Dan;Dan Rowden wrote:There's no "why", there's only the necessity of it. Consciousness is a point of view.clyde wrote:Agreed; so why ADD a p-o-v?Dan Rowden wrote: . . . Nature doesn't actually have a point of view . . .
If the validity of something is irrelevant to you, then what is relevant to you?average wrote:If I claimed you guys were deluded I would fall into the same trap, I would be trying to conform you guys to my primary irrational values. But I don't do that, I said your beliefs and ideas could be correct or they might not be, the validity isn't really relevant to me.
People on this forum claim to be better at certain things than others because they are simply stating the facts. People who value Absolute Truth, logic, and reason above all else will necessarily be more logical, reasonable, and enlightened than someone who does not. If a professional athlete beat you in a race and then afterwards made the claim that he was faster than you, would you be as concerned about that as you are about how some people on this forum claim to be more enlightened than you, or someone else?average wrote:I don't go around criticizing Christians either. You guys are all the same to me. I don't go around saying Gardeners are better than Fisherman. But when I do see Gardeners pretending to be better than Fisherman I try to show them what they are actually doing, if they understand thats great, if not - so be it.
There has never been a wise man, like myself and others on this forum, who use a "system" supported or maintained by irrationality.average wrote:If I see someone claim they are strictly rational and then I notice their whole system is supported and maintained by irrationality I might point that out to them.
This statement isn't logical. If someone uses reason to reach a conclusion then by necessity their "system" is not faith based.average wrote:If someone says they are completely and utterly faithful and their system is faith based but I also see them reason themselves into certain conclusions I will point this out to them as well.
Actually it's the complete opposite of that. It is our values which cause us to use reason. The values themselves might arise out of delusion, but that hardly matters when it comes to the actual philosophy.average wrote:Although I think some of you do see what I mean, you see how you can't reason yourself into your primary values and you also realize your system-of-thought arises from these irrational values - -you just don't care
It's not that we don't care, it's that it doesn't undermine our philosophy in anyway. Not to mention it is getting tiresome seeing you make the same pointless claim over and over again as if it some how discredits our philosophy.average wrote:because you don't care
People are exactly what they are supposed to be, we just use words with definitions to describe their characteristics, just like we use the word blue to describe the color of the sky.average wrote:you like to go around saying so and so is delusional
No that's not why, it's because they are in fact delusionalaverage wrote:because they don't conform to your system-of-thought (which has the same irrational foundation as your oppositions)...
Our justification is in our values, any justification beyond that is non-existent, and entirely irrelevant to your point. Of course I always reserve the right to use the absolute justification of cause and effect when it is suitable.average wrote:so actually its not so much your philosophy that gets undermined but how you apply that philosophy, since you have no justification to subscribe to it you have no justification to compare other people to it,
I have just as much ground to say the sky is blue as I would if I were to point out that someone is delusional. The only difference I see between the two statements is that in the latter someone is more likely to get their feelings hurt.average wrote:and thus you have no grounds of saying so and so is delusional.
Dave Toast and others have answered your points succinctly. I'll just make one or two additional points.You can't reason yourself into your values therefore you can't reason yourself into your system-of-thought that comes from those values.
You can't reason someone out of their system-of-thought because you can't reason them out of their values.
Rational and Irrational only apply within a specific system-of-thought that springs from basic irrational values.
Its rational for a Christian to understand Original Sin.
Its rational for a Sage to understand Causality.
Its irrational for a Christian to disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus.
But its not irrational for a Christian to not care about or fully understand Causality and Dependent Origination, since he doesn't value the sage's notion of Ultimate Reality and what concepts it generates.
People only appear delusional when you apply your values onto their systems-of-thought.
A Christian could call a Muslim delusional or as they would say (sinner) for not believing in Jesus, and he can reason to it as well. But he must first impose his basic values on the Muslim - and he has no justification for such an act because he himself took an irrational leap into those values and irrationally maintains them moment to moment.
Likewise, the Sage, who values Ultimate Reality, could call a Christian delusional but only if he tries to fit the Christian's ideas into his value-system that revolves around his conceptions.
What I'm trying to say is that in and of themselves no one is delusional, it is only when you relate them to your basic presuppositions, your values, that they become delusional within your system.
Since you have no basis for your position (because it begins and is maintained irrationally) you honestly have no ability to call anyone delusional, ignorant, wrong. They are only delusional in contrast to your system-of-thought which arose from your values which arose from irrationality. So there is a problem here, and I'm afraid you guys can't solve it.
