poison of the heart: ramblings of a nihilistic egghead

[LooF]

unknown

you have made a theory that nothing is what is

so you want to share it with everyone else

but then, because your belief is self contradicting when you tell others, it wont work

so you've made up a theory that you are nothing, so you justify yourself in telling others what you think

so it actually makes sense in your mind

why dont you stop being dumb?

2-3 persons? same? having fun?

[bert]

All prophets are EVIL!.

Fool.

all religions are evil!

[Tord]

You're both fools. There is no such thing as evil.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There are even no things at all, only for fools.

[David Quinn]

Tord wrote:

Over a short period of time I have been accused of: Going out of my way to avoid being the target of someones argument, of being close-minded, of dismissing truth out of hand, of a negative attitude towards the concept of truth, of being over-sensitive etc.

For some reason, you are not addressing any of the specific arguments I have given.

The way you seem to argue is to at the same assign opinions to others that they never claimed to hold, and to make the opinions they do hold null and void by stigmatizing the person who utters them. It makes a discussion very easy on ones part if you have decided that the person you talk is close-minded, no? For someone who prides themselves of their logic this really does no credit to them.

Why do you keep whinging? At least make a token effort to address the reasonings that have been given. Pretend that you're interested and give it a go. What do you say?

It should be obvious that any attempt to interpret my opinions is at your own risk, and always says more of you then it does of me. You put meanings into things that reflects your own prejudice. That has always been the way of the ignorant

Still whinging!

I don't want to become repetetive, but I find it strange to hear that just a claim to knowledge is enough to accept that it is so.

Again, no one is asking you to do this. All that is asked of you, and of everyone who visits this forum, is to engage intelligently and open-mindedly in rational debate. The floor is yours.

As Mr. Solway says he is here to teach, and as "a guru is a teacher of great truths" this is perhaps how he views himself?
But why this urge to teach?

Does it really matter what he does? What's it got to do with you? Just plunge in and rationally debate the issues with us. Stop carrying on like an old woman.

And when Mr. Quinn mentions Jesus, Buddha, and Kierkegaard as examples of wise men, he just embarrases himself. I know I make an easy target of myself not backing those opinions with arguments, but this is neither the time nor the place.

What is a wise man? What is wisdom? Do you know?

-

[David Quinn]

James wrote:

The QRS are fundamentalists. That is they have decided that they know enough and are incapable of taking more refined knowledge in.

In some ways however they are correct, their 5 or so key tenents are vital to wisdom. Everything is caused and interconnected being the two main ones, but they retain illusions when they speak of existence/emptiness and assign values to masculinity and feminity.

James, you are punching above your weight here. Your understanding of emptiness is still very crude and unrefined, which means you are still only guessing with respect to these matters.

The Buddha used to illustrate the nature of emptiness by swirling a burning torch so that it formed a solid ring of light. In one sense, this ring of light definitely exists as an experiential phenomenon. We can see it with our eyes. It is definitely there before us.

And yet, in another sense, we can see that there is really no ring of light. There is only a torch moving around in a circle. Seen from this perspective, the ring of light doesn't have any existence at all!

This is how it is with all things. In one sense, things appear to exist. In another sense, nothing is really there at all.

-

[Matt Gregory]

Why did he twirl the flower?

[David Quinn]

I'm not sure. What's the story of that again? Do you have it handy?

-

[sevens]

See who was man enough to spread his teachings.

Just a flower.

A=A.

[bert]

You're both fools. There is no such thing as evil.

I know that only few know where I build upon.

[Matt Gregory]

Once, in ancient times, when the World-Honored One was at Mount Grdhrakuta he twirled a flower before his assembled disciples. All were silent. Only Mahakasyapa broke into a smile.

The World-Honored One said, "I have the eye treasury of the right Dharma, the subtle mind of nirvana, the true form of no-form, and the flawless gate of the teaching. It is not established upon words and phrases. It is a special transmission outside tradition. I now entrust this to Mahakasyapa.

:-)

[David Quinn]

Is that why we see so many monks and devotees of Buddhism smiling in the world today!


-

[Jamesh]

David: This is how it is with all things. In one sense, things appear to exist. In another sense, nothing is really there at all.

"This is how it is with all things" - including things such as ultimate truths for instance!!

What I am on about lately is trying to get you guys to word your ultimate truths to encompass this duality of perspective. I think it is important that you do so that it leaves little room for people like me to find loopholes/outs in the one sided manner in which you tend to word these truths when trying to teach newcomers. Of course this duality tends to be more fleshed out in your essays, but I still believe your philosophy REQUIRES dead ends on certain truths where no such dead ends exist.

[Kevin Solway]

I still believe your philosophy REQUIRES dead ends on certain truths where no such dead ends exist.

Since all absolute truths are based on definitions, and are purely definitional, they create their own dead ends.

For example, if we define a "bachelor" to be an unmarried man, then it is true that all unmarried men are bachelors. And we've thereby arrived at a dead end. Same for A=A, or any other absolutely true statement.

[bert]

ideas you conceive are their own possibility.
Don't look further :)
Ask yourself:Is the thruth necessary?
I assert you that there are things more necessary.And I wrote it just a minute ago.

