Statement about Solway and Trump

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby David Quinn » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:19 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:Such matters as David raises are subjective, and are not absolute.

So what?

So it is arguable that a better place for this thread would be the "worldly matters" forum. I am reminding David and the reader that even though David speaks in absolute terms, and with supreme "confidence" about his beliefs, he could well be 100% wrong in all of his political views, since they all rest on one another, and fall like a house of cards.

It is evident that you are compartmentalizing what you are doing these days politically and sealing it off from what you did in the past spiritually and from the realm of wisdom in general. In other words, you are reducing spirituality to the abstract realm and ejecting all considerations of personal behaviour in the empirical world from the equation. It is the very thing you used to criticize academics of doing.

I'm sure we both know the reasons why people do this.


Kevin Solway wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:"There's literally nothing worse than the SJWs and the feminists."

I could easily make a case for such a statement, based on what SJWs and feminists actually do, and have done. I would not have to guess about their motives or what they might do in the future. In this way I could achieve a fair degree of justifiable confidence.

By contrast, a convincing case cannot be made that Trump is seeking world domination by force, or that he wants to create a police state, since he hasn't done these things, and one is severely limited to guessing about his motives. Therefore I don't believe that supreme confidence in such matters is at all justified.

In the same way that you examine those involved in the SJW issue, we can examine Trump's past behaviour, look into his present psychology and make informed predictions about the future.

Trump has a long history of being:

- a corrupt businessman (e.g. Donald Trump’s history of corruption: a comprehensive review),

- a scam artist and conspiracy theorist (e.g. Trump and the truth),

- mentally not the full quid (e.g. The psychiatrist who wrote the guide to personality disorders says diagnosing Trump is “bullshit”).

Add all of this to an unstable political climate in which community belief in the value of democracy is at an all-time low, where revolutionary change is being sought by a large segment of the population, and what we have is a recipe for disaster.
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5546
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby David Quinn » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:27 am

Kevin Solway wrote:By contrast, a convincing case cannot be made that Trump is seeking world domination by force,

Again, he is not seeking to dominate the world by force, at least not in the way you imagine. Trumps’s strengths are not that of a military general. Rather, they are in bamboozling people with henid-like comments, attacking opponents with shameless lies, disregarding decency and social norms, creating scapegoats and whipping up fear, and being indifferent to the consequences of his actions. In short, he is an agent of chaos, and he has learnt over the years how to take advantage of this to his own benefit at the expense of everyone else.

You seem to have a large mental block about this.

One of the most interesting aspects of the whole affair is Trump's singe-minded desire to disconnect us all from reality and persuade us accept an alternative, fact-free reality of his own design. He is literally trying to force a foreign reality upon us. It is neatly summed up in this opinion piece from the New York Times, Trump’s Method, Our Madness. It is truly fascinating from a philosophic perspective. And yet you show no signs of being interested in this. In fact, you don't even seem to be aware that it is occurring at all. It is most curious.
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5546
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby David Quinn » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:55 am

Russell Parr wrote: It's not so much that they're wrong; they're right in a lot of ways. But it's over the top, and ignorant of the bigger picture, of the build up that led us to where we are today.

We don’t know yet if it is over the top. If all of my fears are realized and Trump turns America into a medieval-style authoritarian regime steeped in division and fear, then what I have been saying isn't over the top at all. It is prescient.

You have to get out of this idea that just because the left-wing establishment is freaking out over Trump, it means that they are over-blowing the dangers or expressing fears that are unfounded. There is no logical correlation there. People also start freaking whenever a fire breaks out; the mere fact they are freaking doesn't mean that the fire is an illusion.

Trump is such a disaster that even ordinary, emotion-filled, mentally-blocked-up people can see it. It is only natural that they are becoming emotional about it.


Russell Parr wrote:Kevin's enemy is feminism. He sees Trump as a sort of antithesis to this.

Dan and David's enemy is the far right. As such, they've taken up and promote far left stances.

My enemy is insanity, whether it be from the left or the right. It just so happens that at the moment the right is presenting the most dangerous form of it.


Russell Parr wrote:It has been asked, just what is the MSM. Here is a good summary. Slightly dated, but relevant nonetheless.

