GENIUS FORUMS

Most of us create our definitions to model and to have practical value in reality. You deny this, and redefine concepts however you like and claim they have tautological, absolute truth. Then you do deductions on these concepts and try to relate your conclusions back to the empirical world as absolute truths.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Most of us create our definitions to model and to have practical value in reality.

Is there any other use for definitions?

You deny this,

How could I deny it when I have said twice now that everyone does it. I might deny the quality and usefulness of given definitions, but am I not entitled to do that?

and redefine concepts however you like

However we find useful to a given end, which is what everyone else does.

and claim they have tautological, absolute truth.

Definitions themselves are neither true or false. You know that, right? They don't of themselves assert anything about reality. They are tools for doing thought-work. Only propositions can be true or false.

Then you do deductions on these concepts and try to relate your conclusions back to the empirical world as absolute truths.

Yeah, damn us. How absurd. How do you define the empirical world, again?

David holds that definitions are absolute, tautological, truth.

Once you admit that all definitions ultimately come from the empirical world (whether you redefine them or not), you should be able to see the flaw with concluding based on these definitions that the empirical world is an illusion, or that there is any higher truth or beyond.

You really seem incapable of understanding this stuff, so I won't bother elaborating unless someone else wants me to.

Neil Melnyk wrote:David holds that definitions are absolute, tautological, truth.

Yes, it is common for people to say that 1+1=2 is "true by definition", even though when we look at it another way, it is neither true nor false.

Once you admit that all definitions ultimately come from the empirical world

The only way you could say that definitions are caused by the empirical world is if you defined "the empirical world" in such a manner that the conclusion is true by definition.

Neil Melnyk wrote:David holds that definitions are absolute, tautological, truth.

Well, they are absolute in the sense that they are created and therefore cannot be true or false, which makes them not subject to invalidation (i.e. unlike propositions they don't really assert anything). But it's more the logic built on definitions that would be described as absolute, for such logic indeed holds in all possible worlds. These kinds of absolutes are a dime a dozen. Most of them posses nominal empirical correlation to the so-called "world". Some of them go further and capture within their scope that which is universal. You deny this part but denial is not an argument, it's a river in Egypt.

Once you admit that all definitions ultimately come from the empirical world (whether you redefine them or not),

Why should I admit that? Can you prove it's true?

you should be able to see the flaw with concluding based on these definitions that the empirical world is an illusion, or that there is any higher truth or beyond.

I can't discern an actual point or argument in that.

You really seem incapable of understanding this stuff,

What just because I disagree? Anyway, that's a whopping logical fallacy you just engaged in so you should slap yourself at least thrice.

so I won't bother elaborating unless someone else wants me to.

I don't believe you even can.

Kevin,

Kevin Solway wrote:The only way you could say that definitions are caused by the empirical world is if you defined "the empirical world" in such a manner that the conclusion is true by definition.

Two can play this game. -- The only way you can say that the only way I can say that definitions are caused by the empirical world is if I defined "the empirical world" in such a manner that the conclusion is true by definition, is if you defined <all of the above concepts> in such a manner that the conclusion is true by definition.

Dan,

Dan Rowden wrote:These kinds of absolutes are a dime a dozen. Most of them posses nominal empirical correlation to the so-called "world". Some of them go further and capture within their scope that which is universal. You deny this part but denial is not an argument, it's a river in Egypt.

I deny that you can claim that these terms capture anything that is "universal". You create these terms, you are acquainted only with the empirical world, not the universal, and hence I do not understand how you can claim your terms to be universal.

I can't discern an actual point or argument in that.

Probably because you split my post into too many small fragments to get anything much out of it.

David Quinn wrote:Out of curiosity, I'd like an example, maestro, of where I am being annoyed by him and not engaging in logical discussion. I've just had a look at our recent discussion and I can't see it.

No I was just saying that it would be a shame if you just ignored him. Dan seemed to be a bit annoyed by his gratuitous abuse.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Two can play this game. -- The only way you can say that the only way I can say that definitions are caused by the empirical world is if I defined "the empirical world" in such a manner that the conclusion is true by definition, is if you defined <all of the above concepts> in such a manner that the conclusion is true by definition.

