Musings, Critiques.

[Kunga]

you haven't ever really said anything?

Either did Buddha.
Maybe Alex is a koan-head.

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert wrote: And don't forget motive. Your motive appears not clear, not fresh, actually a bit smelly after four years of rotting flesh. Someone who believes to have found the Kingdom of God at least has a healthy looking motive to talk about it for the rest of his life. People who are not really interested have a motive to laugh about it and move on. But to campaign against it, year after year, is more like a tragedy unfolding. So much bleeding and nothing to stop it.

Having taken a contrary stand in numerous pretty crucial areas with David, one learns quite rapidly that one is ignorant not only of the 'Truth' but that one is completely out of harmony with all spiritual figures of history. What is the core idea that supports such a judgment? Similarly you, though you are rhetorically more proficient and you seem to wear a far more reasonable garb, seem also to be capable of a similar order of judgments. What about the question of motive there? If you can ask questions about it in others, are you also able to respond to the same question?

More relevant or perhaps revealing is that in the course of offering up all kinds of ideas in this thread (after a 4 month absence mind you) I have received from you a whole wide gamut of descriptive terms. None of this has an relevance to me, really, but I notice that you seem to feel that you can do this. I have always explained my motives when I have been pressed to do so. But note the following: no matter what I say it is not accepted. What is most interesting to me, since you make this a topic of conversation, is that in your case you are effusive when there is something you like and agree with (in my or in someone's writing). And you are a very accomplished rhetorician. But in respect to me, and I do take a fairly poignant stand against Master's formulations, there is simply no bottom to the depth you will sink in your attempt to discredit the content I bring forward. It just seems to me since you are the one who brings up this issue of motive, that you examine your own motives. At the beginning, you declared that you would not make this a tête-à-tête, but then you have made it very much just that. Then, you say you retire from engagement but then, a day later, you are back at it. What in the heck is up with that, Diebert?

It is hard for me not to see the sort of opposition I receive here for some pretty anodyne comments as arising from a great need to defend...something. But what that 'something' is, is hard to say. Especially in your case.

[Russell Parr]

It is hard for me not to see the sort of opposition I receive here for some pretty anodyne comments as arising from a great need to defend...something. But what that 'something' is, is hard to say. Especially in your case.

You're never going to find that 'something' because there's nothing there.. the whole "thinking system" is a mental mirage. When we say that consciousness/enlightenment/absolute truth is the motive, you ignore it vehemently and misplace the motive into something else: a form of emotionally motivated, subjective fundamentalism. But the fact of the matter is, your position holds that when spirituality is the object of pursuit, 'emotionally motivated, subjective fundamentalism' must be the necessary result! After all, there can be no objective goal to be reached, according to your subjective doctrine. "All truths are subjective." - The Book of Alex: ch. 1, verse 1.

Therefore, on the basis of your own argument, the opposing parties of this discussion are both arguing their religious standpoints, as objective realizations are simply, and ultimately, impossible.

So there you have it Alex! Your quest is over, we are in pursuit of our own subjective religious standpoints, and you are in pursuit of your own. For you to argue against ours is to contradict and blaspheme against your own religion.

Being as such you can't even play by the rules of your own philosophy, your presence here can very easily be observed as a gross over-indulgence in self-righteousness. You believe everyone's truth is their own, but you feel 'right' in 'helping' us do away with our own, in exchange for yours, as if it's somehow better, or more accurate!

And don't you dare complain about me using your own terms to critique your position! This is fair game, no? All is subjective!

[Alex Jacob]

I wouldn't object to your re-statement because it is yours, not mine. Reading what you write I am pretty sure you don't understand what I critique and why. You defend what you defend (as real, as important, as valid and valuable) without fully grasping what I am talking about. That is my impression from reading your rewrites. I perceive you and others are invested in a species of religious fundamentalism, if David's doctrines in WOTI can be considered a guiding document of a philosophical-religious position. But you say you are not a fundamentalist. And i accept this. What more can be said?

And I would not say, in that way, that 'all is subjective'. But I would say that all viewpoints are necessarily conditioned by subjectivity. Do you get the difference?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"And you are a very accomplished rhetorician" - Alex.

• Rhetorician: a teacher of the art of rhetoric or skilled in the art of rhetoric. Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. Modern rhetorical criticism explores the relationship between text and context; that is, how an instance of rhetoric relates to circumstances

Alex, how can you even imagine anyone being in or out of harmony with "all spiritual figures of history" without having a claim to know what they were on about. A claim you might have forgotten you were criticizing in the first place! This is the stuff which makes people wonder what you're up to.

It's just another example of you not even seriously and consistently arguing for your own ideas. That's why it's time to zoom into your motive as you do not appear to be here for any intellectual dialog. It might have taken four years to establish this without doubt (it was suggested before) but here we are. Motives are important to discuss in philosophy just like the issue of character, shown in debate very quickly. One cannot separate it from spirituality. For example, someone seeking for "truth" or the meaning of life might discover that he is looking for something else entirely. A quite common discovery.

Anyway, in your case I've figured out the issue of motive in great detail and I even tried to help you get there too. Just saying it to you directly will be counter-effective. The secret is what's denied most fanatically, with maximum bombast and comedy acts - perhaps because the same secret might be the source of ones ability to move [mo-tive].

By the way, it's true I said this shouldn't (not a promise though) become a tête-à-tête and I don't think it really was. For example some extensive dialog between you and David and Dennis occurred and added to that some excellent critiques from Bluerap and Pye. Then even more people commented here and there and Laird started an interesting attempt to sum things up. It's still too much between us perhaps but that's because I cannot resist shooting fish in a barrel. It's just too easy.

And I did retire from the discussion for almost a week with the remark that I might be back when the topic and attitude was changed sufficiently to peak my interest. That happened when the topic of "Western liberal traditions" and what to hate and love about them came up. Sorry that I have to spell this all out for you but perhaps you understand this minor detail better now and you can feel a bit foolish.

