GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote:. . . he no longer seeks any truth or mental sustenance in any form at all - whether it a model, a concept, a physical entity, a feeling, an emotion, whatever. Such a person no longer cares, inwardly, whether he is modeling or not modeling. He is 100% free of the modeling process, even when his mind is engaged in modeling. His wisdom is not dependent on the validity of any particular model.
-

YES! Well said.

clyde wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

clyde wrote: Do tell, where are you and Kevin coming from?

From a forbidding place infinitely near you.
-

I'm sorry to hear that you believe you are in a hostile place.

It's only forbidding to the degree that one is attached to falseness.

Since you're near, join me, reality is welcoming.

Welcoming to who exactly? If the ego finds something welcoming, it is guaranteed to be false.

DQ: Different things can be false for different reasons. For example, 1+1=3 can be regarded as false on the basis that 1+1 is defined to equal 2. However, 1+1=2 can be regarded as false (or pushed beyond its limits) if it is treated as the supreme spiritual truth of Nature.

Clyde: There you go again, using (by your definition) false concepts ("false" and "Nature").
Will you stop?

You're not thinking about what I am saying.

-

clyde wrote:

David Quinn wrote:. . . he no longer seeks any truth or mental sustenance in any form at all - whether it a model, a concept, a physical entity, a feeling, an emotion, whatever. Such a person no longer cares, inwardly, whether he is modeling or not modeling. He is 100% free of the modeling process, even when his mind is engaged in modeling. His wisdom is not dependent on the validity of any particular model.
-

YES! Well said.

Even the model of doing no harm.

-

David;

I suffered a temporary Internet problem . . .

YES! Well said.

To which I intended to add:

Given that we agree that all concepts and models are inevitably flawed, we should use concepts and models that bring us contentment and cause the least harm.

David Quinn wrote:

clyde wrote:Do tell, where are you and Kevin coming from?

From a forbidding place infinitely near you.
-

David Quinn wrote:

clyde wrote:I'm sorry to hear that you believe you are in a hostile place.

It's only forbidding to the degree that one is attached to falseness.

Yes, but it was YOU who described the place as forbidding, so it is reasonable to think that you find it so.

Reality is welcoming because it is inclusive and accepting.

David Quinn wrote:As I say, the models are already out there. Models of a finite Universe, for example, models of an objective Universe, models of God, models of the self, models of life and death, etc.

Or, per your contributions: models of an infinite, uncaused universe, models of determinism, models of emptiness-borne-out-of-causality, models as to the illusionary nature of the self.

David Quinn wrote:[A sufficiently philosophically and spiritually developed person] is 100% free of the modeling process, even when his mind is engaged in modeling.

I can't even believe that you said that expecting anyone to take you seriously. You've written an entire book that models reality and you expect us to belive that you are "100% free of the modeling process"!

David Quinn wrote:His wisdom is not dependent on the validity of any particular model.

Oh, just like your Wisdom isn't dependent on the Infinite model? Why did you name your book "Wisdom of the Infinite" then? Why do you write in the introduction to said book that "the first and most crucial step towards becoming enlightened is the perfecting of one’s intellectual understanding of Reality" if not to indicate that you are to provide a conceptual model of reality which is the basis of both wisdom and enlightenment?

Your posts in this thread have become duplicitous and deranged.

Laird wrote:. . . . time doesn't flow in half-by-half-by-half increments . . . Again your model is flawed.

You're forgetting that this is your model. I'm just feeding it back to you to show you how ridiculous it is. You are the one who had the idea of something that is "approaching infinity", and in doing so you are creating the increments.

You can either say that determinism is the notion that every event is completely caused with no random elements . . .

Again, you are just following a script. Why not ask a determinist what they believe? Are you so arrogant that you think you can tell determinists what they themselves are supposed to believe?

To a determinist like myself, "random" just means unpredictable, and there are plenty of things that are unpredictable, and can never be predicted.

