GENIUS FORUMS

You're welcome. ;-)

Huxley's greatest contribution, in my mind, is his invention of the taxonomy for God: "Gaseous invertebrate".

I'm going through some of Hermann Hesse's novels in German, so I might upload extracts from Siddhartha, Das Glasperlenspiel, or Narciss und Goldmund (in English). Any other requests or suggestions for the Reasoner's library?


..

Kelly wrote: "It's not irony, but sarcasm. It's how you attack others in order to evade a question. It's not hard to present your reasoning in response to a request from another, and I find it remarkable that you so often prefer to make things more difficult."

I am not at all interested in answering your 'questions', sister. I see your simplistic, binary mind going to work with its games. I am not sure what to compare it to---a small mechanical mouth perhaps? An insect? It is not really 'reasoning', and certainly not conversing, but a kind of dissecting. I am guessing it is your way to dominate an exchange. I've seen you do it a number of times. I think in your head it gives you the sense you are gaining. I can't imagine why else you'd do it.

"I have been talking about ultimate truth in many of my posts to you. For instance, where I said your reasoning was flawed in thinking that no-self is best expressed by changing one's identity. You then launched into a series of ill-founded ad hominems for focussing on the importance of reasoning."

Helloooooo in there! All that about no-self was a joke directed at the Forth Genius. Erase it from your memory banks.

What you call 'ultimate truth' is, in my way of seeing, the way that you construct and uphold your neurosis. You should know by now that 'ultimate truth' in your mouth and in the others here, sounds quite nutty to me. Because that is so, I naturally avoid participating in it, so I shift into irony. But when I deal with straight description I am not sure you like it.

You can call it irony or sarcasm---I prefer irony insofar as it is (I hope) a little more complex. Including the present, I am not so sure that my assessment of you is 'ill-founded'. 'Reasoning', in your hands, is just a game you play, and I don't take it seriously though for you I think the game of it is quite serious. You engage in a facsimile of 'reasoning' on a stage of 'reasoning' where, in your eyes, you can always win. But all I see is a 9-10 year old brat who is exerting her will at all cost.

But I am repeating myself.

I think it not impossible to encounter someone in a nuthouse somewhere who might also insist on such 'reasoning'.

Talking Ass wrote:Oh come on Prince, cut me some slack.

Dan is the one who keeps cutting you an enormous amount of slack by allowing you to keep posting here.

Think about it Alex, try and get off your high-horse for a minute and just think.

It's interesting that you refuse to present any reasoning to support your view that reasoning is a deluded activity, Alex.

But you're quite happy to offer a lot of conclusions, such as, anyone who wants to get to the bottom of a matter, and discuss the core principle of any idea, is deluded, a brat, simplistic, etc. etc. etc. Of course, you never say it straight out like this. You just say "you're a brat, and I refuse to talk to you, etc."

Your wordy spasms of anger in reaction to my simple requests for straight answers are clearly evasive, and very bad karma.


...

Kelly Jones wrote:You're welcome. ;-)

Huxley's greatest contribution, in my mind, is his invention of the taxonomy for God: "Gaseous invertebrate".

I'm going through some of Hermann Hesse's novels in German, so I might upload extracts from Siddhartha, Das Glasperlenspiel, or Narciss und Goldmund (in English). Any other requests or suggestions for the Reasoner's library?


..

Is there an index for the library?

I have Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception, and Heaven & Hell. If it's the same Aldous Huxley who penned Young Archimedes.

I am regrettably ignorant to a lot of great literature. My life up to a few years ago has been primarily about playing video games and pathetically attempting to have relationships with girls. Besides that I tried to get interested in my family which was moderately successful. I never used to read, but I'm quickly losing count of the books I've read. I have a cheap bookshelf that is crippling under the weight of the books I've crammed into it. Still, I've never heard of any of the stuff you just mentioned. My German is not that good but it looks like it says Glass-something-play and Gold-earth.

I have a few books that I would like to read but haven't got my hands on. Though they may not be accessible. Neuroanatomy Through Clinical Cases by Hal Blumenfield
Causality and Explanation by Wesley C. Harmon
The Organization of Behavior by Donald O. Hebb
The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes
The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer
Essay on the Freedom of the Will by Arthur Schopenhauer
I Hope You Die Soon by Richard Sylvester
Reason, Truth and History by Hilary Putnam
Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis
Spiritual Warfare by Jed McKenna

Besides that I'd love to read anything else that is available and is mildly philosophical or scientific. I'm still reading Thoreau and a collection of western philosophy. But I got snagged on Aristotle's Poetics.