The only one I use on that list is the Wall Street Journal, and even then only occasionally.

But I share your concern that most of the media is owned by a small number of large corporations. It is not a healthy situation.
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5546
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:02 am

David Quinn wrote:One of the most interesting aspects of the whole affair is Trump's singe-minded desire to disconnect us all from reality and persuade us accept an alternative, fact-free reality of his own design. He is literally trying to force a foreign reality upon us. It is neatly summed up in this opinion piece from the New York Times, Trump’s Method, Our Madness. It is truly fascinating from a philosophic perspective. And yet you show no signs of being interested in this. In fact, you don't even seem to be aware that it is occurring at all. It is most curious.

I see that the BBC documentary, “HyperNormalization,” by Adam Curtis, is also used to substantiate the article you praise here. Although you derailed that same documentary a few pages ago, as a parody of itself, you then use it indirectly here to make your own point. Ah well. Consistency has perhaps not been your strongest point in this thread so far, in my view.

Overall, I'm arriving at the conclusion that the main problem of the modern, Western mainstream and related media discourse is this "slathering facts in opinions" and then conflating the two. Thereby creating whole stubborn mythologies around people, places and events. Which then become gospel or some narrative to project ones own disgust or fear upon.

A philosopher's personal behavior in the empirical world does not require any specific interpretation of political events around the globe or supporting analysis of a twitter feed, personality or financial past of some foreign politicians. Whatever one discovers, it will start serving whatever desire is there to prove something. Not seeing this means being taking in by appearances and promoting political correctness or some behavioral morality under the guise of philosophy. It should not be encouraged in my view, as it's a path leading to utter madness and perhaps worse: the utter mundane, the lack of spirit.

Since this discussion does not seem to go anywhere, mainly because this unwillingness to separate opinion from fact, I concur with the ones who said that this thread should not be in the main forum any more and perhaps never should have been in the first place. If any administrator can at least unstick it, that would be great.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5999
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby David Quinn » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:27 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:One of the most interesting aspects of the whole affair is Trump's singe-minded desire to disconnect us all from reality and persuade us accept an alternative, fact-free reality of his own design. He is literally trying to force a foreign reality upon us. It is neatly summed up in this opinion piece from the New York Times, Trump’s Method, Our Madness. It is truly fascinating from a philosophic perspective. And yet you show no signs of being interested in this. In fact, you don't even seem to be aware that it is occurring at all. It is most curious.

I see that the BBC documentary, “HyperNormalization,” by Adam Curtis, is also used to substantiate the article you praise here. Although you derailed that same documentary a few pages ago, as a parody of itself, you then use it indirectly here to make your own point. Ah well. Consistency has perhaps not been your strongest point in this thread so far, in my view.

I did mention back then that I found the segment on Surkov to be one of the film's more interesting moments.


Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Overall, I'm arriving at the conclusion that the main problem of the modern, Western mainstream and related media discourse is this "slathering facts in opinions" and then conflating the two. Thereby creating whole stubborn mythologies around people, places and events. Which then become gospel or some narrative to project ones own disgust or fear upon.

A philosopher's personal behavior in the empirical world does not require any specific interpretation of political events around the globe or supporting analysis of a twitter feed, personality or financial past of some foreign politicians. Whatever one discovers, it will start serving whatever desire is there to prove something. Not seeing this means being taking in by appearances and promoting political correctness or some behavioral morality under the guise of philosophy. It should not be encouraged in my view, as it's a path leading to utter madness and perhaps worse: the utter mundane, the lack of spirit.

Then you are railing against the human brain itself. Creating narratives from observed facts is the very function of human consciousness in its dealings with the physical world. Your very own self is a narrative.

Creating narratives isn't the problem. The problem is knowing how to select the narratives that best serve the cause of wisdom, while remaining unattached to them.


Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Since this discussion does not seem to go anywhere, mainly because this unwillingness to separate opinion from fact, I concur with the ones who said that this thread should not be in the main forum any more and perhaps never should have been in the first place. If any administrator can at least unstick it, that would be great.

