GENIUS FORUMS

Victor,

You are the only one here who still sees philosophy as a mean, a path to salvation, rather than an end in itself, the mode of living. For you, philosophy is like money are for others -- a way to achieve a goal; and just like those who seek money in pursuit of happiness, inevitably fail, so your quest for philosophy as a mean to salvation fails. There is no salvation. There is just the process of seeking truth and understanding.

I agree with Jason that you making an absolutist claim here without having any evidence in support of it. It's essentially just a religious belief on your part.

In effect, the belief that there is no salvation has become your salvation. It removes you from the need to go though all the effort and suffering needed to make the breakthrough into ultimate understanding. It allows you to continue living a pleasant life of family, small pleasures and scientific pursuit. It is the heaven you have settled for.

There is no doubt that enlightenment exists and is accessible to the human mind - provided that you want it badly enough. The fundamental conceptual delusions which distort the mind were originally created by the mind, and thus they can be dismantled by the mind. When every one of these delusions has been dismantled, the clear, undistorted mind of enlightenment manifests as a matter of course.

So it isn't really a case of whether to seek salvation or not. That's not the issue. Rather, the issue is, "Which type of salvation to do we settle for?" Do we settle for the easy salvation of ordinary, worldly life? Or do we abandon that easiness and seek salvation in the highest that life has to offer? In the end, that's a decision that each individual has to make for himself.

-

Nat:

The ultimate truth of Nature is that there is no conceptual or intellectual "ultimate truth of nature."

Well there is, but only if one uses terminology that describes it in process terms, rather than as statements that take the properties of things as if they were static, and thus "owned" by the thing.

For example the statement "everything is formless" is not an absolute truth, because obviously there is differentiation in the universe, but comments like "Everything is interconnected" or "Every thing changes over time", are - both statements imply processes.

The Tao Te Ching gets around this by using dualistic sentences. If both possible perspectives are represented then no absolute onesidedness is being stated for each concept. If there are two opposites then a process between the two is automatically assumed by the brain. It is essentailly a document about the processes common about all things.

David Quinn wrote: So after all that arguing in the Reasoning Show thread, you do believe in the existence of absolute truth and intellectual certainty, after all.

Nat: Only of a kind that doesn't mean anything to talk about, as I said earlier.

It means something to talk about such things. If someone is religiously deluded then they need to consider what is absolutely true, or they are unlikely to remove their religious delusions completely.

David Quinn wrote: So what is that solid basis you are standing on, then? It has to be a rock-solid "certainty" of some kind.

Nat: The certainty of being. Nothing more can be said.

There are more absolute truths than just my existence exists.

An absolute truth is any truth that describes a process that applies to all things and will remain true in all possible worlds. In accepting the Tao Te Ching, you are accepting truths expressed within that text, that are absolute (albeit that a lot of the document is not related to absolute truths).

Salvation doesn't lie in anything. Step outside your religious mindset for a few minutes and read what I've been saying here. I don't believe in salvation at all. I'm not looking for it. I am unsaved and I plan to remain that way, because salvation is a religious fiction.

Well you do believe in salvation actually, the salvation provided by being a constructively participating member of the human herd.

Jamesh,

I largely agree with your ideas about static descriptions vs process descriptions.

It means something to talk about such things. If someone is religiously deluded then they need to consider what is absolutely true, or they are unlikely to remove their religious delusions completely.

But considering what is "absolutely true" (assuming we view the concept as meaningful) is equally likely to give us new religious delusions.

There are more absolute truths than just my existence exists.

An absolute truth is any truth that describes a process that applies to all things and will remain true in all possible worlds. In accepting the Tao Te Ching, you are accepting truths expressed within that text, that are absolute (albeit that a lot of the document is not related to absolute truths).

I'm not "accepting the Tao Te Ching" as if it were an altar call for Jesus. There is no creed to recite, nor is there any requirement that it be interpreted in a single manner. For example, David interprets it in a salvationist, religious manner, while I interpret it in a humanist, secular manner.