Animus, perhaps you might find some titles at archive.org.

The Schopenhauer titles are for sure there somewhere. Although I think this translation might use "idea" instead or "representation" (the German "Vorstellung" works both ways). The scans there can be messy to read at times but some are perfectly fine.

By the way, Das Glasperlenspiel, would be close to "game or play with or about the glass pearls": glas + perl + spiel.

This is a pretty good literary source, though A. Huxley is not well represented:

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

Catalog page: http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/

Animus wrote:Is there an index for the library?

Here (alphabetical index plus a timeline and Google search).

I have Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception, and Heaven & Hell. If it's the same Aldous Huxley who penned Young Archimedes.

Seems it is the same. Do you have them as ebooks?

I've never heard of any of the stuff you just mentioned. My German is not that good but it looks like it says Glass-something-play and Gold-earth.

Siddhartha is interesting. It's not earth-shatteringly wise, but horizon-opening for a young person. The Glass Bead Game and Narcissus and Goldmund are also helpful, for getting a young person closer to the human realms.

I'd like to help get Wisdom of the Infinite printed. It's the best book for this era.

The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes

The 1976 original and the 2006 revisitation are in my local library. I'll put it into my bibliography, though I've visited it before and not been that impressed. So I might be able to upload an extract.

The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer

There's an extract in the Reasoner's Library (17 to 21: Objectification of the Will), but like most of the literature, I've not gotten around to creating all the links. Will do that tonight.

Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis

Also in local library. Ditto, if an extract is worth reading.

Spiritual Warfare by Jed McKenna

Also in Reasoner's Library, without link.

Besides that I'd love to read anything else that is available and is mildly philosophical or scientific. I'm still reading Thoreau and a collection of western philosophy. But I got snagged on Aristotle's Poetics.

I'll fix some of the links in the library tonight.


..

For all the books you mention, Animus, and hundreds of thousands of hard to get and even extremely rare titles, try Abe Books

I dropped in Neuroanatomy Through Clinical Cases by Hal Blumenfield, which it corrected to Blumenfeld, and there are plenty, but you'd have to purchase them, and you have to have a credit card.

Kelly writes: "It's interesting that you refuse to present any reasoning to support your view that reasoning is a deluded activity, Alex."

That is not at all what I am saying, but it is all that you can hear, which is what is uniquely fascinating. I do certainly understand why though. Your manner of reasoning, in your own head, is a 'game'. I would not call what you do as real use of reasoning. You set up terms for 'reasoning' and insist that it be done in this way. When it is not, the luxury of the game is you can then see yourself as having triumphed. You are surrounded by people who, by and large, think like you do or who wish to represent themselves as thinking in this way, and who 'enable' you.

I have called this 'bratty'. What I see is a young girl who uses her will to get her way. I am fairly certain that these characteristics run through your entire personality. I am also fairly certain that you regularly run up against people who say, more or less, the same thing about you.

I think that I might use 'reason' to arrive at this conclusion---this sketch if you will---but I am also using other perceptive skills, and I think this is intolerable to you. You might say, like in some sci-fi flick, 'It does not compute'.

"But you're quite happy to offer a lot of conclusions, such as, anyone who wants to get to the bottom of a matter, and discuss the core principle of any idea, is deluded, a brat, simplistic, etc. etc. etc. Of course, you never say it straight out like this. You just say "you're a brat, and I refuse to talk to you, etc."

But I did not say 'anyone'. I am talking very specifically about you. Any 'core principals' and any part of what I wrote is still conversable, but I think the real truth is you are not at all interested in discussing it or understanding what my views are, or why I have them. If my ideas or conclusions do not conform to your brattish mental system, what you relish is labeling it as 'deluded'. This is all establsihed right at the beginning. It really should be obvious to you. I am really only calling you on your games. And since there is an essential 'bad-faith game' in operation, and a covering over of it with a mask of (masculine) 'reasoning', I also refer to you as a cross-dresser. A woman in drag as a man.

"Your wordy spasms of anger in reaction to my simple requests for straight answers are clearly evasive, and very bad karma."

