Reform Taoism

[Nick]

Nick;

Can you give me a few examples of "the worldly desires of humanity"?

Power, love, status, wealth, and pleasures of the flesh. For most people these things alone give their lives meaning, most likely because they believe these things have inherent meaning built into them. But as I said before, this is not the case with a genius. He realizes these things only have as much meaning as he chooses to give them, which leads him to desire only the highest wisdom that reality has to offer.

And what worldly activities does a genius engage in and why?

A job or some other means of providing what he needs to survive, excercise, and multiple forms of mental stimulation he may find beneficial to his goals are a few things he might take part in. He does these things because he views his body as a tool to be carefully sharpened and refined in order to allow his consciousness to heighten and expand.

[clyde]

Nick;

There are many points in your post, so I’ll choose one:

He does these things because he views his body as a tool to be carefully sharpened and refined in order to allow his consciousness to heighten and expand.

How do you “sharpen and refine” your body? And how does your body allow your consciousness “to heighten and expand”?

clyde

[Nick]

How do you “sharpen and refine” your body?

I already listed a few examples in my last post. To be more specific things like thinking, reading, writing, exercise, a healthy diet, and other forms of mental stimulation that one finds to be beneficial to their overall development as a thinker.

And how does your body allow your consciousness “to heighten and expand”?

Do you think an alcoholic, drug addicted, disease infested person can make any real spiritual progress?

I'm not trying to be rude, but it's questions like these that make me think that you aren't thinking hard enough about what I'm saying to you. These are questions you should be able to figure out for yourself if you allow yourself enough time to do so. So before you ask me another question think hard about what I've said for at least three days. If you still haven't reached a sound conclusion by then, feel free to question what I've said.

[clyde]

Nick;

My questions were asked to explore your understanding, in this case, of body and mind and their relationship. I know you think you’re being clear, but phrases like “he views his body as a tool to be carefully sharpened and refined in order to allow his consciousness to heighten and expand” leave much to the reader to interpret (or misunderstand). I’ll stop, but I will share one more observation with you: you have a tendency to answer questions with questions. I do too sometimes, but the better way is to answer the question first, then ask questions.

clyde

[David Quinn]

Victor,

DQ: To wipe away these massive differences by making use of a crude definitional process doesn't strike me as very practical, as far as spiritual matters are concerned.

V: Wow. And you don't see the problem, huh?

In redefining 'conscious' to be the consciousness of an infinity-seeking philosopher, you create one clarification but obscure others, such as the difference between the 'unconsciousness' of a child and the 'unconsciousness' of a dog. In your place, anyone with any shred of intellectual honesty would simply define a new term to describe a new concept, or at least explicitly tag each modified use of the common concept as such. Instead, you lie by implication.

I wonder how you cope with multiple meanings of words, Victor.

Take the word "run", for example. It can refer to a person traveling quickly on his feet, water coming out of a faucet, a software program being executed, the overseeing of a major event, a bid for political office, the process of approaching bankruptcy and, I'm sure, to many other things as well. Your brain must go into overload trying keep track of it all.

The same word can have different meanings in different contexts - whether it be "run", "infinite", "consciousness", "God", or whatever it might be. This business of trying to lock in one meaning per word is highly impractical to say the least and bears no relationship to what actually occurs in the world.

Language is constantly evolving and non-philosophers are just as prone to changing the meaning of a word, or tacking on a new meaning to an old word, as philosophers are. It isn't a crime to do this, nor should it be. If anything, it indicates a freshness of thought and a refusal to stagnate in old mental habits.

-

[vicdan]

Dude, words can comfortably have multiple meanings in different domains -- e.g. your example of 'run', where a person runs, a stocking runs, a water runs, etc. As long as the different meanings occur in different contexts, we can disambiguate them based on context. Instead, the suggested meaning of 'conscious' occurs in the same context as the normal meaning, and I suspect deliberately so, the same way you people abuse terms like 'cause', 'infinity', etc.

[DHodges]

The same word can have different meanings in different contexts - whether it be "run", "infinite", "consciousness", "God", or whatever it might be. This business of trying to lock in one meaning per word is highly impractical to say the least and bears no relationship to what actually occurs in the world.

