| | | 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 | | | |
