GENIUS FORUMS

1otherS wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Wasting precious time on poorly conceived nonsense would be a true sign of being emotionally stunted.

You're wasting time when you only concentrate on a limited set of metaphysics that fit your ascetic wordview you can't even live up to.

I don't have an ascetic worldview. I don't believe in asceticism, mostly because it's egotistical drivel.

Develop some sympathy for your fellow human being, go play sports, laugh a little when people poke fun at you( at least if it's done tastefully).

I prefer to watch pedophiles fuck children, but I guess golf would be a decent substitute, and I laugh at almost all of your posts. They are damned funny, you know.

You seem to be nihilistic about everyone and everything EXCEPT yourself-You joke cynically about the forumers but react like a pitbull when someone challenges your beliefs.

I've yet to see you challenge my "beliefs". Your belief that your challenges are remotely connected to my views is sadly mistaken. That continues to be your problem.

Don't give up your philosophy if you really favour it, but don't make it the sole pursuit of your life.

It's actually my soul pursuit in life - haha haha hah ha herrrr. And I can't give up on it because that would be to give up on Reality itself, which is impossible.

Kierkegaard: "the man who remains in the world is superior to the hermit."

No kidding. Your belief that I live like a hermit is also quite funny. And I doubt you understand the real meaning of that quote anyway.

Dan, I wasn't slinging mud at you...

Why do all your posts equate to nothing more than "1otherS is talking bullshit, I have "Truth" whenever I happen to disagree with you?

I've actually outlined my position on Weininger and why I reject his thesis. You, on the other hand, made ad hominems without any argument whatsoever.

Why do you feel the need to make jokes about pedophiles when we should be having a rational discussion?

Would you use this move in an actual debate?

1otherS wrote:Dan, I wasn't slinging mud at you...

Your intention may not be that, but I suspect you have trouble making your intention appear in text.

Why do all your posts equate to nothing more than "1otherS is talking bullshit, I have "Truth" whenever I happen to disagree with you?

That would be because you're always talking bullshit. Let me spell one point out for you for future reference: I DO NOT HOLD AN ASCETIC VIEW IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

I've actually outlined my position on Weininger and why I reject his thesis. You, on the other hand, made ad hominems without any argument whatsoever.

That's because a) you don't have the foggiest understanding of Weininger's schema, and b) because your objections to QRS notions have the same failing. You're operating within a paradigm that is all but irrelevant. Leyla tried to show you, but you didn't get that either.

Why do you feel the need to make jokes about pedophiles when we should be having a rational discussion?

The fact that you don't get the point of that shows that we cannot possibly engage in any such discussion.

Would you use this move in an actual debate?

Actual debates require the presence of actual points and arguments. You have yet to show you know how to translate what may well be in your mind, into text. Are you not aware of this? Assertions and objections are not arguments. They're just rhetoric.

If and when you learn the difference, I might engage you more meaningfully.

Dan Rowden wrote:I DO NOT HOLD AN ASCETIC VIEW IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

This denial of being an ascete seems to me to be a little similar to your denial of being a solipsist, which, as was discussed elsewhere, you actually are in the weaker sense of the word "solipsist", and whilst you don't strictly fit the stronger sense of the word, you're not all that far off: the only thing that saves you from meeting the stronger definition is that you recognise the likelihood of the existence of minds other than your own, and also your belief in the "hidden void".

In a similar way, you don't fit the stronger definition of "ascete", but you come close enough to the weaker definition to make your above capitalised statement quite a bit stronger than it ought to be. Here are a couple of definitions of "ascete" from dictionary.com, because I know how much it DELIGHTS you when I provide them. :-)

dictionary.com wrote:1. a person who dedicates his or her life to a pursuit of contemplative ideals and practices extreme self-denial or self-mortification for religious reasons.
2. a person who leads an austerely simple life, esp. one who abstains from the normal pleasures of life or denies himself or herself material satisfaction.

The first definition is what I'm calling the "strong" sense of "ascete": you don't fit this definition because your self-denial is not extreme, and because you're not self-mortifying. Whether or not you're "religious" is a matter of opinion, and I'll make no comment on it here.

The second, weaker, definition, though, is relevant, especially the part that reads: "abstains from the normal pleasures of life". Celibacy? Criticising a member of your group for unnecessary overseas travel and for playing golf for pleasure? Rejecting "conventional" friendship? Rejecting conventional employment and embracing a life of relative financial poverty? I think that all of these qualify as "abstaining from the normal pleasures of life", or at least as holding that as an ideal, even if you guys don't always meet that ideal: 1otherS made a valid point when s/he wrote about ideals that "you can't even live up to".

