Making peace with femininity

[Ataraxia]

Causeless and infinite are not properties of formlessness, they are simply alternate ways of saying "formless", just as caused and finite are just alternate ways of saying "form".

Bloody good, that.Clear, concise and right to the heart of matters.Statements like this get me just that little bit closer;something i can grasp.

Personally I'd let Laird stay-on, on the strength of this alone.

That Laird brings out explainations by Dan from time to time like this one, speaks to his 'value'

My "argument from self interest" :D

[David Quinn]

Laird is welcome to come back at a later date, when he has worked through his current concerns and exorcised them out of his system, and has a genuine interest in the forum's ideals.

-

[RobertGreenSky]

With Laird Shaw being shown the door because supposedly every post of his reveals an obsession with women, and with The Crucible openly adopting the RobertGreenSky Rule*, a new yet hardly improved Genius Forum is taking shape, one in which reasonable speech is being curtailed so that Quinn and Rowden are less easily shown up.


*

# To give the Crucible the intended air and a hopefully unique feel, participants must speak from their own understanding on all topics. No external authorities may be quoted or referred to in the form of supporting argument. i.e. the fallacy of argument from authority is banned.

Note that most cites of authority are not 'appeals to authority' in the sense of fallacy. See Wikipedia, Appeal to authority. When David Quinn told the Hui-neng story he was not appealing to authority, nor was I when I pointed out how so clearly wrong Quinn had gotten it. On the other hand, those who debate in The Crucible carrying with them an implicit claim on authority, as will Quinn and Rowden, e.g., need worry neither for formally mentioning it nor for having it rebutted with evidence from (legitimate) authority. Any discussion of enlightenment, e.g., is automatically weighted in their favour.

[brokenhead]

The fact that reality has no form means it has the property of having no form. Or at least that is a way we can speak about it - poetically, as it were. It also means that it has the property of not being able to be conceptualized. Nor can it possess the traits of a form - i.e. with beginnings and ends, and causes.

-

Does it follow then that you cannot aver under any circumstances what reality cannot include? If it is infinite, that is, as you have said numerous times. It seems to me that if you can conceive of something, it must exist somewhere within an infinite, boundless totality.

There is something lacking in your use of the word "infinite," yet I have not been able to put my finger on it. I do know it has been analyzed thoroughly in a mathematical context, and it is well known that some "infinities" are in fact larger than others. The set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) is infinite. The set of real numbers is also infinite. Yet there are demonstrably more real numbers than there are natural numbers.

I think I have read one of Kevin's posts that seems to dismiss this, yet I remain uncomfortable with the way the word "infinite" is used here. It is not worked out in my mind yet why one should be able to exclude the possibility of the existence of a thing without a minimum number of qualifiers. For instance, take the trivial example of a mythological animal like the centaur or unicorn. You cannot say they don't exist. You can only say they don't exist on earth, at this time, as far as anyone knows for certain.

You can see where I could take this. You can say there is no effect without a cause. I can argue that not only must there be, somewhere, causeless effects - which then become causes - but there must be an infinite number of them, with the understanding that this "infinity" can be considered as a "smaller infinity" than the infinity of the Totality, as the Totality evidently contains all effects with causes. It is not demonstrably nonsense to postulate that a thing can "eventuate" without being caused by anything else.

In many people's houses there is that one room, the attic, the basement, a crawlspace, or a spare bedroom, where odds and ends are dumped. It is a place where the things that don't fit nicely anywhere else are stored - the things we haven't gotten around to dealing with yet, and probably never will. The nonconceptualizability of your Totality is just such a room within your philosophy, and it is quite naturally where I am drawn to poke around.

[Dan Rowden]

With Laird Shaw being shown the door because supposedly every post of his reveals an obsession with women, and with The Crucible openly adopting the RobertGreenSky Rule*, a new yet hardly improved Genius Forum is taking shape, one in which reasonable speech is being curtailed so that Quinn and Rowden are less easily shown up.

Your obsession is getting uglier with each passing month, Robert. If people don't appreciate and support the Crucible rules they won't see fit to debate there, now, will they? They can still engage anyone on any suitable theme here. You seem to think you are entitled to run our show. To that I say a hearty and entirely Buddha-like "go gorge yourself on fairy-floss".