I rather see it like this: If what I say is true, there is in fact 'good karma' in penetrating the veil of untruth that you regularly perpetrate. 'To get someone out of a hole you have to get dirty yourself'. In your case, again as I see it, it is 'bad karma'---masochism, I have mentioned---that keeps you locked into these kinds of traps. The effects are not just mental or in the realm of ideas but they spread out into all parts of the person, and in your case quite markedly to your physical structure.

It becomes necessary to fiercely defend your tactics, because it upholds a structure that 'works' for you. If it ever began to unravel it would lead to a rather painful process of reconstruction. I have referred to parts of your process as 'neurotic', which is kind of a classical psychological term, for obvious reasons. It calls into question if indeed what you are engaged in is 'truth-seeking' and 'spirituality'.

I am never sure, though, what proofs would have to be presented to you that would satisfy you. That is why I personally think that 'the game of proofs', AS IT IS PLAYED HERE GENERALLY, is absurd.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Animus wrote:Is there an index for the library?

Here (alphabetical index plus a timeline and Google search).

Thanks Kelly

I have Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception, and Heaven & Hell. If it's the same Aldous Huxley who penned Young Archimedes.

Seems it is the same. Do you have them as ebooks?

No, unfortunately, I have them as a single paperback (ISBN-13: 978-0060595180)

I've never heard of any of the stuff you just mentioned. My German is not that good but it looks like it says Glass-something-play and Gold-earth.

Siddhartha is interesting. It's not earth-shatteringly wise, but horizon-opening for a young person. The Glass Bead Game and Narcissus and Goldmund are also helpful, for getting a young person closer to the human realms.

Narcissus sounds interesting. There is a book called The Narcissism Epidemic: Living In The Age of Entitlement (ISBN-13: 978-1416575986) a great book, I have this on my shelf too.

I'd like to help get Wisdom of the Infinite printed. It's the best book for this era.

I'd definitely pay for a print copy of Wisdom of the Infinite and Poison for the Heart. I prefer the print copies over ebooks for portability, but otherwise I prefer ebooks.

The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes

The 1976 original and the 2006 revisitation are in my local library. I'll put it into my bibliography, though I've visited it before and not been that impressed. So I might be able to upload an extract.

The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer

There's an extract in the Reasoner's Library (17 to 21: Objectification of the Will), but like most of the literature, I've not gotten around to creating all the links. Will do that tonight.

Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis

Also in local library. Ditto, if an extract is worth reading.

Spiritual Warfare by Jed McKenna

Also in Reasoner's Library, without link.

Besides that I'd love to read anything else that is available and is mildly philosophical or scientific. I'm still reading Thoreau and a collection of western philosophy. But I got snagged on Aristotle's Poetics.

I'll fix some of the links in the library tonight.


..

[/quote]

Thanks, no rush of course, I have a stack of books at home that I've purchased ahead of my reading. I've got about 12 or so books there, mostly Erich Fromm, U.G. Krishnamurti, Alan Watts, and collections of western philosophy. I have Jed McKenna's first two books in paperback and was planning to purchase Spiritual Warfare as such, but that's not to say I can't read it first. I really need to finish the 13 pages of Aristotle's Poetics...

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Animus, perhaps you might find some titles at archive.org.

The Schopenhauer titles are for sure there somewhere. Although I think this translation might use "idea" instead or "representation" (the German "Vorstellung" works both ways). The scans there can be messy to read at times but some are perfectly fine.

By the way, Das Glasperlenspiel, would be close to "game or play with or about the glass pearls": glas + perl + spiel.

Thanks Diebert. I'll check out archives.org.

My German is pretty sloppy, but I understood Glas and Spiel. But also with German's compound words its not always easy to interpret the meaning of it.

Dan Rowden wrote:This is a pretty good literary source, though A. Huxley is not well represented:

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

Catalog page: http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/

Yes, I use this source as much as possible Dan. I've read some of Schopenhauer on there, also Clarrence Darrow (Crime Its Cause and Treatment) which I'd also like a print copy of.

[side note]
I've also found that scribd.com occasionally has good material, but its not very well organized and there is a lot of garbage on there. I read Henrik Walters Neurophilosophy of Freewill on scribd.com

Talking Ass wrote:For all the books you mention, Animus, and hundreds of thousands of hard to get and even extremely rare titles, try Abe Books

I dropped in Neuroanatomy Through Clinical Cases by Hal Blumenfield, which it corrected to Blumenfeld, and there are plenty, but you'd have to purchase them, and you have to have a credit card.

