Reform Taoism

[vicdan]

I think that is David's point exactly. You study these things, you know the works of the greats and the not-so-greats by rote, but the point of philosophy is thinking for yourself.

Another clueless slob...

Any real knowledge stands on the shoulders of giants. I study philosophy that came before me, and think for myself. Your point is the refrain of countless ignoramuses who like to pretend that they can get somewhere without work. Every two-bit loser decries academic education as being the surrender of independent thought.

You remind me of an idiot I once encountered. I was dropping my sister off at ballet, and for some reason ended up having an argument with another guy there, about 5'6". His big insult was to say that sure, I am huge, but I have no brains. he simply needed to believe that. I had refrained from discussing pragmatist epistemology with him, or the historical role of ancient greek sculpture, or political theory of democracy, etc.

I draw upon the entire three millenia of philosophical thought in my inquiries. You want to pretend that you can simply skip the entire library of human thought -- but somehow, people like you never come up with anything actually original, for all your plaintive assertions of originality.

You know a lot, and you can cite and reference circles around just about anybody, but when was the last time that you ventured out on just your own thoughts

Every fucking day.

without having them substantiated, verified, or cross-referenced by anyone else? That's what David meant when he said you have never thought. You just seem to regurgitate.

Yup, like I said, the plaintive cries of affronted ignoramuses.

Yes, I know more than you ever will, and I can reason circles around you. Deal with it.

P.S. Here, for your viewing pleasure, are some of the things I figured out on my own, without learning them by reading a philosophy book:

• I conceived of Aristotelean causal categorization before I ever actually read about it (in fact, my philosophy professor bragged about it to other philo lecturers).
• I came up with the idea of epistemic instrumentalism before I ever heard about it.
• I came up with my own analysis of the reason/emotion relationship, whcih I had never seen anywhere else.
• I came up with a unique analysis of the supernatural, which I have never seen anywhere else. Eventually Philosophaster told me someone else had done it before though.
• I came up with my idea of selfhood and the self/world relationship on my own. i am told it's very similar to the taoist idea of the same. I have never read a single book about taoism.
• I came up with my own analysis of the objectivism/relativism relationship (which in fact is my current position on objectivism and relativism). I had never seen it anywhere else.
• I came up with my own methodological analysis of epistemic status of divinity, which I have never seen anywhere else.

Well, these are just the major ones. I lose track -- I don't generally bother to keep track of what i came up on my own vs. what i read somewhere else. it's not an exercise in legacy building, i am interested in understanding rather than in the means by which I acquired it.

[vicdan]

I think you need to decide whether or not you really are in a constant state of willingness to accept what evidence may bring in the future, because what I keep seeing is you making absolute pronouncements like the above.

You keep missing the difference between empirical certainty (e.g. "the next time I drop an apple, it will not float up by itself") and logical certainty. The former is of such type that while is could be false, it is irrational and pointless to actively entertain such a possibility -- for practical intents and purposes, it's a certainty. The latter is simply completely certain. When I make categorical pronouncements, they are of the former type, not the latter.

[Nick]

Scientists are like mice that eat the crumbs that fall from the sage's dinner table. They are too busy scouring the ground for crumbs to look up and see the feast is right in front of them.

My biggest problem I have with the whole academia thing is how much of a complete bore it all is. Sure they occassionally come up with some interesting finds which can sometimes be thought stimulating, or at least entertaining. But once in the institution itself it's just as boring as going to church and listening to a priest ramble on. Anyone who finds academic science or philosophy intersting enough to spend their lives dedicated to them is entirely souless.

[vicdan]

You couldn't keep up with it, huh? :D

[Nick]

Not at all, I was usually one of the most academically talented students in all my classes all through out school and college when I put an honest effort into it. (i.e. as long as I wasn't bored out of my mind by the subject)

[vicdan]

Ah, short attention span then.

You must be one of those types who get bored with all that silly practice and learning thing.

[Nick]

I always seen myself as someone who had a great passion for practice and learning. It just depends on whether what is being learned and practice is of any interest to myself or my goals.

Also, I don't mean to single out academic minded individuals as the only souless beings on the planet. I consider anyone who dedicates their lives to any worldly endeavours just as souless as the next.

For a true genius, things of this world simply don't cut it. Only the Infinite is enough to satisfy this man.

[clyde]

Nick;

For a true genius, things of this world simply don't cut it. Only the Infinite is enough to satisfy this man.

