Trump

[David Quinn]

David Quinn: Kierkegaard also spoke about the limitations of formlessness. He spoke about the knight of infinite resignation, for example. The knight of infinite resignation is someone who understands that, from the absolute point of view, nothing has value, and he gives himself over to this understanding by renouncing everything in this world, including everything in his own life. But that's not the end of the story. As Kierkegaard goes on to say, there is someone who is even greater than the knight of infinite resignation - namely, the man of faith. The man of faith is someone who, after abandoning everything in a great act of renunciation, reintegrates into the world by grasping hold of the finite "on the strength of the absurd".

The higher perspective than the above account of man AND God is the perspective that there is no way to separate the absolute (the infinite causality) and its consciousness of its relativity of caused effects. In other words, there is no such awareness as formlessness. Which means there is always value present, i.e., to be conscious of form is, by default, to value form/to value Oneself. Your view of God AND man is valid vis a vis the realm of having to separate God from Himself so as to realize Himself, but once realized, the subtle duality of God AND disappears, as does the dualistic idea of 'grasping hold of the finite.'

Yes, that's true. But at the same time, the dualistic idea of "letting go of the finite" also has to be abandoned. Otherwise, you will end up making the mistake of clinging to the dualistic realm of purposelessness. Only when you are free of all dualities can you begin to safely take hold of the finite again.

This reminds me of a Zen story:

Master Nansen was washing his clothes. A monk asked "Is the Master still
doing such things?". Master Nansen, holding up his clothes, asked "What is to
be done with them".

In other words, he begins to value things again. He begins to have a purpose in the world again. The man of faith is a God-filled man who strides the world with purpose, while the knight of infinite resignation is still just an aimless ascetic, an empty vessel, waiting passively for God to fill him.

From the perspective of (the Son of) Man as the conscious infinite causality valuing/loving itself, it is irrational to 'wait to be filled' because, of course, it was never without form.

Yes, so the knight of infinite resignation is still fundamentally deluded by the belief that some kind of transformation is about to take place. It is only when he finally renounces even this that the transformation can begin to occur.

I have explained many times over the years that my goal in life is the survival of wisdom. And for that goal to be facilitated, we need the continued existence of intelligent, sentient beings, such as those few that can be found within the human race. Thus, the human race needs to continue. Thus, we need to protect the environmental support systems upon which the human race relies. Thus my alarm at not only the precarious state of these environmental support systems, but also at the sheer indifference to this emergency by such large sections of the community, including, appallingly, by senior members of this forum.

It is true that God realization is dependent on sentience and that to ensure the continuum of the causality of sentience is in God's best interest, but is it in God's best interest (or logical) to hate or be appalled by any of its/his sentient formations, i.e., God-as-Trump, God-as-the forum members?

It's called passion.

Jesus displayed it when he said to the Pharisees, ""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.".

Or when Hakuin spoke about the deluded Zen monks of his era:

Recently, however, even within Zen, priests have appeared who do nothing but sit like lifeless wooden blocks, 'silently illuminating' themselves. And beyond that, what do you suppose they regard as their most urgent business? Well they prattle about 'doing nothing' being the 'man of true nobility' (quotations from Rinzai) and with that, they are content to feed themselves and pass day after day in a state of seated sleep.

I have made a verse to pour scorn on this odious race of pseudo-priests:

What's earth's foulest thing, from which all men recoil?
Charcoal that crumbles? Firewood that's wet? Watered lamp oil?
A cartman? A boatman? A second wife? Skunks?
Mosquitoes? Lice? Blue flies? Rats? Thieving monks!
Ahh! Monks! Priests! You are thieving brigands, every one of you. When I say brigand priest, I mean the 'silent illumination Zennists' who now infest the land.

I know that I can come across as being somewhat intense at times, but really what I display here is just a tiny fraction of the sheer intensity of will that I direct inwardly to the task of entering nirvana on a daily basis. That single-minded, full-on, take-no-prisoners, unobstructed flow of inner force is what is needed if a person wants to access that sublime realm of enlightenment. In the face of this, the rules of proprietary sometimes have to take a back seat.

[David Quinn]

But for you, being the new Hillary Clinton of the Liberal Enlightenment establishment,

Ugh! Eeww! Now come on, Diebert. That is below the belt.

Totally predicted Diebert catching onto that. I'm not sure why you're so fixated with nuclear holocaust, Diebert. Or are you just trying to make the point that there are other issues besides climate change that need to be dealt with, and that one ought not to demonize an entire political faction because of their lack of addressing the one issue David is mostly concerned with?

Lets start with going back to the initial statement I was commenting on:

By far and away the biggest issue confronting us is climate change and the world-wide destruction of the environment.

Which I challenged then by asking:

You mean nuclear weapons ready to be launched and destroy the planet many times over within the hour are fully accepted by now?

Instead of trying to make it look like might be focusing on all things nuclear, lets first ask who is focusing on holocaust, destruction, poison, rampant criminal politicians and copious amounts deception, paranoia and fear infecting one particular part of the population or forum, driving us to Armageddon and doing that consistently and nearly every contribution lately?

With respect, you are not a climate scientist. You have no expertise in the area.

The last thing the world needs right now is yet another amateur gumming up the works with his pet theories.

I'm with Greta Thunberg on this one: How about we leave aside the culture wars and just follow the science. It is the scientists themselves who are warning us of the increasing dangers. It's not Democrats or marxists or boogeymen.