Thanks for the resource. To be clear Hal Blumenfeld's Neuroanatomy Through Clinical Cases is available on amazon.ca, but the price tag is repulsive:

Buy new: CDN$ 82.45 CDN$ 81.45
8 new from CDN$ 79.642 used from CDN$ 106.54

That's the only reason I haven't already consumed it. Its hard to justify such an expense when I'm not a "professional". I don't have that kind of income that neuroanatomists have. One of these days!

Animus wrote:

Talking Ass wrote:For all the books you mention, Animus, and hundreds of thousands of hard to get and even extremely rare titles, try Abe Books

I dropped in Neuroanatomy Through Clinical Cases by Hal Blumenfield, which it corrected to Blumenfeld, and there are plenty, but you'd have to purchase them, and you have to have a credit card.

Thanks for the resource. To be clear Hal Blumenfeld's Neuroanatomy Through Clinical Cases is available on amazon.ca, but the price tag is repulsive:

Buy new: CDN$ 82.45 CDN$ 81.45
8 new from CDN$ 79.642 used from CDN$ 106.54

That's the only reason I haven't already consumed it. Its hard to justify such an expense when I'm not a "professional". I don't have that kind of income that neuroanatomists have. One of these days!

That link you provided has the book as low as CDN$ 34.39 + US$9.00 S&H

Hmm... ;)

[side note]
I have a credit card with a balance of $2100 from ordering books mostly. As a matter of principle I'm trying to reduce it to $0. I don't want to leave any deficit when I kick the bucket. But I'm not succeeding very well, I charged another $50 yesterday ordering music CDs.

Animus wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:This is a pretty good literary source, though A. Huxley is not well represented:

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

Catalog page: http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/

Yes, I use this source as much as possible Dan. I've read some of Schopenhauer on there, also Clarrence Darrow (Crime Its Cause and Treatment) which I'd also like a print copy of.

[side note]
I've also found that scribd.com occasionally has good material, but its not very well organized and there is a lot of garbage on there. I read Henrik Walters Neurophilosophy of Freewill on scribd.com

Kelly, there is one for the Reasoner's Library: Clarence Darrow's Crime Its Cause and Treatment (ISBN: 9781406818314). The ebook is available here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12027

Here is an "extract":

XX
PUNISHMENT


Assuming that man is justified in fixing the moral worth of his fellow; that he is justified in punishment for the purpose of making the offender suffer; and that these punishments according to the degree of severity will in some way pay for or make good the criminal act or protect or help society or prevent crime or even help the offender or someone else, what finally is the correct basis of fixing penalties?

No science, experience, or philosophy and very little humanity has ever been considered in fixing punishments. The ordinary penalties are first: fines, which generally penalize someone else more than the victim; these with the poor mean depriving families and friends of sorely needed money, and the direct and indirect consequences are sometimes small and sometimes very great. These can be readily imagined. If instead of fines a prison sentence is given, a sort of decimal system has been worked out by chance or laziness or symmetry of figures; certainly it has been done wholly regardless of science, for there is no chance to apply science when it comes to degrading men and taking away a portion of their lives. Generally ten days is the shortest. From this the court goes to twenty, then thirty, then sixty, then three months, then six months, then one year.

Why not eleven days? Why not twenty-four days? Why not forty days? Why not seventy days? Why not four months or five, or eight or nine or ten months? Is there no place between six months in jail and a year in jail? The bids at an auction or the flipping of pennies are exact sciences compared with the relation between crime and punishment and the process of arriving at the right penalty. If in the wisdom of the members of the legislature the crime calls for imprisonment in the penitentiary, then the ordinary sentences run one, two, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years, and life, according to the hazard of the legislature, the whim of the court, the gamble of the jury, or the feeling and means of expression of the unthinking and pitiless crowd who awe courts and juries with their cries for vengeance.

XXX
CIVILIZATION AND CRIME


As children we have all amused ourselves by looking into a kaleidoscope, turning it around and around and watching the changing patterns formed from the mixing bits of different colored glass in the other end. Each turn makes a different pattern and each bit of glass seems to seek a spot in the general medley where it can be settled until another turn drives it to find a resting place somewhere else. The organization of individual units into a group is more or less such a formation, each seeking to adjust itself to a pattern and finding that the pattern is ever-changing and the individual units obliged to seek new positions and make new adjustments.

