Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

[David Quinn]

Laird: [A]s far as I can see there is no such thing as an ultimate proof: all proofs are contingent.

David: This doesn't mean that all proofs are equally invalid. A good proof is one that is contingent upon crystal-clear, wisely-chosen definitions. [...] If an individual is capable of thinking for himself, then he can fashion his own meanings for terms and can use logic to reach absolute truth for himself.

Definitions are simply components of a model. Clear and wisely-chosen definitions in turn sharpen the clarity and definition of the model itself, but clarity and high definition are no guarantee of truthfulness. A model has a relationship to reality. No matter that the definitions of which it is comprised are clear and wise ones, there remains the question of whether the relationship of that model as a whole to reality is a truthful one. Good definitions alone are no proof. In the end, all of the components of the model are based upon thinking through the consequences of observation, and the only way in which one can be convinced of the truthfulness of a model is by comparing it with reality, and - you guessed it - comparison depends upon observation. So in the end your claim to have transcended the need for empiricism is fallacious. The dishonesty of your approach is that whilst in the final analysis it depends upon empiricism, it nevertheless rejects the ultimate empirical methodology: the scientific approach.

What you say here is a scripted view, one that is commonly taught nowadays, and one that conveniently rationalizes your attachment to women, egotism and emotional life. But it only applies to empirical modeling. I know you want to believe that empirical modeling is all there is, but that is a limited view. It doesn't take into account other ways that definitions, concepts and reason can be used.

Observation needn't just be empirical in nature, it can also be purely logical in nature. For example, one doesn't need to pull out a telescope in order to observe whether there are any married bachelors in the world. One only has to observe logically that such an entity can never be. This is how philosophy always works. It logically dissipates what is falsely imagined and what cannot possibly be.

DQ: Our openness to truth is also endless.

Laird: Those phenomena that you deny and that I listed are a part of truth. Your denial of them proves that your openness to truth is far from endless.

DQ: This depends on what is meant by "truth". What do you mean by it?

Laird: In this context by "truth" I mean that which has meaning in life.

DQ: I'm not sure that I can think of a more meaningless definition of truth.

Laird: Granted, I didn't phrase it particularly well. What I intended was that by "truth" in this context I mean typical (as in dictionary-definition) truths that are also those most significant and meaningful in life.

David: As in genocide, racism, sexism, molestation, etc? These are all in the dictionary and many people find them very significant and meaningful in their lives.

Laird: Then I would say that those people are - in your parlance - "deluded" and have not actually found truth.

But according to your definition above, they have indeed found truth.

Have you now abandoned that definition of truth which was only formulated yesterday?

Laird: And I'm not claiming that my conclusions are absolutely proven truths, just that they seem sound to me.

David: Well then, you are wasting my time, as well as everyone else's. If you don't know what is true, then on what basis can you judge the truth or otherwise of other people's views?

Laird: I doubt that I will ever "know", in the absolute sense, what is true -

I don't think you will either.

although I'm open to the possibility.

Bullshit.

I reject though the notion that you have any more of a claim to truth than I do and therefore in my eyes we are both in the same boat, only I don't delude myself that my access to, and knowledge of, truth is any more privileged than anyone else, which gives me a certain degree of integrity that you lack - and ironically it is you who accuse me of lack of intellectual integrity!

I accuse you of that because there is no consistency in your thinking, you display no real interest in understanding anything, and you just make up your views on the run.

-

[Kevin Solway]

"Anger is a gift", whereupon the music explodes into a passionately raging riff.

Anger is fine, in the extreme short term, for the person who is angry. That's exactly why people are angry - because it feels good.

But anger can be very unpleasant indeed for those who are on the receiving end of it, or who are anywhere nearby and within earshot of it.

Therefore anger always produces massive amounts of bad karma.

However, bottling it up can cause just as much bad karma. That's why the cause of anger, the ego, needs to be dissolved.

To be constantly angry is a sign of a disordered personality, however to be able to tap one's anger as appropriate is a means of power.

You mean like Hitler? He tapped his anger very skillfully indeed, and achieved great power.

No, any anger at all is extremely deluded.

As far as Jesus turning over the tables of the tax collectors goes, it doesn't follow that he was angry. He may have just been making a statement. The look on his face as he turned over the tables may have been perfectly calm.