[Pam Seeback]

David Quinn: Kierkegaard also spoke about the limitations of formlessness. He spoke about the knight of infinite resignation, for example. The knight of infinite resignation is someone who understands that, from the absolute point of view, nothing has value, and he gives himself over to this understanding by renouncing everything in this world, including everything in his own life. But that's not the end of the story. As Kierkegaard goes on to say, there is someone who is even greater than the knight of infinite resignation - namely, the man of faith. The man of faith is someone who, after abandoning everything in a great act of renunciation, reintegrates into the world by grasping hold of the finite "on the strength of the absurd".

Pam Seeback: The higher perspective than the above account of man AND God is the perspective that there is no way to separate the absolute (the infinite causality) and its consciousness of its relativity of caused effects. In other words, there is no such awareness as formlessness. Which means there is always value present, i.e., to be conscious of form is, by default, to value form/to value Oneself. Your view of God AND man is valid vis a vis the realm of having to separate God from Himself so as to realize Himself, but once realized, the subtle duality of God AND disappears, as does the dualistic idea of 'grasping hold of the finite.'

David Quinn: Yes, that's true. But at the same time, the dualistic idea of "letting go of the finite" also has to be abandoned. Otherwise, you will end up making the mistake of clinging to the dualistic realm of purposelessness. Only when you are free of all dualities can you begin to safely take hold of the finite again.

Is not 'letting go of the finite' not the other side of the coin of 'grasping hold of the finite?' Which means, of course, that both 'flip sides' need to be abandoned.

As for clinging to the dualistic realm of 'purposeless' you mentioned...logically, wisely, how can there be a single moment wherein God does not purpose God, when the causality does not purpose (mean) the causality?

David Quinn: This reminds me of a Zen story:

Master Nansen was washing his clothes. A monk asked "Is the Master still
doing such things?". Master Nansen, holding up his clothes, asked "What is to
be done with them".

Perfect story to illustrate the truth of God causing the appearance of God (in this case, causing the washing of clothes for body survival). Does God grasp hold of the clothes (the finite) in order to wash them? In the literal, empirical sense, yes, his hand grasps hold of his clothes, however, when considering His inner causal process (considering His eternal-infinite spirit-at-work), is grasping what is happening?

David Quinn: In other words, he begins to value things again. He begins to have a purpose in the world again. The man of faith is a God-filled man who strides the world with purpose, while the knight of infinite resignation is still just an aimless ascetic, an empty vessel, waiting passively for God to fill him.

Pam Seeback: From the perspective of (the Son of) Man as the conscious infinite causality valuing/loving itself, it is irrational to 'wait to be filled' because, of course, it was never without form.

David Quinn: Yes, so the knight of infinite resignation is still fundamentally deluded by the belief that some kind of transformation is about to take place. It is only when he finally renounces even this that the transformation can begin to occur.

Renouncing is the illusion/delusion. Which of course, could also be said to be part and parcel of the causality of wisdom, i.e., delusion is a requirement for wisdom.

David Quinn: I have explained many times over the years that my goal in life is the survival of wisdom. And for that goal to be facilitated, we need the continued existence of intelligent, sentient beings, such as those few that can be found within the human race. Thus, the human race needs to continue. Thus, we need to protect the environmental support systems upon which the human race relies. Thus my alarm at not only the precarious state of these environmental support systems, but also at the sheer indifference to this emergency by such large sections of the community, including, appallingly, by senior members of this forum.

Pam Seeback: It is true that God realization is dependent on sentience and that to ensure the continuum of the causality of sentience is in God's best interest, but is it in God's best interest (or logical) to hate or be appalled by any of its/his sentient formations, i.e., God-as-Trump, God-as-the forum members?

David Quinn: It's called passion.

Passion born of seeing Other contradicts wisdom of the infinite. What then is the purpose of passion born of seeing Other?

David Quinn: Jesus displayed it when he said to the Pharisees, ""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.".

Remember, Jesus' passionate outburst in the marketplace preceded his coming face to face with his own Passion (or ultimate/final Passion) in the Garden of Gethsemane and then, on the cross. Have a close read of his words and actions during both events in his life.

David Quinn: Or when Hakuin spoke about the deluded Zen monks of his era:
Hakuin wrote:
Recently, however, even within Zen, priests have appeared who do nothing but sit like lifeless wooden blocks, 'silently illuminating' themselves. And beyond that, what do you suppose they regard as their most urgent business? Well they prattle about 'doing nothing' being the 'man of true nobility' (quotations from Rinzai) and with that, they are content to feed themselves and pass day after day in a state of seated sleep.

I have made a verse to pour scorn on this odious race of pseudo-priests:

What's earth's foulest thing, from which all men recoil?
Charcoal that crumbles? Firewood that's wet? Watered lamp oil?
A cartman? A boatman? A second wife? Skunks?
Mosquitoes? Lice? Blue flies? Rats? Thieving monks!
Ahh! Monks! Priests! You are thieving brigands, every one of you. When I say brigand priest, I mean the 'silent illumination Zennists' who now infest the land.
I know that I can come across as being somewhat intense at times, but really what I display here is just a tiny fraction of the sheer intensity of will that I direct inwardly to the task of entering nirvana on a daily basis. That single-minded, full-on, take-no-prisoners, unobstructed flow of inner force is what is needed if a person wants to access that sublime realm of enlightenment. In the face of this, the rules of proprietary sometimes have to take a back seat.

It seems to be that you are afraid that if you release your wise passion (wise for now) of being against what you perceive as indifference that you'll become like the seated monks of 'nobily doing nothing.' If so, remember (as the seated monks seem to have forgotten, emphasis on 'seem') that the spirit of the infinite cannot 'do nothing', that something is always being caused. I would suggest that a true Zen Master (who is not seated as are his monks) would give a seated monk who wants to cling to his 'illumed, silent nobility' a solid whack with a cane to bring him back to the truth of infinite causation. Monk-mindedness is a fork in the road of infinite causation (infinite God) realization, just as is the passion that counteracts it.

