QRS-Skeptics Appreciation Thread

[skipair]

QRS-Skeptics Appreciation Thread

All hail the QRS-Skeptics! I love seeing you post. Where would we be without you? Good ((((((vibes)))))) coming your way. :)

How disgusting it is to see those false believers, those religious, idiotic weaklings! How disgusting it is to see those false skeptics, so plain and shallow! But you honest and real skeptics - I love that way about you!

There is an enormous difference between a good and bad skeptic, one that makes all the difference in the world. A bad skeptic does what he can to test the validity of foreign perspectives by using what he already knows or believes. But, I think in most cases, this is simply flirting with another idea and rationalizing/concretizing one's own. This is as bad as hopping on board and assuming truth without finding it first!!! This is called lying. Is it not despicable?!

For a good skeptic (a good philosopher), the forbidden act must be done (if one is honestly going to admit he gave it a fair shot), and that is to say, "Everything that I know about this topic could be wrong. Let me pretend I'm wrong and try on a different pair of shoes, not for just a second, not even just for a week, but for as long as it takes for me to thoroughly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this different perspective is indeed foolish and false."

The fear, for me at least, is that by trying on different perspectives, one of them might seep in and change me, without me really wanting to be changed! After all, what if it's a bad change, and what if I feel pain? So again, the good skeptic says, "if I'm not just going to feign honesty, I have to consider and accept the possibility that EVERYTHING I now love might disappear. The world might look completely different. I might be a changed man." This is what I call "no bullshit" philosophy.

And who knows, maybe what we previously loved will become utterly disgusting. Maybe a new truth will be revealed, or maybe not.

But none of this can be found out if you don’t slice through to the bone. None of it can be done if you don’t feel the tingles that drive your ass to the goal. You call yourself a skeptic? FUCKING PROVE IT.

My hat goes off to all the true skeptics in the world.

And remember what we learned in “Roadhouse”:
Pain don’t hurt

Never give up.

[brokenhead]

I have to consider and accept the possibility that EVERYTHING I now love might disappear

No, you had better accept the 100% certainty that it will disappear. That is, if you have the strength and knowledge to be around when it does. And if you have never experienced fear, you won't be.

[Cory Duchesne]

I have to consider and accept the possibility that EVERYTHING I now love might disappear

No, you had better accept the 100% certainty that it will disappear. That is, if you have the strength and knowledge to be around when it does. And if you have never experienced fear, you won't be.

Is that because experiencing fear gives strength and knowledge?

(sorry if I misinterpreted - it was supposed to be esoteric, right?)

[brokenhead]

I have to consider and accept the possibility that EVERYTHING I now love might disappear

No, you had better accept the 100% certainty that it will disappear. That is, if you have the strength and knowledge to be around when it does. And if you have never experienced fear, you won't be.

Is that because experiencing fear gives strength and knowledge?

(sorry if I misinterpreted - it was supposed to be esoteric, right?)

Hi Cory

"Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

Note that you do not have to know what God is. Also not that it is only the beginning of wisdom. Fear is not a means; if you are to reach for strength and knowledge, you will necessarily encounter it along the way.

[hsandman]

Disciples of truth. Not faith.


“Crucial to your understanding of what bothers Socrates about writing, is knowing a bit about his history and his own philosophical method. Socrates himself never wrote anything; all his ideas were written down by his student, Plato. Socrates had perfected a kind of oral technology of thought called the "Socratic dialogue."

Soc. Is there not another kind of word or speech far better than this, and having far greater power-a son of the same family, but lawfully begotten?

Phaedr. Whom do you mean, and what is his origin?

Soc. I mean an intelligent word graven in the soul of the learner, which can defend itself, and knows when to speak and when to be silent.
Phaedr. You mean the living word of knowledge which has a soul, and of which written word is properly no more than an image?
Soc. Yes, of course that is what I mean. And now may I be allowed to ask you a question: Would a husbandman, who is a man of sense, take the seeds, which he values and which he wishes to bear fruit, and in sober seriousness plant them during the heat of summer, in some garden of Adonis, that he may rejoice when he sees them in eight days appearing in beauty? at least he would do so, if at all, only for the sake of amusement and pastime. But when he is in earnest he sows in fitting soil, and practises husbandry, and is satisfied if in eight months the seeds which he has sown arrive at perfection?