Neither of these interpretations is objectively "wrong," nor is yours. They simply speak to differing psychological motives.

Well you do believe in salvation actually, the salvation provided by being a constructively participating member of the human herd.

Then how come I'm not one?

David,

This is just another way of saying that valuing consciousness is the biggest problem with my philosophy.

This is another meaningless proclamation that sounds profound only to you and your followers. As I indicated on The Reasoning Show, consciousness correctly defined is a quality all human beings possess by default, except those in vegetative states.

What you really mean to say is that you value consciousness identical to your own. It's a common feature of religious fundamentalists.

Conscious discrimination, making distinctions between true and false, or between what is conducive to wise living and what isn't, is what I would call intelligent human activity. It is necessary if one wants to lead a life of truth.

Of course. This is an example of a rhetorical technique where something obvious everyone can agree with is stated in order to promote uncritical acceptance of the problematic statements which follow.

But as I say, I think you're scared of this because it means having to face up to hard truths and entering into conflict with most of the human race. And that is the core reason why you denounce it.

This is not only demonstrably false, but highly condescending and indicative of your self-importance. As an atheist, a socialist, and an intellectual, I'm already in conflict with most of the human race in terms of values, beliefs, and personality. You should be well aware of this fact, although you may have forgotten it in your rush to make a point. I'm not afraid of opposing values I disagree with or being opposed in return. In fact, I face strong opposition and criticism on a near-daily basis. I doubt the same is true of you.

One doesn't have to share your viewpoint to be at odds with the majority, David. That this fact apparently does not occur to you is telling.

Your own timidness is making this decision for you.

My friends (and my opponents) know how comically inaccurate this statement is.

In any case, you are already engaging in discrimination, whether you like it or not. For example, you are making a distinction between your own philosophy, which you hold to be desirable and valid, and my own philosophy, which you denigrate as being conceited and deluded. So you're already engaging in this supposedly conceited, deluded behaviour of making discriminations.

If it is deluded for me to be engaging in discriminatory behaviour, the it is equally deluded for you as well. The difference is, you're not being honest about it.

This is completely irrelevant to any statement made by me. Where did I make the bizarre suggestion that people should avoid exercising discrimination in any manner? I didn't.

Rather, what I said was that in one specific case (among others), you have created what I see as a false dichotomy - the bifurcation of "spiritual" and "human." There is no spirituality outside the human mind. It is a human psychological phenomena, and to attempt to paint humanity and spirituality as polar opposites is an incoherent religious dogma, no different than the the kind of world-denying and life-negating nonsense preached by fundamentalists of all traditions.

In another window, I'm currently watching a video about a notable American religious group. A young member of this group expressed the essence of the "spiritual vs human" dichotomy quite succinctly when she said that "friendship with the world is enmity with God." This is virtually identical to the ubiquitous anti-humanist message preached by yourself and many other salvationists.

The speaker, who agrees with you on this issue, is a granddaughter of Fred Phelps. How do you like them apples?

See, you've done it again. You are using a particular religious school of thought to validate your decision to lead the current life that you do. You've confirmed the very point I was making.

Personally, I don't care what religious texts say. They don't hold any sway over me at all, even though I am supposed to be the religious one and you're not.

I don't care about what religious texts say except insofar as they say something I see as insightful or useful. But if you don't care about them at all, why don't you do what Robert and I and others have asked you to do for many years and remove the references to Taoism and Zen from your promotional materials? They don't belong there anyway. What you have here is not Taoism or Zen or any other historical tradition. It is Quinnology. Where's your courage? Don't you have the guts to present this thing honestly for what it really is - a new religion of your own creation?

Ironic, isn't it.

Absurdly so.

If it is done by making reference to Buddhist sutras, then yes, it would be very comical.

It would be like watching a Christian priest standing up in the pulpit and using quotes in the Bible to denounce all belief in God, and then asking the congregation for donations for church maintenance and repairs.

And yet, this is exactly what Zen does.

"A special transmission, outside the scriptures."

