NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism

[Sapius]

Now……now, boys, we are grownups, aren’t we. I don’t see how people who devote their life to philosophy could get pissed off in any way, after all, they are the ones who investigate the core of all cores, the mind, and supposedly understand it much more than others. I truly believe that patience and tolerance is a virtue.

This thread has progresses quite a bit, I mean post wise, but I have yet to see some focused discussion and convincing exchange. I don’t mean that nothing worthwhile has been spoken at all, but some how either side is simply not ready to hear each other out. May be they even hear, but do not make the effort to listen. It is not wise to label any one without actually understanding where he is coming from.

Well, getting back to some of my queries.

David wrote:

DQ: Since there is no logical conflict between conceiving of all phenomena as "subjective" and our direct experience of the world, there is no compelling reason to believe that phenomena have to be "objective".

S: I agree, but why then call it “subjective” itself?

DQ: Because things are subject to causal conditions, including that of the observer. Because nothing can exist independently of all other things.

So, ‘subjective’ means ‘subject to causal conditions’. If we take that as the definition, would it be sensible to say that a Tree is subjective, since it is subject to causal conditions, so is every ‘thing’ else, subjective I mean? I’m kind of confused with the meaning of ‘subjective’ now. Or do we understand it according to context or something?



Nick wrote:

As I said before, something may appear to be true but not true in reality. Appearance is a poor test of truth. It doesn't prove something 100%.

What is reality, or should be according to you? A lamp post seems to be a lamp post and not a tea cup. Are you saying that it could not be a lamp post in reality? What reality? What would it be in reality?

Just like many other words that carry a different meaning according to context, I think we may need to clarify the meaning of ‘appearance’ according to context.

I don’t know how right I am, but from what I understand, firstly, ‘appearances’ need not necessarily mean just pure sensual perceptions, but also a logically deduced concept. In fact, every experience is based on that. So in this sense, an “appearance” (does not mean ‘materialization’) of a lamp post is automatically a deductive logical concept, and this does not mean that the lamp post does not exist, but simply its existence becomes irrelevant in reality once conceptualized, since all that there is, is reality, nothing excluded. Same goes for the dark side of the moon. If you can deductively conceptualize it without going around it, it exists, and at the same time, it has no other reality than what it is conceptualized as.

Please be frank if you think this is rambling, jargon.

[Kevin Solway]

I dismissed Ksolway because he was admonishing me for referring to obscure authors, like Plato and Aristotle.

Referring to your interpretation of other thinkers introduces another level of complexity that need not exist. You might give us your interpretation of, say, existentialism. But if your interpretation of it is warped then it results in a great waste of time.

This is very strange behaviour. You've made up a quote which nobody here has said and then you dismiss it as though it were a load of rubbish .... ?!?

That’s not true. I copied and pasted exactly what was said and responded to it.

I think you'll find you have a virus which is changing the text on the clipboard.

If you want to challenge this 100% certain truth, then you need to provide compelling evidence which demonstrates that nothing exists at all and that experiences aren't happening.

I know who has the burden of proof, when a case is prima facie, and when a case has been refuted.

You don't have to prove conclusively that appearances, or experiences, aren't happening. All you have to do is demonstrate the possibility that experiences aren't happening. That should be simple enough.

For example, you need to demonstrate the possibility that the appearance of, say, a lamppost, is in fact not really the appearance of a lamppost.

If you can't do this, you have no case.

[Leyla Shen]

NickO wrote:

One of my professors, William F. O'Neal, from the University of Southern California, went so far as to say all logical conclusions are ultimately either inconclusive, as Hume said inductive arguments are, or sophisticated pronouncements of faith, where the conclusion is simply reiterated from the premises, as in the circular deductive arguments.

What do I care what one of your professors said? I'm talking to you. I assume by this that you are in 100% agreement with your professor's thoughts, which makes them your thoughts.

