The Call for Debate Thread

[samadhi]

Seeing as how this forum came about from my asking Dan to a debate, I for one want to see it get off the ground.

Here are some topics I would be happy to debate with anyone who is interested:

1. Spirituality and Money

2. Spirituality and Sexuality

3. Spirituality and Logic

4. Spirituality and Causality

5. Spirituality and the Feminine

If anyone sees anything in these topics they might want to debate, PM me and let's see if we can work it out. I think the whole forum could benefit from taking a closer look any of them. If we can educate ourselves and have a good time doing it, hey, why not?

[Dan Rowden]

Hey Sam,

Well, it seems 1 -4 don't hold enough divergence for us two to make a full debate of them, but I'm all over 5. If you want to do that let me know, otherwise I can wait and see if anyone wants to tackle you on 1 - 4.

[Alex Jacob]

There are two main points, at least in my discussions that come up here time and again, that are pretty fundamental to the doctrines of this forum, one of them that there is some sort of quantifiable 'absolute', this vague 'ultimate', a stage of realization that is universal and has been through all time, which is completely false as I see things. (David said once that, attaining it, one 'spontaneously does God's will' which almost caused a fuse to blow in my skull. I'm not kidding you.) The whole way this is couched and presented seems completely false to me, I don't know if any one else feels strongly about it.

The other is that 'enlightenment' is a 'real thing', a thing-in-itself, almost a sort of 'spiritual object' that one attains, and that when you have it, you have it (kind of like EST), and having it enables you to tell who else has it or doesn't. For the good of all and for eventual spiritual progress this false idea should be dismissed forthright.

As to the rest: I have no disagreement that money is essential for spiritual life; that spirituality is infinitely richer and certainly more juicy with delicious sex; that 'logic' doesn't have a great deal to do with it, except if you are Thomas Aquinas.

[Dan Rowden]

Alex,

Are you saying yes to a debate topic? Requesting one with someone? This is not the place for random though spewing. Can you be direct and specific for once in your life?

[David Quinn]

There are two main points, at least in my discussions that come up here time and again, that are pretty fundamental to the doctrines of this forum, one of them that there is some sort of quantifiable 'absolute', this vague 'ultimate', a stage of realization that is universal and has been through all time, which is completely false as I see things. (David said once that, attaining it, one 'spontaneously does God's will' which almost caused a fuse to blow in my skull. I'm not kidding you.) The whole way this is couched and presented seems completely false to me, I don't know if any one else feels strongly about it.

It is absolutely false, is it?

The other is that 'enlightenment' is a 'real thing', a thing-in-itself, almost a sort of 'spiritual object' that one attains, and that when you have it, you have it (kind of like EST), and having it enables you to tell who else has it or doesn't. For the good of all and for eventual spiritual progress this false idea should be dismissed forthright.

"Enlightenment" is really not like that?

You and I could debate these issues if you like, although we may be too far apart mentally to generate a meaningful dialectic. It would be a bit like a scientist debating with a poet. We would have to meet half-way for it to work - you would have to pay attention to the logical flow of the debate, and I would have to make allowances for your poetic tangents. What do you think?

In any case, I had assumed that Dan and Sam had already agreed to kick things off, so I am a bit puzzled at Sam's post above.

-

[Carl G]

David wrote:

In any case, I had assumed that Dan and Sam had already agreed to kick things off, so I am a bit puzzled at Sam's post above.

Me, too. I thought they had decided to debate Spirituality and Emotions, and I was looking forward to it.

Number five would no doubt cover some of the same turf.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I'm not sure of your positions on the above topics. I'd consider taking #1, but it would be silly if we are debating the same side.

[samadhi]

David,

In any case, I had assumed that Dan and Sam had already agreed to kick things off, so I am a bit puzzled at Sam's post above.

Dan and I had agreed to a topic that was basically being covered in the Oprah Eckhart thread, is sex incompatible with enlightenment. I was willing to go forward but wondered to Dan if he could bring anything new into the debate. I assume he thought he couldn't and decided against it. So I decided to post what I am open to debating, details to be worked out. Dan is currently interested in the last topic. We are trying to set the parameters.

Elizabeth,

I'm not sure of your positions on the above topics. I'd consider taking #1, but it would be silly if we are debating the same side.

My position would be that the teaching of spirituality is not necessarily compromised by asking for money. If this isn't your position, maybe we can discuss further by PM.

Alex,

The other is that 'enlightenment' is a 'real thing', a thing-in-itself, almost a sort of 'spiritual object' that one attains, and that when you have it, you have it (kind of like EST), and having it enables you to tell who else has it or doesn't. For the good of all and for eventual spiritual progress this false idea should be dismissed forthright.

I realized after your post I could always debate enlightenment as well. But really, I think the problem would be how to set the parameters of such a debate. There are things with which I agree with QRS about, i.e. no self, so it might be difficult to actually delineate our disagreements to a point where a debate would be worth while. You however seemed to have a good idea of a point of discussion which David seems interested in. I would certainly like to hear more from both sides.

[Alex Jacob]

Dan: the thread is called Call for Debate.

You weren't really confused, were you?

;-)

David: Don't get too invested in your idea that I am only poetical or 'aesthetic', etc.

And if you ever wanted to 'debate' the theme I outlined, I think it would be fun.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

My position would be that the teaching of spirituality is not necessarily compromised by asking for money.

I agree. Debate over.

