Arbitrary absolutism: the values of the house philosophy

[AlyOshA]

Robert:

none of his followers taught it of him, and neither Laozi nor Zhuangzi ever advocated A = A

Oh sorry. Apparently it's only valid when the followers of Buddha, Laozi or Zhuangzi advocate it? OK:

I do not know its name but for title call It "TAO".
TAO manifests both the pure and the turbid, both as movement and stillness.
Those who have the power to transcend their desires, looking within and contemplating mind, realizes that in mind, mind is not; looking without contemplating form, they realize that in form, form is not; looking at things still more remote and contemplating matter, they realize that in matter, matter is not.
When they have clearly thought about these three they perceive only a void, and when they contemplate the void, they realize that the void is also void and has become nothingness. The void having vanished into nothingness, they realize that the nothingness of nothing is also nothing

The nothingness of nothing is also nothing. Sounds like A=A to me :)

[RobertGreenSky]

Oh sorry. Apparently it's only valid when the followers of Buddha, Laozi or Zhuangzi advocate it?

- Alyosha

Nope, what I meant was it wasn't valid for them, right or wrong.

I am not going to see it and I suspect you are not going to not see it. :)

The nothingness of nothing is also nothing. Sounds like A=A to me :)

Sounds like the empty set to me, no matter you're going on and on about how empty it is. :D

[RobertGreenSky]

'I do not know its name but for title call It "TAO".
TAO manifests both the pure and the turbid, both as movement and stillness. ...'

Alyosha, whom/what are you quoting?

[Kelly Jones]

Why do you need to know who said it, Robert? Surely you can tell if it's accurate or inaccurate as it stands.

You say that A=A, true or untrue, doesn't apply to the Totality. But A=A basically boils down to the truth of a thing. That it is what it is.

Are you saying that the Totality isn't itself?


.

[Unidian]

Tao is not a thing.

[RobertGreenSky]

Are you saying that the Totality isn't itself?

- Kelly

Not today, no. It's taken to bed with a headache.

The quotation doesn't read Daoism to me. It reads Zen and I'd like to know who said/wrote it. If it's legitimate, then let's see it; if it was just copied without attribution we should know that too. Cut the crap that if it's academic or otherwise a legitimate source it is somehow tainted. Only someone who'd like to pretend - read 'bullshit' - she's on a par with, say, a Huang Po, would suggest to the rest of us that we not consider appropriate source material and instead pretend along with her that she is a master's equal. You're not and your playing at it is pathetic.

[Kelly Jones]

Tao is not a thing.

Precisely.

You've just used the law of identity.


.

[Unidian]

You can say that I've used a duck's arse to swab out a septic tank, but it doesn't amount to anything. All words, all concepts, all attachments, all egotism.

Laozi, Zhuangzi, Nag, and the others didn't care a whit about whether they had used "the law of identity" or the aforementioned duck's arse. Their aim was to point beyond all such intellectual conceits and devices to which the mind might cling - and they certainly accomplished that - but not for those who would rather cling to their monkey-minded conceptual "superior wisdom."

Call me irreverent, but I'm going to amend Laozi just a tad:

In the pursuit of being able to say "Look mom, I'm a genius," every day something is acquired.
In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped.

When is the day when "A=A" is dropped? For you and Dear Leader Quinn Jong-Il, that would be the most spiritually significant day of all, although I wouldn't bet my bottom lint-wad that it will ever happen. The Genius self-image is just too rewarding, especially for the psychologically defective.

[RobertGreenSky]

Their aim was to point beyond all such intellectual conceits and devices to which the mind might cling - and they certainly accomplished that - but not for those who would rather cling to their monkey-minded conceptual "superior wisdom."

- Unidian

If we can't get past our pretty little concepts then we'll never get it. That includes the concept that it takes a 'spiritual genius' to think those pretty little concepts. When the ego is disputed, how is it it's ever going to be done on a message board styled 'Genius Forum'? The pursuit of non-ego by the egotistical is a pathetic endeavor. At Genius Forum they don't tell you that you need humility - can you guess why?

