GENIUS FORUMS

Cory: Dave, it seems like you are assuming the pile of gold inherently has some sort of value. Do you realize that something only has value insofar as it serves to support something else?

Hopefully now you can see that I was merely using the value of gold in the conventional sense within the analogy whilst also employing the use of its deceptive relative (pyrites) to expand the original analogy to encompass the second point.

It seems to me like you are basically saying: 'how exactly is it right(good) or wrong(bad) of me to laugh at others for not valuing what I value?

Again, there's probably no need for this now I've explained the misunderstanding but I was actually saying that the fact that the religious stumble upon their religion and that sages stumble upon their rational path in no way equates the value of the respective positions they both arrive at.

Dave Toast wrote: Ah well, one might well have a giggle at that irony. But you were claiming that said rationality is somehow undermined by the fact that it is come upon via non-rational (not necessarily irrational) values.

Further to that, you somehow equated the position of the religious with that of the sage due to the same fact.

Yep, thats how it is.
So I think its quite futile for them to call each other inferior or wrong or delusional because they don't have similar beliefs.

I say this because I just listened to the reasoning shows podcast with V.V Raman, and I think it was Kevin who constantly called religious people delusional and wrong and misguided because essentially they don't have the same world-view as he does, they haven't found the Truth that he has and don't subscribe to his line of thinking, and any action they do that is motivated by their religion and not his Truth is negative. To me, this sounded no different than a fundamentalist Muslim degrading buddhism or chritianity because they don't conform to his world-view.

K so, very slowly, being as I'm obviously unable to understand your point, explain to me how said irony undermines.

While you're at it, you should probably address the quotes I've cited from The Buddha and Nagarjuna which contradict your claim that 'A=A fails in the Buddhist perspective' in the A=A thread.

average wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: I am not a hypocrite for regarding others as inferior for doing things which I my self don't do.

But you are, if you subscribe to the thought of being completely rational.

I'm not sure who on this forum has actually advocated becoming 'completely rational'. It wasn't me. I'm not sure what the phrase is supposed to mean. They probably mean 'wise'.

I do however advocate that one develop their logic to a degree so extreme that the basis of logic (distinctions) becomes undermined, as one cannot be wise until one sees that things neither exist nor not exist. Animals are trapped in the world of manifestation and haven't the capacity for logic to go beyond that.

your system-of-thought was reached and is maintained moment after moment by your values, which were arrived at irrationally.

There is a difference between non-rational and irrational.

To be in a non-rational position is to have your senses and instincts operating naturally and informing you of distinctions, with these distinctions perceived involuntarily. That is neither rational, nor irrational. Human babies are in this position.

And even in their adult lives, plants, insects and the lower animals go about their business non-rationally. They aren't illogical, as they have no capacity for logic.

Even sexual arousal isn't necessarily irrational. These are simply blind, determined action patterns, also regarded as instincts.

Which is exactly what the guy who worshiped the statue did.

No, in his case, he established convictions in his mind that have no correspondence to what his senses are actually telling him, and this runs contrary to what I conceive as wise behavior. He is obviously praising because he wants something, in fact, after his praising, he explicitly request something. Often he doesn't get it, and thus he is wasting his time and energy. Given that he valued the survival of his children, it would have been more wise of him to not waste his time and energy praising and begging to the Gods and instead do something more effective. We can empirically measure what actions are more effective at serving ones values, and so, being empirical is an important part of being wise.

Thinking any less of him is baseless

Not true. If I value the survival of wisdom as I conceive of it, then it would be in my best interest to be wary of the fanatical religious man's presence. This is because my values, expressed often simply by my presence, actually cause him negative emotions, which may lead to actions that are harmful to what I value.

a Muslim criticizing a Christian for his absurd belief in the Trinity

This is indeed a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Both parties have beliefs that are based not on what their senses have informed them, but on what they merely wish to be true. They do not value questioning and doubting. Therefore, I can regard them as a part of myself that should be improved.

the only difference is the details of his beliefs, but his basis is still irrational, just like yours.

No, the basis of my beliefs are simply what my senses tell me, as well as an extrapolation of what my senses tell me.