If Zen and philosophical Taoism can be called religions at all, they are religions which undermine the religious impulse itself and dissolve the psychological motivation behind it. They point to liberation through direct engagement with the world rather than intellectualized salvationism. They are not compatible with Quinnology. This is clear to everyone but you guys.

Your reference to another religious authority figure is noted.

Your obliviousness is without equal. I refer to traditional religious figures and writings in discussion with you primarily because your own writings are plastered with references to them. Your web pages and other promotional materials are loaded with grandiose boasting about how any number of historical religious figures are your "spiritual contemporaries" and such. In other words, I'm intentionally speaking your language and you're chiding me for it. Amazing.

Denouncing all ontological claims on the basis that "we are of the same nature as everything, and the distinction between "exists" and "does not exist" becomes a meaningless one. Therefore, one cannot posit existence, non-existence, both, or neither" - which is itself an ontological claim - is ludicrous to the extreme.

Perhaps I should clarify. The following is from my essay on dialectical monism:

Nat wrote:At first glance, one might worry that dialectical monism is yet another attempt to establish a metaphysical "Ultimate Reality" of the sort which somehow transcends the realm of everyday experience. Upon closer examination, however, it should become clear that dialectical monism actually establishes the opposite position. There is no "Ultimate Reality" that is not everyday reality, or (if one prefers), there is no everyday reality that is not "Ultimate Reality." The distinction is meaningless within the context of dialectical monism. There is One Reality, One Nature; we lose sight of this only because the monistic nature of reality can be perceived only in dualistic terms. Dialectical monism is a perspective which restores simplicity to ontology. In the spirit of Nagarjuna and his ruthless negative dialectic, it is a metaphysical system which does away with metaphysical systems.

It's similar to the idea I've expressed elsewhere numerous times about using reason to arrive at the place where reason can go no further, and thereby dissolving the question. The purpose of ontological reasoning, in my view, is to discover the limits thereof and empower ourselves to move on to more interesting concerns, such as chopping wood and carrying water.

In the end, what you are really saying is, "All ontological claims are meaningless, except my own. My ontological proclamations are true and valid, while yours, David, are deluded and false." There is essentially nothing more to it than that.

In a sense, this is true, although your last sentence is inaccurate. There is more to it than that - namely, the rational arguments I am offering to demonstrate why your conceptual beliefs about "ultimate reality" have more to do with your own psychological motivations than any kind of meaningful description of reality. I've offered arguments to that effect which are consistent with the writings of your self-proclaimed "spiritual colleagues" Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and Nagarjuna (among others) which demonstrate quite effectively that concepts, beliefs, and positions about "ultimate reality" are meaningless. You have not effectively rebutted these arguments. Instead, you have cast aspersions on my spiritual development, introduced irrelevancies, engaged in numerous non-sequiturs and incoherencies, and finally proclaimed in desperation that you don't care what the historical sources say.

In other words, you've had your sagely rump handed to you. :)

Victor,

Jason wrote: I think you need to decide whether or not you really are in a constant state of willingness to accept what evidence may bring in the future, because what I keep seeing is you making absolute pronouncements like the above.

vicdan wrote: You keep missing the difference between empirical certainty (e.g. "the next time I drop an apple, it will not float up by itself") and logical certainty. The former is of such type that while is could be false, it is irrational and pointless to actively entertain such a possibility -- for practical intents and purposes, it's a certainty. The latter is simply completely certain. When I make categorical pronouncements, they are of the former type, not the latter.

I understand the difference, and I know what you are claiming. But it continues to be difficult for me to interpret your counter-arguments against David's(and other) absolutes within the context of empiricism, if I am still to believe that they have any relevance. One of the reasons being that David, as I understand him, is largely speaking about matters which are ultimately only accessible to individual and subjective consciousness. Attempts to argue against them using empiricism are therefore of limited or no use as far as I am concerned.

Even putting aside that problem, I have to wonder what empirical methods or experimental evidence you believe you have access to, which allows you to draw conclusions about these matters which are in the same realm of empirical certainty as an apple always dropping to the ground when it is released.

