GENIUS FORUMS

Ataraxia wrote:Yes,it's a good analogy.

Out of interest David, who would you consider a good example of an intelligent and rational artist within the visual arts?

Good question. I'm not big on visual art, so I'm probably not the one to ask. Do you have anyone in mind?

-

Not specifically.

I am partial to the surealists,particularly Salvador Dali.

Edvar Munchs 'Scream' also appeals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Scream.jpg

M.C. Escher.

I like the one's mentioned above. Never really paid any attention to how intelligent and rational they might be, though.

For some reason I also like Hieronymus Bosch.
http://www.abcgallery.com/B/bosch/bosch.html

I think mainly because of how radical some of his works would have been at various stages of history.

This kind of stuff for instance shows a lateral kind of thinking I like.
Christ Carrying the Cross.
Christ Child with a Walking-Frame. (Reverse of Christ Carrying the Cross).

The Tree Man, is also interesting. Something that could have been drawn this or last century.

I know nothing about art, but he gives me a feeling of him being an original. I tend to like "first of kind" artists of any sort.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Neil,

Creativity, virtue, greatness, etc, all had some irrational element to them in Nietzsche's view.

Nietzsche’s view of creativity was very superficial though, it spawned the psychedelic movement in the US, with Jim Morrison and all the rest of it.

Where did you get this from? Huxley's Doors of perception seems like a more likely candidate if we could ascribe the roots of that movement to one book or a single writer.

His view on creativity was very superficial? Are you serious?

Boyan wrote:

His view on creativity was very superficial? Are you serious?

Nietzsche seemed to place a little too much emphasis on creating art in a frenzy of passion. He glorified a psychological state that shouldn’t be glorified. Although, a state of temporary madness maybe a necessary step as a means to move onto the next stage of psychological development, but it almost as if Nietzsche dwelled on this stage a little too much.

That is my interpretation anyway, although I didn’t read all of his work.

Why do you see passion as merely something to transcend? We are beings of both passion and reason. one of the more insidious faults of our culture, IMO, is the belief that reason and passion stand in opposition. I would rather say that in order to be a whole person, one needs to have reason and passion work in synergy, complementing each other.

People mistake rationality for lacking emotion, and vice versa. This is one of the problems QRS suffer from.

vicdan wrote:Why do you see passion as merely something to transcend? We are beings of both passion and reason. one of the more insidious faults of our culture, IMO, is the belief that reason and passion stand in opposition.

This is what Nietzsche was talking about, in the Birth of tragedy for example. He thought that the Apollonian (logic, moderation, sobriety etc) suppressed the Dionysian (passion, unbounded creativity...) principle, when the two should work together. That's one of the reasons he criticized the Socratic tradition of uncritical faith and reliance on reason alone. That, he thought, was the main reason for the sad state of the modern man, who is divorced from his basic instincts and passions.

I would rather say that in order to be a whole person, one needs to have reason and passion work in synergy, complementing each other.

People mistake rationality for lacking emotion, and vice versa. This is one of the problems QRS suffer from.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Boyan wrote:

His view on creativity was very superficial? Are you serious?

Nietzsche seemed to place a little too much emphasis on creating art in a frenzy of passion. He glorified a psychological state that shouldn’t be glorified. Although, a state of temporary madness maybe a necessary step as a means to move onto the next stage of psychological development, but it almost as if Nietzsche dwelled on this stage a little too much.

Nietzsche glorified the Dionysian in order to counter the effects of long period of over reliance on rationality alone. When you read his works, you see that next to all that passion, poetic language etc., there is a sharp critic (and one can not be that without being aware of and using the rational) that tells you why he says what he does. He, regardless of how poetic his ideas may seem and are presented often, gives an explanation for them. Like with his genealogies: there you have a brilliant, scientist almost, at work who has his own method - on the question of values he clearly asks Who? What for? How? etc.