The basis of what the religious person believes, is merely what he fancifully imagines,and what he fancifully imagines, is comforting to his animalistic drives.

Dave Toast wrote:

Cory: Dave, it seems like you are assuming the pile of gold inherently has some sort of value. Do you realize that something only has value insofar as it serves to support something else?

Hopefully now you can see that I was merely using the value of gold in the conventional sense within the analogy whilst also employing the use of its deceptive relative (pyrites) to expand the original analogy to encompass the second point.

It seems to me like you are basically saying: 'how exactly is it right(good) or wrong(bad) of me to laugh at others for not valuing what I value?

Again, there's probably no need for this now I've explained the misunderstanding but I was actually saying that the fact that the religious stumble upon their religion and that sages stumble upon their rational path in no way equates the value of the respective positions they both arrive at.

[nods] Ok, now I see what you mean.

Dave Toast wrote:K so, very slowly, being as I'm obviously unable to understand your point, explain to me how said irony undermines.

The rational person's attempt to be completely rational all the time is undermined and ironic because in order for the person to begin his system-of-thought he must make and irrational leap into it, and in order for him to continue on his path he must also maintain the same irrationality he used in the beginning to make the leap.

This leap of faith is present in all religions, and systems-of-thought, philosophies and science...
So when I see people calling others inferior because they disagree with the validity of their system-of-thought, it becomes very comical to me. Much like a gardener making fun of a fisherman for simply being a fisherman. I'm not sure if this is clear to you though...

Like Dan Rowden said, "There is no logical basis for the original or primary goals and values we adopt"

Cory Duchesne wrote:
I'm not sure who on this forum has actually advocated becoming 'completely rational'. It wasn't me. I'm not sure what the phrase is supposed to mean. They probably mean 'wise'.

David, Kevin, and probably Dan Rowden, from what I have heard on their reasoning show and read on this forum.

Thinking any less of him is baseless

Not true. If I value the survival of wisdom as I conceive of it, then it would be in my best interest to be wary of the fanatical religious man's presence. This is because my values, expressed often simply by my presence, actually cause him negative emotions, which may lead to actions that are harmful to what I value.

But your values have no rational basis. And neither do his. This is the point.
It is like a person who values red over blue -- calling someone unwise because they drive a blue car.

Yes you can be logical within your value-system, its logical for someone who values red to deduce that a blue car is an unwise purchase...but he doesn't see past his values and how he has come to adopt them...so he doesn't realize his own irrationality.

a Muslim criticizing a Christian for his absurd belief in the Trinity

This is indeed a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Both parties have beliefs that are based not on what their senses have informed them, but on what they merely wish to be true. They do not value questioning and doubting. Therefore, I can regard them as a part of myself that should be improved.

Well you are still stuck in your value system and can't see the similarities you share with your Christian and Muslim friends.

No, the basis of my beliefs are simply what my senses tell me, as well as an extrapolation of what my senses tell me.

The basis of what the religious person believes, is merely what he fancifully imagines,and what he fancifully imagines, is comforting to his animalistic drives.

The fact that you value sense information and they value faith information does not make your position any more valid than theirs.

And this is besides the point I am trying to make, I want one of the QRS guys to reply to my idea since it really applies to them, and Dan Rowden already understands what I'm trying to say...explaining myself over and over again is boring.

average wrote:The rational person's attempt to be completely rational all the time is undermined and ironic because in order for the person to begin his system-of-thought he must make and irrational leap into it, and in order for him to continue on his path he must also maintain the same irrationality he used in the beginning to make the leap.

You are conflating the attempt to be (as you put it) with being. The person who attempts to be completely rational all the time is, clearly, not a rational person. This person is trying to exponge all irrationality in order to become completely rational. This person's journey is not in any way undermined by the leap-of-faith (as you say) that they make because, in attempting to exponge irrationality, their faith in rationality only aids them. Once they have become completely rational it matters not a jot how or why they set out on that path. Therefore the sage is not undermined in any way by the leap-of-faith (as you call it) they made in order to get to the position they are in.

