Men commit actions; women commit gestures

[brokenhead]

Done all you can? What the hell is that, exactly? Anyway, you should consider the possibility that you spend way too much time at Youtube and that it is wrong of you to essentially extol people to do the same with the incessant posting of links there.

Many of the actions men commit are to their detriment, as Dan is pointing out. As devices impinge on people's personal space more and more (ipods, wifi, bluetooth) it is getting harder and harder for people to detach themselves from things. The future of the Material Culture looks bright indeed.

Oh, yes, that's right. Cell phones. How could I forget? When I am out driving and I see a pedestrian walking and carrying on a conversation at the same time with a cell phone, I feel like a bowling ball and the pedestrian starts looking like a pin.

[Dan Rowden]

Are you irrepressively vacuous, Robert? That's not a rhetorical question.

Vacuity means in part:

3. Total lack of ideas; emptiness of mind.

6. Something, especially a remark, that is pointless or inane ...

You answered nothing, displaying a total lack of ideas and an emptiness of mind, and you made a pointless and inane ad hominem remark, a logical fallacy anywhere else in the world but not here at dear old Genius Forum, Home of Absolute Truth On All Possible Worldsâ„¢, where you spew them out post after post.

J. Krishnamurti and OSHO were quoted above. Would you like to answer them (in your second try at it) or would you prefer to announce that being authorities they have no place here?


See Dan.

I'll take that as a "yes".

[David Quinn]

Absolute truths can't be "modified". They are true in all possible worlds.

That statement itself is an absolute truth that can't be modified. -

Are there thoughts without thinkers, sir? Are there worlds without thinkers? Your absolute truths - if they are true in the first place - are not true for donkeys, i.e., they are not true for all sentient beings, and whether they are in fact useful for anything but claiming you have them, no one has ever observed. You do not occupy all possible worlds; you are not omnipresent; your absolute truths are obscenely useless to the vast majoritiy of humanity past present and future, and thinking that is relative to speech (and to you and your two chums) is hardly absolute.

Amazing.

-

[Jamesh]

. Krishnamurti wrote:
"Thought in its very nature is fragmentary and this causes confusion and sorrow. Thought has divided the world into nationalities, ideologies and into religious sects. Thought is disharmony. All its images, ideologies are self-contradictory and destructive.

This is crap. Although such divisions of reality do occur "in thought", there is no other way to think, even our emotions manifest as a kind of "non-assessed thought system" - it is our animal emotions that are unchecked and revised by clear non-emotional thinking that cause disharmony.

It is actually the senses that first do the dividing of something non-linear into something linear, dividing something infinite into many finite things. The senses give the brain the data streams to use for calculation and assessment, and the ego sets the values associated with each of these divisions.

Now the mind can overcome this, it can utilise "these divided patterns" representing existence to see the interconnectedness of all things. To do so however it must prevent the ego from placing self-referential values on the incoming data streams, as such values precent one from properly recombining the falsely divided parts, back into a whole. God lovers for instance, due to strong self-referential value systems, just recombine the parts into another THING they refer to as God, but this God-Thing is never a true reflection of reality.

It is rather difficult to be truly disharmonious, if one has thought so much that they can see the interconnectedness of all things, and thus understand the lack of separation and fundamental sameness between the caused pattern of existence that is oneself, and everything else.

[Sorry Robert, I don’t want a discussion about this, I just want to make a point about the quote]

[Faust]

Either way! If he acts like an animal, he'll be treated like one.

what do you mean exactly by this Sue? What are the implications for this?

What if a man was enlightened about his urges and about causality but still satisfied his sexual desires, what is the problem with that? Is it a crime to satisfy the urges, and satisfy them whenever you want if you're with someone? What would be wrong with this?

can a person be a thinking animal?

[Dan Rowden]

It's not really a question of satisfying urges, it's a question of the mindset from which they arise. If this mindset is non-deluded then the urges are also non-deluded. Normal sexual urges don't fit into that category.