In Kevin's ideal, he wouldn't play golf for pleasure. But he still does. In David's ideal, Kevin wouldn't have travelled to the USA in the cow-like way that he did (partly out of self-admitted boredom), and in your ideal, he would have better spent the money on wisdom-related endeavours - rather than egotistical, boredom-relieving endeavours - such as printing Poison. In David's and Kevin's ideal, you wouldn't drink. Kevin even admits himself that living up to the QRS ideal of pure reason without a holiday is possible for only a "few" people - and clearly he is not amongst those few. I don't know who those few actually are.

Anyway, I'd be a hypocrite to attack you guys for not living up to your ideals perfectly, because I don't live up to my own ideals perfectly, and anyway, it's the nature of ideals that they aren't always achieved. I just thought that it was important to point out that you guys actually do have ascetic tendencies, which you don't always live up to, or at least which you don't entirely agree upon amongst yourselves.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:I DO NOT HOLD AN ASCETIC VIEW IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

This denial of being an ascete seems to me to be a little similar to your denial of being a solipsist,

Similar in that it's a valid denial, yes. And it's not a "denial" anyway, it's a refutation. I hope you know the difference.

which, as was discussed elsewhere, you actually are in the weaker sense of the word "solipsist",

No, I'm actually not in any sense because any sense of solipsism I'm aware of requires an actual "self", in the conventional sense of existence, which I deny. So, there.

In a similar way, you don't fit the stronger definition of "ascete", but you come close enough to the weaker definition to make your above capitalised statement quite a bit stronger than it ought to be.

BULLSHIT.

Here are a couple of definitions of "ascete" from dictionary.com, because I know how much it DELIGHTS you when I provide them. :-)

Yes, I always love to watch philosophical idiocy in action. It's certainly more entertaining than tennis.

dictionary.com 1. a person who dedicates his or her life to a pursuit of contemplative ideals and practices extreme self-denial or self-mortification for religious reasons.

I do neither of those later things and do not advocate them. So, that's a miss.

2. a person who leads an austerely simple life, esp. one who abstains from the normal pleasures of life or denies himself or herself material satisfaction.

I do not "abstain" from anything, nor do I deny myself anything. You clearly don't know the difference between denial and abstinence and absence of need or desire. So, that's a total miss as well. Got any more swell dictionary items to offer?

The first definition is what I'm calling the "strong" sense of "ascete": you don't fit this definition because your self-denial is not extreme, and because you're not self-mortifying.

True, I get my mortification from you.

Whether or not you're "religious" is a matter of opinion, and I'll make no comment on it here.

Wise indeed.

The second, weaker, definition, though, is relevant, especially the part that reads: "abstains from the normal pleasures of life".

Next time you're at Dictionary.com, look up "FAIL".

Celibacy? Criticising a member of your group for unnecessary overseas travel and for playing golf for pleasure? Rejecting "conventional" friendship? Rejecting conventional employment and embracing a life of relative financial poverty? I think that all of these qualify as "abstaining from the normal pleasures of life", or at least as holding that as an ideal, even if you guys don't always meet that ideal: 1otherS made a valid point when s/he wrote about ideals that "you can't even live up to".

Actually, he didn't have any point at all, and you're sounding as profoundly dumb as he is.

In Kevin's ideal, he wouldn't play golf for pleasure. But he still does.

What has that got to do with your point? I'll tell you - nothing whatsoever.

Anyway, I'd be a hypocrite to attack you guys for not living up to your ideals perfectly, because I don't live up to my own ideals perfectly. I just thought that it was important to point out that you guys actually do have ascetic tendencies, which you don't always live up to, or at least which you don't entirely agree upon amongst yourselves.

We do not have ascetic tendencies at all. Like I said, you need to think about the difference between abstinence and denial, and the absence of need and desire. The latter is what our "philosophy" is about, and why we sometimes fail to meet the requirements.

Overall I give your argument 1.5 out of 10. And the .5 is for spelling.

Dan Rowden wrote:We do not have ascetic tendencies at all. Like I said, you need to think about the difference between abstinence and denial, and the absence of need and desire.

You're splitting hairs. That you have a supposed reason ("absence of need and desire") for abstinence does not negate the abstinence itself.