[Unidian]

When the ego is disputed, how is it it's ever going to be done on a message board styled 'Genius Forum'? The pursuit of non-ego by the egotistical is a pathetic endeavor. At Genius Forum they don't tell you that you need humility - can you guess why?

Not much need to guess, I'd say.

Seems pretty apparent even to a duck's arse.

[David Quinn]

All things are unreal in the sense that nothing objectively exists.
All things are real in the sense that they are manifestations of reality (the Tao).
They are both, depending on how you look at it. ...

Since things do not really exist in the first place, how they can be decribed as being real or unreal?

Pretty simple, really.

- David

Pretty wrong, really. The Buddha's-Nagarjuna's point is that nowhere can a thing be found and that would include the Tao and this 'Totality' the idea of which would have offended them all.

Do you really think that Lao Tzu didn't equate the Tao with the Totality, the All? That he divided the world up into Tao and not-Tao?

I shouldn't laugh at you, because I know you can't help it. But the way your fundamentalism unwittingly leads you to oppose the tenets of the very text that you are fundamentally attached to is, you have to admit, pretty funny.

-

[Unidian]

Not too funny, since that's not what he's doing and it is what you are doing.

Do you really think that Lao Tzu didn't equate the Tao with the Totality, the All? That he divided the world up into Tao and not-Tao?

Yep, he did, at least conventionally. If you actually read the Tao Te Ching without egotistical motivations (not that this is possible for you), you would discover that Laozi often urged his readers to consciously follow the Tao - implying quite clearly that it was possible to not do so.

To consciously follow the Tao is to put aside concepts, beliefs, and ideas and allow oneself to become naturally and directly mindful.

To "oppose" the Tao is to cling to concepts, beliefs, ideas, labels, names, and other dualistic/egotistical artifacts of thought.

While, ultimately, those who "oppose" the Tao also follow it in their own misguided way, the Laozi is about correct guidance.

And Quinnology, in stark contrast, is emphatically not.

[Dan Rowden]

Just so everyone knows, I have deactivated both Robert's and Nat's (Unidian) accounts. Their current behaviour and posting amounts to nothing less than trolling and I have no patience for it. It's all too fucking typical. Every....fucking....time.

Yawn x 100000

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You probably did them a great favor. How could such trolling, in packs even, amounts to any movement upward with them? It's all so impoverished, even when one imagines they 'd be right somehow, the approach itself still would be depraving, thereby defeating the point they might have had but obviously didn't really have.

And it's hard not to address the obvious fallacies each and every time, like it's hard not to kick in a soccer ball when passed before open goal. It's a tendency I still enjoy but only feeds apparently the troll's appetite. It's hard for me to understand the phenomenon, this rock solid unwillingness to engage, or just actually comprehend basic stuff with some attention.

[Kelly Jones]

What I found difficult to get around with Robert is his belief that Buddhism is a doctrine with set concepts and terms, and if you use other terms and concepts, you're not talking about what Buddhism is talking about. It is as if Buddhism isn't applicable to everyone, everywhere, everywhen. He also thinks that an idea is unreliable unless it's in Wikipedia, which is bizarre.

Both of them didn't respond to posts that pointed out contradictions in their reasoning, until I reposted them. At that point, they both haul out the very convenient "you're addicted to reasoning" trick, or "the truth is beyond concepts" trick. Very dishonest, really.

What have I learnt? Hmmmmm.......

I have learnt that if one spells out how to resolve a logical problem, simply and plainly, it seems to help. It helps people whose minds are ratchetting too fast and furiously to pay careful attention to how their own concepts are formed. But one has to keep doing it. Slow, simple, orderly explanations, step by simple step.


.

[David Quinn]

Yep, good move.