I guess that wraps it up for now.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"Subjectivity is Truth" - Johannes Climacus.

[Dennis Mahar]

Alex's concern is vital to him.

His conversation is coming out of his concern.

His parents went the way of Eastern thinking and to Alex's way of thinking the result was unfortunate.

To Alex the way of Eastern thinking is dangerous coming out of his personal background.

Because he is a deeply caring man concerned with 'what it means to be human' and recognises 'traps' and 'pifalls' along the way.
He is no dummy in relation to 'traps' and 'pitfalls'.

His action is to pull apart, prosecute, nit pick.
The prosecutor.
In the Inquiry his tactics of taunt, ridicule, grandstand, thump the table are often grounds for charging him with contempt of court.

He wants to know,
What does taking on Quinn's curriculum mean for 'human being'.
Is 'human being' enhanced.
Is World enhanced.

He doesn't automatically 'trust it'.

Acknowledging his 'vital concern' is viable.

By my reckoning he has pulled much of the curriculum into his orbit and the 'Woman' thing is the fly in the ointment that gets him agitated.
When he looks at that he recoils in horror,
a stumbling block.
He doesn't want Woman left out, trashed, discounted.

[Dennis Mahar]

An Inquiry needs a president.
one who presides over.
There's only one guy fit for the job.
Nagarjuna,
He 'nailed' it.

He put together a viewpoint that could see every other viewpoint coming from a mile away.
Every other viewpoint gets reconciled in his viewpoint thus producing harmonious relations between people.

Then he makes a surprising move.
He crashes his own viewpoint.

Nagarjuna for president!

[Dennis Mahar]

So Diebert,
You and I understand Alex sees that all essences are false.
In that understanding he argues Quinns curriculum is an edifice or lacks essence.

Then he wanders over to 'western liberal traditions' and gives that essence,
because he wants 'tangible'.

That's a surprising move.

[Alex Jacob]

Gorgias (Sophist) wrote in 414 BC: “The power of speech has the same effect on the condition of the soul as the application of drugs to the state of bodies; for just as different drugs dispel different fluids from the body, and some bring an end to disease but others end life, so also some speeches cause pain, some pleasure, some fear; some instil courage, some drug and bewitch the soul with a kind of evil persuasion.”

First I wish to say that I am very aware that, in respect to you-all, I did not really get anywhere. The question might be posed: 'Well, if you'd have chosen a whole other method of tactic would you have achieved different results?' I think the honest answer is no. It is naturally problematic to speak too broadly about 'the house philosophy' and to corral everyone who now participates here into too restrictive a ring, but in a very real sense (though you, Diebert, deny it) there is a core religious philosophy that functions here, at least in all those who have come forward (with the exception of Jamesh and certainly Pye), in this thread. The core arguments of that specific philosophy are presented rhetorically and dogmatically, and in some sense axiomatically, and in the sense that I mean, which I write about extensively, these doctrines function 'like drugs'.

So, when I refer to you Diebert as an excellent or accomplished rhetorician I do not mean to take away anything that is not yours or that you do not deserve. An accomplished lawyer will necessarily be an accomplished rhetorician, and the more he knows of the art of rhetorical skill, the greater likelihood he will have in convincing his hearers. But I think we all know that a great deal that is quite dubious on close examination can be presented in a rhetorical display that, at the very least, will succeed in convincing the untrained and the unaccomplished. This is how it goes in our world unless I am quite mistaken. This is also possibly one of the main reasons this forum has been useful to me. The core position delineated by Solway and Quinn and to a lesser extent Rowden, which forms the backdrop of this forum, is one that is developed through a crafty (in a neutral sense of 'craft') use of precepts and presuppositions and is presented 'rhetorically' and is designed to convince---to convert as I say. The structure of ideas that supports the religious and dogmatic conclusions of the religious philosophy---and this was my starting point---is represented in the context of David's blog 'Crossing the Road'. If there is a road to cross the method and tools are those described, in tremendous detail, in the 'core document'.

Now, I know very well that those I call 'the true believers' of the religious and dogmatic system outlined in WOTI accept the terms of that system and do not question it. This does not mean that it is not questionable, or that one might not successfully interrogate it, disassemble it, remodel it, add elements, subtract elements. In my view it is crucial that anyone examining the system of ideas do just that. All that I write here arises from that motive: the motive to communicate which is undoubtedly a form of persuasion. I desire to persuade. I desire to communicate that it just might be possible that this structure of idea, this system of thinking, is not at all as benign as it represents itself, and that its 'rhetorical elements', like a certain form of a drug, may indeed 'bewitch the soul with a kind of evil persuasion'.

When I say this (and I do say this: outrightly and openly), when I say this, when I suggest this (and when anyone suggests it), the System-Upholders, like spiders in their web, sense a threat to the structure and, as is obvious, rush forward to 'defeat' the threatening argumentation. It is painfully obvious when one examines David's discourse in this thread. But I do certainly recognize that it is useless to point to it, to say Look! See for yourself! Not in the context of a group of True Believers. They can't examine it and they won't examine it. So, the question 'Is a conversation possible in this context?' seems to be 'No'. You can agree and have an agreement-conversation. You might converse finer points or unrelated subjects with a philosophical patina. But when it comes to the core constructs---forget it. Should that surprise you? It is not surprising in the context of fundamentalist religious 'reasoning'.

For me, though I recognize that all my writing here would be infinitely tiresome to those who don't share or understand my concerns, this is really the reason I am attracted to this place. It is not the only reason but it is likely the main one. Superficially I wish to see (which means really 'to feel') what such a constrictive belief system feels like. This particular one (if WOTI is accepted as the guiding document) is not unsimilar to the Castanedan system (that by the way Diebert). I called the Castaneda System, when it was unravelling, 'a Ponzi scheme of the mind' and though this one is not the same it shares many similar elements. One buys into it bit by bit until it is 'installed' and then you are qualified to 'sell' it. That statement has to be qualified carefully. My 'feeling' is that the WOTI 'system of thinking' will likely have to be uninstalled at a later time in the life of those young persons who are now installing it. IF that is true, it will be because of what the system asks one to disinclude from one's very self (and life).