And I say "supposed" because you guys clearly still possess these needs and desires to a significant extent, and I've never seen you provide any good evidence to back up the supposition that they actually can ever be overcome: I've never seen, for example, you point to any person of whom it can be claimed with a reasonable degree of certainty that s/he actually has achieved a state free of emotions and desires. In that light, the lifestyle that you promote truly is about "denying needs and desires".

Dan Rowden wrote:Overall I give your argument 1.5 out of 10. And the .5 is for spelling.

Yeah, I've been good at spelling since early primary school, although I'm not perfekt, and I've lost some ability over the years - probably because I read a lot less than I used to.

Anyway, I expected from you something like that vehement and indignant denial of my observations. It must be terribly lonely to be so misunderstood.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:We do not have ascetic tendencies at all. Like I said, you need to think about the difference between abstinence and denial, and the absence of need and desire.

You're splitting hairs.

Only you could characterize a profoundly important philosophical difference as splitting hairs.

That you have a supposed reason ("absence of need and desire") for abstinence does not negate the abstinence itself.

Er, yes it does, because the term "abstinence" no longer speaks to the reality. To abstain is to not do what you might ordinarily do or might want to do. We do not have a philosophy of abstinence, other than where abstaining might be a sensible thing to do. In that sense, every person is an ascetic at one time or another or in one context or another.

And I say "supposed" because you guys clearly still possess these needs and desires to a significant extent,

Which is entirely irrelevant to the argument you were attempting to mount.

and I've never seen you provide any good evidence to back up the supposition that they actually can ever be overcome: I've never seen, for example, you point to any person of whom it can be claimed with a reasonable degree of certainty that s/he actually has achieved a state free of emotions and desires.

And I've told you before that that demand/request is stupid. One cannot properly test such a proposition because this is about one's subjective experience. You can only test this hypothesis on yourself. Philosophy is not a communal activity in this sense.

In that light, the lifestyle that you promote truly is about "denying needs and desires".

Look up "non sequitur" at Dictionary.com. And we don't promote any "lifestyle".

Laird: That you have a supposed reason ("absence of need and desire") for abstinence does not negate the abstinence itself.

Dan: Er, yes it does, because the term "abstinence" no longer speaks to the reality. To abstain is to not do what you might ordinarily do or might want to do.

OK, you might have something of a point there, and it might make something of a case for your contention that you are categorically not an ascete in any way, except for one thing: your actual reasons for not indulging in typical wordly pleasures go beyond a supposed lack of need or desire to do so. For example, on the issue of avoiding sexual encounters of any form with women, you don't argue simply that you have no need or desire for such encounters, but also that it is actively detrimental (at least to the women) for you to engage in them, and that you should abstain at least for that reason:

Here, you argue that one should try to "be aware of behaviour that reinforces her [any woman's] connection to Woman. Obviously, from our point of view that's not a great thing to do. Freakin' hard to avoid but not a great thing." That sounds to me like an argument for abstinence so as to avoid the negative consequences of indulgence: "reinforcing her connection to Woman".

Here, David commends Kevin for going to "great lengths" to "keep his distance" from Elizabeth due to the "potential dangers" of the situation, and suggests that in any case, Kevin created "bad karma". Again, that sounds to me like an argument for abstinence so as to avoid the negative consequences of indulgence.

Here, David again promotes sexual abstinence so as to avoid bad karma: "Think of the karmic consequences".

And that's just one form of abstinence as discussed in one thread: I'm sure that if I went hunting I could come up with plenty of other similar arguments that you guys make - perhaps, for example, on the need to abstain from employment because of the negative consequences of working: distraction from pursuing the path of wisdom or similar; or perhaps, for example, on the need to abstain from conventional friendship due to the negative consequences thereof: the egotistical reinforcement that it encourages in both parties.

Dan Rowden wrote:We do not have a philosophy of abstinence, other than where abstaining might be a sensible thing to do.

I'm sure that many ascetes (if not all of them) would claim that their abstinence is the "sensible thing to do", so that's not an argument against you being an ascete.

Laird: And I say "supposed" because you guys clearly still possess these needs and desires to a significant extent,

Dan: Which is entirely irrelevant to the argument you were attempting to mount.

I was moving on to a separate point, which is relevant in its own right. That point is that the philosophical basis of your lack of indulgence is an unproven supposition, and indeed that evidence tends to count against it: that evidence being that you three guys, who seem to consider yourselves to be three of the most enlightened beings on this planet, do not deny that you still have desires and emotions. Given then that the philosophical basis of your lack of indulgence appears to be groundless, and that it appears to be impossible to escape entirely from "needs and desires", then your lack of indulgence actually is abstinence in the sense that you argued is the "reality" of abstinence: "to not do what you might [...] want to do".