He was aware of what he was doing. He like Hegel pointed out to the inability of the purely logical mind in isolated reflection to explain reality that is changing, that is always in becoming not being. But unlike Hegel Nietzsche went much further with this realization presenting new means of understanding, like the body and also of course psychology.

vicdan wrote:Why do you see passion as merely something to transcend? We are beings of both passion and reason. one of the more insidious faults of our culture, IMO, is the belief that reason and passion stand in opposition. I would rather say that in order to be a whole person, one needs to have reason and passion work in synergy, complementing each other.

People mistake rationality for lacking emotion, and vice versa. This is one of the problems QRS suffer from.

So what happens when our reasoning begins to go down pathways which conflict with the emotions, or even worse, could lead to the death of the emotions? Do we cut reason off at this point and forbid it to advance any further, simply to protect our attachment to this synergy? Do we meekly submit to this form of anti-knowledge?

It would be like a Christian saying that reason and the Bible must work in synergy, and shouldn't be opposed to one another. It is the same form of anti-knowledge at play.

And of course, reason always loses out in such conflicts. When it comes to the crunch, it cannot compete with the Bible or the emotions. So what "synergy" really means in this instance is that the emotions will allow reason to operate, but only at their own bidding. It is the synergy of a slave to its master.

-

David Quinn wrote:So what "synergy" really means in this instance is that the emotions will allow reason to operate, but only at their own bidding. It is the synergy of a slave to its master.

You completely misunderstand what reason is.

Logic is GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out; it can only produce as good an output as the input you provided. Passion sets the goals (including the goal of knowledge), reason seeks the ways to fulfill them. The two work together. Properly understood, they cannot be in conflict.

Let's consider a typical scenario that one might see as a conflict of reason and emotion; and furthermore, let's assume, for argument's sake, that the reasoning is always perfectly sober, rational, and sound. Suppose you want to date this girl (or in your case, buy a particular porno mag and solo-sex toy). You really really want it; however, for whatever reason, your rational conclusion is that this would be a bad thing. Do you have a conflict between reason and emotion?

Not in the slightest. Remember, assuming the reasoning is sound, what your reason has told you is that your immediate desire will actually result in an overall decrease in utility; that letting your short-sighted passion rule will actually be contrary to your own emotional goals (such as peace of mind, tranquility, sanity, etc.) Clearly, your reasoning here merely explicates the implicit danger of pursuing such a course of action, and the conflict is between different emotional impulses. Rather than clashing with emotions, reason in this case has merely prevented you from making an uninformed decision, by letting you consider the full implications of both courses of action (doing it and not doing it).

When people claim that reason gets in the way of passion, and vice versa, what they are really saying is that they don't like recognizing the consequences of their desires; that they prefer to ignore the facts of the matter. Blaming reason here is like blaming the traffic light on a busy intersection for not letting you get somewhere faster. Do you really want to get into a car accident? No, you are just displacing blame.

David, as much as I hate to say it, I will: he really got you on this one. Just because he is an asshole doesn't mean he is always wrong.

Your desire to eliminate emotions because they allegedly get in the way of reason is a huge mistake. In your case, I can understand it because you seem to be unemotional by nature. But in Dan's case, it makes no sense at all. Not to me, at least.

-

vicdan wrote:

David Quinn wrote:So what "synergy" really means in this instance is that the emotions will allow reason to operate, but only at their own bidding. It is the synergy of a slave to its master.

You completely misunderstand what reason is.

Logic is GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out; it can only produce as good an output as the input you provided. Passion sets the goals (including the goal of knowledge), reason seeks the ways to fulfill them. The two work together. Properly understood, they cannot be in conflict.

Let's consider a typical scenario that one might see as a conflict of reason and emotion; and furthermore, let's assume, for argument's sake, that the reasoning is always perfectly sober, rational, and sound. Suppose you want to date this girl (or in your case, buy a particular porno mag and solo-sex toy). You really really want it; however, for whatever reason, your rational conclusion is that this would be a bad thing. Do you have a conflict between reason and emotion?

Not in the slightest. Remember, assuming the reasoning is sound, what your reason has told you is that your immediate desire will actually result in an overall decrease in utility; that letting your short-sighted passion rule will actually be contrary to your own emotional goals (such as peace of mind, tranquility, sanity, etc.) Clearly, your reasoning here merely explicates the implicit danger of pursuing such a course of action, and the conflict is between different emotional impulses. Rather than clashing with emotions, reason in this case has merely prevented you from making an uninformed decision, by letting you consider the full implications of both courses of action (doing it and not doing it).

