GENIUS FORUMS

Trevor,

'Infinity is inherent' says reality is self-evident, that it's here ... look, it's still here.

'Existence is non-inherent' says that existence is composed of things which are composed of yet more things and so on, in all directions.

I can only ever see the first phrase through the eyes of the second. It is only contradictory if I permanently rest in one or the other.

kissaki,

A circle is round when it's round, and not round when it's not round.

Are you going to commit to one or the other?

kissaki to Trevor wrote:'Infinity is inherent' says reality is self-evident, that it's here ... look, it's still here.

There's no such thing as self-evidence. Reasoning makes something evident.

'Existence is non-inherent' says that existence is composed of things which are composed of yet more things and so on, in all directions.

People assume from the definition 'things exist', that 'existence' is a separate entity from things, like a property. So in this sense, Kissaki is right to say that existence is composed of things. It is truly things themselves.

Kissaki seems to be making the same kind of mistake, when he says 'existence' is a composition made up of an infinite set of things. It sets up an entity 'existence' as a something that arises when things are put together.

The problem is repeated when he identifies infinity as a separate entity from the set of things (existing), making it 'inherent'.

It is much simpler to say that things are causes, and that inherent existence means 'without causes'. The conclusion is that there is no type of thing at all that is inherently existing.

Kelly,

You clearly didn't read my clash with dejavu. Here's what you missed:

1. I did mention that 'Infinity is inherent' is redundant. Infinity is already all constructions, and thus no movement is possible from that stance. I used the phrase in its redundant form to show where it came from.

2. I specifically used the word existence in the phrase 'Existence is non-inherent' so as to distinguish that existence does not refer to an infinite set, infinity, so I could safely make the claim that existence is composed of things. Existence means nothing more than appearance in this context.

Kelly Jones wrote: There's no such thing as self-evidence. Reasoning makes something evident.

If I were to slap you in the face it would be self-evident to you without any invocation of reason on your part, unless of course you expanded the meaning of reason to mean infinity, which in turn would be different from 'Infinity is inherent' how? Your statement fails because things simply appear and don't require reason, use of words for construction and deconstruction, for them to do so. Words do not make reality nor do words not not make reality.

Kelly Jones wrote: It is much simpler to say that things are causes, and that inherent existence means 'without causes'.

The definition of inherent is permanent or inseparable. Some contextual modification is required to turn that word into meaning without cause, which was not done in the my arguments with dejavu. So your statement does not apply here.

Kelly Jones wrote: The conclusion is that there is no type of thing at all that is inherently existing

Of course not because the moment you create a thing you have betrayed the meaning of inherent. Again, 'Infinity is inherent' might be redundant but it is not a contradiction.

You can never show me infinity with things directly. You can only show me that things recede out of my sight in all directions and so merely infer infinity.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:kissaki,

A circle is round when it's round, and not round when it's not round.

Are you going to commit to one or the other?

If you were to draw a circle before my eyes I'd call it round. If you were to draw a circle before my microscope I'd call it not round. It all depends where I choose to sit and I choose to sit nowhere.

kissaki,
Okay, a circle being both round and not round was a poor example of contradiction. It was possible for you to sidestep the problem by drifting into empiricism for the first half of your post, then drifting back toward rationalism for your last sentence.

I should have used instead: a thing has a cause, except when it doesn't.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:kissaki,
Okay, a circle being both round and not round was a poor example of contradiction. It was possible for you to sidestep the problem by drifting into empiricism for the first half of your post, then drifting back toward rationalism for your last sentence.

I should have used instead: a thing has a cause, except when it doesn't.

I still possess the capability to create fanciful imaginations as to what causes, non-causes, or complete lack of any causes a particular thing has. Within the realm of my own thoughts the appearance of a thing not having any causes is a legitimate manifestation of reality for all practical intents and purposes. See maestro's comment about the Copenhagen interpretation of QM some how implying a reality of non-causality and my response in the thread titled 'The Double Slit Experiment and Reality.'

Still, I am not such an individual, and so I must declare that I commit to the phrase things always have causes -- or as Kelly might insist as phrasing, things are causes -- and not the other. My previous example of subtle appearances not withstanding, what are you getting at?

.


-kissaki-
Indeed, I am 27 years of age. And this counts against me because ...? If I am but a young punk then simply crush me out of existence. Why the mercy act? After all, that's what I came here for: annihilation.

........


Live fast, die young: how Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, Janis Joplin and Kurt Cobain joined the 27 Club

When we reach 27 we've been trying to reach certain goals, - fame, money, success - that we might suddenly realise for the first time that we're not happy after all. And we are supposed to be grown-up and responsible, and we don't feel ready.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 567970.ece

many photos, readers comments


.

kissaki wrote:You clearly didn't read my clash with dejavu.

You're right, and I still haven't, yet my critical eye is still alert. Odd, isn't it.

Here's what you missed:

1. I did mention that 'Infinity is inherent' is redundant. Infinity is already all constructions, and thus no movement is possible from that stance. I used the phrase in its redundant form to show where it came from.

By redundant, do you mean the scientific notion of the Universe, ie. something that is vast, and expanding infinitely in all directions, and composed of countless things, is not accurate?

Or do you mean, "it's obviously true" as in "proof of it being true is found in the following evidence: everything" ?

2. I specifically used the word existence in the phrase 'Existence is non-inherent' so as to distinguish that existence does not refer to an infinite set, infinity, so I could safely make the claim that existence is composed of things. Existence means nothing more than appearance in this context.

Is existence appearing as the 'Infinity' you speak of? Or not?

Kelly: There's no such thing as self-evidence. Reasoning makes something evident.

Kissaki: If I were to slap you in the face it would be self-evident to you without any invocation of reason on your part, unless of course you expanded the meaning of reason to mean infinity, which in turn would be different from 'Infinity is inherent' how? Your statement fails because things simply appear and don't require reason, use of words for construction and deconstruction, for them to do so. Words do not make reality nor do words not not make reality.