Kevin Solway wrote:God, poetically speaking, is the only one who could accurately predict future events.

Right, well then we agree.

Do you really think you know what God is, and what he is capable of?

Your arrogance is astonishing.

even this poetic God cannot predict a single quantum event.

Since you have no idea at all what the poetic "God" even is, you would be best to remain silent about such matters.

prove philosophically and logically that the ultimate randomness of quantum mechanics is actually hiding a truly deterministic mechanism.

Based on what you have said about determinism, you wouldn't have an understanding of what a deterministic mechanism was.

In any case, the proof has already been given many times, by people like the Buddha, and by ourselves. But currently you are unable to see it.

Laird; While I agree with you, in fairness to David, he did not claim that he was such a sufficiently developed person; he merely posited that such a person would be capable of using concepts and models without becoming attached to the concepts and models. If only it were so for David.

Kevin Solway wrote:God, poetically speaking, is the only one who could accurately predict future events.

Pray tell, what is a poetic God who can accurately predict future events?

clyde wrote:David;

I suffered a temporary Internet problem . . .

YES! Well said.

To which I intended to add:

Given that we agree that all concepts and models are inevitably flawed, we should use concepts and models that bring us contentment and cause the least harm.

I consider that to be a flawed model.

-

David Quinn wrote:

clyde wrote:David;

I suffered a temporary Internet problem . . .

YES! Well said.

To which I intended to add:

Given that we agree that all concepts and models are inevitably flawed, we should use concepts and models that bring us contentment and cause the least harm.

I consider that to be a flawed model.

-

Of course, it is, but it creates the most contentment and harmlessness.

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:As I say, the models are already out there. Models of a finite Universe, for example, models of an objective Universe, models of God, models of the self, models of life and death, etc.

Or, per your contributions: models of an infinite, uncaused universe, models of determinism, models of emptiness-borne-out-of-causality, models as to the illusionary nature of the self.

Oh, I don't believe in any of that stuff.

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:[A sufficiently philosophically and spiritually developed person] is 100% free of the modeling process, even when his mind is engaged in modeling.

I can't even believe that you said that expecting anyone to take you seriously. You've written an entire book that models reality and you expect us to belive that you are "100% free of the modeling process"!

As I've already explained, the book is not about creating a model about reality. Have you actually read it?

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:His wisdom is not dependent on the validity of any particular model.

Oh, just like your Wisdom isn't dependent on the Infinite model? Why did you name your book "Wisdom of the Infinite" then?

The Infinite that I am talking about is beyond all models.

Why do you write in the introduction to said book that "the first and most crucial step towards becoming enlightened is the perfecting of one’s intellectual understanding of Reality" if not to indicate that you are to provide a conceptual model of reality which is the basis of both wisdom and enlightenment?

A part of intellectually understanding Reality is realizing that it cannot be modeled, that the very idea of trying to model it is, spiritually speaking, foolish in the extreme. The enlightened person knows exactly why that is the case.

Your posts in this thread have become duplicitous and deranged.

What I have said in this thread is perfectly consistent with everything that I have ever said on this forum. It is you who is imagining these dilemmas by fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of what I do.

-

clyde wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

clyde wrote:David;

I suffered a temporary Internet problem . . .

YES! Well said.

To which I intended to add:

Given that we agree that all concepts and models are inevitably flawed, we should use concepts and models that bring us contentment and cause the least harm.

I consider that to be a flawed model.

-

Of course, it is, but it creates the most contentment and harmlessness.

I don't believe in following flawed models. There are far greater things in life to pursue than contentment and harmlessness. Even a cow is content and harmless.

-

Kevin Solway wrote:You're forgetting that this is your model.

No, Kevin, the three of them (an infinite past; a second divided into an infinite number of intervals; a second progressed over in a half interval then a halved again interval etc) have been your models. My only contribution has been to show you their flaws.

Kevin Solway wrote:I'm just feeding it back to you to show you how ridiculous it is.