When people claim that reason gets in the way of passion, and vice versa, what they are really saying is that they don't like recognizing the consequences of their desires; that they prefer to ignore the facts of the matter. Blaming reason here is like blaming the traffic light on a busy intersection for not letting you get somewhere faster. Do you really want to get into a car accident? No, you are just displacing blame.

Your example here doesn't really illustrate how emotional attachments can lead a person to reject reason and adopt an anti-knowledge stance.

Here is a mundane example:

Imagine that a young policeman discovers evidence that other policemen in his department, including his superiors, are corrupt. They might be in the pay of criminals, for example. What should the young policeman do? Should he investigate the matter further, uncover more evidence and blow the whistle on them all, thereby risking his career and possibly even his life? Or should he keep quiet about it and pretend that nothing is happening, for the sake of a comfortable life?

Even though it is true that different emotions are in conflict with one another here - the policeman's emotional need to be truthful and honest vs. his emotional desire to lead a comfortable life - there is also a battle occurring between knowledge and the emotions (or at least some of them). If he decides that comfort is the highest priority, then his reasoning and his pursuit of knowledge will suddenly be brought to a halt.

The same kind of scenario also exists in the Christian fundamentalist's emotional need to cling tightly to the Bible, come what may. In spite of himself, he might still have the occasional suspicion - secretly, away from the crowd, in his heart of hearts - that the Bible is a bit dodgy in places, that some of it seems a little bit insane. Like the policeman, suddenly he has a choice. Does he follow up these suspicions and trigger the reasoning process into exploring their implications, thereby putting his entire faith at risk? Or does he quickly banish them from his mind, for the sake of a comfortable life?

The same applies for those who want to believe that reason should be balanced with the emotions, that there should be a synergy between them. There will always be moments when the emotional attachment to such a view will conflict with the rational process and create the overwhelming urge to bring it to a halt.

-

There was no point to that example at all. Reasoning is the process the policeman uses to decide whether he will be a rat or not (his plan of action), based on his values and goals and emotions. I suspect this all hinges on your custom definition of "reasoning", which is no doubt completely different from how the rest of the world uses the term, so let's hear it.

David said,

If he decides that comfort is the highest priority, then his reasoning and his pursuit of knowledge will suddenly be brought to a halt.

If he decides comfort is his highest priority, his reason will help him see that failing to do the honest thing will bring him discomfort, if he has strong values. If he has no values at all, then his reason will tell him to maintain the status quo. Either way, reason is not in conflict with his emotions.

Try again, David. Your argument is very weak.

.

Shahrazad wrote:David said,

If he decides that comfort is the highest priority, then his reasoning and his pursuit of knowledge will suddenly be brought to a halt.

If he decides comfort is his highest priority, his reason will help him see that failing to do the honest thing will bring him discomfort, if he has strong values. If he has no values at all, then his reason will tell him to maintain the status quo. Either way, reason is not in conflict with his emotions.

Try again, David. Your argument is very weak.

The scope of his reasoning will be curtailed by his attachment to comfort, which places him at odds with the impulse to gain knowledge. So there is a conflict there.

Yes, you can say that he continues to reason, even if it is to simply conclude that he should stop pursuing his reason. But that is a hollow argument because it negates the very purpose of reason, which is to uncover new knowledge.

A Christian fundamentalist can't be regarded as equally rational as a great philosophic thinker, simply on account that they both employ reasoning in their lives. There is a vast difference in the scope and quality of their respective reasoning, which makes all the difference.

-

Neil,

There was no point to that example at all. Reasoning is the process the policeman uses to decide whether he will be a rat or not (his plan of action), based on his values and goals and emotions. I suspect this all hinges on your custom definition of "reasoning", which is no doubt completely different from how the rest of the world uses the term, so let's hear it.

