clowns

[Nick]

There have been some real dumb son's of bitches that have yammered on nihilisticly about nothing on this forum, but you by far have been the dumbest of them all so far. You have yet to make one coherent sentence. Your stupidity is beyond words. You have no reason to live except pussy, so go chase that pussy would ya. With that said I'll ask you again, what are you here for?

[David Quinn]

ashton wrote:

DQ: Are you trying to tell me that you're not a postmodernist clone?

A: "play with my labels!" wank wank squark

Let me put it this way: I haven't seen any evidence that you aren't a postmodernist clone. Everything that I've heard from you thus far I've heard a thousand times before, and from people far more articulate than yourself.

DQ: If it is an illusion, then why are you presenting it to this forum as though it were an iron-clad truth?

A: you don't understand the fundamental point.

Can an illusion constitute a fundamental point, I wonder ...?

and if what you are saying is so legit, why do you need to keep putting words in my mouth?

It's because your writing is not very clear and you have an evasive mentality.

DQ: And if it is an illusion, then how is it any different to, say, the illusions entertained by fundamentalist Christians?

A: illusion is illusion. boats are boats. some boats you wouldn't step a foot in, others appear more reliable. the more you understand about boats, the better your choice of boat will be. but it's just a boat.

And what about the boat you have just given us here - is it an illusion too? Should we just dismiss it out of hand, like all the rest of it?

as soon as there is a 'thing', there is illusion.

Is that true? Interesting.

-

[ashton]

There have been some real dumb son's of bitches that have yammered on nihilisticly about nothing on this forum, but you by far have been the dumbest of them all so far. You have yet to make one coherent sentence. Your stupidity is beyond words. You have no reason to live except pussy, so go chase that pussy would ya. With that said I'll ask you again, what are you here for?

nah, you ramble on and on with the same generic boring shit, i am done responding to your blather.

[Nick]

There have been some real dumb son's of bitches that have yammered on nihilisticly about nothing on this forum, but you by far have been the dumbest of them all so far. You have yet to make one coherent sentence. Your stupidity is beyond words. You have no reason to live except pussy, so go chase that pussy would ya. With that said I'll ask you again, what are you here for?

nah, you ramble on and on with the same generic boring shit, i am done responding to your blather.

Yes your existence has been undermined enough I'd say.

[Ankit Gupta]

Ashton reminds me of V from V for Vendetta(The comic not the movie).

[Ankit Gupta]

David's assertion, about Ashton being a postmodernist clone does not ring true. Both are talking about the same things. While Ashton seems to be saying that people, having got the impetus should now go do the "field work", and stop theorizing and discussing, David says both must go hand in hand. I would say that since, the other members are anyhow free to choose what they wish, there is no merit in either's arguments. This is purely arguing for arguings sake.

[ashton]

DQ: Everything that I've heard from you thus far I've heard a thousand times before, and from people far more articulate than yourself.

you have hardly read what i have written, you assured yourself of this label you have for me way back, and now, just like with the frank thing, your thoughts line up to accord with your idea. if you were more aware of yourself you would see this.

Can an illusion constitute a fundamental point, I wonder ...?

baahhh what a lot of going on. there is no end to this shit, and if you are comfortable with mere tales of africa, and your search is muted by your desire to feel clever, here you will stay and you will chew this cud forever.
i don't actually know this man, but there is every chance this could be the last time existence reaches out to you.. will you miss it again, too busy being so amazingly clever?
sure whatever, illusion can constitute a fundamental point, and can't also, illusion is just a word, it is not anything but what it is, it is just illusion. truth is just a word too, something in a little box. how can illusion be apart from truth? fuck it dude, you read so much and missed this, what chance have i, who you wrote off as a clone 15 posts ago, of getting it through to you?