-

[Dennis Mahar]

This conceit which understands how to belittle every truth, in order to turn back into itself and gloat over its own understanding, which knows how to dissolve every thought and always find the same barren Ego instead of any content—this is a satisfaction which we must leave to itself, for it flees the universal, and seeks only to be for itself.
Hegel

all truth claims amount to nothing more than exercises of the "will to power." the entire history of thought being an expression of a hidden will to power.
Nietschke

[Diebert van Rhijn]

• If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right. - by Schopenhauer, On the basis of Morality

Nietzsche of course, was right: a good independent thought takes an enormous power to conceive and as such an expression of it. This would expose citing and quoting as a possibly weak and lazy affair in most cases. And I plead guilty of it.

[Kelly Jones]

Extract that professor tapeworm once and for all!



Causation is power. A will to power could be the will to understand causation.

[Dennis Mahar]

What is the mind but thoughts?
What are thoughts if not labels?

What is the seeking mind seeking?
Labels.

To what end?

Power of course

[Kelly Jones]

What happens if the thoughts lead to an understanding of causation, and oneself as made of causes? The dominating, organising power of thoughts can lead to a beneficial end.

Just like how a powerful man can restrain someone in a temporary fit of crazed suicidalism, and the power used in restraining them aims to do no harm.


.

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: Like Diebert, and even after I clarified it to him, you seem to be misunderstanding what I mean by (possible) "world": I mean not just planet Earth, but everything that comprises the Totality.

Diebert: Please try to imagine that I not only understood you perfectly clear but that you might be still misunderstanding what is meant by Totality, the whole inclusiveness of it. Just try to imagine a version of the Totality where you actually understood all different versions and possibilities are necessarily caused leading you to admit it's still the One Reality and all hypothetical versions would be nothing but variations on the same theme, still part of the same symphony.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that you continued to misunderstand after I clarified it to you, but that David did.

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're saying, but here's an attempt at an interpretation: the Totality comprises (is that better than "contains", Cory?) all possibilities, such that over all time, every possibility, and every imaginable alternative, will occur (and indeed has already occurred, infinite times [you didn't say this explicitly but it seems to be implied by what you did say]), and thus (I assume you to be implying) the problem of imaginable alternatives that do not actually exist is resolved: all imaginable alternatives exist at some points in time.

I see two problems with what you say, assuming that I've interpreted you correctly.

The first problem is that it doesn't address what I outlined in an earlier post (and which I quote to Dan below): the definitive properties of the present moment, in which only one alternative can exist.

The second problem is that this "whole inclusiveness" is nothing but an assumption, and one which can easily be demonstrated to be false. For example, one imaginable possibility is that in the Totality there is no, never was any, and never will be any, consciousness. Clearly this is not a possibility that the actual Totality admits of.

Excuse me

Certainly not! Your position is inexcusable!

(I jest, I jest)

but why do you imagine that any set of conditions could have been any other way? Because we can imagine it? Perhaps you ought - first - consider if this product of imagination is sensible.

The product of my imagination contains no logical inconsistencies - perhaps you ought to explain what then invalidates it as a legitimate possibility, in particular this description that I wrote to Diebert in a previous post, which as yet has not been responded to explicitly:

"Right now I am typing a post to you, but if, say, the thought had instead entered my mind to have a cup of tea, then right now I might have been drinking a cup of tea instead of typing. For that thought to have entered my head, the antecedent causes would of course have to have been different. Let's grant then, that the antecedent causes might have been different. Now, for those antecedent causes to have been different, their antecedent causes would have to have been different. Let's grant then, that those antecedent causes might have been different. Continue ad infinitum (and into the future, not just the past), and we end up with an entirely new "possible world": a Totality that might have been."

The "house philosophy" explains why it isn't, perfectly. The simple, seemingly insurmountable truth is, you don't understand one iota of that philosophy.

You're never going to get tired of pulling the "you don't understand" card, are you? It must be lonesome to be so misunderstood... ;-)

The house philosophy doesn't explain why the entire web of causes of the Totality is such that right now I am typing rather than doing any number of other possible things, including not even existing at all. At most it says that that entire web of causes, being everything, cannot be caused itself. That doesn't explain why it has the specific nature (including the properties of each moment) that it has, though.