*

# To give the Crucible the intended air and a hopefully unique feel, participants must speak from their own understanding on all topics. No external authorities may be quoted or referred to in the form of supporting argument. i.e. the fallacy of argument from authority is banned.

Note that most cites of authority are not 'appeals to authority' in the sense of fallacy. See Wikipedia, Appeal to authority. When David Quinn told the Hui-neng story he was not appealing to authority, nor was I when I pointed out how so clearly wrong Quinn had gotten it. On the other hand, those who debate in The Crucible carrying with them an implicit claim on authority, as will Quinn and Rowden, e.g., need worry neither for formally mentioning it nor for having it rebutted with evidence from (legitimate) authority. Any discussion of enlightenment, e.g., is automatically weighted in their favour.

Your fist sentence is a laughable, but no doubt revealing contradiction. The citing of an "authority" is necessarily an appeal to authority by dint of the fact of the label itself. And the rule does not state that people can't be quoted, per se. There are certain potential debate subjects, such as "Is David Quinn's enlightenment the enlightenment of the Patriarchs", where quoting would be necessary to be able to make an argument at all. The whole idea of that rule is to encourage people to have the conviction to speak from their own understanding (that doesn't mean "authority" however much you want to spin it that way) without recourse to fallaciously quoting people. When you quote someone in this way, it means nothing if you don't demonstrate the rectitude of their statement, but, if you can do that, you don't need to quote them in the first place.

[RobertGreenSky]

With Laird Shaw being shown the door because supposedly every post of his reveals an obsession with women, and with The Crucible openly adopting the RobertGreenSky Rule*, a new yet hardly improved Genius Forum is taking shape, one in which reasonable speech is being curtailed so that Quinn and Rowden are less easily shown up.

Your obsession is getting uglier with each passing month, Robert. If people don't appreciate and support the Crucible rules they won't see fit to debate there, now, will they? They can still engage anyone on any suitable theme here. You seem to think you are entitled to run our show. To that I say a hearty and entirely Buddha-like "go gorge yourself on fairy-floss".

*

# To give the Crucible the intended air and a hopefully unique feel, participants must speak from their own understanding on all topics. No external authorities may be quoted or referred to in the form of supporting argument. i.e. the fallacy of argument from authority is banned.

Note that most cites of authority are not 'appeals to authority' in the sense of fallacy. See Wikipedia, Appeal to authority. When David Quinn told the Hui-neng story he was not appealing to authority, nor was I when I pointed out how so clearly wrong Quinn had gotten it. On the other hand, those who debate in The Crucible carrying with them an implicit claim on authority, as will Quinn and Rowden, e.g., need worry neither for formally mentioning it nor for having it rebutted with evidence from (legitimate) authority. Any discussion of enlightenment, e.g., is automatically weighted in their favour.

Your fist sentence is a laughable, but no doubt revealing contradiction. The citing of an "authority" is necessarily an appeal to authority by dint of the fact of the label itself. And the rule does not state that people can't be quoted, per se. There are certain potential debate subjects, such as "Is David Quinn's enlightenment the enlightenment of the Patriarchs", where quoting would be necessary to be able to make an argument at all. The whole idea of that rule is to encourage people to have the conviction to speak from their own understanding (that doesn't mean "authority" however much you want to spin it that way) without recourse to fallaciously quoting people. When you quote someone in this way, it means nothing if you don't demonstrate the rectitude of their statement, but, if you can do that, you don't need to quote them in the first place.

The nature of the fallacy is explained in the article. While you can pretend you are some expert on logical reasoning, you certainly have no authority with which to back it up. You're caught transparently bullshitting once again.

Everyone knows what happened, that Quinn tried to deal with our source material and Quinn got his ass handed to him on a shiny silver platter. You yourself cannot answer it, and so you've gotten rid of it in The Crucible. This is the RobertGreenSky Rule. The Patriarchs are a good and a reasonable mirror and that is why you have rigged the game to prevent their use. You have rigged the rules by squelching a form of evidence accepted everywhere else in the world as legitimate, and your doing so is a terrible comment on yourself and on Genius Forum.

Nothing can change the fact David Quinn was caught lying about the Hui-neng story, unless you wish to say it was an honest misinterpretation, and which I'll accept gladly, since it reveals a gross inadequacy in understanding the literature and a gross ignorance of Zen history and Zen philosophy.

[Dan Rowden]

You, Sir, are insane. You have my sympathy for that, but also now my total indifference.