It's because your writing is not very clear and you have an evasive mentality.

my writing is pretty clear, you just say, "your writing is not very clear", and hope you appear to your moronic peers to be in possession of a legitimate point. kids do this. also idiots who want to feel smart do it.

you think i am being evasive cause i am being honest and you are stupid, you think earth is flat and you cant get past that, so you say, he is acting as i might, he is being evasive. dude, you have evaded and ignored most of what i have written.

these words you are attributing me are not mine, they are words you need me to be attributed with, so you can go on with your well-beaten tyrade

And what about the boat you have just given us here - is it an illusion too? Should we just dismiss it out of hand, like all the rest of it?

does anyone see what david is missing here?

as soon as there is a 'thing', there is illusion.

Is that true? Interesting.

you are not as clever as you think, this is not being clever, this is missing something so obvious that to those who understand, it goes completely without saying. this is an argument for first year philosophy turds.

[David Quinn]

ashton wrote:

DQ: Can an illusion constitute a fundamental point, I wonder ...?

A: baahhh what a lot of going on. there is no end to this shit, and if you are comfortable with mere tales of africa, and your search is muted by your desire to feel clever, here you will stay and you will chew this cud forever.
i don't actually know this man, but there is every chance this could be the last time existence reaches out to you.. will you miss it again, too busy being so amazingly clever?

I'm only interested in clarity of thought and profound understanding. Hence my questions ......

DQ: Can an illusion constitute a fundamental point, I wonder ...?

A: sure whatever, illusion can constitute a fundamental point, and can't also, illusion is just a word,

Normally, people use the word "illusion" to mean a mirage or an hallucination or a deceptive image of some kind. Since you're here saying that it can convey truth just as well as it can deception, you're evidently using it in a very unconventional sense to mean .... what exactly? You don't seem to be giving the word "illusion" any meaning at all, apart from "thing" or "phenomena".

So what do you mean by "illusion" exactly? Are you able to define it?


-

[ashton]

I'm only interested in clarity of thought and profound understanding.
Hence my questions ......

stupid liar, you ask me these questions to try to show me up.

if this is your only interest, howcome you wiseacre so much?
if this is your only interest, then why do you hold and boast of convictions, these are useless to clarity of thought, profound understanding, etc
and howcome you so rarely answer MY questions huh?

So what do you mean by "illusion" exactly? Are you able to define it?

this.

[Carl G]

I'm continually amazed that a forum striving to attract active seekers of awakening gathers so many spiritual neanderthals.

that is not amazing, it happens to everything, the religions attract 99% idiots, the universities, societies etc etc, you cant see this? you cant see shit buddy.

By your response I can see you are more an instigator than a true seeker. You sound like you're in a hurry to stir shit. Why? Are you like this in real life? Get a grip.

[Carl G]

Whoever Ashton is, the responses to him/her further reveal the primitive intellectual and emotional states of most of the posters here.

Would you care to give any specific names and an example of that person acting more primitively than this newest hyena? Or are you going to hide behind this generality and act like you weren't being a dick to anyone in particular?

Your response is very primitive, coming from your lower emotions.

Let me ask you this: do you think your posts reflect any sort of clarity or suggest any allegience to higher purpose? To what higher purpose do you align yourself? What practice do you do to advance yourself, what is your work?

Btw, I did not say ashton was higher than others here. He has proved he is not.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Carl,

Your response is very primitive, coming from your lower emotions.

At least you can say it to my face. Now, who else do you think beneath you? You did say "most". (I didn't actually expect that I'd be able to deflect all your disdain toward me.)

do you think your posts reflect any sort of clarity or suggest any allegience to higher purpose? To what higher purpose do you align yourself?

I think I'm perfectly clear when I write. Up until just now, nobody has ever told me otherwise.

In this post alone, I've suggested that I'm allied to both coherence and accountability: that people say what they mean, and take full responsibility for saying what they say.

I align myself to virtues when I find the opposing vice repugnant. Many people have purposes, and most of these purposes are more destructive than having no higher purpose at all. So no, I'm not aligned to any particular higher goal. I do, however, subscribe to the lower purpose of being a virtuous, contemplative person.

What practice do you do to advance yourself, what is your work?

I'm a philosophy student. I attend classes.

[Carl G]

Carl,

Your response is very primitive, coming from your lower emotions.