I know that you guys as a whole are not free from sexual desire, whether or not any of you individually is. I know for a fact that Kevin at least isn't. David might be implying in this post that he still feels sexual desire, when he writes: "I know that, as a man, a lot of sexual subconscious processes are instinctively activated inside me whenever I am in the presence of a female, no matter who she is."

Sexual desire aside, I know that you guys (or at least you and Kevin - I'm not so familiar with David's personal habits) have plenty of other desires. Kevin, for example, loves to acquire new gadgets and bits of technology for no other reason than that it pleases him to do so. I pointed to other evidence of desires in my first post to this thread - e.g. golf, travel-to-relieve-boredom and drink.

Laird: and I've never seen you provide any good evidence to back up the supposition that they actually can ever be overcome: I've never seen, for example, you point to any person of whom it can be claimed with a reasonable degree of certainty that s/he actually has achieved a state free of emotions and desires.

Dan: And I've told you before that that demand/request is stupid. One cannot properly test such a proposition because this is about one's subjective experience. You can only test this hypothesis on yourself. Philosophy is not a communal activity in this sense.

It's not stupid at all. Of course there's no foolproof way to determine from the outside whether someone is actually in this state, but we could arrive at a reasonable level of confidence by observing that two things hold:
1. the person claims to be in such a state, perhaps in response to a direct question, or perhaps through an unsolicited comment, and,
2. the person never talks or behaves in a way consistent with an emotional, greedy, desirous or egotistical intent.

Can you at least point me to someone of whom the above two observations hold?

Dan Rowden wrote:And we don't promote any "lifestyle".

I see. That must be just like how GF isn't a community, and just like how you have no self and were never born, and just like how a person can never be disrespectful if s/he believes that s/he is right.

Your entire premise and "argument" ads up to: to avoid engaging in delusional behavior is to be ascetic.

Therefore, I concede. I am an ascetic philosopher and promote an ascetic philosophy.

Now that we've got that pitifully vacuous shit out of the way, let's talk about what is Ultimately True - or let's not, lest we get in the way of the delights of scatological vacuity.

David Quinn wrote:Enlightenment isn't something which is automatically found by giving up sex, or indeed any other kind of lust or passion. Rather, it is found by giving up ignorance about the nature of Reality. That is the specific task one has to accomplish before one can become enlightened.

Usually when people engage in ascetic practices, all they end up doing is replacing one set of deluded attachments (e.g. sex, family, career, wealth, etc) with another (e.g. religious dogmas, mystical delusions, self-righteousness, pride, etc). So as far the path to enlightenment is concerned, most ascetics don't make any headway at all. To use Jesus' terminology, they are still too rich and fat to pass through the eye of the needle.

The process of eliminating the ego and becoming enlightened is all about removing the false elements of one's personality and individuality. It isn't about eliminating one's individuality altogether. Quite the opposite, it is about nurturing the wise elements of one's personality and allowing them to blossom and flower.

Dan Rowden wrote:Now that we've got that pitifully vacuous shit out of the way, let's talk about what is Ultimately True

Great, let's do that - I'm still planning on responding to David in the Causality and Consciousness thread, so there should be some "talk about what is Ultimately True" to come, at least from me. I'd still appreciate it if you responded to my last long post to you in the Causality and Consciousness thread, or if you started that 101 thread. As you please, of course - I'm sure that you can think of a million and one other ways to talk about what is Ultimately True.

Actually, in the light of your last post, one discussion that we could probably have in the context of talking about what is Ultimately True is whether or not it is Ultimately True (and if not, then in what sense you consider it to be true) that the (abstained-from) behaviour at issue really is "delusional", and indeed, to what extent it even makes sense to describe behaviour as "delusional". You might feel that this issue has been done to death already, though, in many different ways and in many different threads.

Yes, I do feel that. I'm not interested in placating someone's boredom.

guest_of_logic wrote:[...]and indeed, to what extent it even makes sense to describe behaviour as "delusional".

Just to address this oddity: it makes perfect sense to describe behaviour as delusional if the behavior is borne of delusion. What the hell else would you call such behaviour? If a paranoiac runs away from a non-existent person he thinks is following him, that's delusional behaviour. If a guy goes over to chat up a chick in a bar because he believes she was making bedroom eyes at him, and she's legally blind, that's delusional behaviour.

The expression most often attributed to me is "I am indifferent".

When asked what I would prefer my answer is typically that I don't care.

