GENIUS FORUMS

In my time at GF so far I've been quite critical of the QRS philosophy. I now want to write something to correct any misconception that I fail to recognise anything of value whatsoever in their philosophy, as well as to generally cut the guys some slack. The purpose of this post then is to point out what I appreciate in their philosophy.

Firstly I appreciate their emphasis on rationality. I disagree with some of their rational conclusions, but I agree that many people in the world hold quite irrational and unsupportable beliefs, and that it's desirable to encourage people to think for themselves rather than to simply accept what they're told.

Secondly I appreciate their emphasis on heightening consciousness. I'm not sure whether we fully agree on exactly what that means, but I can't think of many (if any) more worthwhile ultimate (i.e. assuming that most of the problems of the world have already been solved) goals in life than becoming as conscious as possible.

Thirdly I think that their attitude towards emotions, whilst too extreme, has something of value to it. Unchecked emotions can lead to dangerous and regrettable behaviour. I disagree that emotions are entirely undesirable, but I do think that it's necessary to be vigilant so that one's actions aren't affected excessively by one's emotions.

Fourthly I like their emphasis on causality, mostly because I think that it encourages people to be more thoughtful about the consequences of their actions.

Fifthly I like some of what they say about the need to discard the false ego. I don't like the way that they couch it in terms of "realising the illusory nature of the self", because in my opinion such an intellectual realisation has no practical consequences; I do think though that in this they encourage people to become more selfless, more balanced (although I don't think that they'd like me using that word), more tolerant and more disciplined, and I'm all for developing those traits.

Finally I like to visualise the Totality that they describe. I don't know how accurately this model describes reality but it's a pretty awesome prospect: uncaused infinity in all directions.

What do you like most about the QRS philosophy?

Dan, David and Kevin: what's your response to this perspective?

Laird wrote: I disagree with some of their rational conclusions, but I agree that many people in the world hold quite irrational and unsupportable beliefs, and that it's desirable to encourage people to think for themselves rather than to simply accept what they're told.

An old Navaho saying...

It is impossible to awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep.

Hospital Fluorescent Bulb Logic to, Essence.

Laird wrote:What do you like most about the QRS philosophy?

You've put it well, Laird, so I'll be brief: QRS philosophy is consistent, logical, and mostly fair-minded. What it lacks is substance.

That is illogical, for consistent logic is substantial. It is arguably substance itself.

bill wrote:An old Navaho saying...

It is impossible to awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep.

If a man is pretending to be asleep, then he is awake, and naturally it would be impossible to awaken an already awake person. Not wisdom but humor. It's an old Navajo joke, right?

Laird wrote:In my time at GF so far I've been quite critical of the QRS philosophy. I now want to write something to correct any misconception that I fail to recognise anything of value whatsoever in their philosophy, as well as to generally cut the guys some slack. The purpose of this post then is to point out what I appreciate in their philosophy.

Firstly I appreciate their emphasis on rationality. I disagree with some of their rational conclusions, but I agree that many people in the world hold quite irrational and unsupportable beliefs, and that it's desirable to encourage people to think for themselves rather than to simply accept what they're told.

Secondly I appreciate their emphasis on heightening consciousness. I'm not sure whether we fully agree on exactly what that means, but I can't think of many (if any) more worthwhile ultimate (i.e. assuming that most of the problems of the world have already been solved) goals in life than becoming as conscious as possible.

Thirdly I think that their attitude towards emotions, whilst too extreme, has something of value to it. Unchecked emotions can lead to dangerous and regrettable behaviour. I disagree that emotions are entirely undesirable, but I do think that it's necessary to be vigilant so that one's actions aren't affected excessively by one's emotions.

Fourthly I like their emphasis on causality, mostly because I think that it encourages people to be more thoughtful about the consequences of their actions.

Fifthly I like some of what they say about the need to discard the false ego. I don't like the way that they couch it in terms of "realising the illusory nature of the self", because in my opinion such an intellectual realisation has no practical consequences; I do think though that in this they encourage people to become more selfless, more balanced (although I don't think that they'd like me using that word), more tolerant and more disciplined, and I'm all for developing those traits.