At least you can say it to my face. Now, who else do you think beneath you? You did say "most". (I didn't actually expect that I'd be able to deflect all your disdain toward me.)

I have no disdain toward you. And, since we can only be on parallel courses, there is no below or above you or I.

do you think your posts reflect any sort of clarity or suggest any allegience to higher purpose? To what higher purpose do you align yourself?

I think I'm perfectly clear when I write. Up until just now, nobody has ever told me otherwise.
In this post alone, I've suggested that I'm allied to both coherence and accountability: that people say what they mean, and take full responsibility for saying what they say.

I align myself to virtues when I find the opposing vice repugnant. Many people have purposes, and most of these purposes are more destructive than having no higher purpose at all. So no, I'm not aligned to any particular higher goal. I do, however, subscribe to the lower purpose of being a virtuous, contemplative person.

To me this is neither clear or aligned with higher purpose. You state yourself that you align yourself with "the lower purpose of..." Why are you here? Is your participation here simply an intellectual exercise? Is it even exercise, or perhaps just social?

What practice do you do to advance yourself, what is your work?

I'm a philosophy student. I attend classes.

That is it? What do you hope to gain through this? From philosophy? From Genius Forum? From the act of thinking?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Why are you here? Is your participation here simply an intellectual exercise? Is it even exercise, or perhaps just social?

It's habitual, but no more social than reading a book (there are a few websites I regularly visit). When I first came here, I was struggling with important problems. A lot of the personal life-or-death intensity is gone, so I don't post my own problems often. I usually only participate when I think I'm qualified to respond to a philosophic problem, crises, query, or whatnot; or when I believe someone is making unfair or base accusations, as in your case.

Most philosophizing I do away from public settings.

That is it? What do you hope to gain through this? From philosophy? From Genius Forum? From the act of thinking?

I don't expect to gain more from philosophy than I've already gained over the years I've been doing it. Greater sobriety, keener judgement, the vastly improved ability to work my way through complex problems (even outside of my fields of interest); generally, improved powers of reasoning and a cooler head.

From the Genius forum in particular, I don't believe that I have much left to gain. Rather, I hope that I'm able to provide insight into the problems of drop-by's; I believe I'm familiar enough with the Genius values (although I don't share them all) that I can explain the intricacies of the values apart from my own beliefs.

From my schooling, perhaps I'll be able to get a career as a professional philosopher: assisting scientists in constructing and improving theories, teaching classes, or producing critiques of literature. Or I'll go into the public service. Or, I might even go into law school. Or I'll become a fisherman. Or I'll say fuckit and live off of my disability payments for the rest of my life.

Now, is there anything else you want to know about me? I really hope I live up to your standards. Because I'd just die if I was called primitive again.

[Carl G]

mookestink,

Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough reply. Good luck with your studies and future career.

Now that I know what your priorities are, I will not call you primitive.

For some reason I figured everyone who posted here was in (or was trying to be in) the enlightenment business.

[David Quinn]

Ashton wrote:

DQ: I'm only interested in clarity of thought and profound understanding. Hence my questions ......

A: stupid liar, you ask me these questions to try to show me up.

All throughout this thread I have challenged your understanding of things with questions and judgments. I consider this to be an effective method of clarifying thought, whether it be yours or mine, or others who might be following the discussions.

if this is your only interest, howcome you wiseacre so much?

You are mistaken. I never wiseacre.

if this is your only interest, then why do you hold and boast of convictions, these are useless to clarity of thought, profound understanding, etc

There are many ways to clarify thought and generate profound understanding - e.g. questions, rational discussion, judgments, confrontation, provocation, humour, etc.

and howcome you so rarely answer MY questions huh?

You have not asked a single question about my understanding of things. Instead, all you have given me are rhetorical questions loaded with slurs, prejudices, personal abuse and false assumptions. Life is too short to deal with that crap.

DQ: So what do you mean by "illusion" exactly? Are you able to define it?

A: this.

This is the sort of useless response that two-bit gurus try to palm off onto their gullible followers. Surely, you can do better than this.