Satisfy? What lack does this man, "a true genius", experience that can only be satisfied by the Infinite?

clyde

[Nick]

Nick;

For a true genius, things of this world simply don't cut it. Only the Infinite is enough to satisfy this man.

Satisfy? What lack does this man, "a true genius", experience that can only be satisfied by the Infinite?

clyde

I'm not sure I completely understand your question by the way you have worded it, but I will say this. A true genius has a great desire to know the Truth at all costs because he is an individual who wants nothing more than to be able to see and understand Reality with crystal clarity. This is the only way a true genius is fully satisfied. It's just a matter of fact that everything else falls far too short of this lofty attainment for anything else to be of any deep interest to him.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Knowing what is true is a rather easy attainment. All you gotta do is look around you and describe what you see. You'll then have yourself a handful of true propositions that you can feel happily confident in. If that doesn't entertain you, you could also simply say tautologies to yourself--"a cat is a feline"--and be quite confident that you have a solid grasp of the English language. I find it, though, bizarre that anyone should want to twaddle about in the obvious. What's interesting, and difficult, is figuring out what is, despite conceivably its being not so much.

Insofar as "absolute truth" is concerned: who really cares how the term is used? It's strikingly obvious that Vic and Uni have a very different idea of how such a term should be used then Dave does. Furthermore, Dave seems to find such a thing to have spiritual significance, whereas Vic seems prone to a more universal sort-of reverence. This might as well be a discussion of what sort of pie is the most delicious. I've always been rather fond of key lime, by the way. It is truly the most rational pie, and indeed, the pie of true geniuses.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

P.S. Here, for your viewing pleasure, are some of the things I figured out on my own, without learning them by reading a philosophy book: (...)

You might have copied them from people you met or books who conveyed the ideas to you without pretending it to be 'philosophy'. Much of my own reading of eg philosophy and psychology was a recognition of my own earlier thoughts. Big deal, leave it to Victor to make a list for his audience.

Much good story-telling, art and religion is nothing more than a way to teach advanced principles to an immature mind in the hope it gets stimulated, that something might actually stick. But that's how it is with everything else too, our minds get flooded with a lot of building blocks and we repeat or recombine them often using age old patterns that are in itself also learned (genes or memes).

Thinking 'for yourself' or 'on your own' therefore doesn't mean making something up completely new (though it should not be impossible to recombine in an unique, mutant way) but just that one has thoroughly stripped oneself from anything learned, or as far as possible, and get acquainted personally with the very roots of ones knowledge or being, totally lost for familiar tools or examples. It's very easy to invent the wheel in an almost mobile society after all.

This process in itself is the process of the growth of consciousness in practice.

[vicdan]

Big deal, leave it to Victor to make a list for his audience.

I was accused of having no original thoughts by some envious loser. In response, I listed some original philosophical ideas I had. I guess with you, one can't win for losing: either you drown, or you are a witch, right?..

Idiot.

Why don't you just start by saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is lacking in original thought, and be done with it?

[Nick]

Knowing what is true is a rather easy attainment. All you gotta do is look around you and describe what you see. You'll then have yourself a handful of true propositions that you can feel happily confident in. If that doesn't entertain you, you could also simply say tautologies to yourself--"a cat is a feline"--and be quite confident that you have a solid grasp of the English language. I find it, though, bizarre that anyone should want to twaddle about in the obvious. What's interesting, and difficult, is figuring out what is, despite conceivably its being not so much.

Well I obviously wasn't talking about trivial "empirical truths".

Insofar as "absolute truth" is concerned: who really cares how the term is used?

It's not about the term, it's about the idea the term is being used to express.

It's strikingly obvious that Vic and Uni have a very different idea of how such a term should be used then Dave does. Furthermore, Dave seems to find such a thing to have spiritual significance, whereas Vic seems prone to a more universal sort-of reverence. This might as well be a discussion of what sort of pie is the most delicious. I've always been rather fond of key lime, by the way. It is truly the most rational pie, and indeed, the pie of true geniuses.

It has nothing to do with who's definition is "better". It boils down to Victor not being able to break out of his limited and superficial academic mindset and become flexible enough to see the greater Truth David is trying to convey. On the other hand David has demonstrated he has no problem with flexibility in his use of terms and tailoring their definitions to suit whatever purpose he has in mind.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I was accused of having no original thoughts by some envious loser. In response, I listed some original philosophical ideas I had.

I was only responding on your list as well the phrase "'thinking for yourself". Because that's what seemed to have sparked off you post.

I guess with you, one can't win for losing: either you drown, or you are a witch, right?..