Finally I like to visualise the Totality that they describe. I don't know how accurately this model describes reality but it's a pretty awesome prospect: uncaused infinity in all directions.

What do you like most about the QRS philosophy?

Dan, David and Kevin: what's your response to this perspective?

Oh Fawk, why don't you (just) pick up the damned telephone, call each one, and tell them yourself?

ps- Had you been drinking (again) when composing this crap?


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

.

Tomas wrote:Oh Fawk, why don't you (just) pick up the damned telephone, call each one, and tell them yourself?

A few reasons. Firstly I don't know Dan and David well enough to do that and I'm sure that they'd find it to be a pretty strange and inappropriate telephone call anyhow. Secondly because I've been critical of them publicly so it's only fair that I give them credit publicly. Thirdly because I thought that it's a reasonably sensible topic-starter and things have been slow around here of late, so we can do with all of the (sensible) new thread-starters that we can get.

Tomas wrote:ps- Had you been drinking (again) when composing this crap?

No.

"QRS philosophy is consistent, logical, and mostly fair-minded. What it lacks is substance." -brokenhead

No, it has substance: the collective emotional baggage of Q, R, and S, which they think they've suppressed but have merely sublimated. And that's where fairness and logic fall apart - where they've tried to shoehorn in their personal prejudices. When you arrive at misogyny as some kind of inescapable truth, your philosophy is broken beyond repair.

The good points of QRS are not very rare among intelligent individuals. I think overall, QRS does real damage to impressionable minds. People look up to them for their good points, but come away with rationality corrupted by a subtle poison. The QRS program hides a deadly Trojan horse.

|read| wrote:"QRS philosophy is consistent, logical, and mostly fair-minded. What it lacks is substance." -brokenhead

No, it has substance: the collective emotional baggage of Q, R, and S, which they think they've suppressed but have merely sublimated. And that's where fairness and logic fall apart - where they've tried to shoehorn in their personal prejudices. When you arrive at misogyny as some kind of inescapable truth, your philosophy is broken beyond repair.

The good points of QRS are not very rare among intelligent individuals. I think overall, QRS does real damage to impressionable minds. People look up to them for their good points, but come away with rationality corrupted by a subtle poison. The QRS program hides a deadly Trojan horse.

I'm afraid I just don't take them so seriously.

Broken,

Read's point is that others do.

Carl G wrote:

bill wrote:An old Navaho saying...

It is impossible to awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep.

If a man is pretending to be asleep, then he is awake, and naturally it would be impossible to awaken an already awake person. Not wisdom but humor. It's an old Navajo joke, right?

I took it to be more of a metaphorical statement. Not to be taken too literally or to be exposed to the harsh glare of logic.

Aren't you all just babbling on about some book (text book) that didn't get published? Hey, just move on with your lives, and come up with something new to talk about. An old Pulp Fiction adage, "That's pride fuckin' with you." If you're too obstinate to let go of certain things, then you're only holding yourselves back. Maybe it's the warm weather you're all having in Arizona and Australia. It takes a little oppression from the cold weather to help you think straight. Your minds get bogged down when your living conditions are too comfortable.

bill wrote:

Carl G wrote:

bill wrote:An old Navaho saying...

It is impossible to awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep.

If a man is pretending to be asleep, then he is awake, and naturally it would be impossible to awaken an already awake person. Not wisdom but humor. It's an old Navajo joke, right?

I took it to be more of a metaphorical statement.

So did I. The wakefulness and sleep I mean are of the spiritual kind, regarding levels of consciousness.

Not to be taken too literally or to be exposed to the harsh glare of logic.

Why not? Are aphorisms not meant to point to truth?

snow bunny wrote:Aren't you all just babbling on about some book (text book) that didn't get published?

It is a philosophy for living, not a book, and I bet a carrot you know it, bunny.

Hey, just move on with your lives, and come up with something new to talk about.

Because old things cannot be worthwhile? Okay, tell us something good and new.

An old Pulp Fiction adage, "That's pride fuckin' with you." If you're too obstinate to let go of certain things, then you're only holding yourselves back.