[RobertGreenSky]

Insane by pointing out that the use of authority is not itself the logical fallacy of the 'appeal to authority'? What need one do but consult the Wikipedia article or any source on 'appeal to authority' and see for themselves that not only have you gotten it wrong, you have gotten it wrong in an entirely self-serving fashion, typical of Genius Forum 'sage' behaviour.

What should I do instead, argue with you about what constitutes the 'appeal to authority'? I've got better things to do since I already know what is the 'appeal to authority', and if people don't want to be ignorant about it, they can also learn what it means. See Appeal to authority. ... there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism...

This would be a good time for Dan to look up as well argumentum ad hominem:

(Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. - Wikipedia, linked immediately above.

Dan does not respond to my argument but instead merely argues 'to the man' that I am insane.

I am looking forward to the debate between Sam and Dan and I for one hope Sam kicks Dan's ass. With this kind of constant behaviour from Dan, however, one can only hope that Sam is on his guard.

The RobertGreenSky Rule has been adopted because the 'sages' got their butts kicked.

[Dan Rowden]

And there we have the emotional motive behind everything you do and say here. You merely wish to see kicked SRQ arse. I can't believe you don't get it, Robert. When you challenge David's interpretation of Zen or Buddhist literature you are claiming the ability to interpret it truly (which necessitates an independent understanding of the nature of reality). It was this claim (which arises necessarily from your position) that I wanted to test in the debate I suggested (and with the stipulation of no quoting). All we get from you is assertions of David's faults, quotes and more quotes. At no time do we see the man of many puppets make a connection between his own understanding and the correct interpretation he claims to possess.

It just doesn't work, Robert, but I'm glad that you at least seem highly impressed with yourself.

[RobertGreenSky]

And there we have the emotional motive behind everything you do and say here. You merely wish to see kicked SRQ arse. I can't believe you don't get it, Robert. When you challenge David's interpretation of Zen or Buddhist literature you are claiming the ability to interpret it truly (which necessitates an independent understanding of the nature of reality). It was this claim (which arises necessarily from your position) that I wanted to test in the debate I suggested (and with the stipulation of no quoting). All we get from you is assertions of David's faults, quotes and more quotes. At no time do we see the man of many puppets make a connection between his own understanding and the correct interpretation he claims to possess.

It just doesn't work, Robert, but I'm glad that you at least seem highly impressed with yourself.

Dan, you just don't get it. David Quinn wrote a fatuous interpretation of the Hui-neng story and he was caught at it. The story, the interpretation, and the response are in the thread for the reader to see. That story has been examined for centuries and David Quinn was either unfamiliar with it or he used it for his own ends.

In an effort to save face you asked for terms which anywhere else would be unreasonable because everywhere else evidence from reasonable authority is acceptable. You have since revealed either that you are unable to understand the nature of the logical fallacy involved, or that you are contrariwise more than willing to misinterpret the meaning of that fallacy for your own ends.

Your offer of debate was accepted, but as you picked the terms of it, I pick the venue of it. After your debate with Sam is finished, you and I have a debate.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm prepared to entertain the idea that I'm being unjust towards Robert on this matter. It seems to me that his approach is no different to that which might be taken by, say, a Calvinist with respect to Biblical Scripture; an approach that Robert would call foul on: let's say said Calvinist claims that Robert's interpretation and understanding of Biblical Scripture is totally wrong, and simply quotes other Calvinist scholars with the same interpretation as the evidence. Why would anyone accept this approach? How is this different to what Robert has been doing?

If someone can demonstrate the difference to me in a cogent fashion, I'll accept it and treat Robert's approach differently. At his juncture I simply can't see any real difference.

[RobertGreenSky]

As I've pointed out above, in the last few days while we argued, David Quinn quoted Nagarjuna, Hui-neng, Shen-hsiu, and Hakuin. Dan Rowden is so desperate to win this little argument that he is shooting David Quinn in the foot.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan, you just don't get it.

Oh, I get it just fine, Robert.

David Quinn wrote a fatuous interpretation of the Hui-neng story and he was caught at it.

If you say so. I didn't even actually bother reading that exchange. My request for a debate with the stipulation mentioned had nothing to do with that particular matter. It had to do with you throwing Nagarjuna at me and your method in general.

