Truth, experience, logic and the un-rational

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:05 pm

namelesss wrote:I am questioning the ability of 'logic' alone to fully accomplish the 'weeding' process.
Logic can certainly affect 'logical' constructs (built upon a foundational program incorporational of 'logic' programs), but would be ineffective, for instance, in functionally influencing a deeply based 'emotional' program (non-logical).
You cannot 'rationalize' away the 'emotional' (and related) wounds of a parental abandonment, which also operates at a primarily 'subconscious' level where there are no 'logic programs' anywhere.

I disagree. Perhaps for some the way of working through emotional issues is through an emotional (non-logical) program, but for others, there is nothing that can not be processes through logically. When something hurts me, the only thing that makes me feel better is to analyze it until I understand it thoroughly.

Rationalizing isn't really the best term for it though, it's more like intellectualizing.

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:55 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:If you are too stubborn to see past two sentences of criticism...

Are you aware of the difference between an 'ad hominem' attack and (constructive?) criticism?
That was an attack on the person that showed me that all to follow was not worth my time.

Your argument is with David, though, not with me. I have no interest in joining in. You just looked a little swamped and helpless, and I'm always happy to point out someone's difficulties.

You seem confused; you claim to have "no interest in joining in" this conversation yet .. here you are! I guess that you do have an interest after all.

But I will ignore further posts with an 'ad hominem' flavor. We either deal with the subject at hand or we won't be conversating.

But, thank you again for sharing your perspective.

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:09 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
namelesss wrote:I am questioning the ability of 'logic' alone to fully accomplish the 'weeding' process.
Logic can certainly affect 'logical' constructs (built upon a foundational program incorporational of 'logic' programs), but would be ineffective, for instance, in functionally influencing a deeply based 'emotional' program (non-logical).
You cannot 'rationalize' away the 'emotional' (and related) wounds of a parental abandonment, which also operates at a primarily 'subconscious' level where there are no 'logic programs' anywhere.
I disagree. Perhaps for some the way of working through emotional issues is through an emotional (non-logical) program, but for others, there is nothing that can not be processes through logically. When something hurts me, the only thing that makes me feel better is to analyze it until I understand it thoroughly.

Hello Elizabeth,
I respect your perspective. If the 'evidence' in your 'life' is such that you have 'reasoned' your way into an 'enlightened' (sans delusion) state, who could argue or doubt your personal experience. When I said 'enlightened' I am using the term according to the common Hindu understanding of a 'personal experience of the Oneness of all' (even 'believing' in the concept of 'all' is delusion..). A 'place' lacking in all 'delusion'. That would be the only 'evidence' acceptable, to me, that 'logic/reason' can eradicate all delusion. Do you, too, wish to step up and make this claim? Doing so, publicly, would invite, of course, critical examination of said 'claim'. Who knows, perhaps you'll be the first.
Displaying even one little delusion brings down your whole (house of cards) assertion regarding the 'power and function' of your 'logic and rationality'.

As William Borroughs so clearly suggested, it might be more fruitful to "exterminate all rational thought"!

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:19 pm

namelesss wrote: We either deal with the subject at hand or we won't be conversating.

Barney Rubble (from The Flintstones) wrote: conversating

Do you mean conversing? or was that an intentional joke?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:20 pm

namelesss wrote:As William Borroughs so clearly suggested, it might be more fruitful to "exterminate all rational thought"!

I can see you that have exterminated your own already.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:54 pm

nameless,

You seem confused; you claim to have "no interest in joining in" this conversation yet .. here you are! I guess that you do have an interest after all.

I was perfectly clear. You are the confused one. I have no interest in joining the argument. I have absolutely no issue with speaking about secondary issues, such as your attitude. I will proceed to clarify what I said in my first post as many times as it takes for you to finally understand it.

When I say I have no interest in joining in the argument, I mean exactly that. I will not join in the argument that is the topic of this post. The premise is that Cory was confused, and needed David's clarification.