Let's try again. I already know that you consider all things to be illusory. Now I'm asking you why think this.

Do you even know why?


-

[ashton]

All throughout this thread I have challenged your understanding of things with questions and judgments. I consider this to be an effective method of clarifying thought, whether it be yours or mine, or others who might be following the discussions.

don't fool yourself, trojan.

I never wiseacre.

haha
man you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned parrots.. they will hear and store things, and squark them at people, and people look and say, 'the parrot talks!' when of course, it doesn't, it knows nothing of what it is saying, it just knows it gets the cracker if it squarks that way

There are many ways to clarify thought and generate profound understanding - e.g. questions, rational discussion, judgments, confrontation, provocation, humour, etc.

investing in convictions means you can't question for fear that the answer might displace your conviction, and you can't be rational because you are not being honest about your need for the conviction to be right. judgements come about as the result of conviction, as does confrontation and provocation.

dude have you ever thought about the fact that you wouldn't need to be certain of anything if it wasn't for the benefit of your ego? if you cant look fresh and discover it in any moment, is it a truth? is it worth your conviction? what is the point? advice: drop your convictions, existence does not need you to carry it around, it will be there, as it is, whenever you look. ideas come and go, they are good like that, useful, fun, but if you start thinking something is Frank and the idea mingles and coincides with your wants and so forth, and you are not aware enough of yourself to understand what is really happening, it becomes something else, right under your nose, it transforms into a vehicle for your desires.. you start blocking any idea that suggests the original idea is in error, because now you are not interested in truth, you are interested in the truth aligning with your conviction for the sake of some human survivalist motivation. ideas can only be what they are, convictions are useless.
you wrote 'humour', that's excellent, but you forgot 'listening to music', 'taking drugs' and 'having sex'.

slurs, prejudices, personal abuse and false assumptions. Life is too short to deal with that crap.

i don't remember dishing out any personal abuse to you dude.. i may have and then forgotten though i guess.
hey you're not being abused vicariously through solway are you? cause i wasn't abusing that guy either, i was handing him the damn key, it takes someone as foolhardy as me to do this, to walk right up to the starving lion and place the steak on its tongue. stupid lion.

dude... prejudices, false assumptions, that's what little david is made of

This is the sort of useless response that two-bit gurus try to palm off onto their gullible followers.

yeah all gurus want is fame and self-assurance.

Surely, you can do better than this.

this sentence is amusing cause it works both as a reference to the actual text used and as a general reference to my answer.

Let's try again. I already know that you consider all things to be illusory. Now I'm asking you why think this.
Do you even know why?

because outside of illusion, david, there are no things.

[ashton]

I'm continually amazed that a forum striving to attract active seekers of awakening gathers so many spiritual neanderthals.

that is not amazing, it happens to everything, the religions attract 99% idiots, the universities, societies etc etc, you cant see this? you cant see shit buddy.

By your response I can see you are more an instigator than a true seeker. You sound like you're in a hurry to stir shit. Why? Are you like this in real life? Get a grip.

so you can't see this, that anything attempting to attract seekers ends up with primarilly dull ego-driven zombies, and has always done? yeah, you cant see shit buddy.

[David Quinn]

Ashton wrote:

DQ: There are many ways to clarify thought and generate profound understanding - e.g. questions, rational discussion, judgments, confrontation, provocation, humour, etc.

A: investing in convictions means you can't question for fear that the answer might displace your conviction, and you can't be rational because you are not being honest about your need for the conviction to be right.

I agree that if you are attached to a false conviction and it is distorting your mind and preventing you from being fully rational or honest, then that is a problem. However, I don't consider it to be dishonest or irrational to desire that one convictions be right.

It may be dishonest to pretend they are right, when in fact they are wrong or you're not sure. And it may be dishonest to have blind faith that one's convictions are right, in the absence of irrefutable evidence. But to burrow down to the very core of all reality and establish with flawlessly executed logic that one's convictions are indeed right ......there is nothing wrong with that. That is perfect honesty.

judgements come about as the result of conviction, as does confrontation and provocation.