Reason itself is a value. All people place value on reason to some extent. Most people intuitively know that being irrational is a form of insanity. So it is through this shared value that you can philosophically connect to people and guide them out of their deluded mindsets.You can't reason yourself into your values therefore you can't reason yourself into your system-of-thought that comes from those values.
You can't reason someone out of their system-of-thought because you can't reason them out of their values.
The belief in original sin as commonly taught in Christianity might seem plausible to a Christian, but it certainly isn't rational. It isn't rational because it involves believing in things which don't really exist.Rational and Irrational only apply within a specific system-of-thought that springs from basic irrational values.
Its rational for a Christian to understand Original Sin.
Its rational for a Sage to understand Causality.
Its irrational for a Christian to disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus.
But its not irrational for a Christian to not care about or fully understand Causality and Dependent Origination, since he doesn't value the sage's notion of Ultimate Reality and what concepts it generates.
This issue has nothing to do with value-systems. A Christian is deluded simply because he believes in things which don't really exist. That is the only criteria.People only appear delusional when you apply your values onto their systems-of-thought.
A Christian could call a Muslim delusional or as they would say (sinner) for not believing in Jesus, and he can reason to it as well. But he must first impose his basic values on the Muslim - and he has no justification for such an act because he himself took an irrational leap into those values and irrationally maintains them moment to moment.
Likewise, the Sage, who values Ultimate Reality, could call a Christian delusional but only if he tries to fit the Christian's ideas into his value-system that revolves around his conceptions.
On the contrary, a deluded person is deluded because of his own thinking alone. It has nothing to do with anyone else, or any other system of thought. His delusion is absolute in nature. It isn't something which changes in relation to other things.What I'm trying to say is that in and of themselves no one is delusional, it is only when you relate them to your basic presuppositions, your values, that they become delusional within your system.
A sage's thinking isn't maintained irrationally, so you thinking here is also delusional.Since you have no basis for your position (because it begins and is maintained irrationally) you honestly have no ability to call anyone delusional, ignorant, wrong. They are only delusional in contrast to your system-of-thought which arose from your values which arose from irrationality. So there is a problem here, and I'm afraid you guys can't solve it.
Firstly, on a personal note, let me say that I do not like the word delusional nor do I consider any such thing to exist beyond a comparative world; but on the other hand, there isn’t any world other than a comparative (as in relativity, duality) world at all.Although I think some of you do see what I mean, you see how you can't reason yourself into your primary values and you also realize your system-of-thought arises from these irrational values - -you just don't care, and because you don't care you like to go around saying so and so is delusional because they don't conform to your system-of-thought (which has the same irrational foundation as your oppositions)...so actually its not so much your philosophy that gets undermined but how you apply that philosophy, since you have no justification to subscribe to it you have no justification to compare other people to it, and thus you have no grounds of saying so and so is delusional.
As far as philosophy is concerned, the only values of importance are truth and reason. If by chance you come to adopt these values, then well and good. You are on your way towards becoming wise. If you don't, then you will remain deluded.Although I think some of you do see what I mean, you see how you can't reason yourself into your primary values and you also realize your system-of-thought arises from these irrational values - -you just don't care, and because you don't care you like to go around saying so and so is delusional because they don't conform to your system-of-thought (which has the same irrational foundation as your oppositions)...so actually its not so much your philosophy that gets undermined but how you apply that philosophy, since you have no justification to subscribe to it you have no justification to compare other people to it, and thus you have no grounds of saying so and so is delusional.
David Quinn wrote: There are numerous errors in your thinking, which involve the misunderstanding of the nature of delusion itself. To put it simply, you are falsely believing that delusion is relative in nature, and not absolute.
At root, a personal is delusional when they believe in things that don't really exist. A minor example is a person who believes that a girl he fancies likes him, when in reality she is repulsed by him. With respect to this girl, he is being delusional.
Again here is what you dont see - you are still stuck in your box.The belief in original sin as commonly taught in Christianity might seem plausible to a Christian, but it certainly isn't rational. It isn't rational because it involves believing in things which don't really exist.
Couldn't have described you better myself.It doesn't matter if a deluded person thinks that a particular deluded belief that he is attached to is "rational". That is part of his delusion. In reality, he is being irrational.
It doesn't exist to you, nature has no point of view - and if it does, you can't take it.In essence, your belief that no one is delusional in and of themselves is itself delusional, because it involves the belief in something which doesn't really exist - namely, that delusions are relative in nature.
Careful now Average. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were trying to correct David here.average wrote:Heres what you don't see, the fact of the matter, 'how it is in reality' is what we form beliefs about.
it is very relative and dependent. Not absolute like you say.
The example is poor and fails utterly. It is also very deceptive and intellectually dishonest.
