GENIUS FORUMS

Laird wrote:I don't see why you feel the need to join in the game with David and Kevin.

How insulting.

You have what it takes to make it as an "ordinary" man.

HOW INSULTING!

You're loyal as a friend, you're attractive to women, you're witty, you're supportive, you're intelligent, you seem to be capable of work and from what I can see you're mostly a sensible guy (your involvement in QRS notwithstanding).

Oh, right, list my failings why don't you. Cruel Bastard!

Oh, so this is philosophy?

You're bickering and not listening to what the other person has to say. No wonder I'm having problems, thanks for clearing that up!

Laird isn't saying anything - he's thrashing around in Henidville.

Intelligence, wittiness, and being sensible are flaws? How would stupidity, foolishness and irrationality be desirable?

Shahrazad wrote:Intelligence, wittiness, and being sensible are flaws? How would stupidity, foolishness and irrationality be desirable?

It's because he intends those things within the construct of an ordinary man.

I'm not trying to insult you Dan. I'm trying to show you how I view the game that you and the gang here play. From the reactions of others in this thread I don't think that I'm the only one who sees it in those terms.

I put "ordinary" in quotation marks. That's because "ordinary" men can do extraordinary things, and I'm not denying the possibility of you being such a man.

Edit: to add to that, I meant "ordinary" as in contrast to this paradigm of enlightenment that you guys have got going, not ordinary as in unexceptional.

Yeah, "ordinary man" wasn't such a compliment. Nobody should strive to be ordinary.

Laird wrote:I'm not trying to insult you Dan.

I know that.

I'm trying to show you how I view the game that you and the gang here play.

I can see how you view it; that's not the problem - the problem is that how you view it is fallacious.

From the reactions of others in this thread I don't think that I'm the only one who sees it in those terms.

Certainly not, but that just makes those others as other-valued (i.e. holding other values) or misapprehended as you are.

I put "ordinary" in quotation marks. That's because "ordinary" men can do extraordinary things, and I'm not denying the possibility of you being such a man.

Well, it seems I'm stuck playing an extraordinary game.

Laird,

I'm trying to show you how I view the game that you and the gang here play.

They're mind-fucking the ones without a clue, aren't they? There's not much point to it when one doesn't want to understand the other persons meaning, one might be convinced that if it doesn't have a resemblance to theirs then it must be wrong - it threatens ones own world!

It can be complicated. Sometimes one simply can't see another's meaning; sometimes one doesn't want to see it; sometimes one intends to deliberately distort it for one's own purposes. We've some of each in this thread. It happens.

Shahrazad wrote:Intelligence, wittiness, and being sensible are flaws? How would stupidity, foolishness and irrationality be desirable?

Dudette, did anyone ever tell you that you have no sense of humor? This is by far not the first time you completely miss the joke.

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, it seems I'm stuck playing an extraordinary game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm intrigued by your take on things and it's very interesting. But yeah, I guess that a man who believes "ordinary" life to be cripplingly deluded will need his crutch of enlightenment.

Laird wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, it seems I'm stuck playing an extraordinary game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm intrigued by your take on things and it's very interesting. But yeah, I guess that a man who believes "ordinary" life to be cripplingly deluded will need his crutch of enlightenment.

I don't need to believe anything in relation to this. You forget I came from this life. I know it intimately, including its delusions and follies.

"crippling" btw, is your term.

But yeah, I guess that a man who believes "ordinary" life to be cripplingly deluded will need his crutch of enlightenment.

Ouch.

"Ouch" what? I thought that remark was typical of Laird's lapse into insipidity and grandiose extolling of ignorance.

Dan Rowden wrote:"Ouch" what? I thought that remark was typical of Laird's lapse into insipidity and grandiose extolling of ignorance.

'Grandiose' used by a man who pretends he's enlightened.


'The routineness of language is indeed a form of oppression - usually subtle and subconscious, but still there nonetheless - which is why punning is usually a weak form of humour. The oppression being overturned by the pun is itself relatively weak.' - David Quinn


I am being oppressed by the continued oblivious reliance on their own authorities to justify pure bullshit. Now if they believe their own authority amounts to proof the reader should accept in lieu of evidence, what word would we properly use to describe them? 'Hey, Robert said he was "oppressed"! We win!!! We have oppressed him with our Wisdom.'


Let's not forget what 'oppression' really means here. It represents the claim that people who enjoyed a satire were intellectually oppressed by those who were the targets of the satire. ' ... usually subtle and subconscious ...' Bullshit or grandiosity? Reasoning it isn't.

'Not an emergency' was how the cardiologist put it this afternoon, but I am scheduled for a cardiac catheterization Friday of next week. Energy problems explain in part why I've been remiss in pounding on Dan and David for failing to support their rationalizations, although part of it is I haven't the heart anymore - or haven't the lack of it - and good lord I just noticed the pun. I am oppressing myself it would seem, subtly and subconsciously. If sometime afterward Dan wants to debate that is fine and if he doesn't that is also fine. My contributions will be sparse, likely occurring only after an accumulation of outrages prompts one.

Laird wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, it seems I'm stuck playing an extraordinary game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm intrigued by your take on things and it's very interesting. But yeah, I guess that a man who believes "ordinary" life to be cripplingly deluded will need his crutch of enlightenment.