I'm trying to work out what you mean by your words. As far as I can tell at present your words appear to be making up a notion about reality. It all depends on your reply to my first two questions.

It is much simpler to say that things are causes, and that inherent existence means 'without causes'.

Kissaki: The definition of inherent is permanent or inseparable. Some contextual modification is required to turn that word into meaning without cause, which was not done in the my arguments with dejavu. So your statement does not apply here.

The only way for something to be permanent is to have no causal relationships to anything else.

Inseparable is a trickier idea, because here again, we're talking about "something".

What I'm intuiting is that you would say "No," and "yes" to my above questions, and if so, I was right to interfere.

Kelly: The conclusion is that there is no type of thing at all that is inherently existing

Kissaki: Of course not because the moment you create a thing you have betrayed the meaning of inherent. Again, 'Infinity is inherent' might be redundant but it is not a contradiction.

It all depends what you mean by 'Infinity'....

You can never show me infinity with things directly. You can only show me that things recede out of my sight in all directions and so merely infer infinity.

Yes, I thought that would be your view of things.

If 'things recede out of sight' and from this one can infer 'Infinity', then why do you say 'no movement is possible from that stance' ?

Can things recede from sight? How do you know? Have you experienced your supposed realm beyond where things are not receding? All is not so still in your world, I think....

Kelly Jones wrote: By redundant, do you mean the scientific notion of the Universe, ie. something that is vast, and expanding infinitely in all directions, and composed of countless things, is not accurate?

Or do you mean, "it's obviously true" as in "proof of it being true is found in the following evidence: everything" ?

I use the word infinity in the philosophical sense, unity, and not the strict mathematical sense, Aleph-one, a specific uncountably infinite set. Infinity as unity is all appearances. It is meant in the obviously true sense, which is to say that there are always things. Although any particular thing that arises always eventually vanishes, another thing takes its place; I am never without things.

Kelly Jones wrote: Is existence appearing as the 'Infinity' you speak of? Or not?

I used a different word, existence, in the second phrase in order to communicate that I was not referring to the unity of infinity. Existence is appearance. Appearance is finite, its boundaries are apparent to me.

Kelly Jones wrote: The only way for something to be permanent is to have no causal relationships to anything else.

The appearance of things is permanent. An appearance is not permanent.

Kelly Jones wrote: Inseparable is a trickier idea, because here again, we're talking about "something".

I use the word infinity in order to communicate the idea of what the word is not. This is the nature of words. Finger->Water->Moon.

Kelly Jones wrote: If 'things recede out of sight' and from this one can infer 'Infinity', then why do you say 'no movement is possible from that stance' ?

Because I can never get into the stance of infinity in the first place. Again, infinity is not a word. The previous sentence is movement, and so is this one.

Kelly Jones wrote: Can things recede from sight? How do you know?

Can you see microorganisms right now? No, but if you used a microscope in the visible light spectrum you could.
Can you see individual atoms right now? No, but if you used an electron microscope you could.
Can you see distance galaxies right now? No, but if you used a telescope you could.

Kelly Jones wrote: Have you experienced your supposed realm beyond where things are not receding?

I've experienced the lack of that realm. I can always look further and further in any direction and am never in short supply of further. Where do I go to in between sentences?

Kelly Jones wrote: All is not so still in your world, I think....

I can not not move.

I declare this thread mine. Everything I say here is to disappoint her.

It looks like you have a similar viewpoint to dejavu, though more clearly thought-out.

kissaki wrote:Infinity as unity is all appearances. It is meant in the obviously true sense, which is to say that there are always things.

I used a different word, existence, in the second phrase in order to communicate that I was not referring to the unity of infinity. Existence is appearance. Appearance is finite, its boundaries are apparent to me.

The appearance of things is permanent. An appearance is not permanent.

As you said, Infinity is inherent, and inherent means permanent, therefore, you are saying "the appearance of things" (meaning, "all appearances") is inherent, but specific appearances are not. My question for you is, since "the appearance of things" must include specific appearances, then there is really only "the appearance of things" rather than any specific ones, right?

I use the word infinity in order to communicate the idea of what the word is not.

So you are using a word to say that any specific thing it could point to, as reference for its meaning, is not it?

Couldn't you use the word to point to everything as a reference for its meaning, since, as you say, "all appearances" are permanent?

Although any particular thing that arises always eventually vanishes, another thing takes its place; I am never without things.

I can always look further and further in any direction and am never in short supply of further. Where do I go to in between sentences?

I can never get into the stance of infinity in the first place. Again, infinity is not a word. The previous sentence is movement, and so is this one.

I can not not move.

Hmm, this intrigues me. You say always and never, always and never. Doesn't this sound a bit like there's no where for you to go?

Kelly: Can things recede from sight? How do you know?

Kissaki: Can you see microorganisms right now? No, but if you used a microscope in the visible light spectrum you could. Can you see individual atoms right now? No, but if you used an electron microscope you could. Can you see distance galaxies right now? No, but if you used a telescope you could.

And yet whatever appearances these things take, are still appearances, right? No movement there? No recession or progression?

Where do I go to in between sentences?

Is there an in-between?

Kelly Jones wrote:It looks like you have a similar viewpoint to dejavu, though more clearly thought-out.

One could classify forever, as there are no shortage of things. Many in fact do. They call themselves academics.

Kelly Jones wrote:My question for you is, since "the appearance of things" must include specific appearances, then there is really only "the appearance of things" rather than any specific ones, right?

Your knowledge of the appearance of things only comes through specific things, like the sentence above.

Kelly Jones wrote: So you are using a word to say that any specific thing it could point to, as reference for its meaning, is not it?

Yes, but why use so many words? It only leads to obsessive parsing of words. The Vedic Hindus expressed it simply as neti neti -- Not this, not that.

Kelly Jones wrote: Couldn't you use the word to point to everything as a reference for its meaning, since, as you say, "all appearances" are permanent?

I can and I did. You seem to think it can only be one or the other. The phrases 'infinity is inherent' and 'existence is non-inherent' can be said in one phrase: samsara and nirvana are not different.

