GENIUS FORUMS

something happens, sometimes, with people... where they have, or come across an idea that they, using reason, can see some sense in... but society doesnt understand the sense part of it and rejects it outright, and calls it taboo... the person who had the idea, will often swing it to its extreme, beyond the point of reasonable sense that originally made the idea attractive to them, in defense of it.. it becomes something that is worn with pride, a symbol of that person's struggle against what they see as a society's 'wrongness'.

problem is, they are being very stupid when they do this, they themselves are perpetuating 'wrongness' by their own definition of it, they are discarding truth in favour of self-satisfying behaviours, the very thing they are rebelling against, and protecting their precious idea from... because to do this leaves reason behind and the original issue becomes something emotional, needy, unintelligent and entirely useless in expounding what veracity their 'naughty thoughts' might have actually had.

also, because they attach the thrill they received from whatever insight they gained from the reasonable idea in the first place to this proud, entirely unreasonable behaviour, any insight they receive from anything in the future becomes a point in favour of continuing to exhibit the behaviour.... and due to warped ideas of how important and worthy and interesting the original insight really was (the result of having made it their badge of honour), they are unable to notice the admissions of unreasonable, self-satisfying thought processes seen in the exaggerated nature of their behaviour.

and, the issue becomes very important to them... its existence becomes important to them, they need it, it represents their connection with insight itself... so naturally, they find it everywhere they can... and not only do they need it, but they need to be defending it, so they will look for the conflict of it always... it is like, a war, which begins as a crusade in defense of truth, but warps into something perpetuated for the sake of selling weapons

Can you give an example of such an idea and situation?

And, why do you care?

Carl G wrote:Can you give an example of such an idea and situation?

sure.

Hmmm, a thirty page answer.

Carl G wrote:Hmmm, a thirty page answer.

wow, what an inspired response you are having to this.

If I understand this correctly, you are trying to say that David contradicted his own ethical system by writing his Exposition on the Nature of Woman? Are you sure you aren't just offended that you were yourself seduced by Woman into getting married, having a kid, and getting a job?

Also, how much do you know about David's ethical system?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:If I understand this correctly, you are trying to say that David contradicted his own ethical system by writing his Exposition on the Nature of Woman?

i am not speaking about ethics.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Are you sure you aren't just offended that you were yourself seduced by Woman into getting married, having a kid, and getting a job?

yep.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Also, how much do you know about David's ethical system?

nothing.

i am not speaking about ethics.

problem is, they are being very stupid when they do this, they themselves are perpetuating 'wrongness' by their own definition of it

"Wrongness"? Thats sounds like ethics to me.

me: Also, how much do you know about David's ethical system?
you: nothing.

Then you have no grounds for making a judgement about how David is perpetuating what he is against. You don't know what he is attacking.

Stick to attacking the truth of specific things he said in the Exposition. Carl's complaint was pretty close to my first impression: you are talking so abstractly that there is almost no substance left to attack or defend.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:"Wrongness"? Thats sounds like ethics to me.

you misunderstood the context, i wasnt implying any 'wrongness' myself

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Then you have no grounds for making a judgement about how David is perpetuating what he is against. You don't know what he is attacking.

my point is that he is using corrupted reasoning in his supposed defense of reason.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Stick to attacking the truth of specific things he said in the Exposition.

that was just an example, i found it when asked for an example

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:you are talking so abstractly that there is almost no substance left to attack or defend.

no i'm not... you are so busy looking for reasons why i am stupid, that you cant form an intelligent response to what i am talking about.

you misunderstood the context, i wasnt implying any 'wrongness' myself

Yes, I know. You are speaking about David's ethics, not your own. I have been saying that since my first reply.

my point is that he is using corrupted reasoning in his supposed defense of reason.

Okay, now give an example of an incorrect train of reasoning. Your evidence is way too abstract for the nature of the claims you are making.

that was just an example, i found it when asked for an example

Then give a different example. When someone gives a single example and then act as though they have now explained everything it's automatic to assume that he was referring specifically to that case. (Not to mention, you didn't explain why you used that example at all. You just provided a link.)