Time to eat a long overdue breakfast (wow, it's past lunchtime!) and then go and vote (its federal election day here in Canada)...the spirit moveth, therefore Pam moveth...not noble, not sublime, 'just' movingalways. :-) As an aside, I will be voting for a party whose platform leans toward socialism and environmental concerns as I perceive these values as ones belonging to the causation of release of Other-perception.

[David Quinn]

Are you seriously saying that you cannot distinguish between different levels of rationality in the world? For example, between the methodologies of, say, evolutionary biology and creation science? Are you saying that they both exhibit equivalent levels of rationality?

If you'd start reading my words, imperfect as they are, with a bit more attention and open mind, you'd have realized that I was not addressing the notion of "different levels of rationality" but "different levels of ignorance" in your context which was "enlightened philosophers or near-Buddhas". The rationality employed by Buddha is not like the rationality employed by a psychopath or mathematician.

Actually, there are a lot of similarities to the mathematician. Both Buddhas and mathematicians exercise the same rational faculties. But whereas a mathematician is usually only capable of applying his logic to the realm of mathematical symbols and numbers, a Buddha can apply it openly and fearlessly to any area of life.

In order to be able to apply logic to all areas of life, the aspiring Buddha needs to know how to engage in logic in the first pace. He needs to have a good understanding of logic. He needs to understand how to perform deductive and inductive steps in a skillful, mistake-free manner, and to know how to assess arguments and weigh up evidence. In short, he needs to have the capacity for quality thought, which is something that institutions like science and a quality education system can instill into a person.

This is important when it comes to wisdom and Buddhahood because if a person doesn't have the capacity for quality thought to begin with, then he is not going to be able to reach enlightenment. It won’t matter how much desire or passion he has. He won't have the skill and means to "go through that narrow door". This is why I like to keep stressing the value of things like science and intellectual culture, and why I have turned my back on the right.

Speaking of the right (said David, groaning inwardly; "Do I really have to peer into that mental asylum again?"), I posed this question earlier in the thread:

If you can point me to an area of the right-wing universe that is not dominated by deception, paranoia and fear, please do so. I haven't come across any such area thus far.

I would really like an answer to this. Anybody else care to give it a go?

Is there an area of the right, somewhere, that isn't dominated by, say, paranoid theories about global conspiracies run by George Soros, or about underground child-sex-rings run by the Clinton/Obama cabal, or about how the science of climate change is really a marxist plot designed to overthrow Western patriarchy, or about how white men have a divine right to rule because of, you know, lobsters, or about how vaccines are a liberal plot designed to cause autism in its enemies, or about how young people caught up in traumatic school shootings are actually paid actors, or about how the 1969 moon landing was actually a hoax perpetuated by the government to keep us all enslaved, or about how Jesus is soon going to descend to earth after a nuclear holocaust involving Israel and raise up all the evangelicals into heaven, or about how homosexuals, socialists and free-thinkers are going to burn in hellfire for the rest of eternity, or about how ....- seriously, is there any part of the right nowadays that is even remotely connected to reality? Just asking.

It's not that I am against a non-left perspective per se. Not at all. I enjoy reading critiques of the left, but so far the only intelligent pieces that I have come across are from people on the left - such as Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky.

Constantly engaging in false equivalencies, unable to discriminate between different realities, unable to distinguish between truth and lies, demonizing those who hold onto ethical standards, constantly fostering a cynical form of nihilism that stresses that nothing matters - anybody reading this list would think that I am describing Donald Trump.

One possibility is that you are suppressing the idea that you are seriously engaged in that behavior but you need to displace to some convenient enemy, some opponent who can function as coat hanger. The idea of poison having infiltrated this forum provides perhaps that function for you personally, not unlike how in the United States many Democrats are projecting their own increasing insecurity, divisiveness and misinterpretations on anyone opposing them, generally the Conservatives although increasingly they will start attacking and devouring their own. Mark that up as a prediction. It's very interesting to those desiring to understand psychology of modern minds. For enlightenment there's less to learn.

Diebert, you were the one, along with jupiviv, who insisted that Trump was a symptom of Western decadence or whatever. The “poison” that you speak of was, according to you, already out there in the world. All I’ve done here is introduce the idea that maybe, just maybe, that some of that poison was also here in this very forum - and indeed still percolating away in your own mind.

[Pam Seeback]

David:.. seriously, is there any part of the right nowadays that is even remotely connected to reality? Just asking.

Each of us is connected to our reality, the rational and irrational alike.

[visheshdewan050193]

how white men have a divine right to rule because of, you know, lobsters

I don't think that was the main point Peterson was getting at when he brought up lobsters, although he painted a pretty broad target on his back doing so.

[Rhett]

If you can point me to an area of the right-wing universe that is not dominated by deception, paranoia and fear, please do so. I haven't come across any such area thus far.

I would really like an answer to this. Anybody else care to give it a go?

Is there an area of the right, somewhere, that isn't dominated by, say, paranoid theories about global conspiracies run by George Soros, or about underground child-sex-rings run by the Clinton/Obama cabal, or about how the science of climate change is really a marxist plot designed to overthrow Western patriarchy, or about how white men have a divine right to rule because of, you know, lobsters, or about how vaccines are a liberal plot designed to cause autism in its enemies, or about how young people caught up in traumatic school shootings are actually paid actors, or about how the 1969 moon landing was actually a hoax perpetuated by the government to keep us all enslaved, or about how Jesus is soon going to descend to earth after a nuclear holocaust involving Israel and raise up all the evangelicals into heaven, or about how homosexuals, socialists and free-thinkers are going to burn in hellfire for the rest of eternity, or about how ....- seriously, is there any part of the right nowadays that is even remotely connected to reality? Just asking.