Then why are you so adamantly against the mathematical usage of the word "infinite"?

[David Quinn]

I'm not. That is Dan's beef.

-

[David Quinn]

Victor,

Dude, words can comfortably have multiple meanings in different domains -- e.g. your example of 'run', where a person runs, a stocking runs, a water runs, etc. As long as the different meanings occur in different contexts, we can disambiguate them based on context. Instead, the suggested meaning of 'conscious' occurs in the same context as the normal meaning, and I suspect deliberately so, the same way you people abuse terms like 'cause', 'infinity', etc.

You keep making the mistake of thinking that we are both playing the same game and therefore should be operating by the same rules. That is what it basically comes down to when you tick me off in these matters - namely, that I'm not playing by the rules that you want me to play by. But I don't think you fully grasp that we have entirely different purposes in our lives, which means that we are playing entirely different games, with little or no overlap.

All of the issues we have discussed, including this one regarding language - they all hinge on one's purpose in life. For example, I want to live in a world where the word "consciousness" is naturally and spontaneously linked to ultimate understanding/Buddha-consciousness, rather than to whatever mental spurts happen to emanate from the vegetative state. I don't really care about the niceties of current convention and playing by the currently accepted rules. That isn't a concern of mine. Instead, my focus is on the long-term future, on how to raise the base world-view of humanity up a few notches.

In other words, I place a higher priority on expanding people's horizons and awakening them to philosophical realities than I do pleasing the advocates of standardized, textbook thinking. If you don't like it, that's too bad. There's not much you can do about it. I'm not going to be changing this approach anytime soon.

-

[Dan Rowden]

I'm more specifically against it when it's used as a philosophical tool. I admit I don't particularly like it used in math the way it is either, but primarily I don't like it when someone tries to make a philosophical point out of mathematical "infinites" when what is being discussed is philosophy and infinity's philosophical meaning.

[clyde]

David;

Instead, my focus is on the long-term future, on how to raise the base world-view of humanity up a few notches.

That’s a noble goal, but unachievable if people fail to understand or misunderstand your message. With that noble goal in mind I would expect that you would make every effort to communicate clearly and effectively, which may mean using common words in common ways; i.e., caring about “the niceties of current convention”. If only you and a select few know your special usage of terms, your message will not reach humanity.

clyde

[keenobserver]

Id love to see you recommend this to any "brother" in conversation.
Better have your sneakers on.

[David Quinn]

Clyde,

DQ: Instead, my focus is on the long-term future, on how to raise the base world-view of humanity up a few notches.

Clyde: That’s a noble goal, but unachievable if people fail to understand or misunderstand your message.

Part of the message, and part of the process of raising people's consciousness, involves showing people that they don't have to be a slave to definitions and concepts.

Those who already have an intuitive connection to Truth will instantly recognize this message and will gain something from it, while those who are firmly under the spell of conventional concepts and definitions will tend to find such a message incomprehensible. It's just the way of things.

But even here one can sow a seed of doubt. Perhaps in a few years time they will begin to awaken to the fact that the mind is capable of being free of all concepts, without the world collapsing all around them.

-

[clyde]

Part of the message, and part of the process of raising people's consciousness, involves showing people that they don't have to be a slave to definitions and concepts.

Use a thorn to remove a thorn.

[brokenhead]

David wrote:

But even here one can sow a seed of doubt. Perhaps in a few years time they will begin to awaken to the fact that the mind is capable of being free of all concepts, without the world collapsing all around them.

Buddhist monks free their minds all the time - it takes withdrawal from society so the layers of delusions can be peeled away in peace.

[Dan Rowden]

Buddhists monks do not free their minds at all. Where did you get that crazy idea?

[brokenhead]

Buddhists monks do not free their minds at all

Then what are they doing up there in the mists of Tibet? Playing tiddly-winks?

[Dan Rowden]

Yes, basically.

[brokenhead]

Can't they play tiddly-winks at sea level?

You give a silly answer, you get a silly question.