It is perhaps vain and I thought not to mention it, but in the course of this particular run here I have received a number of PMs from people who understand what I am trying to communicate. I have been tempted to put up some selections from those PMs. YOU might feel the same if ever you find yourself in the rather freaky situation of arguing against five or six 'fundamentalists' all at one time. But anyway I didn't and I won't (quote them). But I did want to say that it helps me to feel that not all this effort is in vain.

'911 for the Western Liberal Traditions!' (That was funny by the way!)
______________________________________________________________

Dennis writes: You [Diebert] and I understand Alex sees that all essences are false.
In that understanding he argues Quinns curriculum is an edifice or lacks essence.

You have ascribed such a view to me, so using it here is a clear straw man. I would use an analogy from chemistry to describe how moral and ethical ideation (and the higher ideation of man generally) comes into existence in our world: it follows patterns perhaps similar to crystal formation. While I recognize there is a temporary and arbitrary organization (that will fall away at some point), there is a 'supporting structure' within the cosmos that will always produce it. David's system is a unique 'crystallization' that will produce a certain form, or 'deform', of crystal. There are simply other and superior crystals!

'Word to the wise' as David archly said... ;-)

I will now begin my slow fade...into the background space of the universe...

[Jamesh]

Laird,
This could be the launching point for a dialogue, because I don't think anyone would argue that there is not suffering in life, nor that it would not be preferable to avoid that suffering. A dialogue might, though, take place on the extent to which there is suffering in life, the extent to which suffering is avoidable, the extent to which the house philosophy succeeds in eliminating suffering, the extent to which suffering is unavoidable in the achieving of higher goals (most superficially, those leading to pleasure), and, most broadly, the extent to which we ought to focus philosophy in the first place on avoiding suffering, to the exclusion of all else that might be valued positively.

Suffering, by whatever definition, is unavoidable. You overcome suffering by developing strengths. If you don’t develop those strengths you regurgitate on your woes and your ego makes you suffer more, often unnecessarily so. The less potentially controllable suffering you encounter, the less capable you become in dealing with negative externalities.

Suffering is a teacher, a harsh mistress. It is a demonstration that God in whatever conceptual form, does not care for you, is totally indifferent to you.

So you need to look after numero unero. Thank god this indifferent God allows us to suffer, for otherwise, we could not exist. The evolution of life itself is due to suffering.

So you have this fucker of a god throwing both pleasant things and bad shit at you, indifferently, though seemingly a bit discriminately. You see enough people seemingly live great fulfilled lives, and they have done it by “the luck of the draw”, or by being little gods themselves and turning their knowledge of outside-themselves to their advantage via overcoming X, Y,Z and gaining skill sets and tolerances to avoid suffering.

Ego’s are insatiable beasts. In essence they are one’s learnt master program for dealing with suffering related to conscious thoughts, for dealing with the indifference of the totality. Whatever suffering they encounter will be felt as a slight, a No No against the anti-suffering program, that it will have to defend.

Also when the dumb-as ego obtains pleasure it then when that pleasure does not arise when circumstances give the indication it should be there - when there should be the Homer Simpson feedback of “Mmmm pleasure” - the ego categories this pleasure absence “as being a suffering” even where that suffering is simply the mild angst of boredom.

So you see what will happen. No matter how hard one tries there will always be this continuous ego drive wanting satisfaction.

Might there be a better way.

Well if fucking god is indifferent, as the cunt clearly is, why not follow his example and become indifferent oneself. Any other strategy creates too great an inequality in gods favour – god will forever be indifferent and the stream of sufferings, as petty as they may mostly be, will continue until you die. If one takes an indifferent attitude though, then one is not “capturing” this negativity, negative influences just flow through you, and do not become amplified by your emotions.

To be indifferent you cant love love and hate hate. That is the Christian strategy and we see where that leads.

It takes a lot of reasoning to work out how to become indifferent. Even when one gets something in the moment, as in they feel a new understanding, that is just something that goes into memory. Only repeated actions change the ego program, otherwise the program would become useless due to a lack of consistency.

An indifference to former attachments is felt the same way as developing certain strengths. If what once affected you now does not then it is the same as developing muscle strength – you have built a resistance to what formally made you suffer.

So as a result have you lost the joy as well? Well yes, the joy that attachment once had will no longer arise.

So as a result of this indifference will you now feel dead and void?

Umm, I’m not sure. I’ve not lost attachments, though they do have lesser affect on me, I’ve at least developed in varying degrees at least some indifference to them.

Lets imagine someone though who has lost all the major attachments. They’ll still have working brain, and it should be a brain that is operating very smoothly. Subconsciously it is probably operating extremely efficiently upon memory, comparing X memory with Y others, reweighting degrees of probability to enhance “correctness”. Being mostly indifferent to externalities the natural internal operations are not being interfered with by the constant demands of the ego-emotion paradigm to recalculate each and every new possibility or actually of suffering or pleasure.

You cannot avoid having an ego, but you can change how it reacts to everything. An enlightened person still has an ego, they still have the watcher program that sends the data collection sub-routines into the subconscious brain. The ego is still always active while conscious or dreaming, but now it is not dealing with anywhere near as much negativity. It is not seeking pleasure from others or from specific things, so there is no “pleasure absence” and thus the boredom and disappointment and “I Want X” routines don’t kick in as much.

When the ego is not dealing with analysing the right reaction to immediacies, such as making dinner or writing a post for this forum, it must still be doing something and I would class this as being in “alert” mode, however it is not a negative alert state such as one related to danger or a demanding alert state like that of male in the presence of a hot female, but a simple alertness to reality. I’m not enlightened but I’d imagine the bulk of one’s existence becomes like the way one feels on a non-exertive bush-walk where you are just toddling along looking at the scenery, unemotionally navigating ones path through life, without a worry in the world.

