstantial evidence for the veracity of the above-mentioned conjecture about their [il]logical methodology. You see, Solway is used to working backwards from conclusions to premises -- and when you do that, you always arrive at the premises with the conclusion already known and explicit. He is so used to it being that way that he can no longer fathom the conclusion not being explicitly present at the time when the premises are layed out.
In a very literal sense, in Solway's world, there really isn't any distinction between relations present in the premises explicitly and implicitly -- for him, because he always knows the conclusion when he forms the premises, this distinction really doesn't exist; he has forgotten what real thought, argument, and analysis are like, having circumscribed his intellectual world with self-justifying arguments from defintiion that allow him to maintain his beliefs. It is his veritable addiction to such arguments, arguments which are as a lamppost for a drunk -- used for support rather than illumination -- that blind him to the importance of implicit/explicit distinction in the arguments which really do arrive at genuinely original and enlightening conclusions. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him.Edited by: Victor Danilchenko at: 19/2/04 18:40
| ksolway
Follower
Posts: 142
(19/2/04 19:06)
Reply | Edit
| Re: QRS Enlightenment
Victor wrote:
Quote:
I just had a genuine genius insighty into the nature of your utter failure to address my point about intrinsic/extrinsic distinction.
I have comprehensively dealt that issue already.
The only difference between extrinsic and intrinsic is how long it takes to extract the information.
Quote:
. . . his claim that there is no meaningful difference between a circular argument (a logical fallacy) and a tautology (even though every formal argument is a tautology).
I reject your definition of a "circular argument". What you are speaking of would be better described as "begging the question".
Quote:
Solway rejected my statement that circular argument is one that starts and ends with the same explicitly sdtated relation, while a tautiology is one that starts with such relation being implicit, and makes it explicit in the course of the argument or proof.
What I am saying is that what is "implicit" for one person, is "explicit" for another. For example, it might take one person five minutes to go through the course of an argument or proof, to arrive at the same conclusion that another person will arrive at in one tenth of a second. Similarly, it might take a team of logicians twenty years to arrive at the conclusion that another person arrived at in only one tenth of a second.
That which appears obvious (explicit) to one person, is difficult to uncover (implicit) to another.
Even things which are obvious, and explicit, still require a deal of processing, interpretation, translation, etc.
Quote:
You see, they love to argue by definitions -- they takle a common term like 'causality', and redefine it in such a way that they can derive a seemingly profound statement from it . . .
Nevertheless, in order to speak of causality, you must first define what it is you are talking about it, and we have demonstrated that our definitions are beyond any doubt the only sensible definitions.
Quote:
However, Solway's denial of implicit/explicit distinction gives a strong circumstantial evidence for the veracity of the above-mentioned conjecture about their [il]logical methodology. You see, Solway is used to working backwards from conclusions to premises -- and when you do that, you always arrive at the premises with the conclusion already known and explicit. he is so used to it being that way that he can no longer fathom the conclusion not being explicitly present at the time when the premises are layed out.
The answers you receive, to anything, will always depend on the questions you asked in the first place. There are no exceptions to this rule.
And in fact, the answers are always contained within the question, once it is known exactly what it is you are asking.
Sometimes it can take a long time to work out what it is you are asking.
|
- THE END - - The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | |
