Judging Others

[Dan Rowden]

I don't normally collaborate with the Opposition, but this banned commercial is in response to Leyla's.

Here's one for Dan.

Interesting, ain't it? Trying to work out an accurate assessment of someone---in this case Ryan (et al)---and the meaning of The Banning of Samadhi. It is interesting how an event has as many different interpretations as interpreters.

How is that interesting? Have you known Sam for half a decade?

[Dan Rowden]

I didn't want to leave anyone out (try to laugh a little, if you can, dear fireinds), so here's one for [...]

Ah, Alex, in a world of ever increasing density, we should give thanks that there still remains, in your good self - vacutiy.

[David Quinn]

Don't you guys have anything better to do than gossip?

-

[earnest_seeker]

Just for the record, I want to retract a previous argument that I made:

Ryan said that on GF we are supposed to be attacking "the contents of each other's minds" - how is this significantly different to what Sher said: "that the purpose of GF is to attack people"? The contents of our minds is a part of who we are, is it not?

Actually I make a distinction between the person and the contents of the person's mind, which the above statement doesn't seem to reflect. I got too wrapped up in trying to justify Sher's representation of Ryan's comments, and I lost a bit of perspective. In the end, I don't think that Ryan was saying that we should attack people themselves, although he wasn't far from it. It's a fine line between attacking the person and attacking the person's ideas, and in my opinion that line is frequently crossed on this forum.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Earnest Seeker,

Actually I make a distinction between the person and the contents of the person's mind, which the above statement doesn't seem to reflect. I got too wrapped up in trying to justify Sher's representation of Ryan's comments, and I lost a bit of perspective. In the end, I don't think that Ryan was saying that we should attack people themselves, although he wasn't far from it. It's a fine line between attacking the person and attacking the person's ideas, and in my opinion that line is frequently crossed on this forum.

Allow me to clarify what I posted: A person is their ideas. There isn't a division. The content of a person’s consciousness is their attachments, their opinions, their values, which is essentially them. There is nothing other than that. A person is merely the sum of their thoughts. So when you attack another’s ideas, you are basically attempting to alter that person to be more like you.

Every debate has the same purpose: It gives the reasons why a way of thinking is correct or incorrect, and attempts to persuade the other to adopt their own view. For instance: In the virus world, some viruses are able to attack the nuclei of another, inserting their genetic data, and converting that virus into a duplicate copy of themselves, and that is the aim of any philosopher. He wants to make duplicate copies of himself.

Whether he is a Christian, an extremist Muslim, a secular atheist, a sage, and so on. Each is in an intellectual war with the other, and there is only one true mind, one rational state of consciousness….

I advocate a nonviolent war of the wits as a means to discover that the true mind is. However, more unstable minds cannot tolerate any sort of debate, and they resort to violence. That is why we live in a culture of “tolerance” because humans are too dumb engage with each other. The ideology of "tolerance" has been widely adopted by new age philosophy, and conventional political philosophy because it results in less violence. However, tolerating all ideas as having the same value does not lead to an understanding of truth, and that is why the ideology of tolerance is so dangerous.

[earnest_seeker]

Ryan,

Just so I'm clear, can you let me know whether you recognise a significant difference between each of the following pairs of statements?

1. "Your ideas are very confused" vs "You are very confused"
2. "What you say generally makes no sense whatsoever" vs "You are an idiot"
3. "I have no respect for the positions that you take" vs "I have no respect for you".

To me, the statements on the right are more personal than those on the left, and I would prefer those on the left. How about you?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Earnest seeker,

1. "Your ideas are very confused" vs "You are very confused"
2. "What you say generally makes no sense whatsoever" vs "You are an idiot"
3. "I have no respect for the positions that you take" vs "I have no respect for you".

To me, the statements on the right are more personal than those on the left, and I would prefer those on the left. How about you?

Making a distinction only confuses the issue. For instance: the ego is what constructs the ideas. In a certain sense, the ego is the collection of ideas. So the confusion is the collection of ideas, which is the ego. You see what I’m saying? It is all one movement. A person’s pattern of cognition is the ego. However, The more gentle approach is to attack ideas universally rather than attacking particular egos. Although, a particular ego is every other ego, so to attack you is to attack a mirror of myself.

Moreover, the purpose of any critical attack is to cause clarity in the mind, or erode the attachments the ego has. Your view is that hurting the ego should be prevented by criticizing a person’s ideas instead, but it really doesn’t matter because an enlightened person (the end result) is beyond ego, so a direct attack is the same as an indirect attack. There is no negative emotional reaction possible in the enlightened mind.

[Carl G]

I just want to go on record saying I don't agree that Ryan should be banned.

[brokenhead]

Making a distinction only confuses the issue

.
Taking the time to express yourself in a civil manner is confusing? How so?

[Shahrazad]

I disagree with what Carl wrote above.

[Tomas]

I disagree with what Carl wrote above.

Both you and Carl are incorrect on your assumption of Ryan being banned. It's the non-posting lurkers that must be banned!

.