Would you say that your own judgments and provocations are the result of your convictions?

dude have you ever thought about the fact that you wouldn't need to be certain of anything if it wasn't for the benefit of your ego?

I have, indeed. There is no question that the search for truth and certainty is driven by an insecure ego that hates the insecurities of ignorance and uncertainty. You're spot on there.

if you cant look fresh and discover it in any moment, is it a truth? is it worth your conviction? what is the point? advice: drop your convictions, existence does not need you to carry it around, it will be there, as it is, whenever you look. ideas come and go, they are good like that, useful, fun, but if you start thinking something is Frank and the idea mingles and coincides with your wants and so forth, and you are not aware enough of yourself to understand what is really happening, it becomes something else, right under your nose, it transforms into a vehicle for your desires.. you start blocking any idea that suggests the original idea is in error, because now you are not interested in truth, you are interested in the truth aligning with your conviction for the sake of some human survivalist motivation. ideas can only be what they are, convictions are useless.

I agree that being firmly attached to false ideas is foolish and counter-productive. But truth is truth. Once you discover it, you can't disown it again. It stays with you for the rest of your days.

I personally wouldn't call the moment-by-moment recognition of truth as "having a conviction". It is the very opposite of having a conviction. It is pure open-mindedness itself.

you wrote 'humour', that's excellent, but you forgot 'listening to music', 'taking drugs' and 'having sex'.

For average, non-thinking folk, and for spiritual beginners, music, drugs and sex can certainly provide much insight. However, the insights they provide are pretty limited, and it doesn't take much effort to reach the stage where you can't really learn anything more from them. So there comes a time where you have to move on.

A lot of people take drugs and believe they have experienced the highest that life has to offer. But impressive as some drug experiences can be, it is still small fry compared to the real wisdom of enlightenment.

DQ: Let's try again. I already know that you consider all things to be illusory. Now I'm asking you why think this.
Do you even know why?

A: because outside of illusion, david, there are no things.

I know, you've already said that. I know you think that all things are illusory and that there are no things outside of illusion. I have firmly grasped that this is your conviction. You don't have to repeat it to me again. What I am more interested now is knowing why you have come to this conviction.

Is it because you have taken drugs and had a powerful insight into the mentalistic nature of all things? Or is it because you believe that the universe is a virtual simulation of some kind? Or is it because you have had insight into something even more profound?

Are you willing to share this with us?

-

[ashton]

I agree that if you are attached to a false conviction and it is distorting your mind and preventing you from being fully rational or honest, then that is a problem.

dude being attached to any conviction is distorting and prevents honesty and rationality. take that very word, 'attached'.. what are it's implications?

However, I don't consider it to be dishonest or irrational to desire that one convictions be right.

oh man, listen to yourself.. can you honestly say that somebody would be capable of seeing with undistorted vision, if they were erstwhile desiring for what they think they already know to turn out to be correct? why is it important to your path that what you already think you know turns out to be right? what has it got to do with your eyes? this has nothing to do with enlightenment or getting there or whatever, it is tied to little mind stuff, a fear that you are not enlightened, something like this. i assure you, while you harbour this desire, you warp the mirror.

But to burrow down to the very core of all reality and establish with flawlessly executed logic that one's convictions are indeed right ......there is nothing wrong with that. That is perfect honesty.

well you never got deep enough mate, for at the very core of all reality, the division between right and wrong itself blurs to nothing. you took your convictions in with you, and you can't burrow far with an armload.

Would you say that your own judgments and provocations are the result of your convictions?

they are the result of ideas, ideas occur by themselves when i look. i trust in existence, so i dont need to hang on to any of them, in case i need them in the future or whatever... i will just look again. often though when i am being judgmental and provocative, i am just being an asshole.

There is no question that the search for truth and certainty is driven by an insecure ego that hates the insecurities of ignorance and uncertainty.

the process of realising oneself involves facing that insecurity, not running from it.

