Atheists got it all wrong

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:58 am

Trevor,

Your arguments on the God thread are looking much more coherent.

(on a more philosophical note) I don't think just telling them that you meant Universe "in a broader sense" is enough of an explination, so one quick suggestion on explaining the Universe to non-philosophers (feel free to copy/paste if you want):

The Universe (capitalized) is everything that exists. Even ideas about things that don't exist, do exist as ideas in the Universe because the idea itself exists. Therefore all of the multiverses, whether they really exist or only exist as ideas, are all part of the Universe.
.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:20 am

Eliza: thanks.

I'll quote your entire post on that thread. (I guess it would only be fair to also provide an accompanying link to the Genius forums, in case anyone is interested in replying to that.)

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:18 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Eliza: thanks.

I'll quote your entire post on that thread. (I guess it would only be fair to also provide an accompanying link to the Genius forums, in case anyone is interested in replying to that.)

Oh God! Trevor's trying to bring Goddy people here!

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:28 am

Trevor,

Under what name do you post over there?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:36 am

Yanno, it's getting harder and harder to point out why it's wrong to use the QRS Woman definition.

Katy, these are not the God people.

Sher, he posts under the name Trevor Salyzyn over there. He has the same picture of himself as his avatar as he does here. You can see an example of his posts by clicking the link from earlier in this thread. It's kind of hard to mistake which poster he is.
.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:55 am

Eliza answered the questions, except I'd like to add that so far I've spoken with three posters that would probably fit in at Genius forum, or at least would be able to adapt: axxx, legendary, and JaggedEther. I'm not certain about anyone else [edit: which in some cases, such as VoidHanger, just means I haven't spoken with them enough to know if they are thinkers or just read a lot when they were little]. axxx is a young man who seems all-around interested in thinking, legendary is a girl who is quite logical and well-spoken for her age (she privately invited me to her objectivist forum), and JaggedEther seems to be playing a vicdan "big fish in little pond" thing that I don't want to stir up too much.

The first thread I began (The Philosophic Life) ended with a dissatisfying discussion with a wanna-be Tibetan Buddhist (mindprodigy). I can say that the religion is just as bad as David said it was.

The language is practically identical to the stuff that has become fashionable here, but the guy was using it in nonsensical ways. I kinda feel bad that I went so hard on the guy (he started projecting his righteous indignation on me by the end), but I would like to think that I implanted a few seeds of doubt in him.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:53 am

I'm in awe... some kid asked a good philosophic question ("what is 'free'?") so I answered him, and he said: "I was being sarcastic."

That made me make a huge double take. When I tried to get to the bottom of this, he became incredibly aggressive. In the end, I wrote one of those rare gems that make me laugh out loud:

"If I assumed you were asking a question that I deemed essential to the topic at hand, I apologize."

The kid didn't appreciate the irony, nor my sense of humour... =/

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:10 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:some kid asked a good philosophic question ("what is 'free'?") so I answered him, and he said: "I was being sarcastic."

No one could have known he was being sarcastic when he asked that, and it was a good philosophic question.

They are right though about you getting pretty condescending (okay, I know I'm no one to talk on that point...but...) and it looks like you are only speaking, and not really giving a good listen to what they are saying. In order to be heard, one must also show that one can hear - and even then there is only a small chance of being heard.

How much sleep have you been getting?
.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:06 am

7 hours a night, steadily.

The thing is, I'm spending 12 hours per day in this forum. This is either day 6 or day 7, which means... oh, at least 100 hours in under a week. That's like 2 full-time jobs, done for no reward but the insults of the philosophically clumsy and the knowledge that forcing them to disagree with me will help them form a nice habit of disagreement and doubt... and it's intellectual labour so it's a bit hard (I'm keeping track of 3 threads, and posting almost immediately to all queries, not to mention keeping track of a few threads that I didn't start). Maybe it's time for a couple day break. It might keep the snappiness down.