It is vain for social theorists to talk of a perfect order, a system of social organization that will find the proper place for each unit and bring social symmetry out of the whole. Such a society is not consistent with the varied capacities and wants of men. Neither is a perfect order possible with ever-changing and moving physical forces, with new mental conceptions, with new needs and wants, with constant births and deaths, and with the innate instincts of man.

Some system may be the best for a time but must in turn give place to new formations. In this process the old is ever mixed with the new. The past hangs on to plague the present, and the vision of the future disturbs the quiet and stability that the present inherited from the past. Organizations of society are necessary and automatic. The frost on the window pane takes its pattern, the crystals in the glass and stone have their formations, the grain of sand, the plant—all forms of animal life—the solar system and, doubtless, an infinite number of other systems which the eye cannot see or the mind comprehend take on form and order. The symmetry and shape of any of these organizations may be shattered by growth or catastrophe, and new forms may take their place. All life is constant friction and constant adjustment, each particle in a blind way trying to find a more harmonious relation, but never reaching complete rest.

The social and political patterns that men have taken have been of many forms. All through the past these have changed, and the laws and habits that were meant to hold men together, have been made and discarded as fast as new emotions or ideas have gained the power to make the change. Men are of all degrees of adaptability. Some can readily conform to the new. Some adjust themselves very slowly. Man's structure is fixed; his inherent instincts are of ancient origin, always urging him to primitive reactions; his habits are slowly formed and slowly changed. Slowly he settles himself to the conditions that surround him. He learns their demands; he manages to conform, but the folk-ways that he knew and the way of life he learned must be changed to something else. Every new adjustment, every change of organization, every modification made by civilization, bears its toll of victims who have not been able to adjust themselves to the new order.

Here's a list I found through a quick googling: Best Places to Get Free Books – The Ultimate Guide. Not sure how good they all are, but I imagine one or two might be helpful.

Dan Rowden wrote:This is a pretty good literary source, though A. Huxley is not well represented:

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

Catalog page: http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/

Thanks for the link, Dan - looks like a great resource.

Animus wrote:Kelly, there is one for the Reasoner's Library: Clarence Darrow's Crime Its Cause and Treatment (ISBN: 9781406818314). The ebook is available here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12027

Not too bad. A bit wordy.


...

Alex wrote:I think the real truth is you are not at all interested in discussing it or understanding what my views are, or why I have them.

Well, that's more evasive rubbish. I get straight to the heart of the matter, and ask people to describe what they mean by certain ideas. I never jump to conclusions or hold preconceptions, but wait for evidence.

Perhaps you are projecting this persona of brattiness onto my direct "style". Some people think I'm rude and harsh on the internet, because they're used to frills and friendliness. But I just talk about the idea. So they assume I'm unfriendly and crude. Their mistake. I'm neither friendly nor unfriendly. I just focus on the principle, as one should in a philosophical interaction.

I asked you quite a few questions that you evaded. They were simple questions, like why you believed that the wisest of the wise would not express themselves simply, clearly and directly; whether you thought Judaism were true; if you thought your revelatory experiences were unreliable since you often preferred to hide from them by seeking the company of women; and whether you were saying that getting to the bottom of a matter and focussing on a principle is deluded (in principle). But instead of replying, you attack me as if my asking these questions were brattish, simplistic, adolescent, and so forth.

From my perspective, it's like asking someone if taking four teaspoons of sugar in their cup of tea is good for their health, and they reply that I'm a rude brat without any manners.

If you don't want to discuss your actual ideas, and examine their validity, then just say so, and I'll leave you alone. No need for the inaccurate and irrelevant attacks of my personality at all.


...
[edit: added the question about the wisest of the wise expressing themselves plainly, and also the overly-sweetened cup of tea analogy.]

Kelly writes: "Well, that's more evasive rubbish. I get straight to the heart of the matter, and ask people to describe what they mean by certain ideas. I never jump to conclusions or hold preconceptions, but wait for evidence."

I don't doubt that you desire to or strive to get to the heart of the matter. That is a good quality. As to not jumping to conclusions, you nevertheless wrote a little essay about my life growing up and had me 'oooh-ing' and 'ahhh-ing' at poetry readings and pondering speeches by speakers at Theosophical Meetings...(Unfortunately, I can't really take you to task for this because, of course, I engage in something similar).