[David Quinn]

I don't see any problem with Ryan's posts. There may be a bit of the angry young man in him, as well as a certain immaturity, but he always attempts to express his views in a clear manner, using reasons to back them up. He listens and responds to what others say, doesn't repeat himself in a spam-like manner and doesn't suck people into repetitious game-playing. That's good enough for me. Comparing him to a Nazi is a bit over the top.

-

[Carl G]

Good. I'm glad that rumor is laid to rest.

[Alex Jacob]

Ryan wrote:

"A person is their ideas. There isn't a division. The content of a person’s consciousness is their attachments, their opinions, their values, which is essentially them. There is nothing other than that. A person is merely the sum of their thoughts. So when you attack another’s ideas, you are basically attempting to alter that person to be more like you."

I see things very differently, and the difference is telling. I concluded that my purpose in no sense is to change or alter anyone's ideas, they can think and they can do whatever the heck they want, and of course that is pretty much what they do, which is why this crazy world is what it is. It is a vain and exhausting self-deception to even imagine that one can change other people, but it is erroneous to think that you can't or don't affect them. You might, but it will often never turn out as you might imagine.

But there is one thing that you can do, and that is to state your own opinions, ideas, conjectures, and do that with a certain internal strength, conviction and energy. One can choose simply to express oneself without really having any particular design as to how anyone is going to receive it. To work in that way, it seems to me, is infinitely more conducive to integrity than what you have outlined, which of course must be your approach.

What you cannot see, I assume (your whole approach is bound up in this), is that right there you have described how your own 'ego' functions. In that sense---as a statement of 'honestly'---you have described what to me looks like an afflicted approach to the fact or concept of influence. The way you privilege your own platform (your whole tone is as a superior being offering crusts of bread to the ego-infested lowlifes) is so very similar to the classic dogma-driven religionist, with a Divine mandate to 'change' people, to conquer them and mold them. Your platform is extraordinary too because it is almost precisely the distortion of philosophy that is modern PR, psychological indoctrination, and a whole group of modern pseudo-philosophical and sociological ideas. With just a few minor twists you could literally turn yourself into a minor 'inquisitor'.

"Every debate has the same purpose: It gives the reasons why a way of thinking is correct or incorrect, and attempts to persuade the other to adopt their own view. For instance: In the virus world, some viruses are able to attack the nuclei of another, inserting their genetic data, and converting that virus into a duplicate copy of themselves, and that is the aim of any philosopher. He wants to make duplicate copies of himself."

The first part is reasonable, the part about viruses attacking cells and 'inserting' themselves in the living material of another, is oddly perverse. But no one here calls you on it, and none of your mentors and guides (*bows*). You are going to define to me what is Philosophy and what philosophers do and don't do? The ultimate aim of involvement in ideas-wisdom-knowledge is to invade the brain of another and install one's ideas? You are talking about programming, son.

"I advocate a nonviolent war of the wits as a means to discover that the true mind is. However, more unstable minds cannot tolerate any sort of debate, and they resort to violence. That is why we live in a culture of “tolerance” because humans are too dumb engage with each other. The ideology of "tolerance" has been widely adopted by new age philosophy, and conventional political philosophy because it results in less violence. However, tolerating all ideas as having the same value does not lead to an understanding of truth, and that is why the ideology of tolerance is so dangerous."

The violence for example of cutting someone off as 'incorrigible'? [insert all the strange language you used] Cooperating in an effort to rid an intellectual environment of someone whose ideas you don't like? No, my friend. You seem to have got it all very wrong. Take a look at the platform of concepts on which you build your ideas. 'Tolerance' is actually a very exalted idea that is at the core of an exalted philosophy, and is not to be confused with intellectual stupor that cannot distinguish ideas, or laziness in respect to analysis of ideas. 'Tolerance' means having a kind of inner strength and trust (if you will) not only in yourself but in other people. 'Tolerance' in the world of ideas would mean being capable of putting up with someone whose opinions you genuinely disliked, and does not include invading them like a virus and setting up your idea structures in them.

You got some problems, son.

[Dan Rowden]

So, you'd simply tolerate the ideas of a pedophile who wanted to butt-fuck your children? I find it rather odd that you could write that post after having previously stated that part of your goal in being here was to influence the thinking of people. How do you reconcile that?

[Carl G]

you'd simply tolerate the ideas of a pedophile

I would. I would tolerate their ideas so long as they didn't act upon them.

[Alex Jacob]

Dan, I try to put up with you though you are none too bright and very excitable. If your stupidity approaches believing that tolerance must mean what you have written (this is like talking with some stoned teenager), I am not sure what I could recommend.

So much of what I have written is in a style of parody and mockery of what I see operating here, it does not at all surpise me that it escapes you so completely!

[Dan Rowden]

What you think of me doesn't change the fact of the nonsensical nature of what you wrote, parody or not. You do not, in fact, tolerate ideas you don't agree with or view as detrimental to the world you prefer. Why can't you just concede this obvious point, and in doing concede Ryan's right to have his own perspective on that?

[Dan Rowden]

you'd simply tolerate the ideas of a pedophile

I would. I would tolerate their ideas so long as they didn't act upon them.