Otherwise, I have no notion of what you are talking about. For instance, when you said "weapons" I thought you might have been referring to American foreign policy... but it would have been hasty of me to make that assumption.

no i'm not... you are so busy looking for reasons why i am stupid, that you cant form an intelligent response to what i am talking about.

Please don't assume incorrect things about me. I am more than able to think your beliefs are stupid without thinking you are also stupid; and anyway, I haven't fully decided if either is true yet. I'm just seeing if there are flaws (which there probably are since you are already feeling this threatened by my casual questioning).

I believe my responses have been more than reasonable and intelligent. I have been steadily and repeatedly asking you to give some evidence. I'm not attacking you. I'm not calling you stupid. I'm asking you to give me some substance to work with. I have no idea what this theory means if I can't clearly see an example of it in action. Not surprisingly, Carl G had asked for the same thing; no philosopher can work without any material.

A wild generality without any specific examples is not substance. And when you give an example and won't defend it as an example of your theory, I start to think that you chose the wrong example altogether.

What incorrect claims did David make? How did he contradict his own self-defined ethics? Or did you choose a poor example?

со&am has lost his sense of humour .....

-

very interesting that your idea applies to itself

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:You are speaking about David's ethics, not your own. I have been saying that since my first reply.

to see reason in something, and then have society tell you that there is no reason in it and that you arent allowed to have such thoughts... this will cause a reaction in some people, where they, thinking they are defending reason itself, adopt the taboo thoughts, and stick with them beyond the point of reason.

it is like, a teenager, who, in freedom, puts on a bit of gothish type make-up... the teenager's parents flip out.. and the teenager then becomes an uber goth, as a rebellion, in defense of their freedom to play goth. but the teen may have never become uber goth if their parents saw it and just shrugged... the teen is not displaying freedom, the only reason they have gone uber-goth is as a reaction to a pressure, they are being the bitch of that pressure still.

david, using reason, saw worth in ideas regarding gender differences. but these are touchy issues, society is scared of them, it ignored the reason he could see and instead played political correctness, and he was told he wasnt allowed to see such reason. but david sees reason as more important than political correctness, so in a display that is supposed to signify his defense of reason, he more exaggeratedly adopted the ideas, this exaggeration corrupts his reasoning.

that is what i am speaking about.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:When someone gives a single example and then act as though they have now explained everything it's automatic to assume that he was referring specifically to that case. (Not to mention, you didn't explain why you used that example at all. You just provided a link.)

yeah it wasnt a very good example, davids 'exposition' is supposed to be a bit of a pisstake, it is supposed to be a bit exaggerated.
but that said, it still stinks of what i am talking about.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:For instance, when you said "weapons" I thought you might have been referring to American foreign policy... but it would have been hasty of me to make that assumption.

hahaha
um... yeah that would have been a bit hasty

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Please don't assume incorrect things about me.

what makes an assumption an assumption?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I am more than able to think your beliefs are stupid without thinking you are also stupid; and anyway, I haven't fully decided if either is true yet.

how can one believe that something stupid is not stupid, without being stupid, stupid?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:you are already feeling this threatened by my casual questioning

na-uh. am not.
you, are not very threatening.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I believe my responses have been more than reasonable and intelligent.

more than???
sheesh

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I have been steadily and repeatedly asking you to give some evidence. I'm not attacking you. I'm not calling you stupid. I'm asking you to give me some substance to work with.

can you manage any conceptual understanding of what i am saying?

you attacked me with your jibe about my being jealous that it was me who was 'seduced by Woman' (hahaha), and that this jealousy was causing me to say what i was saying. well, i heard it as a jibe, maybe you were just steadily and repeatedly asking me to give some evidence.

hey off topic... you ever had rumpy with 'Woman', dude?

ever?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I have no idea what this theory means if I can't clearly see an example of it in action. Not surprisingly, Carl G had asked for the same thing; no philosopher can work without any material.

ok, take the teen goth example above and see if your brains will co-operate with it.

