For Kelly Jones

[Blair]

It should not matter either way. It would be whatever I was saying, with you agreeing or disagreeing, as I said, a lump of clay communing with another lump. Nature not caring.

[Kelly Jones]

"I don't give a stuff about anything, because Nature doesn't give a damn about me."

.....This is an emotional reaction, based on wanting to be intrinsically valuable. This is not wisdom.


"Reason tells me that no values are intrinsic to Nature, and therefore, nothing has any real value, therefore, valuing truth is irrational."

.....This is also an emotional reaction, based on wanting truth to be valuable intrinsically. It is a tiny glimpse at wisdom, then a turning-away.


"I value truth, because I am caused to, and I know there is no fundamental law saying that I must. I also know that valuing truth is a happenstance, of the unconscious processes of cause and effect. But this does not mean that valuing truth has no effects, and is a meaningless activity. Rather, I see that the consequences of valuing truth is to lead to wisdom, and, in this way, I can see that Reality has a kind of mechanical "love", a kind of "blind care", in response to the act of truly valuing wisdom, simply because there are very real effects from such a choice.

.....This is a growing wisdom, emptying out of the selfishness, lightly observing what happens after putting oneself last.

[jupiviv]

I didn't respond to Kevin's point about the ad hominem because it was a good point, but somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't focus on what to do with someone who, by sheer luck, happens to speak the truth occasionally, but does so with enough bile to drown a Nazi mermaid.

It did focus on it:

The only thing that matters is that a person is speaking the truth. It doesn't matter whether a person has a mental illness since people who are mentally ill can still speak the truth.

Even a river can "speak the truth." The same person may speak truth and untruth about different matters, and you can point that out to them. But if they still don't speak the truth in those matters about which they didn't speak the truth, then you can't do anything to make them speak the truth, other than pointing it out to them again. Or you can stop responding to them.

[Kelly Jones]

People can be stimulated to improve, if one is skillful enough. Just by pointing out stuff that they know in a henid form, but aren't able to clarify, brings them to a better state of consciousness. It really does work.

And personal criticism can really work too, because the egotist will defend themselves when they won't defend their ideas. Nothing brings them into contact with absolutism as rapidly as a personal criticism. Then all the flim-flam, pretence, and vagaries disappear, and they become dead certain.

[jupiviv]

People can be stimulated to improve, if one is skillful enough. Just by pointing out stuff that they know in a henid form, but aren't able to clarify, brings them to a better state of consciousness. It really does work.

Yes, that's exactly my point. Attack their arguments, not their character.

And personal criticism can really work too, because the egotist will defend themselves when they won't defend their ideas. Nothing brings them into contact with absolutism as rapidly as a personal criticism. Then all the flim-flam, pretence, and vagaries disappear, and they become dead certain.

Personal criticism can't work in a situation where you are trying to point out flaws in their arguments. Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacious argument, by definition, and is therefore not valid on any occasion.

[Kelly Jones]

Well, yes, I made that point too. Logically, an argument cannot be defeated by a reference to the person who makes it unless the argument relies on that information for its proof. However, psychologically, an evasive and irrational person presents arguments to hide what they really mean, which they will refuse to articulate publicly. In other words, all their arguments are nothings. So how is one to get at their hidden arguments - what they really believe? What they cherish as much as they cherish their own lives? Go to the person.

[Russell Parr]

The question of Blair's character was never brought up by Kelly to begin with in any of the cases I've found. Alex and others (and originally Blair) bring it up from time to time. Kelly has necessarily pointed out the flaw in using Blair's character invalidly in argument numerous times, something a lot of you are missing and are now, ironically, trying to point it out to Kelly. I think it just upsets some of you that she uses the term "mental illness" instead of a more widely accepted phrase like "childish mentality."

It appears that this thread isn't about Blair at all, but rather the apparent obsession of questioning Kelly's character.

[cousinbasil]

The question of Blair's character was never brought up by Kelly to begin with in any of the cases I've found. Alex and others (and originally Blair) bring it up from time to time. Kelly has necessarily pointed out the flaw in using Blair's character invalidly in argument numerous times, something a lot of you are missing and are now, ironically, trying to point it out to Kelly. I think it just upsets some of you that she uses the term "mental illness" instead of a more widely accepted phrase like "childish mentality."

