GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin wrote:

Sue: David’s idea of replacing “QRS” with the word “wisdom” is a sound one, as it better describes what he, I, and others do on this forum than does “QRS”.

Kevin: Actually, my own view is that the idea of replacing "QRS" with "wisdom" is a fundamentally unsound idea.

The reason being that this would simply be a censoring of the natural way people want to use words and language.

If people want to group certain things together using a certain word, such as "QRS", then that is their right to do so - wisely or unwisely - and it can only be harmful to attempt to force the usage of particular words and thoughts on others.

Imagine if someone tried to forcibly ban the word "Australian" on the grounds that Australia contains lots of different kinds of people, some of whom have little in common. It would backfire on them badly.

If a child falls into the habit of cursing all the time, we try to discourage him by admonishments or threats of punishment - particularly if he is not listening to reasoned argument. The child needs to be shocked out of the habit.

The QRS label can be considered a form of cursing. It originated from people who were antagonistic towards the ideas expressed on this forum and is most often used as a form of denigration. The intention is to depict the forum as a kind of mad cult and divorce what is said here from the wisdom spoken by their people in other ages.

I think it's worthwhile challenging that perception, both directly (as I tried to do in this instance) and indirectly (through our general behaviour). But as it turned out, the direct approach proved unworkable.


Diebert wrote:

Sure, the idea might be sound but to actually get into the board controls to filter out the word by force, accidentally changing all past posts in the process doesn't seem like mature behavior. It seems petty, irritated, not thought and talked over and possible stemming from an emotional reaction to being lumped in with Kevin at the time. That's what I thought then and is partly confirmed by the stated criticism on Kevin's journey which seemed to be present for a while.

It was a whim, really, triggered by something Pye said in another thread. She said that if she were in my shoes, she would be objecting far more strenuously to the QRS label because of the connotations of group-think that it seems to suggest, which is a problem that I have long recognized. I agree that it was an ill-thought out decision on my part to enact the censorship plan because it quickly became apparent that it was unworkable on a practical level. But I have no regrets about doing it because it succeeded in making a point.

And happily, this thread has driven the point even further. Even Nat is now considering dropping the QRS label. So to my mind, it's all going rather well.

-

David, Nat said he is considering dropping the QRS label because he can now see where the 3 of you disagree on some things - not because of your stunt of changing other people's words when the admin powers inflated your ego so much that you momentarily thought it would be a fine thing to do.

I knew that my innocuous opening post would be inflammatory. As it turns out, it's brought a lot of interesting stuff to the surface.

I may one day write something about my observations on American culture if I'm in the mood.

One thing that has become obvious to me regarding recent events on and about the forum, is that over-confidence and unwise judgementalism is the order of the day.

David Quinn wrote:The QRS label can be considered a form of cursing. It originated from people who were antagonistic towards the ideas expressed on this forum and is most often used as a form of denigration. The intention is to depict the forum as a kind of mad cult

I think there are just as many people who used the label on a practical level, using the label to refer to the 3 individuals who appeared to all be in agreement about what the truth is. It's been a while since I used the label myself, but during the times I did use it, I don't think I was being derogatory - I was simply referencing the individuals who I believed were all in agreement about an understanding that I was interested in, but felt lacking in. QRS can be and has been used to refer simply to a conception of reality that is not personal, but that can be attained by those interested. You insist that instead what people should be referring to is wisdom, but you have to realize, that people already have intuitions of what wisdom is, and not everyone automatically trusts that this understanding that you, Kevin, and Rowden promoted is really 'wisdom' - but that doesn't mean they regard you as fools either. They are interested, but unsure. Thus, QRS I think has been used practically, to refer to a unique conception of reality, which may or may not equate with wisdom. That will be up for the person to decide, while in the mean time, such a person might be eager to consume what the teachers have to offer, and while deciding whether or not it is sane, he may refer to them as QRS without any disrespect intended. It's just a convenient abbreviation. Personally, I've outgrown the need to use the term, but I've once used it, and it was not out of any desire to denigrate or refer to a foolish cult.

David Quinn wrote:The QRS label can be considered a form of cursing. It originated from people who were antagonistic towards the ideas expressed on this forum and is most often used as a form of denigration. The intention is to depict the forum as a kind of mad cult and divorce what is said here from the wisdom spoken by their people in other ages.