If you’re referring to how academics use reason, that's a joke, as their reasoning is so abstract, divorced from daily living, and the intricacies of the mind that it is totally useless. And the common man outside the universities has no clue what reasoning is because if you question him, one soon realizes that he is nothing more than a conglomeration of contradictions, emotional longings and attachments, distorted memories littered with egoistical identifications and so on.

So called reason that is grounded in passion is not reason at all, but a distorted mind. Here is an easy test - A passionate person can only discuss for so long before they get offended, emotional, and feel hostility towards the other side – basically, the dialogue quickly breaks down with anyone that is passionate. Why? Because a passionate person feels negatively towards anyone that rejects his or her view, that is just simple dualistic forces operating. Watch episodes of the reasoning show to see this dynamic at work, as the guest's passions are clearly exposed in contrast to the moderators who are able to stay calm, rational and collected. Views that are grounded in passion, and not emptiness are formed for all the wrong reasons – namely egotistical security, comfort, self esteem, and to protect their attachments.

Actually, GF is probably one of the few places in the world that actually practices passionless reason, as it should be. I’ve searched the Internet, and I haven’t found another group of thinkers that can cut into the heart of matters like this forum. And I’m not stating this fact for egotistical purposes, it is just the truth, there doesn’t seem to be another philosophy forum on the internet as of yet that can compete with the ruthless practice of timeless wisdom exhibited here.

Everything else out there is incredibly watered down compared to this forum, unless you read the work of past sages on wikipedia or something like that.

.

.

.



David,


Something has been bugging me for about a year and ten months... you have answered this with the policeman and what course he need take.

I know what i must do.

Thank You.


Tomas

.


-David Quinn writes-
Here is a mundane example:

Imagine that a young policemen discovers evidence that other policemen in his department, including his superiors, are corrupt. They might be in the pay of criminals, for example. What should the young policemen do? Should he investigate the matter further, uncover more evidence and blow the whistle on them all, thereby risking his career and possibly even his life? Or should he keep quiet about it and pretend that nothing is happening, for the sake of a comfortable life?

Even though it is true that different emotions are in conflict with one another here - the policeman's emotional need to be truthful and honest vs. his emotional desire to lead a comfortable life - there is also a battle occurring between knowledge and the emotions (or at least some of them). If he decides that comfort is the highest priority, then his reasoning and his pursuit of knowledge will suddenly be brought to a halt.

The same kind of scenario also exists in the Christian fundamentalist's emotional need to cling tightly to the Bible, come what may. In spite of himself, he might still have the occasional suspicion - secretly, away from the crowd, in his heart of hearts - that the Bible is a bit dodgy in places, that some of it seems a little bit insane. Like the policeman, suddenly he has a choice. Does he follow up these suspicions and trigger the reasoning process into exploring their implications, thereby putting his entire faith at risk? Or does he quickly banish them from his mind, for the sake of a comfortable life?

The same applies for those who want to believe that reason should be balanced with the emotions, that there should be a synergy between them. There will always be moments when the emotional attachment to such a view will conflict with the rational process and create the overwhelming urge to bring it to a halt.



.

David Quinn wrote:Imagine that a young policemen discovers evidence that other policemen in his department, including his superiors, are corrupt. They might be in the pay of criminals, for example. What should the young policemen do? Should he investigate the matter further, uncover more evidence and blow the whistle on them all, thereby risking his career and possibly even his life? Or should he keep quiet about it and pretend that nothing is happening, for the sake of a comfortable life?

Even though it is true that different emotions are in conflict with one another here - the policeman's emotional need to be truthful and honest vs. his emotional desire to lead a comfortable life - there is also a battle occurring between knowledge and the emotions (or at least some of them). If he decides that comfort is the highest priority, then his reasoning and his pursuit of knowledge will suddenly be brought to a halt.

See, here you conflate reason and pursuit of a specific kind of knowledge. Yes, such a man might reasonably conclude that he is better off not knowing what is going on. However, it is not a conflict between his reason and emotion -- it's a conflict between what you regard as reasonable (unrestrained pursuit of knowledge no matter what) and emotion; however, such pursuit of knowledge is not an intrinsic aspect of reason. In short, the conflict is not within him, but between your values and his values, and you don't even realize it.