With indifference, God changes from an cunt making life difficult for you, to become just Infinity.

Being indifferent means being indifferent to learnt behaviour of the self. The ego has some primary layers that do not substantially change with enlightenment - physical and spiritual self care and the herdly care for others are retained.

I do not believe a psychotic personality could become enlightened. The individual retains care for others as part of the ego, generally the care from adults as a baby and perhaps some degree of truly instinctual behaviour will ensure foundational ego programs and memories retain a non-indifference to needless harm occurring in one’s immediate environment and for the future of the species – to a degree. I’d imagine they would stop an unattended infant from crossing a dangerous street, but otherwise would rarely intervene in human follies such as a domestic, knowing there are lessons that need to be learnt.

Perhaps an indifference to sexual desire, such as we see in David now, though sexual desire feels instinctual, may not be if we think back to lack of sexual desire in our childhood. The affect the hormones of puberty have on our ego would seem to be reversible (but for very few, not I).

[Jamesh]

bluerap wrote:

As for your suggestion that this 'system' may be for "pain management," What David and others discuss here (the "path of enlightenment" you could call it) is clearly not about avoiding pain.. what could be more painful than doing away with all worldly desires? Friends and family turning against you as you turn to reason? The path of enlightenment is much more about embracing the "pains of life" (or "long suffering" as they say in Christian traditions) in route to buddhahood, not in seeking avoidance.

But if you examine the process the judgement of whether to continue onwards is with the “greater goal” being in place. It is the same as the work one goes through, including the decision at crisis points to continue or not, where the ultimate goal is an Olympic medal. With truth the gradual progression of rationality gives you strength, and you gain the confidence of achievement, but without the dominant goal being valued more highly than the pains on the way, then you won’t do the required training. It is a subjectively-rational valuation that achieving positive X is worth many negative Y’s on the way. For the journey towards enlightenment, that training is to go where you haven’t been before in depth of truth by building upon what you already have – something Alex is determined not to do.

Now if you are a swimmer and you value obtaining an Olympic medal too much, and no matter how hard you try you continue to not master the grade, then you’ll most likely end up distraught for periods and disillusioned. As well as that medals are a finite achievement, after winning one you’ll think – what the hell do I do next.

The path to truth is similar. Just like an athlete training will mean opportunity costs, and you’ll face injuries. You can overstress your mind and become distraught as a result. You can suffer a crash of confidence and lose control your logical framework and become irrational.

Few obtain an Olympic medal, and few of us are built to reach enlightenment, but the training still makes one feel healthier overall, though just how may be rather difficult to grasp. If it did not you’d stop trying and do something else.

Understanding new truths of reality however are achievements that remain active in you forever, if you let them.

[Dennis Mahar]

Alex,

Culture was up and running before you got here.
All you did was show up in culture.
Culture shapes what you think and feel.
Attachment to a cultural identity is an inauthentic mode of being.

So if you're not authentically a cultural identity who are you authentically?

We can't go to psychology, sociology, astrology etc because they only provide a range of assessments.

To get at the being of human being or what kind of a being is human being,
we have to access the ontological domain.

This may leave you dismayed, sorry about that chief.

Nagarjuna says,

the YOU that you say when you say I am is a superstition.
that sounds strange but he means it.

The I which you are talking about when you say I think and I feel.
that I which you are pointing at when you say I think and I feel is an invitation from Nagarjuna for you to break through.

YOU believe that you ARE the I that is pointed to in the phrase I think.
YOU believe that you ARE the I that is pointed to in the phrase I feel.

It's a very deep superstition, a superstition that most are blind to and is hardly ever brought up for examination.

Human being was here long before you showed up,
you just showed up as human being.

Maybe human being is using you to act out a range of options.

IT uses you in ITS direction, in ITS thrust.
you don't use it, it uses you.
IT was already up and running as a certain set of options and all you did was show up and those options are using you.

We say I think, I feel.
Nagarjuna says that's not the case.
IT thinks, IT feels.

Nagarjuna invites you to stand in that possibility.
IT thinks, feels.
IT isn't you thinking, feeling.
There are thoughts and feelings but it isn't YOU.

IT thinks and you have the thoughts.

If you are committed to the idea that its you thinking, feeling.
Stop it!
You can't because its not you.

You live the superstition that you think, feel.

One of the things IT thought up is YOU.
Notice how it thinks a lot about you,
you are one of its favourite things about which to think.

You show up in ITs thinking.

[David Quinn]

It is perhaps vain and I thought not to mention it, but in the course of this particular run here I have received a number of PMs from people who understand what I am trying to communicate.

Interestingly, I haven't received a single PM or email from anyone concerning you, Alex. In fact, I don't think I've ever received one in the entire time you have been here.

I wonder what that says about who is feeling threatened and who is eager to huddle with others....

So, when I refer to you Diebert as an excellent or accomplished rhetorician I do not mean to take away anything that is not yours or that you do not deserve. An accomplished lawyer will necessarily be an accomplished rhetorician, and the more he knows of the art of rhetorical skill, the greater likelihood he will have in convincing his hearers. But I think we all know that a great deal that is quite dubious on close examination can be presented in a rhetorical display that, at the very least, will succeed in convincing the untrained and the unaccomplished.

Oh dear. And this is said with a straight face? What a gall you have.

You're like the Mitt Romney of philosophy. Except that you never philosophize.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Alex, a few things before you fade to where you came from.

There's the conviction you keep repeating that there's a "core" systematic philosophy in place, while it's not entirely clear how one could talk about the nature of reality and enlightenment without gravitating towards certain terms, a few traditional formulations combined with some contemporary observations and developments. It's not difficult to see that you always will end up with some conglomerate of notions and that there's just no other way to get some kind of focus, some fertile way to propel any conversation, although you seem to think it can by changing the rules as you go. This basic necessity is not enough to claim the presence of a rock solid system, one without any flexibility or openness to change or improvement. Unless we describe all instances of culture or heuristics as problematic. The fact that not every year everything is reformed and redressed again does not mean everything is being etched in stone. Quinn's writing and outlook is still very different than lets say Nietzsche, Chuang Tzu and Hakuin. No way one can device a system out of that, apart from the fact that they all are appearing to pass "something" on, something about the basics of mind and existence itself through rhetorical means.