It appears that this thread isn't about Blair at all, but rather the apparent obsession of questioning Kelly's character.

br, perhaps you should read the thread's title and recall the reason I made the thread.

I don't think anyone is questioning Kelly's character, but rather pointing out some inconsistencies in what she says sometimes. She invited it - see her post to me "for cousinbasil." This thread is precisely where to answer that.

Like right now - unless Kelly chides you for piping up simply because you wish to assist a damsel in distress. If such a comment is ever warranted - which I doubt - it would be just as warranted in being put forth about your post.

I think it just upsets some of you that she uses the term "mental illness" instead of a more widely accepted phrase like "childish mentality."

Not much of an argument there, bluerap. Replace the term in the first set of quotes with "nigger" and the second term in quotes with "black person."

Anyway, the two terms you used are poor choices for whatever argument it is that you are trying to make. Clearly Blair was offended by the term Kelly used. It is not so clear he would have been offended by the alternative you suggest. And your point - such as it is - is negated by the fact that Kelly chose the term she used - and defended repeatedly - and not the alternative you are for no evident logical reason suggesting.

So don't feel the need to defend Kelly Jones. She surely is capable of defending herself.

Besides, there is a bigger picture here. Kelly demanded I retract a criticism of Weininger I made because I had not perused his "opus" in its entirety before making the criticism. Yet I suggested if she were to retract her claims about prince/Blair's being mentally ill, this thread would sink into oblivion. So far she has not done that. And remember, she is basing her "diagnosis" about a person she has never met, could not visually identify, and whose name she has only just learned on the basis of his scanty forum posts. He is a living person and she won't retract her comments, at the same time demands I retract what I said about someone who has been dead for a century.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I believe that since unconsciousness strives to be oblivious to its evasiveness and suppression, that a healthy will to truth will and must drag things into the clear light of day - however difficult and complicated that may be.

But this will to truth is not without calculation - some estimation of how useful the dragging will be, or without evaluation - the ongoing question of the complexity of ones own motives. So when you drag something in the light of day, is that for the benefit of yourself, the unknown audience or the owner of the thing you just dragged out? At the moment my own take on this is that it's only my own benefit: because I value my own attempt to express the topic, doing the exercise. In that sense I ceased having a goal in terms of exposing or educating others. My impression is that those who will understand, already understood or are falling into that understanding by themselves, whatever I'd write. The rest will always evade and at most one can wear them down, frustrate them a bit. It's a cynical view perhaps but there it is.

Anyway, I find this works: if there's cognitive dissonance and confusion, then in in order to be honest, it needs to be set to rights. One has to know.

You're doing a good job but to whom are you preaching? Are you setting it right in your own eyes only?

I see an abyss of unconsciousness threatening to drag us down, if we submit to the memes in those accusations.

This abyss threatens us all but it doesn't depend on the question if one "rises" up against falseness or not. One doesn't "submit" when a battle is not engaged in. The dangers you speak of can become part of every activity, even "truth speaking". The problem might be some orders bigger than you seem to state here.

Those complaints are as follows

Yeah, you seem to upset quite a few people and I've always wondered why. It's not just what you way or some uncompromising stand. As if your very existence as a thinker, student and teacher is offending somehow. Perhaps a bit how women mostly bitch against other women but not against the men. It might also be a response on your drive to "set things right". Action-reaction-reaction, sometimes one creates just a new never-ending karmic wheel. My suggestion, in the end, is to choose your battles and exposures wisely in the light of the above. I believe there are way more interesting challenges or even perhaps venues for your abilities to discuss with such clarity and patience.

[cousinbasil]

I believe there are way more interesting challenges or even perhaps venues for your abilities to discuss with such clarity and patience.

This is something I have suggested as well.

[guest_of_logic]

But at least Kelly is knowledgeable and skilful in how she goes about it.

In hindsight, do you regret this statement given that Kelly has demonstrated in at least two posts in this thread that she doesn't even understand what an argument is?

[Robert]

But at least Kelly is knowledgeable and skilful in how she goes about it.

In hindsight, do you regret this statement given that Kelly has demonstrated in at least two posts in this thread that she doesn't even understand what an argument is?