I don't agree with that. Certainly, that's how some people use the term - and that may have been how the term originated. But many others have used the term simply to signify a form of thinking they associate with the three of us - and it doesn't necessarily have negative overtones for them.

That's the natural way that language evolves - and the same word can have different meanings in different contexts.

One day, the whole of Buddhism might be known as "QRS philosophy".

Kevin Solway wrote:I knew that my innocuous opening post would be inflammatory.

Hahaha. To be experienced on the genius forum, how couldn't a person not anticipate insults and disdain? That's why I vetoed my desire to hurl an insult, which, at first, I was itching to do: I was puzzled why someone who knows the personalities on forum as well as you do would make such a post.

I figured there must have been something more to it. And as the thread evolved, it became clearer. The emotional likes, dislikes and attachments of some individuals here are all too apparent.

David Quinn wrote:It is unedifying when Unwise posts his motorcycle photos and tries to connect it with wisdom and Zen. And it's just as unedifying when Kevin or anyone else does the same thing. I don't really want to see Worldly Matters clogged up with those kinds of personal indulgences.

-

Unwise's posts of his motorcycle trips was the first thing that come to mind when I read Kevin's opening post in this topic. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and tried to find something spiritually inspiring or at least tastefully entertaining, but all I perceive is base egotism and nothing more. I certainly wouldn't expect the same person who wrote "Poison for the Heart" to have engaged in this type of behavior, but I suppose he may in fact not be that person anymore.

As for the QRS label, I would encourage a more direct attempt to discontinue its use. It might be seem to be a little over the top to begin with, but after a few months I don't think we would see anybody using it anymore and the long term integrity of the philosophy discussed here would be preserved in an even more pristine manner.

David Quinn wrote:I I don't really want to see Worldly Matters clogged up with those kinds of personal indulgences.

It already is, in case you haven't noticed. Genius Forums in general is bogged down by the amount of trolling, personal opinion and uncriticized irrationality occurring daily. Perhaps, though, it is fair to hold a sage to a higher standard.

Kevin wrote:

DQ: The QRS label can be considered a form of cursing. It originated from people who were antagonistic towards the ideas expressed on this forum and is most often used as a form of denigration. The intention is to depict the forum as a kind of mad cult and divorce what is said here from the wisdom spoken by their people in other ages.

Kevin: I don't agree with that. Certainly, that's how some people use the term - and that may have been how the term originated. But many others have used the term simply to signify a form of thinking they associate with the three of us - and it doesn't necessarily have negative overtones for them.

That's the natural way that language evolves - and the same word can have different meanings in different contexts.

One day, the whole of Buddhism might be known as "QRS philosophy".

True enough. I can see your point of view. Still, I don't have any problems with what I tried to do. If it makes people think twice before using the term, I'll be satisfied with that.

One thing that has become obvious to me regarding recent events on and about the forum, is that over-confidence and unwise judgementalism is the order of the day.

I certainly hope that is the case.

-

David, the only problem in your efforts to disband the group-label is a linguistic one: replacing people (QRS) with a thing (wisdom), hence the resulting verbial incoherence. The sound and sufficient spirit is there though, in my estimation. In fact, it is also there in your error, for it is no secret that you value wisdom above people, and people only in so much as they are carriers of wisdom. I have to tell you that when I looked in awhile back and saw that thread, I found this error totally consistent with the depth of your overall philosophical commitment and sentiment. you would like to be wisdom itself. I had to smile, that you'd tamper with linguistic coherence in order to forward your highest values.

And it is precisely in recognizing that people are the raison d'etre of wisdom, that groups of people will not do. Wisdom is not an entity - it is the best, the very best that humans can think, understand, and even better, that they can do, in relationship to everything. The very best of the very best (call it 'sage' if you like) can never be a group, but will always be an individual.

Kevin, had I know you were in this country and east of the Mississippi, as they say, I would not have had you roofing, but rather invited you to guest-speak at as many 90-minute classes of philosophy students at the big uni as I could provide you. And I would have been the prime inquisitor in every Q&A session. As regards your opening comments about Americans and such, I'm as puzzled as Sue to hear a self-declared sage unable to recognize or understand everything that belongs to human-being in any setting. You ought, like Goethe, never to be surprised by anything human, especially that which is all-too.