[Sapius]

James,

Krishnamurti wrote:
"Thought in its very nature is fragmentary and this causes confusion and sorrow. Thought has divided the world into nationalities, ideologies and into religious sects. Thought is disharmony. All its images, ideologies are self-contradictory and destructive.

James: This is crap. Although such divisions of reality do occur "in thought", there is no other way to think, even our emotions manifest as a kind of "non-assessed thought system" - it is our animal emotions that are unchecked and revised by clear non-emotional thinking that cause disharmony.

I don't think it is totally crap. I can see what J Krishnamurti is pointing or getting at, but it seems one is engaging in arguing over the finger rather than looking at the moon here. He, in my opinion, is in no way suggesting that THOUGHT processes themselves are destructive, but their inappropriate use or their consequences; what he is saying here is the same thing as saying that Totality cannot be conceptualized, whereas it is definitely being conceptually though of and conveyed. So which part does one choose to argue over is the question?

It is rather difficult to be truly disharmonious, if one has thought so much that they can see the interconnectedness of all things, and thus understand the lack of separation and fundamental sameness between the caused pattern of existence that is oneself, and everything else.

Agreed, but irrelevant of seeing the interconnectedness, and thus lack of separation or fundamental sameness, there is a Self (say any particular “un-separated” thing), AND something or everything else, without which existence cannot be. Hence “seeing” the lack of separation in no way actually dissolves separateness; differentiation remains inherently fundamental to existence or realizing absolutely anything at all, including sameness or lack of separation per say.

The Coin if any, would be awareness or consciousness itself; but totally dependant on the dynamic interactivity of two opposing forces. In my opinion awareness is actually the real connection between any two things or opposing forces, and not causality itself.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I can see what J Krishnamurti is pointing or getting at, but it seems one is engaging in arguing over the finger rather than looking at the moon here. He, in my opinion, is in no way suggesting that THOUGHT processes themselves are destructive, but their inappropriate use or their consequences

Surely one has to look at whole body of work of Krishnamurti to see the quote in context. I've here lying around Beginnings of Learning by J. Krishnamurti, which on the back flap quotes: "The heart of the matter is education. It is a total understanding of man and not an emphasis on one fragment of his life". And further: "Krishnamurti's longstanding concern with the nature and problems of education resulted in the founding of schools in India, the United States and Brockwoord Park in Hampshire...... Krishnamurti encourages his audience to appreciate that self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom."

He also wrote: "Meditation is the complete transformation of thought and its activities." And from the book: "Where the brain feels completely at rest, safe, protected, it functions perfectly, beautifully".

And in the context of the original quote: "If thought is the cause of this, the question is not how to end it, but to understand the whole movement of thought. If you treat it as your thinking, and somebody else treats it as his thinking, then the issues are totally different. That leads to all kinds of illusion."

This shows also how the usage of quotes can easily become murderous maneuvers, a form of backstabbing wisdom. This includes of course the ones above: one has to look at the whole thereby witnessing more accurately the limitations.

[RobertGreenSky]

Hello again Robert, how are you? I hope your health issues are sorted out.

Hey Diebert. I'm well, never minding the health issues. I could complain 'I should have gotten a better heart' but the old understanding 'things are as they should be' can keep us from wasting time complaining about things we simply cannot change. I hope you're well.

Are there thoughts without thinkers, sir? Are there worlds without thinkers?

Are there actually truths without thoughts to conceive of them in some meaningful manner? How would you know? Feel your way to them, like a blind man caught in an orgy?

Human truths are part of what the Buddha gave up, they are part of what Nagarjuna criticizes, they are part of what Zen seeks to get you to give up, as in 'quit playing with those nasty dirty things'. Read the literature; it's in the open, it's not hidden ...

are not true for donkeys, i.e., they are not true for all sentient beings

Hereby secretly introducing another mystical form of 'truth establishing', some exotic form of non-sapiens? Why not bring in god, angels, heaven and hell, while you're at it?

The point is that what is true for humans, relying as they do on linear thinking, can be true in the context 'linear thinking' but 'linear thinking' has limitations; being limited it cannot itself apprehend any absolute. When Zen claims it is a transmission beyond words, what do you think Zen means?