I find the 'right' more factual and level headed than the left about muslim issues, aboriginal issues, immigration issues, globalisation issues, manufacturing and economic issues, access to nature issues, and china issues.

I find the 'left' more factual and level headed than the right about environmental issues, industrial relations issues, gun policy, and health issues.

If i thought about it more i might be able to add more to each.

But the way i see it, it is wasting our time, energy and focus to be talking so much about the left and right. Intelligent, scientific examination of each issue is what is productive.

[Maximiliano Vignaga]

The following is taken from a post on a right-wing forum, now closed behind a paywall. It pertains to the American right but one can easily see similarities in right-wing movements across the world. It's rather lowbrow, though:

P-Man wrote: This is a slightly larger subject but the right is unteachable. They are committed and dedicated to being stupid. I've finally accepted it, after spending years fighting it.

Here is the evidence. The mainstream right is, of course, not even nominally conservative. They just want what the donors tell them to want. It's increasingly difficult to cover up the intellectually vacant character of ninth-rate pundits like Kevin Williamson, and at the top of respectability you have men like David Frum and George Will who practically speak in tongues, what comes out of their mouths is so mind-boggingly idiotic. It's basically a mash of neoconservatism and libertarianism. It does culture warring less and less because it has finally given up the pretense.

The religious right: dumb as can be. Makes the mainstream right look like towering intellectuals. Easily and always distracted by culture war scams, they are proud of their ability to be consistently fooled by some con artist shouting about abortion or trannies or gay marriage. These small brains are certain that shouting about how abortion or trannies or gay marriage is wrong is half the battle. They have zero understanding of the root issues behind any of this social change and are basically unteachable anyway. The religious right are deeply unpopular but have no clue why; they probably think it is the work of Satan. They invariably follow the worst, most ineffective people in politics. But it's never their fault.

The far right is equally a joke. It's filled with people selling discount snake oil identities, often claiming the imprimatur of some obscure intellectual, or, failing that, a lunatic who believes that communists adulterated the drinking water to make everyone gay. It tries (and fails) to mimic left wing intellectualism and often reads like something sordid you'd find in the dresser of a 19th century fop. These people are the most confused about their own identity and probably have disturbing sexual fetishes.

The alt-right is clown world's version of the far right. Made up mostly of Internet addicts, it is mainly distinguished from the far right by going post-irony and "believing" the most bizarre version of what some wacko in the 60s would snail mail newsletters about. Actual belief is hard to pin on this intellectually malnourished group--they're perfectly happy to contradict themselves from one day to the next, and are the least interested in a rigorous dialectic. Rather they collectively insist that whatever they believe in a given moment is absolutely true and that it is unnecessary to prove this.

The populist right is an emotionally unstable group formed from straggling elements from all the others. It is the least coherent but has momentarily latched onto Trump. Not exactly deep thinkers either, they previously got excited about the Tea Party movement or, on the fringes, Ron Paul. They don't really know what to expect out of Trump (they have almost no understanding of politics), and will probably become disenchanted and cry into their beers after Trump leaves the scene. They will eventually latch onto another Ron Paul type figure who can never win and has negative charisma.

The white nationalist or white identity right is the nadir. The most alienated, antisocial, and emotionally and intellectually disturbed faction of the right by far. They follow the dumbest, most obvious con artists and make the religious right look like a supergenius roundtable. Like the mainstream right, they are barely even nominally conservative, and they add to their seething hatreds the dumbest, most impractical solutions (usually involving the magical disappearance of all the niggers/Jews/both). Submental and disordered, most live outrageously dysfunctional lives, flagrantly alcoholic or drug-addicted. They are sexually weird, variously autistic or unhinged, utterly degenerate in every way. Not merely unteachable, they should probably be put out of their misery and shot.

All these groups share certain right wing mindset thinking: defeatism, hysteria, defensiveness, and an uncanny ability to alienate everyone outside their group. The simplest element of politics is showing understanding of the concerns and goals of others and convincing them that you have a plan that addresses them. The right refuses to do this. Instead, it tries to shout as loudly as possible that it has the best principles (small government, hating niggers, lowering taxes, blaming everything on the international Jew), and waiting for everyone to rush over to them and put them in charge. They have been waiting forever, and are prepared to shout very loudly if need be. But they will not engage in real discussion outside their enclaves, they will not learn how to talk to people who don't share their strident ideology, they will not learn how to appear normal, they will not put their ideas to the test, other than with a sound meter to gauge their decibel output. (The right winger in a moment of self-doubt: am I being loud enough?)

This is a situation I have finally accepted. The right winger is an unteachable idiot. His social dislocation has driven him batty. He is, I believe, happiest where he is now: howling at the moon. It would be cruel to take that away from him.

[Rhett]

The post above looks like a lot of mudslinging. I dont see it saying anything about Trump, but i couldnt bring myself to read all of it. Does it even really say anything about the right, or the far right? I think its typically a low brow act for people to align themself to any group. Odds are they havent researched and formed their own view on each topic.

Anyone that wants to cling to these generalisations, please try to explain why each issue should fall a particular way and neatly divide people into two camps? Like a football game. I would have thought a genius forum would be well above that.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I would have thought a genius forum would be well above that.

The quoted anonymous post from a cloaked anonymous place demonstrates only further the break down of coherent, intelligent exchange between people holding radical different views. People are rarely able anymore to argue. It's now all about lobbing grenades just bought from Walmart over the fence. Maybe things were never that different in the past but it's not a stretch to see how the modern world is slipping into an overly emotional mindset while those believing half of the population is suffering from said affliction always assume they somehow they are belonging to the unaffected half. The definition of ignorance is perhaps the conviction that one is not or should not re-calibrate beliefs again and again, learning in the process.