That's right, and I have.

Neil Melnyk wrote:David holds that definitions are absolute, tautological, truth.

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, they are absolute in the sense that they are created and therefore cannot be true or false, which makes them not subject to invalidation (i.e. unlike propositions they don't really assert anything). But it's more the logic built on definitions that would be described as absolute, for such logic indeed holds in all possible worlds. These kinds of absolutes are a dime a dozen. Most of them posses nominal empirical correlation to the so-called "world". Some of them go further and capture within their scope that which is universal.

So,what is a vanilla flavoured atheist like me to make of the QSR assertion that "God =everything"? It seems to me from the time I've spent reading this forum that until i accept this 'truth',then i cannot make progress towards the road to enlightenment.

I've read both David's and Kevin's book , and while both texts are very good , in both instances this 'truth' is always asserted but never logically shown.David makes a very good argument for "everything being caused" and shows it logically.It is easy for me to accept as truth(although truth be known,I already accepted it to be true even before embarking on the book).Furthermore, the QSR position on the 'Totality' and it's usefulness in logicially saying other things about the 'world' has great utility in my view.


All 3 of you recently engaged with Father Bowes in a disagreement in the Reasoning show thread in regards to 'what is God' and unaminously declared as ever from the position that God is everything .All the arguments against him were based from that viewpoint.

My question really boils to -How is the QSR position that God is Everything any stronger (logically) than "Everything is Everything" and thus "God is Nothing"?

My question really boils to -How is the QSR position that God is Everything any stronger (logically) than "Everything is Everything" and thus "God is Nothing"?

It's not, because they are the same statement.

Nagarjuna wrote:"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."

In other words, "everything" and "nothing" are complementary descriptions of the indescribable.

Unidian wrote:

Nagarjuna wrote:"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."

In other words, "everything" and "nothing" are complementary descriptions of the indescribable.

These are articles of faith rather than undoubtable logical truths though.No?

Ataraxia wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:David holds that definitions are absolute, tautological, truth.

Dan Rowden wrote:Well, they are absolute in the sense that they are created and therefore cannot be true or false, which makes them not subject to invalidation (i.e. unlike propositions they don't really assert anything). But it's more the logic built on definitions that would be described as absolute, for such logic indeed holds in all possible worlds. These kinds of absolutes are a dime a dozen. Most of them posses nominal empirical correlation to the so-called "world". Some of them go further and capture within their scope that which is universal.

So,what is a vanilla flavoured atheist like me to make of the QSR assertion that "God =everything"? It seems to me from the time I've spent reading this forum that until i accept this 'truth',then i cannot make progress towards the road to enlightenment.

I've read both David's and Kevin's book , and while both texts are very good , in both instances this 'truth' is always asserted but never logically shown.David makes a very good argument for "everything being caused" and shows it logically.It is easy for me to accept as truth(although truth be known,I already accepted it to be true even before embarking on the book).Furthermore, the QSR position on the 'Totality' and it's usefulness in logicially saying other things about the 'world' has great utility in my view.


All 3 of you recently engaged with Father Bowes in a disagreement in the Reasoning show thread in regards to 'what is God' and unaminously declared as ever from the position that God is everything .All the arguments against him were based from that viewpoint.

My question really boils to -How is the QSR position that God is Everything any stronger (logically) than "Everything is Everything" and thus "God is Nothing"?

Think of it this way:

If the word "God" is to mean anything at all, then it must refer to Ultimate Reality. For me at least, that would have be the key defining characteristic of God. Otherwise, it is tantamount to saying that God isn't ultimately real, which would only undermine the word's usefulness.

Next, note that whatever exists in the world must be ultimately real in some way. Even if it has the form of an illusion, there must be something ultimately real about the illusion. Otherwise, it wouldn't be able to exist at all.

If you combine those two thoughts together and explore the implications, you will quickly see how it is that God is everything. Or to put it less religiously, that everything is God.

-

These are articles of faith rather than undoubtable logical truths though.No?

Not really. They are arrived at logically.

David Quinn wrote:Think of it this way:

If the word "God" is to mean anything at all, then it must refer to Ultimate Reality. For me at least, that would have be the key defining characteristic of God. Otherwise, it is tantamount to saying that God isn't ultimately real, which would only undermine the word's usefulness.