When there is division, there is definition, but whatever is defined also disintegrates. Whenever there is no definition or disintegration, all things are again resolved into unity.

- Chapter 2, On Equalizing Things, in The Taoist Classics The Collected Translations of Thomas Cleary, Volume One, p. 59.

Thought in its very nature is fragmentary and this causes confusion and sorrow. Thought has divided the world into nationalities, ideologies and into religious sects. Thought is disharmony. All its images, ideologies are self-contradictory and destructive.

- linked above.

They are both implying something beyond the limitations of thinking. It's right out in the open; this is not esoteric.

You do not occupy all possible worlds; you are not omnipresent

As far as awareness goes, it does occupy all worlds its aware of or could imagine existing. This is by definition as the observer arises with each world that might arise, in all possible circumstances. This is just the truth of simultaneous arising in another jacket.

'All possible worlds' is the creation of imagination. Don't imagine what is the Buddha's experience. It won't do you a damn bit of good. Imagining what is the enlightened state of mind is something explicitly condemned by Hui-neng - I obviously know Hui-neng better than Quinn does - meaning it is counterproductive.

"Thought in its very nature is fragmentary and this causes confusion and sorrow. Thought has divided the world into nationalities, ideologies and into religious sects. Thought is disharmony. All its images, ideologies are self-contradictory and destructive.

All thoughts excluding JK's? What kind of confusion and destruction did he create by this very paragraph, one then starts to wonder.

K., Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma, Hui-neng, all of them knew that we have to communicate. The fact of it does not convey upon thinking, speech, and writing any absoluteness. If you insist that you must think, then you have not understood the meaning of 'the monkey chattering'. Getting beyond thinking in one's own experience is rudimental - hardly the end - in Zen and in Buddhism and J. Krishnamurti discussed it frequently. Meditation is in some senses the ending of thinking. Not permanently mind you, for we still have to catch the train, but if you are thinking all the time then your monkey is just chattering away ... in the quiet of meditation one can even type when it is necessary, returning to quiet when the action is complete.

This shows also how the usage of quotes can easily become murderous maneuvers, a form of backstabbing wisdom. This includes of course the ones above: one has to look at the whole thereby witnessing more accurately the limitations.

J. Krishnamurti saw the necessity of children receiving a good eduation. By 'education' he was not somehow referring to what you learn at Genius Forum nor was he in any way contradicting his criticism of thinking, one in which he joined Zhuangzi, Nagarjuna, Zen, etc. When Zhuangzi, J. Krishnamurti, and Nagarjuna are in the same boat, and you and QRS are not, then you might allow that you could be wrong; humility is a good thing despite the 'lessons by example' you receive in your education at Genius Forum.

[RobertGreenSky]

Are you irrepressively vacuous, Robert? That's not a rhetorical question.

Vacuity means in part:

3. Total lack of ideas; emptiness of mind.

6. Something, especially a remark, that is pointless or inane ...

You answered nothing, displaying a total lack of ideas and an emptiness of mind, and you made a pointless and inane ad hominem remark, a logical fallacy anywhere else in the world but not here at dear old Genius Forum, Home of Absolute Truth On All Possible Worldsâ„¢, where you spew them out post after post.

J. Krishnamurti and OSHO were quoted above. Would you like to answer them (in your second try at it) or would you prefer to announce that being authorities they have no place here?


See Dan.

Oh dear. Anyone for Logic 101?

I'll take that as a "yes".

Amazing.

As you can see gentlemen, you have already been answered. The continual vacuity of your answers is 'amazing'. It is a luxury not to have to defend one's views, only being required to note vacuous ad hominem replies which anywhere else in the world would clearly mark your failures of intellect but which are here celebrated as 'wisdom'.

[RobertGreenSky]

[Sorry Robert, I don’t want a discussion about this, I just want to make a point about the quote

Okeydokes, but your point in my mind was not well made. In the conversation with Diebert a parallel was drawn between the quote you criticized and one from Zhuangzi. Disagree if you must, but Zhuangzi and Krishnamurti are august company, a fact which might give you pause to at some time at least reconsider your view. Spitting out the party line about non-emotional thinking cannot make thinking capable of grasping the absolute if thinking just cannot do it.