You're confusing your role with mine.

Kevin Solway wrote:You are the one who had the idea of something that is "approaching infinity", and in doing so you are creating the increments.

That doesn't even make sense.

Laird: You can either say that determinism is the notion that every event is completely caused with no random elements . . .

Kevin: Again, you are just following a script.

You and David are very fond of throwing around that accusation. It happens to be untrue. I'm expressing in my own words my own understanding.

Kevin Solway wrote:To a determinist like myself, "random" just means unpredictable, and there are plenty of things that are unpredictable, and can never be predicted.

There's a difference between unpredictable in practice and unpredictable in theory. Quantum events are unpredictable in theory.

Kevin: God, poetically speaking, is the only one who could accurately predict future events.

Laird: Right, well then we agree.

Kevin: Do you really think you know what God is, and what he is capable of?

Your arrogance is astonishing.

Fine, throw my agreement back in my face. Do I really think that I know what God is, and what he is capable of? No, I don't, but I really think that I know what you think God is, because you're not shy to repeat it ad nauseum: God is equivalent to the Totality by your definition.

Laird: even this poetic God cannot predict a single quantum event.

Kevin: Since you have no idea at all what the poetic "God" even is, you would be best to remain silent about such matters.

Since you have repeated your understanding of what the poetic God is to me innumerable times I most certainly do understand what you mean by it.

Laird: prove philosophically and logically that the ultimate randomness of quantum mechanics is actually hiding a truly deterministic mechanism.

Kevin: Based on what you have said about determinism, you wouldn't have an understanding of what a deterministic mechanism was.

In any case, the proof has already been given many times, by people like the Buddha, and by ourselves. But currently you are unable to see it.

Yeah, I might have expected it: more and typical Solway evasiveness. You know that you don't have a legitimate proof and that any such proof that you attempt to provide will be torn down in shreds.

David: As I say, the models are already out there. Models of a finite Universe, for example, models of an objective Universe, models of God, models of the self, models of life and death, etc.

Laird: Or, per your contributions: models of an infinite, uncaused universe, models of determinism, models of emptiness-borne-out-of-causality, models as to the illusionary nature of the self.

David: Oh, I don't believe in any of that stuff.

Yeah, OK David, that's why you wrote a book about it. That's why you promote it on this forum. Your audacity in making that statement is mind-boggling. I guess then that you don't particularly care that I've pointed out three holes in your model because you "don't believe in any of that stuff" anyway. Do you then accept that the three flaws that I pointed out are legitimate?

David Quinn wrote:As I've already explained, the book is not about creating a model about reality. Have you actually read it?

Yes, I have read it, right the way through. It most certainly is about modelling reality, from your explanation of the way causes work to your explanation of the universe being beginingless to your explanation of the illusion of free will to your explanation of the way causality presents the illusion of things existing whereas - so you believe - this actually hides a fundamental emptiness.

David: His wisdom is not dependent on the validity of any particular model.

Laird: Oh, just like your Wisdom isn't dependent on the Infinite model? Why did you name your book "Wisdom of the Infinite" then?

David: The Infinite that I am talking about is beyond all models.

Oh, please. You're using a word to describe it - that's modelling in itself - but you go beyond just using that single word in isolation: you actually apply it to the Totality's temporal and spatial dimensions: that's clearly a modelling process.

Laird: Why do you write in the introduction to said book that "the first and most crucial step towards becoming enlightened is the perfecting of one’s intellectual understanding of Reality" if not to indicate that you are to provide a conceptual model of reality which is the basis of both wisdom and enlightenment?

David: A part of intellectually understanding Reality is realizing that it cannot be modeled, that the very idea of trying to model it is, spiritually speaking, foolish in the extreme.

Well then you were very foolish to write that book and you continue to be foolish to promote your model on this forum, don't you?

David Quinn wrote:The enlightened person knows exactly why that is the case.

Yet continues to engage in the promotion of a model...

