GENIUS FORUMS

Shahrazad wrote:Thanks for letting us know that you are a Victor worshiper / follower.

Let's say instead of worshipping or following him, that I support him where that support's justified, and that I respect his intellect and his knowledge and his determination to actively and constantly learn and improve his understanding of the world.

Dan Rowden wrote:I was turning the attachment people have to that acronym on its head; yes, just for the laugh.

Is anyone actually attached to that acronym? I think it more likely that you are deluding yourself of its importance to people because of your apparently strong dislike of the term.

guest_of_logic wrote:Victor is anything but small-minded and fanatical. Based on my observations, he's not only the most intelligent person on this forum by far, but also the most broadly knowledgeable and original-thinking. You can have a meaningful conversation with him about practically anything, including technical fields.

So you happily swallow his stunts and one-sided rants .......? :)

In all seriousness, I've never had a meaningful conversation with him about wisdom or anything connected to it. He's broad and knowledgeable, but not deep. In other words, he's very American, which I'm sure he's pleased as punch about.

His best quality is his cynicism, but it is selective and only extends so far.

I'm not saying that he's intellectually perfect - he seems to get it wrong from time to time - but to accuse him of being a man of faith is utterly ridiculous.

I can understand why you say this. Like Victor, you struggle to see beyond the modern scientific/empiricist mindset. The difference with Victor is that he has hardened into it and thereby converted his limited world-view into a matter of faith. You're still young enough to not suffer that misfortune.

-

guest,

Let's say instead of worshipping or following him, that I support him where that support's justified, and that I respect his intellect and his knowledge and his determination to actively and constantly learn and improve his understanding of the world.

And when you grow up, you want to be just like him. Yet you chide Rebecca for accepting QRS philosophy.

Do you also take pleasure in hurting people?

Tell me who you look up to and I'll tell you who you are.

Ezydriver,

ezydriver wrote:Yes. It is my opinion your definition of success is just that, your opinion, your idea of. My argument against your statement, or idea, is that in your heart you feel as if success is defined as such.

What if my definition were simply "survival". Is that still egotistical? Yes, I place more value on a human than on a vole, but also while knowing that there's no objective view and no true value system. Can't I embrace the oneness of consciousness while simultaneously thinking it would be nice if a certain manifestation of it flourished?

Also, is it not our egos which feel as if we should be solving our animalistic problems? Based on what I have written, may I ask, what problems?

I would say tentatively (open to revision) it is our consciences, not our egos. Animalistic problems such as the herd mentality, faith in religions, life-strangling fear of death, gross manipulation... these are all things the ego enjoys, so why would the ego want to end them?

Have we not tried to solve our animalistic 'problems' by trying to egotistically over write our instincts? As if we feel we know better? Has that not messed us up to a point? (although asking that I contradict myself) Has that not removed us even further from nature, our instincts? Is ideology not dangerous? I take my examples and inspiration from animals. They don't think, they just do. They have my respect as they seem to win over humans.

I think you are defining 'animalistic problems' differently. I'd like to hear your definition, because I see you mean perceived problems.

I agree that ideology is dangerous and animals are much more...uh...natural... but what I'm really talking about is the quality of our brains. You know, that statistic you always hear (which may be total bull) that even those we consider "genius" only use 10% of their brains, and most of us less than that.

I understand the zenny "everything just IS mindset", at least to some degree. May I ask, are you not identifying with being human as you're explaining this viewpoint? Do you see me as being too attached to being human?

Just for the record folks I don't "accept the QRS philosophy", or "swallow" it, or invite it in for tea and crumpets, or any such activity. I'm conducting my own investigation, and on the subject of various woman-related views I haven't found anything to refute yet. I don't think anyone should under any conditions accept anything from outside without finding out it is true her/himself! Thanks for your concern.