Ok, I'll unstick it now, and then move it to Worldly Matters in a day or two so as to give everyone a chance to become aware that this will happen.
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5546
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Russell Parr » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:35 am

David Quinn wrote:Ok, I'll unstick it now, and then move it to Worldly Matters in a day or two so as to give everyone a chance to become aware that this will happen.
Thank God. I was just about to make the threat to post 100 conspiracy theories if this thing wasn't moved.
User avatar
Russell Parr
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby jimhaz » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:48 am

Moving this thread seems a really girly thing to do for me. It is chock full of interesting philosophical issues.

I really don't give a flying fart about the earnestness some have to enlightenment. I see it as an egotistical pride thing. Just another form of fundamentalism.
jimhaz
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:58 am

David Quinn wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Overall, I'm arriving at the conclusion that the main problem of the modern, Western mainstream and related media discourse is this "slathering facts in opinions" and then conflating the two. Thereby creating whole stubborn mythologies around people, places and events. Which then become gospel or some narrative to project ones own disgust or fear upon.

A philosopher's personal behavior in the empirical world does not require any specific interpretation of political events around the globe or supporting analysis of a twitter feed, personality or financial past of some foreign politicians. Whatever one discovers, it will start serving whatever desire is there to prove something. Not seeing this means being taking in by appearances and promoting political correctness or some behavioral morality under the guise of philosophy. It should not be encouraged in my view, as it's a path leading to utter madness and perhaps worse: the utter mundane, the lack of spirit.

Then you are railing against the human brain itself. Creating narratives from observed facts is the very function of human consciousness in its dealings with the physical world. Your very own self is a narrative.

Creating narratives isn't the problem. The problem is knowing how to select the narratives that best serve the cause of wisdom, while remaining unattached to them.

Non-attachment can start with taking a step back and understand that people select or submit narratives to best serve their will and power. Narratives are then more a function of being, of self, or as you wrote, it's made of them. And they form themselves all the "railing for or against".

In any case, clearly some people think a "Trump" narrative could serve come purpose to counter a "Clinton" narrative. Or that agents of "chaos" could shake up some established order which already might have reached unbelievable heights of insanity. Or closer to my own idea: that the order is collapsing and the critters come streaming out of the hollowed out carcass. It all really depends on the various possible perspectives here and they can be discussed and exchanged. But this thread seemed at times to serve as demonizing and distancing without good reasons supplied on why it was so crucial to do so here and now. The core of ignorance is not Donald Trump and addressing ignorance is way more fundamental than proving some issue with his personality, his emotional make-up or the contemporary ideology of those surrounding him.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5999
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Dan Rowden » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:18 am

Russell Parr wrote:It should also be noted that both Dan and David continually brush off excellent counterpoints from others that illustrate Trump is not much worse, if at all, than his predecessors.


Can you provide an example of what you're describing as an 'excellent counterpoint'?

Dan and David's enemy is the far right. As such, they've taken up and promote far left stances.


Can you give an example of a 'far left' stance that I have taken up and a definition of 'far left'? My actual socio-political stance aligns fairly much with that of Bernie Sanders. I am a free market, democratic socialist - to the degree that such labels can capture what any person really is.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Dan Rowden » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:01 am

The core of ignorance is not Donald Trump and addressing ignorance is way more fundamental than proving some issue with his personality, his emotional make-up or the contemporary ideology of those surrounding him.


For me there are times when the philosopher, or at least this one, decides that he cannot be a Nero who fiddles while Rome burns. I don't see how it benefits wisdom and its survival for the philosopher to sit back and righteously declare his superior being while the world burns in front of him.

So, for example, when Kevin speaks of the horrors of Intersectional Feminism and the egregious forms of the Social Justice movement it has spawned, I totally agree. I believe action of some sort, even [gasp] political is needed to arrest the slide it's causing, especially in university and college cultures. The point of departure for me is in what I perceive as the extreme nature of Kev's version of that response, which I consider to be, itself, irrational and not remotely (in the case of Trump and this regime) based in reality.

It is my observation, my contention, that his immersion in the Gamergate drama has warped his vision. From my own personal experience of Gamergate and associated 'culture war' events, I can't say I'm entirely surprised. Indeed, I stopped following it because I found myself being drawn into states of consciousness that I recognised as unhealthy.