Nat,

DQ: This is just another way of saying that valuing consciousness is the biggest problem with my philosophy.

N: This is another meaningless proclamation that sounds profound only to you and your followers. As I indicated on The Reasoning Show, consciousness correctly defined is a quality all human beings possess by default, except those in vegetative states.

Well, I don't believe this to be a very useful definition as far as spiritual and philosophical matters are concerned.

For example, a five-year-old child can be said to be conscious, in the sense that he isn't in a vegetative state. And yet the fact remains that he is unconscious of political and economic realities, unconscious of scientific theory, unconscious of philosophic truths, unconsciousness of adult emotions, unconscious of most social realities, unconscious of the world's environmental problems, unconscious of irony and deeper forms of humour, unconscious of most of the dangers and threats in the world, etc.

He can pick up a box of matches and start playing with them, not knowing the danger he is placing himself in. He can dash across a busy road and get killed without even knowing what is happening. So there is a massive difference between his consciousness and the consciousness of a normal adult. And in the same way, there is a massive difference between the consciousness of a normal adult and the consciousness of a sage.

To wipe away these massive differences by making use of a crude definitional process doesn't strike me as very practical, as far as spiritual matters are concerned.

What you really mean to say is that you value consciousness identical to your own. It's a common feature of religious fundamentalists.

I value that type of consciousness which is insightful, responsible, consistent, rational, connected to Reality, etc. I think the world desperately needs this type of consciousness to flourish. Call it fundamentalism, if you want. I don't mind.

Where did I make the bizarre suggestion that people should avoid exercising discrimination in any manner? I didn't.

It is implicit in your current philosophy of trying to avoid conceptualizing about reality, which then extends to all other facets of your existence. Recent examples include, "all people are similarly conscious", and "we are all babbling mammals".

In my opinion, it is this strong desire in you to avoid discriminating between people which has led you to abandon the valuing of wisdom and the ideal of comprehending Reality. These two areas of your thought are very much interlinked.

DQ: Your own timidness is making this decision for you.

N: My friends (and my opponents) know how comically inaccurate this statement is.

Nevertheless, I stand by it.

Rather, what I said was that in one specific case (among others), you have created what I see as a false dichotomy - the bifurcation of "spiritual" and "human." There is no spirituality outside the human mind. It is a human psychological phenomena, and to attempt to paint humanity and spirituality as polar opposites is an incoherent religious dogma, no different than the the kind of world-denying and life-negating nonsense preached by fundamentalists of all traditions.

Are you saying, then, there is no difference between an irrational psychopath intent upon molesting children and a truthful human being who promotes wisdom in the world? Are they both equally spiritual?

In another window, I'm currently watching a video about a notable American religious group. A young member of this group expressed the essence of the "spiritual vs human" dichotomy quite succinctly when she said that "friendship with the world is enmity with God." This is virtually identical to the ubiquitous anti-humanist message preached by yourself and many other salvationists.

The speaker, who agrees with you on this issue, is a granddaughter of Fred Phelps. How do you like them apples?

I reject the comparison, and I also reject the idea that I am anti-humanist.

Comparing the path to sagehood to religious fundamentalists is like comparing Einstein to the Creation scientists, or Mozart to the Sex Pistols.

I don't care about what religious texts say except insofar as they say something I see as insightful or useful. But if you don't care about them at all, why don't you do what Robert and I and others have asked you to do for many years and remove the references to Taoism and Zen from your promotional materials? They don't belong there anyway.

Above, to James, you stated that there were no objectively wrong interpretations of these texts, that it all comes down to psychological disposition and so on. If that is what you really think, then you have no basis for telling anyone what they should or shouldn't be doing with these texts.

In any case, I consider people like Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu and Huang Po to be very wise men and I am in agreement with their core teachings. Moreover, I recognize them to be kindred spirits. I see myself in them.

Moreover, I will always speak against those who misrepresent them. For example, I will always speak against those who like to paint them as ordinary humanists or postmodernists.