I think this is a valuable thread for its candor alone, a necessary kind of truthfulness for the human, all too human, and a right-fine delineator of some of the persona posturing that goes on here sometimes, though I have had to pedal to keep up with 2 new pages of it everytime I look in. Pardon I don't format with proper quotes/responses to the things that prompt my comments here, but I am up to my eyeballs in essays right now and miles to go before I sleep . . . .

Pye wrote:Kevin, had I know you were in this country and east of the Mississippi, as they say, I would not have had you roofing, but rather invited you to guest-speak at as many 90-minute classes of philosophy students at the big uni as I could provide you. And I would have been the prime inquisitor in every Q&A session.

Well, perhaps if we can talk him into coming back for a longer visit, that would still be a possibility. I had also wanted him to help with my peace efforts, but both I was in a deeper mess than I really realized, and it seemed that he was barely here before he was gone - and while he was here I wanted him to experience some of the area rather than just hold him like a slave. There is much to be done to save the world from human unreasonableness, and America is a major area that both needs help in this area, and still has just barely enough freedoms left that we might be able to pull it together - but only if we hurry and fight for wisdom fearlessly.

Frankly, Elizabeth, if I had my druthers out of this barrel of monkeys for such a scenario as above, it'd be hands-down David Quinn. He's the one whose commitment is the steadiest and whose reasoning aptitude is the highest and whose linguistic skill is the most evident. You have to remember what it's like in the cave in order to return to it to teach. Otherwise, they'll lynch you in their dark confusion. In David's better moments, and particularly with new posters here, he remembers. And he has the patience and fortitude to stick it out.

And no, I don't have any money to sponsor anyone's visit. I have a hard enough time sponsoring my own ass within the american cost-of-living . . . . :(

Pye wrote:In David's better moments, and particularly with new posters here, he remembers. And he has the patience and fortitude to stick it out.

Thank you for that statement. With his recent displays of non-thinking, I was beginning to wonder if David was losing his mind, or if I had actually grown in my thinking so much that David started looking like an idiot.

He is an interesting first-hand look at psycho-biological effects of celibacy on the previously normal male mind. I heard it said that sex only takes up 5% of your life, but if you are not getting any, it takes up 95% of your thoughts. Of the 3, I did get the impression that David was the only one completely following the celibacy oath - but now his statement about any interaction with women having a sexual component to it makes me wonder. He's still probably sticking closest to the celibacy thing, which probably accounts for his paranoid leap about Kevin being my "sex slave."

There seems to be a parallel here to the reaction people have to poverty. In poorer sections of town in America, the crime rate is the highest, and primarily it is the residents of that section committing crimes against the other residents there. Although looking at it from a purely logical standpoint, we don't want to overlook that there is a common cause to both the poverty and the criminal activity (just as there could be a common cause to David's lack of sexual activity and his paranoia), it is also important to recognize the direct observation of attitudes of poor people in feeling that since they don't have anything nice, no one else should either. The same thought pattern could be applicable in David's subconscious mind, in that instead of looking at unadulterated reality and making clear judgments about it, David's just stuck in the thought "I'm not getting any, so neither should anyone else." He made a decision - I guess shortly after impregnating Sue - that celibacy was the wisest decision, and rather than keeping an objective mind with his potentially growing wisdom, he set about justifying the decision that a much younger and less experienced David Quinn made. Someone earlier made a statement in a derogatory way about Kevin possibly not being the same person he was 20 years ago when he wrote Poison. I'd hate to think that I was exactly the same person I was 20 years ago because that would mean that I had remained stagnant for 20 years. However wise one might be when they are young, one should be able to be wiser as they get older, so long as they are healthy enough.

That is one thing that I learned about Kevin in person that caused me to have significantly greater respect for him - although he has very distinct ideas about what the finished product of a perfectly wise person is, he is sticking the closest to the path of being true to himself while remaining disciplined with a growth-to-perfection objective. I believe David skipped some steps along the way in a rush to achieve perfection, and ended up lying to himself. One can only be as truthful with others as one is with one's self.

People can look for themselves at the examples in front of us; but sadly, just because people look does not mean they will see clearly.

Hello David,

David Quinn wrote: If a child falls into the habit of cursing all the time, we try to discourage him by admonishments or threats of punishment - particularly if he is not listening to reasoned argument. The child needs to be shocked out of the habit.

The QRS label can be considered a form of cursing. It originated from people who were antagonistic towards the ideas expressed on this forum and is most often used as a form of denigration. The intention is to depict the forum as a kind of mad cult and divorce what is said here from the wisdom spoken by their people in other ages.