No reading or posting on that forum until at least Wednesday.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:13 am

By the way:

axxx wrote (In reference to Wisdom of the Infinite):

I disagree with David Quinn on not having free will.

Having someone say that really brightened my day. It made all that effort worth it (...and I gave him a nice reply that basically told him to get his ass over here and disagree with David himself...) I'm going to take a nap.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:17 pm

Trevor Salyzyn: Have Philosophy, Will Travel.

Genius Outreach Director, Missionary Par Excellence, Tirelesss Witnesser, second only to David Quinn in the Department Of Transmigration To Foreign Messageboards, to rile up the natives.

First, The Big View, now Nexopia.

Remind us again, why are you doing this?

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:12 pm

Carl G,

Remind us again, why are you doing this?

I would guess it's because someone told me over tea that if I actually knew the truth, I was being a horrible asshole by doing what appeared to be selfishly keeping it to myself. This was oh, probably 5 weeks ago. I firmly disagreed with him back then... but now I think he was probably right. =/

I hardly had such noble intentions when I joined The Big View. I was just defending Genius forum from their insults, which seems silly now.

I'm sure that in a month I'll have thought of a good reason not to behave in this manner.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:41 pm

I can relate. Trouble is, most people do not want to know the truth. Some of them will even try to kill you if you try to tell them.

It's one thing to be available, as for instance David is, through this website, and quite another to get into someone's face about wisdom and such.

Of course, I think you know this. You're experimenting. Like David and Kevin sometimes do. Nothing wrong with that. Testing oneself. Carry on, White Knight of the Circular Table, but remember, sleep is cool, too.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:16 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:7 hours a night, steadily.

I guess those would not be 7 continuous hours, though. I checked your time stamps, and the only possibility I see is about 4 hours between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m., and another gap between about 2 p.m. and about 6 p.m. on Sunday (and that's only on the God thread, I didn't check the others)... other than that, your posts looked around the clock from 2 a.m. Sunday to 3 a.m. Monday.

I'm glad you are taking a break, but I also want you to have an accurate understanding of how much sleep, and what kind of sleep you are getting so that you can manage yourself well. Is there any way you could call your doctor to get your meds adjusted any sooner? I really don't want you to have to go back in the hospital again if that can be prevented.
.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:12 am

I guess those would not be 7 continuous hours, though.

Unfortunately, you just hit the nail on the head... =/

I've also completely stopped keeping track of my sleeping pattern, even though I wanted to do so. I did that for exactly one night.

I also want you to have an accurate understanding of how much sleep, and what kind of sleep you are getting so that you can manage yourself well. Is there any way you could call your doctor to get your meds adjusted any sooner? I really don't want you to have to go back in the hospital again if that can be prevented.

I will have to watch my sleeping schedule again by posting in a logbook. I just woke up after a 2 hours mid-day nap. I'll start keeping track of my sleep come this evening.

I could certainly call my doctor and see if it would be a good idea to increase my seroquel, which is the best change of medication. It's an anti-psychotic and a sedative. The problem is, I just had him reduce it from 100 mg per day because that was causing me to sleep 13-14 hours per night and making me so lethargic that I couldn't think when I was awake. Now, it's 50 mg per day, and I guess I'm barely sleeping at all.

I'll watch the exact times I go to bed and wake up for the next couple days. I actually do need to be stable if I plan to go back to school in August, although there would be a certain accompanying glee if my mental disorder allowed me another "vacation year".

[I dropped academic philosophy because of 1) the aforementioned lethargy; 2) the incommensurability between, say, Socrates, and a philosophy professor; and 3) the ridiculousness of spending another 2.5 years in undergraduate courses -- each as introductory as the last -- that are generally taught by people who, still in their mid-20's and working on their PhD's, have done less philosophy than me in their lives.]

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:29 am

Well, if 100mg was too much and 50mg is too little - maybe 75mg will work out just right. And if reducing the Seroquel was the only thing to trigger this, then that's good news as far as it being less likely that you will need to go in the hospital again. Just get it back under control before it gets too out of control to fix outpatient.

