Imbalance

[Lysis]

Hello. I've been thinking about Buddhistic philosophy.

Boredom is a common form of suffering. This will serve as an example.

What is the CAUSE of this boredom?

a) boredom itself, e.g. desire for novelty
b) inappropriate configuration of dopamine receptors
c) human nature
d) impersonal abtraction x

?

Possible solutions:

a) Practice Dharmic religion.
b) Experiment with drugs.
c) Commit figurative suicide.
d) Commit literal suicide.

(These can reduce to one: remove the current identity. But this is self-defeating in realizing the goal of ending suffering. After all, one can't appreciate enlightenment if one does not exist after its attainment.)

None of these solutions address the underlying cause of the suffering which, when removed, should ideally allow the human being to both overcome the suffering and resume regular function-- without destroying, altering, or dissociating the identity.

There is a correlation between a behavior of perseveration and the reported experience of boredom. If one removes the environmental conditions that induce boredom, does the perception of boredom not cease? If boredom grows with time and/or leaves an impression on the physiology of one's brain, would an experience of interested focus of an equal time frame not compensate for the perceived boredom? In other words, there is an imbalance of experience that has led to feeling bored.

When you are deprived of sleep, do you not long to rest? When you oversleep, do you not at some point long to rise? What happens when circumstances force one into a bed for excessive periods of time (imprisonment)? A dormant spirit might welcome it until a threshold is reached, and it cries to be released.

One can't remove the need for sleep. Perhaps, if you're tired, it's more efficient to lie down than to lie in your grave. To dissociate is to ignore the problem instead of to solve it.

Respond if this makes any sense (or doesn't).

[Carl G]

I've heard it said that boredom is the failure to feel gratitude. I find this good food for thought.

[brokenhead]

a) Practice Dharmic religion.
b) Experiment with drugs.
c) Commit figurative suicide.
d) Commit literal suicide.

e) get a job

[brokenhead]

I've heard it said that boredom is the failure to feel gratitude. I find this good food for thought.

I haven't heard that one, but I like it. I have heard it said that true gratitude is the most powerful emotion.

[Alex Jacob]

f) get a girlfriend

(Just continuing the gag. I thought your post was good, Lysis, and brings up many points to talk about).

[brokenhead]

f) get a girlfriend

(Just continuing the gag. I thought your post was good, Lysis, and brings up many points to talk about).

Alex: I think your f) falls under c) Commit figurative suicide.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Lysis,

(These can reduce to one: remove the current identity. But this is self-defeating in realizing the goal of ending suffering. After all, one can't appreciate enlightenment if one does not exist after its attainment.)

You are implying two things:
1) that the appreciation of enlightenment is the opposite of suffering.
2) that one exists before enlightenment

Neither of these correspond to Buddhist beliefs.

None of these solutions address the underlying cause of the suffering which, when removed, should ideally allow the human being to both overcome the suffering and resume regular function

Again, you make assumptions. If regular functioning is the cause of suffering, then this ideal may not be appropriate.

If one removes the environmental conditions that induce boredom, does the perception of boredom not cease?

Yes. If the cause of boredom is removed, boredom does not arise.

If boredom grows with time and/or leaves an impression on the physiology of one's brain, would an experience of interested focus of an equal time frame not compensate for the perceived boredom?

If the cause of boredom is a period of interest, then a period of interest would only be a temporary solution.

In other words, there is an imbalance of experience that has led to feeling bored.

Or, you are vacillating between two states, each of which has its roots in the other. (Interested focus leading to exhaustion, exhaustion leading to wakefulness, wakefulness leading to boredom, boredom leading back to interest.)

To dissociate is to ignore the problem instead of to solve it.

What do you mean by dissociation?

[Lysis]

e) get a job

Many people find their jobs boring. If you don't want to do it, your job becomes increasingly boring, the longer you perform it. Anyway, boredom is only an example.