Laird: Your posts in this thread have become duplicitous and deranged.

David: What I have said in this thread is perfectly consistent with everything that I have ever said on this forum.

Well then it follows that everything that you've ever said on this forum has been duplicitous and deranged.

Laird wrote:You're using a word to describe it - that's modelling in itself

Presumably you understand that words are only pointers.

So please explain why you think that pointing at something is a model of the thing being pointed to.

For example, if I point at the moon (with my finger, or using the word "moon") then how is my pointing, say with my finger, a model of the moon?

David Quinn wrote:I don't believe in following flawed models. There are far greater things in life to pursue than contentment and harmlessness. Even a cow is content and harmless.
-

Of course you do, you present your flawed model in your writings and posts. My flawed model brings contentment and harmlessness. Does your flawed model bring you contentment and harmlessness? If not, what does it bring you?

Kevin Solway wrote:

Laird wrote:You're using a word to describe it - that's modelling in itself

Presumably you understand that words are only pointers.

So please explain why you think that pointing at something is a model of the thing being pointed to.

For example, if I point at the moon (with my finger, or using the word "moon") then how is my pointing, say with my finger, a model of the moon?

Because the word "moon" points to not only the physical object (the moon) but also to the conceptual representation (model) of the moon in one's mind.

Laird wrote:You're confusing your role with mine.

You should seek to find out what is meant by "infinite past" before trying to disprove it, as you end up not engaging with anything - just as you were trying to disprove the idea of the Totality before you knew what it meant.

Kevin Solway wrote:There's a difference between unpredictable in practice and unpredictable in theory. Quantum events are unpredictable in theory.

The future itself is unpredictable in theory.

In addition, quantum physics is built upon the fact that quantum events are extremely predictable.

I don't know whether this planet will exist tomorrow, and there's no way I can know for sure whether it will, right? So how do you think that is any different to the unpredictability of quantum events?

I really think that I know what you think God is, because you're not shy to repeat it ad nauseum: God is equivalent to the Totality by your definition.

These are just words. A person can study the Bible for a lifetime, and memorize everything in it, and have an explanation for everything in it, and still not understand a word of it. Having words does not constitute an understanding.

You should have learned this by now, for example when you made the mistake of thinking that the Totality could extend in space and time. This should have given you a big clue that your understanding of what was meant by the Totality was completely wrong.

Since you have repeated your understanding of what the poetic God is to me innumerable times I most certainly do understand what you mean by it.

See above.

Laird wrote:Because the word "moon" points to not only the physical object (the moon) but also to the conceptual representation (model) of the moon in one's mind.

Okay, so we have a pointer, a model, and the actual thing.

Models are of particular use in the everyday practical world, like science, where we are more interested in getting ready and useful results than in anything else. For example, we don't know whether there really are such things as electrons and protons, but it has proven useful to imagine that there are.

But philosophy is about reality itself, and not a model of it. When I talk about "the Totality", I'm talking about the actual thing, and not a model of it.

Laird wrote:

David: As I say, the models are already out there. Models of a finite Universe, for example, models of an objective Universe, models of God, models of the self, models of life and death, etc.

Laird: Or, per your contributions: models of an infinite, uncaused universe, models of determinism, models of emptiness-borne-out-of-causality, models as to the illusionary nature of the self.

David: Oh, I don't believe in any of that stuff.

Yeah, OK David, that's why you wrote a book about it. That's why you promote it on this forum. Your audacity in making that statement is mind-boggling.

They are logical correctives, Laird, nothing more. A corrective is simply that - a corrective. It is a logical response to a particular delusion. They are not things you can hang your hat on. Once the delusion disappears, the corrective also disappears. If it doesn't, then it means that another delusion has been created out of it, one that needs its own corrective.

I guess then that you don't particularly care that I've pointed out three holes in your model because you "don't believe in any of that stuff" anyway. Do you then accept that the three flaws that I pointed out are legitimate?