And if you want another vacation year, I imagine that can be arranged without you having to go into the hospital for it. If you need a doctor's note, I imagine your doc wouldn't mind writing one.
.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:49 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Yanno, it's getting harder and harder to point out why it's wrong to use the QRS Woman definition.

Katy, these are not the God people.

Elizabeth, have you ever heard of a joke? Yanno, haha, funny? Or are you just trying to find an excuse to attack me?

And Trevor - Seroquel knocked me on my butt, but there are other atypical antipsychotics that don't seem to have that effect, and I'm pretty sure the entire class is approved for bipolar as well as schizophrenia.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:02 am

OK I need help... I really can't figure out what this guy is saying. It's like he's in an entirely different dimension where the rules of logic no longer apply.

I'm talking enlightenment! Hooray!

The "mindprodigy" guy... a dozen or so posts down the first page. According to his profile, it's Tibetan Buddhism.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:05 am

Katy, I've been on a different atypical antipsychotic (Risperidal) before, but they pulled me off that crap. Seroquel seems a lot safer, plus it doesn't cause sexual dysfunction (I mean, it's not like I'm sexually active at the moment, but it's still an uncomfortable feeling not being able to function).

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:20 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:It's like he's in an entirely different dimension where the rules of logic no longer apply.

It looks logical to me. The void-nature he is talking about is what Ryan was describing in this thread and eventually said

Ryan R wrote:Moreover, perhaps the â€˜unfathomable nothingnessâ€™ should be considered the most foundational aspect of reality, instead of the intellectual construction of causality that the QRS value.

He is saying that is the base layer of Reality, and the layer of Reality where we can most easily see cause and effect is another layer of Reality - and that is why things do not inherently exist.

I think this mindprodigy guy has some good understanding.
.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:18 am

Eliza, I produced my response to him. You'll see why I can't understand it there.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:44 am

Mindprodigy seems somewhat sharp, although his self-assured proclamations about emptiness as ultimate reality are "not quite there." Maybe he needs to read this:

Zen Master Seung Sahn wrote:In this world, becoming tight is just tight, becoming loose is just loose. If we read the Heart Sutra, we finally come to Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi, unexcelled supreme enlightenment. This is the area where tightening is just tightening, loosening is just loosening. First I talked about opposites world. Here everything is very distinctâ€”becoming tight, becoming looseâ€”very clear. Then I talked about nirvana world: no tight, no loose. Then I talked about truth world: tight is tight, loose is loose. Of these three worlds, which one is the real world? Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; is that world the correct world? No form, no emptinessâ€”nirvana world; is that the correct world? Form is form, emptiness is emptiness; is that the correct world? If somebody says that they found the correct world, this stick will hit them thirty times. If they cannot find the correct world, this stick will also hit them thirty times. Why is that?

KATZ!

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:22 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Eliza, I produced my response to him. You'll see why I can't understand it there.

Okay, I can see how you don't get it (and neither does ax. He isn't saying that A does not equal A...

This is a really abstract concept and I can only try to explain it in concrete terms, so I don't think you'll get it right now - but it will come to you in one of those "Aha!" moments.

Picture a box. The box is Reality. Draw a vertical line down the middle of the box. on the left, you have A=A, your computer, your body, etc. On the right, you have the void. Now stick the box in a blender and superimpose the mind state you achieve to see the mind's eye puzzles.

Trevor wrote: I partially agree with putting enlightenment on a scale, but a person is still enlightened or not enlightened. Has a person identified and removed delusion? Yes or no?

Some delusions are identified and removed, some are identified but get fallen for at times, and some delusions are neither identified nor removed. The more that are identified and removed, the more enlightened a person is.
.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:11 pm

...I still think he's raving mad, but I posted Uni's and Eliza's comments there anyway. Since you two have a different view of enlightenment than me, this is actually quite helpful.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:22 pm

Ha! Eliza, you got a reply... :)