You are implying two things:
1) that the appreciation of enlightenment is the opposite of suffering.
2) that one exists before enlightenment

1) The opposite of suffering is not-suffering, and the expedient of Buddhism could be summarized as learning toleration. Its doctrine seems to elect the indirect approach by focusing more on learning to tolerate the suffering (thus transcending it) than eliminating the suffering by using a direct problem-solving methodology. Why?

2) Did the Buddha believe that he was talking to himself when he instructed his students? (I really don't know the answer to this question.) Any irrational meaning that Buddhist writings confer on "existence" should be disregarded.

If regular functioning is the cause of suffering, then this ideal may not be appropriate.

Unhindered, regular functioning is bliss. I think that the disruption of regular functioning is the cause of suffering. Then it's folly to end suffering by changing the person's natural behavior, because that is the definition of suffering. This is to say that it's not the desire that causes suffering but the desire remaining unfulfilled.

If the cause of boredom is a period of interest, then a period of interest would only be a temporary solution.

Of course, but experiential variation is inevitable unless one chooses to stagnate or die. Is there a permanent solution that the subject can realize while still living?

What do you mean by dissociation?

I mean separation from a thing in the abstract sense.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Lysis,

Its doctrine seems to elect the indirect approach by focusing more on learning to tolerate the suffering (thus transcending it) than eliminating the suffering by using a direct problem-solving methodology.

Buddhists don't preach the elimination of suffering? That's news to me.

Did the Buddha believe that he was talking to himself when he instructed his students?

From what I recall of the Diamond Sutra, he stressed that a being is an illusion. If he was consistent, he would not have made distinctions between himself and his students, since that would assume that there were independent beings.

Any irrational meaning that Buddhist writings confer on "existence" should be disregarded.

How is the Buddhist discussion of being (existence) irrational?

Unhindered, regular functioning is bliss. I think that the disruption of regular functioning is the cause of suffering.

You don't sound very Buddhist to me. Are you looking to disagree with Buddhism, or to understand it?

Of course, but experiential variation is inevitable unless one chooses to stagnate or die. Is there a permanent solution that the subject can realize while still living?

A human is not a permanant, self-contained entity. The most one can hope to do is reduce the causes of suffering through an understanding of these causes.

I mean separation from a thing in the abstract sense.

Could you give an example? I'm still not clear on what this means.

[Lysis]

Buddhists don't preach the elimination of suffering? That's news to me.

Yes and no. Buddhists don't preach eliminating the person's suffering; they preach eliminating the person and becoming something that is incapable of suffering.

From what I recall of the Diamond Sutra, he stressed that a being is an illusion. If he was consistent, he would not have made distinctions between himself and his students, since that would asume that there were independent beings.

How is the Buddhist discussion of being (existence) irrational?

Can you prove that a being is an illusion? Has the Buddha defined "illusion" in a qualitative sense? This is very ambiguous.

You don't sound very Buddhist to me. Are you looking to disagree with Buddhism, or to understand it?

I'm looking to disagree with it until I can better understand it, if there is any more to understand.

A human is not a permanant, self-contained entity. The most one can hope to do is reduce the causes of suffering through an understanding of these causes.

Right, I agree. Buddhism teaches that life is impermanence; therefore by extension death is permanence? That isn't very useful to living beings who want to continue living and who seek a permanent solution, but I don't think that any such all-encompassing solution exists that will apply in every case. The point being-- the solution is permanent only if you are dead (or dissociated, arguably). Buddhism promotes death under the pretense of something else. That shouldn't be surprising when you consider organized religion as a whole.

Could you give an example? I'm still not clear on what this means.

Let's suppose that you hate your boss, and you want to bash his head with a metallic baseball bat. In fact, you intend to do it. But you won't, because then you'd undoubtedly lose your job (amongst other, worse consequences). Now, you encounter your boss. How do you behave when he greets you? In all likelihood, you'll conversate in the most patronizing manner so that he might give you a bonus or stop criticizing your work. It doesn't matter that you're holding the bat as you speak. You'll tell him that it's for your kid. What you have done is quarantined your true intent. Since this intent reflects your identity, you have quarantined yourself. Then who is talking to your boss? It's a character that you have deluded yourself into believing is you. (This is dissociation is a psychological context, but it's a general pattern that can be applied to anything.)