It seems that you, Alex, are using the term "rhetorically" in some odd 19th century sense. But in classical as well as modern sense it's not about "convincing" a (dumb) audience. Aristotle for example defined it as "an ability, in each case, to see the available means of persuasion". This is something way different of course. It works then as leading art in the world of meanings. Or like expert James Boyd White, a law professor ironically, who describes it as "the methods by which culture is maintained, criticized, and transformed". So if we are talking criticism on modern culture, criticism on some cultist philosophy or the dialog around a mix of cultures and philosophies, one would expect a lot of rhetorics as the leading means to have any discussion. This all shows your implied usage of the word rhetorician is meaningless, backwards and pretty useless in this context. It's not very skilled, to say the least. Not very convincing to anyone having their thinking cap on.

As for your reference to PM's, it's not the first time you trot them out, this stale tactic that is only employed in the face of humiliation (I've seen people do it at other forums too). I would only counter with a warning that it might just as well be proof of your status as counter-guru. Your pontificating way of writing, interlaced with light disarming humor and clearly mastering the art of post writing, makes you attractive for certain types to demonstrate their support and loyalty to. This is how followers are born in the wake of any strong player, and you might be the strongest rhetorician here, the most forceful and convincing sounding on an emotional level. If there's a Castaneda in this forum, perhaps it's you, carrying his seed. And I cannot remember receiving any supportive PM's in any debate with anyone.

And as last nail in your coffin, you are again wrong about the whole term "fundamentalist". If you go for an extended period on a forum about The Beatles, complaining about the dangers of pop music and promoting classical music, you'll meet a lot of resistance. Mostly the question of why you are there or if you are a troll. They will question your motive, not as much the fact that you despise Beatles or think modern music is dangerous for the brains. But you instead will see all the resistance as proof that modern music is "baaad" and you'll carry on explaining why. And for sure you'll get support from the left fielders looking for ways to criticize the forum's administration they mistrusted all along. This happens on Internet forums all the time. You behave in my view exactly the same and for me it's often interesting to expose this behavior in its full glory. The corruption of thought and character caught in the act of trying to detect other people's corruption; it itches my irony bone big time.

[Alex Jacob]

Humiliation, Diebert, has not yet overcome me. But I'll let you know when it has come and reduced me to shame...

Diebert wrote: There's the conviction you keep repeating that there's a "core" systematic philosophy in place, while it's not entirely clear how one could talk about the nature of reality and enlightenment without gravitating towards certain terms, a few traditional formulations combined with some contemporary observations and developments. It's not difficult to see that you always will end up with some type of conglomerate of notions and that there's just no other way to get some kind of focus, some fertile way to propel any conversation, although you seem to think it can by changing the rules as you go. This basic necessity is not enough to claim the presence of a rock solid system, one without any flexibility or openness to change or improvement. Unless we call all instances of culture or heuristics as problematic.

You have modified your previous statements: earlier there was 'no core system', but now you seem to recognize the presence of one, even if you might label it as 'heuristic'.

Heuristic refers to general formulation, a speculative formulation, that will function as a guide to investigation. But this is not the spirit that operates in David's thinking system. Indeed it is very much the opposite. But that is the very nature of absolutism and absolutist thinking-systems! It is a clearly defined and rock-solid mental system and its strength lies precisely in its concreteness. One declares some 'absolute reality'; one locates oneself within it as the spokesman; one decides who else speaks for 'it' or understands 'it'. This is what absolutist thinking systems DO, Diebert! But it is not that they do not teach us anything nor that all parts of them are false. It has much more to do with how they are wielded.

By Dennis's definition, which definitely seems to be the under-structure of David's view-structure and, although you are chary to precisely state your own position (a clever choice, you crafty devil, as you can never be tied down to any specifics), all instances of culture or heuristics are problematic. You guys use culture and then dismiss it when needed! But we need to see clearly and to state clearly: an absolutist thinking system (again, if we accept WOTI as the or a guiding document) is a fundamentalist's construction and serves fundamental needs. From it, one has the ultimate arbiter's position, one can recur to it, reside in it, and preach from that vantage. And those who take it up generally speaking do just that.

A position from which to 'stimulate conversation' is a necessary and good thing. But when 'absolute rules' that derive from an installed absolutist thinking are firmly in place there really no longer can occur 'conversation'. Any deviant view, any threatening view, can and will be defeated. Whether the argument (against) is reasonable or not is irrelevant.

It seems that you, Alex, are using the term "rhetorically" in some odd 19th century sense. But in classical as well as modern sense it's not about "convincing" a (dumb) audience. Aristotle for example defined it as "an ability, in each case, to see the available means of persuasion". This is something way different of course. It works then as leading art in the world of meanings. Or like expert James Boyd White, a law professor ironically, who describes it as "the methods by which culture is maintained, criticized, and transformed". So if we are talking criticism on modern culture, criticism on some cultist philosophy or the dialog around a mix of cultures and philosophies, one would expect a lot of rhetorics as the leading means to have any discussion. This all shows your implied usage of the word rhetorician is meaningless, backwards and pretty useless in this context. It's not very skilled, to say the least. Not very convincing to anyone having their thinking cap on.

I see this paragraph as sophistic in essence. It is essentially a rhetorically-driven and sophistical restatement of what I wrote. It is well-ordered, uses some academic references to bolster authority, but it has almost nothing to do with what I have been talking about. What I am speaking against is a limited and fixed group of notions about 'reality' around which a group of choices and decisions coalesce (an ethic). I am also saying that this group of ideas, ensconced within its dogmatic, is very attractive to a certain sort of mind and a certain sort of person. And in this person it acts like a 'drug'.