Kelly Jones wrote: Hmm, this intrigues me. You say always and never, always and never. Doesn't this sound a bit like there's no where for you to go?

Essentials for wisdom: nothing to do, no one to love, and nothing to hope for. One might as well add 'nowhere to go' to the list.

"The birds have nests and foxes have dens but the Son of Man has no place to rest His head"

Kelly Jones wrote: And yet whatever appearances these things take, are still appearances, right? No movement there? No recession or progression?

Yes to appearances. Yes to movement. Yes to recession and progression. Yes, yes, yes. It's always there in all ways.

Kelly Jones wrote:Is there an in-between?

You cannot read the words in this sentence without the not-words, or the letters without the not-letters.

I think you are looking for the perfect combination of words to express reality, but there are none. How many words do you need? Words will never capture reality, they will never capture the continual movement of things. Buddha warned of this.

What is Zen?

When hungry, eat. When tired, sleep. When horny, wank.

Ah, kissaki, you spirited yet misguided fellow. I do at least appreciate your enthusiasm, unoriginal as you are.

kissaki wrote:Ignorance is guaranteed if delusion is not addressed, thus ignorance is a subset of delusion

Non sequitur, and furthermore false, and I can demonstrate why: I might be ignorant that the earth is roughly spherical, but yet have no specific belief in which shape and form it has; thus - not having a false belief - I would not be deluded in this respect. Thus, this particular ignorance is not a subset of any delusion.

kissaki wrote:thus science is a subset of the Tao.

That seems to be another non sequitur; furthermore I don't know what you mean by "the Tao" after introducing it randomly into the conversation - it's a semi-mystical word that different people seem to ascribe different meanings to.

I have no strong opinion on whether your statement, despite seeming to be a non sequitur, is nevertheless true - I haven't studied Taoism in much depth; just a bit of cursory reading through the Tao Te Ching.

kissaki wrote:You poo poo Buddha

I do no such thing.

kissaki wrote:The fact that old Buddhas were not born into a scientific world and unable to address the subject directly is hardly a mark against them.

Precisely my point: ignorance and delusion are separate issues; one need not be a genius in the realm of mathematics and science to be free of delusion, yet you imply that the fact that there seem to be more male geniuses in these fields has something to do with female delusion.

kissaki wrote:Besides, there are Buddhas now.

Please provide specific examples.

kissaki wrote:Men are usually inclined towards what other men do. Women are usually inclined towards what other women do. Thus the average man and woman otherwise being equal -- which I say only for the sake of this point, not because I think that is the case -- the average man has the advantage.

Have you yet read the essay that was relatively recently posted here for the second time, in the opening post of the thread Is There Anything Good About Men? If not, then I suggest that you do. In it you will find the observation that there might well be more gifted men than there are gifted women, but there are likewise more badly flawed men (recidivist criminals, mentally deficient, etc) than badly flawed women. The author suggests that men are created at extremes more than women are, but that it pretty much all averages out in the end. So, if, as you write, men are usually inclined towards what other men do, then don't forget all of the bad examples, too.

kissaki wrote:The core philosophy of this forum brings this point to the forefront for precisely one reason only: to demonstrate just how far women have to go in order to reach where few men even tread. The point is to go against mediocrity, not use it as an excuse for bringing everything down to its level simply because it is everywhere.

I'm all for excellence.

guest_of_logic: I don't find [women] to be narcissists in general.

kissaki: See, you are not ignorant but yet you remain delusional. I can debunk your statement in one word: makeup.

That's an interesting rejoinder. My personal opinion on make-up is that it is to a woman's appearance what performance-enhancing drugs are to an athlete's performance: I recognise that it can have a positive effect, but I prefer to keep it natural. That's just my preference, though - I wouldn't be surprised to find that some men prefer make-up.

To address your actual point, though: I think that there's a distinction between wanting to put one's best foot forward, so to speak, and being a narcissist, although no doubt some women cross the line. Someone said something here not so long ago that I quite liked: paraphrasing very badly, what he said was "women are works of art, and working on their appearance can be thought of as being like working on a piece of art". Now, if a woman were to paint an aesthetically pleasing picture, would you call her a narcissist? I doubt it, and yet, when she paints herself, you do (call her a narcissist).

guest_of_logic: There are plenty of women currently involved in the fields under discussion, who are pushing the boundaries of knowledge.

kissaki: Knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles is impressive, yet none of these things brings one closer to Void.

Again, you're only making my point. First you argued that the fact that there seem to be more highly accomplished men in scientific endeavours ("knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles") than there are women, implies that men are less deluded ("closer to Void") than women, and here you argue the opposite.

guest_of_logic: Whether or not they succeed to the same extent as men is not the point.

kissaki: That is the mantra of postmodernism. The delusion that everything is equal, no matter how different.

I don't espouse that particular "delusion", and the statement that you are responding to doesn't entail it.

guest_of_logic: Because I reject the premise: that women take me "in the complete opposite direction". There are plenty of women who are interested in understanding reality, and from those who aren't, I don't feel any particular threat to my own attempts to do so.

kissaki: Then you don't understand reality. You don't understand that there is no you, them, or women at all.

Your switch of direction nullifies your original argument. First you argued that women take me "in the complete opposite direction [of pushing the boundaries of knowledge and taking man to the edge of the Void]". Now you argue that there are no women and there is no me. So if there are no women, and there is no me, then no one's taking anyone in any direction, are they?

guest_of_logic: Please clarify: are you saying that life itself should be hated, or that what should be hated is that life is attributed to women?

kissaki: See my response to Iolaus.

I take it that you mean this response:

A woman is praised for her ability to birth life, yet what is birthed has many more causes than the physical woman herself and they extend back in time long before her physical existence. Woman defines her existence around an act she never performs.

As a QRS flunky you have the most hopeless of double standards. When it comes to a woman giving birth, "she never performs" the act. Yet when it comes to scientific, mathematical and philosophical achievements, you praise men to the hilt.

kissaki wrote:The thoughts coming off David's keyboard exist before time and will not end even at the universe's destruction. The same cannot be said for yours.