[Dave Toast]

It's a character that you have deluded yourself into believing is you.

Hit that one for a homer Trev.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Lysis,

...they preach eliminating the person and becoming something that is incapable of suffering.

That sounds a little different than the tolerance you were speaking of earlier. How are they related?

Can you prove that a being is an illusion?

A being is not separate from its causes, and as such has no self-existence. It is like a shadow cast on the wall: when the light that causes the shadow to appear is extinguished, the shadow disappears. All appearances act in this way, having no inherent being, no permanance. As such, all beings are not beings, but appearances.

Has the Buddha defined "illusion" in a qualitative sense?

That would be an anachronism: the Buddha spoke a few centuries before Eastern philosophers began to use careful definitions.

Buddhism promotes death under the pretense of something else.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that: when Buddha spoke of death, he also spoke of those who no longer make distinctions between life and death.

It's a character that you have deluded yourself into believing is you.

How does this character differ from any other character you call "you"? Is there even one character that forms an exception?

[Lysis]

That sounds a little different than the tolerance you were speaking of earlier. How are they related?

The "something that is incapable of suffering" is a dissociative personality that tolerates the [actual] tragedies of its life. I've amended "actual" because the personality may be unable to perceive tragedy and is simply ignorant to the full extent of its environment. (To clarify, I'm using "tragedy" as a blanket-term for perceptual input that results in suffering.) Note that there are numerous conditions under which the tolerant behavior could arise, but I'm only describing "a" Buddha as I understand it, using more precise terms than what the religion expounds.

A being is not separate from its causes, and as such has no self-existence. It is like a shadow cast on the wall: when the light that causes the shadow to appear is extinguished, the shadow disappears. All appearances act in this way, having no inherent being, no permanance. As such, all beings are not beings, but appearances.

Isn't the notion of causality something that is created in the human brain after the perception of phenomena? In this regard, everything you can imagine is an appearance, and nothing is real. If everything is an illusion, does it matter if beings are illusions? Do your own thoughts have credence?

I think it's a bit more complicated than that: when Buddha spoke of death, he also spoke of those who no longer make distinctions between life and death.

I understand where you're coming from, but your statement is non sequitur. It's possible that Buddha never even existed, or was being misleading, etc. and these possibilites shouldn't be disregarded, because there is simply insufficient evidence.

How does this character differ from any other character you call "you"? Is there even one character that forms an exception?

I think it's important to distinguish between whether you're aware of the lies told by the character or not. There's a point when, after the lies become habitual, the line between the identities blur, and the consideration that you are deceiving someone is lost. If the input that provokes the character is habitually present, the character will supercede the true identity, which I will define as a constant, because its only criterion is that it be innately honest, i.e. the natural state of man; the way that you will behave until prevented from doing so (read: censored).

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Lysis,

The "something that is incapable of suffering" is a dissociative personality that tolerates the [actual] tragedies of its life.

If someone is incapable of suffering, he is doing more than merely tolerating suffering: he is, rather, not suffering at all. It sounds like you are suggesting a difference between what Buddhists preach and what they practise.

Isn't the notion of causality something that is created in the human brain after the perception of phenomena?

Causality is a logical relationship that can be understood and used without appealing to perceptions.

If everything is an illusion, does it matter if beings are illusions?

It does matter: if everything is an illusion and beings are not illusions, then there is a contradiction.

Do your own thoughts have credence?

Since answering this question "no" is contradictory, we must assume that the answer is "yes". Despite their illusory nature, thoughts can be credible.

I understand where you're coming from, but your statement is non sequitur.

How so? It followed perfectly from what you said. You claimed that Buddhism was a religion of death, and I said that their texts state otherwise: that the ideal understanding of the world is one where the distinction between life and death is no longer made.

It's possible that Buddha never even existed, or was being misleading, etc. and these possibilites shouldn't be disregarded, because there is simply insufficient evidence.