The Aristotelian ideal is a very good ideal, fundamental to our traditions and to our conversation. An absolutist thinking system, built on religious principals for religious purposes is shall we say 'incommensurate' with a genuine philosophical approach.

And who would argue with a calling for a rhetorical engagement and "the methods by which culture is maintained, criticized, and transformed"? The maintenance of culture? The transformation of culture? You mean like families, civic institutions, social relations, the raising and education of children, relationships? This is a disingenuous reference on your part. What he is speaking about is what I am speaking about! What David calls for is the installation of an absolutist religious program. Try to get some clarity here!

I actually think that your 'thinking cap' may not be very securely in place, Diebert. But again, you are also radically reinterpreting Quinnian doctrines to suit your own more expansive views. You go to some Machiavellian lengths!

I would only counter with a warning that it might just as well be proof of your status as counter-guru. Your pontificating way of writing, interlaced with light disarming humor and clearly mastering the art of post writing, makes you attractive for certain types to demonstrate their support and loyalty to.

This is a false argument. I am suggesting a closer examination of the core thinking system outlined in a specific document the influence of which is 'felt' throughout the forum. It is the core and defining document of a House Philosophy. I am also suggesting the inclusion of a great deal of material, 'possibilities' I have called them, that is excised by a radical-absolutist religious program. If there is a demonstration of 'loyalty' (not at all the spirit in which they were offered)(those few PMs) in truth such 'loyalty' as a stalwart defender of a general philosophical system is far more evident in your approach, old chum! That is quite the impression I have of your 'loyally rendered service' here. The Greeter in an absolutist Walmart. The defender, the explainer. A kind of bouncer. An undertaker! ;-)

And as last nail in your coffin, you are again wrong about the whole term "fundamentalist". If you go for an extended period on a forum about The Beatles, complaining about the dangers of pop music and promoting classical music, you'll meet a lot of resistance. Mostly the question of why you are there or if you are a troll. They will question your motive, not as much the fact that you despise Beatles or think modern music is dangerous for the brains. But you instead will see all the resistance as proof that modern music is "baaad" and you'll carry on explaining why. And for sure you'll get support from the left fielders looking for ways to criticize the forum's administration they mistrusted all along. This happens on Internet forums all the time.

(I'm an Elvis man, myself).

Again, the 'nail in the coffin' is essentially an a priori here. You are defeated before you have even begun! 'If you understood what I was talking about', you will be told, 'there would be no argument'. The beauty in this system is that he who holds and wields it, in the end, does not really have to defend it or anything. Because it is no a person who has constructed it, it is 'IT'. An Absolute that enters our world from the Mystical Void.

This is not a Beatles fan club forum. It is one where (supposedly) the most important and relevant questions about human life are asked and where, essentially, one is called to answer them within one's own person. A fundamentalistic religious program, for us in our day and age, is anathema to progress in my view. To seduce people on the basis of such a program is a sort of 'dangerous drug'. But what you have done in your sophistical display, above, is to ridicule a closer examination of what y'all are engaged in here. You have reduced it to an ego-game played by some immature personalities who may not indeed hold 'truth' or 'wisdom' in such high regard after all. And really this is how you appear to me, Diebert: much more concerned about winning and 'driving nails in coffins' than about some of the very real and specific dangers.

Fading still...

(One, maybe two posts remaining...)

[Tomas]

A position from which to 'stimulate conversation' is a necessary and good thing. But when 'absolute rules' that derive from an installed absolutist thinking are firmly in place there really no longer can occur 'conversation'. Any deviant view, any threatening view, can and will be defeated. Whether the argument (against) is reasonable or not is irrelevant.
Fading still...
(One, maybe two posts remaining...)

The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.
~ H.L. Mencken

[Dennis Mahar]

Hello cousin IT,

a prosecutor is a limited set of options.
absolute means 'free of conditions'.

take your case, dear prosecutor, up to a mountain top one clear night and tell it to the stars,
tell them what you like, what you don't like, your preferences, your sense of injustice, your troubles, tell them about the dangers, tell them your opinions, tell them about your solutions, how it should be, what's wrong, what's right.

Wait carefully for a response,

wait, wait, wait

wait, wait, wait

It might occur to you after some time,

They don't give a fuck.

You do realise a prosecutor is the activity of trying to put someone 'in chains' or in a 'straitjacket'.

[Dennis Mahar]

Alex,

prosecutor is a limited set of options, that's why you were only able to write one post 4,000 times.
it's empty and meaningless.

To my way of thinking prosecutor was only a role you took on as a vehicle for the strong suit 'love of writing'.
'writing' can get a lot of action happening in that place.
one can be as busy as a one-armed juggler finding quotes at Wikipedia to toss about like they were winners.

There's another possibility for 'love of writing'.

Even the great blues players come from another place eventually and get into jazz as a possibility.

If you piss off I'll miss that 'love of writing'.

Give up talking shit love and give us your best shot.

evolution can take millenia.
transformation takes an instant.

people think evolution means survival of the fittest.
it actually means adaptable to conditions.

coming from empty is free in conditions.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Alexa,

earlier there was 'no core system', but now you seem to recognize the presence of one, even if you might label it as 'heuristic'.

In the more general sense the heuristic refers to experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery. A technique I see for example as talking about causality instead of oranges. Or to use language to create Koans instead of limericks. If people use hammers to insert a nail, there's Alex to claim there's a system being forced by a cult of carpenters? It's really that simple, you might need to lobotomize yourself to get it though (as cure for the disorder).

One of my favorite songs (from The Church) goes like this:

• Destination, destination.
  It's not a religion, it's just a technique.
  It's just a way of making you speak.

you can never be tied down to any specifics

Because they are never the issue. This is the difference between unity and multiplicity. Unity is no thing, nothing to hold on to and almost impossible to describe. While multiplicity, the ten thousand things, are a never ending activity of naming, examination, differences of opinion, revelation, different schools of thought, complicating backgrounds, surprising influences and eventually at some point a big twist at the end when all looks now like the opposite of what earlier seemed be the case. This is not between good and bad but more the question which direction might be more fruitful when questions of a spiritual nature arise.

