GENIUS FORUMS

Penis,

If truly "the idea is sound and entrenched in logic" shouldn't you be more than just "pretty sure" and shouldn't you actually be able to "speak for everyone"? If it is truly based on logic, you should be able to state what that logic is, and have it lead to certainty? Otherwise, why bring up the subject and then hedge about it?

pen15 wrote:I'm pretty sure the sweeping overwrite would make the message here at genius much more "true" in the deepest sense of the word.

Dick (Richard?),

What message do you think is here at genius?

You tricked me on the Dick Richard thing. Now I have to reconsider my approach and start over.

I suggest posting as Sammy Davis Jr. That's worked for others previous.

But really, Penis or Dick is fine. It's always fun to have a playful member in the group.

What ought to disappear are the fatuous conceptions that fall under the self-proclaimed 'wisdom' some people try to peddle here.

pen15 wrote:You tricked me on the Dick Richard thing. Now I have to reconsider my approach and start over.

Consider this.

Why hold this up as example?

Kevin, from the link, writes:

When one is writing to a pseudonym, it makes one seriously doubt that one is talking to a real, definite human being, as opposed to a mere persona.

Kevin is saying here that he falls prey to a delusion of his. Certainly he does not seriously believe what he writes. It wouldn't be logical.

The person with the pseudonym feels like a pretender, or a wisp of air, at best.

Feels? Kevin giving credence to his emotional reactions? Think, Kevin, think.

Weininger has some interesting words on this subject:

Seems Weininger is at the root of these false thoughts.

Quote:

One’s name and a strong devotion to it are even more dependent on personality than is the sense of property. . . . Women are not bound to their names with any strong bond. When they marry they give up their own name and assume that of their husband without any sense of loss. . . .

What a lame generalization. All women give up their own name? All who do, do so without any sense of loss? What about women's first names; they do not experience a strong bond to those? And, men ARE bound to their names? How wise is that? Sounds like trivial valuation and pop psychology, made up to serve the agenda.

I grant that to create multiple names for oneself is arguably better than being nameless, and thus fully feminine. But multiple names for oneself are tending towards the multiple personality syndrome, that is found almost exclusively in women, and is closely allied with namelessness.

This is pseudo-psychology. Multiple names tend one towards MPS? MPS is found almost exclusively in women? I'll like to see the backup for these assertions.

Diebert, your post was spot-on. I'm also glad to see that Kev has no problem with the QRS label.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The best way to counter 'QRS' is to create another name that describes good enough what makes the shared philosophy of Dan, Kevin and David different from the other stuff out there.

When I first started posting here I suggested "totalitarianism". David rejected that term (I was being facetious anyway). He preferred something like, iirc, "the path of wisdom and truth". I asked whether he'd settle for "rational infinitism" and never got a reply. After due consideration though, I think that "logical infinitism" is even better. David, Dan, Kevin, in particular, and anyone else in general: what do you think of this name?

I like the name rational infinitism better than logical infinitism as rationality is far more encompassing than logic. As for accuracy though, I'm not sure the Woman philosophy is either rational or logical, so neither of those terms might be perfectly accurate.

They are right about not being the ones to come up with the Woman philosophy though, and it is more of a compilation of observations on women by men throughout recorded history. How about antiquated infinitism?

The "woman" philosophy is so cutting edge that it will probably be thousands of years before it starts to seep into public consciousness.

Given that you are firmly part of the woman equation, Elizabeth, it is understandable that you find it objectionable.

In any case, I am not in favour of Laird's attempts to put an academic label on what is essentially mind-blowing, timeless wisdom. It doesn't serve any useful purpose as far as promoting this wisdom is concerned. It is simply an egotistical attempt on Laird's part to capture and nullify it.

-

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I like the name rational infinitism better than logical infinitism as rationality is far more encompassing than logic.

Yes, but they bang on about logic a lot (A=A), and "rationality" much less so, and they claim to have proved several assertions through logic - such as that the principle of causality is ultimately true and that the universe is infinite - so "logical" seems to me to be more appropriate.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:How about antiquated infinitism?

It's got my vote but it's only marginally more salable than "totalitarianism". Good luck getting that one past David!

David Quinn wrote:The "woman" philosophy is so cutting edge [...]

I don't know about "cutting edge", but I can go with "cutting".

David Quinn wrote:Given that you are firmly part of the woman equation, Elizabeth, it is understandable that you find it objectionable.

Elizabeth has proven herself to have a fine mind. And it is not only women who find your "woman" philosophy objectionable.

David Quinn wrote:In any case, I am not in favour of Laird's attempts to put an academic label on what is essentially mind-blowing, timeless wisdom.

Somehow I'm not surprised. You have a discrete package of thought of debatable value and wisdom but that you wish to promote as being all-encompassing and of indisputable quality. And I'm the egotistical one.

I think I may have started the QRS term, or at least adopted it early on for convenience.

Kind of glad I did, now that David has again shown his delusion of granduer/self aspect. Perhaps David wants to SOLELY OWN his own words, such as his essays, through reasons of pride.

The philosophies of the three is sufficiently the same for me to generalise their core views as one philosophy. Sure they do have different views, and in the last 12 months, I've noticed more disagreement than previously, but generally when the QRS term is used it is in reference to what is common in their belief system, not what is not.

We could call them "The Neo-Masculites". After all, all three believe masculinity is the closest thing to godliness.

James,

Kind of glad I did, now that David has again shown his delusion of granduer/self aspect. Perhaps David wants to SOLELY OWN his own words, such as his essays, through reasons of pride.