Insinuate all you like, but despite any conspiracy theories, what is written down in the Sutras is what we can generally assume Buddhists believe.

I think it's important to distinguish between whether you're aware of the lies told by the character or not. There's a point when, after the lies become habitual, the line between the identities blur, and the consideration that you are deceiving someone is lost. If the input that provokes the character is habitually present, the character will supercede the true identity, which I will define as a constant, because its only criterion is that it be innately honest, i.e. the natural state of man; the way that you will behave until prevented from doing so (read: censored).

This is too complicated for me to wrap my head around. From what I can tell, a human being is being himself when he knows when he is lying ("innate honesty", as opposed to "honesty"), and behaves whimsically, free of all environmental constraints -- and this natural state is "constant", by definition?

I apologize for my inability to form any mental picture of what you are saying. There's so much going on, I can't even tell if it's consistent or inconsistent, or what. Would you mind simplifying it?

[Lysis]

If someone is incapable of suffering, he is doing more than merely tolerating suffering: he is, rather, not suffering at all. It sounds like you are suggesting a difference between what Buddhists preach and what they practise.

I'm sorry. I mistakenly said earlier that Buddhists tolerate suffering, but then I said that they tolerate the cause of suffering. I meant the latter.

Causality is a logical relationship that can be understood and used without appealing to perceptions.

That's true, but it isn't initially true. There is no causality-gene that enables us to know and apply the idea from birth, without ever perceiving an instance of it-- that we know of, anyway. This has certain implications: if appearance is illusion, and perceptions are thus unreliable, and ideas are born from reference to perception... then ideation is unreliable. Do Buddhists believe that it's pointless to think?

It does matter: if everything is an illusion and beings are not illusions, then there is a contradiction.

If everything is an illusion, then it's implied that beings are illusions, because "everything" would include beings by definition-- yet beings, suffering, and related, relative trifles are stressed in the Buddhist doctrine. Don't you see the obvious contradiction? Buddha should not be trusted if his words and ideas are illusory.

How so? It followed perfectly from what you said. You claimed that Buddhism was a religion of death, and I said that their texts state otherwise: that the ideal understanding of the world is one where the distinction between life and death is no longer made.

It was non sequitur in that your conclusion didn't logically follow from your premise. I'll place my preceding statement first and then your statements with the conclusion in bold and the premise in italics.

Me: "Buddhism promotes death under the pretense of something else."

You: "I think it's a bit more complicated than that: when Buddha spoke of death, he also spoke of those who no longer make distinctions between life and death."

From this, Buddhism can still promote death under the pretense of whatever it claims to promote. The premise didn't prove the conclusion, other than precisely that it's what you think-- which is the reason afterward that I said, "I understand where you're coming from."

---

Anyway, you're now saying that Buddhism isn't a religion of death only because their texts state otherwise. Statements are empty without a supporting argument. As it is, I don't understand how Buddha reached his conclusions. By his own logic, everything is an illusion. Then why should anyone believe Buddha, who is an illusion?

Insinuate all you like, but despite any conspiracy theories, what is written down in the Sutras is what we can generally assume Buddhists believe.

Well, I'm interested in the true nature of Buddhism, not what its practitioners believe that to be. I didn't mean to tread into a sensitive topic, but I follow a scientific approach, for reasons of accuracy, which leads me to identify contingencies before I proceed.

This is too complicated for me to wrap my head around. From what I can tell, a human being is being himself when he knows when he is lying ("innate honesty", as opposed to "honesty"), and behaves whimsically, free of all environmental constraints -- and this natural state is "constant", by definition?

Humans beings are being themselves (the innate identity) when they are truthful OR when they are consciously deceptive (meaning, they lie and are aware of the lie). On the other hand, when they dissociate the natural state of mind, they are no longer themselves (or, the innate identity). Depending on the case, you might even say that they are unconscious, because they disable mental processes that prevent the unnatural behavior from arising, in favor of simpler ones or none at all. This can result in anything from totally idiotic behavior to specialized, very complex thinking, but the suppressed identity results in mental turmoil and inevitable suffering for the individual-- for this reason, if I'm developing a philosophy, I believe one aspect of happiness is always saying and doing what you mean to and, by necessity, avoiding situations that will result in negative outcomes from being so honest.