In Zen what I am about to do would be referred to as 'being grandmotherly'. Find out what is prajna and understand that there is no prajna without your 'third eye' and that there is no 'third eye' without prajna. There, I have eased your mind.

[Faust]

It's not really a question of satisfying urges, it's a question of the mindset from which they arise. If this mindset is non-deluded then the urges are also non-deluded. Normal sexual urges don't fit into that category.

How are sexual urges deluded?

[Dave Toast]

Robert Playin': You do not occupy all possible worlds.

DT: Oh dear. Anyone for Logic 101?

Robert Playin': As you can see, you have already been answered.

Oh, where was that then?

The continual vacuity of your answers is 'amazing'.

Erm, I asked a question, in response to a statement. It was a pertinent question.

It is a luxury not to have to defend one's views, only being required to note vacuous ad hominem replies

So are you, then, going to explain how the question I asked is attacking the you as opposed to your statement?


To be crystal, 'all possible worlds' is a statement concerning necessary modal propositions, not a bunch of real or imaginary places.

[RobertGreenSky]

Robert Playin': You do not occupy all possible worlds.

DT: Oh dear. Anyone for Logic 101?

Robert Playin': As you can see, you have already been answered.

Oh, where was that then?

The continual vacuity of your answers is 'amazing'.

Erm, I asked a question, in response to a statement. It was a pertinent question.

It is a luxury not to have to defend one's views, only being required to note vacuous ad hominem replies

So are you, then, going to explain how the question I asked is attacking the you as opposed to your statement?


To be crystal, 'all possible worlds' is a statement concerning necessary modal propositions, not a bunch of real or imaginary places.

If you can't figure out how your snotty response, 'Anyone for Logic 101?' is 'to the man', then you are beyond hope. However, my apparent ignorance of the meaning of 'all possible worlds' hardly verifies that the absolute truth to which Solway referred is true 'in all possible words' - whatever that might mean - or for that matter is true in any sense at all. It does appear your answer was vacuous and ad hom after all since all you've said amounts to 'Robert is ignorant'.

Your snotty answer avoided response, as did Quinn's and Rowden's non-responses, to 1) all thinking is relative; 2) all thinking is fragmentary; 3) what is timeless, i.e., enlightenment, cannot be apprehended by thinking; 4) belief systems are fictions; 5) it is certainly possible to believe what is false; 6) by implication, here continuing what Alex Jacobs began in this thread, mere belief in what QRS hold is useless. I can do quite well without 'all possible worlds'.

So thank you for your vacuity, Mr. Toast. You could have brilliantly expounded on those modal propositions and relating them first to sunyata then brilliantly affirmed the QRS view of 'absolute truth', but you didn't. And thanks for showing me something valuable about their view.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Human truths are part of what the Buddha gave up, they are part of what Nagarjuna criticizes, they are part of what Zen seeks to get you to give up, as in 'quit playing with those nasty dirty things'.

Show me a non-human truth then. Even absolute truth is essentially human, actually not just human - it goes to the very heart of what it means to be human, more so than non-absolute truths or teachings. It's a matter of degree, really.

The point is that what is true for humans, relying as they do on linear thinking, can be true in the context 'linear thinking' but 'linear thinking' has limitations; being limited it cannot itself apprehend any absolute. When Zen claims it is a transmission beyond words, what do you think Zen means?

Thought goes way beyond words, just as language goes. And what makes you think that thought has to be linear? That's only needed for coherent expression towards others and not even always. You have to distinguish between the vehicle and the content, they're not exactly the same. Letters are dead or deadening, the spirit - meaning - connection is what makes it alive. Linear or not.

When there is division, there is definition, but whatever is defined also disintegrates. Whenever there is no definition or disintegration, all things are again resolved into unity.

This is no argument against defining or disintegrating itself - especially not against the use of definitions and logical argument to disintegrate deeply seeded falsehoods, as seems to be the idea behind the Genius Forum.