LooF wrote:very interesting that your idea applies to itself

sure.

but go on, explain what you mean

co&am wrote:due to warped ideas of how important and worthy and interesting the original insight really was (the result of having made it their badge of honour)

If rational misogyny has become a badge of honour, then it is no longer rational misogyny.

Rational misogyny is entirely relative. That is, it only exists relative to the relationship between sex and character, which only exists relative to wisdom. Whether wisdom exists depends entirely on Nature.

Anyone who prefers to remain in denial of the immorality of sexuality is warped --- but it is Nature makes them so.


.

со&am wrote:

david, using reason, saw worth in ideas regarding gender differences. but these are touchy issues, society is scared of them, it ignored the reason he could see and instead played political correctness, and he was told he wasnt allowed to see such reason. but david sees reason as more important than political correctness, so in a display that is supposed to signify his defense of reason, he more exaggeratedly adopted the ideas, this exaggeration corrupts his reasoning.

I don't know what you mean. What is an example of this exaggeration?

-

co&am,

that is what i am speaking about.

I'll let David defend himself, now that you are being more clear.

what makes an assumption an assumption?

Often, when there's no evidence either way. In your case, you were guessing what my motivations were without any evidence at all.

how can one believe that something stupid is not stupid, without being stupid, stupid?

Very easily. In fact, just as easily as someone intelligent can not believe that something truthful is true.

If you're curious to see this in action, there are plenty of philosophy forums filled to the brim with highly intelligent people more than willing to believe in incredibly stupid things:
David's Expulsion from Ne Plus Ultra
Common Ascent
The Big View

na-uh. am not.
you, are not very threatening.

When I call it what it is, I don't seem to be. However, I can tell when someone is feeling threatened by me.

You are, unfortunately, a class example of someone who feels like he needs to stay on top -- and breaks down when it's any other way.

can you manage any conceptual understanding of what i am saying?

you attacked me with your jibe about my being jealous that it was me who was 'seduced by Woman' (hahaha), and that this jealousy was causing me to say what i was saying. well, i heard it as a jibe, maybe you were just steadily and repeatedly asking me to give some evidence.

It wasn't a jibe at all. I was referring to "Woman" in the sense that David used it in that essay of his, as the cultural construct that both women and men get seduced by (women want to become, and men want to possess). That's why I capitalized it. I was assuming you had read the essay completely, because attacking it without reading it would have been ridiculous.

I knew it was an argument ad hominem, but I think it relevant enough not to be an attack, but rather a valid point: since you are married, have a kid, and have a job -- I assumed that you were seduced by the construct, and offended by the implications of his essay. (Essentially, that you were lied to, but you bought it hook, line, and sinker.)

hey off topic... you ever had rumpy with 'Woman', dude?

ever?

No. I'm strictly celibate. Women are less appealing than the philosophic life.

ok, take the teen goth example above and see if your brains will co-operate with it.

That example makes much more sense than applying it to David's Exposition.

That said, I'm not certain that there ever was truthfulness or freedom with a goth. It's a fashion statement through and through. A goth is lying to herself if she believes that she is showing freedom or learning fundamental truths by playing dress-up. It never was anything but delusion, and that's why it could spiral so far out of control.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I'm not certain that there ever was truthfulness or freedom with a goth.

Not even close. I was a death rocker for about 5 years (that's what goth was in the late 80's before it was called goth) - bleached my skin whiter than paper, only wore black for about 5 years - usually "dressy" too, but that didn't mean being prim and proper (actually, it's much easier to climb a chain link fence with the pointy toes they put on high heeled shoes) - and it was not about truth. For me it was actually about fitting in somewhere, and to quite an extent I think that's what it was for the others, too.