No, they are poorly conceived. The above correctives, if they turn into delusions, are capable of being dismantled, but not in the way you have tried to do.

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:As I've already explained, the book is not about creating a model about reality. Have you actually read it?

Yes, I have read it, right the way through. It most certainly is about modelling reality, from your explanation of the way causes work to your explanation of the universe being beginingless to your explanation of the illusion of free will to your explanation of the way causality presents the illusion of things existing whereas - so you believe - this actually hides a fundamental emptiness.

Then you have misread it. Again, these are all correctives designed to alter the reader's perspective and help him break down all of his delusions and directly open his mind to the nature of Reality. From the introduction:

The path to enlightenment is essentially one of freeing the mind from its entrenched deluded perspective and reorientating it so that it aligns itself with the nature of Reality, thus allowing it to slide effortlessly into enlightenment. The following chapters are designed to facilitate this reorientation process as much as possible. Each stage of the analysis is built upon the truths of the previous stage. Each stage is designed to create an altering of consciousness which then lays the platform for the next one. Thus, through incremental steps, the diligent reader will undergo a major revolution in his own mind. By the end of it, he will have abandoned everything that he has ever believed in and gained a perception of Reality which is fundamental, magnificent and beyond all doubt.

And the following passage is particularly pertinent to you:

Naturally, a psychological transformation of this scale takes time, as well as a strong commitment from the reader. Those of you who only want to quickly skim through the material, or approach it as though it were just another academic thesis, or are simply looking for some amusement, will get little out of it. A person will never become enlightened if he confines his philosophizing to a small compartment in his mind and seals it off from the rest of his life. It is not like science or academia where you think a few lofty thoughts in your office or laboratory, and then go home to your wife and kids and revert to being an ordinary person again. The proper practice of philosophy is a full-time affair which affects every aspect of your existence. If you are not prepared to allow truth to change you, to alter your perspective, to affect your behaviour in the world, to challenge your relationships and worldly commitments, then your philosophizing will always remain ineffectual. Your vision will remain limited by the stagnant state of your ordinary mediocre consciousness, just as the vision of the ancient astronomers was limited by the lack of telescopes and Hubble spacecrafts.

-

Kevin Solway wrote:You should seek to find out what is meant by "infinite past" before trying to disprove it, as you end up not engaging with anything

You couldn't find a way to rebutt my syllogism, could you? I didn't think that you'd be able to.

Sometimes of your interview guests you say to me that if they were real human beings then they would admit that you have shown them truth and that they were in error up to that point in time. So now, will you be a real human being and admit that I have shown you to be in error?

Kevin Solway wrote:just as you were trying to disprove the idea of the Totality before you knew what it meant.

I knew and know what you mean by the Totality, your petty nitpicking notwithstanding. You attempted to point out to me two things that I already knew that you believed: that there is only a single Totality and that the Totality contains all space and time. It was your error that you misread any claims to the contrary in my writing.

Kevin Solway wrote:The future itself is unpredictable in theory.

How do you reconcile that with:

Kevin Solway wrote:God, poetically speaking, is the only one who could accurately predict future events.

?

Kevin Solway wrote:In addition, quantum physics is built upon the fact that quantum events are extremely predictable.

No, it's built upon the fact that quantum events occur within a random distribution.

Kevin Solway wrote:I don't know whether this planet will exist tomorrow, and there's no way I can know for sure whether it will, right? So how do you think that is any different to the unpredictability of quantum events?

Because "God, poetically speaking" could accurately predict (assuming no reliance on quantum events) whether this planet will exist tomorrow, whereas not even this poetic God could predict the outcome of a quantum event.

Laird: I really think that I know what you think God is, because you're not shy to repeat it ad nauseum: God is equivalent to the Totality by your definition.

Kevin: These are just words. A person can study the Bible for a lifetime, and memorize everything in it, and have an explanation for everything in it, and still not understand a word of it. Having words does not constitute an understanding.

Two can play at that game: it's you who has not understood my words! So nah!