Still, you must know---I hope you know---that this forum generally is not a place for intimate revelations (which is unfortunate in some senses and inhibits communication, IMO), and this makes communicating fine points a little touchy. I saw your 'questions' and request for clarifications as the beginning of a set-up, and I am not at all convinced this is not still the case. People here---rational, mathematical types---tend to see Life in one basic way and they tend to ascribe absolute rightness to their view/interpretation of Life and Reality. I feel strongly that you are one of those: a rigid intellect. And of course you have every right to be that way, to see things that way, or to filter reality through that lens or to project through it as it were.

"Perhaps you are projecting this persona of brattiness onto my direct "style". Some people think I'm rude and harsh on the internet, because they're used to frills and friendliness. But I just talk about the idea. So they assume I'm unfriendly and crude. Their mistake. I'm neither friendly nor unfriendly. I just focus on the principle, as one should in a philosophical interaction."

My opinion was formed, lo the many months, when you challenged me to a duel down in the Crucible Chamber. It seemed so, well...brattish. But anyway, according to you, you are misapprehended and misunderstood. I'll take it at face value.

"I asked you quite a few questions that you evaded. They were simple questions, like why you believed that the wisest of the wise would not express themselves simply, clearly and directly; whether you thought Judaism were true; if you thought your revelatory experiences were unreliable since you often preferred to hide from them by seeking the company of women; and whether you were saying that getting to the bottom of a matter and focussing on a principle is deluded (in principle). But instead of replying, you attack me as if my asking these questions were brattish, simplistic, adolescent, and so forth."

There is really no such thing as a simple question, especially when it deals on issues of real import. I don't see 'the world' quite like you or the QRS, one could speculate why this is and possibly never solve it (except, isn't it accurate to say that if one doesn't that one is, by definition, deluded? Aren't you the only ones around who are non-deluded?) But, let's say not that I evaded your question...but that I postponed the answering of it. You to me seemed intent on 'extracting' answers and, I told you straigh-up, that you would not have an easy time of it. Am I required to dance when you say dance? To be still when you command it?

Clear and direct answers, require a clear and direct understanding of what the question is. And sometimes there are many different levels to an answer. So, let's take the first one: Is Judaism true. The first thing I would ask you is What is Judaism? It is such a broad question, how could it possibly be answered 'simply'? I am going to assume that, like so many, you have only the most vague idea what 'Judaism' is. I think that you''d have to start by revealing/expressing what 'Judaism' means to you.

The question about 'if I thought my revelatory experiences' is really a rhetorical formulation on your part. It is not so much a question as it is a statement; possibly a whole group of them. I did say---in the context of a very loose and quick little retort to your essay about me (which of course had ironical twists in it, mine that is)---that I had used women as a...blanket was the word I think I used. In your eyes, I assume, you would see this blanket as being something I used 'as-against' the revelatory experience, but that is not quite how I would explain it. Women were a part of my spiritual path. (And strictly, within Judaism, we don't have quite the terrible fear and loathing of women as Christians (and it would seem post-Christians have). Judaism solved that problem a long, long time ago. But I am not at all saying all parts of my life were lived as a Jew, please don't be mistaken).

I don't think that 'getting to the bottom of a matter and focussing on prinicipal' is deluded, in se, but so much of course depends on one's interpretive and conceptual structure. So, in this sense, I would imagine that there may be an abyss between us in terms of what is a relevant principal, and of course what 'delusion' is, how it functions, etc.

Allow me to explain again: I attack you in pretty much the way that I attack the 'QRS' and many deep and dangerous thinkers here. My shtick is to 'bash' (I bash with my shtick?) what I consitently label as 'adolescent'. I shtick with that assessment, generally speaking.

"From my perspective, it's like asking someone if taking four teaspoons of sugar in their cup of tea is good for their health, and they reply that I'm a rude brat without any manners."

If it were me? I'd fucking smash the tea-pot with a 'Tony Armas' baseball bat, and the little table it was sitting on, and then toss the tea right in their face. People are definitely neglecting their manners these days.

"If you don't want to discuss your actual ideas, and examine their validity, then just say so, and I'll leave you alone. No need for the inaccurate and irrelevant attacks of my personality at all."