Again here is what you dont see - you are still stuck in your box.
I know this takes some really fancy mental gymnastics (LOL SARCASM) but I think even you can do it.
You think you know how things are "in reality", just like the fundamental Muslim thinks...
Neither of you realize the brute fact of your own frame of reference.
the authenticity of beliefs is irrelevant - and you still don't realize this
average wrote:If I claimed you guys were deluded I would fall into the same trap, I would be trying to conform you guys to my primary irrational values. But I don't do that
Yep, I don't fall in that trap.Dave Toast wrote:average wrote:If I claimed you guys were deluded I would fall into the same trap, I would be trying to conform you guys to my primary irrational values. But I don't do that
David et al strike me as in some ways a little old fashioned but even they wouldn't stoop to using the term 'cobba'.I do agree theres a dissaponting lack of 'she'll be right' or 'no worries' invovled, though.Dave Toast wrote:Hi David. I must say it's been a giggle hearing you boys on the podcasts. I have been disappointed by one thing though. You have yet to use the word 'Cobba'. But I expect it will crop up in one of the shows so, 'no worries mate'.
Dave Toast is right in saying that you are wanting it both ways. You are wanting your beliefs to be both absolute and relative at the same time.Dan Rowden said it fairly well "There is no logical basis for the original or primary goals and values we adopt (it's simply a matter of disposition and karma). After that certain necessary goals and values will appear."
Since David and the crew behave in an irrational way by maintaining their primary desires, they really have no basis for saying others are irrational for maintaining the beliefs they derived from their primary desires. This wouldn't be a problem, except in the context of their particular system of thought, their philosophy desires complete rationality, but the desire itself is irrational. So they are stuck in a paradox that I am not. :]
Don't play the "you too game", it does not apply here. I do not pretend that my assertions are absolutes, I have claimed over and over that they depend on my values. And my position does not strictly proclaim to be absolutely rational and does not demand complete rationality, so I face no such problem. Anyway :David Quinn wrote:Average,
Dave Toast is right in saying that you are wanting it both ways. You are wanting your beliefs to be both absolute and relative at the same time.Dan Rowden said it fairly well "There is no logical basis for the original or primary goals and values we adopt (it's simply a matter of disposition and karma). After that certain necessary goals and values will appear."
Since David and the crew behave in an irrational way by maintaining their primary desires, they really have no basis for saying others are irrational for maintaining the beliefs they derived from their primary desires. This wouldn't be a problem, except in the context of their particular system of thought, their philosophy desires complete rationality, but the desire itself is irrational. So they are stuck in a paradox that I am not. :]
For example, you are offering the assertions that "there is no logical basis for primary values" and "the desire for complete rationality is irrational" as though they were absolute facts. That is the only way these assertions can have the power to undermine the credibility of other frames of reference which differ from your own.
If your assertions really were relativistic statements that merely apply to your own frame of reference, then you would have no basis to apply them outside of this. By their very nature, they would lack the power to undermine any other frame of reference.
Yet here you are on this thread completely abandoning this principle. You are trying to apply your own relativistic truths to other people's frames of reference as though they were not relativistic truths at all. That is, you are applying them as though they were absolute truths.
And then, just to compound the duplicity, you subsequently deny that such activity has ever taken place at all!
-
DQ: There are numerous errors in your thinking, which involve the misunderstanding of the nature of delusion itself. To put it simply, you are falsely believing that delusion is relative in nature, and not absolute.
At root, a personal is delusional when they believe in things that don't really exist. A minor example is a person who believes that a girl he fancies likes him, when in reality she is repulsed by him. With respect to this girl, he is being delusional.
A: Heres what you don't see, the fact of the matter, 'how it is in reality' is what we form beliefs about.
You can look at the girl and reason from her behavior that she doesn't like the boy.
I can look at the girl and reason she is playing hard to get.
If the girl is confused and could change her mind, then well and good. It still doesn't change the fact that if the girl is definitely repulsed by him, then the view that she isn't repulsed by him is deluded.Also, there is the frame of reference of the girl, her point of view and "what it is in reality" might not be so clear - she might even be confused about it herself. It very much depends on her disposition and beliefs about the boy - it is very relative and dependent. Not absolute like you say.
Secondly, the girl, "in reality", might change her view moments later and we could both be wrong. etc. The example is poor and fails utterly. It is also very deceptive and intellectually dishonest.
DQ: The belief in original sin as commonly taught in Christianity might seem plausible to a Christian, but it certainly isn't rational. It isn't rational because it involves believing in things which don't really exist.
A: Again here is what you dont see - you are still stuck in your box.