I look at this not as a weakness of logic but a strength. Logic points to its own weaknesses. It's a safety valve that blind faith and other criteria of truth do not have. Logic is a tool, not a prison. We should use it, not let it use us.

Damn. Other criteria of truth? Like what? Witchcraft? What the heck do you mean by truth, here?

How on Earth do we use this:

all logical conclusions are ultimately either inconclusive, as Hume said inductive arguments are, or sophisticated pronouncements of faith, where the conclusion is simply reiterated from the premises, as in the circular deductive arguments

as a tool and not a prison?

[Jamesh]

No, I’m also a former college debater and current debate judge at high school tournaments, and I have paralegal training

That explains a bit about why you think and communicate in the manner that you do. Lots of experiences where value was gained, and thus personal worth for the ego, through debating.

Mentally, you've developed an automatic rejection of the views of those you are communicating to, particularly where they say something with conviction, together with a desire to seek out and recall things written in accepted works of others so that you can use them in a debate.

You've turned into an android with a computer mind that deals with packets of detail; that uses up most of its spiritual energy in word wars, and has thus forgotten how to think deeply about reality via the use of abstraction and generalisation.

A modern world wannabe Socrates lover who hasn't, as yet, been caused to take his hemlock. The hemlock in this case being the truths that cause the ego to fly away.

Not that I can say that I have fully either. Hewing through the untrodden jungle of the Great Divide when one doesn't really know what is on the other side, isn't something that I have the need to do, as yet. I could end up in a desert region, or be lead astray by the lure of some illusionary oasis, or more probably be lost forever.

My liking for truth is still more or less in the entertainment category, and like Nick, I like truth because of its potential use with regard to communicating and social value. The way I think is changing though as my mind slowly adapts with the core truths that the QRS promote, truths that will always be valid in relation to any "thing". Even if I did decide to go exploring where my head hasn't gone before, then I doubt I would be able to break through the 44 year old barrier of my emotional modus operandi.

[Leyla Shen]

DQ: This is very strange behaviour. You've made up a quote which nobody here has said and then you dismiss it as though it were a load of rubbish .... ?!?

NickO: That’s not true. I copied and pasted exactly what was said and responded to it.

KS:I think you'll find you have a virus which is changing the text on the clipboard.

Actually, from memory, it's a "paraphrase" by Rhett of what David wrote. You guys are paying less and less attention to what's being said.

It's getting a little girly, don't you think?!

[Leyla Shen]

Rhett: I consider the substance of this analysis to be very important, and that your conclusions do not follow the premises.

Nicko: Can you recognize the premises for my conclusions, or do you also like to toss around terms for which you do not know the meaning?

Rhett: That's a completely worthless and evasive response Nick.

Here is my challenge again;

"Picture if you will an experience, an experience of a computer screen, keyboard and a pair of hands. This experience as we have named it is temporary, i.e. it had a beginning, and will not continue forever. I consider this uncontroversial; experiences of this nature are exactly what make up reality.

You would posit that the hands are separate to the other items, and that the items have their own existence in time, i.e. that even though the experience is undivided (inclusive) and temporary, the real fact is that it is divided and temporarily permanent.

I consider the substance of this analysis to be very important, and that your conclusions do not follow the premises."

Nick, is this an example of how to make an argument circular?

I would like to see you address this without resorting to your credentials. You know, like a thinking, communicating human being.

[David Quinn]

Nick wrote:

DQ: If you want to challenge this 100% certain truth, then you need to provide compelling evidence which demonstrates that nothing exists at all and that experiences aren't happening.

N: No, I’m also a former college debater and current debate judge at high school tournaments, and I have paralegal training. I know who has the burden of proof, when a case is prima facie, and when a case has been refuted. You are just making more of a fool out of yourself with every post.

I'm sorry, I didn't think I had to spell it out. The truth that "Nature is not nothing whatsoever and that experiences are happening" cannot be refuted because any attempt to refute it will always constitute an experience.