And to get to the fullness of 'no definition', or 'not doing' or 'no mind', one first has to get to the definitions, the doing and the mind, bring them under attention - of the mind itself, what else?

'All possible worlds' is the creation of imagination.

Just as much as anything else. All possible words could just as well be what you're experiencing yourself right here right now. Just one possibility and you're it! For the argument it doesn't matter if it's one world or many, one experience, your own or billions in parallel.

If you insist that you must think, then you have not understood the meaning of 'the monkey chattering'.

The chatter's just the words. Thought could as well be said to include the whole mental landscape and anything in it. And in my direct experience I found no difference between the words and concepts and everything else - the vast sea underneath that gives rise to them.

To isolate the words as separate animals inside the mental landscape that can be quietened is not a major accomplishment. The isolation in itself becomes just another thought-form; a method to organize the mind. Here are the words, there's the quietness. While it contains power obviously it's not beginning to get to the depth of the issue at hand.

J. Krishnamurti saw the necessity of children receiving a good eduation. By 'education' he was not somehow referring to what you learn at Genius Forum nor was he in any way contradicting his criticism of thinking, one in which he joined Zhuangzi, Nagarjuna, Zen, etc. When Zhuangzi, J. Krishnamurti, and Nagarjuna are in the same boat, and you and QRS are not, then you might allow that you could be wrong;

Criticizing thought is what this forum is all about! It's only too much close up and threatening to some. It's all good and well to criticize all thought or the specific forms we dislike, but it's a whole other ball game to get to the thought-forms that unknowingly rule our lives and dismantle them with surgical precision. If you think the Names you're so eager to name had any other goal, then please think again.

[Dan Rowden]

It's not really a question of satisfying urges, it's a question of the mindset from which they arise. If this mindset is non-deluded then the urges are also non-deluded. Normal sexual urges don't fit into that category.

How are sexual urges deluded?

They are deluded in the sense - and limited to this sense - that they arise from irrational mindsets, are driven by egotistical forces and/or involve myth and delusions regarding the nature of the opposite sex. In short, sexuality as normally experienced involves a myriad of psychological follies. I'm sure you could think of a few of them yourself. If I get time later I'll come back and give a brief list.

[Faust]

They are deluded in the sense - and limited to this sense - that they arise from irrational mindsets

which irrational mindsets?

are driven by egotistical forces and/or involve myth and delusions regarding the nature of the opposite sex

everything is driven by egotistical forces, even philosophy. Which myths and delusions regarding the opposite sex? When I satisfy my sexual urges I don't know of any myths or delusions of the opposite sex

In short, sexuality as normally experienced involves a myriad of psychological follies

like? What's "normally" and abnormally experienced sex?

I'm sure you could think of a few of them yourself. If I get time later I'll come back and give a brief list.

as if you're busy cutting the grass or something?

[Dave Toast]

If you can't figure out how your snotty response, 'Anyone for Logic 101?' is 'to the man', then you are beyond hope.

I might say the same about your ability to discern the logical content of a statement through those egotistical filters of yours, but I won't.

The logical fallacy of ad hominem does not simply constitute a personal attack, as it has come to be used on message boards and the like. Rather it is an argument which addresses the person making the point as opposed to the point itself.

If you cannot see how 'Anyone for logic 101' addresses the fallacious nature of the statement 'You do not occupy all possible worlds' and is thereby not a logical fallacy, then either you would do well to avail yourself of a better knowledge of logic or you already have this knowledge but forsake truth in order to win; in which case you'd be truly beyond hope, ethically.

However, my apparent ignorance of the meaning of 'all possible worlds' hardly verifies that the absolute truth to which Solway referred is true 'in all possible words' - whatever that might mean - or for that matter is true in any sense at all.

Here we go again. All I did was question the fallacious nature of the contextual usage of the statement 'You do not occupy all possible worlds'.

I couldn't give a flying fuck what Kevin referred to as being true in all possible worlds and whether it’s absolute truth or truth at all. My statement alluded to such in no way whatsoever. Yet, again, you put my words through those egotistical filters of yours and, inevitably, fallacy follows.