[Rhett]

I think a major factor is that social media has given everyone a voice, people that in the past didnt write or discuss much are now exploring activism. Plus, they think that there is power in such activism, and if they dont participate or win arguments they will lose out.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But for you, being the new Hillary Clinton of the Liberal Enlightenment establishment,

Ugh! Eeww! Now come on, Diebert. That is below the belt.

True but we're in Worldly Matters here, in a way below the belt by definition, as we discuss matters largely defined by chemicals, drives, circumstance, instincts and social settings. But it was also funny as you are a former administrator or website owner, ranting against the "right".

lets first ask who is focusing on holocaust, destruction, poison, rampant criminal politicians and copious amounts deception, paranoia and fear infecting one particular part of the population or forum, driving us to Armageddon and doing that consistently and nearly every contribution lately?

With respect, you are not a climate scientist. You have no expertise in the area.

It seems you still misunderstand the point here? It was questioning why you were the one concerned about the fate of the world on one topic (climate) while not being that worried or active about the other (nuclear war) -- which was here and now!

As for me not being "climate scientist", apart from being wildly off topic, it's a bit rich coming from somebody with zero experience whatsoever within the scientific or the academic world beyond some consumer reading or debating online. It seems meaningless to even bring it up.

I'm with Greta Thunberg on this one: How about we leave aside the culture wars and just follow the science. It is the scientists themselves who are warning us of the increasing dangers. It's not Democrats or marxists or boogeymen.

Top scientists have been warning and campaigning against the dangers of a nuclear holocaust since decades. Including weapons experts and leading nuclear scientists. That didn't change a thing and people stopped going to the streets. Political parties on the left dropped most of the demands. My point was to ask why this is not a priority for Greta and the extinctionalist protesters. To fix the immediate danger of complete overnight global, irreparable destruction before moving on to the next danger. It seems you are refusing to even deal with this point? This is not about my view on either danger (which you try to claim as some diversion?) but simply a challenge to answer.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The rationality employed by Buddha is not like the rationality employed by a psychopath or mathematician.

Actually, there are a lot of similarities to the mathematician. Both Buddhas and mathematicians exercise the same rational faculties. But whereas a mathematician is usually only capable of applying his logic to the realm of mathematical symbols and numbers, a Buddha can apply it openly and fearlessly to any area of life.

Since you say the Buddha applies this faculty to a whole other purpose and in some other manner, you also logically maintain that the rationality employed by Buddha is not like the rationality employed by a mathematician. That rationality is deployed in both cases was my point, not yours.

he needs to have the capacity for quality thought, which is something that institutions like science and a quality education system can instill into a person.

Institutions and higher educational systems don't do that. It would really help if you had personal experience with those institutions and systems or would ask anyone who has been graduated there, to make such a claim. In general I'd say education and any application of logic, curiosity and discipline would improve the capacity for quality thought. But that would open the question what "quality" is, as it would mean "good" inside some context. Which brings me back to psychopaths and mathematicians.

This is important when it comes to wisdom and Buddhahood because if a person doesn't have the capacity for quality thought to begin with, then he is not going to be able to reach enlightenment.

Being as that may, it's unclear why you bring it up. Perhaps you misunderstood and misread my words?

If you can point me to an area of the right-wing universe that is not dominated by deception, paranoia and fear, please do so. I haven't come across any such area thus far.

I would really like an answer to this. Anybody else care to give it a go?

It's not clear what you consider the reaches or definition of "the right-wing universe". It's something you keep bringing up and you demand others to somehow provide you with a contrast. It's a very muddled kind of reasoning, to paint with such a broad stroke.

Is there an area of the right, somewhere, that isn't dominated by, say, paranoid theories about global conspiracies run by George Soros, or about underground child-sex-rings run by the Clinton/Obama cabal, or about how the science of climate change is really a marxist plot designed to overthrow Western patriarchy, or about how white men have a divine right to rule because of, you know, lobsters, or about how vaccines are a liberal plot designed to cause autism in its enemies, or about how young people caught up in traumatic school shootings are actually paid actors, or about how the 1969 moon landing was actually a hoax perpetuated by the government to keep us all enslaved, or about how Jesus is soon going to descend to earth after a nuclear holocaust involving Israel and raise up all the evangelicals into heaven, or about how homosexuals, socialists and free-thinkers are going to burn in hellfire for the rest of eternity, or about how ....- seriously, is there any part of the right nowadays that is even remotely connected to reality? Just asking.

If there's anyone on this forum who has been actively opposing paranoid theories about global conspiracies on this forum, it would be me! The things you mention seem to be part of a couple of specific subcultures, some of which might vote Republican but others not at all.

Diebert, you were the one, along with jupiviv, who insisted that Trump was a symptom of Western decadence or whatever. The “poison” that you speak of was, according to you, already out there in the world. All I’ve done here is introduce the idea that maybe, just maybe, that some of that poison was also here in this very forum - and indeed still percolating away in your own mind.

"Or whatever". Look David, if you're too lazy to refer to any actual points made before, you are not really engaged in any discussion. And why even bother right? Every time you show up to talk about the world you end up unleashing various accusations about large groups people (the right), the few active forum member's possible alt-right ideas (eg Jupiviv, Rhett, Avolith, jimhaz), moderators (Russell, me) and admins (Solway) because it seems your to fit your current negative mood about the future.

And if only you'd bring some interesting view with that but all you have to say is said better by a teenage girl and the pages of the New York Times. That's the biggest problem perhaps right there, David, to have become so boring, negative, sloppy and out of ideas. Perk up!