Therefore, it is 100% certain and true that Nature is not nothing whatsoever and that experiences are happening.

Therefore, the idea that "everything is uncertain" is false.


-

[David Quinn]

Leyla wrote:

Actually, from memory, it's a "paraphrase" by Rhett of what David wrote. You guys are paying less and less attention to what's being said.

Ah yes, you're right. It gets a bit confusing when Nick doesn't address anyone by name. I suppose it doesn't help when a lot of us are addressing him all at once.

-

[David Quinn]

Lennyrizzo wrote:

DQ: You give the impression that you believe you are on a one-man crusade against a faceless, evil world. It also suggests that you are not really giving anything we say much thought.

N: Do you really want Nick to consider your ideas more? You pissed him off, why should he?

He seems to get pissed off at nearly everyone he meets, so there is not much one can do there. You're right in thinking that I don't really care what he thinks or whether he considers my ideas or not. I don't think he has any potential for wisdom, so he doesn't interest me at all.

All I'm focused on in, in this debate, is showing up the short-comings of the academic mindset. It's part of my usual strategy of attacking the dogmas and conditionings of society, so as to make room for the emergence of truth. I'm not doing this for his sake, mind you, but for those who read this board.

If you really care about Nick apologize for pissing him off, if he forgives you then there's a chance your many years of many words haven't been a total waste of time.

That's a silly thing to say. I thought you were more intelligent than that.

-

[Dan Rowden]

This thread has become far too complicated, encompassing far too many meaningful themes; I think it's unfair to expect Nick to be able to meaningfully respond to all of them, though that is the expectation that I'm seeing.

So, perhaps at this point either Nick or participants in this thread might like to take a specific theme and run with it in another thread. Then Nick and others can decide which ones they want to prioritise.

[This is just an idea on my part not an administrative instruction so if you want to ignore it go ahead]


Dan Rowden

[Sapius]

This thread has become far too complicated, encompassing far too many meaningful themes; I think it's unfair to expect Nick to be able to meaningfully respond to all of them, though that is the expectation that I'm seeing.

So, perhaps at this point either Nick or participants in this thread might like to take a specific theme and run with it in another thread. Then Nick and others can decide which ones they want to prioritise.

[This is just an idea on my part not an administrative instruction so if you want to ignore it go ahead]


Dan Rowden

I was thinking along the same lines since each issue is a huge understanding and needs clarity on its own, and only then could one actually see the connections. It would also help people like me to follow it coherently. But I hope it is minus the personal profiling.

[Dan Rowden]

Actually, I think the "personal profiling" is an interesting dimension of the thread and could make a lively and useful sub-thread. Nick likes to make a point of who he is and his qualifications (which seem to be increasingly a substitute for argument) so why not explore the relevance of that to philosophical thought in a sub-Otani thread? There's considerable misunderstanding going on regarding what things like "name-dropping " and the academic rubric really mean.

I hate to indulge in an old genius-l in-joke but I'm half waiting for Nick to announce that he has three testicles.


Dan Rowden

[Sapius]

Actually, I think the "personal profiling" is an interesting dimension of the thread and could make a lively and useful sub-thread.

You may be right there, Dan.

I hate to indulge in an old genius-l in-joke but I'm half waiting for Nick to announce that he has three testicles.

Hehehe..... Is that how we get triplets?

[Sapius]

Nick,

It is kind of discouraging to see, after years and years of anti-discrimination messages, ethnic cleansing still going on in many parts of the world. What does it take to get through to people that if we value our lives, so do others? If we are interested in our own self-interest, it is more in our interest to live in a world where people respect the interests of each other than in a world where predators freely violate the rights of others.

I agree.

However, I see that this is a by-product of freedom. If we are free and morality is to have some meaning, there has to be some disagreement as to what is right and wrong.

Good that you understand this too. That would be freedom of thought through the use of reasoning I take it.

If we all knew what was right and always did it, there would be no need for morality. We would never argue about what we ought to do. We would just do it.