So, again, for the record, I have always agreed with Kevin that action is needed and that aspects of the liberal establishment are complicit in the problem, but I perceive his version of remedial action to be potentially as socially destructive as the problem he seeks to remedy (and that he is blind to this). And yes, before it is needlessly pointed out again, that is merely my opinion.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Kevin Solway » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:00 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:the extreme nature of Kev's version of that response, which I consider to be, itself, irrational and not remotely (in the case of Trump and this regime) based in reality.


But you haven't been able to demonstrate in any way that my response is extreme or not based in reality. If you can't demonstrate it clearly and with certainty then what use is it to speak of such things?

I have mentioned that I think that in the future there will be universities for males and universities for females which give specialised education to suit the different natures of each sex. There would also be mixed universities for those who prefer mixed education. All these universities may be privately funded, or the public may wish to fund them through the government. How is this extreme?

I have said that I regard 95% of what is published in the mainstream media about political and social issues to be "fake news" (especially in modern times - it hasn't always been this way). In other words, I regard the reporting of the mainstream media to be either direct lying, or deceptive misinformation and misdirection. It is propaganda. Most people would probably concede that at least 70-80% of the mainstream media is like this. My estimate is just a little higher than theirs. I don't think that's "extreme".

I consider a vote for Clinton to be a vote for the SJWs and the feminists, a vote for so-called "social justice", a vote for the status quo, a vote for a person who regards me and those like me (antifeminists) to be "deplorable and irredeemable".

Weighing up which is the greater of two evils is not an exact science.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2694
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby David Quinn » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:06 pm

jimhaz wrote:Moving this thread seems a really girly thing to do for me. It is chock full of interesting philosophical issues.

I really don't give a flying fart about the earnestness some have to enlightenment. I see it as an egotistical pride thing. Just another form of fundamentalism.

This could get tricky.

I personally agree that the thread shouldn't be moved. For me the topic is fundamentally spiritual in nature and, as you say, contains many interesting philosophic issues. But I'm not really a moderator anymore. I have been away for a long time and Diebert and Russell have taken up the reigns in my stead. I'm not sure what Dan's and Kevin's roles are. Dan has indicated to me in private that he is against moving it.

This could easily turn into a stoush, as it looks like those who are supportive of the alt-right movement are viewing this thread as being political in nature and want it moved, while those of us who are more skeptical of the alt-right movement are seeing it in the larger context of ethics and spirituality and want it to stay.

It says something right there, doesn't it.

Perhaps in the interests of promoting the concept of democracy, we should have a show of hands as to whether the thread should be moved or not.
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5546
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Kevin Solway » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:35 pm

I'm happy for this thread to remain here (non-sticky), since I and a few others have made some good logical points that are not merely speculative about things in the empirical world. However, the bulk of this thread, unfortunately, is just speculation about empirical matters, such as what Trump's motives are, or exactly how bad SJWs are, or what percentage of the mainstream media is bullshit, 90 or 95%?

If the purpose of this thread is to try and convert other people to your political views, then it should definitely be in the worldly matters forum. And I suspect that is the case. So if David thinks the purpose of his post was to try and convert people, or to push his political preferences, then he should vote to have it moved to "Worldly matters".

A more fitting question for the main forum would be something like, "Must all people with wisdom have the same political views and preferences?", but I think that question is so easily answered that one wouldn't ask it.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2694
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Russell Parr » Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:05 pm

Russell Parr wrote:It should also be noted that both Dan and David continually brush off excellent counterpoints from others that illustrate Trump is not much worse, if at all, than his predecessors.
Dan Rowden wrote:Can you provide an example of what you're describing as an 'excellent counterpoint'?
Here's one. To which you responded with one of your trademark witty one-liners.

Dan and David's enemy is the far right. As such, they've taken up and promote far left stances.
Can you give an example of a 'far left' stance that I have taken up and a definition of 'far left'? My actual socio-political stance aligns fairly much with that of Bernie Sanders. I am a free market, democratic socialist - to the degree that such labels can capture what any person really is.
Perhaps 'far left' is a bit exaggerated in your case. My statement has to do with, and is in reference to the excessive demonifying of the right, or those of the right, or even those that aren't outright against the right, that is so prevalent in the media, and in a lot of left leaning people these days. Of course, this type of behavior isn't exclusive to the left. In fact, had Hillary won, we would see this ugliness beaming loudly from the right leaners. And therein is the bigger and main point being made by myself and others: things are going to shit in America, and in the West in general, and people are desperately looking for someone to blame. Plus, I just don't see it that there's anything anyone here can do to stop it. It's all part of a larger, natural cycle anyway.