In all honesty Laird, do you truly think that Kelly doesn't "understand what an argument is"? Aren't you being a little foolhardy in this instance in possible eagerness to drown-out certain voices?

[guest_of_logic]

In all honesty Laird, do you truly think that Kelly doesn't "understand what an argument is"?

Yes.

Aren't you being a little foolhardy in this instance in possible eagerness to drown-out certain voices?

No.

[Kelly Jones]

So when you drag something in the light of day, is that for the benefit of yourself, the unknown audience or the owner of the thing you just dragged out?

It's to benefit truth itself. I see truth as something to be valued for its own sake.

You're doing a good job but to whom are you preaching? Are you setting it right in your own eyes only?

To whomever is interested. I don't know exactly what you intended by your last question. Only the individual can judge whether something is right. They can't rely on someone else's vision.

This abyss threatens us all but it doesn't depend on the question if one "rises" up against falseness or not. One doesn't "submit" when a battle is not engaged in.

So humankind's culture is a towering mountain of bullshit because everyone values truth, and combats lies...? No. One either combats the lies, or one submits in some way. There's no third option. If in weakness, one honestly acknowledges that one cannot do much more than one's small bit, out of weakness and human frailty, then God accepts that, but the standard still remains that one's small bit is very, very little.

Yeah, you seem to upset quite a few people and I've always wondered why. It's not just what you way or some uncompromising stand.

Yes. It is interesting to speculate why I am so ineffective, despite behaving as right-mindedly as I can (which is not perfect, but it is at a higher level than virtually everyone I know). Self-analysis of this nature is something I frequently and advantageously apply to myself, for my private development. And I usually come up empty-handed in regards to self-blame on the typical human level, instead finding even more data on the spiritual level to help me improve my game still further - which is exactly of the nature of that which causes me to be "ineffective". Accordingly, the consequences of applying my new findings are: even more attacks and more claims of "ineffectiveness". So I have come to think of people's complaints as indications that the reverse of what they say about me is true.

The main flaw is really this: I am more intelligent than others and I don't dumb myself down enough, so others perceive me as cruel. It is true in a way: I know that the messy minds people live with prevent them from following the subtleties in my thought. To "dumb myself down" is certainly something I can work on, but I'm not quite interested in that yet.

I believe there are way more interesting challenges or even perhaps venues for your abilities to discuss with such clarity and patience.

There are virtually no people who are open to thought at the level at which I operate. So one place is as good as any other.

In part, I have to get my psyche around the fact that my life will be like visiting orphanages full of desolate, hypocritical, disturbed children - who believe they are living happy, fulfilled lives.


.

[Cahoot]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but my position on ad-hominem is the following:

The only thing that matters is that a person is speaking the truth. It doesn't matter whether a person has a mental illness since people who are mentally ill can still speak the truth.

Therefore when it comes to matters of truth the question of mental illness should not arise.

If a person is not speaking the truth it might be interesting to speculate on the reasons why they are not speaking the truth, but that kind of speculation should be done privately, unless the person requests otherwise, and the speculation may be entirely misguided.

If mental illness is a disruption in rational thought,

and people who are mentally ill can speak the truth,

then it follows that,

rational thought is not a criterion for speaking the truth.

Correct?

*

If mental illness is not a disruption in rational thought,

then what is it?

[guest_of_logic]

See, Robert, this is an argument:

If mental illness is a disruption in rational thought,

and people who are mentally ill can speak the truth,

then it follows that,

rational thought is not a criterion for speaking the truth.

This is not:

"Anyone who criticises women, on the basis that they're irrational, is spiritually retarded. This fact is demonstrated by Blair."

Why not?

Well, you can find out for yourself - here's an excellent tutorial that explains what, in terms of logic (and GF is all about logic, right?), an argument is: OpenCourseWare Module on Argument Analysis. Here you can see that an argument is defined as "a list of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument". This is not a definition unique to that site: it's the standard definition of a logical argument.

I think it's plain to which of the above two quotes that definition applies, and to which it does not.

Does that make my position a little clearer?