That's quite ironic coming from someone who demonstrates his own made up mind on a great many things every turn it takes.

Why don't you just start by saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is lacking in original thought, and be done with it?

You're just barking up the wrong tree, and you can interpret that in all possible ways.

[vicdan]

Whatever, dude. It's your life, and your brain to waste on figuring out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[clyde]

Nick;

My point is that you, like most religious believers of whatever persuasion, have dismissed this world. You write that a “true genius” desires “to see and understand Reality with crystal clarity”. Where are you looking for reality? Do you believe this world is apart from reality?

clyde

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Nick,

Well I obviously wasn't talking about trivial "empirical truths".

Of course not. You're a true genius who only concerns himself with the Infinite. What use have you for worldly knowledge?

It's not about the term, it's about the idea the term is being used to express.

How strange of me to have missed that fact. It's about the feeling. Or is it more then a feeling? Like when I hear that old song they used to play (more then a feeling)? I begin dreaming (more then a feeling) as well when I think about hidden essences. It's a pity then, for you, that God is an existentialist, and only saw fit to give you one world from which you could draw inferences. Oh, but we can dream can't we? We can imagine that there are deep, important, and absolute truths hidden away, like dread Yuggoth, in the folds of space-time. Keep the faith alive dude. Keep the faith alive...

It has nothing to do with who's definition is "better". It boils down to Victor not being able to break out of his limited and superficial academic mindset and become flexible enough to see the greater Truth David is trying to convey.

I imagine that Vic sees that Dave thinks such a notion is great. Nevertheless, that which is great or utterly boring is matter of opinion. Some folks like key lime pie, and other folks like blueberry. When someone doesn't like key lime it doesn't mean that they can't taste it, but rather that they simply don't like the taste. What you call "absolute truth" is like blueberry pie. Anyone can taste it if they want to, but not everyone will like it. I believe you probably learned that as a child, and you'll be much happier if you just come to terms with it. You simply can't force someone to like blueberry pie.

On the other hand David has demonstrated he has no problem with flexibility in his use of terms and tailoring their definitions to suit whatever purpose he has in mind.

Some might say that it's Dave's lack of problem with such things that constitute the problem. Dave uses terms which are loaded with meaningful intellectual and emotional associations, and then he rips their heart out and plants whatever he likes into them. He's like one of those face-huggers from the Alien movies, except a lot smarter and nicer. The terms he uses still retain their old associations to the unwary, and because of that, what he says seems so much deeper and more important then one might otherwise think. An idea isn't great or profound just because you call it "the Great Profound Idea"*. At least not if you see that freakin' alien burst from its stomach and scurry across the room.


*A never is A.

[vicdan]

We can imagine that there are deep, important, and absolute truths hidden away, like dread Yuggoth, in the folds of space-time. Keep the faith alive dude. Keep the faith alive...

LOL

Dave uses terms which are loaded with meaningful intellectual and emotional associations, and then he rips there heart out and plants whatever he likes into them. He's like one of those face-huggers from the Alien movies, except a lot smarter and nicer. The terms he uses still retain their old associations to the unwary, and because of that, what he says seems so much deeper and more important then one might otherwise think. An idea isn't great or profound just because you call it "the Great Profound Idea"*. At least not if you see that freakin' alien burst from its stomach and scurry across the room.

Exactly. When David says "all things are finite", if you press him to the wall, he will admit that it really means "that which is less than the totality, is less than the totality"; but he still says "all things are finite" instead, and that is what people usually hear.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Whatever, dude. It's your life, and your brain to waste on figuring out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

You mean being busy with Unix administration, studying consciousness, AI and psychology? Because that's what I do with my time and I've probably hardly any disagreement with you on any of these topics, or I haven't noticed any so far.

The only difference I see is that you're not going far enough with what you know. You seem to be hung up on usability and descriptiveness. A very narrow description of truth to the point of becoming false - or pointless.

[vicdan]

See my response to Dan in "The Reasoning Show", dude. You have a long way to go. :)

[DHodges]

Whatever, dude. It's your life, and your brain to waste on figuring out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Funny, I was out walking the other day and the answer to that question just popped into my head. No idea why I was thinking about it.

The answer: zero.

[Unidian]

No, no, no! You are educated stupid! The answer is obviously 16, you heretic. This is irrefutably proven by the 4/16 rotation principle in Nature's harmonic simultaneous ineffable Time Cube. Zero equates singularity, which is bastardly queer and dooms future youth to a hell. I shall have you brought before the Inquisition for your treacherous lies, sir. You deserve a hanging!