Dude, there's no way around is. You fucked the rat on this issue. Reason and emotion do not enter into conflict, and in believing that they do, you bought into the worst, most pernicious sort of 'conventional wisdom', a truism that just ain't true. You have sabotaged (or tried to sabotage) your own chance at humanity.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:So called reason that is grounded in passion is not reason at all, but a distorted mind. Here is an easy test - A passionate person can only discuss for so long before they get offended, emotional, and feel hostility towards the other side – basically, the dialogue quickly breaks down with anyone that is passionate.

Speaking as someone who practices 'passionate reason', if the dialog breaks down, it's because the other side doesn't reason. I sometimes break it off in frustration -- if the other side is simply refusing to think. It has happened with David once or twice. :) He is not very rational.

See, the problem with passionless reason is that there is no such thing. if someone claims to be passionlessly rational, what is most likely going on is that they are ignoring, subjugating, and suppressing their emotions. Ignored and unchanneled, this suppressed passion fucks them up time and time again. If you don't want your un-handled passions to sabotage you, then embrace them, bring them out in the open, acknowledge them as a part of you -- and harness them up in tandem with reason to work towards your goals. Ignoring and suppressing your passions merely denies you the ability to control them.

For a stark example, witness the recent exchange on randomness, QM, and causality. David has an emotional attachment to determinism, the same sort as Einstein had when he proclaimed that god doesn't play dice with the universe; but because David pretends that he has no emotional attachments, he cannot acknowledge and then analyze this attachment; and so he is stuck simply denying the obvious and looking like a complete idiot.

Why? Because a passionate person feels negatively towards anyone that rejects his or her view, that is just simple dualistic forces operating. Watch episodes of the reasoning show to see this dynamic at work, as the guest's passions are clearly exposed in contrast to the moderators who are able to stay calm, rational and collected. Views that are grounded in passion, and not emptiness are formed for all the wrong reasons – namely egotistical security, comfort, self esteem, and to protect their attachments.

And yet I whupped their asses, both of them together, practiced radio hosts (vs. my first time in this format); and I did it decisively enough that everyone, even themselves, recognized it as a royal ass-whupping.

That's properly practiced passionate reason for you. Passion does not get in the way of reason -- it enhances reason, supplements it, and directs it. Conversely, reason allows your passions to be channeled better, it help you achieve your goals more efficiently, and more generally it helps you deal with reality as best as you can.

vicdan wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Imagine that a young policemen discovers evidence that other policemen in his department, including his superiors, are corrupt. They might be in the pay of criminals, for example. What should the young policemen do? Should he investigate the matter further, uncover more evidence and blow the whistle on them all, thereby risking his career and possibly even his life? Or should he keep quiet about it and pretend that nothing is happening, for the sake of a comfortable life?

Even though it is true that different emotions are in conflict with one another here - the policeman's emotional need to be truthful and honest vs. his emotional desire to lead a comfortable life - there is also a battle occurring between knowledge and the emotions (or at least some of them). If he decides that comfort is the highest priority, then his reasoning and his pursuit of knowledge will suddenly be brought to a halt.

See, here you conflate reason and pursuit of a specific kind of knowledge. Yes, such a man might reasonably conclude that he is better off not knowing what is going on. However, it is not a conflict between his reason and emotion -- it's a conflict between what you regard as reasonable (unrestrained pursuit of knowledge no matter what) and emotion; however, such pursuit of knowledge is not an intrinsic aspect of reason. In short, the conflict is not within him, but between your values and his values, and you don't even realize it.

It's obviously a clash of values, but that isn't relevant. It still remains true that the attachment to comfort is causing him to temporarily shut down his reasoning powers and undermining his will to further knowledge, at least in this area.

It is like a person setting off in a sail boat to explore the unknown seas, but then, after only going a little way, with the land behind him still in sight, suddenly firing holes into the sails in a sudden attempt to stop it from going any further. That he might be doing this out of fear and panic is irrelevant. That his fear and panic is conflicting with his original desire to explore the unknown is also irrelevant. The fact still remains that his emotions have called a halt to the exploration.