What you have here is not Taoism or Zen or any other historical tradition. It is Quinnology. Where's your courage? Don't you have the guts to present this thing honestly for what it really is - a new religion of your own creation?

It would be dishonest of me if I did that. What I present is in full agreement with the wise elements of Taoism and Zen, and completely at odds with the populist, humanist, postmodernist elements which have, unfortunately, baked themselves onto them.

DQ: Denouncing all ontological claims on the basis that "we are of the same nature as everything, and the distinction between "exists" and "does not exist" becomes a meaningless one. Therefore, one cannot posit existence, non-existence, both, or neither" - which is itself an ontological claim - is ludicrous to the extreme.

N: Perhaps I should clarify. The following is from my essay on dialectical monism:

At first glance, one might worry that dialectical monism is yet another attempt to establish a metaphysical "Ultimate Reality" of the sort which somehow transcends the realm of everyday experience. Upon closer examination, however, it should become clear that dialectical monism actually establishes the opposite position. There is no "Ultimate Reality" that is not everyday reality, or (if one prefers), there is no everyday reality that is not "Ultimate Reality." The distinction is meaningless within the context of dialectical monism. There is One Reality, One Nature; we lose sight of this only because the monistic nature of reality can be perceived only in dualistic terms. Dialectical monism is a perspective which restores simplicity to ontology. In the spirit of Nagarjuna and his ruthless negative dialectic, it is a metaphysical system which does away with metaphysical systems.

So what do we have here? We have:

The metaphysical belief that Ultimate Reality is the everyday world.

The metaphysical belief that there is only one Reality

The metaphysical belief that Reality can only be perceived in dualistic terms.

And to top it all off, the metaphysical belief that all other metaphysical beliefs are deluded.

That's an awful lot of metaphysical beliefs for someone who claims that all metaphysical thinking is deluded. So once again, it all comes down to the claim that, "All metaphysical beliefs are deluded, except mine." No matter how you dress it up, this is your underlying point.

In truth, you haven't really debunked metaphysical thinking at all. All you have done is adopt one particular metaphysical viewpoint and used that to try and refute other competing metaphysical viewpoints. And then you have gone into complete denial over having done this, using a populist interpretation of Taoism and Zen to sweep it all away.

The purpose of ontological reasoning, in my view, is to discover the limits thereof and empower ourselves to move on to more interesting concerns, such as chopping wood and carrying water.

Again, that is not what you have done at all. What you have done is used reason, and studied religious texts, to arrive at a particular metaphysical viewpoint, which you currently believe to be true. You then used this metaphysical viewpoint to undermine all other metaphysical viewpoints. So not only is it false that you have demonstrated that reason is limited when it comes to uncovering truth, but you have actually done the complete opposite and used reason to arrive at what you think is true.

DQ: In the end, what you are really saying is, "All ontological claims are meaningless, except my own. My ontological proclamations are true and valid, while yours, David, are deluded and false." There is essentially nothing more to it than that.

N: In a sense, this is true, although your last sentence is inaccurate. There is more to it than that - namely, the rational arguments I am offering to demonstrate why your conceptual beliefs about "ultimate reality" have more to do with your own psychological motivations than any kind of meaningful description of reality.

I agree that my psychological disposition makes me more disposed towards certain concepts and perceptions of the world, but this doesn't have any bearing on the truth or falsity of these concepts and perceptions. A true concept is always true, regardless of who is entertaining it and what psychological disposition he happens to have. The truth that 2"+2=4", or "Reality is one", doesn't alter just because a person has a particular psychological disposition and not another.

I've offered arguments to that effect which are consistent with the writings of your self-proclaimed "spiritual colleagues" Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and Nagarjuna (among others) which demonstrate quite effectively that concepts, beliefs, and positions about "ultimate reality" are meaningless. You have not effectively rebutted these arguments.

I have, but because you are in denial over your own metaphysical activities, you currently cannot see it.