David Quinn wrote:So you happily swallow his stunts and one-sided rants .......? :)

It depends what you mean by "stunts". I've told him privately that I consider his predeliction for insulting and denigrating people with whom he disagrees strongly to be a character flaw, but I also privately acknowledged that I find it (in a guilty kind of way) quite entertaining. In any case, I don't condemn him for it - I mean, I have those urges in myself: it would be so liberating and exhilirating to sometimes say to certain people at certain times, "You know what? You're a complete fucking dolt. You wouldn't recognise a sound argument if it jumped up and bit you on your fat, lazy, intellectually dishonest and incompetent fucking arse." I generally restrain myself from saying things like that (but I'm not perfect, and sometimes I get a little carried away) because it would be more selfish - i.e. I'd get a lot of satisfaction from saying it, whereas it would probably cause the other person some hurt or at least offence - than helpful - i.e. it would have little hope of encouraging the person to actually recognise the problems in their thinking and correct them, instead it would probably - at least initially - provoke a defensive reaction, possibly even a retailatory response: "Oh yeah? Well you're the fucking douch-bag who [blah blah blah].". Such is the way that many wars start and proceed: tit-for-tat escalation. I believe in taking responsibility for de-escalating situations, and in trying to avoid that kind of conflict in the first place (note that I'm not trying to imply that Victor lacks control - he's perfectly capable of disengaging from tit-for-tat escalation). Calm, rational discussions have a much better chance of achieving change than emphatic denunciations.

I suspect that Victor has a different perspective on his "stunts". I doubt that he'd deny their self-satisaction, but I suspect that he sees his targets as being beyond reasoning with, and thoroughly deserving of his scorn. Hey, I happen to disagree with his approach, but I'm pretty sure that he feels justified in it, and I doubt that he's going to change. Enough said.

Shahrazad wrote:

Jason wrote:Why would you want your book to create turmoil?

I guess I have always liked to go up-river. I hate the fact that people accept old paradigms without even questioning them.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

Would you be happy for it to just create turmoil, no matter its contents?

guest_of_logic wrote:I suspect that Victor has a different perspective on his "stunts". I doubt that he'd deny their self-satisaction, but I suspect that he sees his targets as being beyond reasoning with, and thoroughly deserving of his scorn. Hey, I happen to disagree with his approach, but I'm pretty sure that he feels justified in it, and I doubt that he's going to change. Enough said.

I believe that Victor has subconsciously adopted a very extreme form of scientism in his outlook, partly because it maximizes his opportunites for abusing people. He calls it "instrumentalism", which in essence is just the the scientific method stripped to its bare bones, and anyone who either disagrees with it or finds it limiting can be conveniently dismissed as a "New Ager" or a "believer in the noumenon" or "faith-filled" or some such thing. He can then pretend they are irrational and thus worthy of his scorn.

The fact that he operates under this very simple, yet extreme, dichotomy is what makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation with him about wisdom. As soon as you begin to approach the subject, you are immediately slotted into noumenon-believer category and all possibility of communication ends.

That isn't intelligence. That is close-minded fanaticism.

-

Jason,

It would have to create turmoil because I'm saying things that are true, but nobody else has had the guts to say.

Shahrazad wrote:And when you grow up, you want to be just like him.

In some ways, yeah. I'd love to have his IQ, and his appetite and capacity for learning, but since dropping out of university (where I was actually doing very well until the wheels fell off), I've lost almost all of that drive and motivation. I'd also love to have his capacity for contributing to society in a meaningful way in a position of leadership through his employment, but right now I'm not really capable of any kind of work.

In some ways, no. As I wrote in my last post, I don't want to be as insulting as he is. I don't agree with all of his opinions and positions either. I don't want to have a family like he has, either - I never want to have kids or even to get married; on the other hand, I do appreciate intimate relationships with women.

Shahrazad wrote:Do you also take pleasure in hurting people?

Difficult question. The obvious answer is "of course not". I mean, the thought of slapping a child or raping a woman or beating up another man is abhorrent to me. But it gets a little tricky in some situations, as I wrote in my last post: I have those same urges that I think motivate Victor - the urge to satisfy myself by putting down another person who is saying foolish things. It's just that I don't believe in acting on those urges, and I try to keep them under control.

Shahrazad wrote:Jason,

It would have to create turmoil because I'm saying things that are true, but nobody else has had the guts to say.

That's good. I thought you might have been after controversy and turmoil for their own sake.

David Quinn wrote:The fact that he operates under this very simple, yet extreme, dichotomy is what makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation with him about wisdom. As soon as you begin to approach the subject, you are immediately slotted into noumenon-believer category and all possibility of communication ends.

That isn't intelligence. That is close-minded fanaticism.

What if he was right? Would he still be a fanatic, or would he rather be a passionate defender of reason?

No doubt your position is "But he's not right - I'm the passionate defender of reason."