Haha, it's official: QRS have a new disciple. And - what do you know? - David's welcomed him into the fold with an encouraging pat on the back.

kissaki wrote:Once again, you don't even know the source of words, where they star or where they end, and here you are accusing me of being a thief. Hah! QRS is just three letters.

At best that's vague, insubstantial fluff and filler, with pretensions to profundity. At worst, it's garbage. Only to the unconscious individual is QRS "just three letters". To deny that words have significant meaning is to espouse an appalling delusion.

kissaki wrote:I proclaim that science arose in the world and it shall eventually disappear. You build on sand thinking it concrete.

Short of divine revelation, science is probably the best means we have of comprehending the nature of reality, but to ascribe to it absolute truth is indeed to build on sand, which is why I don't do that. Philosophy can only lead to absolute truths, which, in the bigger scheme of things, are pretty trivial. If you believe that your adopted QRS philosophy is both (a) profound, and, (b) provable and hence built on solid rock, then you're fooling yourself.

kissaki wrote:You've made it plain that the word QRS stands as an insurmountable barrier in your mind.

Rather, I'm making it plain that I know in reasonable detail what the word QRS represents.

kissaki wrote:So here it is, in your language so you might understand: Men deferred to women long before QRS, and will do so long after QRS.

Some men defer to women; some women defer to men. And then some of us get along pretty well in mutually respectful opposite gender relationships.

kissaki wrote:But the message of QRS? Never.

I don't understand what point you're making here. Do you mean that the message of QRS never defers to women? Well jolly good for it, and that's great - it shouldn't defer - but nor should it grossly misrepresent with appalling bias, as it does.

kissaki wrote:By your own admission the vast masses of men and women are average.

I don't recall making that admission, but nor do I find it significantly objectionable. As I wrote above, though, the article that I referenced suggests that there are more average women than average men.

kissaki wrote:So how can I not attack one without the other if I attack average-ness?

And yet, here you are, starting threads with the thrust of the attack upon the one only: women.

kissaki wrote:You continue to mistake my attack as one ultimately on people. The attack goes far beyond just people.

Please elaborate.

guest_of_logic: Elizabeth was having problems, and you treated her with contempt rather than compassion.

kissaki: Ah, the White Knight comes to her rescue.

Firstly, I'm not "rescuing" Elizabeth, I'm commenting on your poor behaviour. Secondly, your attempt to deflect attention from your own behaviour and onto mine is cowardly (ironic, then, that you accuse me of cowardice). Face up to it: you treated Elizabeth in a way that I doubt that you would have liked to be treated had you been in her situation. You made a mistake. It's no big deal - we all make mistakes like that, myself included. It would be brave of you to acknowledge your behaviour as an unkind and uncompassionate mistake though.

kissaki: Were you born of a dick and a vagina or not?

guest_of_logic: That's a rhetorical question, right? I only ask because you've repeated it and I'm wondering why.

kissaki: The White Knight storms the castle but refuses to challenge the castle's guard? I can sum up everything you've said in a word: cowardice.

I have no idea what you're on about. I still don't understand whether your question is rhetorical or whether you expect me to answer it literally (or perhaps abstractly or creatively), nor what point it might have if indeed you do expect me to answer it.

guest_of_logic, quoting another post, wrote:Someone said something here not so long ago that I quite liked: paraphrasing very badly, what he said was "women are works of art, and working on their appearance can be thought of as being like working on a piece of art".

I think the quote was "women are like works of art, and working on their appearance can be thought of as being like working on a piece of ass."

But I could be misremembering...

Hmm, "working on a piece of ass" as art... at which point does this "art" become pornography?

Hey, kissaki. Just out of curiosity: Do you have any friends that are female and not also sexual partners?

brokenhead wrote:Hey, kissaki. Just out of curiosity: Do you have any friends that are female and not also sexual partners?

Depends what you mean by friends. If by friends you mean those who have philosophical thoughts, then no, I have no female friends. I don't consider any of my female relatives or acquaintances such friends. In accordance with that definition I can also say I have but a few male friends -- I can count them on one hand. Even so, I don't find any solace with them, and if I immediately had to sever all ties with them for the remainder of my life I wouldn't bat an eyelash.

On the other hand, if by friends you mean females who I cooperatively work with in a professional capacity or day-to-day activities, then yes, they are friends.

The quickest way for me to lose interest in a female as being a friend in any sense of the word is to sleep with her.

guest_of_logic wrote: Non sequitur, and furthermore false, and I can demonstrate why: I might be ignorant that the earth is roughly spherical, but yet have no specific belief in which shape and form it has; thus - not having a false belief - I would not be deluded in this respect. Thus, this particular ignorance is not a subset of any delusion.

Your example only works because it is strictly limited in scope. The facts gathered about things from the empirical world, the realm of ignorance, tell you nothing about their value or meaning. Such qualities must be derived from metaphysics, which is the realm of delusion. Do you even know the history of science and the metaphysics behind it? Or are you another science fanboy who thinks science dropped out of the sky, pure and pristine, from the science god? No matter how well refined your technique for gathering facts, they are threatened even if you have but the smallest taint of delusion in your metaphysics. Just think about the debates between the deluded Intelligent Design proponents and Richard Dawkins. This is what separates the mediocre scientists from the truly great ones. The only criticism against these great scientists however is that they don't go far enough in their metaphysics.

guest_of_logic wrote: That seems to be another non sequitur; furthermore I don't know what you mean by "the Tao" after introducing it randomly into the conversation - it's a semi-mystical word that different people seem to ascribe different meanings to.

I have no strong opinion on whether your statement, despite seeming to be a non sequitur, is nevertheless true - I haven't studied Taoism in much depth; just a bit of cursory reading through the Tao Te Ching.