Are you aware of the difference between an 'ad hominem' attack and (constructive?) criticism?

Yes. And what I said was not ad hominem, because I was not using some irrelevant fact about your life to undermine your argument. I used a metaphor to describe your attitude toward David. This was criticism, not ad hominem. If you actually are a teenager having a temper tantrum, then I apologize: in that case, I unknowingly attacked your person, and not your childish style of argumentation.

But I will ignore further posts with an 'ad hominem' flavor. We either deal with the subject at hand or we won't be conversating.

Ad hominem is not a "flavour". It is a specific fallacy that you have proven that you cannot identify. If you are a teenager, and I knew you were a teenager, and I used that fact as a disproof of an unrelated argument, then I would have been commiting a fallacy. As it stands, I just poked a little hole into your over-inflated ego.

As I have already said twice, I am not dealing with the subject at hand. I have no interest in asking David's advice about a topic that I am already clear on. I'm fine if you don't reply to this: I'd prefer if you didn't converse with me unless you want advice on how best to understand what David is saying. That is the advice I initially offered, although summarized.

That was an attack on the person that showed me that all to follow was not worth my time.

This from someone who admits they don't hold any belief for very long, who refuses to identify himself in any way, and hypocritically looks down on anyone who thinks that they are superior to others?

I'm blunt and crude, but at least I stand by my convictions. I had things to say about your attitude two posts ago that I still hold true. You can read them any time you decide to skim more than two lines into my post.

[edits: my grammar sucks; i notice a new mistake every time i skim over it]

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:48 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
namelesss wrote: We either deal with the subject at hand or we won't be conversating.

Barney Rubble (from The Flintstones) wrote: conversating
Do you mean conversing? or was that an intentional joke?

I am rather conversant with my language and use it as I see fit. I happen to like the idiomatic term that I used. It was to add a bit of 'light-heartedness' to to this oh-so-serious mix here. The point remains the same; the idiom, intentional.
It is not, by the way a quote from a cartoon, it is idiomatic of a portion of black americana. It might even qualify as 'ebonics'.
Is this more than you wished to know?
Have I misperceived your intent here?

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:51 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
namelesss wrote:As William Borroughs so clearly suggested, it might be more fruitful to "exterminate all rational thought"!
I can see you that have exterminated your own already.

Ahh, I see. This clarifies my question of your intent in your previous post.
I also notice your inability to focus on the topic, as you made none but these ridiculous responses to my post to you regarding 'reason', which seem to prove my point.
Good night.

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:57 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I'd prefer if you didn't converse with me unless you want advice on how best to understand what David is saying.

Methinks, unless David has suddenly died, I have no need to converse with his minions, he can speak well for himself.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:You can read them any time you decide to skim more than two lines into my post.

I certainly shall, as soon as I deem it 'fruitful'.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:36 pm

Dear nameless X,

You wrote:

I also notice your inability to focus on the topic, as you made none but these ridiculous responses to my post to you regarding 'reason',

You have indicated that you do not value rational thought, so it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.

You did show some wise insight when you wrote:

Logic can certainly affect 'logical' constructs (built upon a foundational program incorporational of 'logic' programs), but would be ineffective, for instance, in functionally influencing a deeply based 'emotional' program (non-logical).
You cannot 'rationalize' away the 'emotional' (and related) wounds of a parental abandonment, which also operates at a primarily 'subconscious' level where there are no 'logic programs' anywhere.
Or 'intuitional' based programs (again, deliberately bypassing the thought process in access.. )
We seem to have other 'tools' that deliberately by-pass the rational thought processes. It seems that if 'rationality' alone covered all bases, we would not have alternative tools of 'discovery'..

I inferred - on what you probably consider an "'intuitional' based program" that you think in a way that bypasses logic. Therefore I poked around the topic to see what else you would explain about your position (one of what you suggested: "alternative tools of 'discovery'"). It worked. I understand where you are coming from.