Ultimately, onlookers to the conflict between you and Victor have to judge for themselves who is making the most sense: who is the fanatic and who is the defender of reason. I look at the primary claim that you guys (QRS) make: that you have discerned the nature of ultimate reality through pure logic, and not only does it seem intuitively wrong that you could have done that, but I find your so-called pure logic to be severely lacking. So much of what you say seems to boil down to either semantic sophistry or pure assertion. And when I say pure assertion, I'm pointing to faith. I won't give examples here, because I've already given plenty in another thread (Causality and Consciousness). I'm very skeptical about your use of definitions. Actually I've developed a strong interest in the relationship between definitions and truth, partly motivated by the way that you guys use definitions, and I'm doing a bit of thinking and reading to try to clarify my thoughts. Appropriately enough, one treatise that I'm reading on this issue is the one that Victor recommended in another thread: Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism". It's not the first time that I've seen it recommended, and now seems to be the most appropriate time to digest it. So far it's pretty good, but I haven't gotten to the meat yet.

Victor, on the other hand, makes no intuitively false claims to have proved anything absolutely through pure logic. He takes a very pragmatic approach. To say that he adopted his approach out of "faith" is disingenuous. Sure, you can twist it into a shape that seems to fit, and say something like "No one really knows for sure that induction and the scientific method actually work (however you decide to define "work"), or if they do work, that they will continue to work into the future, so anyone who relies on them and advocates them is acting on faith". But that's just silly. I mean, what's the alternative? Curl up into a little ball and refuse to think or act at all? Our very ability to learn even simple everyday tasks like tying our shoelaces relies on induction. As far as I'm concerned, Victor's just trimming it back to sensible basics. You guys are the ones who are adding on the fanciful claims to non-empirical deductive certainty.

Jason,

I thought you might have been after controversy and turmoil for their own sake.

Not for their own sake, but maybe for the sake of attention. However, I wouldn't lie or hurt someone to arrive there.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The fact that he operates under this very simple, yet extreme, dichotomy is what makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation with him about wisdom. As soon as you begin to approach the subject, you are immediately slotted into noumenon-believer category and all possibility of communication ends.

That isn't intelligence. That is close-minded fanaticism.

What if he was right? Would he still be a fanatic, or would he rather be a passionate defender of reason?

No doubt your position is "But he's not right - I'm the passionate defender of reason."

There isn't anything wrong with Victor's position as far as empirical theorizing is concerned. I agree with everything he says on the matter. The problem lies in his believing that empirical theorizing is all there is in terms of acquiring knowledge. That is his faith.

The main problem is that his mind is no longer capable of exploring anything beyond the realm of empirical theorizing. He can only think in terms of empirical theorizing. Even when he philosophizes, he utilizes empirical theorizing and little else. In effect, he has become a kind of robot that is programmed to utilize the scientific method in all matters and ignore everything else.

Ultimately, onlookers to the conflict between you and Victor have to judge for themselves who is making the most sense: who is the fanatic and who is the defender of reason. I look at the primary claim that you guys (QRS) make: that you have discerned the nature of ultimate reality through pure logic, and not only does it seem intuitively wrong that you could have done that, but I find your so-called pure logic to be severely lacking. So much of what you say seems to boil down to either semantic sophistry or pure assertion.

As I say, you currently struggle to see beyond the scientific/empirical mindset. It takes a very different turn of mind to perceive the kinds of things that I talk about, a mind that no longer relies on second-hand, collective theorizing, but immerses itself in its own subjectivity and direct connection with what exists in each moment. Victor doesn't have this turn of mind, and neither at present do you.

Victor, on the other hand, makes no intuitively false claims to have proved anything absolutely through pure logic. He takes a very pragmatic approach.

He claims that any kind of knowledge beyond empirical theorizing is invalid by default. Ignoring whole realms of reality, for no real reason at all, isn't pragmatism. It's close-mindedness.

Again, I am not against Victor's point of view as far as science and empirical theorizing is concerned. I'm simply against being trapped in it, with the view that there is nothing more.

I recognize science plus philosophic wisdom, while Victor only recognizes science.

-

By the way, Sher, I thought of another more pointed way of answering your question:

Shahrazad wrote:Do you also take pleasure in hurting people?