I understand that point, but I'm not entirely convinced by it. Actions arise out of ideas. What I see in that argument - perhaps falsely - is that one would not act unless the pedophile did. Which is kind of like saying you'd let your child get sodomized to demonstrate your tolerance for ideas. Doesn't it make more sense to circumvent action by trying to alter the thinking?

[Alex Jacob]

I absolutely tolerate ideas I don't agree with. You-all are the best thing for me! I have to serve a purpose for you, if only to allow you to highlight your own values. I clearly serve a purpose, and am 'tolerated' because (according to David) I am sort of near to this magnificent 'Truth', but I (sadly) just won't walk into the edifice and sincerely take your hands.

My point is that one can just allow one's light to shine, whatever that light is, and to use the opportunity of disagreement to make ones own ideas brighter, clearer, maybe even more originally or energetically expressed.

So many things must be 'nonsensical' to you, Dan. I have a certain empathy for your problem in understanding, but it doesn't detract me from expressing my ideas.

And you're wrong, I completely accept that this old world is going and will go its way, with or without me. To be aware, to think things through, to have a spiritual life only seems to mean that---maybe---you respond to a note that so few can or want to hear.

That is also what I call art.

(And I didn't say that what I wrote above was parody, but that much of what I have written about having a Divine mission to save you all is...No wait...hold on. No. Yes. NO!

YES! YES!: I have been given a mission to save you all and to TAKE YOU WITH ME TO ZION! Please start cooperating a little, would ya?)

(Paradox, Dan, paradox! Get used to it!)

[Dan Rowden]

I absolutely tolerate ideas I don't agree with. You-all are the best thing for me. I have to serve a purpose for you, if only to allow you to highlight your own values. I clearly serve a purpose, and am 'tolerated' because (according to David) I am sort of near to this magnificent 'Truth', but I (sadly) just won't walk into the edifice and sincerely take your hands.

You do not tolerate certain ideas and modes of thinking. You said so yourself when you spoke of influencing people here. Were you lying then or now?

My point is that one can just allow one's light to shine, whatever that light is, and to use the opportunity of disagreement to make ones own ideas brighter, clearer, maybe even more originally or energetically expressed.

Oh, ok, I agree with that particular point. But it's possible to achieve that at the same time as not tolerating certain ideas. I find all talk of such "tolerance" to be flowery rhetoric that has no relation to real world dynamics.

So many things must be 'nonsensical' to you, Dan.

That's because so many things are nonsensical.

I have a certain empathy for your problem in understanding, but it doesn't detract me from expressing my ideas.

Smugness becomes you.

And you're wrong, I completely accept that this old world is going and will go its way, with or without me.

Can I fuck your wife, then?

To be aware, to think things through, to have a spiritual life only seems to mean that---maybe---you respond to a note that so few can or want to hear.

That is also what I call art.

That's nice.

[Alex Jacob]

"Oh, ok, I agree with that particular point. But it's possible to achieve that at the same time as not tolerating certain ideas. I find all talk of such "tolerance" to be flowery rhetoric that has no relation to real world dynamics."

If you want to start working civilly and creatively on ideas, asshole, just make a little room for the opportunity.

I totally agree that we cannot be 'tolerant' toward all trends and moods and appetites that pass over the human protoplasm. And we certainly can't and shouldn't tolerate illegal activities, and have to deeply question PC conventions.

"Can I fuck your wife, then?"

Can you even get an erection, I mean after Enlightenment struck?

If so I'll let you borrow a concubine. If you return her with the panties she was wearing. (You Australian cats, one just never really knows...)

[Dan Rowden]

"Oh, ok, I agree with that particular point. But it's possible to achieve that at the same time as not tolerating certain ideas. I find all talk of such "tolerance" to be flowery rhetoric that has no relation to real world dynamics."

If you want to start working civilly and creatively on ideas, asshole, just make a little room for the opportunity.

There are persons for whom that offers no scope.

I totally agree that we cannot be 'tolerant' toward all trends and moods and appetites that pass over the human protoplasm. And we certainly can't and shouldn't tolerate illegal activities, and have to deeply question PC conventions.

Great, then there's my point in a nutshell. The realm of ideas is simply a different realm to that of the realm of actions. What one tolerates depends on ones valuations and where they lay, in either realm.

"Can I fuck your wife, then?"

I'll let you borrow a concubine. If you return her with the panties she was wearing. (You Australian cats, one just never really knows...)

You know the point I was making.

[Alex Jacob]

"Great, then there's my point in a nutshell. The realm of ideas is simply a different realm to that of the realm of actions. What one tolerates depends on ones valuations and where they lay, in either realm."

You've won an empty victory, you monkey. I didn't think in my previous post I needed to include such a simplistic caveat.

Ryan's intolerance is of another order, and is destructive in the world of ideas.

Scoot now, run along! and don't come back till you can tell me why.

[Dan Rowden]

If you wish to talk about Ryan's method of engagement and its utility - or lack thereof, as you see it - that would make perfect sense. However, couching matters in the language of "tolerance" invariably leads to problems.