I think you should research a mental illness called "Dissociative Identity Disorder" for an extreme example of what I'm talking about.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Lysis,

There is no causality-gene that enables us to know and apply the idea from birth, without ever perceiving an instance of it-- that we know of, anyway. This has certain implications: if appearance is illusion, and perceptions are thus unreliable, and ideas are born from reference to perception... then ideation is unreliable.

I said it's a logical relationship, which doesn't mean it's an innate idea. As soon as someone is capable of understanding logic, they can understand how one event is dependent on another, as easily as they can understand the logical relationship of addition. It is not perception that ties events together, but logical thought.

If everything is an illusion, then it's implied that beings are illusions, because "everything" would include beings by definition-- yet beings, suffering, and related, relative trifles are stressed in the Buddhist doctrine. Don't you see the obvious contradiction?

That's not a contradiction, but a repetition. A being is a thing: that everything is an illusion is identical to saying that all beings are illusions.

Buddha should not be trusted if his words and ideas are illusory.

Your words and ideas are just as illusory as his, and in the exact same fashion. Does it follow that you should not be trusted? Or, is it possible that a thought, despite its illusory and dependent nature, can nonetheless be true?

From this, Buddhism can still promote death under the pretense of whatever it claims to promote

You specifically said that Buddhism preaches death under the pretenses of something else. Buddhism does have preachings on death, but these deal with it directly, focusing on the distinction between life and death. If it was under the pretenses of something else, it would be talking about something entirely different than death.

Now, you changed your words to whatever it claims to promote, which is a different claim altogether. So, you are now suggesting that what it claims to promote -- relaxing the distinction between life and death -- is a promotion of death. This claim will have to be substantiated, since unraveling the distinction between life and death quite explicitly promotes neither life nor death. It is indeed nihilistic -- and perhaps apathetic -- but nihilism and apathy is not the same as promotion of death.

Anyway, you're now saying that Buddhism isn't a religion of death only because their texts state otherwise. Statements are empty without a supporting argument.

If their texts state otherwise, it is a pretty clear indicator that the goal of the religion is not death. It is substantiated by their documents. Your claim that they are a religion of death is not substantiated by their documents, but guesswork. My position is stronger than yours.

The supporting arguments for Buddhist thought would not have been able to be transmitted through the only way that the conclusions could be remembered before writing: through poetry. It is expected that much needs to be filled in. At some time, there may have been supporting arguments, but these are lost. I'm working with what's left: the conclusions. What are you working with?

Well, I'm interested in the true nature of Buddhism, not what its practitioners believe that to be. I didn't mean to tread into a sensitive topic, but I follow a scientific approach, for reasons of accuracy, which leads me to identify contingencies before I proceed.

Well, I'm working from the philosophic perspective: the origin of the argument does not change its accuracy. Your argument that these may not have been Buddha's thoughts, or that he may not have existed, does not alter one whit whether they are true or not.

The true nature of Buddhism is what remains when the falsehoods are revealed, not its history.

[Lysis]

I said it's a logical relationship, which doesn't mean it's an innate idea. As soon as someone is capable of understanding logic, they can understand how one event is dependent on another, as easily as they can understand the logical relationship of addition. It is not perception that ties events together, but logical thought.

The notion of logic is initially acquired from perception; therefore if perception is corrupted, then the notion of logic is fundamentally corrupted. Please identify the fault in my reasoning, because if one exists, I want to correct it.

That's not a contradiction, but a repetition. A being is a thing: that everything is an illusion is identical to saying that all beings are illusions.

That's right, but I wasn't referring to that as being the contradiction.

Your words and ideas are just as illusory as his, and in the exact same fashion. Does it follow that you should not be trusted?