[David Quinn]

James,

David: This is how it is with all things. In one sense, things appear to exist. In another sense, nothing is really there at all.

James: "This is how it is with all things" - including things such as ultimate truths for instance!!

Yes, they are in the same boat. But they are still expressions of truth, nonetheless. That doesn't change.

What I am on about lately is trying to get you guys to word your ultimate truths to encompass this duality of perspective. I think it is important that you do so that it leaves little room for people like me to find loopholes/outs in the one sided manner in which you tend to word these truths when trying to teach newcomers.

I don't mind leaving these loopholes open. It enables the flakes to drift away, and encourages the more genuine types to redouble their efforts to seek enlightenment.

-

[unknown]

Quinn is a kid. Atleast in his brain.

[avidaloca]

Neither can I possibly fathom your complete discarding of all scientific knowledge. I know that science doesn't offer any complete knowledge, but I can't imagine my intellectal development would have been what it is if it weren't for my reading in, say, psychology, philosophy, religion/comparative mythology etc. But this claim seems so absurd, that you may have expressed yourself a bit unclear. The distinction you need to make here is accepting what you learn in school without fitting it into a larger frame of reference, i.e. making the mistakes most specialist in a given subject tend to do, or simply to ban every science from the start. That smacks a bit of christianity to me.

Take this as an analogy of what Kevin (ksolway) and David Quinn think of empirical knowledge.

When I was translating Weininger a few years ago, I applied 25 years of learning German since I was four years old to producing English versions (I am an English native speaker). In contrast Kevin or David know no real German at all (Kevin a few words). But every time a question of accuracy of translation occurred, or intepretation, both of them were always right without question, regardless of having no accurate translation or understanding of the source. None of my knowledge meant anything at all to them, and it takes a long time to learn a language to a high level. Incidentally, in matters not in dispute I've gotten praise from all kinds of people for my writing and translating (including Kevin and David).

I've also seen Kevin create abominations of translating Weininger that don't even make logical sense and think they are the greatest of all possible versions.

[Matt Gregory]

Could you give us an example?

[avidaloca]

This one is a fundamental example in that it couldn't be more simple:

Weininger said "Selbst R.Wagner sollte ein Hund geliebt haben"

which means

"Even R. Wagner [Richard Wagner] was supposed to have loved a dog"

and Kevin insisted through over an hour of argument that it should have been

"Even R. Wagner should have loved a dog"

This makes no sense, but it remains on the website of this translation at http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/cheveng.html

[David Quinn]

I'm not sure why I am being dragged into this. As far as I can recall, I haven't been involved in any translation disputes with Martin Dudaniec (avidaloca).

When passages to be translated touch upon the realm of ultimate truth, the translater's own wisdom becomes an issue. If he lacks wisdom himself, he will invariably misunderstand the intent of the author and could easily make errors in the translation. Kevin would be perfectly within his right to challenge Martin's suggested translations on this basis.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Wagner's dog, however. Perhaps Kevin can fill us in on this.

-

[Matt Gregory]

I don't think I understand either one. Did Wagner use dogs in his works or not?

[Leyla Shen]

When passages to be translated touch upon the realm of ultimate truth, the translater's own wisdom becomes an issue. If he lacks wisdom himself, he will invariably misunderstand the intent of the author and could easily make errors in the translation. Kevin would be perfectly within his right to challenge Martin's suggested translations on this basis.

What!?

What if the author himself lacked wisdom?

If you are to translate a work, you translate it and clearly stipulate your own (wise) interpretation as your own.

That would be more honest.

[David Quinn]

Leyla,

DQ: When passages to be translated touch upon the realm of ultimate truth, the translater's own wisdom becomes an issue. If he lacks wisdom himself, he will invariably misunderstand the intent of the author and could easily make errors in the translation. Kevin would be perfectly within his right to challenge Martin's suggested translations on this basis.

L: What!?

What if the author himself lacked wisdom?

Then there would be no passages that touch upon the realm of ultimate truth.

If you are to translate a work, you translate it and clearly stipulate your own (wise) interpretation as your own.

That would be more honest.

You can't translate a work without bringing your own interpretation into it, particularly when it comes to spiritual works. There is no such thing as an "objective" translation. To translate is to interpret.

Ideally, the translator should be of "one mind" with the author - that would be the only sure way to eliminate errors from the translation. If the author in question is a wise thinker, such as Weininger, then the translator himself would need to have similar depth and wisdom. Otherwise, significant errors can creep in.

-

[avidaloca]

All of this is irrelevant if you don't actually know the language you are trying to translate.

Then you are in the realm of speculation because language is also logic, and if you haven't learnt that logic, you have no way of verifying whether your interpretation is logical.

Also David I have been involved in interpretation differences with you over Weininger but the difference between us is, I am basing my reading of him on his actual writings. Because you can only read second hand interpretations in English, you have to base them on "intuition". You can't verify your interpretations textually, where I can. I don't make an interpretation if I can't prove it.

The last time we discussed Weininger was a while ago but it is difficult to put a case that Weininger meant this and that to you when you can't actually read what he wrote to begin with. Because of that our conversations about Weininger have been in broad terms, which I find disappointing.

Due to the latest Sex and Character translation being very high quality, this should no longer be a problem.