[David Quinn]

The following is taken from a post on a right-wing forum, now closed behind a paywall. It pertains to the American right but one can easily see similarities in right-wing movements across the world. It's rather lowbrow, though: <snip>

It's a rant. It's hardly going to be mistaken for an academic thesis. Somebody is obviously getting a lot of things off their chest. But the basic premise is correct - namely, most on the right have jumped the shark and perversely chosen to live in a complete fantasy world.

Not all on the right have done this. For example, I'm Proud to be Called Human Scum. So a few of them at least are still wanting to live in a world that is connected to truth and reality. It would be interesting to know how many of these types still identify with the Republican Party. I can't imagine there would be many.

The post above looks like a lot of mudslinging. I dont see it saying anything about Trump, but i couldnt bring myself to read all of it. Does it even really say anything about the right, or the far right? I think its typically a low brow act for people to align themself to any group. Odds are they havent researched and formed their own view on each topic.

You are here doing the very thing that you accuse that anonymous poster of doing - namely, mudslinging (calling him low-brow and ill-informed) and slotting him into a group (of low-brow, ill-informed individuals), thereby surreptitiously patting yourself on the back for being part of a superior group.

Anyone that wants to cling to these generalisations, please try to explain why each issue should fall a particular way and neatly divide people into two camps? Like a football game. I would have thought a genius forum would be well above that.

And here you are doing it again. Dividing people into two groups and declaring yourself to be in the superior one. You can't seem to help yourself.

Genius is primarily about recognizing truth. If it is the truth that a large group of people are behaving in a very dangerous and irrational manner, then it needs to be called out. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending "that all sides do it" is not the answer.

As with Diebert, I don't believe in your false equivalencies. It is causing you both to block out obvious realities that are staring you right in the face.

Also, you keep boasting that you're neither part of the left or right and what a fantastic, superior individual you are, but the political views you spout betray that lovely image. It's as clear as day. Most of your views are ignorant, shaped by fear and plucked wholesale from the far right. Who exactly are you trying to kid?

And of course, Diebert had to jump in at this point and perform the exact same maneuver:

The quoted anonymous post from a cloaked anonymous place demonstrates only further the break down of coherent, intelligent exchange between people holding radical different views. People are rarely able anymore to argue. It's now all about lobbing grenades just bought from Walmart over the fence. Maybe things were never that different in the past but it's not a stretch to see how the modern world is slipping into an overly emotional mindset while those believing half of the population is suffering from said affliction always assume they somehow they are belonging to the unaffected half. The definition of ignorance is perhaps the conviction that one is not or should not re-calibrate beliefs again and again, learning in the process.

This is hilarious! Accusing others of doing precisely the very thing that you do. And again, so very Trumpian.

The comedy never seems to end!

[David Quinn]

The rationality employed by Buddha is not like the rationality employed by a psychopath or mathematician.

Actually, there are a lot of similarities to the mathematician. Both Buddhas and mathematicians exercise the same rational faculties. But whereas a mathematician is usually only capable of applying his logic to the realm of mathematical symbols and numbers, a Buddha can apply it openly and fearlessly to any area of life.

Since you say the Buddha applies this faculty to a whole other purpose and in some other manner, you also logically maintain that the rationality employed by Buddha is not like the rationality employed by a mathematician. That rationality is deployed in both cases was my point, not yours.

I can't make head nor tail of this. It sounds something like, "That cup is not a cup, but is in fact a cup. And since it is a cup, it cannot be a cup. And that's my point, not yours."

A Buddha differs from a mathematician in that he applies his logical skills more broadly. Buddhas and mathematicians differ from the perverse inhabitants that dwell in the current right-wing universe in that they practice logic.

And what about a mathematician who is right-wing? Obviously, a fellow with some serious compartmentalization issues!

he needs to have the capacity for quality thought, which is something that institutions like science and a quality education system can instill into a person.

Institutions and higher educational systems don't do that. It would really help if you had personal experience with those institutions and systems or would ask anyone who has been graduated there, to make such a claim.

Well, I have a degree from the University of Queensland - a Bachelor of Surveying, which involved quite a few courses in physics, geology, and mathematics. Outside of this, I've also done courses in philosophy, astrophysics and biology at the University of Tasmania. I've also had numerous conversations with scientists over the years and read numerous books about various aspects of science.

So I speak from personal experience when I say that scientific institutions and higher educational systems have helped me understand the scientific method and the practice of logic.

In general I'd say education and any application of logic, curiosity and discipline would improve the capacity for quality thought. But that would open the question what "quality" is, as it would mean "good" inside some context.

I explained what quality is - namely, being able to perform deduction and induction flawlessly and knowing how to assess arguments and weigh up evidence. Or in other words, the recognition and application of A=A.

I get the impression from you half the time that you're just arguing for the sake of it, and scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to do so.

This is important when it comes to wisdom and Buddhahood because if a person doesn't have the capacity for quality thought to begin with, then he is not going to be able to reach enlightenment.

Being as that may, it's unclear why you bring it up. Perhaps you misunderstood and misread my words?

Well, at root, it's the false equivalency thing you've got going between the right-wing universe, which is deeply anti-intellectual from top to bottom, and the significant areas in the rest of society that engage in quality thought.

Am I misreading your words? Its hard to say. The more I read your words, the less coherence they seem to have. Is that you or me?

[Rhett]

Rhett: The post above looks like a lot of mudslinging. I dont see it saying anything about Trump, but i couldnt bring myself to read all of it. Does it even really say anything about the right, or the far right? I think its typically a low brow act for people to align themself to any group. Odds are they havent researched and formed their own view on each topic.