I never realized that was characteristic of enlightenment until recently, but perhaps more characteristic of enlightenment is my new found appreciation for extremely cold weather.

It really puts you in the moment.

Or maybe I'm a relatively unenlightened guy, whatever you call it.

Dan Rowden wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:[...]and indeed, to what extent it even makes sense to describe behaviour as "delusional".

Just to address this oddity: it makes perfect sense to describe behaviour as delusional if the behavior is borne of delusion. What the hell else would you call such behaviour? If a paranoiac runs away from a non-existent person he thinks is following him, that's delusional behaviour. If a guy goes over to chat up a chick in a bar because he believes she was making bedroom eyes at him, and she's legally blind, that's delusional behaviour.

I've been on a political board for quite some time and let me tell you, people really don't like to be dubbed "delusional" even if that is what they are. I've demonstrated from every possible angle non self-hood and the non-freedom of the will, all the while receiving no explanation or justification of free-will. And so I am of the opinion that these people are delusional for denying the evidence immediately before them. But alas, they don't react too kindly.

Egotists never do. It shows a person's disregard for truth when you use "negative" labels like "delusional" or "ignorant", and they object to it, even though it's perfectly accurate.

If you don't understand, say, the nature of ultimate reality, you're ignorant. Simple as that. We're all ignorant in one way or another. To get upset over a statement of an obvious fact is really blithering idiocy.

Animus wrote:
I never realized that was characteristic of enlightenment until recently, but perhaps more characteristic of enlightenment is my new found appreciation for extremely cold weather.

It really puts you in the moment.

.

There is alot to be said for time spent in the Canadian rockies.Certainly some of the best moments of my life thus far were spent there. :)

This is insane.

Dan Rowden wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:[...]and indeed, to what extent it even makes sense to describe behaviour as "delusional".

Just to address this oddity: it makes perfect sense to describe behaviour as delusional if the behavior is borne of delusion. What the hell else would you call such behaviour? If a paranoiac runs away from a non-existent person he thinks is following him, that's delusional behaviour. If a guy goes over to chat up a chick in a bar because he believes she was making bedroom eyes at him, and she's legally blind, that's delusional behaviour.

Yup, that's all perfectly reasonable.

lol

I meant that what Dan said was perfectly reasonable, not that the behaviour that he described was perfectly reasonable, in case that's what you're amused by.

I raised the issue in the first place only because I thought that it was one that was amenable to argument, but I'm happy to accept Dan's argument. If I were to have tried to come up with an opposing argument, then I might have said something like "thoughts and states of mind - and, as the possessors of minds, people too - can be delusional, but to describe behaviour as delusional is a category error, or something similar". I think that Dan's argument that if behaviour is borne of delusion, then it's reasonable to describe it as delusional, and that there's no better way to describe it anyway, beats this though, which is why I accept it.

Animus wrote:I've been on a political board for quite some time and let me tell you, people really don't like to be dubbed "delusional" even if that is what they are. I've demonstrated from every possible angle non self-hood and the non-freedom of the will, all the while receiving no explanation or justification of free-will. And so I am of the opinion that these people are delusional for denying the evidence immediately before them.

More immediate to them is their experience.

The idea of 'delusion' is a belief. All experience is real. Complexities abound, however.

Huh?

Come on Ignius, stop acting like a retard, so you can last longer this time.

What do you mean?

I meant that what Dan said was perfectly reasonable, not that the behaviour that he described was perfectly reasonable, in case that's what you're amused by.

I raised the issue in the first place only because I thought that it was one that was amenable to argument, but I'm happy to accept Dan's argument. If I were to have tried to come up with an opposing argument, then I might have said something like "thoughts and states of mind - and, as the possessors of minds, people too - can be delusional, but to describe behaviour as delusional is a category error, or something similar". I think that Dan's argument that if behaviour is borne of delusion, then it's reasonable to describe it as delusional, and that there's no better way to describe it anyway, beats this though, which is why I accept it.

No, that wasn't it. Though, I did find this amusing: delusional thinking is still delusional thinking even if it proves to be true in the future. That doesn't make sense. Just because a person doesn't have any explainable proof does not mean that their assumptions (or whatever) are wrong. Sometimes gut-instincts are all we have. However, if the gut instinct does prove to be wrong, THEN we can say that it was a delusional belief (or delusional thinking, etc) - just not when it's the other way around.

Btw, I'm guessing what Dan said. It's been a while since that time that I posted that post.

Question for you: Behavior can be both delusional and completely reasonable at the same time. Can you think of such an example?