The Tao is the entire reason I read and discuss on this board. Tao is the entire reason for any thing actually. As far as your charge of me inserting it randomly into the discussion, do you not see the words Ultimate Reality displayed across the top of his page?

guest_of_logic wrote: Precisely my point: ignorance and delusion are separate issues; one need not be a genius in the realm of mathematics and science to be free of delusion,

They are not separate issues. This is precisely the barrier that mind constructs, compartmentalization, in order to preserve ego purpose. Vicious application of powerful metaphysics literally reworks neural connections.

A genius in a scientific endeavor is more likely to occur in an individual who thinks clearly with their words and their definitions, that is to say they are rational, and so they have potential for clear and precise metaphysics as well -- no guarantee though.

guest_of_logic wrote: yet you imply that the fact that there seem to be more male geniuses in these fields has something to do with female delusion.

No. If you interpret my meaning as saying that then it is a wrong interpretation. The point in pointing out the difference in the achievements of men and women is to make apparent the fact that men have much more potential then women. It's to communicate to females that they have yet to even reach the edges of endeavors in empirical knowledge/ignorance and how much more they have to go in the realm of metaphysics.

Men: Let's go, chop!
Women: Let's go, chop chop!

guest_of_logic wrote: Have you yet read the essay that was relatively recently posted here for the second time, in the opening post of the thread Is There Anything Good About Men? If not, then I suggest that you do. In it you will find the observation that there might well be more gifted men than there are gifted women, but there are likewise more badly flawed men (recidivist criminals, mentally deficient, etc) than badly flawed women. The author suggests that men are created at extremes more than women are, but that it pretty much all averages out in the end. So, if, as you write, men are usually inclined towards what other men do, then don't forget all of the bad examples, too.

I've read that article before. Men rule the extremes, and this is why men are awesome. Thus I can safely ignore women for the most part and concentrate on the works of exceptional men, the good and the bad. When a woman has demonstrated her capacity for the extreme in some interesting way then I shall praise her too.

guest_of_logic wrote: That's an interesting rejoinder. My personal opinion on make-up is that it is to a woman's appearance what performance-enhancing drugs are to an athlete's performance: I recognise that it can have a positive effect, but I prefer to keep it natural. That's just my preference, though - I wouldn't be surprised to find that some men prefer make-up.

To address your actual point, though: I think that there's a distinction between wanting to put one's best foot forward, so to speak, and being a narcissist, although no doubt some women cross the line. Someone said something here not so long ago that I quite liked: paraphrasing very badly, what he said was "women are works of art, and working on their appearance can be thought of as being like working on a piece of art". Now, if a woman were to paint an aesthetically pleasing picture, would you call her a narcissist? I doubt it, and yet, when she paints herself, you do (call her a narcissist).

Wow, look at all those words.

Narcissism is excessive love or admiration of one's body and self. If the endlessly parade of beauty boutiques, products, and fashion in strip-malls and TV commercials is not enough to convince you that women are much more preoccupied than men about themselves, then I must classify such action on your part as delusion. It is so glaringly obvious to me that I consider it under the category of self-evident. Your personal opinions or re-interpretations of womens' vanity as art is puke and effectively irrelevant on the largest of scopes.

guest_of_logic wrote: Again, you're only making my point. First you argued that the fact that there seem to be more highly accomplished men in scientific endeavours ("knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles") than there are women, implies that men are less deluded ("closer to Void") than women, and here you argue the opposite.

No, incorrect interpretation on your part again. Knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles is more likely to correlate with a capacity to understand the knowledge of the Tao. Correlation is not implication nor a guarantee of any kind.

guest_of_logic wrote:

guest_of_logic: Whether or not they succeed to the same extent as men is not the point.

kissaki: That is the mantra of postmodernism. The delusion that everything is equal, no matter how different.

I don't espouse that particular "delusion", and the statement that you are responding to doesn't entail it.

The entire reason you argue with me is because I call women out and say look, the vast majority of you are mediocre and stupid cows. I think this observation is significant and you don't.

guest_of_logic wrote:

guest_of_logic: Because I reject the premise: that women take me "in the complete opposite direction". There are plenty of women who are interested in understanding reality, and from those who aren't, I don't feel any particular threat to my own attempts to do so.

kissaki: Then you don't understand reality. You don't understand that there is no you, them, or women at all.

Your switch of direction nullifies your original argument. First you argued that women take me "in the complete opposite direction [of pushing the boundaries of knowledge and taking man to the edge of the Void]". Now you argue that there are no women and there is no me. So if there are no women, and there is no me, then no one's taking anyone in any direction, are they?

You will never understand Zen. You will never understand the Tao. All you know is words.

guest_of_logic wrote: As a QRS flunky you have the most hopeless of double standards. When it comes to a woman giving birth, "she never performs" the act. Yet when it comes to scientific, mathematical and philosophical achievements, you praise men to the hilt.

QRS has flunked me beyond all measure of flunking. Truly, their words have flunked me at life.

I praise men so they too may be great flunkies.

guest_of_logic wrote:

kissaki wrote:The thoughts coming off David's keyboard exist before time and will not end even at the universe's destruction. The same cannot be said for yours.

Haha, it's official: QRS have a new disciple. And - what do you know? - David's welcomed him into the fold with an encouraging pat on the back.

David knows words. You on the other hand, all you know is words.

guest_of_logic wrote:

kissaki wrote:Once again, you don't even know the source of words, where they star or where they end, and here you are accusing me of being a thief. Hah! QRS is just three letters.

At best that's vague, insubstantial fluff and filler, with pretensions to profundity. At worst, it's garbage. Only to the unconscious individual is QRS "just three letters". To deny that words have significant meaning is to espouse an appalling delusion.

Look at the fool claiming significant meaning when he doesn't even know the source of meaning.

guest_of_logic wrote:

kissaki wrote:I proclaim that science arose in the world and it shall eventually disappear. You build on sand thinking it concrete.

Short of divine revelation, science is probably the best means we have of comprehending the nature of reality, but to ascribe to it absolute truth is indeed to build on sand, which is why I don't do that. Philosophy can only lead to absolute truths, which, in the bigger scheme of things, are pretty trivial. If you believe that your adopted QRS philosophy is both (a) profound, and, (b) provable and hence built on solid rock, then you're fooling yourself.