[David Quinn]

David: Don't get too invested in your idea that I am only poetical or 'aesthetic', etc.

I've yet to see evidence of that.

And if you ever wanted to 'debate' the theme I outlined, I think it would be fun.

Ok, if you like, you can kick it off by putting up an opening post. I will then respond to it within the 500-word limit, and so on back and forth until the discussion peters out. I take it you are clear about the rules that Dan set out, regarding word-limits and not referring to authority figures or texts, and the like?

-

[Alex Jacob]

Hai!

[Sage]

I would like a debate (preferably with Dan Rowden) on the question: "What is the optimal organization of society?"
I find that QRS are most excellent on seeking truth on the individual level (e.g. atheism, psychology) but do not apply this to the collective level -the level of human interaction.
This could be termed "politics", if you define it broadly as "the organization of society". However, I define politics as "the science of government". My goal is not to debate government, but the organization of society in its entirety (which includes the possibility of a stateless society).

In my experience on the forums I find that QRS have a distinctly socialist bias. I myself used to identify as a socialist, but over the last few months I've progressed to free market capitalist. It is now my theory that socialism is the ideology founded on an ignorance of economics.

Thus, my position is that a free market capitalist society is the most logical, in terms of efficiency (standard of living) and morality.

My rules are:
1- All arguments are to be presented in syllogistic form (prose is optional)
2- All relevant questions must be answered
3- All relevant terms must be defined
4- No logical fallacies

[Kevin Solway]

That sounds like a socialism vs capitalism debate.

As far as I'm concerned, if an individual wants to amass, say 10 billion dollars in order to carry out some project, then they should not be hindered in doing so. Pure socialism would want to take that person's money away from them and share it with everyone else, before they can carry out their project.

So I'm not sure there would be much debate on that issue.

[Sage]

"That sounds like a socialism vs capitalism debate."

Not quite. I'm not opposed to socialism per se, but rather the coercive forms. If people want to voluntarily pool their money or hand out welfare checks, they should be free to do so. It is therefore a question of voluntary vs coercive.

I define capitalism as "the social system that uses instruments of production." I define free market capitalism as "the social system based on the use of instruments of production in which buyers and sellers are free to exchange." The twin axioms of free market capitalism are nonaggression and private property. In such a society it is immoral to initiate violence against a person or their property.

Followed to its logical conclusion, it becomes clear that all government is coercive and therefore illegitimate. Democracy itself is one of the most immoral institutions existing today.

The society of the highest morality and standard of living is thus a purely voluntary one.

(BTW, if you want to read for yourself, Ludwig von Mises created an entirely a priori logical study of human action, which he termed "praxeology". No empiricism. Also, Murray Rothbard was the leading proponent of a voluntary society, which he called "anarcho-capitalism".)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I think this idea needs a bit more focus. If two people disagree on, say, the definition of "legitimate", the argument would just run in circles. And the inclusion of standard of living in the debate -- that voluntary governments have a higher standard of living -- seems to go against the general tone of The Crucible. It's not something you can simply prove a priori: it needs evidence. Regardless, I fail to see how a descriptive claim about fiscal success is relevant to the overall normative argument about legitimacy. It really seems like 3 different arguments crammed together.

[maestro]

Dear Dan, not the well worn feminine/masculine debate again. Cannot you argue something like why sex is an impediment to enlightenment or marriage is an impediment. That feminine masculine issue has just become like a broken record around here.

[Dan Rowden]

I think all those issues tie together. As the current debate unfolds you'll see how and why. And, of course, you don't have to read it. Plus, there's always the different perspective that Sam will bring to it. Trust me, Sam is different ;)

[Dan Rowden]

I've split the free market discussion to a new thread in Genius Forum where perhaps a precise basis for a debate might be formulated.

[Peter L]

I'd like to have a debate with someone. It would definitely be a great learning experience for me. This might be an interesting debate: Fixed Future (determined) vs. Unfixed Future (undetermined)? --> I'd argue that whatever is gonna take place in the future has already taken place, because of the present.

If someone would like to have a debate with me, but over something else, please list a few preferred options and I'll make a pick.

[divine focus]

I would "debate" on a determined vs. undetermined future, but I am not much of a disagreer. I may disagree, but it would not necessarily matter to me, and I am quick to see similarities and build on those for understanding. It would definitely be a discussion more than a debate, at least on my part, and maybe a very short one, at that.

The way I see the future is that it may exist in some form within possibility, but it is not actualized or even a probability until it is chosen within the present. In other words, all possible futures exist, but only a few are probable and only one will be actualized within perception. Whehter this is disagreement enough for a "debate," I cannot say.

[Carl G]

Other than the fact that others can chime in only on a separate thread -- and some rules about quoting and post length -- what's the difference between a debate and a regular thread?

[maestro]

That a debate stays on course?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

That a debate stays on course?

Agreed.


I would like to challenge Cory Duchesne to a debate.

Cory, I challenge you to convince me not to go back to wearing make-up, not to attempt to look attractive, and not to use the feminine powers that a couple of years ago I was unaware that I had, in order to promote my vision of world peace.

Furthermore, I ask that Quinn and Rowden hold their comments for at least the first 3 rounds.

Are you game, Cory?

[David Quinn]

If Cory is interested, then the two of you need to agree on the rules and format of the debate - taking on board the basic rules outlined by Dan in the rules thread.

Let me know when you are ready to go ahead with it.

-