Platitudes and generalities? That's what you're giving us? Platitudes and generalities?

Maybe it's the warm weather you're all having in Arizona and Australia.

It was 12 degrees Fahrenheit outside my Arizona door this a.m.

It takes a little oppression from the cold weather to help you think straight. Your minds get bogged down when your living conditions are too comfortable.

Sounds you're out in the snow naked before dawn each day with a birch switch, self-flagellating. Good man.

Maybe it's the warm weather you're all having in Arizona and Australia.
It was 12 degrees Fahrenheit outside my Arizona door this a.m.

Wow! I thought that's where they had spring training for baseball. You sure you're not yankin' my chain?

It takes a little oppression from the cold weather to help you think straight. Your minds get bogged down when your living conditions are too comfortable.

Sounds you're out in the snow naked before dawn each day with a birch switch, self-flagellating. Good man.

you're not that far off, just forget about the birch switch thing, and you might be onto something there.

Not to be taken too literally or to be exposed to the harsh glare of logic.

Why not? Are aphorisms not meant to point to truth?

A poetic truth, maybe. One that confounds reason or logic.

Shahrazad wrote:Broken,

Read's point is that others do.

I was trying to get into the spirit of the thread, Shahrazad. There is much to be admired in what they are attempting to do, which is to address Big Issues and take stands. The more I read of David's site, the more I am convinced that the QRS philosophy is premature at best, and perhaps misguided at worst. There are holes in the logic you could march an army through. Nobody is forcing anyone to read their literature. If they or their adherents make asinine pronouncements, IMO, I try to point it out. What else can I do?

bill wrote:

Not to be taken too literally or to be exposed to the harsh glare of logic.

Why not? Are aphorisms not meant to point to truth?

A poetic truth, maybe. One that confounds reason or logic.

Fuck that. Poetic truth must point to the same place as reason or logic or it is not truth, it is simply poetic. Poetic truth (the Tao Te Ching, for example) does not 'confound' logic; quite the opposite, it illuminates it.

The aphorism you provided, whether Navajo or not, does contain some truth so I don't know why you are arguing this.

What do you like most about the QRS philosophy?

Pretty much everything you mentioned. I also like that they have the courage to live a lifestyle consistent with their own views, despite the fact that it means enduring endless rations of shit from every direction. That is perhaps their biggest success - whatever the value of their particular philosophical views (which will necessarily be judged differently by each individual), they are willing to live in accordance with those views to a greater degree than most. In that sense, they show considerable integrity of character.

What I don't like in the QRS approach is already well-known to many here and certainly to QRS themselves, and I won't degrade this thread by re-hashing it.

Laird wrote:

In my time at GF so far I've been quite critical of the QRS philosophy.

To be accurate what you've been critical of is your own limited and misunderstood version of such. I just want to be clear that I don't regard you as ever having really criticised the philosophy in any precise manner, despite your belief to the contrary.

I now want to write something to correct any misconception that I fail to recognise anything of value whatsoever in their philosophy, as well as to generally cut the guys some slack. The purpose of this post then is to point out what I appreciate in their philosophy.

Firstly I appreciate their emphasis on rationality. I disagree with some of their rational conclusions, but I agree that many people in the world hold quite irrational and unsupportable beliefs, and that it's desirable to encourage people to think for themselves rather than to simply accept what they're told.

This is a prerequisite for sanity, so advocating anything less than this would be advocating something less than sanity.

Secondly I appreciate their emphasis on heightening consciousness. I'm not sure whether we fully agree on exactly what that means, but I can't think of many (if any) more worthwhile ultimate (i.e. assuming that most of the problems of the world have already been solved) goals in life than becoming as conscious as possible.

Your parenthetical qualification is the most significant element here. Which of the world's problems, exactly, do you imagine can genuinely be solved without greater rationality, heightened consciousness, wisdom? I put it to you that the vast majority of the world's problems cannot be resolved without it.

Thirdly I think that their attitude towards emotions, whilst too extreme, has something of value to it. Unchecked emotions can lead to dangerous and regrettable behaviour. I disagree that emotions are entirely undesirable, but I do think that it's necessary to be vigilant so that one's actions aren't affected excessively by one's emotions.