I don't have a problem with undermining the words usefullness though.From my perspective it is a useless word(at this point in my life).'Supernatural', appears to me,a similarly useless word.

A philospher can say "everything is everything" and remain logically sound.None of Aristotle's laws of thought are being undermined.However,if he says "God=Everything,or the Totality,or All" then he is saying something else.He is then telling me something about his subjective experience.It has has lost it's absolute,or universal truth quality.I already know this because I'm a small part of the 'absolute' and i don't accept this.

This is no problem for ordinary discussions on a matter but if it's used as an axiom to base further arguments,like say the ones used against Father Bowes, then shouldn't the philosopher be able to first show where this axiom has been logically proven?

Next, note that whatever exists in the world must be ultimately real in some way. Even if it has the form of an illusion, there must be something ultimately real about the illusion. Otherwise, it wouldn't be able to exist at all.

This only makes it as real as UFO's or a weeping Mary.They may be real in my experience,but not ultimately real universally.

If you combine those two thoughts together and explore the implications, you will quickly see how it is that God is everything. Or to put it less religiously, that everything is God.
-

Yes,i can do that-and I'm in the process of doing that- and if ultimately I come to agreement with you, Kevin, Unidian, Nagarjuna etc. they will still remain mine/our truths rather than universal ones.

Dan, from a few days ago

I said: Your definition of masculinity is "flawless" to you, yet completely fucked in relation to reality, as it bears only about 50% relevancy to the totality of masculinity (as in all the attributes of males, rather than a subset).

The definition of wisdom has got even less to do with the actual reality of human consciousness yet the potential is there which makes the definition totally valid and useful. The degree to which males possess and express the masculine is not relevant to the core validity of the definition. Almost all men possess that core to some degree. How the hell is one supposed to tease out into full expression that which tends to be latent, if one doesn't have a working definition of that which one is attempting to bring to greater fruition? Seriously, your objection is nonsensical to me, James. It's as if you're trying to say a solid definition of sanity is worthless and fucked up in relation to reality because most people are largely insane. That, my friend, is insane.

I'm just saying that reality entails the whole of reality, not just the way you see it. So therefore if one wishes to show others what your understanding of reality is, the reality set of "communicating with others", to be successful requires relating to others using the meanings they hold for certain key words or concepts.

IMO, the mental cognitive linkage of masculinity to male behaviour is just too strong to separate from each other. In our past experiences we've always equated masculinity to males.

It is just too hard too separate. Last night I watched about 10-15 minutes of an excellent show on Putin, the modern day Stalin wantabe, and while watching I thought - "this is the problem with males and masculinity. Masculinity always goes out to test how far they can push things. Some masculine males are not satisfied with just winning, they have to keep testing the limits, bit by bit extending their power, aiming for total control". To describe Putin as not being masculine, because what he does, does not fit into your definition of masculinity as it relates to philosophical wisdom, just seems wrong to me.

For the QRS it is like "the ideal is the definition". While I agree that the traits that you ascribe to masculinity, are what is required for the development of the deep wisdom of sages, in my view the post development period is a unity of masculine and feminine traits. One needs to femininely accept the knowledge obtained from masculine approaches to investigating reality. In my view this is what the QRS have done, while those who support your views most strongly have not. Not being able to accept reality, not being able to lapse into feminine acceptance leads one to a dangerous potentiality for insanity, or rational/irrational erraticness. Sure, I'm a bit erratic myself, but I think that’s more because of my long term bong and boose habits, than an inability to accept the knowledge I've learnt.

I'm a bit anti-masculinity because of people like Putin. I've always had an inkling that deep philosophies like those of the QRS will cause more Putin types to arise, there will be more beasts than sages. I think sages must rally against the lack of ego control generally, rather than the limitations of femininity.

Me: Your definition is thus completely flawed in relation to communication with others, and you show enormous arrogance, thus enormous ego, in the manner in which you use this term.

Dan: That is pretty pissweak. You should be forced to go without beer for 2 months for engaging in such piffle.