I was different from all of the others, and before I adopted the death rock look, people just couldn't quite put their finger on how I was different. When I started dressing like I was different, people actually accepted me better because they had a way of categorizing how I was different. That wasn't really it, but it was enough of a screen to disguise how different I really was (and therefore, originally it was a lie - but wearing all black saved me from having to try to coordinate my clothes, and it was aesthetically comfortable enough that when I started wearing colors again, I kept getting distracted by my own clothes... and I did like the music - so ultimatly it became somewhat truthful).

Many teenagers feel different, and seek someplace to put their difference. In my case, I was told repeatedly (and by pretty much everybody as random unsolicited opinions) that I was different. Sometimes teenagers are told they are different, other times they just feel different, and there may be other reasons, but feeling different is actually normal, and goth is just one place to put the difference, to normalize it.

But it is not truth. There is vampirism and many other dances with mythical realms as well as explorations of unconventional truths, but goth itself is just a way of hiding from the real differences or the normal false feeling of being different.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I'll let David defend himself, now that you are being more clear.

all i did was re-iterate what i had originally written, in application to david. i did not bring this up to attack david, i brought it up to discuss the concept, it is particularly curious.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Often, when there's no evidence either way. In your case, you were guessing what my motivations were without any evidence at all.

ridiculous.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:In fact, just as easily as someone intelligent can not believe that something truthful is true.

what are you using the word intelligent to describe?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:there are plenty of philosophy forums filled to the brim with highly intelligent people more than willing to believe in incredibly stupid things:

well then, they are stupid... if they are willing to believe stupidity, this is what makes them stupid innit? why do you say they are highly intelligent?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:When I call it what it is, I don't seem to be. However, I can tell when someone is feeling threatened by me. You are, unfortunately, a class example of someone who feels like he needs to stay on top -- and breaks down when it's any other way.

this assumption, for instance, is whack.
y'all so into examples, give me one regards this.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:It wasn't a jibe at all. I was referring to "Woman" in the sense that David used it in that essay of his, as the cultural construct that both women and men get seduced by (women want to become, and men want to possess). That's why I capitalized it. I was assuming you had read the essay completely, because attacking it without reading it would have been ridiculous.

i haven't.
i read much of it though.
and i was not so much attacking it as using it as an example, in an observation of a particular human behaviour.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I'm strictly celibate. Women are less appealing than the philosophic life.

you ever eat well-cooked fried eggs? on toast?
they are gooood. with salt and pepper etc
& cup of tea with it, very nice.

eggs are also, however, less appealing than the philosophic life.

good thing we can eat eggs and live the philosophical life, huh?

remember hakuin: "zen practiced in the midst of activity is a far superior to that practiced in stillness"

David Quinn wrote:I don't know what you mean. What is an example of this exaggeration?

david, me rummaging through your posts or what you have written looking for examples of this, is me wasting my time... for if you couldnt see the exaggerated mentality from which you were writing at the time of writing, then why, oh why, do you think you would have any chance of doing so when some forum poster you dont even like points them out?

but i will waste my time if i must.

but first... as this wasnt supposed to be about you specifically anyway... can you remove yourself from the question and garner any conceptual understanding of what i am describing? haven't you seen this behaviour play out in human politics before?

co&am.

what are you using the word intelligent to describe?

I used it to describe what intelligent is most often used to describe: a person's ability to perform calculations quickly, to sustain a train of thought to its completion, and to understand complicated ideas.

well then, they are stupid... if they are willing to believe stupidity, this is what makes them stupid innit? why do you say they are highly intelligent?

Someone highly intelligent, by the definition I provided, can easily believe false things. I separate intelligence from wisdom, and stupidity from delusion. They are deluded, but not stupid; delusion is far more dangerous.

Wisdom is the opposite of delusion, and a person does not need to be especially intelligent to be wise. All he needs to do is believe true things.

this assumption, for instance, is whack.
y'all so into examples, give me one regards this.

you cant form an intelligent response to what i am talking about.