David: You are here doing the very thing that you accuse that anonymous poster of doing - namely, mudslinging (calling him low-brow and ill-informed) and slotting him into a group (of low-brow, ill-informed individuals), thereby surreptitiously patting yourself on the back for being part of a superior group.

I dont recall anonymous making a statement in his post about being in any particular group. My comments were not specifically directed at anonymous.

I said, "I think its typically a low brow act for people to align themself to any group. Odds are they havent researched and formed their own view on each topic."

I used the term "low brow" because anonymous's link used it. Saved me from having to come up with my own term.

Rhett: Anyone that wants to cling to these generalisations, please try to explain why each issue should fall a particular way and neatly divide people into two camps? Like a football game. I would have thought a genius forum would be well above that.

David: And here you are doing it again. Dividing people into two groups and declaring yourself to be in the superior one. You can't seem to help yourself.

What two groups do you claim i have divided people into?

It looks like you are clinging to this whole left vs right emotional battle because you dont actually have much to say about the specifics of each issue. Its preventing a meaningful discussion. Any meaningful discussion about Trump should examine each issue as independently as possible.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A Buddha differs from a mathematician in that he applies his logical skills more broadly. Buddhas and mathematicians differ from the perverse inhabitants that dwell in the current right-wing universe in that they practice logic.

Yes, the rationality employed by Buddha is therefore not like (e.g. differs from) the rationality employed by a psychopath or mathematician.

Which is the statement you opposed against earlier. Are you still following the discussion? Or should I make a drawing?

And what about a mathematician who is right-wing? Obviously, a fellow with some serious compartmentalization issues!

So are you claiming there cannot be any right-wing mathematician in his right mind?
Or that all right-wingers have serious compartmentalization issues?
That sound like such an extreme, militant view, lying way, way beyond even any Liberal or Democratic mainstream.

You should start your own extremist party and campaigning for shutting up half the population or introducing re-education camps like in China! Ah, that's of course why Nietzsche wrote about "European Chinesedom, with a placid Buddhist-Christian faith, and in practice clever-epicurean, like with the Chinese: reduced people". He saw the future despite the genius flame landing, it cannot change the underlying ideologies and faith....

So I speak from personal experience when I say that scientific institutions and higher educational systems have helped me understand the scientific method and the practice of logic.

Fair enough. But I still think you've lived over the years quite far removed from that particular reality and practice. My point was that those institutions don't have this power even while they could provide some exposure to the appliance of logic, scientific method and general knowledge, beyond the whole curiosity thing which comes first: accepting challenge, at times defeat, reform and change in thought or insight. But institutions do not generate truth or wisdom in any sense. In practice institutions actually care for institutionalized power, funding and management of the members. This is an important lesson to learn, IMO.

Not all on the right have done this. For example, I'm Proud to be Called Human Scum. So a few of them at least are still wanting to live in a world that is connected to truth and reality. It would be interesting to know how many of these types still identify with the Republican Party. I can't imagine there would be many.

Look at the affiliation with the Heritage Foundation, the worst and dumbest influence of politics of recent times, being mostly a neoconservative "think tank", continuously proposing interventionist, military solutions which unhinged the world since 2001 and before. Especially G.W. Bush, the blueprint moronic president was the most in line with that branch of conservatism. It's the very thing Trump's campaign was initially railing against probably because it did well at the polls to do so. But practically the attempts at reproach vs North Korea, Syria, Turkey and Russia are some evidence this strain of thinking is not part of the Trump approach. Assuming there is one :-)

But connected to "truth and reality" only then because he's renouncing Trump? That's too simplistic even for this part of the forum. Here's a post of mine describing the state of Democrats and Republican parties in the States.

The short term goal would be the end of the Democratic party. It needs to crack open. As for the Republicans, I think as a party it already fragmented and rotted since Tea Party times. Since Palin. It's only going to be worse for them when Trump is done.

Could it be that both political parties are doomed?

And I still believe the collapse of the political discourse is being witnessed. Just look at all the massive "left" conspiracy focused mostly on Trump: Russian collusion, Russian mind control, bank loans, Ukraine deals, perfectly balancing any unhinged conspiracy at the right. It's time to introduce more parties! Please mark this up as prediction, as it's very likely going to happen this time.

The quoted anonymous post from a cloaked anonymous place demonstrates only further the break down of coherent, intelligent exchange between people holding radical different views. People are rarely able anymore to argue. It's now all about lobbing grenades just bought from Walmart over the fence. Maybe things were never that different in the past but it's not a stretch to see how the modern world is slipping into an overly emotional mindset while those believing half of the population is suffering from said affliction always assume they somehow they are belonging to the unaffected half. The definition of ignorance is perhaps the conviction that one is not or should not re-calibrate beliefs again and again, learning in the process.

This is hilarious! Accusing others of doing precisely the very thing that you do. And again, so very Trumpian.

Well the first major difference is that I'm not doing it anonymously on some cloaked place, which was my first point. And I'm actually having an attempt at having exchanges even while one needs of course both sides to corroborate to have any real discussion, no charging with "grenades", like for example labeling as racist, child abuser or world destroyer anyone who disagrees about ordering the world. That's what I meant with "emotional mindset" and close-mindedness (such dramatic statements kill all debate). If you don't see the difference between my critique and that anonymous rant, you might want to reexamine the values you keep introducing.

[David Quinn]

Here is a rarity. A Republican speaking the plain truth about the despicable state of the modern Republican party:

Former Rep. David Jolly (R-FL) was interviewed by MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace on “Deadline: White House.”

“What has happened to the Republican Party?” Wallace asked.