It does appear your answer was vacuous and ad hom after all since all you've said amounts to 'Robert is ignorant'.

Mmm, see above. If it was vacuous, it'd be lacking content with regard to the matter it was addressing, which plainly it didn't. If it was ad hom it would constitute a logical fallacy, which it doesn't.

Your snotty answer avoided response, as did Quinn's and Rowden's non-responses, to 1) all thinking is relative; 2) all thinking is fragmentary; 3) what is timeless, i.e., enlightenment, cannot be apprehended by thinking; 4) belief systems are fictions; 5) it is certainly possible to believe what is false; 6) by implication, here continuing what Alex Jacobs began in this thread, mere belief in what QRS hold is useless. I can do quite well without 'all possible worlds'.

My statement in no way attempted to respond to the above, as opposed to avoiding doing so. I mean I specifically referred to your one line statement and called its fallacious nature into question. Why on earth would that, to you, constitute my avoiding responding to the rest of the content of the post which that one line statement was lifted from, content that was directed at others?

I am not part of your mythical battle with the enlightenment dragons. When will you get that through your thick…… ego and realise its fallacious nature?

So thank you for your vacuity, Mr. Toast.

For future reference, this is a good example of ad hom.

You could have brilliantly expounded on those modal propositions and relating them first to sunyata then brilliantly affirmed the QRS view of 'absolute truth', but you didn't.

Yes indeed, didn’t even get anywhere near attempting to even think about considering doing so, and there’s no reason why I should have done. So what was your post about then?

And thanks for showing me something valuable about their view.

Ah yes, the foolish sub-demon has inadvertently provided you with a new mythril sword to use against his masters. The ironing is so delicious, muhuhahahaha, etc.

In the real world, you now know how 'all possible worlds' relates to a necessary modal proposition and what the logical fallacy of ad hominem is. There's your valuable.

[RobertGreenSky]

If you can't figure out how your snotty response, 'Anyone for Logic 101?' is 'to the man', then you are beyond hope.

I might say the same about your ability to discern the logical content of a statement through those egotistical filters of yours, but I won't.

The logical fallacy of ad hominem does not simply constitute a personal attack, as it has come to be used on message boards and the like. Rather it is an argument which addresses the person making the point as opposed to the point itself.

If you cannot see how 'Anyone for logic 101' addresses the fallacious nature of the statement 'You do not occupy all possible worlds' and is thereby not a logical fallacy, then either you would do well to avail yourself of a better knowledge of logic or you already have this knowledge but forsake truth in order to win; in which case you'd be truly beyond hope, ethically.

However, my apparent ignorance of the meaning of 'all possible worlds' hardly verifies that the absolute truth to which Solway referred is true 'in all possible words' - whatever that might mean - or for that matter is true in any sense at all.

Here we go again. All I did was question the fallacious nature of the contextual usage of the statement 'You do not occupy all possible worlds'.

I couldn't give a flying fuck what Kevin referred to as being true in all possible worlds and whether it’s absolute truth or truth at all. My statement alluded to such in no way whatsoever. Yet, again, you put my words through those egotistical filters of yours and, inevitably, fallacy follows.

It does appear your answer was vacuous and ad hom after all since all you've said amounts to 'Robert is ignorant'.

Mmm, see above. If it was vacuous, it'd be lacking content with regard to the matter it was addressing, which plainly it didn't. If it was ad hom it would constitute a logical fallacy, which it doesn't.

Your snotty answer avoided response, as did Quinn's and Rowden's non-responses, to 1) all thinking is relative; 2) all thinking is fragmentary; 3) what is timeless, i.e., enlightenment, cannot be apprehended by thinking; 4) belief systems are fictions; 5) it is certainly possible to believe what is false; 6) by implication, here continuing what Alex Jacobs began in this thread, mere belief in what QRS hold is useless. I can do quite well without 'all possible worlds'.