I think it's worthwhile challenging that perception, both directly (as I tried to do in this instance) and indirectly (through our general behaviour). But as it turned out, the direct approach proved unworkable.

This desire of yours to convert all instances of "QSR" to "wisdom" is outrageous. I can't believe that there has been such little and muted negative reaction to it from other forum members. It certainly makes me suspicious of the general quality and intentions of the current posters. Some of them even approve of it!

I have used the QSR term myself for many years, and, as far as I can recall, I have never once intended for it to be derogatory or negative. Neither have I intended it to mean that this is a cult, or that you, Dan and Kevin are or were some kind of Borgian Hive-mind. For me it simply refers to a shared core philosophy, whose fundamental principles [Q]uinn, [S]olway and [R]owden all appear to hold, and all appear to desire to spread - often helping each other to do so. Given this, it seems a completely reasonable and warranted label to me.

Supposedly this is meant to be a forum "suitable only for the bravehearted" "...for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous.", but your desired action would commit a serious injustice against the spirit that powers and enables quality philosophy. Some people are probably going to think I'm taking this all too seriously, it's only an internet forum afterall. Bullshit. This forum is meant to be about serious philosophy and therefore I find it odd for anyone who understands that fact to go around willy-nilly altering serious philosophical posts and revising history.

Did it ever occur to you that the terms "QSR" and "wisdom" are not synonymous to many past and present members? Do you thus realize what you would be doing by trying to swap those words when they are not equivalent? You'd be making it appear that everyone who has referred to the "QSR" philosophy, believed that it, and you guys, and what you stand for, are wise. And yet you complain that it is the term "QSR" that is creating the idea that this is a cult! Fucking hell can't you see the intense irony in all of this David?

So now we have Dearly Beloved Master Quinn, banning certain words, and replacing them with his own approved versions. But let's not stop there, let's compare those whose words He(peace be upon him) is altering, with children who need to be directed like a flock of sheep by his sherperdly hand. Unbelievable.

This is not the first time this kind of shit has happened, there have been flashes of authoritarianism from you in the past David, and it's not a good look. I think you need to consider exactly what direction you want to take with this forum, and your methods, because if you continue along this path you may end up losing one of the greatest qualities that Genius, in all its manifestations, ever had.

[Multiple small edits to make some sentences more coherent]

I figured David was screwing around. Not screwing around to be cute, but to make a graphic point. Kind of like when he went around threatening to ban Captain Nemo unless he posted his real name and address.

Matt, figure again. David has already indicated that he wasn't "screwing around." He explained how serious he was when he made the short-lived change, and then reconsidered. I do think the idea was conceived in an emotional moment, though. It wasn't well thought out, but, so be it.

Pye wrote:Frankly, Elizabeth, if I had my druthers out of this barrel of monkeys for such a scenario as above, it'd be hands-down David Quinn. He's the one whose commitment is the steadiest and whose reasoning aptitude is the highest and whose linguistic skill is the most evident. You have to remember what it's like in the cave in order to return to it to teach. Otherwise, they'll lynch you in their dark confusion. In David's better moments, and particularly with new posters here, he remembers. And he has the patience and fortitude to stick it out.

And no, I don't have any money to sponsor anyone's visit. I have a hard enough time sponsoring my own ass within the american cost-of-living . . . . :(

My vote goes to Diebert.

David Quinn wrote:I don't have any problems with what I tried to do. If it makes people think twice before using the term, I'll be satisfied with that.

Unfortunately I think what most people will remember was that you considered forcibly changing the content and meaning of people's posts without their consent.

Also, the people who tend to use the "QRS" label, and especially those who use it negatively, are generally not members of this forum and will be unaware and uncaring of your distaste for the term. So whatever you tried to do won't have any effect on them.

I figure that no longer condoning/participating/promoting the QRS label is one thing - and in my estimation, the more truthful thing to do. It's the attempt to replace it that is telling.

Elizabeth, indeed when it comes to matters sexual/female, my commerce with David and this general ilk of thinking are at an end. It appears that no one thinks clearly there; no one. Sex and philosophy are tangled bedfellows, even if there is both honor and idiocy in mixing the two. Which is also I suppose why an overestimation of one leads to an underestimation of the other (and this works both ways). (Philosophy says "kill the animal and leave the human!" Sex says, "kill the animal and you kill the human, too!"). Fortunately, David has other substance to his thinking. Truly, it is that capacity to re-enter the cave that would most concern me in the scenario above.