[vicdan]

Nonono, dude, you are missing the point. The true goal is the Philosopher's Stone. Any chemist wasting him time on anything less than the perfect source of eternal youth and happiness is no chemist. Only the highest goal will do -- Philosopher's Stone!

And any physicist, if he has any soul at all, must be searching for Perpetuum Mobile. Only the loftiest goals will do!

These pursuits aren't as honorable as the pursuit of Ultimate Truth and The infinite for a philosopher, but at least they are its shadows. An Ultimate philosopher is of course beyond reach (without forceps at least), but still, we each one us must try for our own ultimate goal. Nothing less will do.

I guess I better go code up an Oracle...

[Tharan]

For those that haven't been around for the past 4 or 5 years, David, Victor, and Nat are three of the most battle-hardened philosophic posters on the net. Everywhere they go, they leave a wake of destruction all in the name of truth. It's great. And we have all three here, in a single thread. Battle Royal just like old times. I just thought people should understand the context and the opportunity to enjoy. It doesn't get much better.

[David Quinn]

Nat,

DQ: I have trouble believing this. On the one hand, you are saying that you no longer have any real interest in philosophical or spiritual matters, that you are living as a simple human being again. And yet here you are, on this forum, arguing spiritual matters with me.

Nat: This wall you create between "spiritual" and "human" is the biggest problem with your philosophy.

This is just another way of saying that valuing consciousness is the biggest problem with my philosophy.

Conscious discrimination, making distinctions between true and false, or between what is conducive to wise living and what isn't, is what I would call intelligent human activity. It is necessary if one wants to lead a life of truth. But as I say, I think you're scared of this because it means having to face up to hard truths and entering into conflict with most of the human race. And that is the core reason why you denounce it. Your own timidness is making this decision for you.

In any case, you are already engaging in discrimination, whether you like it or not. For example, you are making a distinction between your own philosophy, which you hold to be desirable and valid, and my own philosophy, which you denigrate as being conceited and deluded. So you're already engaging in this supposedly conceited, deluded behaviour of making discriminations.

If it is deluded for me to be engaging in discriminatory behaviour, the it is equally deluded for you as well. The difference is, you're not being honest about it.

DQ: Moreover, you still want your decision to live once again as a simple human being to be blessed by the Taoist masters. If you gave up the Tao Te Ching altogether and never spoke about Lao Tzu ever again, then that might be a different matter. I would begin to have some respect for your decision. It would show me that you are serious about it.

Ordinariness, simplicity, and authenticity are praised by the Taoist masters, the Zen masters, and all the other masters throughout all the great spiritual texts of history. Conceit, putting on a show of enlightenment, and setting oneself above others are discouraged by the same.

See, you've done it again. You are using a particular religious school of thought to validate your decision to lead the current life that you do. You've confirmed the very point I was making.

Personally, I don't care what religious texts say. They don't hold any sway over me at all, even though I am supposed to be the religious one and you're not.

Ironic, isn't it.

DQ: But at the moment, it just seems comical to me that a man would use a religious text to justify his decision to abandon religion.

Nat: "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." Do you find that comical as well?

If it is done by making reference to Buddhist sutras, then yes, it would be very comical.

It would be like watching a Christian priest standing up in the pulpit and using quotes in the Bible to denounce all belief in God, and then asking the congregation for donations for church maintenance and repairs.

DQ: In any case, I don't believe in salvation either, at least not in the sense you mean. Once you realize that nothing fundamentally exists, not even your own self, then the very concept of salvation no longer has any meaning. It is only in that do I find my being.

N: If nothing exists and we don't exist, then we are of the same nature as everything, and the distinction between "exists" and "does not exist" becomes a meaningless one. Therefore, one cannot posit existence, non-existence, both, or neither, and that's reason #96 ontological proclamations are a crock. Really, David, read your Nagarjuna. :)

Your reference to another religious authority figure is noted.

Also, your stating of your own ontological position is noted.

Denouncing all ontological claims on the basis that "we are of the same nature as everything, and the distinction between "exists" and "does not exist" becomes a meaningless one. Therefore, one cannot posit existence, non-existence, both, or neither" - which is itself an ontological claim - is ludicrous to the extreme.

In the end, what you are really saying is, "All ontological claims are meaningless, except my own. My ontological proclamations are true and valid, while yours, David, are deluded and false." There is essentially nothing more to it than that.

-