If it isn't obvious, the only reason I hang around is to 'discuss ideas'. BUT, there has to be a mutually-agreed upon method---a protocol if you wish---for the process. It is not you who dictates the terms or the form.

So, what is Judaism to you? And---lets say 'for a Jew'---what is the purpose or intent of 'revelation'? (I don't think it will be all that easy even to establish the basis for a conversation about this, but we'll see...)

Talking Ass wrote:True, like so many of us, I questioned my relationship to this 'God', to the Father of Existence, the creator of Fate, 'the owner of Destiny', but---and I am really not sure exactly *why* it turned out like this (for many reasons a different outcome should have arisen)---but at the most core level of core levels, when I look inside myself, when I feel deeply into myself, this grasp of reality is there and it operates. That means that I exist in this plane of existence, that it is real, and that I have a mission in it.

I know, I know that I'm jumping in here but you do use (employ) grasp quite a lot in your conversational language here at Genius. I've taken a peek at "the word" from a couple/few philosophy sites and 4-5 dictionary usages of the word -- but what is the Alex-version of the word imply (in your version-of-reality)? Researched your Alex T. Jacob, Alex Jacob & Talking Ass uses of the word-term and the above two sentences of yours are different than all the others.

As Alex Jacob in "The Problem With Women Today" you use it in ten different posts a total of like 22 or so times.

Thanks if you reply. If you do not, well, enjoy my grasping at straws of some butchered Norwegian-English.

Edited for spelling "Researched"

Talking Ass wrote:People here---rational, mathematical types---tend to see Life in one basic way and they tend to ascribe absolute rightness to their view/interpretation of Life and Reality. I feel strongly that you are one of those: a rigid intellect.

If you think my views are wrong, then you obviously think yours are right. How are you any less rigid?

My opinion was formed, lo the many months, when you challenged me to a duel down in the Crucible Chamber. It seemed so, well...brattish.

Oh well.

Kelly: I asked you quite a few questions that you evaded. They were simple questions, like why you believed that the wisest of the wise would not express themselves simply, clearly and directly; whether you thought Judaism were true; if you thought your revelatory experiences were unreliable since you often preferred to hide from them by seeking the company of women; and whether you were saying that getting to the bottom of a matter and focussing on a principle is deluded (in principle). But instead of replying, you attack me as if my asking these questions were brattish, simplistic, adolescent, and so forth.

Alex: You to me seemed intent on 'extracting' answers and, I told you straigh-up, that you would not have an easy time of it. Am I required to dance when you say dance? To be still when you command it?

I'm engaging in a simple discussion. If you interpret my questions as commanding or demanding, that's your own interpretation, and has nothing to do with me.

Clear and direct answers, require a clear and direct understanding of what the question is. And sometimes there are many different levels to an answer. So, let's take the first one: Is Judaism true. The first thing I would ask you is What is Judaism? It is such a broad question, how could it possibly be answered 'simply'? I am going to assume that, like so many, you have only the most vague idea what 'Judaism' is. I think that you''d have to start by revealing/expressing what 'Judaism' means to you.

No, why don't you define it, since it's the word you described to talk of your core truths.

The question about 'if I thought my revelatory experiences' is really a rhetorical formulation on your part. It is not so much a question as it is a statement; possibly a whole group of them. I did say---in the context of a very loose and quick little retort to your essay about me (which of course had ironical twists in it, mine that is)---that I had used women as a...blanket was the word I think I used. In your eyes, I assume, you would see this blanket as being something I used 'as-against' the revelatory experience, but that is not quite how I would explain it. Women were a part of my spiritual path.

This is the second time you've given me the role of saying something you have said. The first time, you said you never wrote "a grasp of reality", this time, that you never wrote that you used women to protect yourself:

Safety blankets? In that peculiar 'nakedness' of strong psychic experiences that tear one open, there certainly has been a desire to find some covering. To be quite truthful I would (confess to you and) say that I used women for that. Not once, not twice but many, many times.

I don't think that 'getting to the bottom of a matter and focussing on prinicipal' is deluded, in se, but so much of course depends on one's interpretive and conceptual structure. So, in this sense, I would imagine that there may be an abyss between us in terms of what is a relevant principal, and of course what 'delusion' is, how it functions, etc.

Truth is the relevant principle for me. Delusions are based on not understanding the void in which we are endlessly falling headlong.