There's one. You deliberately attacking me. When I'm attacked viciously this quickly into a debate, I see someone who's already got their back to the wall. Not to mention, your terse one-word replies indicated you already weren't in the mood for discussion. It seemed like you were trying to hide your cards from an attack (ie. you were feeling threatened).

If I interpreted this incorrectly, and you always attack people and guard your words, I apologize.

and i was not so much attacking it as using it as an example, in an observation of a particular human behaviour.

I think you misinterpreted what he was doing in the essay. It really didn't seem like the best example. There are a lot of people who mistakenly attack "QRS" (Quinn, Rowden, and Solway) for a misogyny that isn't really there, as though this belief is somehow more extreme than the nonsense you learn about in, say, a gender studies class.

The goth example worked much better. Early Judaism seems another example: the religion would never have survived had there not been so many attempts to destroy it. From what I understand, circumcision and the kosher diet both emerged during exile in a vain attempt to keep their identity. Belief in one God wasn't enough?

eggs are also, however, less appealing than the philosophic life.

good thing we can eat eggs and live the philosophical life, huh?

I think your wife, boss, and child would all appreciate being compared to peppered eggs.

Although there are some great philosophers who managed to philosophize while still being enraptured by the comforts of the domestic life, by and large, philosophy requires lots of free time without the commitments that domestic life requires.

remember hakuin: "zen practiced in the midst of activity is a far superior to that practiced in stillness"

I don't think he was referring to Zen practised in the midst of marriage.

Remember Diogenes:

A young man contemplating marriage sought advice from Diogenes. "Should I marry?"

"Marriage is too soon for a young man"

"Would you have me wait then until I am old."

"Oh no, Marriage is far too late for an old man."

"What am I to do then? I love the girl."

"Love is a luxury no one can afford. It is for those who have nothing better to do."

"What should we be doing then?"

"To seek freedom. But it is not possible to be free if you have a wife and children."

"But having a wife and family is so agreeable."

"Then you see the problem, young man. Freedom would not be so difficult to attain were prison not so sweet."

"You mean to be free is to be alone?"

"We come into the world alone and we die alone. Why, in life, should we be any less alone?"

"To live, then, is terrible."

"No, not to live, but to live in chains."

haven't you seen this behaviour play out in human politics before?

I see it all the time. It often leads to asceticism and thinking one is on the highest moral ground.

In terms of the QRS I think the "exaggeration" would really come out in the hypothetical situation where say they had complete authority to globally implement actions whose purpose would be force people into a greater desire for truth.

Great turmoil would ensue - what would happen is that more and more people would turn nihilistic, and this nihilism would turn many of thwe less intelligent, less settled, into severe abusers of others (just like capitalists). For most of us Truth just simply does not offer the solid comfort they receive from it - comfort that I believe they partly obtain from fighting against untruth (as you indicated occurs in your original post), and feeling in some manner on more solid conceptual footing than the herd, which by default can give one a feeling of "superiority" over others. Both these would disappear in a world ruled by truth, and probably the QRS would then partly lose the emotionally positive feeling truths of reality give. All that would remain is the thrill of being an individual and thinking in a manner unrestrained by the thought blocking delusions of others - which sounds glorious but causes other problems.

Often I think that falsity is a necessary factor for humans to have a chance of being happy. Falsity is found is everywhere - interpersonal relationships, spiritual ideas. Even art and humour are almost entirely about the portrayal of falsity in a manner we like. We like the confusion art and humour bring, because they provide the type of confusion that we can overcome or safely ignore (in the Now, at least). It is the sort of falsity that can readily be put under our control and we obtain the thrill of besting the falsity, so we enjoy the illusions/representations provided by art or are amused by jokes we get.

On the other hand without truth being forced upon the human race, it will surely destroy itself, so one can understand fanatiscism in relation to truth.

со&am wrote:

but first... as this wasnt supposed to be about you specifically anyway... can you remove yourself from the question and garner any conceptual understanding of what i am describing? haven't you seen this behaviour play out in human politics before?