“These are the moments where my anger is somewhat palpable because you’ve just got to be honest,” Jolly said. “These are — in today’s Republican Party — spineless politicians rotten to the core, without virtue, without any level of human integrity, devoid of self-respect, self-reflection, without courage, and without the moral compass to recognize their own malevolence.

“And one day maybe they will have the recognition of how they failed the country and themselves in this moment, but that would be giving them credit that somewhere down deep they have the goodness to recognize how to reconcile their own failings with what is right and just in American politics and frankly what is right and wrong in the eyes of adults and children alike,” he continued.

Jolly said. “I agree they inevitably will make the case this is not impeachable. The problem is it requires every single Republican to align with Donald Trump and say that only Donald Trump speaks the truth, that Lieutenant Colonel [Alexander] Vindman — a man of honor and Purple Heart recipient — does not speak the truth. Ambassador [Michael] McKinley — somebody who’s referred to as the Dean of the foreign service corps — does not speak the truth. Ambassador [Marie] Yovanovitch — somebody who dedicated her life to promoting freedom and U.S. ideals on the world stage does not speak the truth. Only Donald Trump does.”

“And there is no greater example of selling your soul to a charlatan than what Republicans are doing right now in the House and the Senate,” he continued. “And their legacies are on the line just as much as Donald Trump’s.”

“We know the character of Donald Trump,” he noted. “We know the failings of Donald Trump, what we’re watching play out in this impeachment proceeding is the failings of a Republican Party and every single member that goes along with this.”

[Rhett]

As i have stated, i dont see the current situation as being about how bad Trump is relative to a good person, but how good America is relative to China.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/China-i ... _Most_Read

Yes, i know the USA has extensively dammed the Colorado and left little or nothing for Mexico, but these are matters of scale and intent, freedom of speech, freedom, democracy, proper judicial process, expansionism, equality, fair negotiation, tolerance, inclusiveness, etc.

Since i stand for key ingredients of the American way, i think it should look after itself in order to maintain those key ingredients. It needs to maintain itself and avoid further deterioration from certain globalisation initiatives. It makes sense for the developing world to develop, and the developed world to not lose ground.

[David Quinn]

It's interesting that the kind of corruption being exposed in the impeachment inquiry - extortion, bribery, the attempt by Trump and his cohorts to degrade Ukraine's political and judicial systems, the wholesale manufacturing of falsehoods, the persecution and slander of professional diplomats, the deliberate attempt to corrupt next year's US election, the stonewalling of congress's legal investigations, etc - is more or less identical to the sort of behaviour that China's corrupt government engages in on a daily basis. In fact, the mentality in both cases is exactly the same.

[Rhett]

The USA does not have an equivalent to Tibet, Hong Kong or Taiwan. It does not have hundreds of thousands of video cameras with facial recognition technology and AI algorithms pointed at its populace. It does not have a social (dis)credit system. It does not punish people in any way for criticising government or politicians. It does not censor the internet. It does not have a vast propaganda agency. It does not aim to trap other nations into being indebted to it. It does not have a dictatorship. It does not have significant numbers of citizens detained or in any significant way impacted upon by extra judicial government agency actions. It does not steal or coerce intellectual property transfer in any significant measure. It does not aim to illegally or inconsiderately expand its territory. We are not aware of the USA hacking our computer databases for information, that could be used for blackmail. It does not threaten the families of expatriots. Etc.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Here is a rarity. A Republican speaking the plain truth about the despicable state of the modern Republican party:

This now former Republican is also long-time member of the Xenu-worshipping organization called Scientology. He should speak out on that first!

[David Quinn]

Here is a rarity. A Republican speaking the plain truth about the despicable state of the modern Republican party:

This now former Republican is also long-time member of the Xenu-worshipping organization called Scientology. He should speak out on that first!

Or even better, he could do both.

But I am happy enough, for the moment, that he is speaking out against the low-brow criminal organization that has hijacked his party.

As an aside, I don't like the way you repeatedly jump on people who speak the truth and attack them in a personal manner. It is exactly the sort of slimy thing that Trump does. Just be glad that a few particles of truth, no matter how small, are still being expressed in these degraded times. Why the constant need to squash this out of existence?

[David Quinn]

The USA does not have an equivalent to Tibet, Hong Kong or Taiwan. It does not have hundreds of thousands of video cameras with facial recognition technology and AI algorithms pointed at its populace. It does not have a social (dis)credit system. It does not punish people in any way for criticising government or politicians. It does not censor the internet. It does not have a vast propaganda agency. It does not aim to trap other nations into being indebted to it. It does not have a dictatorship. It does not have significant numbers of citizens detained or in any significant way impacted upon by extra judicial government agency actions. It does not steal or coerce intellectual property transfer in any significant measure. It does not aim to illegally or inconsiderately expand its territory. We are not aware of the USA hacking our computer databases for information, that could be used for blackmail. It does not threaten the families of expatriots. Etc.

And yet it's interesting, given the massive threat that you believe China to be, that Trump and his cohorts are doing almost nothing about it.

There has been plenty of media coverage on this particular failure on Trump's part. For example, this article describes how Trump and the Republican Senate are deliberately abandoning the Hong Kong people for the sake of appeasing China.

Interesting, no? The very thing that you supposedly support Trump for, the very thing that supposedly causes you to look away from all of his vile qualities, he is not actually doing.

[Rhett]

All i have seen so far is a heap of action taken by Trump against China's trade war, and there are interesting possible developments regarding the USA-Hong Kong Policy Act.

https://youtu.be/g7VIeykAxsE

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1WM1DW

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... Policy_Act

I have read your link now. It looks like some political manouvering is going on. Trump might make a trade deal for his re-election and then reassume his previous stance. Thats politics.

Its about choosing the lesser of two evils.