The story, the interpretation, and the response are in the thread for the reader to see. That story has been examined for centuries and David Quinn was either unfamiliar with it or he used it for his own ends.

Or, he has a different interpretation of it, which you happen to disagree with, presumably based on nothing more than scholarly "authority". All of which means no more than David's interpretation doesn't accord with that academic history. Well, holy dharma droppings, Batman, what an outrage! That makes David wrong by definition!

In an effort to save face you asked for terms which anywhere else would be unreasonable because everywhere else evidence from reasonable authority is acceptable.

Don't accuse of trying to save face; your exchange with David on Hui-neng had nothing to do with me and nothing to do with my debate request.

You have since revealed either that you are unable to understand the nature of the logical fallacy involved, or that you are contrariwise more than willing to misinterpret the meaning of that fallacy for your own ends.

My appreciation for the nature of the fallacy goes beyond its formal scope (whilst encompassing it). I am bigger than Ben Hur, dude.

Your offer of debate was accepted, but as you picked the terms of it, I pick the venue of it. After your debate with Sam is finished, you and I have a debate.

What possible difference can the venue make? Do you need the cheers of a supportive crowd to feel safe? Anyway, the venue is no concern to me. My only stipulation is my only stipulation.

[Dan Rowden]

As I've pointed out above, in the last few days while we argued, David Quinn quoted Nagarjuna, Hui-neng, Shen-hsiu, and Hakuin. Dan Rowden is so desperate to win this little argument that he is shooting David Quinn in the foot.

The immediate difference between yourself and David is that David is happy and willing to give an account of his understanding of reality absent of these other persons. We'll see how well you do on that front.

[RobertGreenSky]

Or, he has a different interpretation of it, which you happen to disagree with, presumably based on nothing more than scholarly "authority". All of which means no more than David's interpretation doesn't accord with that academic history. Well, holy dharma droppings, Batman, what an outrage! That makes David wrong by definition!

No, he is not wrong by definition, he is wrong due to clearly misinterpreting the meaning of a story told since it occurred in seventh century China - it has its meaning in Zen. If David had some new insight into the story, then his insight is weighed against 14 centuries of understanding and if his insight holds, then it holds. But not even David Quinn will defend his own obviously self-serving interpretation; he dropped it long ago without answer, while you claim not even to have read it. 14 centuries of understanding can be 'defeated', but not by self-serving 'sages' who use material for their own ends. If his insight was important, why did Quinn drop it and why did Rowden not even bother to read it?

[Dan Rowden]

Or, he has a different interpretation of it, which you happen to disagree with, presumably based on nothing more than scholarly "authority". All of which means no more than David's interpretation doesn't accord with that academic history. Well, holy dharma droppings, Batman, what an outrage! That makes David wrong by definition!

No, he is not wrong by definition, he is wrong due to clearly misinterpreting the meaning of a story told since it occurred in seventh century China - it has its meaning in Zen. If David had some new insight into the story, then his insight is weighed against 14 centuries of understanding

Argumentum ad Antiquitatem

and if his insight holds, then it holds.

Indeed, the question there would ultimately be: how do we test/judge that?

If his insight was important, why did Quinn drop it and why did Rowden not even bother to read it?

I suspect the answer to both those questions is roughly the same: Robert Larkin was involved.

[Jamesh]

Well, holy dharma droppings, Batman

Dan's in form today!

[Laird]

But James, that's just not possible. Dan is a part of reality, and reality is formless.

[Laird]

But James, that's just not possible. Dan is a part of reality, and reality is formless. Or so I'm told.

[Laird]

While reality cannot be conceptualized (as it has no form), it is perfectly possible for us to conceptualize why it can't be conceptualized (i.e. understand the nature of its lack of form). Reaching this conceptualization, to which all authentic spiritual teachings point, is a key step towards breaking free of all conceptualizations and reaching enlightenment.

It baffles me how you can on the one hand write that "reality cannot be conceptualized (as it has no form)" and on the other hand propound on the concept of the Totality (reality) with the properties that you ascribe to it - causelessness and infinity.

Causeless and infinite are not properties of formlessness, they are simply alternate ways of saying "formless", just as caused and finite are just alternate ways of saying "form".

In that sentence you perform the conceptual process of mapping two words onto another whilst discussing the nature of reality. Talking philosophy in words is conceptual, Dan. David and Kevin have written entire books on reality. Writing a book is a conceptual process.