Words are arrows, and every single one of yours just missed. You actually think you're aiming at some thing.

guest_of_logic wrote:

kissaki wrote:You've made it plain that the word QRS stands as an insurmountable barrier in your mind.

Rather, I'm making it plain that I know in reasonable detail what the word QRS represents.

All you know is the words of QRS.

guest_of_logic wrote:

kissaki wrote:So here it is, in your language so you might understand: Men deferred to women long before QRS, and will do so long after QRS.

Some men defer to women; some women defer to men. And then some of us get along pretty well in mutually respectful opposite gender relationships.

kissaki wrote:But the message of QRS? Never.

I don't understand what point you're making here. Do you mean that the message of QRS never defers to women? Well jolly good for it, and that's great - it shouldn't defer - but nor should it grossly misrepresent with appalling bias, as it does.

QRS is a husk. I've ripped it open and gobbled all the goodies inside. You on the other hand are still worried about finding offense in things.

guest_of_logic wrote:

kissaki wrote:So how can I not attack one without the other if I attack average-ness?

And yet, here you are, starting threads with the thrust of the attack upon the one only: women.

Well, they are ahead in average-ness are they not? I'll attack whatever creates.

guest_of_logic wrote:

kissaki wrote:You continue to mistake my attack as one ultimately on people. The attack goes far beyond just people.

Please elaborate.

You're a worthless foolish piece of shit human being.

guest_of_logic wrote:

guest_of_logic: Elizabeth was having problems, and you treated her with contempt rather than compassion.

kissaki: Ah, the White Knight comes to her rescue.

Firstly, I'm not "rescuing" Elizabeth, I'm commenting on your poor behaviour. Secondly, your attempt to deflect attention from your own behaviour and onto mine is cowardly (ironic, then, that you accuse me of cowardice). Face up to it: you treated Elizabeth in a way that I doubt that you would have liked to be treated had you been in her situation. You made a mistake. It's no big deal - we all make mistakes like that, myself included. It would be brave of you to acknowledge your behaviour as an unkind and uncompassionate mistake though.

I've brought my mother to tears in person because I went past her philosophical barrier with words. I've brought my father to tears in person because I went past his philosophical barriers with words. I've brought attractive intelligent women to tears in person because I went past their philosophical barriers with words. And now I'm supposed to care about how well someone can handle words through the internet? You're pathetic.

guest_of_logic wrote:

kissaki: Were you born of a dick and a vagina or not?

guest_of_logic: That's a rhetorical question, right? I only ask because you've repeated it and I'm wondering why.

kissaki: The White Knight storms the castle but refuses to challenge the castle's guard? I can sum up everything you've said in a word: cowardice.

I have no idea what you're on about. I still don't understand whether your question is rhetorical or whether you expect me to answer it literally (or perhaps abstractly or creatively), nor what point it might have if indeed you do expect me to answer it.

You haven't got a chance.

Don't bother replying unless it's to claim how much more intelligent and well cultured you are than I am and how I am but a mere QRS sycophant leech who is a complete loser. There's nothing new under the sun for me to say to you.

You can achieve Enlightenment in two steps:

1. Polish your sword of reason to a razor sharp edge.
2. Turn the sword on yourself and in one effortless motion cut off your head.

Now blind, deaf, and dumb you no longer know of things.

guest_of_logic: Non sequitur, and furthermore false, and I can demonstrate why: I might be ignorant that the earth is roughly spherical, but yet have no specific belief in which shape and form it has; thus - not having a false belief - I would not be deluded in this respect. Thus, this particular ignorance is not a subset of any delusion.

kissaki: Your example only works because it is strictly limited in scope.

The example illustrates a general principle; examples are by definition limited in scope, nevertheless they are useful, so your criticism is misguided. Anyway, let me extend the scope as widely as possible:

There are a huge variety of human beliefs about the nature of reality, life's purpose, metaphysical concepts, spirituality and ultimate meaning. It seems to me that by default, a person is completely ignorant about the truth of these issues. If, however, a person chooses to not subscribe to any particular belief system, but rather to say "Well, I just don't know, and I'm not going to believe anything in particular", then that person is not deluded because s/he has no false beliefs (because s/he has no beliefs at all). Therefore that person would be ignorant but not deluded. Therefore ignorance is not a subset of delusion, as you claim that it is.

kissaki wrote:The facts gathered about things from the empirical world, the realm of ignorance, tell you nothing about their value or meaning. Such qualities must be derived from metaphysics, which is the realm of delusion.

I'm battling to make sense of you here. Are you saying that empirical beliefs can't be delusional?

kissaki wrote:Do you even know the history of science and the metaphysics behind it?

I know bits and pieces but I haven't studied it thoroughly.

kissaki wrote:Or are you another science fanboy who thinks science dropped out of the sky, pure and pristine, from the science god?

No, I'm not one of those.

kissaki wrote:No matter how well refined your technique for gathering facts, they are threatened even if you have but the smallest taint of delusion in your metaphysics. Just think about the debates between the deluded Intelligent Design proponents and Richard Dawkins. This is what separates the mediocre scientists from the truly great ones. The only criticism against these great scientists however is that they don't go far enough in their metaphysics.

You seem to be saying that to be a great scientist you have to have a truthful set of metaphysical beliefs, whereas it seems to me more the case that to be a great scientist you need to be as impartial metaphysically as possible, because ultimately it's impossible to know metaphysical truth for certain, beyond the relatively trivial.

kissaki wrote:As far as your charge of me inserting [the Tao] randomly into the discussion, do you not see the words Ultimate Reality displayed across the top of his page?

Uh, yes. Yes I do. I don't, however, see "the Tao" displayed across the top of this page: I gather that you have adopted David's understanding of "the Tao" as "Ultimate Reality". Fancy that - who would have guessed?

guest_of_logic: Precisely my point: ignorance and delusion are separate issues; one need not be a genius in the realm of mathematics and science to be free of delusion,

kissaki: They are not separate issues.