This is a pretty mundane point of view, don't you think? Can you think of anyone who doesn't express this view in terms identical or closely related to how you just expressed it? I can't, offhand, sundry lunatics and Wiccan irrationalists excepted. My position is not that emotions are bad, or that they should be suppressed so as to gain greater control over our lives - it is explicitly that emotions are a consequence of a deluded mind; that being derived from such a mind set they naturally fall away (cease to arise) when such a mindset is transcended. Now, this view doesn't entirely nullify the point you made; I should qualify myself somewhat by agreeing that keeping the emotions under control is very advantageous for any pursuit requiring quality of reason.

One of the difficulties in debating the nature of emotions in a contemporary intellectual setting is the neblosity of definition surrounding them. Nowadays, in the face of any such discussion, all sorts of feelings, sensations and both cognitive and physiological processes (yes, I'm going to pretend this dichotomy for the sake of the argument) and the subconscious are brought into the mix of what we say emotions are. This is highly problematic because when I talk about emotions I'm referring to relatively conventional ideas of what that term means. When I speak about "emotions" I am very specifically referring to non-rational responses to stimuli filtered through the self/ego framework. I'm not referring to anything else like the basic motivational force that makes us get up in the morning to do something or the subconscious processes that cause us to react to things in particular ways. I think tossing that sort of thing into the mix of what we call "emotion" is near to ludicrous. If you want to do it, by all means do so, but keep in mind that in doing so you are not talking about the same thing as me. When a lizard wakes up in the morning and goes off to do what lizards do, they are not expressing and manifesting emotional forces, but rather forces that are innate and universal in biological forms; "doing" stuff is what biological forms do; if they didn't we'd call them rocks.

What has been hitherto and conventionally regarded as the human "emotional range" has always been an adequate set of ideas to me (for philosophical purposes). What we call emotions are a by-product of self-aware consciousness or a primal instinct modified by it. The "problem" being that self-awareness as normally manifest is grounded in illusions and false thinking. So, the crux of the point is that when it comes to discussing emotions the salient concern is that of the basis and truth value of whence they arise. I don't argue for "getting rid" of emotions as some sort of singular, isolated and beneficial goal (or, for that matter, things like attachments) - I argue for getting rid of delusions; what arises from delusion is lost merely by natural consequence. You turn off the tap and the fountain stops. Only a fool argues for plugging the fountain up.

Fourthly I like their emphasis on causality, mostly because I think that it encourages people to be more thoughtful about the consequences of their actions.

I like it because it encourages people to think about the nature of Reality itself, which is the true and proper context within which to think about consequences.

Fifthly I like some of what they say about the need to discard the false ego. I don't like the way that they couch it in terms of "realising the illusory nature of the self", because in my opinion such an intellectual realisation has no practical consequences; I do think though that in this they encourage people to become more selfless, more balanced (although I don't think that they'd like me using that word), more tolerant and more disciplined, and I'm all for developing those traits.

I don't think you ended up actually saying anything concrete here. Your first part seems like an exercise in equivocation to me. If you think realising the illusory nature of the self has no practical consequences, what part of the whole false ego thing do you like? Merely that thinking that way invokes modes that you find attractive? Isn't that sort of reducing our position down to: "believing in Santa makes you happy which can't be a bad thing"? If realising the false nature of the ego has no practical consequences, one must necessarily not have actually realised it. There's a difference between realisation and intellectual understanding. Being able to comprehend the importance of reason does not make you a rational person, as such. Realisation is the non-compartmentalised manifestation of an understanding.

Finally I like to visualise the Totality that they describe. I don't know how accurately this model describes reality but it's a pretty awesome prospect: uncaused infinity in all directions.

Or in no direction at all, as the case may be.

That was a pretty effective rebuttal. For the record, and as I've stated previously, Dan is pretty much the only "QRS-like" person I've seen offer consistently thoughtful responses to criticisms and misunderstandings. If it can be said that he gets the short end of the stick in terms of the public image of a "QRS hierarchy," that seems like more evidence that a lot of people see things backward.