Now, you and David might be correct in that Kevin has become too involved, too lost within the storm, perhaps losing spiritual grounding along the way. But as it turns out, in some valiant effort to rescue him, the both of you got sucked in and got lost within it as well. So lost, in fact, that this ill-advised (perhaps not in motive, but in execution) thread was started over it, drawing the rest of us into the drama. All the while blinded to the hypocrisy. I mean, at least Kevin hasn't done that.

As for where this thread belongs, while I also agree that there are very interesting things to be learned from it, the division is based primarily on political opinions and empirical observations. As I see no resolution being reached soon, my vote goes towards moving it.

So far that's 2 for moving it (if I'm reading Diebert correctly), and 4 for keeping it here (if I'm reading Kevin correctly).
User avatar
Russell Parr
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby jimhaz » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:38 pm

I like the thread in relation to potential new visitors – it is about the quality of the information from all sides. The Worldy Matters is a bit too hidden away for newbies.

The thread is having an impact on me, though it may be at the end, so unsticking it is OK from my perspective, though personally I’d leave it for another month.

Your initial post made me think Kevin had gone a bit troppo, as often happens to the very wise in their later years. I’m now able to see some of his justifications, unfortunately not so much from Kevin’s responses but from listening to people like Milo and reading articles referred to in the thread. I’ve now a better idea of what is driving them.

For instance, I started a response yesterday, that I did not finish

“David wrote: A few days ago I teased you about your fandom of Milo, but I do recognize that he does have some interesting insights into the current political situation. So even though I find him easy to mock, I can understand why you might like him

I listened to a few Milo youtube clips on the weekend. He seemed to be more honest viewpoints than overtly hypocritical one’s. He is not always the Bruno type, but can be professional.
I can understand why Kevin views him as a potentially good tool of opposition to the self-absorbed authoritarian SJW. Something I noticed was that even some of the less mad SJW’s seemed to like his personality (although dismissive of him) and as you say, he is a pretty boy, which makes him attractive to most women. He speaks in a way that ordinary people enjoy – a sort of brutal honesty they are unaccustomed to in a public arena. Less hypocritical people, such as Sam Harris, or those less twisted by being a Christian/Jew attached gay, are less appealing to the bulk of the internet, the ‘what can amuse me now crowd’. He could have a good effect on the less intellectual crowd”


I’ve realised I’ve let myself become a bit too soft towards some of the authoritarian excesses of the left, as a result of being inclined to leftish values systems and spending a bit too much time on forums that have a few of the SJW’s. It’s been a decent wake up call, albeit that yes I am somewhat philosophically deadened due to a lack of novelty and do not have a sufficiently masculine state of mind. The experience of the thread is not enough to lure me towards Jupiviv and Diebert’s disassociated perspective, but has made me realise a noticeable degree of ignorance (for instance, I knew nothing whatsoever about Gamergate).
jimhaz
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:24 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:I'm happy for this thread to remain here (non-sticky), since I and a few others have made some good logical points that are not merely speculative about things in the empirical world.

David Quinn wrote:I personally agree that the thread shouldn't be moved. For me the topic is fundamentally spiritual in nature and, as you say, contains many interesting philosophic issues. But I'm not really a moderator anymore. I have been away for a long time and Diebert and Russell have taken up the reigns in my stead. I'm not sure what Dan's and Kevin's roles are. Dan has indicated to me in private that he is against moving it.

The thread is a mixed bag for sure. As I've tried to convey before, my sense is that the thread lacks the degree of purpose and focus which should be always the prime distinguishing feature of any discussion here. Or at least as attempt to. It's now about too many things thrown together, all things getting enmeshed and conflated that way like hearing my sisters bicker. Plus I still see the gossipy core as well, the main beef looking to me like basically a bunch of impressions about what someone else was doing in his life which all were unfortunately discussed initially without directly involving the subject himself, all of which I find a hundred fold more troublesome to have front center at this forum than any political discussion or wordly focus.