My statement in no way attempted to respond to the above, as opposed to avoiding doing so. I mean I specifically referred to your one line statement and called its fallacious nature into question. Why on earth would that, to you, constitute my avoiding responding to the rest of the content of the post which that one line statement was lifted from, content that was directed at others?

I am not part of your mythical battle with the enlightenment dragons. When will you get that through your thick…… ego and realise its fallacious nature?

So thank you for your vacuity, Mr. Toast.

For future reference, this is a good example of ad hom.

You could have brilliantly expounded on those modal propositions and relating them first to sunyata then brilliantly affirmed the QRS view of 'absolute truth', but you didn't.

Yes indeed, didn’t even get anywhere near attempting to even think about considering doing so, and there’s no reason why I should have done. So what was your post about then?

And thanks for showing me something valuable about their view.

Ah yes, the foolish sub-demon has inadvertently provided you with a new mythril sword to use against his masters. The ironing is so delicious, muhuhahahaha, etc.

In the real world, you now know how 'all possible worlds' relates to a necessary modal proposition and what the logical fallacy of ad hominem is. There's your valuable.

Ad hom was used properly and we're still waiting to see the applications of any modal propositions to even a rat's ass let alone any absolute truth. Your point all along has been to puff out your chest and which you continue to do. Your posts lacking any meaningful substance they are appropriately characterized as 'vacuous'.

[Dave Toast]

How very ungrateful.

[Steven Coyle]

Robert, dude, shadow box.

[David Quinn]

Robert: Are there thoughts without thinkers, sir? Are there worlds without thinkers? Your absolute truths - if they are true in the first place - are not true for donkeys, i.e., they are not true for all sentient beings, and whether they are in fact useful for anything but claiming you have them, no one has ever observed. You do not occupy all possible worlds; you are not omnipresent; your absolute truths are obscenely useless to the vast majoritiy of humanity past present and future, and thinking that is relative to speech (and to you and your two chums) is hardly absolute.

DQ: Amazing.

Robert: As you can see gentlemen, you have already been answered. The continual vacuity of your answers is 'amazing'.

Are you really saying that you can't think of a single truth which is true for both humans and donkeys, or for both humans and aliens from other worlds?

Look within. Your very own belief system is full of such truth-assertions.

Your snotty answer avoided response, as did Quinn's and Rowden's non-responses, to 1) all thinking is relative;

Is it really true that no one, anywhere, in any possible world, can escape relative thinking?

What a thought!

2) all thinking is fragmentary;

Is it really true that no one, anywhere, in any possible world, can escape fragmented thinking and arrive at what is true?

How on earth did you arrive at such a conclusion?

3) what is timeless, i.e., enlightenment, cannot be apprehended by thinking;

Is it really true that everyone, everywhere, in all possible worlds, is bound to the universal truth that enlightenment can only be apprehended by non-thinking methods?

There seems to be no limit to what your thoughts can see.

4) belief systems are fictions;

Is it really true that the beliefs of everyone, everywhere, in all possible worlds, are fictions?

What a belief! It can't possibly be true.

Etc, etc ....

Alas, refuting this kind of postmodernist junk is just too easy.

-

[RobertGreenSky]

How very ungrateful.

Not at all; I'm grateful to your continuous vacuity - mere references to modal whatevers and absolute truths are not serious discussions of them. Points were made and Quinn at least tries to answer them, unlike yourself.

[RobertGreenSky]

Robert, dude, shadow box.

Steven, dude, are you suggesting I just try to make the positive case or are you remarking on the futility of sharing Zhuangzi and J. Krishnamurti with this group? One usually doesn't get legitimate answers, forced to settle instead for presumptions that mentioning 'modal whatevers' is somehow the same as demonstrating their use to prove a worthwhile point. I may be just as egotistical as everyone else but I do at least try the positive, and least I'm honest enough to admit the egotism.

Quinn also tries the positive, but he also labeled a point derived from OSHO as 'postmodernist junk', and perhaps also as if Zhuangzi was postmodernist, he who made the point over 2000 years earlier than OSHO did. I've been stuck with the label 'postmodernist' by those who have not looked deeply enough into the subject. Postmodernism might be stumbling toward Zen, but Western philosophy is still 2500 years behind; 4000 if you reckon from Protoyoga.