Quite the opposite, I want it to be emphasized that wisdom is the property of no one - not QRS, not David Quinn, not Buddha, not anyone. Labeling what goes on here as "QRS", or "rational infinitism", or "David Quinn's philosophy" devalues a treasure that is freely available to everyone.

-

Jamesh wrote:We could call them "The Neo-Masculites". After all, all three believe masculinity is the closest thing to godliness.

Nice one.

David Quinn wrote:to put an academic label

Yeah, "QRS" is a lot easier to type.

David Quinn wrote:I want it to be emphasized that wisdom is the property of no one - not QRS, not David Quinn, not Buddha, not anyone. Labeling what goes on here as "QRS", or "rational infinitism", or "David Quinn's philosophy" devalues a treasure that is freely available to everyone.

Exactly. Wisdom is the property of everyone. It is only your interpretation of wisdom that people are trying to slap a label on - as James said - for convenience.

There is no 'interpreting' truth.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:your interpretation of wisdom

Dave Toast wrote:There is no 'interpreting' truth.

The truth is purely the truth, and all that beings have are perceptions. The more adulterated the interpretation, the further from truth an interpretation is.

In David's WOTI, he essentially claims there are only interpretations. I claim that there is an objective reality to interpret. (Of course, if you want to include the debate on if existence exists, that makes it a bit stickier).

From your brief statement Dave Toast, I'm not quite sure what your position actually is.

It's pretty simple really Liz. The truth is the truth and there is no room for interpretation.

If you have sound premises and valid inference, you get truth.

Thereby, it is impossible for David or anyone to interpret truth. One cannot give another meaning to something which already has an exact meaning.

With regard to this (often nebulous) concept of wisdom, it is simply a body of truths derived from certain sound premises via valid inference. Again, no room for interpretation. As to whether anyone's claimed individual wisdom and its contents exclusively partake only of this body of truths derived from certain sound premises and valid inference, no comment.

Dave Toast wrote:anyone's claimed individual wisdom and its contents

I consider the phrase "interpretation of wisdom" to be sufficiently precise to convey this meaning to most people. Thank you for clarifying my meaning to anyone who did not understand my less verbose phrasing.

You miss my original point though Liz.

This wisdom, which is freely available to everyone capable, where all the admins et al largely cross over in their thought, is irrefutable truth. There is no interpreting it, or tarring it with a brush dipped in the accuracy and veracity of any extraneous associated theories expressed by any individual in possession of such wisdom.

Again, wisdom and the truths involved therein cannot be interpreted.

Dave Toast wrote:This wisdom, which is freely available to everyone capable, where all the admins et al largely cross over in their thought, is irrefutable truth. There is no interpreting it, or tarring it with a brush dipped in the accuracy and veracity of any extraneous associated theories expressed by any individual in possession of such wisdom.

Good grief. When the chicken crossed the path of wisdom, the tarred and feathered result of the et al's observations that the admins express as irrefutably pure wisdom is truthfully not venerable. The veneer of veracity vilifies vacuous mentality while simultaneously slapping sensibilities - to wit: the Woman philosophy. Nay, there is refutableness to the so-called wisdom of the penile pedestal perpetually portrayed herein.

Well, if I understand that correctly, you seem to have garnered the opposite meaning to that which I portrayed. I was distancing Wisdom from said Woman philosophy. Not that it is without meaning or truth.

Dave Toast wrote:Well, if I understand that correctly, you seem to have garnered the opposite meaning to that which I portrayed. I was distancing Wisdom from said Woman philosophy. Not that it is without meaning or truth.

Well then, that was the meaning I took when you said

Dave Toast wrote:You miss my original point though Liz.

Ah, I think I see what happened. It seems you misinterpreted my original meaning. In stating that I missed a point which I did not in fact originally miss, I misinterpreted your attempt to reinterpret the original meaning to mean that you meant the diametrically opposite of what I had originally surmised - which left me with the wrong interpretation of your true meaning.

Dave Toast wrote:

I was distancing Wisdom from said Woman philosophy. Not that it is without meaning or truth.

The trouble is, wisdom cannot really be separated from said woman philosophy, not without destroying the meaning and truth in both. This is because both deal directly with the ego's deepest illusions and attachments.

-

David Quinn wrote:The trouble is, wisdom cannot really be separated from said woman philosophy, not without destroying the meaning and truth in both.

I think that is a fair description. The Woman philosophy is a wisdom alloy rather than actual wisdom, just like steel is an iron alloy. Like confusing the Woman philosophy for wisdom, taking steel supplements is not an adequate replacement for taking iron supplements.

David Quinn wrote:Dave Toast wrote:

I was distancing Wisdom from said Woman philosophy. Not that it is without meaning or truth.

The trouble is, wisdom cannot really be separated from said woman philosophy, not without destroying the meaning and truth in both. This is because both deal directly with the ego's deepest illusions and attachments.

-

That's not where I'm coming from David as the large part of it is sound reasoning about the masculine and feminine dimensions of mind. What I would say is that much of it is also bound up in hype, a will to inconoclasm which necessitates bias. It was partly formulated and, most especially, it is stated as a violent kick against the oppression of society by Feminism; In much the same way that Feminism took things way too far in the wrong direction as they violently kicked against the inequalities of patriarchy, and in the same way you say Nietzsche strayed back into iconoclasm after Z.

I cannot distance the sound reasoning about the masculine and feminine dimensions of mind involved with said philosophy from this other aspect of it which was brought about by willful deviation from neutrality, as they were forged together.