I wrote:

Perhaps for some the way of working through emotional issues is through an emotional (non-logical) program, but for others, there is nothing that can not be processes through logically.

That means:
You think your way and I think my way. We're different.

Being different doesn't make either of us wrong. I understand you, and I think that it's okay that we're different. Do you think that it's okay that people are different as long as we accept each other?

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:11 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:You have indicated that you do not value rational thought, so it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.

Elizabeth, at no time did I say that I did not 'value' rational thought. If you've been listening, you would have heard me 'indicate', directly, that I consider 'rational thought' a 'tool' with limited application. One 'tool' among others.

I inferred - on what you probably consider an "'intuitional' based program" that you think in a way that bypasses logic.

At times, in a way...
'Thought itself' seems to be a 'logical' ('excretion' of a functioning brain), linear tool that we use to various levels of ability. So when I find myself 'thinking', it seems to always be 'logical', to one degree or another, of course!
It is the direct 'experience' that can bypass logic. The 'experience' reviewed in the mind with the application of 'thought' (inclusive of memory) is the realm of logic, a 'looking' at an 'experience' or 'concept' in a 'particular' fashion, from a 'particular' perspective, with a 'particular' tool.
But, as you say, 'intuition' is another way of gaining insight sans logic. Actually, when logic is applied to 'intuition', it inhibits and cancels the function (intuition). Completely seperate areas of function. Different 'perspectives'.

Therefore I poked around the topic to see what else you would explain about your position (one of what you suggested: "alternative tools of 'discovery'"). It worked. I understand where you are coming from.

Might not a simple question and answer format have been more.. efficient? How do you know that you 'understand where I'm comming from', without repeating your perceived understandings to me for comment and verification? If it is I who say that you 'understand' what I am saying, then you probably do. If it is simply your assumption, you are probably, to one extent or other, in error (in my experience).

I wrote: Perhaps for some the way of working through emotional issues is through an emotional (non-logical) program, but for others, there is nothing that can not be processes through logically.

I am accepting this statement to be a statement of 'faith', of 'belief', as your statement does not seem to be fully based on personal experience to make such a sweeping assertion.
I understand the mechanics of 'belief' and can accept your 'belief system' as you state it.

That means:
You think your way and I think my way. We're different.

Thats not what it meant to me. This is simply an observation of the obvious (on a superficial level).

Being different doesn't make either of us wrong.

Absolutely correct, from this perspective. I am amoral, having no morals, so I don't judge things as 'good' and 'bad', 'right' or 'wrong'.
What is, is...

I understand you, and I think that it's okay that we're different.

Again, I question your thinking that you 'understand my meanings and perspective', and this is partially founded on what you are focusing on now, that I have some kind of problem with other people. I don't. Everyone is a unique perspective, often many, that is an important factor of this existence. The 'experience' of many 'little views' make for a better, more accurate 'big view'.
Your thinking that I am 'moral' is another indication, or 'intolerant'.. No, I don't think that you 'understand' me very well. But with continued, honest, commun.. er.. ahh.. 'conversating', you will, no doubt, better understand what I offer of this perspective. But to be sure of understanding, you would have to repeat your (tentative) understanding of my words back to me for verification.

Do you think that it's okay that people are different as long as we accept each other?

Where are you going with this? Like in previous posts, are you again not saying what you are meaning and not meaning what you are saying? How about some non agendized honest communication (conversating!)? I find it to be too strenuous to play the 'what does she really mean game'. OK?
And this question has been previously answered.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:25 am

nameless,

Fine - I will go back to my normal way of communicating, which is logical and rational (and yes, I have often repeated that effective communication is sending a message and making sure that it is received as sent. Unfortunatly that process bothers the irrational, which I considered that you might be).

I will reassess my opinion on whether you are irrational or if you were just making an argument that logic is an insufficient tool.

nameless wrote:

I am questioning the ability of 'logic' alone to fully accomplish the 'weeding' process.