I'd call this sophistry if I thought you knew you were doing it but it seems to me that, in your attempt to pick holes in the ideas around here, you'll jump on the first argument that occurs to you and just go with it.

This leap of faith is present in all religions, and systems-of-thought, philosophies and science...
So when I see people calling others inferior because they disagree with the validity of their system-of-thought, it becomes very comical to me. Much like a gardener making fun of a fisherman for simply being a fisherman. I'm not sure if this is clear to you though...

It's not clear to me Average, no. I don't see why, just because any system of thought requires a leap-of-faith (of varying degrees), they are therefore all somehow on an equal footing when it comes to the question of the validity of their system of thought.

Like Dan Rowden said, "There is no logical basis for the original or primary goals and values we adopt"

What Dan said makes perfect sense. What you've extrapolated from it doesn't.

average wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: I'm not sure who on this forum has actually advocated becoming 'completely rational'. It wasn't me. I'm not sure what the phrase is supposed to mean. They probably mean 'wise'.

David, Kevin, and probably Dan Rowden, from what I have heard on their reasoning show and read on this forum.

You should refer to something either of them said specifically, rather than generalizing.

average wrote:

Cory wrote:

average wrote: Thinking any less of [a religious fanatic] is baseless

Not true. If I value the survival of wisdom as I conceive of it, then it would be in my best interest to be wary of the fanatical religious man's presence. This is because my values, expressed often simply by my presence, actually cause him negative emotions, which may lead to actions that are harmful to what I value.

But your values have no rational basis. And neither do his. This is the point.

No, rationality has no rational basis - But the values which follow from valuing and exercising rationality, have their basis, to differing degrees, in rationality. Likewise, instincts have no basis in instincts - water has no basis in water, fire has no basis in fire. You follow?

Logic 'as a thing', is the result of describing a particular slice of experience.

Likewise, 'instincts' are the result of describing a particular slice of experience.

But each thing is rooted in that which it is not.

Therefore, logic, like anything, can't be rooted in it self.

It is like a person who values red over blue -- calling someone unwise because they drive a blue car.

Just because I also value driving a car, doesn't mean I am reduced down to the foolish level of someone who values the color of the car he drives. Just because I have some things in common with someone, doesn't mean our differences aren't significant.

Yes you can be logical within your value-system, its logical for someone who values red to deduce that a blue car is an unwise purchase...but he doesn't see past his values and how he has come to adopt them...so he doesn't realize his own irrationality.

That's right, he is a fool. He doesn't question why it is he is so distressed over the colors that other people prefer. It's pretty pathetic when you get insecure over the colors you see other people adorning themselves in. Now, it's less pathetic if those colors signify something more complex - for instance, there might be a cult that dresses in black, and that cult has been known to spontaneously kill people who aren't a part of their cult.

average wrote:

cory wrote:

average wrote: a Muslim criticizing a Christian for his absurd belief in the Trinity

This is indeed a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Both parties have beliefs that are based not on what their senses have informed them, but on what they merely wish to be true. They do not value questioning and doubting. Therefore, I can regard them as a part of myself that should be improved.

Well you are still stuck in your value system and can't see the similarities you share with your Christian and Muslim friends.

Just because two people have similarities, doesn't mean their differences aren't significant.

For instance, if I'm hiring someone to help design my house, should I trust a reputed engineer, or should I hire a compulsive drug addict who has no experience? Both the engineer and the drug addict both want to get paid, they both get hungry and want food and water, both piss and shit, both have arms, legs, and eyes - they share those similarities.......but given the incredibly reckless and irresponsible track record of this alcoholic, should I regard him as just as trust worthy and reliable as the reputed engineer?

Consider a basketball coach. He really wants to coach a winning team, and so he holds a try-out. He notices some of the players are better than others. Should he just indiscriminately pick the players for his team at random? (after all, they are all basketball players)

Or should he discriminate, identifying and picking the relatively superior individuals?

Cory Duchesne wrote:
No, rationality has no rational basis - But the values which follow from valuing and exercising rationality, have their basis, to differing degrees, in rationality. Likewise, instincts have no basis in instincts - water has no basis in water, fire has no basis in fire. You follow?