Allow me to explain again: I attack you in pretty much the way that I attack the 'QRS' and many deep and dangerous thinkers here.

Why do you feel the need to do that?

"From my perspective, it's like asking someone if taking four teaspoons of sugar in their cup of tea is good for their health, and they reply that I'm a rude brat without any manners."

If it were me? I'd fucking smash the tea-pot with a 'Tony Armas' baseball bat, and the little table it was sitting on, and then toss the tea right in their face. People are definitely neglecting their manners these days.

If that's so, then why waste so much energy calling me a brat? You seem to be at cross purposes.

Kelly: If you don't want to discuss your actual ideas, and examine their validity, then just say so, and I'll leave you alone. No need for the inaccurate and irrelevant attacks of my personality at all.

Alex: If it isn't obvious, the only reason I hang around is to 'discuss ideas'. BUT, there has to be a mutually-agreed upon method---a protocol if you wish---for the process. It is not you who dictates the terms or the form.

I see no reason for not reasoning directly and simply, and getting to the truth of a matter. If you have a problem with this, you need to explain why.

Or, opt out.

So, what is Judaism to you? And---lets say 'for a Jew'---what is the purpose or intent of 'revelation'? (I don't think it will be all that easy even to establish the basis for a conversation about this, but we'll see...)

I don't think it matters what I think the average Jew believes, or what Judaism means. It could be absolutely irrelevant to your views, and therefore an inefficient way to proceed. It's better if, as I said above, you describe what you think is absolutely true, and we can go from there.


..

Talking Ass: People here---rational, mathematical types---tend to see Life in one basic way and they tend to ascribe absolute rightness to their view/interpretation of Life and Reality. I feel strongly that you are one of those: a rigid intellect.

Kelly: If you think my views are wrong, then you obviously think yours are right. How are you any less rigid?

The 'obviously' in your sentence seems to have a mathematical value, so obviously what follows ('you obviously think yours are right') must be 'true'. But I can't say that I agree or that I see things quite this way. Naturally (naturally!), that is likely to be one of the reasons it is hard to communicate with 'mathematical types'. I see you-plural as using only one of a group of possible analytic and perceptual tools. Your method is locked in to just one---what you call 'logic'---and you assume that your use of it is 'chemically pure'. You use it (in your argumentation) much like a true believer Christian uses their premises. In this sense, seen from my angle, it is rigid. Too rigid for me in fact. Basically, mathematical reasoning is good in mathematics, the physical sciences, etc. But I do not feel, and 'Life' I believe has demonstrated, that mathematical reasoning about existence, consciousness, being, is not enough.

I have no idea how to communicate this to you in a way that you would even entertain it as possible. And I have no idea how it could be 'proven'. I think you will turn your mathematical mind on it and say 'It does not compute'.

"I'm engaging in a simple discussion."

With this---and with all respects---I think you might have a mathematical mind which is also a stupid one. There is NOTHING simple in any discussions that take place on this forum, especially when those discussions bridge the viewpoints, strategies, techniques and inclinations of those whose views are different. There is nothing simple in philosophical discussion, in legal philosophy, in social philosophy. This 'simple' of yours can only be found in abstract mathematics, maybe geometry, but in all most 'human' domains there is nothing simple.

"No, why don't you define it, since it's the word you described to talk of your core truths."

I'm not interested in doing it. I fear that conversing with you is a game of diminishing returns: I could put a great deal in and it would prove to have no value. The way I see it, Judaism has had such a marked influence on Western culture and an extreme influence on all the people who write on this forum, that knowledge about it should almost be 'required'. In order to have a discussion with you, you'd 'simply' have to have at least a minimal background. If it is not interesting to you---and it may very well not be---what I'd say about it wouldn't do much for you.

In this sense perhaps, conversation becomes a mutual investment, a mutual effort.

"If that's so, then why waste so much energy calling me a brat? You seem to be at cross purposes."

Did I say Tony Armas baseball bat? I meant a flame-thrower. I would simply vaporize them. After that it wouldn't make sense to throw their tea in their faces I suppose...

"I see no reason for not reasoning directly and simply, and getting to the truth of a matter. If you have a problem with this, you need to explain why."

I NEVER opt out. It's not a thing an ass does.

What your mental rigidity sees or doesn't see is not of a great importance to me.

Did you take a lot of acid in the old days?

I'm quite sure you did Alex. You have quite the penchant for projection.