First, let me point out that I don't believe Buddhism is correct. Next, you're arguing from the assumption that Buddhism is correct. That hasn't been established until either you prove its case (since you are apparently defending it) or until you provide a reference to the relevant Buddhist text that provides, in concrete language, a proof for its case. Also, it follows, from the Buddhist logic, that nothing should be trusted, including not only me but you. So I ask, how is this useful?

Or, is it possible that a thought, despite its illusory and dependent nature, can nonetheless be true?

Why? I explained why I don't think that's true, but I still don't understand your argument.

You specifically said that Buddhism preaches death under the pretenses of something else. Buddhism does have preachings on death, but these deal with it directly, focusing on the distinction between life and death. If it was under the pretenses of something else, it would be talking about something entirely different than death.

Well, this is inconsistent coming from someone who apparently believes that all is not what it seems. I'm interested in the meaning behind the words-- not the words. Deception is a very simple yet powerful concept. I mentioned before the importance of contingency, and when the abstractions that I glean from the doctrine don't reflect its appearance, or rather, its alleged purpose, it's not unreasonable to suspect deception.

Now, you changed your words to whatever it claims to promote, which is a different claim altogether. So, you are now suggesting that what it claims to promote -- relaxing the distinction between life and death -- is a promotion of death. This claim will have to be substantiated, since unraveling the distinction between life and death quite explicitly promotes neither life nor death. It is indeed nihilistic -- and perhaps apathetic -- but nihilism and apathy is not the same as promotion of death.

No, I never claimed that saying that life and death are tantamount equates to saying that death is preferred. That seems to be your interpretation, based on probable reasons that if I define will degrade this discussion into an ad hominem exchange. (Forgive me; I mean no offense by that statement.)

Again, I don't understand your obsession with appearance, while you simultaneously claim that appearance is invalid (because it is illusory). Please explain.

If their texts state otherwise, it is a pretty clear indicator that the goal of the religion is not death.

I explained why that is wrong previously.

It is substantiated by their documents.

Clarify precisely what passage(s) substantiate(s) their claims. It is logically impossible for their conclusions to prove their conclusions.

My position is stronger than yours.

You've provided their conclusions, of which I'm largely familiar, but what of the reasoning behind the conclusions?

The supporting arguments for Buddhist thought would not have been able to be transmitted through the only way that the conclusions could be remembered before writing: through poetry. It is expected that much needs to be filled in. At some time, there may have been supporting arguments, but these are lost. I'm working with what's left: the conclusions. What are you working with?

I'm working with empiricism and logic. Please reread our exchanges.

What you wrote before the ending question is frankly ridiculous, by the way; since you apparently want to debate, the debate will not end in your definitive victory until you provide their arguments. If that's truly impossible, then I want to read your own reasoning. So will you tell me why you think Buddhism is correct? (Place an emphasis on formal logic.)

Well, I'm working from the philosophic perspective: the origin of the argument does not change its accuracy.

That's simply untrue. I advise that you study the scientific method. (Science is technically a philosophy, by the way.)

Your argument that these may not have been Buddha's thoughts, or that he may not have existed, does not alter one whit whether they are true or not.

I agree, because that would be an ad hominem fallacy. But I didn't make that specific claim; instead, you've combined the reasoning of two separate arguments.

The true nature of Buddhism is what remains when the falsehoods are revealed, not its history.

I think it's better to say that the true nature of Buddhism is what remains when the underlying patterns are identified. You must not only consider the boolean logic, but the abstractions below them and the relations between those abstractions.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Lysis,

The notion of logic is initially acquired from perception...

I'm not going to bang my head against this one again. See the Empiricism vs. Logic thread. It's still recent enough that you should be able to understand why I don't feel like going down that path right now.

First, let me point out that I don't believe Buddhism is correct.

I'm as aware of this as I am of the fact that you have decided to hold Buddhists beliefs false without much investigation.

Next, you're arguing from the assumption that Buddhism is correct.

Not exactly; I'm merely basing my assumptions about Buddhism on their literature, not on a conspiracy theory. I would not consider myself a Buddhist.