I agree that being firmly attached to false ideas is foolish and counter-productive. But truth is truth. Once you discover it, you can't disown it again. It stays with you for the rest of your days.

truth is just a word. in infinity, there is no distinction between truth and illusion, and there is distinction between truth and illusion, and there is also neither of these things, because infinity is infinite, bigger than your mind and its logic, it is limitless. you keep trying to see the totality of existence with your mind, but your mind is a part of existence... you think you've named the tao david, but you haven't, and you don't need to, and you can't.

I personally wouldn't call the moment-by-moment recognition of truth as "having a conviction". It is the very opposite of having a conviction. It is pure open-mindedness itself.

sure man. this is what i was describing above in response to your question about my provocations etc. perhaps you want to alter that statement though, to read "moment-by-moment recognition of moment"

music, drugs and sex

the insights they provide are pretty limited, and it doesn't take much effort to reach the stage where you can't really learn anything more from them.

'learning' to you is entirely thought and calculation based. if you fell into sex or music, really fell, like with complete abandon, you would 'learn' far more about the nature of existence than any book could tell you. drugs are fun too, but dangerously snaggy, dangerous like wise books and conversations with the wise etc. but it doesn't matter what you do really, being aware of what you are doing is the ticket.

impressive as some drug experiences can be, it is still small fry compared to the real wisdom of enlightenment.

drug experiences are nothing like enlightenment, they are just experiences. man, enlightenment is very ordinary, very common, no big deal.

A: because outside of illusion, david, there are no things.

What I am more interested now is knowing why you have come to this conviction.

try looking again at what you are asking me.
you are saying, why do you think there are no things outside of illusion? i am saying, because 'things' constitutes illusion.
this is not a conviction, this is what happens when i ask myself this question on your behalf.

Is it because you have taken drugs and had a powerful insight into the mentalistic nature of all things?

hahahahahaah

Or is it because you believe that the universe is a virtual simulation of some kind?

ahahhhah

Or is it because you have had insight into something even more profound?

oh, much

Are you willing to share this with us?

sure man, um... this sandwich is here, i am hungry, yay

[emma]

DQ I think he means outside of delusion there are no things

[ashton]

here's a few questions for you, directly related to the first post you made. from your first post, it looks like your answer to each would be "no", but i wouldn't mind being surprised.
do you even value philosophy?

philosophy is just the love of wisdom. a love affair. with wisdom. it's quite beautiful, i like it. i value it for this beauty. it is a reveling. and that is all it is.

do you think that people's beliefs, by themselves, are capable of affecting anything?

hahah what?
ok um...
let's say, yes

do you believe that your beliefs are important? do you believe that other people's beliefs are important?

important to what?

[David Quinn]

Ashton wrote:

DQ: I agree that if you are attached to a false conviction and it is distorting your mind and preventing you from being fully rational or honest, then that is a problem.

A: dude being attached to any conviction is distorting and prevents honesty and rationality.

You mean, like the conviction that all things are illusory? Yes, I can certainly see how that might be the case.

take that very word, 'attached'.. what are it's implications?

If it is an attachment to truth and reason, then the implications could mean that you become a very wise man.

If it is an attachment to the view that all things are illusory, then the implications are likely that you will become an asshole who is unbearably rude to people on public forums for essentially no good reason at all.

DQ: However, I don't consider it to be dishonest or irrational to desire that one convictions be right.

oh man, listen to yourself.. can you honestly say that somebody would be capable of seeing with undistorted vision, if they were erstwhile desiring for what they think they already know to turn out to be correct?

I didn't mean that, of course. I meant making every effort to ensure that what one finally accepts as knowledge is, in fact, absolutely true.

DQ: But to burrow down to the very core of all reality and establish with flawlessly executed logic that one's convictions are indeed right ......there is nothing wrong with that. That is perfect honesty.

A: well you never got deep enough mate, for at the very core of all reality, the division between right and wrong itself blurs to nothing. you took your convictions in with you, and you can't burrow far with an armload.

What about the division between the belief that all things are illusory (which you deem to be "right") and every other belief (which you deem to be "wrong")? Evidently, you haven't dissolved this one yet.