Phaedr. Yes, Socrates, that will be his way when he is in earnest; he will do the other, as you say, only in play.

Soc. And can we suppose that he who knows the just and good and honourable has less understanding, than the husbandman, about his own seeds?

Phaedr. Certainly not.

Soc. Then he will not seriously incline to "write" his thoughts "in water" with pen and ink, sowing words which can neither speak for themselves nor teach the truth adequately to others? Source (Socrates)

Nick Cave - Bring it on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elaHaLl8T1k

[Jason]

The skeptic's method is to doubt. Consistently and fully, anything and everything. In many respects it would seem to be the antithesis of faith, and plenty of skeptics would claim as much. But why is the doubting method chosen in the first place? Couldn't it be said that skepticism is in fact a singular deep faith in doubt? And if the doubting of the skeptic is to be truly universal and complete, then shouldn't skepticism itself be doubted?

But where does that leave the skeptic? Caught up in a contradiction? Lost in an infinite regress of doubts? A snake eating its own tail?

Where does a philosophical journey toward truth and understanding begin? For one who desires justification of all things in matters of truth, this would seem a very big problem indeed. For a first step must be taken, an initial choice must be made, but there can be no justification preceding the initial step by default.

How far back can we trace our path of doubts, justifications and reasonings anyway? Can we even remember the starting point? If the entire series rests upon an initial unjustified step, or even more likely some completely unknown and forgotten past, are we not then floating free in space with no roots, no anchor to place us?

To complicate matters further still, isn't everything I have written in this post up to this point also just as much under threat from these same problems?

[Cory Duchesne]

Brokenhead,

No, you had better accept the 100% certainty that [everything] will disappear upon death.

Why should I conclude so strongly that my soul doesn't transmigrate to another plane of existence?

Hi Cory

"Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

What are your reasons for believing that?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Skepticism is very important, but it should also eventually lead to some concrete conclusions that are ultimately true. One’s skepticism should gradually refine and perfect ones philosophical foundation of true statements.

For Instance: if one man tells me that the pursuit of worldly happiness is the greatest endeavor in life, whereas another man tells me that emotional attachment is the root of all evil, ignorance and suffering, then one has to use his own skepticism to determine which man is more honest, wise and spiritual.

[brokenhead]

Why should I conclude so strongly that my soul doesn't transmigrate to another plane of existence?

I think you should conclude that it does. What makes you think anything familiar will be awaiting you there?

[Cory Duchesne]

Why should I conclude so strongly that my soul doesn't transmigrate to another plane of existence?

I think you should conclude that it does. What makes you think anything familiar will be awaiting you there?

What makes you think nothing familiar is awaiting you there?

[brokenhead]

What makes you think nothing familiar is awaiting you there?

The truth is, I don't think that. I simply don't know. I'm just preparing for the worst. It wouldn't surprise me that there is nothing familiar about the next world. I'm pretty sure I didn't find anything familiar when I got to this one.

[Cory Duchesne]

What makes you think nothing familiar is awaiting you there?

The truth is, I don't think that. I simply don't know. I'm just preparing for the worst.

What kind of death do you think is worse:

a) a transmigration into a place you don't recognize

or

b) complete and utter annihilation

?

It wouldn't surprise me that there is nothing familiar about the next world. I'm pretty sure I didn't find anything familiar when I got to this one.

Do you have any idea why you didn't retain any memory of your past life? What is the factor that might cause memory to be retained as you transmigrate to another world?

[brokenhead]

What kind of death do you think is worse:

a) a transmigration into a place you don't recognize

or

b) complete and utter annihilation

Without a doubt, b) is worse. Creature annihilation is the closest thing to Hell there can be.

[Carl G]

Creature annihilation is the closest thing to Hell there can be.

How can this be? One doesn't feel a thing if one hasn't consciousness.

[xerox]

...

[skipair]

Disingenuous.

Maybe so, maybe not.