But as it stands it does indeed contain by now a lot of contributions and attempts to wrap ones mind around things. It's also an interesting experiment in how to deal with fundamental disagreements between core membership which are (probably) beyond just being differences in taste or upbringing.

So I'm fine with the unsticking which David already did. It can stay where it is then, looking at the votes, remaining purely driven by the interest of people to have it on top. But I'd love to see some more focused questions being asked in new threads where people can dive in without going through 20 pages to get an idea while still taking the wrong things from it.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5999
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby David Quinn » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:28 pm

I have to say that for a so-called political thread the tone of the debate has been remarkably civil. If these topics had been discussed anywhere else with different personnel, it most likely would have degenerated into foul-language, name-calling, and pure hate, as it so often does. While there has been plenty of passion and the occasional flare up, I think overall we can hold our heads high that we have managed to maintain our equilibrium throughout.

Some of that wisdom we all used to talk about must be having an effect!
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5546
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Dan Rowden » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:09 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:I'm happy for this thread to remain here (non-sticky), since I and a few others have made some good logical points that are not merely speculative about things in the empirical world.


That is utter bullshit from an absolute point of view, which is a view you have twice invoked to try and diminish other points of view.

However, the bulk of this thread, unfortunately, is just speculation about empirical matters, such as what Trump's motives are, or exactly how bad SJWs are, or what percentage of the mainstream media is bullshit, 90 or 95%?


And yet you keep offering your perspective on those very matters and arguing they carry more weight than others, so, you're right into it, then?

If the purpose of this thread is to try and convert other people to your political views,


Which it transparently is not, and you know it.

And I suspect that is the case.


Since you have now in multiple posts tried to illegitimatise 'speculation', why engage in it? Why not simply let it be what it is, since you are engaging in it, and explore it?

So if David thinks the purpose of his post was to try and convert people, or to push his political preferences, then he should vote to have it moved to "Worldly matters".


Wow, politics, huh? This is quite evidently a rubbish sentence.

A more fitting question for the main forum would be something like, "Must all people with wisdom have the same political views and preferences?", but I think that question is so easily answered that one wouldn't ask it.


Indeed. Fortunately, that question isn't, and has not been, asked. Or at least, I'm not asking it in such simplistic terms.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Dan Rowden » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Russell Parr wrote:
Russell Parr wrote:It should also be noted that both Dan and David continually brush off excellent counterpoints from others that illustrate Trump is not much worse, if at all, than his predecessors.
Dan Rowden wrote:Can you provide an example of what you're describing as an 'excellent counterpoint'?
Here's one. To which you responded with one of your trademark witty one-liners.


Are you being deliberately obtuse? 1. I don't know where I stand on drone attacks. I am undecided on my personal view of the efficacy and ethics in the sense that I can't tell if they're worse than any other shit powerful nations do. 2. The Bush Jnr regime initiated the concept and the Obama regime scaled it up. The Obama regime didn't start the geo-poloitical shitfight they inherited or the drone methodology (and their secrecy is neither extraordinary or relevant). 3. Drone attacks have nothing whatever to do with any comparison of Trump to any other regime. They are utterly irrelevant, at this juncture. Therefore, they do not constitute any kind of 'counterpoint' to anything and do not constitute any point of comparison between Trump and any other administration.

Perhaps 'far left' is a bit exaggerated in your case. My statement has to do with, and is in reference to the excessive demonifying of the right, or those of the right, or even those that aren't outright against the right, that is so prevalent in the media, and in a lot of left leaning people these days.


Do you mean outside of the ubiquitous edifice of the Murdoch empire, which couldn't be any more conservative/right-wing if it tried?

Of course, this type of behavior isn't exclusive to the left. In fact, had Hillary won, we would see this ugliness beaming loudly from the right leaners.


Of course. Political partisanship is something of which I know a great deal. I have spent the last 2 years in pitched battle with 'my side' of the political divide over their partisan bullshit, their hypocrisy, their irrationality and blind authoritarianism. I continue to be so. I know the madness of political partisanship intimately. I've never in my life experienced censorship (being banned) like I experienced on supposedly 'progressive' political blogs. Attachment to a political ideology, whatever it may be, results in madness, but that does not speak, necessarily, to the relative value of a particular socio-political worldview in its raw sense.