See above for my (repeated) argument that they are.

kissaki wrote:This is precisely the barrier that mind constructs, compartmentalization, in order to preserve ego purpose. Vicious application of powerful metaphysics literally reworks neural connections.

That's entertaining rhetoric, but it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether ignorance and delusion are separate issues.

guest_of_logic: yet you imply that the fact that there seem to be more male geniuses in these fields has something to do with female delusion.

kissaki: No. If you interpret my meaning as saying that then it is a wrong interpretation.

Bullshit. Here's what you wrote earlier:

So which is it? Both statements made by you: No rigorous evidence that women are delusional or that it is pretty much undeniable that most of the high achievers in the fields of science, mathematics, and philosophy are men?

You're clearly linking the two. Are you now retracting that?

kissaki wrote:The point in pointing out the difference in the achievements of men and women is to make apparent the fact that men have much more potential then women. It's to communicate to females that they have yet to even reach the edges of endeavors in empirical knowledge/ignorance and how much more they have to go in the realm of metaphysics.

Well gee whiz, I wonder why you'd want to point that out? Let me see if I've got this straight: women suck, and men rock the house, and... oh, sorry, I've got that slightly wrong - in your own words, please: women are "mediocre and stupid cows" and "men are awesome". Ah, that's how it's supposed to go, thanks for that. And, let me just check... why... why yes, I do believe that you have a penis. Funny how that works, hey? (with apologies to samadhi)

kissaki wrote:Men rule the extremes, and this is why men are awesome. Thus I can safely ignore women for the most part and concentrate on the works of exceptional men, the good and the bad.

There is almost always (I possibly shouldn't even qualify "always") a lesson to be learnt from every person, extreme or not. I have no quibble, however, with your choice to focus on people who live at the extremes. Whatever floats your boat.

kissaki wrote:Wow, look at all those words.

Did they make your poor widdle head hurt?

kissaki wrote:Narcissism is excessive love or admiration of one's body and self.

Precisely. So the only question left is whether applying make-up to one's body is "excessive" in that sense. I'm going to give you a bit of credit here: I accept that it tends towards narcissism, I just disagree that in all cases it actually is "excessive", constituting full-blown narcissism. I suspect that different women do it for different reasons, and that not all of those reasons are reasonably characterised as narcissistic. For better or for worse, appearance matters in our society - there are more opportunities for people who meet relevant standards - and some women might simply wish to meet the standards that they perceive to be in operation. For those women, make-up is a practical tool, rather than a vanity.

Also, think about what applying make-up really implies: it implies that the woman is not good enough naturally, that she needs external help to be beautiful - arguably this is not really "love" of oneself, it's more like self-hatred - but again, it's probably different for different women.

kissaki wrote:If the endlessly parade of beauty boutiques, products, and fashion in strip-malls and TV commercials is not enough to convince you that women are much more preoccupied than men about themselves, then I must classify such action on your part as delusion.

Oh, but now you're changing the argument. The original question was whether women are in general, and objectively, narcissistic, not whether or not they are more narcissistic than men. I actually agree with you that they are, in general, more narcissistic than men, but there are plenty of exceptions. There are plenty of men who spend countless dollars on "product", or who work out at the gym solely so that they can admire their own bodies, just as there are plenty of women who abjure make-up and who like to wear plain clothes.

guest_of_logic: Again, you're only making my point. First you argued that the fact that there seem to be more highly accomplished men in scientific endeavours ("knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles") than there are women, implies that men are less deluded ("closer to Void") than women, and here you argue the opposite.

kissaki: No, incorrect interpretation on your part again.

You can't maintain a consistent argument, and what's worse is that you don't even recognise your own blatant contradictions, and when I call you on them, you simply repeat them. Case in point:

kissaki wrote:Knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles is more likely to correlate with a capacity to understand the knowledge of the Tao.

whereas what you wrote earlier couldn't be more of a polar opposite:

kissaki wrote:Knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles is impressive, yet none of these things brings one closer to Void.

Unbelievably contradictory.

kissaki wrote:The entire reason you argue with me is because I call women out and say look, the vast majority of you are mediocre and stupid cows. I think this observation is significant and you don't.

The entire reason that I argue with you is because you're incredibly prejudiced and because your arguments seem to me to be in large part psychologically, not philosophically, motivated.

guest_of_logic: Because I reject the premise: that women take me "in the complete opposite direction". There are plenty of women who are interested in understanding reality, and from those who aren't, I don't feel any particular threat to my own attempts to do so.

kissaki: Then you don't understand reality. You don't understand that there is no you, them, or women at all.

guest_of_logic: Your switch of direction nullifies your original argument. First you argued that women take me "in the complete opposite direction [of pushing the boundaries of knowledge and taking man to the edge of the Void]". Now you argue that there are no women and there is no me. So if there are no women, and there is no me, then no one's taking anyone in any direction, are they?

kissaki: You will never understand Zen. You will never understand the Tao. All you know is words.

I point out your contradiction and you do nothing to dispel or resolve that contradiction, all that you do is to flail about disparaging me personally. Way to argue.

guest_of_logic: As a QRS flunky you have the most hopeless of double standards. When it comes to a woman giving birth, "she never performs" the act. Yet when it comes to scientific, mathematical and philosophical achievements, you praise men to the hilt.

kissaki: QRS has flunked me beyond all measure of flunking. Truly, their words have flunked me at life.

I praise men so they too may be great flunkies.

Cute, but it's no denial of your double standards, which are as plain as day. Did somebody mention "psychological motivations"? Oh, yeah, I remember - it was me, earlier in this post.

kissaki wrote:David knows words. You on the other hand, all you know is words.

Uh, yeah. I'm just a word-processor. Matter of fact, hereforth you can know me as "Openoffice.org".

kissaki wrote:Look at the fool claiming significant meaning when he doesn't even know the source of meaning.

It didn't take long for you to start getting insulting, did it? Guess what? I'm not crying.