Yeah, most weeks I tend to have about 5 beers at Friday lunch time. I'm not much of a night drinker, anymore. You'll find that many of my abusive or erratic posts occur when I get back to work and mess around on the forum instead of working :) I'm often a bit shy of returning to threads when embarrassed about what I've said.

Most men with a functioning brain that I've met are capable of understanding and relating to the content of the definition. They may not be able to fully manifest it, as things stand, but that's sort of the point of talking about it.

Trouble is there is far too much talk of masculinity relative to women, rather than the traits of masculinity, you know stuff like how to develop the masculine traits required to avoid insanity on the path to wisdom! Perhaps it is time to stop participating on threads about women and masculinity, as the defensiveness it causes as a result of the differences in the meanings of the words, distracts people away from the examining the more positive side of masculinity.

The problem with the modern world is that it does not give that many men the experiences required to develop calm and confident masculinity to the degree required for ultimate wisdom. A problem is that I see too much falseness in the opinions of your ardent supporters, and yourselves for that matter.

I personally think you're simply trying to rationalise and justify your own failures by these arguments.

Probably fairly true. I do try and rationalise away my failures.

Me: I'm a bit anti-masculinity because of people like Putin. I've always had an inkling that deep philosophies like those of the QRS will cause more Putin types to arise, there will be more beasts than sages.

Finnish High school massacre: nine dead

CALLING himself "Sturmgeist89", this is the sick YouTube rant that appeared to anticipate the shooting massacre in Finland.

Sturmgeist89
aka NaturalSelector89 (3/15/2007 - 10/19/2007).

YouTube suspended my previous account but I am back now :) My new account name is German and means "Stormspirit" in English.

Name: Pekka-Eric Auvinen
Age: 18
Male from Finland.

I am a cynical existentialist, antihuman humanist, antisocial socialdarwinist, realistic idealist and godlike atheist.

I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.

You might ask yourselves, why did I do this and what do I want. Well, most of you are too arrogant and closed-minded to understand... You will proprably say me that I am "insane", "crazy", "psychopath", "criminal" or crap like that. No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident.

I have had enough. I don't want to be part of this f----d up society. Like some other wise people have said in the past, human race is not worth fighting for or saving... only worth killing. But... When my enemies will run and hide in fear when mentioning my name... When the gangsters of the corrupted governments have been shot in the streets... When the rule of idioracy and the democratic system has been replaced with justice... When intelligent people are finally free and rule the society instead of the idiocratic rule of majority... In that great day of deliverance, you will know what I want.

Long live the revolution... revolution against the system, which enslaves not only the majority of weak-minded masses but also the small minority of strong-minded and intelligent individuals! If we want to live in a different world, we must act. We must rise against the enslaving, corrupted and totalitarian regimes and overthrow the tyrants, gangsters and the rule of idiocracy. I can't alone change much but hopefully my actions will inspire all the intelligent people of the world and start some sort of revolution against the current systems. The system discriminating naturality and justice, is my enemy. The people living in the world of delusion and supporting this system are my enemies.

I am ready to die for a cause I know is right, just and true... even if I would lose or the battle would be only remembered as evil... I will rather fight and die than live a long and unhappy life.

And remember that this is my war, my ideas and my plans. Don't blame anyone else for my actions than myself. Don't blame my parents or my friends. I told nobody about my plans and I always kept them inside my mind only. Don't blame the movies I see, the music I hear, the games I play or the books I read. No, they had nothing to do with this. This is my war: one man war against humanity, governments and weak-minded masses of the world! No mercy for the scum of the earth! HUMANITY IS OVERRATED! It's time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!

Justice renders to everyone his due.