No, not exactly, then we would be ‘just ‘doing’ it without having any sense or giving any meaning to it. It wouldn’t be know as moral for there would be no sense of morality/immorality. It wouldn’t be realized as “right” as such. So it seems that we necessarily do need a tad bit of “evil” around.

We would be more like trees, which automatically do what their natures require, than humans who are still working on their natures.

Well, as I said earlier, trees may be working on their natures too, just that we don’t actually notice it, however, what makes you think that humans are not doing exactly what their nature requires them to do? For example, thinking, which really gives us that unique touch. What that entails is all together a different issue in my opinion.

If there is no evil in the world, there would be very little purpose or meaning to our lives. Imagine how static and sterile things would be. There would be no need for courage or bravery. Why? If we don't need to overcome obstcles, we don't need to develop these secondary virtues. We wouldn't get as much out of life as we do now.

Sure, that is true. So you agree that no evil, no morality.

Fire tempers us. According to folks like Nietzsche, hardship makes us stronger. According to folks like William Blake, there is a need to marry heaven with hell.

Of course it makes me stronger, so long as I don’t get killed somewhere along the line. Hehehe…

[NickOtani]

I don't think it's wrong for a philosopher to get pissed off. Even Socrates got pissed off when the sophists with whom he was dealing were engaging in long speaches, changing the subject, and evading his questions. And, some passion is justified. It's right to get pissed off when people's rights are violated or when one sees obvious examples of bigotry and hypocracy, which is evil. To see evil and do nothing is evil. Philosophers are not all modelled on Buddha. When people misrepresent me, lie about me, insult me and act like jerks, I either tell them off, as they deserve to be told off, or, I walk away and ignore them. I don't initiate the less than graceful behavior, but I will often retaliate, giving back as I get. When I do this, however, some observers criticize me rather than the jerks who started things.

I posted my philosophy with good-faith intentions. People who didn't understand me didn't ask for clarification. They attacked me for using references and tried to change the subject to talk about what they wanted, Buddhism or subjectivism or absolutism or anything but NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism. They labelled me an academic philosopher, and David has been trying to label me a Christian fundamentalist. Others have tried to say I am a woman, a monkey, or whatever, anything to try to provoke me. Drowden is trying to ridicule me for talking about myself, even though other people talk about themselves and are praised. There is no attempt on this board to understand my philosophy. It is personal attack after personal attack.

I have a right to be pissed. I am not some non-feeling Buddha. I am a real person. You guys are like the sophists who Socrates met, those who thought they were wise but were not. They hated Socrates when he told them so and condemned him to death.

Well, I'm not Socrates, but I don't think I'm welcomed here any longer. Perhaps it is time to walk away. If anyone wants to talk to me, I'll be on my board.

bis bald,

Nick

[Sapius]

Nick,

I don't think it's wrong for a philosopher to get pissed off.

Well I think it is, and one need not be a Buddha to get a grip and face the world without getting all emotional. Further more, for some strange reason I do not expect it form a person who really means what he says here…

It is kind of discouraging to see, after years and years of anti-discrimination messages, ethnic cleansing still going on in many parts of the world. What does it take to get through to people that if we value our lives, so do others? If we are interested in our own self-interest, it is more in our interest to live in a world where people respect the interests of each other than in a world where predators freely violate the rights of others.

And then…

I have a right to be pissed.

Yes, you do.

In my opinion, you first need to get rid of the frustration, and see all opposition as what you have mentioned earlier, “It is kind of discouraging to see”, and yet hang on to courage rather than get frustrated. I say this in good faith, but you might think otherwise because of the frame of mind you seem to be in.

[Dan Rowden]

I take back what I said about "sub-Otani" threads. Let's not go there unless and until he can explain his idea of not being "welcome" here.

Nick doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between him and his ideas.

That's a koan.