That hasn't been established until either you prove its case (since you are apparently defending it) or until you provide a reference to the relevant Buddhist text that provides, in concrete language, a proof for its case.

I don't know what you are asking me to provide. A proof of the truth of Buddhism inside a Buddhist text? That's a pretty weird standard of proof to ask for, since not only does it not exist in this case... I can't think of any philosophic book that says anything along the lines of "everything written here is true." So, yeah, this is a weird reason to condemn.

Also, it follows, from the Buddhist logic, that nothing should be trusted, including not only me but you.

This is a strawman.
You know what made me suspicious? It's a little trick I discovered a while back:
"Based on your logic..." or "based on his logic", or whatever. I have never seen a sentence that begins with that phrase that isn't a strawman. Not only is logic universal (so you should say "based on logic...", or "logically..." -- or perhaps "based on his opinion about this one topic..."), it is hasty as hell to assume that you can know someone's opinion on something because of their opinion about something else.

Why? I explained why I don't think that's true, but I still don't understand your argument.

The illusory nature of all things comes from their dependence on causes -- their lack of self-existence. A statement about reality is dependent on the nature of reality for its truth. True or false, it's always illusory.

me: You specifically said that Buddhism preaches death under the pretenses of something else. Buddhism does have preachings on death, but these deal with it directly, focusing on the distinction between life and death. If it was under the pretenses of something else, it would be talking about something entirely different than death.

you: Well, this is inconsistent coming from someone who apparently believes that all is not what it seems.

If I'm going against a mental picture you have of me, I must be wrong!... right? This is nothing more than a red herring, distracting from my point.

me: If their texts state otherwise, it is a pretty clear indicator that the goal of the religion is not death.

you: I explained why that is wrong previously.

Yes, I know. You used a very flimsy argument, founded on total guesswork. Buddhism preaches deaths even though its books preach something entirely different! You will need evidence. Something tangible.

So will you tell me why you think Buddhism is correct?

I'm defending Buddhism against your false views of it. I am not defendings its truth.

me: Well, I'm working from the philosophic perspective: the origin of the argument does not change its accuracy.

you: That's simply untrue. I advise that you study the scientific method. (Science is technically a philosophy, by the way.)

I was referring to The Genetic Fallacy. Do I hear a gasp?

me:Your argument that these may not have been Buddha's thoughts, or that he may not have existed, does not alter one whit whether they are true or not.

you:But I didn't make that specific claim; instead, you've combined the reasoning of two separate arguments.

Notice my use of the word "or", rather than "and".

[Lysis]

This is a strawman.

Trevor, the very paragraph following that statement contains a straw man appeal, because the analysis within has no legitimate relation to the statement to which you're responding.

I've counted 6 straw man fallacies made by you since we began speaking and 2 possible others. This is baffling in light of your recent thread on debating tactics, because you certainly understand what a straw man is.

As it is, you appear to be a forum troll. You avoid making rebuttals that directly address my points, and you segue into a subtly different position every time you find that your current position is untenable, which is clever and commendable in its own right, but I haven't learned anything from you.

In short, I don't think we have anything more to say to one another, and since bickering doesn't interest me, I'm not going to read your next provocation. (This means: structure your reply solely for the audience, because I'm going to ignore it.)

You can reach me by private message if you actually want to discuss something.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi Lysis,

What is the CAUSE of this boredom?

Hanging around in a context which is already outgrown. Possible out of fear of an unknown or uncontrollable context.

a) Practice Dharmic religion.
b) Experiment with drugs.
c) Commit figurative suicide.
d) Commit literal suicide.

Or join Reformed Buddhism as laid out at this place! Or changing ones context radically, take on a challenge one so far rejected as 'too ridiculous'

None of these solutions address the underlying cause of the suffering which, when removed, should ideally allow the human being to both overcome the suffering and resume regular function-- without destroying, altering, or dissociating the identity.)

This assumes you know for a fact what your current identity is. I don't believe it for a minute.

If one removes the environmental conditions that induce boredom, does the perception of boredom not cease?