And therein is the bigger and main point being made by myself and others: things are going to shit in America, and in the West in general, and people are desperately looking for someone to blame. Plus, I just don't see it that there's anything anyone here can do to stop it. It's all part of a larger, natural cycle anyway.


In what sense are things going to shit? Is that a real statement or a politically invented fiction? And if things are going to shit, what was good about the non-shitness and who/what created that?

Now, you and David might be correct in that Kevin has become too involved, too lost within the storm, perhaps losing spiritual grounding along the way.


I'm not saying that. I'm not, myself, speaking about 'spiritual grounding'. To be perfectly honest, I could give a shit about that in this context. For me Kevin has lost his grasp on the world itself. His current statements about politics have no connection to reality, are platitudinous and factually vacant. I am finding that troubling because, as I've said, I share his concerns about specific things but find his response, crazy.

But as it turns out, in some valiant effort to rescue him, the both of you got sucked in and got lost within it as well. So lost, in fact, that this ill-advised (perhaps not in motive, but in execution) thread was started over it, drawing the rest of us into the drama. All the while blinded to the hypocrisy. I mean, at least Kevin hasn't done that.


I was hesitant to say this, but if you are basing any of that opinion on Kevin's contribution to this thread I suggest you consider that such contribution has been highly measured.

As for where this thread belongs, while I also agree that there are very interesting things to be learned from it, the division is based primarily on political opinions and empirical observations. As I see no resolution being reached soon, my vote goes towards moving it.


This thread is more vibrant and philosophically charged than 80% of what's happened here in the last 12 months, so, no, it ought not be moved. And, to be candid, I'm more than happy to pull rank on the issue as this is not, in fact, a democracy.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Kevin Solway » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:32 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:His current statements about politics have no connection to reality, are platitudinous and factually vacant.


If something I have said has no connection with reality then you should be able to demonstrate what that is.


. . . but find his response, crazy.


In what way? You should be able to explain. Is every person who preferred Trump to Clinton in the last election "crazy"?


. . . such contribution [here] has been highly measured.


What do you believe I've said elsewhere that has not been highly measured, or even worse, has been wrong?
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2694
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Kevin Solway » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:44 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:
A more fitting question for the main forum would be something like, "Must all people with wisdom have the same political views and preferences?"
I'm not asking it in such simplistic terms.

So how would you ask the question? What do you think the purpose of this thread is?

I don't have anything against empirical speculation, no matter whether it be scientific, psychological, or political, but the place for it is the Worldly Matters forum.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2694
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Dan Rowden » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:02 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:His current statements about politics have no connection to reality, are platitudinous and factually vacant.


If something I have said has no connection with reality then you should be able to demonstrate what that is.


Every mitigating statement you utter regarding Trump, every statement you make that normalises or dismisses him as 'just a businessman' is a disconnect from reality. It beggars belief that I would have to show you how this is so. We're talking about a man who said, regarding the environment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKlHuJvYVz0

I could show you 100 videos showing you that this guy is as vacuous and dangerous as Laci Green and you probably wouldn't notice. Sadly, that's the vibe I'm getting from you.

This is the man you think has some capacity to make the place better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6l7TUJ6iSU

Is every person who preferred Trump to Clinton in the last election "crazy"?


Invoking Clinton is a total red-herring, but whatever - the simple answer to that question is YES. Everyone who chose Trump over Clinton is crazy - or ignorant or greedy. Both candidates were horrible, and I don't think any Democrat candidate before Clinton has so divided that Party to the degree she did, but if you think there's any sort of quality comparison, no matter how crappy Clinton was compared to, say, Sanders I will accuse you of not paying any attention. And we're not talking about Trump as a singular entity here, but Trump as the figure head of a Fascist Kleptocracy. You resist that label because you're not paying sufficient attention.

Edit: come to think of it, this is perhaps expressive of the perceptual divide I'm experiencing here. How I'm experiencing your ideas of Trump and US politics is akin to how you would perceive me trying to argue that Laci Green ins't so bad, and that she's just an earnest young woman doing her best and maybe in the end she'll do something useful.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Pam Seeback » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:08 pm

David to Kevin: It is evident that you are compartmentalizing what you are doing these days politically and sealing it off from what you did in the past spiritually and from the realm of wisdom in general. In other words, you are reducing spirituality to the abstract realm and ejecting all considerations of personal behaviour in the empirical world from the equation. It is the very thing you used to criticize academics of doing.