It isn't rational TO YOU - because you think "in reality it doesn't exist". It is rational to the Christian because he thinks "in reality it exists".
I know this takes some really fancy mental gymnastics (LOL SARCASM) but I think even you can do it.
Philosophically, I don't operate by any frame of reference. My wisdom doesn't depend on any particular frame of reference.DQ: It doesn't matter if a deluded person thinks that a particular deluded belief that he is attached to is "rational". That is part of his delusion. In reality, he is being irrational.
A: Couldn't have described you better myself.
You think you know how things are "in reality", just like the fundamental Muslim thinks...
Neither of you realize the brute fact of your own frame of reference. You don't want to, you desire certainty too much, you desire certainty more than honesty. Which is fine if you are insecure like that.
Here you are wanting it both ways again.DQ: In essence, your belief that no one is delusional in and of themselves is itself delusional, because it involves the belief in something which doesn't really exist - namely, that delusions are relative in nature.
A: It doesn't exist to you, nature has no point of view - and if it does, you can't take it.
I agree that would be rubbish. I have a much more straightforward, down-to-earth conception of what it means to be deluded in an absolute sense - namely, to believe in things which don't exist in reality. The "absoluteness" in this instance is the relationship between the belief and reality.For delusion to be absolute, by definition, it would have to be timeless, without beginning or end, without cause, without dependency, and without relation to anything transient. This is rubbish - to me.
This question only applies to those who arbitrarily decide to adopt a particular value or belief of some kind or another, such as the belief that life has to be meaningful, or that it is important to be happy. It doesn't have any meaning for those who operate by reason alone and abandon everything else.Anyway most of this conversation is irrelevant, the authenticity of beliefs is irrelevant - and you still don't realize this - my main argument is why ought one have your basic values? I believe there is no reason for your primary core values, I think they are taken and maintained irrationally via emotions, predispositions and simply your desire for them. (Dan Rowden agreed, maybe he can explain this fact to you if you don't understand me, he said : "There is no logical basis for the original or primary goals and values we adopt (it's simply a matter of disposition and karma). After that certain necessary goals and values will appear.")
So then we must ask : why ought one have the primary values you have that gave rise to your world-view?
Why ought someone have them? Reason me into them.
It isn't a case of my playing a "you too game", because I don't share your belief that truths are relativistic. I recognize that truths cut across all frames of reference, by definition. That is what makes them true.DQ: Dave Toast is right in saying that you are wanting it both ways. You are wanting your beliefs to be both absolute and relative at the same time.
For example, you are offering the assertions that "there is no logical basis for primary values" and "the desire for complete rationality is irrational" as though they were absolute facts. That is the only way these assertions can have the power to undermine the credibility of other frames of reference which differ from your own.
If your assertions really were relativistic statements that merely apply to your own frame of reference, then you would have no basis to apply them outside of this. By their very nature, they would lack the power to undermine any other frame of reference.
Yet here you are on this thread completely abandoning this principle. You are trying to apply your own relativistic truths to other people's frames of reference as though they were not relativistic truths at all. That is, you are applying them as though they were absolute truths.
And then, just to compound the duplicity, you subsequently deny that such activity has ever taken place at all!
A: Don't play the "you too game", it does not apply here. I do not pretend that my assertions are absolutes, I have claimed over and over that they depend on my values.
How can I begin to do that with someone who claims that he doesn't believe in absolute truths? It would be a meaningless exercise.If you disagree with my assertions, please explain, show me how "there is no logical basis for primary values" is false.
and
"the desire for complete rationality is irrational" is false.
I can to anyone who recognizes the principle of absolute truth.You can't answer this demand though, and you know it.
While all this is true, it no longer has any meaning for the person who practices reason and abandons everything else. Such a person differs fundamentally from the Fisherman. Such a person says, "I do not know what I want to become. I will simply follow reason wherever it may go."You can reason about things after you have your basic irrational desire, but you can't reason yourself into it your basic primary desires.
For example.
Someone desires to be a Fisherman, so its rational for him to desire to learn how to fish, to understand fish, ocean patterns etc.
But why ought he desire to be a Fisherman? If that is his basic primary value, then he has no logical reason for it -its just what he wants. If he wants to be a Fisherman because it makes him happy. Then Happiness is his primary value - but there is no logical necessity for him to be Happy, there is no reason why he ought to be Happy. As long as you hit the primary desire, you will see it has no rational basis, its just a karmic disposition - like Dan said.
You mean it can't be rationally questioned in any frame of reference? ;-)From Wiki The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture.
The bolded bit cannot be rationally questioned.