[guest_of_logic]

That deals with one of the posts that I mentioned - if you can identify the other post in which Kelly reveals her ignorance of the meaning of an argument, then ... I don't know, I'll toast to your very good health from across the ocean or something.

[Kelly Jones]

Laird, that's not my "argument". It's my attempt to make a succinct summary of the "argument" presented by Alex and Carmel.

[Kelly Jones]

If mental illness is a disruption in rational thought,

I think it all depends how mental illness is defined. Some people call unusual, or socially unacceptable, or abnormal behaviour, symptomatic of mental illness, just because the person doesn't appear to reach "normal" conclusions.

If mental illness is defined as the absence of reasoning, then obviously someone who is mentally ill and speaking the truth, isn't doing so consciously. In that case, it's arguable that they're not really speaking the truth, but just emitting, like a radio.

The way I see the human mind's expression or experience of consciousness, is something like a fountain or field of competing forces. So one with a mental illness could be highly functional in a certain area, if the dominating part of their mind was the rational part. Like a highly capable electrical engineer who happens to be schizophrenic, and when his brain is in that neural storm, he finds it much harder to concentrate in the way he otherwise could.

[Blair]

Yes, yes and we all know your mental processes are perfect, right.

[guest_of_logic]

Notice, too, Robert, how rather than accepting that her understanding of the meaning an argument is (or was) deficient and moving on gracefully, Kelly tries to deny by implication any deficiency and weasel her way out. Is this the response of an honest individual committed to truth, self-improvement and the demolition of the ego, or is it the response of one in the throes of grandiosity? Diebert, given your support for Kelly's "skilfulness and knowledgeability", that question is directed at you too.

[Kelly Jones]

Laird, the definition of an argument you give is based on the academic view of a syllogism, but neither are accurate. The reason they're both misleading, is because neither show an understanding of the foundation of the logical structure of the syllogism. Namely, A=A.

That simple structure is just the one law, rehashed a few times:
What is (A), being itself. >>> A=A (law of identity)
What is not, is not what is. >>> not-A=not-A (law of non-contradiction)
No alternative than what has been expressed. >>> not-A<>A (law of excluded middle)

This is how the syllogism plays out, from that structural basis:
A premise is a definition, in which a concept is presented that has no internal contradictions.
Can the thing defined be other than how it is defined? No, because it has already been defined, as the former premise indicates.
Is there any alternative concept for the thing as defined? No, again.

In other words, a syllogism is just the process of taking one definition, one premise, and clarifying it conceptually:
Part 1:
The thing: x (A)
Is there any thing with x properties that is not that thing? (not-A) No.
Part 2:
If something has x properties, is it then that thing? (A) Yes.


That's all the syllogism is.

If the typical example of the academic syllogism, i.e. the Socrates is mortal one, had its terms defined, then it would work. But as it stands, it fails to apply proper structure, so it is meaningless and unworkable.


.

[Blair]

Kelly's in love with being Right. It's hilarious.

[Kelly Jones]

"Anyone who criticises women, on the basis that they're irrational, is spiritually retarded. This fact is demonstrated by Blair."

The premise Alex and Carmel basically gave was "The person who criticises women as irrational is spiritually retarded." It is true that it isn't an argument as it stands, since they didn't define their terms, as I explained in the post where I mentioned this before: they didn't explain what they meant by spiritual growth (i.e. wisdom), whether rationality is important to it, and whether criticism of irrationality is important to it (or not).

Instead, they presented the argument in a completely screwed-up manner, combining both philosophical and scientific methods. They start with a priori (the premise, but it is not defined), and then they try to resolve it a posteriori (the reference to Blair's character). So I had two options. I could either treat it as a philosophical premise, or a scientific theory. I tried both ways, but trying to reason doesn't seem to work when people are aggravated.

Still, what else can one do?

People are quick to blame me when their reasoning is crap, for pointing out that their reasoning is crap, because it's easier for them than thinking and admitting they've made a mistake. It's interesting how few people have the decency to note that they made errors in their reasoning; even more remarkable how few apologise for going on to attack me for pointing out those errors.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly's in love with being Right. It's hilarious.

I love reason. It works. But it's also painful, and to that extent, I have to practise to get the hang of the ramifications of reasoning. Thus I find your resentment instructive.