David, I believe what you said to Kevin above merits deeper examination, that it goes to the heart of what it means to have a spiritual conscience.

'Person' is the illusion. This is an absolute truth. And, because of the truth of the illusion of personhood, the suffering of attachment to "I" exists in the world. The world of human politics is just one of the human realms that exemplifies the suffering of the delusion of the existence of an independent self.

Assuming that one who has the liberating wisdom of the impersonal nature of spirit is dedicated to liberating the world of its delusion of "I, a person, exist", would this individual not do everything he or she could to remove the suffering of this core illusion/delusion? And how can this happen if the wise one is not true to speaking and acting impersonally?

I offer this for your consideration and comment. Perhaps keeping the abstract/impersonal realm alive in one's consciousness, thinking about it, talking about it, writing about it, is the only way one can ensure that they stay true to its truth. I always considered this forum to be a worthy vehicle for this outlet.
User avatar
Pam Seeback
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Kevin Solway » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:43 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:If something I have said has no connection with reality then you should be able to demonstrate what that is.


Every statement you make that normalises or dismisses him as 'just a businessman' is a disconnect from reality. It beggars belief that I would have to show you how this is so. We're talking about a man who said, regarding the environment . . .


It's fairly normal for businessmen to dismiss concerns about the environment in favour of profits, so I don't find your argument convincing.


I could show you 100 videos showing you that this guy is as vacuous and dangerous as Laci Green and you probably wouldn't notice.


". . . probably wouldn't notice".

This is yet more idle speculation on your part, so this isn't at all convincing either. Most politicians are vacuous. Being vacuous becomes a necessity the further they go in politics.


This is the man you think has some capacity to make the place better


As I've said many times, it's all relative. I think he's better than Hilary Clinton.

Also, in my view Trump is only a figurehead. He is a piece of froth carried along by the tide. The piece of froth isn't going to "make the place better". If anything gets better, it will be because of the tide.


Is every person who preferred Trump to Clinton in the last election "crazy"?

YES.


In that case there is a strong case that you are the one who has gone crazy.

So what we're left with is that you think your political opponents are crazy, and they think you are crazy. Where's that going to get you? It doesn't convince anyone of anything.


Trump as the figure head of a Fascist Kleptocracy.


This is just your personal opinion, which I believe is mistaken. People voted for Trump because they want to combat what they believe is the fascist authoritarian left.

Do you see how this isn't going anywhere? You have your personal opinions which you cannot absolutely prove, and other people have their personal opinions which they can't absolutely prove. You think your speculations are better than theirs, and they think theirs are better than yours. Unless you can come up with something clear, certain, and ground-breaking, then you are simply wasting your time. Calling people "crazy", "vacuous", "nerds", "fascists", "kleptocrats", "idiots" etc, isn't going to cut the mustard.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2694
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Postby Kevin Solway » Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:10 am

David Quinn wrote:It is evident that you are compartmentalizing what you are doing these days politically and sealing it off from what you did in the past spiritually


This is just speculation on your part, and it is speculation with which I disagree.

What you see, and therefore what is evident to you, personally, is only what you see through the filter of your mind, and the limitations of your senses.

Speculations on their own are completely meaningless. You need to come up with something concrete - something clear and demonstrable. As Jupiviv has rightly said, you need to find a logical error.


Kevin Solway wrote:We can examine Trump's past behaviour, look into his present psychology and make informed predictions about the future.


It's not the same as with the SJWs. We don't need to speculate about the motives of the SJWs, since what they DO is enough for us to want to oppose them. In the case of Trump, he hasn't created the equivalent of a police state, and it is just speculation that he wants to create such a thing with the entire United States.

You can oppose him because you don't like way he does business. That's up to you.

. . . A recipe for disaster


It's easy to whip up recipes for disaster, because the human mind is adapted to imagine the worst possible scenarios. On the Alex Jones channel you'll find a hundred other recipes for disaster, some involving aliens. I don't find any of them convincing.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2694
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests