GENIUS FORUMS

Is there a precise statement available on what 'Wisdom' mean by A=A? It's mentioned frequently here but I would hate to go through a large number of posts if something more easily accessed is available. I find it in Sex and Character and naturally I wonder if Wisdom means with it what old dead Otto did.


Finding I can't help but 'lightly socialize' I must write hello! to Laird Totality. I congratulate you on your divinity.


_____

Transience is the function of abundance.
Abundance is the body of transience.

A=A is an expression of identity - that a thing is what it is and not something else. Wisdom hinges on ceasing to mis-identify things, which requires a clear mind that is free from the distortion of delusion.

Here is a pretty good discussion of the issue that I have compiled from another forum: Discussion about A=A.

-

Thanks, David.

Robert,

RobertGreenSky wrote:Finding I can't help but 'lightly socialize' I must write hello! to Laird Totality. I congratulate you on your divinity.

It's delightful to find you in these pastures and I thank you for your congratulations! I'm only sorry that it took me so long to arrive upon this thread.

And thereby ..............

.............. Dan bumped the thread.


Hey, Laird - seems too informal since elsewhere I acknowledged Laird Totality as my new spiritual master. I did enjoy that work.


I've not had much to do and which is fine. Let others argue and I'll read. It's odd 'being here'. First thing coming to mind was 'fox in the henhouse' but that's not appropriate since purpose is implied.

Can you explain why you liked it so much, Robert? I thought it was passingly clever as a piece of writing, but it was ultimately pointless. Indeed, pointless seems to be the appropriate word for almost all of the discussion here of late. Maybe it's just me, but this is the over-riding impression I have of things.

I thought it was rubbish. It was like watching a chimp putting a pipe in its mouth and mimicing human behaviour.

-

I'd be interested in seeing an explanation of the supposed value of it, because if it had any, I missed it.

This is similar to the brick enquiry in Donation button and I'm not going to take on this burden either. I'll state that I think Laird's is a fine piece of writing David's opinion notwithstanding but I will leave defense of its arguments to its author. It hits its targets or it doesn't and forgive me if I'm disinclined to discuss the matter with its targets and especially when 'I just got here'.


'... pointless seems to be the appropriate word for almost all of the discussion here of late.' - Dan


Intelligence and the desire to reproduce offers a wonderful opportunity for it. Masters whose enlightenment was accepted within their community were proved by historical fact not to have been enlightened in terms of the religion from which they based their claim. We could all profit from understanding the dangers of faith. Yet rather than discuss the rejection of faith as an act of psychological liberation some participants in that thread can't be bothered to do anything but quibble about whether one of the participants knows enough Buddhism - he knew enough to wring its neck.


Slay the patriarch, slay the religion.

I regard Robert Larkin as having the same kind of mind as a fundamentalist Christian.
He is in the more animal portion of humanity, that is conscious only of his ego. He is intelligent [has good memory, and can rationalise to a degree], but all his intelligence is based on supporting his ego, rather than understanding it and everything else.

Thank you for your insight. I'll try to do better.

Dan Rowden wrote:I'd be interested in seeing an explanation of the supposed value of it, because if it had any, I missed it.

RobertGreenSky wrote:I will leave defense of its arguments to its author.

The point was to expose the posturings of enlightenment that occur on this forum as foolish, baseless pretensions; to show how easy it is to talk the talk and how nonsensical that talk is; and to provide some entertainment. I'm not surprised that its targets failed to fully - or in David's case, even slightly - appreciate it - because no one likes to be found fault with - but if you're going to falsely exalt yourself above the rest of the human race then you should expect that folks who see what you're doing will occasionally make the effort to restore the balance. The favourable private and public responses that I've received have convinced me that some people did appreciate it.

I thought it was passingly clever as a piece of writing, but it was ultimately pointless.

This is like someone who hears a real funny joke and delivery, and says "it was funny, but what was the point?" The point was to make you laugh, duh.

It made me laugh and therefore I liked it. End of story.

I'm sure some people appreciated it, given there's no accounting for vapidity. Satire isn't an argument, Laird; it's not even close to an argument (well, actually, it could be if written that way, but yours wasn't). Those writings simply had no point despite being mildly entertaining. Some people find pointlessness entertaining, for some no doubt pointless reason. Let's look at what you just wrote for a minute:

The point was to expose the posturings of enlightenment that occur on this forum as foolish, baseless pretensions;

Really? And you thought mere wordplay and parody could achieve that? Good grief. This is perhaps part of your problem: you haven't learned to see past words yet.

to show how easy it is to talk the talk and how nonsensical that talk is;

Yes, it's actually not difficult to talk the talk (up to a point) when you learn the lexicon, but it's harder to remain consistent over time with one's concepts and "arguments". If your satire had meaning to anyone, it could only be because they're not yet capable of seeing through mere words. i.e. they don't actually understand anything.

and to provide some entertainment.

I found it passingly clever for the first few posts, then it quickly fell into a form of empty repetitiveness that rather exposed its hollow nature. This is because it was mere parody and wordplay and had no greater substance. Only so much you can do with that sort of material. Perhaps you could explain why you thought it might have been entertaining? What made it so?

I'm not surprised that its targets failed to fully - or in David's case, even slightly - appreciate it - because no one likes to be found fault with

That is a nauseatingly arrogant thing to say or think. If you believe your satire proffered fault, you are, I'm afraid, insane or continuing with the satire.

- but if you're going to falsely exalt yourself above the rest of the human race

It hurts your feelings doesn't it, which is why you want to characterise things this way. Firstly, you haven't shown any falsehood at any time; secondly, we don't "exalt" ourselves at all, we simply see things as they are. And frankly, your egalitarian sensibilities are of no interest to me at all. They don't help anyone.

then you should expect that folks who see what you're doing will occasionally make the effort to restore the balance.

And who would those folks be, exactly? You? I hardly think so. You have demonstrated time and time again your comprehension of our views is yet a long way from accurate. I mean, for heaven's sake, Laird, you mean to "expose" us and you've never even seriously thought about what a "thing" is? Dude, get your own house in order then I might take you seriously.

The favourable private and public responses that I've received have convinced me that some people did appreciate it.

Hmm, nice appeal to authority. But I've no doubt some people appreciated it. Like I said, there's just no accounting for vapidity.

Shahrazad wrote:

I thought it was passingly clever as a piece of writing, but it was ultimately pointless.

This is like someone who hears a real funny joke and delivery, and says "it was funny, but what was the point?" The point was to make you laugh, duh.

It made me laugh and therefore I liked it. End of story.

It was passingly clever only if one sees it this way. It becomes, as I said, entirely vapid if one attempts to see what Laird declares as its intended purpose.

Dan, I understand that you didn't get much value out of what I wrote. That's too bad. I'm not going to attempt to justify it any more than I already have. I think that the writing speaks for itself. No hard feelings, I just "see things as they are".

Well, there are naturally no hard feelings. And I know you just see things as they are, the trouble being you keep putting on your Vapid Shades to see things :) Try another brand!

Dan,

Some people find pointlessness entertaining,

I am one of those. I'd much prefer to have a pointless joke than a joke meant to hurt or ridicule other people, as some jokers here do (certainly you must know who I speak of).

IMO, Laird's satire was not ill-intentioned. To me, that makes the difference between funny and unfunny.

-

Laird wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:I'd be interested in seeing an explanation of the supposed value of it, because if it had any, I missed it.

RobertGreenSky wrote:I will leave defense of its arguments to its author.

The point was to expose the posturings of enlightenment that occur on this forum as foolish, baseless pretensions; to show how easy it is to talk the talk and how nonsensical that talk is; and to provide some entertainment.

You didn't show "how easy it was to talk the talk", because your parody, such as it was, lacked any intellectual quality. It was mindless caricature.

It was like watching a person without any musical ability doing a parody of Miles Davis' body postures when he played the trumpet. It might amuse the kids, but to me, it was hollow.