DQ: Would you say that your own judgments and provocations are the result of your convictions?

A: they are the result of ideas, ideas occur by themselves when i look. i trust in existence, so i dont need to hang on to any of them, in case i need them in the future or whatever... i will just look again.

Everyone else's judgments and provocations are the result of their blind, irrational convictions, whereas yours are merely the result of your disinterested ideas. Got it.

DQ: There is no question that the search for truth and certainty is driven by an insecure ego that hates the insecurities of ignorance and uncertainty.

A: the process of realising oneself involves facing that insecurity, not running from it.

What about the certainty you enjoy in the belief that all things are illusory? Is this a case of facing your insecurity, or running from it?

DQ: I agree that being firmly attached to false ideas is foolish and counter-productive. But truth is truth. Once you discover it, you can't disown it again. It stays with you for the rest of your days.

A: truth is just a word. in infinity, there is no distinction between truth and illusion, and there is distinction between truth and illusion, and there is also neither of these things, because infinity is infinite, bigger than your mind and its logic, it is limitless. you keep trying to see the totality of existence with your mind, but your mind is a part of existence... you think you've named the tao david, but you haven't, and you don't need to, and you can't.

I wonder about your statement that infinity is beyond our logic. If it is really beyond our logic, then how are you able to reason about its nature and conclude, for example, that it is bigger than my mind, or that naming it is an error of some kind?

Indeed, if naming it is really an error, then why have you named it yourself by calling it "infinity"?

Why are you allowed to name it and draw logical conclusions about it, while no one else is?

A: because outside of illusion, david, there are no things.

DQ: What I am more interested now is knowing why you have come to this conviction.

A: try looking again at what you are asking me.
you are saying, why do you think there are no things outside of illusion? i am saying, because 'things' constitutes illusion.
this is not a conviction, this is what happens when i ask myself this question on your behalf.

So what you're basically saying is that you simply define "things" to be illusory - just like that. In other words, you just make up the belief out of the blue that all things are illusory, just as a Christian makes up the belief in God, simply because it pleases you.

I realize that you probably have an intuitive insight into the fact that all things are illusory. But if you haven't pushed on with your reasoning and established this fact on rational grounds, then you are no different to the fundamentalist Christian who blindly derives his views from revelation.

-

[Trevor Salyzyn]

ashton

philosophy is just the love of wisdom. a love affair. with wisdom. it's quite beautiful, i like it. i value it for this beauty. it is a reveling. and that is all it is.

I think that's a rather base view of philosophy, based solely on the old Greek definition and not on philosophy as it tends to be practised. There's a lot more to it than that. I doubt the discipline would survive in our universities if it was only a song-and-dance number, and not something with many potential applications that requires proficiency in a number of well-defined skills.

Do you value philosophy as a discipline? Is it just a cheap fuck?

mooke: do you think that people's beliefs, by themselves, are capable of affecting anything?

ash: hahah what?
ok um...
let's say, yes

I'll be more clear [edit: or at least more explicit]. If someone holds one belief (or one group of beliefs) as opposed to another, do you think it is likely that they will act differently had they chosen their beliefs differently (such as a Christian acting altogether differently than an atheist, or even a postmodernist as opposed to a rationalist)? Also: do you think that holding particular beliefs can cause problems with the persons psyche (such as nervous disorders, or depression)? Contrariwise, do you think holding particular beliefs, or the act of exploring beliefs, can improve the quality of the person's psyche (such as more retentive memory or less intense emotions)? Essentially, do you think that a person's beliefs act within causality in visible, significant, ways?

mooke: do you believe that your beliefs are important? do you believe that other people's beliefs are important?

ash: important to what?

Important to you, based on whatever you may value. Do you value your own beliefs? And, do you think other people's beliefs are important enough, for whatever reason, that it's valuable [ie. important to you] to correct them when you disagree?

[ashton]

A: dude being attached to any conviction is distorting and prevents honesty and rationality.