Exactly, the experience of boredom expresses an uneasiness, perhaps even related to guilt, with ones current conditions, one has too much control, too much predictiveness. Up the ante!

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Lysis,
You behaved like a cornered cat. Not very comfortable having someone put pressure on your ignorance, is it? What were you expecting? That you could bullshit your way through why a religion is wrong without putting any effort into knowing what the religion is about? That strategy only works when nobody else has done their reading, either.

(The "Debate Tactics" thread was a farce. Some people picked up on the irony; those who didn't see it were annoyed. On page three, David revealed it when he said, "the hypocricy meter nearly blew its top off a number of times, I'd say", and totally killed the gag. I hope he said it with a chuckle.)

[Tomas]

Lysis,
You behaved like a cornered cat. Not very comfortable having someone put pressure on your ignorance, is it? What were you expecting? That you could bullshit your way through why a religion is wrong without putting any effort into knowing what the religion is about? That strategy only works when nobody else has done their reading, either.

(The "Debate Tactics" thread was a farce. Some people picked up on the irony; those who didn't see it were annoyed. On page three, David revealed it when he said, "the hypocricy meter nearly blew its top off a number of times, I'd say", and totally killed the gag. I hope he said it with a chuckle.)

Lysis arrived here but seven posts ago. Perhaps he hadn't read the farcial "Debate Tactics" thread, yet. When the "new people" show up ... I'd expect they would see some honest debate going on ... somewhat difficult what with all these different threads (much less the characters motives) they need wade thru :-(

It's days like these snow bunny, daybrown, hsandman need make an appearance to bring some brevity -.

Lysis offered to Private Message, no less.

Very sad operation you have running here, Trevor :-(


Tomas


.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Jason: Bloody hell, I don't like to explain jokes, but this thorn's become infected. The OP was a cheeky response to something Alex said in a different thread. The gag began as soon as he joined. Since it was clear you weren't getting the humour, I deliberately teased you with the most nonsensical arguments I could think up. It wasn't very nice. The gag has run its course: I can't even post in that thread without feeling like I'm beating a dead horse. So can we let it rest here?

Tomas: Well, I guess I could zip the trap.

[Alex Jacob]

Lysis declares:

"[Of Trevor] I've counted 6 straw man fallacies made by you since we began speaking and 2 possible others. This is baffling in light of your recent thread on debating tactics, because you certainly understand what a straw man is."

Oh God, no. No, it can't be. It just can't! NO! Not Trevor! Trevor? TREVOR? (Going down on knees: 'Oh Jesus hear me Dear Lord, I beg that this be not true...')

Trevor, it seems like we are now in competition because I RULE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTATION an' this town ain't big enuf fer th'two of us!

Trevor (or anyone): Can I please be emailed when the Shrouds of Irony are laid on, I am regretfully a little slow...

PS: And can I get a PM when I join a gag, just so I'll know? I'm now gonna read that thread all over again, but this time misanthropically.

;-)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Alex,

Trevor (or anyone): Can I please be emailed when the Shrouds of Irony are laid on, I am regretfully a little slow...

PS: And can I get a PM when I join a gag, just so I'll know? I'm now gonna read that thread all over again, but this time misanthropically.

One of the problems of being the 52nd State is that the other 51 can't know when you are making fun of them. Or, if they think you are making fun of them, they can't know how you are doing so: the crime must be perfect. As such, the Great White North is full of self-abnegation, parody, confusion, and irony -- without laughtracks, pause, emphasis, or explanation.

I had a writing professor compare my style to Stephen Leacock. Since it's a Canadian author, I'd never heard of him, but I still suspect that it was a compliment. I would have preferred to be compared to Douglas Adams or Hunter S. Thompson, but good British humour is too silly, and good American humour is too dark. The silly and the weird have no relevance north of the 49th parallel. Here it's a matter of finding jokes in nuances and little things.

What I'm trying to say is, no, you aren't going to be warned. Elizabeth had to suffer my equivocations for months, and I only backed off when she started to suspect that someone can pack two or more different meanings into the exact same sentence.

It's a cultural thing.