Sure, it happens in all walks of life.

One sees it in science, for example, where an idea or a paradigm or an approach is emphasized to such an exclusive degree that it begins to become a parody of itself.

An example would be the recent emphasis by biologists that all human behaviour can be directly attributed to specific genes - thus downplaying the role of things like upbringing, experience and conscious thought.

Meanwhile, feminists have been preaching the opposite - emphasizing upbringing at all costs and almost dismissing the role of genes altogether.

In the scientists' case, exaggeration and over-emphasis can be a pretty good methodology, for it allows the scientists to squeeze every bit of information from the approach they are using, which can lead to all sorts of unexpected breakthroughs in knowledge. In the feminists' case, it is merely an expression of dogma.

When it comes to speaking against the feminine and the incredibly strong attachment that people have to women, all sorts of illusions are easily created. For example, because such an activity goes very much against the grain, it stands out like a sore thumb. It gives the illusion that one is speaking loudly, or exaggerating the facts, or obsessing over women - whereas in reality one is simply trying to match in intensity the obsessiveness that most people already have for femininity and women.

-

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:a person does not need to be especially intelligent to be wise.

true.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:All he needs to do is believe true things.

rubbish.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

you cant form an intelligent response to what i am talking about.

There's one. You deliberately attacking me.

what i wrote was that you were so busy looking for reasons to write me off that you couldnt form an intelligent response to what i was saying, this is not an attack it is an observation, and i observe this still.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:There are a lot of people who mistakenly attack "QRS" (Quinn, Rowden, and Solway) for a misogyny that isn't really there, as though this belief is somehow more extreme than the nonsense you learn about in, say, a gender studies class.

why does it have to be more extreme than gender studies nonsense to be the product of exaggerated mentality?
you are using comparison there to excuse unreasonable behaviour in QRS, but what are you using as your benchmark?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I think your wife, boss, and child would all appreciate being compared to peppered eggs.

entirely useless irrelevant boring thing to say

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Although there are some great philosophers who managed to philosophize while still being enraptured by the comforts of the domestic life, by and large, philosophy requires lots of free time without the commitments that domestic life requires.

according to some static norm you consider when you think of marraige etc... that thing labelled 'marraige' in your head might by definition suck up loads of philosophising time, i'm sure.. but that is all you have, that static idea of what a relationship is, built up from what you see in the herd, and from no personal experience. you think all relationships are the same as this juvenile mental idea.
like, how do you know what commitments my domestic life requires?
and what makes you think i am 'enraptured by the comforts of the domestic life'?
you get your panties in a bunch about assumptions, erstwhile throwing blind stupid ones out in all directions

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

remember hakuin: "zen practiced in the midst of activity is a far superior to that practiced in stillness"

I don't think he was referring to Zen practised in the midst of marriage.

i think he was referring to anything and everything, i think you understand nothing of his statement.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Remember Diogenes

yes, love diogenes

you have translated what he said in its most narrow literal sense and as though it would apply, in this most literal sense, to everybody.

that story fits with something you already want... you want to not worry about relationships and sex and other things that scare the shit out of closed-up people with little poetry in them. you are using diogenes, and philosophy, to ignore a fear in you.

co&am,

me: All [a wise man] needs to do is believe true things.

you: rubbish.

What else does a man need than Truth to be wise? I mean, other than the ability to know that he has the truth.

what i wrote was that you were so busy looking for reasons to write me off that you couldnt form an intelligent response to what i was saying, this is not an attack it is an observation, and i observe this still.

I was looking for you to provide evidence that you were lacking, and I was certain with a bit of teasing you could provide. Not surprisingly, you were able to provide evidence, and now you'll find many more people here will gladly engage this idea of yours. If I really thought you deserved to be written off, I wouldn't reply to you at all.

You don't give me enough credit. I will not reply -- at all -- to people who have no interest in philosophy. [edit: Or who I already fully understand and agree with.]