I've enjoyed the shadowboxing.

[RobertGreenSky]

Robert: Are there thoughts without thinkers, sir? Are there worlds without thinkers? Your absolute truths - if they are true in the first place - are not true for donkeys, i.e., they are not true for all sentient beings, and whether they are in fact useful for anything but claiming you have them, no one has ever observed. You do not occupy all possible worlds; you are not omnipresent; your absolute truths are obscenely useless to the vast majoritiy of humanity past present and future, and thinking that is relative to speech (and to you and your two chums) is hardly absolute.

DQ: Amazing.

Robert: As you can see gentlemen, you have already been answered. The continual vacuity of your answers is 'amazing'.

Are you really saying that you can't think of a single truth which is true for both humans and donkeys, or for both humans and aliens from other worlds?

Look within. Your very own belief system is full of such truth-assertions.

Look within, yourself. Observe your failure to share anything true for humans, let alone donkeys. You imply there is such truth, but you do not share and prove your point ... If you are hiding it so I cannot comment, that is a wise course but it is alas no real answer. As wonderfully effective as my points are, I never claim they are more than reasonably efficacious statements. Interestingly, supported as I am by Nagarjuna and Zhuangzi and all the old boys, I can make far the better case that I've got 'truth' than can you but my deep and abiding humility, not to mention my wonderfully sweet disposition, prohibit it. As always, your reliance on yourself as your own authority creates profound strategic difficulty as well as all those tactical errors. What ultimately 'works for me' is no belief system; it works for me to have no beliefs.

Your snotty answer avoided response, as did Quinn's and Rowden's non-responses, to 1) all thinking is relative;

Is it really true that no one, anywhere, in any possible world, can escape relative thinking?

What a thought!

Not wanting to rely by implication on 'modal blahblahs', Nagarjuna would have it that all thinking is relative. In the thread I've used Zhuangzi, J. Krishnamurti, and OSHO to make a positive case about it, while you chiefly rely on ... nothing but implication. If you've got something, let's see it.

2) all thinking is fragmentary;

Is it really true that no one, anywhere, in any possible world, can escape fragmented thinking and arrive at what is true?

How on earth did you arrive at such a conclusion?

See Zhuangzi above. In order to think we must draw distinctions and arbitrarily focus on some aspects since we cannot focus on all of it, thinking being incapable of doing so. Thought is by its nature fragmentary. The point is obvious; how can it possibly have escaped you, you as old and as studied as you are. If I can learn about 'modal yada yadas', you can see that thinking must be fragmentary.

3) what is timeless, i.e., enlightenment, cannot be apprehended by thinking;

Is it really true that everyone, everywhere, in all possible worlds, is bound to the universal truth that enlightenment can only be apprehended by non-thinking methods?

There seems to be no limit to what your thoughts can see.

I did not assert that thinking was not useful in the 'pursuit' - Nagarjuna clearly states otherwise - and we must rely on thinking anyway. It is 'their opinion' that thought does not get it; if yours differs, we can of course compare the two positions, if you ever bother to really advance yours instead of wasting time implying I'm contradicting myself by merely sharing my thoughts.

4) belief systems are fictions;

Is it really true that the beliefs of everyone, everywhere, in all possible worlds, are fictions?

What a belief! It can't possibly be true.

Mere beliefs are fictions, yes, rather than being even any conventional truth. For me, 'belief systems are fictions' is a conventional truth rather than something in which I believe.

Etc, etc ....

Alas, refuting this kind of postmodernist junk is just too easy.

-

Zhuangzi is not a postmodernist nor is J. Krishnamurti nor OSHO. Merely announcing you have refuted something without yet however written anything in direct answer of it, means you lose for failure to answer, even if it was 'postmodernist junk'.

The postmoderns do not treat enlightenment and it is not the postmoderns whom you proclaim you walk beside. That would be for instance Zhuangzi, and he you have not answered.