Leyla, oh sure! - Diebert, yes. Why, the QRS label has influenced me enough not to have included all the monkeys in this barrel! my bad . . . .

Kevin Solway wrote: Unfortunately I think what most people will remember was that you considered forcibly changing the content and meaning of people's posts without their consent.

Agreed. In the QRS thread, I wrote "I strongly oppose anyone changing my words and leaving the authorship as if I wrote it that way." I'll admit that at the time, I considered having Kevin change my user name from my real name to something completely made up because I could not trust that you would not artificially put words in my mouth and make it look like I wrote them. That action was even worse than just saying that someone said something they did not in fact say, because posts are being used as evidence that someone did say something.

And I do not equate QRS philosophy with pure wisdom. I believe that you and others have the right to defend your position that it is pure wisdom, but forcing the appearance of agreement where it was not is an example of what I, and many feminists, have considered an example of male-tendency violence, domination, and control. It is not an example of wisdom, which I still consider to be above either gender, and into the spiritual realms.

All of you guys are under a misapprehension here. When I decided to add the word "QRS" to the banned word list, I had assumed that it would only apply from that moment onwards. I didn't realize that it would apply retrospectively as well. When I saw that it did apply retrospectively and the havoc it was causing past posts, I changed it back again.

Matt is closest to the mark when he said I was just playing around. I was in experimental mode.

So the experiment happened and it didn't work. Big deal. Get over it, people.

-

I don't think I was suffering a misapprehension. I was, quite reasonably, countering your assertion that the term is primarily used derogatorily and should be regarded as a curse word. I doubt it's used that way even a third of the time. I wasn't implying much else, besides the point that people are interested in finding out what 'it' is that you, Rowden and Solway are agreeing upon, and are reluctant to conclude that it's wisdom. Thus referring to 'it' as QRS philosophy.

David Quinn wrote: When I decided to add the word "QRS" to the banned word list, I had assumed that it would only apply from that moment onwards.

But that's exactly the criticism that was stated by "us guys": that you tried to censor any language at all and it doesn't matter much that the censor worked retrospectively or not. And of course you not being aware of raising the impression of having turned into a power-hungry emotional control freak :)

You're right that it has become a bit of a non-issue. This was just for over-completeness since it seemed you didn't get the exact meaning of what was thrown at you earlier.

Okay, how hard is it to type "the moderators" instead of "QRS"?

That little bit of extra effort makes a huge difference in acknowledging that these three people have something in common while still showing respect for their individual opinions.

.


Hmmm. now we're gettin' somewhere :-)


-the weasel-
David Quinn - All of you guys are under a misapprehension here.

-tomas-
Does this include the MSN-BOT, YAHOO-BOT, & the GOOGLE-BOT (plus the unregistered guests?)




-the weasel-
When I decided to add the word "QRS" to the banned word list,

-tomas-
So now, how have you determined that "QRS" qualifies as being a "word"?




-the weasel-
I had assumed that it would only apply from that moment onwards.

-tomas-
"Assumed" huh?...sounds kind hairy to me :-|




-the weasel-
I didn't realize that it would apply retrospectively as well.

-tomas-
Genius, Wisdom, Ad Hoc, (slow boat to China for David?)




-the weasel-
When I saw that it did apply retrospectively and the havoc it was causing past posts,

-tomas-
Thanks in no small part due to the "genius" of [the] Elizabethian Threat to be banned for standing up For Principle... and Liberty, and Justice For All.




-the weasel-
I changed it back again.

-tomas-
You best keep your paws off the controls, Buster.




-the weasel-
Matt is closest to the mark when he said I was just playing around.

-tomas-
Ah hah! Blame somebody else when one finds theirself in a corner. Let the finger-pointing begin... Dunce Caps come in all sizes :-)




-the weasel-
I was in experimental mode.

-tomas-
Tell that to your lawyer!




-the weasel-
So the experiment happened and it didn't work.

-tomas-
We, the jury, find you...




-the weasel-
Big deal.

-tomas-
You best stop kicking the sand in our face...




-the weasel-
Get over it, people.

-tomas-
You best take up skydiving cuz i ain't buying yer alibi...



ps- Best to let Dan keep the controls... a couple too many beers does the body good (every now and then) Lighten Up.






Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason


.