This is part of my point, that rationality has no rational basis. Christianity has no rational basis. Islam has no rational basis.
To desire to be a Christian or to be a Rationalist is an irrational value - not a conclusion you reason yourself into.

Just because I also value driving a car, doesn't mean I am reduced down to the foolish level of someone who values the color of the car he drives. Just because I have some things in common with someone, doesn't mean our differences aren't significant.

That's right, he is a fool. He doesn't question why it is he is so distressed over the colors that other people prefer. It's pretty pathetic when you get insecure over the colors you see other people adorning themselves in. Now, it's less pathetic if those colors signify something more complex - for instance, there might be a cult that dresses in black, and that cult has been known to spontaneously kill people who aren't a part of their cult.

You didn't understand my analogy at all. I will try to simplify it:

Man A : His prime value is Red.
Man B : His prime value is Blue.

Man A pursues a path that leads him into Red things.
Man B pursues a path that leads him into Blue things.

The trouble comes when Man A goes up to Man B and calls him delusional and irrational because he has a Blue Car and thinks Blue is Absolute instead of driving a Red Car and thinking Red is Absolute.

What Man A doesn't realize is that he is imposing HIS OWN VALUE SYSTEM ON MAN B.
But Man A has no justification for such an act, he himself can't even REASON HIMSELF INTO VALUING RED. It is just a presupposition that he has, an irrational value that he has and maintains.

Just change RED with SAGE-ESOTERIC-WISDOM-WHATEVER
And change BLUE with CHRISTIAN or ISLAMIC - OR - WHOEVER-YOU-THINK-IS-DELUSIONAL

Same dilemma.

Average, for the sake of clarity on the subject of rationality…

But your values have no rational basis.

To desire to be a Christian or to be a Rationalist is an irrational value - not a conclusion you reason yourself into.

I do understand what you mean, but I believe my values are based in and of consciousness; is that a rational or irrational belief?

If rational, then thinking and reasoning has a rational basis, if not, then irrationality makes no rational or reasonable sense either.

Existence simply IS would mean rationality and irrationality are exactly what they are, IMO.

average wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:There is no logical basis for the original or primary goals and values we adopt (it's simply a matter of disposition and karma). After that certain necessary goals and values will appear (like the one for the Xian you stated).

This is what undermines a very important part of the philosophy I see advocated by David, Kevin, and others on this forum.

Actually it doesn't because you are making certain gargantuan leaps of illogic that undermine your own point of view.

The fact that you share the same foundational basis (irrational values) for your belief system (which is what it is)

I'm sorry, but it is nothing of the sort. This is your first error. Our perspective is actually anti-belief.

as does a Christian or anyone else you disagree with, says something very profound to me in the context of your system-of-thought.

I fail to see what that could possibly be. It may be originally egotistical of me to value truth and reason; there may not be any rational basis for me to have selected such a disposition, but the end result of it bears no resemblance to the beliefs of a religious person. It is sensible to assign meaning to the fact that Liberal John and Fascist Peter both came from the same culture? No. Neither does it really mean anything to say that all values are really on a par with each other. One can poetically suggest that from Nature's point of view this is so, but since Nature doesn't actually have a point of view it is a purely poetic observation. I'm not even entirely sure what the moral or intellectual force of your argument is.

Often I see one person claiming so-and-so is delusional because they don't understand the "basic nature of reality" or "causality" or subscribe fully to "rationality" or whatever. But this isn't the real issue, to me this is like the Muslim calling the Christian is delusional because he doesn't accept some teaching in the Quran. Yes you believe you have found the Truth, but so does Mr. Christian, and Mr.Islam, but really once you recognize that you have committed the same irrational leap into a certain system-of-thought, how can you honestly criticize them and not laugh at yourself at the same time??

Oh, right. Damn, I thought your argument might be a tad more substantial than this. You're basically extrapolating from the relative and subjective nature of values and goals to the relative nature of truth and reality per se. This is faulty reasoning. Some things are relative, others aren't. Absolutes aren't. Those who do not - or falsely - see absolutes are by definition delusional. It's impossible for anyone to argue their way around this fact.