If you want to call this act of sabotage "reasoning", then that's up to you. But to me, it is the cessation of reasoning. It is the desire to go backwards and retread old ground.

Dude, there's no way around is. You fucked the rat on this issue. Reason and emotion do not enter into conflict, and in believing that they do, you bought into the worst, most pernicious sort of 'conventional wisdom', a truism that just ain't true. You have sabotaged (or tried to sabotage) your own chance at humanity.

I personally don't consider a person who tries to balance reason and emotion to be fully human, just as I don't consider a person who tries to balance reason and religious fundamentalism to be fully human. The best that can be achieved in these instances is a kind of split personality, with two halves fundamentally at odds with one another, each trying to forge a reconciliation between them by curtailing themselves.

To me, a person is only fully human when he has fully opened his mind to the might of Nature and embraced its reality with his whole life. The emotions have long gone by this stage, however.

-

vicdan wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:So called reason that is grounded in passion is not reason at all, but a distorted mind. Here is an easy test - A passionate person can only discuss for so long before they get offended, emotional, and feel hostility towards the other side – basically, the dialogue quickly breaks down with anyone that is passionate.

Speaking as someone who practices 'passionate reason', if the dialog breaks down, it's because the other side doesn't reason. I sometimes break it off in frustration -- if the other side is simply refusing to think. It has happened with David once or twice. :) He is not very rational.

See, the problem with passionless reason is that there is no such thing. if someone claims to be passionlessly rational, what is most likely going on is that they are ignoring, subjugating, and suppressing their emotions. Ignored and unchanneled, this suppressed passion fucks them up time and time again.

That can be often be the case. Suppressed passion is certainly unhealthy and dangerous, and should be actively discouraged. But the kind of spontaneously, lively, passionless behaviour that the enlightened sage engages isn't a result of suppressing his passions. It is the result of his having successfully eliminated the root cause of passion. A sage doesn't have to suppress what he never experiences in the first place.

If you don't want your un-handled passions to sabotage you, then embrace them, bring them out in the open, acknowledge them as a part of you -- and harness them up in tandem with reason to work towards your goals. Ignoring and suppressing your passions merely denies you the ability to control them.

This is good advice. But it's only part of the story.

For a stark example, witness the recent exchange on randomness, QM, and causality. David has an emotional attachment to determinism, the same sort as Einstein had when he proclaimed that god doesn't play dice with the universe; but because David pretends that he has no emotional attachments, he cannot acknowledge and then analyze this attachment; and so he is stuck simply denying the obvious and looking like a complete idiot.

This is a meaningless criticism, Victor. I could just as easily say that you have an emotional attachment to whatever happens to be intellectually fashionable, that you like to hide behind Quine and collective group-think, allowing them to do your thinking for you.

If I have an emotional attachment to anything, it is to reason, and reason tells me that the issue of determinism vs. indeterminism cannot be resolved scientifically. If that makes me look like an idiot, then I'm happy to look like an idiot.

vicdan wrote:

Why? Because a passionate person feels negatively towards anyone that rejects his or her view, that is just simple dualistic forces operating. Watch episodes of the reasoning show to see this dynamic at work, as the guest's passions are clearly exposed in contrast to the moderators who are able to stay calm, rational and collected. Views that are grounded in passion, and not emptiness are formed for all the wrong reasons – namely egotistical security, comfort, self esteem, and to protect their attachments.

And yet I whupped their asses, both of them together, practiced radio hosts (vs. my first time in this format); and I did it decisively enough that everyone, even themselves, recognized it as a royal ass-whupping.

Not me. I was very happy with that show.

-

David Quinn wrote:It's obviously a clash of values, but that isn't relevant. It still remains true that the attachment to comfort is causing him to temporarily shut down his reasoning powers and undermining his will to further knowledge,

No. it stops his pursuit of a given type of knowledge, but this isn't the same as shutting down his reasoning facilities. You simply think that by juxtaposing those two (reason and knowledge), you will be able to equivocate between them, pinning the suppression of one onto the other.