Not as much as you do. Unlike me, you see no need to restrain your urge to lash out at people who offend you. We've even in the past had a private conversation where I advised you against taking that approach, but you went ahead and did it anyway: remember having a go at Ryan Rudolph? Let's see, according to you he seems to be a "bastard", "loser", "scum of the earth", not to mention a "moron". I don't suppose you were taking pleasure in hurting him, were you? Oh but wait, I'm sure that he deserved it, didn't he? Hmm, hang on, isn't that the way that Victor would justify his behaviour too? Seems that actually, you're more like Victor than I am in this regard, huh? A search for the word "asshole" in all of your posts is pretty revealing too.

I am very skeptical about the wisdom of using the content of private conversations in a public debate; especially if anonymity means something to you.

Laird,

I have never hurt people who did not hurt me first -- at least not on purpose. Moreover, I have always been open about being mean to people who are mean to me. It is consistent with my philosophy of life. This is very different than enjoying hurting people who have done nothing to you, like you seem to.

Oh, and mentioning private conversations in public is a very low class / immoral thing to do. I can't say that I'm surprised, though. Lately you seem to have deteriorated noticeably.

-

guest_of_logic is Laird? I didn't twig that one.

-

Dan,

I didn't reveal anything that Sher said privately, simply what I advised her. I don't see any problem with repeating private advice publicly. Why didn't you say anything when I repeated what I said to Victor privately re his insults? Same deal.

Sher,

I try not to hurt people who have done nothing to me (and even people who have hurt me, which is where you and I differ). Where do you think that I've done that?

And what's the problem with mentioning that a private conversation occurred? I didn't reveal any part of what you said in that private conversation, merely that I provided you with advice.

guest_of_logic wrote:Dan,

I didn't reveal anything that Sher said privately, simply what I advised her. I don't see any problem with repeating private advice publicly. Why didn't you say anything when I repeated what I said to Victor privately re his insults? Same deal.

If you can't see that it's unwise to bring up private conversations in a post that criticizes someone, then I can't help you. I was giving you a heads-up. As for the Victor post, I thought that was unwise too.

It's never, in my view and experience, advisable to mention private dealings unless they are critical to a point. It carries risks that ought be considered.

David Quinn wrote:guest_of_logic is Laird?

It looks like Sher's spite is my undoing - assuming that she didn't do what she did accidentally. At least she's being consistent. If she perceives that you've hurt her, then she'll damn well hurt you back. It's kind of ironic that on this forum I've been an opponent of male chauvinism and yet both times I've been anonymous I've been unmasked by women, who knew that it was likely that unmasking me would lead to my banning. Go figure. I gotta learn who to trust a bit better.

David Quinn wrote:I didn't twig that one.

It didn't look likely that you would either - at least not anytime soon. Anyway, you and I have had some pretty productive discussions this time around, at least from my perspective.

Dan Rowden wrote:It's never, in my view and experience, advisable to mention private dealings unless they are critical to a point. It carries risks that ought be considered.

That seems to be sensible advice. I'll stick with it in future.

David Quinn wrote:guest_of_logic is Laird? I didn't twig that one.

-

I lost the pool on "how long" because I had "never". :)

[edit: actually, I may have had an each way bet on "he already knows"]

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:guest_of_logic is Laird? I didn't twig that one.

It didn't look likely that you would either - at least not anytime soon. Anyway, you and I have had some pretty productive discussions this time around, at least from my perspective.

I think this is actually for the best, because since you've decided to wage philosophical war against "QRS Philosophy" on two separate fronts (that I know of), it's now possible to deal with them concomitantly without creating issues.

Dan Rowden wrote:

David Quinn wrote:guest_of_logic is Laird? I didn't twig that one.

I lost the pool on "how long" because I had "never". :)

[edit: actually, I may have had an each way bet on "he already knows"]

It would have been a good bet, because I'm not really interested enough in forum politics to ferret that kind of stuff out. Plus I assumed that Laird had enough integrity to respect my wishes and stay away. And guest-of-logic's views are pretty generic and anonymous in nature. He could have been any one of millions of young people, in my eyes.

The question is, do we keep him on or not?

I'm inclined to keep him on as guest-of-logic, provided he doesn't degenerate into the obnoxious form that "Laird" had. Better the devil you know and all that. Still, if he does degenerate, we'll have find a way to ban him permanently. Shahrazad thinks he is already starting to degenerate.

What do you think?

-