For example, I have made the point that any attempt to conclude that "concepts, beliefs, and positions about ultimate reality are meaningless" itself depends on a particular conception of ultimate reality being meaningful and true - namely, the conception that ultimate reality is structured in such a manner that it cannot be conceptualized. And for this point to be meaningful, you would have to conceptually understand the manner in which ultimate reality is beyond concepts, which effectively means that you would have to conceptually understand ultimate reality itself.

The logic of this point is irrefutable, but it clashes with your current metaphysical belief-system and your current conception of ultimate reality. And thus you have a mental block about it.

-

David Quinn wrote:To wipe away these massive differences by making use of a crude definitional process doesn't strike me as very practical, as far as spiritual matters are concerned.

Wow. And you don't see the problem, huh?

In redefining 'conscious' to be the consciousness of an infinity-seeking philosopher, you create one clarification but obscure others, such as the difference between the 'unconsciousness' of a child and the 'unconsciousness' of a dog. In your place, anyone with any shred of intellectual honesty would simply define a new term to describe a new concept, or at least explicitly tag each modified use of the common concept as such. Instead, you lie by implication.

Wouldn't maybe "unaware" be a better word then? Seems like you guys have some massive vocabulary issues...

Katy wrote:Wouldn't maybe "unaware" be a better word then? Seems like you guys have some massive vocabulary issues...

funny where it reminds me of...

when someone assures me "it has always been that way",I reply "it need not be".

clyde wrote:Where are you looking for reality?

How does one look for reality? I think you are misunderstanding what I said about understanding reality. In the begining of my spiritual path I was deeply discontent with the direction of my life and human civilization as a whole, I felt I was lacking something in an "Ultimate Sense".

Basically a genius is discontent with the things of this world and has a great desire to learn Nature's secrets, Absolute Truth, or attain "God Consciousness"/Enlightenment.

One must desire only the highest life has to offer, everything else is trivial in comparison.

clyde wrote:Do you believe this world is apart from reality?

No.

I can kind of see where you're coming from, David, calling Nat's beliefs metaphysical. They are, in the same sense that atheism is religious. It's a position, it's just a position that makes all further discussion of the subject ridiculous.

Calling it a metaphysical declaration doesn't really have any true meaning.

Unidian wrote:David,

This is just another way of saying that valuing consciousness is the biggest problem with my philosophy.

This is another meaningless proclamation that sounds profound only to you and your followers. As I indicated on The Reasoning Show, consciousness correctly defined is a quality all human beings possess by default, except those in vegetative states.

Huh? I don't recall you indicating any such thing. I think you need to go back and listen to what you actually said on that show. You did not disagree that most people are unconscious - because you know damn well they are - you just disagreed with Kevin's scaling and focus on the "negative". And there's no such thing as "correctly defined".

Rather, what I said was that in one specific case (among others), you have created what I see as a false dichotomy - the bifurcation of "spiritual" and "human." There is no spirituality outside the human mind. It is a human psychological phenomena, and to attempt to paint humanity and spirituality as polar opposites is an incoherent religious dogma, no different than the the kind of world-denying and life-negating nonsense preached by fundamentalists of all traditions.

This is a pretty hollow complaint. There is obviously no spirituality outside the human mind but there isn't automatically spirituality in it either. Spirituality doesn't mean much if it isn't associated with consciousness and reality. If spirituality is simply believing in things then you can stick the notion. And "human" in this context is also related to consciousness. Biologically, yes, we're all human, however, that which makes us distinct - i.e. human - is consciousness. If we don't create some kind of scale, some form of threshold of consciousness such that we can say spirituality is attained, we end up with the meaningless situation where everyone is thought of as being spiritual. the net result of which is that no-one will bother to strive for greater consciousness. Why would they? They're already spiritual and consious. In your attempt to be fair minded - the fact of which I see no reason to question or the motive impugn - you inadvertantly sow the seeds of apathy and nihilism. What's the point of defining things in such a way that nothing happens?