-

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

Some people find pointlessness entertaining,

I am one of those. I'd much prefer to have a pointless joke than a joke meant to hurt or ridicule other people, as some jokers here do (certainly you must know who I speak of).

IMO, Laird's satire was not ill-intentioned. To me, that makes the difference between funny and unfunny.

-

Laird's "satire" was indeed intended to ridicule. That is the point of satire - or in this case, parody. It is to ridicule.

But I had to laugh when Laird got all teary when he saw that his malicious actions spilled away from his intended targets and started affecting Trevor. That was comic gold.

-

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm sure some people appreciated it, given there's no accounting for vapidity. Satire isn't an argument, Laird; it's not even close to an argument (well, actually, it could be if written that way, but yours wasn't). Those writings simply had no point despite being mildly entertaining. Some people find pointlessness entertaining, for some no doubt pointless reason. ...

If the satire in effect notes, e.g., QRS denigrate women without good cause, then an argument is at least implied. I assume Laird did not make any point in the satire he cannot in fact argue.


'This is perhaps part of your problem: you haven't learned to see past words yet.' - Dan


Curious remark, given David's previous handling of Nagarjuna.

to show how easy it is to talk the talk and how nonsensical that talk is;

- Laird


'... it's actually not difficult to talk the talk (up to a point) when you learn the lexicon, but it's harder to remain consistent over time with one's concepts and "arguments". If your satire had meaning to anyone, it could only be because they're not yet capable of seeing through mere words. i.e. they don't actually understand anything.' - Dan


Talking the talk around here is often just labeling. 'they don't actually understand anything'; 'vapid'; if one sees beyond the words one sees the writer relying on his presumed authority and on nothing else.

I'm not surprised that its targets failed to fully - or in David's case, even slightly - appreciate it - because no one likes to be found fault with

- Laird

'That is a nauseatingly arrogant thing to say or think. If you believe your satire proffered fault, you are, I'm afraid, insane or continuing with the satire.' - Dan


How is it 'nauseatingly arrogant'? Why is he 'insane' or necessarily continuing to satirize? The author continues to presume on his authority, making those very personal remarks without supporting them.

- but if you're going to falsely exalt yourself above the rest of the human race

- Laird

'It hurts your feelings doesn't it, which is why you want to characterise things this way. Firstly, you haven't shown any falsehood at any time; secondly, we don't "exalt" ourselves at all, we simply see things as they are. And frankly, your egalitarian sensibilities are of no interest to me at all. They don't help anyone.' - Dan


Without bothering for whether Laird is correct, note that Dan out of the blue ascribes Laird's motives to 'hurt feelings'. Looking beyond the words, the author has attributed the 'satire' to an emotional cause. He has not bothered to support the description and I doubt he can.

then you should expect that folks who see what you're doing will occasionally make the effort to restore the balance.

- Laird

'And who would those folks be, exactly? You? I hardly think so. You have demonstrated time and time again your comprehension of our views is yet a long way from accurate. I mean, for heaven's sake, Laird, you mean to "expose" us and you've never even seriously thought about what a "thing" is? Dude, get your own house in order then I might take you seriously.' - Dan


If comprehension of Dan's views means that one must agree with them, then either you toady or you 'fail to comprehend'. And what is a 'thing', Dan? Does it imply 'from the first not a thing is'?

The favourable private and public responses that I've received have convinced me that some people did appreciate it.

- Laird

'Hmm, nice appeal to authority. But I've no doubt some people appreciated it. Like I said, there's just no accounting for vapidity.' - Dan


- wrote Dan, appealing to his own. Agree with Dan or you're vapid.


'... his malicious actions ...' - David


More of the same.

But I had to laugh when Laird got all teary when he saw that his malicious actions spilled away from his intended targets and started affecting Trevor. That was comic gold.

I did not laugh at that part at all. As I said, things stop being funny to me when someone gets hurt.

So for you, ridiculing people is acceptable and funny, but not when those people show signs of being hurt?

-

I would not have liked Laird's satire if I had thought it hurt or ridiculed QRS. I do realize that this is a subjective matter. But QRS are strong boys for the most part. They can take a little satire.

-