Average,

I think it is possible to value truth, and still be grounded in emptiness. From what I can tell, I suspect that certain members of the QRS are totaly grounded in a deep emptiness, and their values are only based on simply observing reality the way it is, so it isn’t a conjured up belief system as you might suspect.

We have questioned them on this extensively, especially regarding their emphasis on causality, which at first glance seems like a conjured up belief system. However, Quinn clarified this when he said that when the mind finally abides in the emptiness, even the conception of causality isn’t necessary. Logic is only a bridge to help the individual free themselves from the illusion that is the world, and themselves.

For instance: If I’m attached to a woman, then logic is needed to be able to understand the relationship between my suffering and the woman that I’m attached to, so I therefore negate the source of the attachment.

Logic is the only tool we have to understand any sort of relationship between things. However, paradoxically, when one abides in emptiness, there is nothing to understand. If one is grounded in emptiness, then understanding is only done for leisure and curiosity, as most of the hard work has already been done to totally liberate oneself from all sources of delusion and suffering.

average wrote: The trouble comes when Man A goes up to Man B and calls him delusional and irrational because he has a Blue Car and thinks Blue is Absolute instead of driving a Red Car and thinking Red is Absolute.

What Man A doesn't realize is that he is imposing HIS OWN VALUE SYSTEM ON MAN B.

Ok, well I guess that makes you Man A?

Dan Rowden wrote:
I'm sorry, but it is nothing of the sort. This is your first error. Our perspective is actually anti-belief.
.....

You're basically extrapolating from the relative and subjective nature of values and goals to the relative nature of truth and reality per se. This is faulty reasoning. Some things are relative, others aren't. Absolutes aren't. Those who do not - or falsely - see absolutes are by definition delusional. It's impossible for anyone to argue their way around this fact.

I'm not arguing the validity of your beliefs about nature, and what you think is absolute and what isn't, you might be correct, you might not.

What I'm arguing against is an unfair dichotomy I see here. You understand, just like I do, that your primary values and goals and dispositions aren't reasoned into, they have no rational basis, they are essentially taken by faith or preference or whatever. You also understand that these primary values give rise to your world-view, they also motivate you to continue on this path.

Why can't you see that this is the same thing the people you call delusional do? Why can't you see that they are only delusional when you impose your value system onto their ideas and beliefs? Within the context of their own primary values they can be rational, just like you can be rational within your own context.

Since you can't even reason yourself into your values and then your system-of-thought without being irrational, what makes you think you are any better than your opposition? Tell me.

Dan Rowden wrote: . . . Nature doesn't actually have a point of view . . .

Agreed; so why ADD a p-o-v?

clyde wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote: . . . Nature doesn't actually have a point of view . . .

Agreed; so why ADD a p-o-v?

I would say because he can, being a point of conscious view himself.

Why does one add a 'do no harm' point of veiw any ways?

Which I too may agree to.

Sapius;

I remain curious to read what Dan answers, but I’ll address your response.

Yes, as you note, he can do that, but what was his intent, what value was it to him or others? Is it, as I believe QRS presents, the only way?

Regarding “do no harm”, I’ve not considered it a p-o-v, but rather a guide to action and interacting with others and the world, and I do not promote it as “the only way”. In any case, the value to me is both practical and spiritual, and the value to others is less pain and suffering.

clyde

clyde wrote:Sapius;

I remain curious to read what Dan answers, but I’ll address your response.

Yes, as you note, he can do that, but what was his intent, what value was it to him or others? Is it, as I believe QRS presents, the only way?

Regarding “do no harm”, I’ve not considered it a p-o-v, but rather a guide to action and interacting with others and the world, and I do not promote it as “the only way”. In any case, the value to me is both practical and spiritual, and the value to others is less pain and suffering.

clyde

I see your point of view. No pun intended.

Average,

average wrote:MG: It's not irrational to have values, but any primary value is arrived at non-rationally. You have to start somewhere. If you disagree then provide an example of what you think is a value that is rational yet not based on some other value.