In another window, I'm currently watching a video about a notable American religious group. A young member of this group expressed the essence of the "spiritual vs human" dichotomy quite succinctly when she said that "friendship with the world is enmity with God." This is virtually identical to the ubiquitous anti-humanist message preached by yourself and many other salvationists.

Ok, well, that's just plain stupid and you know it is. You're like a broken record with this "salvationist" codswallop, Nat. There's no resemblance whatever between that message and ours. Again, you know this, you're just inventing this for the sake of argument. What he said is actually fair enough if understood in an intelligent way (i.e. other than how he understands it). It simply means that a conscious person does not partake in deluded values and behaviour. It's got nothing to do with anti-humanist anything and everything to do with anti-delusion.

The speaker, who agrees with you on this issue, is a granddaughter of Fred Phelps. How do you like them apples?

Not much; they're kind of sour and putrid.

If Zen and philosophical Taoism can be called religions at all,

If they are, then they are not those things at all...

they are religions which undermine the religious impulse itself and dissolve the psychological motivation behind it.

True enough.

They point to liberation through direct engagement with the world rather than intellectualized salvationism. They are not compatible with Quinnology. This is clear to everyone but you guys.

What the hell is intellectualised salvationism? This crusade you're on to paint us as offering some religious type of "salvation" is getting seriously irritating, mostly because it is disingenuous bullshit. You seem determined to offer people salvation from our supposed salvationism! Yes, the point is liberation through direct engagement with the world. What else could it be? But the key there is delusion-free engagement. That engagement is of a different type to the deluded kind. That difference is embodied in non-attachment. Non-attachment is not salvation from anything, it is simply the natural consequence of the absence of delusion.

Katy wrote:Wouldn't maybe "unaware" be a better word then? Seems like you guys have some massive vocabulary issues...

"Conscious" means "aware". There is no vocab issue.

Katy wrote:I can kind of see where you're coming from, David, calling Nat's beliefs metaphysical. They are, in the same sense that atheism is religious. It's a position, it's just a position that makes all further discussion of the subject ridiculous.

Calling it a metaphysical declaration doesn't really have any true meaning.

Metaphysical does not mean supernatural. Any notion of how the world ultimately is constitutes a metaphysic. I don't see why people have such a problem with the term.

Nick;

My point was not a criticism on your spiritual path or your desire, but a comment on your dismissal of the world and the things of this world. You readily agree this world is not apart from reality. If your goal is to see and understand reality, why would you overlook the reality that is before you?

clyde

Nick isn't rejecting the world, as such, just the delusion and falseness therein. All values and goals demand the rejection of something.

Dan;

That may be, but Nick wrote,

For a true genius, things of this world simply don't cut it.

clyde

clyde wrote:Nick;

My point was not a criticism on your spiritual path or your desire, but a comment on your dismissal of the world and the things of this world. You readily agree this world is not apart from reality. If your goal is to see and understand reality, why would you overlook the reality that is before you?

clyde

How do you percieve me to be overlooking anything? In order for me to value or not value certain things means I am in fact looking at them.

clyde wrote:Dan;

That may be, but Nick wrote,

For a true genius, things of this world simply don't cut it.

clyde

How do you see this to be at odds with what Dan said? You seem to be drawing some off the wall conclusions about what I've said. I think you ought to think a little harder about what I am trying to express to you.

Nick,

You wrote that “things of this world simply don’t cut it”. I understand that to mean that worldly things are unsatisfactory and I infer that things not of this world are what you desire. If that is not what you meant, what did you mean?

clyde

If you understand what I meant, then perhaps you could answer my question to you in the first sentence of my last post.

Nick;

I don’t. Are you suggesting by your reference to Dan's post that when you wrote, “things of this world simply don't cut it” you meant that you reject “the delusion and falseness therein”?

clyde

I'd say the two statements are tied at the waste. If you reject delusion and falseness then you necessarily reject the worldly desires of humanity. Also, chances are, if a genius happens to value some of the same things as humanity it is for a different reason.

Nick;

Can you give me a few examples of "the worldly desires of humanity"?

And what worldly activities does a genius engage in and why?

clyde