Laird: In my time at GF so far I've been quite critical of the QRS philosophy.

Dan: To be accurate what you've been critical of is your own limited and misunderstood version of such. I just want to be clear that I don't regard you as ever having really criticised the philosophy in any precise manner, despite your belief to the contrary.

I'm finding it hard to think of a suitable response to this that would be neither sarcastic nor inviting of a puerile "Have too. Have not. Have too"-style exchange. This then is the most mature response that I can come up with: I've done my best to understand you guys over the better part of a year, including many intense face-to-face discussions with Kevin, and I'm confident that my understanding of at least the main issues is sound, and furthermore I'm confident that I've been quite precise in my criticisms of your philosophy.

Laird: Secondly I appreciate their emphasis on heightening consciousness. I'm not sure whether we fully agree on exactly what that means, but I can't think of many (if any) more worthwhile ultimate (i.e. assuming that most of the problems of the world have already been solved) goals in life than becoming as conscious as possible.

Dan: Your parenthetical qualification is the most significant element here. Which of the world's problems, exactly, do you imagine can genuinely be solved without greater rationality, heightened consciousness, wisdom? I put it to you that the vast majority of the world's problems cannot be resolved without it.

Good point. I think that for the most part you are right. I'll amend that parenthetical qualification so that it occurs after the next word, "goals", and reads instead: "in conjunction with solving the practical problems of the world".

Laird: Thirdly I think that their attitude towards emotions, whilst too extreme, has something of value to it. Unchecked emotions can lead to dangerous and regrettable behaviour. I disagree that emotions are entirely undesirable, but I do think that it's necessary to be vigilant so that one's actions aren't affected excessively by one's emotions.

Dan: This is a pretty mundane point of view, don't you think?

Yes, probably, but whether or not it's mundane doesn't change the fact that it's as far as I'll go with you on your attitude towards emotions. I don't advocate ideas simply because they're exciting, I advocate them because I think that they're right. How about you?

Dan Rowden wrote:[E]motions are a consequence of a deluded mind; that being derived from such a mind set they naturally fall away (cease to arise) when such a mindset is transcended.

Yeah, that's the bit that I disagree with and furthermore that I don't fully understand. I've requested for both David and Kevin (David on two occasions, Kevin just the once) to explain the relationship between "transcending the deluded mindset" - which I believe can in other words be stated as "realising the illusory nature of the self" - and the "falling away" of emotions. I was disappointed that they ignored my request on both occasions. Perhaps you will be more obliging. For reference, here is the exact wording of the request that I have already posted twice and which was originally addressed to David:

I'm interested in seeing you elaborate on the relationship between this intellectualisation as to the illusionary nature of self and its supposed effect of dissolving emotion, because that's the most detail in which I understand your claim. I've discussed it with Kevin in person and that's as far as he goes too. You guys are claiming a cause (an intellectualisation) and an effect (the dissolution of emotion). OK, so then what's the mechanism by which this cause effects its result?

Dan Rowden wrote:[W]hen I talk about emotions I'm referring to relatively conventional ideas of what that term means. When I speak about "emotions" I am very specifically referring to non-rational responses to stimuli filtered through the self/ego framework.

Yes, I already understood that that's your position.

Dan Rowden wrote:I don't argue for "getting rid" of emotions as some sort of singular, isolated and beneficial goal (or, for that matter, things like attachments) - I argue for getting rid of delusions; what arises from delusion is lost merely by natural consequence. You turn off the tap and the fountain stops. Only a fool argues for plugging the fountain up.

Again, I understood that as your position already.

Laird: Fifthly I like some of what they say about the need to discard the false ego. I don't like the way that they couch it in terms of "realising the illusory nature of the self", because in my opinion such an intellectual realisation has no practical consequences; I do think though that in this they encourage people to become more selfless, more balanced (although I don't think that they'd like me using that word), more tolerant and more disciplined, and I'm all for developing those traits.

Dan: I don't think you ended up actually saying anything concrete here.

You don't think that saying that I value selflessness, balance, tolerance and discipline in people is concrete? It's pretty much as concrete a statement as they come in my opinion.