"Dan, you need to give up your arrogance and abandon that lowly path of taking enlightenment seriously, and instead ascend to the superior plane where all of us humble humans live."

-

RobertGreenSky wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:"Ouch" what? I thought that remark was typical of Laird's lapse into insipidity and grandiose extolling of ignorance.

'Grandiose' used by a man who pretends he's enlightened.

One doesn't need to be enlightened to recognise the grandiose.

'The routineness of language is indeed a form of oppression - usually subtle and subconscious, but still there nonetheless - which is why punning is usually a weak form of humour. The oppression being overturned by the pun is itself relatively weak.' - David Quinn

I am being oppressed by the continued oblivious reliance on their own authorities to justify pure bullshit. Now if they believe their own authority amounts to proof the reader should accept in lieu of evidence, what word would we properly use to describe them? 'Hey, Robert said he was "oppressed"! We win!!! We have oppressed him with our Wisdom.'

As usual, no argument whatever, just wordplay.

Let's not forget what 'oppression' really means here. It represents the claim that people who enjoyed a satire were intellectually oppressed by those who were the targets of the satire. ' ... usually subtle and subconscious ...' Bullshit or grandiosity? Reasoning it isn't.

It doesn't have to mean any such thing. Robert, your agenda is so transparent it could be used to cover salads in the fridge. It's really all you've got, though, isn't it?

RobertGreenSky wrote:'Not an emergency' was how the cardiologist put it this afternoon,

So he didn't find anything, then? :)

but I am scheduled for a cardiac catheterization Friday of next week. Energy problems explain in part why I've been remiss in pounding on Dan and David for failing to support their rationalizations, although part of it is I haven't the heart anymore - or haven't the lack of it - and good lord I just noticed the pun.

Yeah, me too, but it was weaker than your own ticker.

I am oppressing myself it would seem, subtly and subconsciously.

Yes you must be if you actually think David has offered no support for his thesis. For some reason you seem to be the only person who hasn't noticed it.

If sometime afterward Dan wants to debate that is fine and if he doesn't that is also fine. My contributions will be sparse, likely occurring only after an accumulation of outrages prompts one.

Well, I'll decline then as I'm not interested in having a debate where my opponent is motivated only by outrage. Has your cardio advised you against that sort of thing, btw?

Robert,

Sorry to hear of your ailing. Best wishes for excellent diagnostics and speedy stabilizations and repairs as necessary.

Carl G wrote:Robert,

Sorry to hear of your ailing. Best wishes for excellent diagnostics and speedy stabilizations and repairs as necessary.

Thanks, Carl G. (PC?)

Dan Rowden wrote:

RobertGreenSky wrote:'Not an emergency' was how the cardiologist put it this afternoon,

So he didn't find anything, then? :)

The procedure hasn't been done. He's discussed the possibilities of replacing the stent or of changing medications.

'... it was weaker than your own ticker.'

I cannot disagree.


'Yes you must be if you actually think David has offered no support for his thesis. For some reason you seem to be the only person who hasn't noticed it.'

I noticed David refer to unconscious content. David a mind-reader is he? That's not support, Dan; it's wishful thinking, as was quoting a single sentence from some old dead philosopher. Writing at length without support, is not support.

'... I'll decline then as I'm not interested in having a debate where my opponent is motivated only by outrage. Has your cardio advised you against that sort of thing, btw?'


'Outrage' should be understood as jocular. 'Travesty of thinking' would be synonymous, as in supporting one's position by reference to unconscious (or 'subconscious') content when one hasn't the remotest qualification to make the observation and certainly not to generalize from the claim. A debate would not have been motivated by 'outrage' in the sense you infer it although it would certainly have been motivated by 'egotism' and that is not a very good reason either.


My agenda here has been to exercise my wit - the one remaining - and keep in mind it is the two of you who started this ridiculous argument by claiming you had 'oppressed' us. I am myself free to admit egotism and never have I sunk that low in its expression. :D Part of the exercise was to have written only within a set of bounds, e.g., avoiding as an act of good manners overt support for Laird's satire, and likewise in avoiding reference to the debate, even though the debate is a very clear indication of who here has in fact done the 'oppressing'.


I dislike using the word in that way. I don't myself think of 'oppressing' anyone and what is lost when we have our arses handed to us on shiny silver platters is not necessarily any real intellectual loss. Often it is just the egotism involved in losing, or perhaps as is demonstrated in this thread, the hurt of perceived 'ridicule'. 'On Equalizing Things' tells me I need not be concerned for how you and David think - as does 'let them burn a million years' - so of 'A=A' it is enough that I know it is disputed by a half-dozen chapters of Mulamadhyamakakarika and sharing it need be no priority at all.


I appreciated that I was not pounced on as soon as I had first written on Genius Forum but do please appreciate in turn that I sought to participate with good manners - realizing whether I actually have them is arguable - and that I would never have argued as I have here without the various prods I've been given.

Yes, Robert, CG is PC, as in A = A.

It's actually a good thing - I suspect - there is no fixed Carl G. - PC else Carl G. - PC could never change. And it is a good thing there is no fixed A because if there was we could cling to it and clinging is problematic - life is bad enough when we only believe we can cling to something. And it is a good thing no statement is ever absolutely true and for the same reason, that it would be a wild wild victory of The Monkey Chattering.