Dan Rowden

[Leyla Shen]

From this thread's introduction:

NickO: Basically, Objectivism is a lot like Realism in that it is assumed that reality exists independent of the perceiver.

Nick, much of the discussions on this thread have been about your philosophy. They are centred around its assumptions. Thus, your complaint below is a false complaint. You are protesting about the form of discussion that has since progressed toward which you have actively contributed.

They attacked me for using references and tried to change the subject to talk about what they wanted, Buddhism or subjectivism or absolutism or anything but NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism.

In my view, it is not enough for a philosopher to simply expect others not to question the foundations of his philosophy, emotionalism notwithstanding. In fact, they should demand it -- especially as notions of truth are called into question by virtue of the subject matter.

Underneath it all, you seem like a sensitive fellow, to me. But, like too many men, you hide yourself in your intellect at the cost of achieving the very thing that motivates you: bringing about a positive change in others. The only alternative to that is that you are, in fact, only interested in peer recognition.

Personally, I'd like to see you stick around if the former part of my assessment of you above is accurate. I would also like to see you being less concerned with promoting your philosophy and more concerned with communicating it.

[Lennyrizzo]

Lennyrizzo wrote:

DQ: You give the impression that you believe you are on a one-man crusade against a faceless, evil world. It also suggests that you are not really giving anything we say much thought.

K: Do you really want Nick to consider your ideas more? You pissed him off, why should he?

He seems to get pissed off at nearly everyone he meets, so there is not much one can do there.

L: It certainly doesn't seem there is anything you can do there, but that isn't true for everyone. with a bit more skill you could reach your goal wothout putting people off so. It seems you deliberately try to push peoples buttons, ok sometimes but you seem to have developed a syndrome which causes you to attack the next post-modernist with excessive force, a retaliation for all those who came before him. I see some ego there.

You're right in thinking that I don't really care what he thinks or whether he considers my ideas or not. I don't think he has any potential for wisdom, so he doesn't interest me at all.

L: Whether he has any potential remains to be seen, sometimes all it takes is the right word at the right time in the right way to get someone to abandon all they believe in. He's inteligent, more than many pm's we've seen here, if he's young there is still hope for him.

All I'm focused on in, in this debate, is showing up the short-comings of the academic mindset. It's part of my usual strategy of attacking the dogmas and conditionings of society, so as to make room for the emergence of truth.

L: And you think i don't realize this? How many times to you intend to write that same book, i wonder. Has it saved many souls thus far? How does this strategy save souls? Couldn't you simply re-post every month the last "showing up" you did and concentrate on helping individuals here? No need really to piss off every academic who dare contribute here, is there? Admit it, you enjoy it.

I'm not doing this for his sake, mind you, but for those who read this board.

L: Fuuny that Kevin Solway doesn't need to so offend people he disagrees with. humm....


If you really care about Nick apologize for pissing him off, if he forgives you then there's a chance your many years of many words haven't been a total waste of time.

That's a silly thing to say. I thought you were more intelligent than that.

If you really loved wisdom more than yourself you'ld be willing to kiss his ass if it would promote it.
Leave your ego at home when you go to the office.

[David Quinn]

I read the thread over again. We were all gentle with him to begin with; we all tried to generate some kind of interesting discussion. But it quickly became apparent, to me at least, that despite the many words being exchanged, there was very little dialogue actually taking place. This was essentially because Nick had firmly encased himself, mentally speaking, within the academic conceptual framework and had no awareness of, or interest in, what lies beyond.

What do you do when a person has bound himself up so tightly in this way? You can't really keep being gentle with him because all that happens is that he transmutes everything you say into academic-speak - which effectively undermines all possibility of communication - and he ends up not budging at all. Nothing further can be accomplished in this way.

This is where one needs to change tack and adopt more of a sledgehammer approach. A way is needed to force a few cracks into his enclosed world and hope that the little shards of sunlight coming through will attract his interest. And so that is the approach I adopted and will continue to adopt in these situations.