This is not a Beatles fan club forum.

The point however, and you missed it flying five miles over your head, was that the dynamics of the online forums are the same everywhere. You as a criticaster, a borderline troll, plays (inevitable it seems in your case) the part defined by the medium. You get sucked into it and think you are doing something significant, meaningful, pleasurable, what ever. The medium of a forum creates opportunity for you to play out this role, amplifies this desire and you fall into a well-defined niche. From that niche you operate and derive justifications to continue. It's all rather empty, "artifactual".

To seduce people on the basis of such a program is a sort of 'dangerous drug'. But what you have done in your sophistical display, above, is to ridicule a closer examination of what y'all are engaged in here. You have reduced it to an ego-game played by some immature personalities who may not indeed hold 'truth' or 'wisdom' in such high regard after all.

It's all about seduction. And destination...

[Alex Jacob]

Uh-huh.

(Got that one from Dan...)

;-)

[Jamesh]

Alex

What I am speaking against is a limited and fixed group of notions about 'reality' around which a group of choices and decisions coalesce (an ethic). I am also saying that this group of ideas, ensconced within its dogmatic, is very attractive to a certain sort of mind and a certain sort of person. And in this person it acts like a 'drug'.

Well you’d better get busy book burning the works of all the highly respected philosophers of the past, which also had a limited and fixed group of notions about reality at the time they published their works.

If you don’t there may eventuate any day soon a mob of beam-me-up Kierkegaardian Knights of faith self-flagellating themselves to eradicate any sense of emotion.

Dennis

Even the great blues players come from another place eventually and get into jazz as a possibility.

By Jazz I presume you mean the improvisation side of things. As in when an instrument player fully masters the “physical truth” of the instrument, they are free to be musical in the moment. The QRS are just about providing tips about the instrument that is reality so that one might master the music of reality.

[Alex Jacob]

I've used up my remaining posts!

But I've got the perfect bridge to the above as well as a parting shot.

This one goes out to Diebert the QRStian Undertaker, nailing dem coffins shut: New Orleans Dirge.

[Jamesh]

Diebert

I think you have a great point about sensitivity, and how could anyone having less than great sensitivities develop the circumstance where the more subtle forms of thinking could start taking place? As much as I love Alex, his quick wit and his decent knowledge, he looks to me still rather clumsy and crude when it comes to the finer points in this particular discussion (sorry mate, the knife cuts at both sides). For this reason some, including myself, have described a few of his charges as "blocks", something actively maintained to freeze the whole movement up, becoming completely insensitive and stunted when it comes to something that threatens some core issue, inside the psyche, something to let go. Then again, who really knows? Perhaps it's a game to him or a desire to bang his head against a brick wall.

I don’t mind Alex as I find him useful. It is like playing table tennis with oneself by practising against a wall (the block you speak of) – everything just rebounds at a slightly different angle. For lazy minds like mine, responding to him and Laird prompts one to “refine their justifications for positively viewing the house philosophy”

I’m increasingly starting to view Alex as the ultimate Jew – one who cannot help but practice priest-craft. Below are some quotes from The Anti-Christ. Sorry about the length – I decided it would take too much effort to condense.

“The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world, for when they were confronted with the question, to be or not to be, they chose, with perfectly unearthly deliberation, to be at any price: this price involved a radical falsification of all nature, of all naturalness, of all reality, of the whole inner world, as well as of the outer. They put themselves against all those conditions under which, hitherto, a people had been able to live, or had even been permitted to live; out of themselves they evolved an idea which stood in direct opposition to natural conditions—one by one they distorted religion, civilization, morality, history and psychology until each became a contradiction of its natural significance.”

Psychologically, the Jews are a people gifted with the very strongest vitality, so much so that when they found themselves facing impossible conditions of life they chose voluntarily, and with a profound talent for self-preservation, the side of all those instincts which make for décadence—not as if mastered by them, but as if detecting in them a power by which “the world” could be defied. The Jews are the very opposite of décadents: they have simply been forced into appearing in that guise, and with a degree of skill approaching the non plus ultra of histrionic genius they have managed to put themselves at the head of all décadent movements (—for example, the Christianity of Paul—), and so make of them something stronger than any party frankly saying Yes to life. To the sort of men who reach out for power under Judaism and Christianity,—that is to say, to the priestly class—décadence is no more than a means to an end. Men of this sort have a vital interest in making mankind sick, and in confusing the values of “good” and “bad,” “true” and “false” in a manner that is not only dangerous to life, but also slanders it.”