In what way does causation not account for - and resolve - your imaginary dilemma?

See above. The web of causation can be encapsulated (abstractly), and being that there are no causes outside of it, there is no explanation for why that entire web of causation is as it is and not some other way (e.g. the way of the example I provided above to Diebert, of a Totality devoid of consciousness).

Just so everyone knows, I have deactivated both Robert's and Nat's (Unidian) accounts. Their current behaviour and posting amounts to nothing less than trolling and I have no patience for it.

Trolling? I hardly think so. There was some humour at QRStian expense, but in general they were contributing constructively, offering their take on the Eastern philosophies so highly regarded here, and explaining, in some detail, why they disagreed with the take of the house philosophers on those Eastern philosophies. Deactivation seems very extreme, particularly without warning.

[Pye]

David (on disabling 2 contributor accounts): Yep, good move.

Nope. Arbitrary absolutism.

Whilst you exercise authoritarianism over the genuine, philosophical necessity of skepticism (the harder you’re pressed, the quicker you eliminate), you let linger a half-dozen innocuous posters whose presence and comments do nothing to forward thinking; nothing to threaten your position. Perhaps less than “arbitrary; it’s methodical.

Skepticism itself is necessary to forward the next thought; except when you’re done thinking. Apparently, many of you are done. An amazing feat for a living being; an incredible piece of hubris.

This whole thread did more to reveal the dangers and irrationalities of identifying oneself as a “sage” as any I’ve ever seen here. The identity itself provides an abyss of ego, which, apparently, once fallen in, there’s no escaping, whether you are in the possession of truth or not. “I want to be a sage” is taking things from the ass-end and setting up a permanent address in the cul-de-sac of ego. Sageliness doesn’t declare itself; it demonstrates itself, and there has been precious little demonstration of it in your smug and irrational reactivity here; collecting into a little knot of self-congratulatory like-minded [done-]thinkers.

There is little value in un-worthy “enemies” upon which to hone one’s reasoning.

But then, when you’re done; you’re done.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

there’s no escaping, whether you are in the possession of truth or not. “I want to be a sage” is taking things from the ass-end and setting up a permanent address in the cul-de-sac of ego.

This all hinges on the already drawn conclusion that there's not that much worth to be found in the insights by the supposed "sages". By the way, personally I dislike the word sage, it has some dusty, suffocating smell to it. I'd prefer "cool headed zen dudes".

What's up with the obsession over a label? As for becoming "renowned for profound wisdom", isn't it good to strive for that wisdom? And isn't anyone writing on these essential matters setting himself up as a some "master", daring to comment on renown verses with fresh insight? If not, that person better had to shut up and wise up first! All that fake humility with some posters, hiding behind masks like a smug "secret master" just itching to jump out but too afraid to claim that the mysteries are penetrated - yet they imply they have!

If someone would set himself up as savior or sell his services, or somehow organize things into coordinated movements with rules, now then the criticism would mean something. There's way more ego cul-de-sac in trying to align oneself forcefully with a supposed mainstream or traditional view, by the way - all dead-ends of thought.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

all imaginable alternatives exist at some points in time.

Perhaps you are confusing material, scientific ideas with an entity which functions purely logical?

the definitive properties of the present moment, in which only one alternative can exist.

Nobody knows which the "definitive" properties are, or how many alternatives exist in the present moment. These are all constructs which change as our scientific understanding of our perception progresses.

The second problem is that this "whole inclusiveness" is nothing but an assumption

It's a definition where one works with. It's not something that needs to be "proven", similarly to A=A. It doesn't need to exist and surely the totality cannot exist anyway, like any other thing exists. So doubting its supposed existence is really beyond the point.

For example, one imaginable possibility is that in the Totality there is no, never was any, and never will be any, consciousness. Clearly this is not a possibility that the actual Totality admits of.

Obviously the totality is the ultimate construct of consciousness to address what necessarily lies beyond its own confines.