Country: Finland
Occupation: Unemployed Philosopher, Outcast
Companies: Human Race (evolved one step above though)

Interests and Hobbies: Existentialism, Freedom, Truth, Misantrophy, Social / Personality Psychology, Evolution Science, Political Incorrectness, Women, BDSM, Guns (I love you Catherine), Shooting, Computer Games, Sarcasm, Irony, Mass / Serial Killers, Macabre Art, Black Comedy, Absurdism

Movies and Shows: The Matrix, A View To A Kill, Falling Down, Natural Born Killers, Reservoir Dogs, Last Man Standing, Full Metal Jacket, Dr. Butcher MD (aka Zombie Holocaust), Saw 1-3, Lord Of War, The Deer Hunter, True Romance, The Untouchables, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, Idiocracy, They Live, Apocalypse Now, End Of Days, The Shining, The Dead Zone, Dr. Strangelove, House MD (TV), Monty Python, TV Documentaries Relating To History

Music: KMFDM, Rammstein, Eisbrecher, Nine Inch Nails, Grendel, Impaled Nazarene, Macabre, Deathstars, The Prodigy, Combichrist, Godsmack, Slayer, Children Of Bodom, Alice Cooper, Sturmgeist, Suicide Commando, Hatebreed, Suffocation, Terrorizer

Books: Fahrenheit 451 (Bradbury), 1984 (Orwell), Brave New World (Huxley), The Republic (Plato), all works of Nietzsche

Wow at that.

Wow indeed, but I take umbrage at Jimbo prefacing that story with a quote about QSR. That was grossly nonsensical. I mean, he read all of Nietzsche and he still liked "End Of Days" and "Fahrenheit 451"? What a complicated but insane guy.

Interesting, James. To me, it's an example of what can happen when thinking is combined with mental health issues and no sense of compassion. It really all hinges on what sort of influences a thinker who has psychiatric issues is exposed to. If it is something like Zen, the results may be harmless. But if it is "social Darwinism" and the like, you have a recipe for a shooting spree.

That is what happens with you combine physical strength/courage with goals/values. However it seems like it is a little premature to do a school shooting on a small high school at the age of 18.

Hmm, yeah, better to wait till you have tanks and then invade Poland.

Wow indeed, but I take umbrage at Jimbo prefacing that story with a quote about QSR.

Yeah, I had second thoughts about that. My ego suggests to me that I do want the human race to evolve, that we in fact have to, and as such truth is something our species cannot afford to be cowardly about. That Nietzsche and others influences egotists who cannot help but twist the intent of his words is just the price we have to pay to evolve.

Also thought about the blame aspect. I think a lot of these breakouts occur more from learnt behaviour than just some physical aberration of their brain. There seems to be plenty of ways in which through experience they can easily form an attachment to violent behaviour. So if society provides the food for such violence, and cause there to be a lack of respect of wisdom and access to wise people, then it will also be caused to pay the cost. To infer that truth is to blame is mistaken.

I can't think of a social model that can avoid this, can you?

I can't think of a social model that can avoid this, can you?

No. This sort of thing will not be significantly avoidable in the forseeable future, it will probably trend slowly up. IMO, there is a general vibe of a kind of "ego insatiability uneasiness", stemming from uncontrolled freedom and materialism across society. We are all aware, in henid fashion at least, that the right checks and balances are not in place in the way society operates. Too many people are being led into negative ways of living, as they are not being caused to jump enough hurdles.

I guess "good masculinity" will come to the fore when the conditions are right. Lets just hope that the suffering that could cause these conditions to eventuate, is not too harsh. If they are, we could retreat to a more animalistic existence.

There are only things that could be done in an "idealistic world" that would minimise the occurance of same, and these idealistic options would need to be counterbalanced by teaching more beneficial forms of maculine behaviour. It is a problem that the implementation of too many protective ideals, leads to a unhealthy feminisation of our species.

Definitely would like much tighter reins on business, but the requirements of international competiveness would not allow it. They own the means to us being fed and so on. It could be done, but motivating materialistic people to take action that many perceive could result in a drop in "living standards" aint going to happen soon, as no current form of government would support it. One cannot deny the security ramifications of putting a lid on capitalism - as it would be negatively portrayed by the media and felt by the insecure - while other countries with imperialist desires surge ahead.

A gradual decrease in the number of people would help, perhaps. Evidence actually points to increased greed as birth rates drop when societies get wealthier, materialism and competivenes seems to increase - so that could fail as well.

But trees are not significantly interfering with our ability to be rational beings. Femininity is interfering with such ability, so it's reasonable to point out it's shortcomings, especially given man's tendency to put femininity up on a pedestal as something noble and spiritual.

Trees might also interfere with your ability to be rational, if you spent your time beating your head against one and gave yourself a headache.