Kevin Solway wrote:You should have learned this by now, for example when you made the mistake of thinking that the Totality could extend in space and time. This should have given you a big clue that your understanding of what was meant by the Totality was completely wrong.

It didn't give me that clue, because my understanding of what you mean by the Totality after you attempted to correct me did not change, nor do I see a problem with my phrasing, but I really don't want to get bogged down in your nitpicking so I'll probably let this drop.

David: As I say, the models are already out there. Models of a finite Universe, for example, models of an objective Universe, models of God, models of the self, models of life and death, etc.

Laird: Or, per your contributions: models of an infinite, uncaused universe, models of determinism, models of emptiness-borne-out-of-causality, models as to the illusionary nature of the self.

David: Oh, I don't believe in any of that stuff.

Laird: Yeah, OK David, that's why you wrote a book about it. That's why you promote it on this forum. Your audacity in making that statement is mind-boggling.

David: They are logical correctives, Laird, nothing more. A corrective is simply that - a corrective. It is a logical response to a particular delusion. They are not things you can hang your hat on. Once the delusion disappears, the corrective also disappears. If it doesn't, then it means that another delusion has been created out of it, one that needs its own corrective.

So you "don't believe in any of that stuff", and they are simply "logical correctives" but at the same time in WOTI can be found statements like this:

David Quinn wrote:Cause and effect, as a universal law, can be proven to be true in the same way that 1+1=2 and A=A can be proven to be true.

If it's provably true, then you certainly must believe in it because Truth is your ultimate goal. On the one hand you rabbit on about absolute truth and your commitment to Truth and yet now you write that you actually don't believe in what you have claimed on past occasions to be absolutely true. You're deep into the territory of contradiction here.

Laird: I guess then that you don't particularly care that I've pointed out three holes in your model because you "don't believe in any of that stuff" anyway. Do you then accept that the three flaws that I pointed out are legitimate?

David: No, they are poorly conceived.

Justify that assertion.

David Quinn wrote:The above correctives, if they turn into delusions, are capable of being dismantled, but not in the way you have tried to do.

So then put your money where your mouth is: go ahead and "dismantle" what you previously promoted as "absolute truth".

David Quinn in WOTI wrote:By the end of [the book], he will have abandoned everything that he has ever believed in and gained a perception of Reality which is fundamental, magnificent and beyond all doubt.

More like: by the end of the book he will have a pretty good understanding of how David Quinn views (read: models) reality.

David Quinn in WOTI wrote:Those of you who only want to quickly skim through the material, or approach it as though it were just another academic thesis, or are simply looking for some amusement, will get little out of it.

Likewise those who have a free-thinking, rational mind will find plenty of flaws in the book.

Laird wrote:You couldn't find a way to rebutt my syllogism, could you?

I showed you the fault of your syllogism - that you were segmenting the infinite - but you were unable to understand that that is what you were doing.

It was your error that you misread any claims to the contrary in my writing.

There is no doubt that you thought the Totality extended in space and time.

Kevin Solway wrote:The future itself is unpredictable in theory.

How do you reconcile that with:

Kevin Solway wrote:God, poetically speaking, is the only one who could accurately predict future events.

You have proven, and you have admitted, that you don't know what "God" means, so there's no point in your asking questions which make use of the term "God" - because the questions will necessarily be meaningless.

Kevin Solway wrote:In addition, quantum physics is built upon the fact that quantum events are extremely predictable.

No, it's built upon the fact that quantum events occur within a random distribution.

That's right. They are predictably random. They seem to be even more predictable than the throwing of a dice.

Kevin Solway wrote:I don't know whether this planet will exist tomorrow, and there's no way I can know for sure whether it will, right? So how do you think that is any different to the unpredictability of quantum events?

Because "God, poetically speaking" could accurately predict

Once again, you are speaking of something of which you do not know. You are thinking of God as being of some kind of conscious being who is capable of thinking things - and that is completely wrong.