A: If any primary value is arrived at irrationally then it must also be maintained irrationally. Yes you have to start somewhere and we all pick certain values based on our "desires" and "karmic dispositions" but essentially this picking and choosing is done irrationally.

Irrationality means that the opportunity for rationality arose but the person failed to be rational. The choice of primary values does not fall into this category, hence the label "non-rational". Was being born to your own particular pair of parents rational or irrational? Such a question doesn't make any sense because it wasn't the result of a conscious thought process.

Man A : His prime value is Red.
Man B : His prime value is Blue.

Man A pursues a path that leads him into Red things.
Man B pursues a path that leads him into Blue things.

The trouble comes when Man A goes up to Man B and calls him delusional and irrational because he has a Blue Car and thinks Blue is Absolute instead of driving a Red Car and thinking Red is Absolute.

What Man A doesn't realize is that he is imposing HIS OWN VALUE SYSTEM ON MAN B.
But Man A has no justification for such an act, he himself can't even REASON HIMSELF INTO VALUING RED. It is just a presupposition that he has, an irrational value that he has and maintains.

His valuing of Red is his justification. Holding a value makes all conflicting values inferior to it. That's what valuing something does.

What Man A doesn't realize is that he is imposing HIS OWN VALUE SYSTEM ON MAN B.

Doesn't follow. Man A could very well be conscious of "imposing" his own value system on Man B.

clyde wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote: . . . Nature doesn't actually have a point of view . . .

Agreed; so why ADD a p-o-v?

There's no "why", there's only the necessity of it. Consciousness is a point of view.

average wrote:The rational person's attempt to be completely rational all the time is undermined and ironic because in order for the person to begin his system-of-thought he must make and irrational leap into it, and in order for him to continue on his path he must also maintain the same irrationality he used in the beginning to make the leap.

Valuing rationality (IME) simply comes from a disgust with delusion and irrationality, and therefore trying to eliminate them to the extent possible, at least within yourself.

If delusion and irrationality don't bother you, then there is no point in talking about rationality. It's a crazy, crazy world, and you'll probably enjoy it a lot more if you don't care about rationality. Or you might become a suicide bomber. Whatever.

DHodges wrote:

average wrote:The rational person's attempt to be completely rational all the time is undermined and ironic because in order for the person to begin his system-of-thought he must make and irrational leap into it, and in order for him to continue on his path he must also maintain the same irrationality he used in the beginning to make the leap.

Valuing rationality (IME) simply comes from a disgust with delusion and irrationality, and therefore trying to eliminate them to the extent possible, at least within yourself.

If delusion and irrationality don't bother you, then there is no point in talking about rationality. It's a crazy, crazy world, and you'll probably enjoy it a lot more if you don't care about rationality. Or you might become a suicide bomber. Whatever.

The rewards of rationality are far greater and truer than the false rewards of irrationality - but it takes a very rational person to understand this. Once one stumbles into rationality, however they got there, the person can see the greater rewards, and logically extrapolate the even greater rewards if everyone were rational. The logical next step it to encourage rationality in others.

It is possible to forget the rewards of rationality, especially if one becomes frustrated with the lack of rationality in the population. Frustration is therefore irrational. The path to a steady understanding can be arduous because certain irrational states like frustration can seize us due to our humanity and cause us to forget the higher path momentarily. It takes practice of reasoning and continual objective self evaluation to learn to not be tripped up by the pitfalls of being humans. It seems to me that objective self evaluation is a most difficult thing for humans to accomplish, but it is a major necessary component to optimization.

Ryan R wrote:Logic is the only tool we have to understand any sort of relationship between things. However, paradoxically, when one abides in emptiness, there is nothing to understand. If one is grounded in emptiness, then understanding is only done for leisure and curiosity, as most of the hard work has already been done to totally liberate oneself from all sources of delusion and suffering.

The way this is phrased, it looks like there isn't any difference between a sage and an airhead. Also, it could dangerously look like one could short-cut to wisdom by just letting go of everything. Perhaps you'd spell out why it is important to have a firm grip on causality before grounding it in emptiness.