The best that can be achieved in these instances is a kind of split personality, with two halves fundamentally at odds with one another, each trying to forge a reconciliation between them by curtailing themselves.

Well, i suppose i can't reason you out of the position you didn't reason yourself into. You obviously can't offer a sound argument in favor of reason and emotion being inherently contradictory, but you just have faith that they are.

A sage doesn't have to suppress what he never experiences in the first place.

what would that be that the sage doesn't experience -- functional human physiology?..

This is a meaningless criticism, Victor. I could just as easily say that you have an emotional attachment to whatever happens to be intellectually fashionable, that you like to hide behind Quine and collective group-think, allowing them to do your thinking for you.

haha. A couple of weeks ago I predicted that some people who eschew thought and knowledge, cover it up by trying to turn ignorance into a virtue of 'original thought', and by describing those who do not eschew others' thinking as 'unoriginal'.

I am constantly impressed by my ability to predict and discern bullshit. :)

If I have an emotional attachment to anything, it is to reason, and reason tells me that the issue of determinism vs. indeterminism cannot be resolved scientifically. If that makes me look like an idiot, then I'm happy to look like an idiot

That's good, because you should be getting used to that.

Not me.I was very happy with that show.

No, you weren't. You had rated your performance as only 6 out of 10, and called it 'a solid enough opening show', damning with faint praise. Whatever else '6/10' describes, 'very happy' ain't it.

I found it particularly amusing that Dan (IIRC), after admitting that I whupped you guys, blamed it on your lack of recent practice with the live audio format -- when in fact you both have had much more experience with it than I had had, and furthermore, the bulk of my show was actually a third take, and furthermore actually recorded after Nat's episode.

You guys both re-write history on the fly to better suit your delusions.

Without values what is reason good for?

"I don't want to get killed. War is likely to get me killed. Therefore I shall not go to war!"

Value of staying alive.

If you have no values it would be irrational to do anything at all.

vicdan wrote:Passion sets the goals (including the goal of knowledge), reason seeks the ways to fulfill them. The two work together. Properly understood, they cannot be in conflict.

This needs more explaining about how your 'passion sets the goals'. The way I interpret this is that you are mixing together different definitions of emotion and passion that are available. A passion can mean desire or object of some desire, just like it can mean display of emotion or the emotions themselves.

Emotion can mean many things to people ranging from feelings to more physiological states (thinking here of Damasio's somatic markers). This makes discussion a bit more tricky.

For example if we'd define emotion as "a psychological state that arises spontaneously" (The American Heritage® Science Dictionary) and compare this with David's "kind of spontaneously, lively, passionless behaviour that the enlightened sage engages in", we could conclude that David's sage is quite emotional.

And furthermore if we'd define passion as pure desire, strong attachment and intense emotion, then it doesn't make sense to criticize David in particular for his use of the word "passionless" because it's absolutely in line with the core of Buddha's teachings like ""To be free from the passions and to be calm, this is the most excellent Way." (source.

Buddha wrote:The homeless Çramana cuts off the passions, frees himself of attachments, understands the source of his own mind, penetrates the deepest doctrine of Buddha, and comprehends the Dharma which is immaterial. He has no prejudice in his heart, he has nothing to hanker after. He is not hampered by the thought of the Way, nor is he entangled in karma. No prejudice, no compulsion, no discipline, no enlightenment, and no going up through the grades, and yet in possession of all honors in itself,--this is called the Way.

Those who have passions are never able to perceive the Way; for it is like stirring up clear water with hands; people may come there wishing to find a reflection of their faces, which, however, they will never see. A mind troubled and vexed with the passions is impure, and on that account it never sees the Way. O monks, do away with passions. When the dirt of passion is removed the Way will manifest itself.

Now I suppose you aren't a Buddhist of any kind but why suggesting someone might possess a dysfunctional human physiology or mental defect while they're not saying anything different in that regard as the core texts of a world religion? If it's a defect, at least it's quite a common and appreciated one. So then it's up to you Victor, to come with a fundamental analysis of Buddhist thought and how it fails in your eyes. Then in these discussions you could just refer to it and save some time. Then again, you might write here for your passions and not for efficiency. :)