Off the top of my head my motives might have been:
1)Talking for the sake of talking/getting off on others listening
2)Wanting to accomplish something great, so pumping myself up for the task
3)Combatting my growing attachment to the QRS style, which scares and excites me
4)Trying to convince myself that this attachment would lead to something great, IF approached correctly
5)Seeing which like-minded people might turn up so that I could fantasize that I was an inspirational/inflluential force in their life
6)Feeling like a proactive and popular member of a community
7)Indulging in judmental, moralizing emotionalism because it feels good

[divine focus]

The skeptic's method is to doubt. Consistently and fully, anything and everything. In many respects it would seem to be the antithesis of faith, and plenty of skeptics would claim as much. But why is the doubting method chosen in the first place? Couldn't it be said that skepticism is in fact a singular deep faith in doubt? And if the doubting of the skeptic is to be truly universal and complete, then shouldn't skepticism itself be doubted?

But where does that leave the skeptic? Caught up in a contradiction? Lost in an infinite regress of doubts? A snake eating its own tail?

The path of growth is one of trust. There is a natural skepticism in all that cannot be denied, but only ignored by a controlled and controlling mind. Blind faith is the agreement with a philosophy or belief due to a trust in an outer authority figure. In recognizing an inner authority, natural skepticism is embraced. One's experience is the sole means of evidence or proof. The trust of oneself as the only authority requires the trusting of one's pre-rational direction and intent. As long as the basis of action is the ideas of outer authorities, one's sovereignty will go unrecognized. It must be understood that virtually all of society is under the control of specific influences. One must look to self for all evidence.

Doubt of outer authority is irrelevant; doubt of oneself is unnecessary. Doubt of oneself occurs only in the controlling mind. As the mind is disidentified from, self-doubt becomes less and less of an issue. What is known will be known and recognized; there will be no denial. It begins with the "selfish" identification with attention beyond the community in your thoughts, and it continues with the "selfish" direction of one's attention for the "sole" good of joy in one's experience. There becomes one self, when before it was one among many. The many is forgotten as the one becomes the only.

[HYPNOSIS]

The skeptic's method is to doubt. Consistently and fully, anything and everything. In many respects it would seem to be the antithesis of faith, and plenty of skeptics would claim as much. But why is the doubting method chosen in the first place? Couldn't it be said that skepticism is in fact a singular deep faith in doubt? And if the doubting of the skeptic is to be truly universal and complete, then shouldn't skepticism itself be doubted?

But where does that leave the skeptic? Caught up in a contradiction? Lost in an infinite regress of doubts? A snake eating its own tail?

The path of growth is one of trust. There is a natural skepticism in all that cannot be denied, but only ignored by a controlled and controlling mind. Blind faith is the agreement with a philosophy or belief due to a trust in an outer authority figure. In recognizing an inner authority, natural skepticism is embraced. One's experience is the sole means of evidence or proof. The trust of oneself as the only authority requires the trusting of one's pre-rational direction and intent. As long as the basis of action is the ideas of outer authorities, one's sovereignty will go unrecognized. It must be understood that virtually all of society is under the control of specific influences. One must look to self for all evidence.

Doubt of outer authority is irrelevant; doubt of oneself is unnecessary. Doubt of oneself occurs only in the controlling mind. As the mind is disidentified from, self-doubt becomes less and less of an issue. What is known will be known and recognized; there will be no denial. It begins with the "selfish" identification with attention beyond the community in your thoughts, and it continues with the "selfish" direction of one's attention for the "sole" good of joy in one's experience. There becomes one self, when before it was one among many. The many is forgotten as the one becomes the only.

Hey, divinefocus, I bet I can count all the hairs that are on your head!

[hsandman]

Hey, divinefocus, I bet I can count all the hairs that are on your head!

I doubt it. How many?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

What kind of death do you think is worse:

a) a transmigration into a place you don't recognize

or

b) complete and utter annihilation

That is an interesting question, and I think that some sentient beings would naturally gravitate towards preferring A over B.

Although I suspect many humans do not prefer either, their preferences for an afterlife are very specific; usually they believe that they will be surrounded by familiar people, familiar places, and other sentimental attachments like their decreased dog named fluffy and so on. I read an article recently that described a widow of a US millionaire who left much of her husband's hard earned fortune to their pet dog.... : ) Basically, their desires for an afterlife include all their most treasured attachments past and present, and their immediate domestic environment where they got to love these things. I would suspect that most humans would be far too overwhelmed to accept a new environment that doesn’t meet the neurotic fancies of their imaginations.