You mean, like the conviction that all things are illusory? Yes, I can certainly see how that might be the case.

all things are illusory, all things are not illusory, both these ideas work, neither of them work, why cant you see this, nothing is true.

i'm not fighting for the concept that all things are illusory, i have been answering your question exactly as it appears.
but when i look outside of illusion, nowhere is there distinction. illusion is not wrong or bad or needing to be eradicated, it is just illusion. what do you see when you look?

take that very word, 'attached'.. what are it's implications?

If it is an attachment to truth and reason, then the implications could mean that you become a very wise man.

hahahhah
dude what if truth itself was an illusory concept? where then would you end up if you were attached to it?
what is the point of inventing terms like Greater Truth etc? the big all encompassing idea you are looking to swallow, you cant swallow, you dont need to swallow it. everything you try to box it with will break.
it makes no sense to you i know, but truth and untruth are the same thing man, existence is entirely illogical. this statement, everything, all is bullshit.
everything i say is a lie, how could it be anything other than this? you are a man of ideas, you have done your darndest to have me be in possession of an idea, so you can say 'oh oh, but you have this conviction, so nerrrrr, you have contradicted yourself'...
grow up dude. nothing is true. not this statement, nothing. nothing stays the same.

an asshole who is unbearably rude to people on public forums for essentially no good reason at all.

hahahha
man, doings done for no reason at all are the doings done closest to god or whatever. you dont see this cause you are mr.agenda, got to get enlightened, got to be masculine, etc etc, you miss your life like emma does.
yeah i am an asshole, hahah
yeah

I didn't mean that, of course. I meant making every effort to ensure that what one finally accepts as knowledge is, in fact, absolutely true.

nothing is absolutely true, not this, not what you are thinking right now, nothing... so this statement here, it is wrong, but if it is true that it is wrong, then it must not be wrong, etc etc... this is chewing the cud, at this end of town, we are like the frog that jumps half the distance of it's previous jump and never gets anywhere, though it keeps moving forward... here is the periphery of logic, and it's not a wall you meet, but a trailing off... and while you are set in your belief that jumping will get you to the finish, you will jump forever, always thinking you are getting somewhere. the nature of existence is wholly illogical, this scares you cause you are big woos woos.

What about the division between the belief that all things are illusory (which you deem to be "right") and every other belief (which you deem to be "wrong")? Evidently, you haven't dissolved this one yet.

nah you are trying to pin beliefs on me, so you can say, 'ah, but you say this is right etc etc', which is boring and does nothing. ok, i admit it, the belief that all things are illusory is actually a lie. babble babble babble
it's all wrong, right, whatever, you miss the point.

Everyone else's judgments and provocations are the result of their blind, irrational convictions, whereas yours are merely the result of your disinterested ideas.

disinterested? nah you missed the point again.
'everyone else's'... hahahhah, schoolyard language

What about the certainty you enjoy in the belief that all things are illusory? Is this a case of facing your insecurity, or running from it?

one only enjoys certainty if one is afraid of uncertainty. dude i am leaving, you are not interested in finding yourself.

I wonder about your statement that infinity is beyond our logic. If it is really beyond our logic, then how are you able to reason about its nature and conclude, for example, that it is bigger than my mind, or that naming it is an error of some kind?

i see it, i dont need to calculate anything, it is just there.
naming it is an error and also, how can there be error?
it is bigger than your mind, but how can it be big or small?
etc etc

Indeed, if naming it is really an error, then why have you named it yourself by calling it "infinity"?

oooohhhhhhhh for fucks sake

yapyapyapyapyapyap

Why are you allowed to name it and draw logical conclusions about it, while no one else is?

dude i am no cop, i am not your husband, people do what they want. i laugh at people who name it and draw conclusions etc and think they are right and sit back and stop thinking and start defending their ideas.

So what you're basically saying is that you simply define "things" to be illusory - just like that. In other words, you just make up the belief out of the blue that all things are illusory, just as a Christian makes up the belief in God, simply because it pleases you.

ok i'm gone david, you cant see the air in front of you.
later