I believe that we just demonstrated that any shortness of logic in an application leads to less than desirable results, so the above exchanges did not convince me that logic alone would be an insufficient tool for any thought process.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:40 am

Eliza,

I will reassess my opinion on whether you are irrational or if you were just making an argument that logic is an insufficient tool.

Either way, he's irrational. The only alternative to rationality is irrationality; the only alternative to logical thought is illogical thought (random, gut feelings). All arguments require logic and rationality; arguing that they don't is hypocritical.

(btw, don't 'fret' if you can't 'understand' what 'he' is 'talking' about. Each 'word' clearly has a new 'meaning'. It is 'madness' trying to sort through 'what' the 'hell' he is 'saying'.)

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:36 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Either way, he's irrational.

True - I'm trying to reopen the possibility that it's just his argument is irrational rather than my previous assessment that he is just irrational overall.

Logic can be learned, so can an appreciation for logic. Increasing someone's appreciation for logic is a lot trickier than teaching logic itself.

I doubt he'll ever admit to changing his mind, but I think I'm starting to see a "that's what I meant - you're just too stupid to understand me" which is better than going around thinking that logic can't be applied to everything.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:55 pm

Eliza,

Logic can be learned, so can an appreciation for logic. Increasing someone's appreciation for logic is a lot trickier than teaching logic itself.

Good luck with that: I think you're on the right track trying to get him to appreciate logic. Since I'm a compulsive asshole, I don't think I'd be able to impress such a positive message. (As a side note, I've learned over time that often the best contribution I can make to a thread is through being so over-the-top offensive that the person realizes how polite everyone else is being. They usually end up learning exactly what I wanted to explain, just from the words of someone I agree with, not from me. The wonders of causality!)

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:27 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Good luck with that: I think you're on the right track trying to get him to appreciate logic. Since I'm a compulsive asshole, I don't think I'd be able to impress such a positive message. (As a side note, I've learned over time that often the best contribution I can make to a thread is through being so over-the-top offensive that the person realizes how polite everyone else is being. They usually end up learning exactly what I wanted to explain, just from the words of someone I agree with, not from me. The wonders of causality!)

At least you have said one thing upon which we can both agree.

namelesss · Post by **namelesss** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:53 pm

Its too bad David et al has wimped out and left their moronic minions to harass someone with a slightly different (oh no) perspective to share. Real 'sages'!
You are swine and I'm saving my pearls.
Fuck you cowards, y'all deserve your pathetic little delusions and each other. You can pat each other on the back now, you've saved your forum.
I'm gone.
Carry on.
Worthless cattle...
(Yaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!)
<spits in the dust and walks off>

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:29 pm

I was patiently waiting for your thread on causality.

-

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:04 pm

At the same time as hearing about causality I'd also like to hear the reasoning about how reason is limited.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:55 am

Kevin Solway wrote:At the same time as hearing about causality I'd also like to hear the reasoning about how reason is limited.

seems like a really reasonable request...

(edited - originally stated "seems like a reasonable question" which mis-labeled Keven's quote as question, when in fact it is closer to a request. Then I noticed an opportunity for some alliteration, so I added that, too.)

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:28 am

Well, I'm patting myself on the back. The forum in safe for another day, and I can go back to cleaning up David et al.'s leavings with my toothbrush.

Seriously though, I didn't think me and Liza would be so distracting that the dude would totally forget that he had promised to post something longer. Maybe he thought he already did?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:39 am

Elizabeth Isabelle, to nameless, wrote:
I will reassess my opinion on whether you are irrational or if you were just making an argument that logic is an insufficient tool.

Anybody want my reassessment?

:P

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:09 am

On 10/9/06, namelesss wrote:Don't fret, I won't run away.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:32 am

Liza,
It's fun to talk behind people's backs, and it's even funner if they happen to be standing right behind someone else who's doing it. Reassess as you please, as I shall be overjoyed if you end up doing the classic double-take: "how long have you been listening?"

"Long enough."