I may not be able to offer you the best reply to your specific theory (I'm terrible at both ethics and politics), but I knew what was preventing other people from taking it seriously.

why does it have to be more extreme than gender studies nonsense to be the product of exaggerated mentality?
you are using comparison there to excuse unreasonable behaviour in QRS, but what are you using as your benchmark?

I used my own norms as a benchmark. I only know a handful of theories relating to gender, and since I must make a decision as to which one to accept (since it will be relevant to my life), my norms require me to accept as valid whichever one requires me to make the fewest assumptions.

I can accept David's theory solely on the grounds that it is less extreme than modern feminist theory (I dropped a class on feminism because of the uncertain assumptions they forced a person to make in the first class, and that they would use for the rest of the year). It contains more facts, fewer assumptions, and is consistent with a metaphysical view of the world that I already accept.

me: I think your wife, boss, and child would all appreciate being compared to peppered eggs.

you: entirely useless irrelevant boring thing to say

You said that enjoying sex was like enjoying peppered eggs. The consequence of you enjoying sex is that you have a wife, child, and a job that can support both wife and child. I don't think that an enjoyment of peppered eggs would ever lead me to have a wife, unless I was both fanatical about food and a terrible chef.

It was a relevant thing to say, even if it bored you.

...according to some static norm you consider when you think of marraige etc...

This is nearly identical to when I say I don't like a particular brand of music, and someone goes off insisting that "it's only my opinion". Of course I can't know the intimate details of your marriage. That goes without saying.

I admitted that there are philosophers who can manage marriage and philosophy. John Stuart Mill is a prime example. (Socrates, too, but rumour has it he was a terrible husband.) If you can as well, great for you. You can have your peppered eggs.

Still, I highly doubt you would be married with kids without having some commitments that you wouldn't otherwise have. Is that assumption too much? Because, other than suggesting that your marriage is comfortable, and this comfort enrapturing, that's the only "blind stupid assumption" that I made. The only alternative is that your marriage does not please you and you aren't committed to it. Was assuming you a decent husband too much? (In that case, good for you: you are a better philosopher than I thought)

i think he was referring to anything and everything, i think you understand nothing of his statement.

I'm sure he was making the claim that, because it's so difficult to practise Zen outside of solitude, it's much greater to do it with distraction. He's not recommending to fill your life with trivial things: it would be arrogant to imagine you are the exception who can do this greater, more magnificent, Zen.

I would say that it would be hasty (although masterful) to try to be Zennish in a cage filled with lions.

Basically, it's not a recommendation. It's an observation. (I would almost say that if there is an observation [typo: observation = recommendation], it is to do Zen in the stillness of solitude, because of how difficult it is elsewhere).

you have translated what he said in its most narrow literal sense and as though it would apply, in this most literal sense, to everybody.

Why can it not be taken literally as well as figuratively?

that story fits with something you already want... you want to not worry about relationships and sex and other things that scare the shit out of closed-up people with little poetry in them. you are using diogenes, and philosophy, to ignore a fear in you.

I find sex disgusting and distracting, not scary, although the average person's obsession with it is scary. Women are trivial. Every woman in my life can't philosophize, so there's almost no reason to deal with them otherwise. Most of the time, I prefer the company of a dog -- and it's a luxury I can afford.

So, anyway, what you said there is downright false. Although, I do take the "little poetry" comment as a compliment. Poetry is falsehood and lies. I prefer to be logical.

Lastly, I'd say you are a mite hasty trying to judge how courageous I am. Really, I don't think you'd want to turn it into a competition, because "having sex with a wife" won't stand up -- at all -- to some of the things I've done in the interest of philosophy. (Some are incriminating, whereas others could get in the way of job opportunities if I ever decide to work, so if you actually do want to know a little about my life as a philosopher, ask privately. I'm not like QRS: my life story isn't readily available online. I'd prefer you just left this one, rather than ask, but I'll explain if need be.)

Then again, courage is not a function of the stupid things we are willing to do.

[edit: typo]