You're right that I don't know the source of meaning, but in what way does that prevent me from recognising significant meaning? I don't know the source of my consciousness either, but I claim consciousness.

kissaki: I proclaim that science arose in the world and it shall eventually disappear. You build on sand thinking it concrete.

guest_of_logic: Short of divine revelation, science is probably the best means we have of comprehending the nature of reality, but to ascribe to it absolute truth is indeed to build on sand, which is why I don't do that. Philosophy can only lead to absolute truths, which, in the bigger scheme of things, are pretty trivial. If you believe that your adopted QRS philosophy is both (a) profound, and, (b) provable and hence built on solid rock, then you're fooling yourself.

kissaki: Words are arrows, and every single one of yours just missed. You actually think you're aiming at some thing.

More vague rhetorical theatrics posing as profundity, and completely non-responsive to boot.

kissaki wrote:All you know is the words of QRS.

Uh, no, I do think about what they say.

kissaki wrote:QRS is a husk. I've ripped it open and gobbled all the goodies inside. You on the other hand are still worried about finding offense in things.

I live in the real world, where words can - amongst other things - wound or uplift.

kissaki: So how can I not attack one without the other if I attack average-ness?

guest_of_logic: And yet, here you are, starting threads with the thrust of the attack upon the one only: women.

kissaki: Well, they are ahead in average-ness are they not? I'll attack whatever creates.

I tried hard, kissaki, but I just can't work out what you mean by "I'll attack whatever creates", nor can I work out the point of your question, unless you're trying to say "Hey, I don't completely attack women, I give them credit for being ahead on the average-ness stakes", which seems to me to be a pretty flimsy defence.

kissaki: You continue to mistake my attack as one ultimately on people. The attack goes far beyond just people.

guest_of_logic: Please elaborate.

kissaki: You're a worthless foolish piece of shit human being.

Very eloquent. It seems to be an attack on a person though. I'm waiting for the bit where you go far beyond attacking people.

kissaki wrote:I've brought my mother to tears in person because I went past her philosophical barrier with words. I've brought my father to tears in person because I went past his philosophical barriers with words. I've brought attractive intelligent women to tears in person because I went past their philosophical barriers with words. And now I'm supposed to care about how well someone can handle words through the internet? You're pathetic.

Oh, I see. You're uncaring, unkind, you have a superiority complex, and you're proud of it.

kissaki: Were you born of a dick and a vagina or not?

guest_of_logic: That's a rhetorical question, right? I only ask because you've repeated it and I'm wondering why.

kissaki: The White Knight storms the castle but refuses to challenge the castle's guard? I can sum up everything you've said in a word: cowardice.

guest_of_logic: I have no idea what you're on about. I still don't understand whether your question is rhetorical or whether you expect me to answer it literally (or perhaps abstractly or creatively), nor what point it might have if indeed you do expect me to answer it.

kissaki: You haven't got a chance.

That doesn't help me to understand what you're on about. Does anyone else have any idea what the point of kissaki's question is, since he seems unwilling to explain?

kissaki wrote:Don't bother replying unless it's to claim how much more intelligent and well cultured you are than I am and how I am but a mere QRS sycophant leech who is a complete loser.

Nah, I've got stuff to say and I'm going to say it. If you want the conversation to end, then you stop replying.

First of all, I don't think that you're a loser, I just think that you're misguided.

You (plural) make a huge deal out of asserting the inferiority of women, and the superiority of men, employing gross double standards along the way (women aren't responsible for birth, yet men are responsible for their own intellectual achievements) and deplorable bias (presenting women in a completely negative light, ignoring such positive qualities as are typically ascribed to femininity as empathy, tolerance and cooperation), and then you expect onlookers to believe that it's purely philosophical. Bullshit. The fact is that you guys get off on feeling superior to other people. It's psychology, not philosophy.

"I understand the deepest philosophical secrets of reality, but you - you are just a worthless foolish piece of shit". That's your (singular) attitude. As for QRS: they revel in their self-appointed status as wise, enlightened sages, and David in particular is quick to point out how other people are lacking in this regard. Kevin reckons that his book is "probably the greatest book ever written". The exquisite irony of it all is that you (plural) claim to be egoless, or at least on the way there! Ha!

Lest you try to turn the tables on me, let me acknowledge that in my own way I'm playing the superiority game too: implicit in what I'm writing is that my understanding of your motives is superior to your own. I want to make two points with respect to this though: firstly, I don't consider myself, as a person, to be generally superior to you - no doubt we each have relative strengths and weaknesses; secondly, I don't claim to be without an ego - I believe that the ego is necessary, although I do believe in minimising, and even totally eliminating, selfish behaviour, an endeavour in which I still have some way to go.

Hi everyone!

Sorry, I'm new to all this, but this thread caught my eye and I thought I'd make a simple objective observation.

It seems kissaki has some very strong beliefs about this and that...

It seems guest_of_logic has an aversion to beliefs they feel are unfounded...

Interestingly though, only one of them insists on their power with words, only to demonstrate their insignificance.

Can anyone guess which one?

p.s. nice to meet you all.

guest_of_logic wrote: As for QRS: they revel in their self-appointed status as wise, enlightened sages, and David in particular is quick to point out how other people are lacking in this regard. Kevin reckons that his book is "probably the greatest book ever written". The exquisite irony of it all is that you (plural) claim to be egoless, or at least on the way there! Ha!

You need a strong sense of humour and irony to understand this kind of thing. I admit that we do like to play with it.

-

stevethepsych wrote:Hi everyone!

Sorry, I'm new to all this, but this thread caught my eye and I thought I'd make a simple objective observation.

It seems kissaki has some very strong beliefs about this and that...

It seems guest_of_logic has an aversion to beliefs they feel are unfounded...

Interestingly though, only one of them insists on their power with words, only to demonstrate their insignificance.

Can anyone guess which one?

p.s. nice to meet you all.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I see kissaki as a young bloke taking on the Zennish fundamentals of life and death, although he is still raw, and I see guest as someone who is afraid to reach for anything fundamental at all, although I appreciate his intelligence.

-