The concept of god falsified; the concept of morality falsified;—but even here Jewish priest-craft did not stop. The whole history of Israel ceased to be of any value: out with it!—These priests accomplished that miracle of falsification of which a great part of the Bible is the documentary evidence; with a degree of contempt unparalleled, and in the face of all tradition and all historical reality, they translated the past of their people into religious terms, which is to say, they converted it into an idiotic mechanism of salvation, whereby all offences against Jahveh were punished and all devotion to him was rewarded. We would regard this act of historical falsification as something far more shameful if familiarity with the ecclesiastical interpretation of history for thousands of years had not blunted our inclinations for uprightness in historicis. And the philosophers support the church: the lie about a “moral order of the world” runs through the whole of philosophy, even the newest. What is the meaning of a “moral order of the world”? That there is a thing called the will of God which, once and for all time, determines what man ought to do and what he ought not to do; that the worth of a people, or of an individual thereof, is to be measured by the extent to which they or he obey this will of God; that the destinies of a people or of an individual are controlled by this will of God, which rewards or punishes according to the degree of obedience manifested.—In place of all that pitiable lie reality has this to say: the priest, a parasitical variety of man who can exist only at the cost of every sound view of life, takes the name of God in vain: he calls that state of human society in which he himself determines the value of all things “the kingdom of God”; he calls the means whereby that state of affairs is attained “the will of God”; with cold-blooded cynicism he estimates all peoples, all ages and all individuals by the extent of their subservience or opposition to the power of the priestly order. One observes him at work: under the hand of the Jewish priesthood the great age of Israel became an age of decline; the Exile, with its long series of misfortunes, was transformed into a punishment for that great age—during which priests had not yet come into existence. Out of the powerful and wholly free heroes of Israel’s history they fashioned, according to their changing needs, either wretched bigots and hypocrites or men entirely “godless.” They reduced every great event to the idiotic formula: “obedient or disobedient to God.”—They went a step further: the “will of God” (in other words some means necessary for preserving the power of the priests) had to be determined—and to this end they had to have a “revelation.” In plain English, a gigantic literary fraud had to be perpetrated, and “holy scriptures” had to be concocted—and so, with the utmost hierarchical pomp, and days of penance and much lamentation over the long days of “sin” now ended, they were duly published. The “will of God,” it appears, had long stood like a rock; the trouble was that mankind had neglected the “holy scriptures”.... But the “will of God” had already been revealed to Moses.... What happened? Simply this: the priest had formulated, once and for all time and with the strictest meticulousness, what tithes were to be paid to him, from the largest to the smallest (—not forgetting the most appetizing cuts of meat, for the priest is a great consumer of beefsteaks); in brief, he let it be known just what he wanted, what “the will of God” was.... From this time forward things were so arranged that the priest became indispensable everywhere; at all the great natural events of life, at birth, at marriage, in sickness, at death, not to say at the “sacrifice” (that is, at meal-times), the holy parasite put in his appearance, and proceeded to denaturize it—in his own phrase, to “sanctify” it.... For this should be noted: that every natural habit, every natural institution (the state, the administration of justice, marriage, the care of the sick and of the poor), everything demanded by the life-instinct, in short, everything that has any value in itself, is reduced to absolute worthlessness and even made the reverse of valuable by the parasitism of priests (or, if you chose, by the “moral order of the world”). The fact requires a sanction—a power to grant values becomes necessary, and the only way it can create such values is by denying nature.... The priest depreciates and desecrates nature: it is only at this price that he can exist at all.—Disobedience to God, which actually means to the priest, to “the law,” now gets the name of “sin”; the means prescribed for “reconciliation with God” are, of course, precisely the means which bring one most effectively under the thumb of the priest; he alone can “save”.... Psychologically considered, “sins” are indispensable to every society organized on an ecclesiastical basis; they are the only reliable weapons of power; the priest lives upon sins; it is necessary to him that there be “sinning”.... Prime axiom: “God forgiveth him that repenteth”—in plain English, him that submitteth to the priest.

! On the other hand, the savage veneration of these completely unbalanced souls could no longer endure the Gospel doctrine, taught by Jesus, of the equal right of all men to be children of God: their revenge took the form of elevating Jesus in an extravagant fashion, and thus separating him from themselves: just as, in earlier times, the Jews, to revenge themselves upon their enemies, separated themselves from their God, and placed him on a great height. The One God and the Only Son of God: both were products of ressentiment....

Hard upon the heels of the “glad tidings” came the worst imaginable: those of Paul. In Paul is incarnated the very opposite of the “bearer of glad tidings”; he represents the genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred. What, indeed, has not this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above all, the Saviour: he nailed him to his own cross. The life, the example, the teaching, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of the whole gospels—nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter in hatred had reduced it to his uses. Surely not reality; surely not historical truth!... Once more the priestly instinct of the Jew perpetrated the same old master crime against history—he simply struck out the yesterday and the day before yesterday of Christianity, and invented his own history of Christian beginnings.

“The gospels are invaluable as evidence of the corruption that was already persistent within the primitive community. That which Paul, with the cynical logic of a rabbi, later developed to a conclusion was at bottom merely a process of decay that had begun with the death of the Saviour.—These gospels cannot be read too carefully; difficulties lurk behind every word. I confess—I hope it will not be held against me—that it is precisely for this reason that they offer first-rate joy to a psychologist—as the opposite of all merely naïve corruption, as refinement par excellence, as an artistic triumph in psychological corruption. The gospels, in fact, stand alone. The Bible as a whole is not to be compared to them. Here we are among Jews: this is the first thing to be borne in mind if we are not to lose the thread of the matter. This positive genius for conjuring up a delusion of personal “holiness” unmatched anywhere else, either in books or by men; this elevation of fraud in word and attitude to the level of an art—all this is not an accident due to the chance talents of an individual, or to any violation of nature. The thing responsible is race. The whole of Judaism appears in Christianity as the art of concocting holy lies, and there, after many centuries of earnest Jewish training and hard practice of Jewish technic, the business comes to the stage of mastery. The Christian, that ultima ratio of lying, is the Jew all over again—he is threefold the Jew.... The underlying will to make use only of such concepts, symbols and attitudes as fit into priestly practice, the instinctive repudiation of every other mode of thought, and every other method of estimating values and utilities—this is not only tradition, it is inheritance: only as an inheritance is it able to operate with the force of nature”.

http://journeymanpreacher.wordpress.com ... lex-jacob/

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Look what you did Jamesh, you made him run out of steam...

The passage you posted crossed my mind a few times over the years. It's certainly one of the fascinations with his character, which sometimes seems exaggerated as if it has to look more Jewish or Priestly than it ever could be in real life. Is it something to categorize and label with a better term? It might have been very visible in the 19th century European Jews but I think the term is outdated nowadays. Perhaps it's more deeply connected now with modernity as culture being firmly Judeo-Christian even with the Church declining. The result of being uprooted, self-conflicted, highly mental active, materialistic and deeply insensitive to the deeper currents of the religious or the existential. And always the schizophrenic arguing with his own reflections.