Dan Rowden wrote:Your first part seems like an exercise in equivocation to me. If you think realising the illusory nature of the self has no practical consequences, what part of the whole false ego thing do you like?

It's interesting that you mention equivocation because this distinction between the concepts of "discarding the false ego" and "realising the illusory nature of the self" is actually one that Kevin made me aware of, and only recently, in a discussion on my side lawn. I asked him to explain what he had against the emotionality of the ego - or something very similar - and he dropped in this description of the "false" ego (which I'd never heard of before as far as I recall), this false ego being all of the emotions that drive a person to irrational acts (I'm probably paraphrasing quite badly here but you get the general gist). The notion of a "false" ego implies the existence of a "true" ego, but hitherto Kev had - as you have done - expressed the viewpoint that the ego is an illusionary construct.

So who was it that was equivocating again?

This notion of a "false" ego, comprised of irrational emotions, being a thing that we can discard, is a lot more palatable to me than the prior notion that I'd encountered through you guys of some kind of revelatory experience whereby one penetrates through the veil and realises that one's ego is an illusion and somehow this experience causing one's emotions to cease arising, which is why I wrote that "I like some of what [you] say about the need to discard the false ego" yet on the other hand wrote that the latter "realisation has no practical consequences". I wasn't equivocating at all. I can handle the idea of a "false" ego: I would describe it as that part of the ego that likes to exaggerate its own importance, leading to hubris, arrogance, pain when one's experience inevitably fails to live up to one's self-image, poor relationships with others who see that you value yourself far more than you value them, etc. I don't know whether this is exactly the same description that Kev would use, but it's probably close enough.

Fuck that. Poetic truth must point to the same place as reason or logic or it is not truth, it is simply poetic. Poetic truth (the Tao Te Ching, for example) does not 'confound' logic; quite the opposite, it illuminates it.

The aphorism you provided, whether Navajo or not, does contain some truth so I don't know why you are arguing this.

How does the 'fuck that' dictionary define truth? Me, I'm kinda stuck with what Wiki points out...

"The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.[1] The term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree. Various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute."


So... I don't get you.

Dan Rowden wrote:When I speak about "emotions" I am very specifically referring to non-rational responses to stimuli filtered through the self/ego framework.

Dan, are you saying that every emotion is a delusion? I believe Laird would agree with me that a delusion by definition is a negative thing, one to be avoided, and transcended if it has been heretofore harbored. Speaking for myself, I don't think every emotion is a delusion, nor is every delusion an instance of emotion. Once you make that distinction, you open the door to the possibility of beneficial emotions, which is one door that I think you have your foot firmly against.

A delusion is simply a mistaken belief. It is a notion held despite evidence to the contrary. An aggressively rational mind will root out delusions as a matter of course, since they grow like weeds in one's mind. The QRS philosophy does not, as I understand it, claim it is possible to have a mind in which those weeds cannot grow. It requires vigilance at all time to keep the mistaken notions to a minimum. I would agree with that. And since this thread is "Common ground," I should say that in so far as the QRS philosophy is rigorous, I tend to agree with it.

Where I diverge is with the definitions. I do not think emotions are either good or evil. I view them as either productive or counterproductive. For instance, most people allow themselves anger. To me, this is a false emotion. If anger is not 100% intentional, controlled, and goal-oriented, it is worthless at best and, more often, counterproductive.

What makes emotions dangerous is a person's attachment to them. It is much the same as attachment to a thing, or an attachment to money. Since money, emotions, and objects only truly can be known to exist within us, as manifestations in the mind, they are all subject to the same laws. One of those is the tendency to form attachments.

I think that only when you sever attachments can you be free. Experiencing an emotion is not the same as being attached to it. Emotion does not imply attachment, just as swimming does not imply drowning. But if you arrange your life so that you can keep experiencing an emotion because it gives you pleasure, then you are becoming a slave to the emotion just as if it were an addictive drug. You are becoming attached. Falling in love is one such emotion. People get addicted to it and want to keep repeating it, then they wonder why their lives are in such disarray and why they cannot form solid relationships.