If it is the case that Nick has potential for wisdom, then having the sledgehammer approach applied to his enclosed world will do him a lot of good. If he doesn't have any potential, then no harm will come of it. I can then use him as a kind of prop or stooge in order to express my own thoughts about academia, and other things, for the sake of other readers.

Should this sledgehammer approach succeed and the resulting shards of sunlight trigger a breakthrough in understanding in Nick's mind and he starts showing signs that he is receptive to wisdom, then we can start being gentle with him again.

That is my methodology in situations like this. It is the best way to prioritise my energies, in my view.

Wisdom is not just a one-dimensional stream of niceness.

-

[Lennyrizzo]

A very common and rarely effective approach, but definitely worth a try.
(Do you think you're the only one here who understands what you're doing?) However, all sledgehammers are not the same, and not all targets are the same, a knowledge of the target and use of the appropriate sledgehammer is essential. And this is clearly where you are botching it, this is demonstrable.

You havent explained at all what you mean really, you're hiding behind and obscure word, sledgehammer, without defining what that means, without saying which hammers are ok to use and what method to use them. I mean, there are many ways to crack through a person's wall, some of which will most definitely compell him to but fortify it, or worse yet to send him scampering away. Then you loose your stooge, don't you. If he remains, all the sledgehammering you do is equivalent to pounding nails into his coffin, since you may have sealed his destiny by unnecessarily embarrasing him to begin with. You seem to loose sight of the value of a man, now that you're very much a machine. You have forgotten how vulnerable the ego of a proud man can be. And Rowden is worse than you are.

The fact that you ignored most of my post supports this. If Nick had ignored you likewise you would be squealing like a pig.

Define your sledgehammer, and then look back and see what you did that was unnecessary to accomplishing your goals.

[David Quinn]

You're right, I could have used a different approach, such as becoming his friend and gently trying to lead him out of his shell. But I just don't think it's worth it for people like him. It would be a case of expending copious amounts of energy for very little gain.

I think Nick is just too entrenched in the whole academic realm - he has his heart set on making his mark there, and at 58, there is very little possibility of him changing. Life is too short to engage in those kinds of impossible missions. I'd rather concentrate on speaking to younger, fresher minds who are not so tightly bound to things.

Of course, if you think he is worth spending a lot of time on, you are free to follow him over to his board and do what you can with him. But I have no interest in doing that myself.

I'm sure other postmodernists will turn up in the near future and we can go through the whole exercise again. So he won't be missed. There seems to be no end to the supply of stooges.

One has to come down hard on postmodernists because, mentally speaking, they are living in la-la land and their views are constantly supported and reinforced everywhere they go in society. You can't be gentle with these kinds of people because it is too easy for them to absorb you into their postmodernist fluffiness and nullify your voice. You just have to find a way to snap them out of it. Only then, you can begin speaking to them like a human being.

-

[Lennyrizzo]

No, I'm not "right". And i didn't suggest to be gentle with him and lead him as a friend, and neither was i aware of his age if that's correct, for some reason i thought he was much younger. Neither have i discounted a forceful approach if performed skillfully and wisely.

[Blair]

Despite the fact that NickOtani failed miserably in promoting his philosophy here, this thread has been very amusing to read.

[Rhett]

.

This thread has become far too complicated, encompassing far too many meaningful themes; I think it's unfair to expect Nick to be able to meaningfully respond to all of them, though that is the expectation that I'm seeing.

I don't really agree with that approach. Working Nick through an issue and hoping he'll make correlations to his own state (and status) is futile as he's so full of himself. One can falsify almost any number of his points and he'll just come back with a declaration of conquer.

By giving different themes a platform his inflexibility and incompetence is brought to the surface more distinctly, which addresses his inflated self opinion. Only when that is addressed can he be open to working through an issue with any chance of revelation.

I didn't really expect Nick to be able to respond meaningfully to much of what was said, but since he did i held him to that, to prove him wrong and fracture his shell.

.