He had already finished speaking and was gone. But I was still bowed down in reverence, my forehead pressed to the earth. As I began to ascend the winding mountain path that took me farther and farther away from him, my eyes were filled with tears.

Yes, that's certainly emotional, and is a fault. It shows that Hakuin was experiencing a sense of loss - which is deluded.

But the only people who are totally without any emotions are perfectly enlightened Buddhas, of which there may never have been any.

It is not wise for people to deny any tendency towards emotion that they may have. Any emotion should be confronted. That doesn't mean that emotions should be given full and unrestrained expression, which would probably lead to jail, but rather they should be honestly identified as one would identify a disease. This might spill over as a tear or two.

As for sitting, sitting is something that should include fits of ecstatic laughter - brayings that make you slump to the ground clutching your belly. And when you struggle to your feet after the first spasm passes, it should send you kneeling to the earth in yet further contortions of joy.

This advice is quite right. An ego must be strong until it is strong enough to tackle itself. A weak ego can't even begin to undermine itself.

However, Nietzsche was also correct when he said, "Laughter means: taking a mischievous delight in someone else's uneasiness, but with a good conscience."

Bluejuice also have some validity with their "Vitriol" song . . . in the case of people who are in a particularly lowly condition. But with any kind of anger or vitriol there is a very great danger of doing more harm than good: you might give your ego a boost, and then someone might come and kill you with an axe.

So definitely Hakuin does not advocate that the emotion of joy be "dissolved through a recognition of the illusory nature of the self", or some such twaddle.

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are arrogantly thinking that you have understood Hakuin's teaching, when in fact you aren't even on the first rung of the ladder.

all emotions have some purpose or meaning.

All emotions are based on a feeling of power or a lack of power. These feelings are completely and unreservedly deluded.

But aside from the practical value of emotions, there is always the intrinsic value that they have as rich, complex human experiences.

Like the complex emotional life of a serial killer and rapist?

[Imadrongo]

Anger is fine, in the extreme short term, for the person who is angry. That's exactly why people are angry - because it feels good.

But anger can be very unpleasant indeed for those who are on the receiving end of it, or who are anywhere nearby and within earshot of it.

Therefore anger always produces massive amounts of bad karma.

However, bottling it up can cause just as much bad karma. That's why the cause of anger, the ego, needs to be dissolved.

How do we know this produces bad karma as opposed to good karma?

[Kevin Solway]

How do we know this produces bad karma as opposed to good karma?

Simply by looking at the effects of anger.

Some of the observable effects are: 1. It tends to prevent a person from properly dealing with the causes of anger. 2. It upsets other people, who will retaliate in some way. 3. In the longer term, it can result in the angry person having low self-esteem because they are ashamed of their anger. 4. It's a bad example to give to children of how to deal with pain. And so on. It's not hard to think of many other negative consequences of anger.

[Imadrongo]

How do we know this produces bad karma as opposed to good karma?

Simply by looking at the effects of anger.

Some of the observable effects are: 1. It tends to prevent a person from properly dealing with the causes of anger.

They deal with the causes. Just because you think it isn't the "proper" or "right" way means it is bad karma?

2. It upsets other people, who will retaliate in some way.

Without competition, there would be no life. I don't see the problem with upsetting others. If I couldn't upset others I couldn't be satisfied. >> Good karma.

3. In the longer term, it can result in the angry person having low self-esteem because they are ashamed of their anger.

Or it could not. It depends, and I don't see what this has to do with bad karma??

4. It's a bad example to give to children of how to deal with pain.

If I personally felt it was a "good" example to give to kids would that make it "good" karma?

[Kevin Solway]

If I personally felt it was a "good" example to give to kids would that make it "good" karma?

It all boils down to what we mean by "good". Since my purpose in life is the survival of wisdom, it follows that "good" is that which serves to promote the survival of wisdom. And since I've observed that anger rarely, if ever, leads to wisdom, then it is not "good" as I've defined the term.

Of course, someone else might decide that the purpose of their life is ignorance and fun in the here-and-now for oneself, and regardless of anyone else. And in that case, anything that promotes that would be "good".

So, what is "good" depends entirely on what the individual values. For a pickpocket, "good karma" would be stealing someone's wallet, going to jail, and learning new ways to pickpocket. Or for a womanizer, it might be sleeping with his best friend's wife and then being beaten up.

[Alex Jacob]

David: "If an individual is capable of thinking for himself, then he can fashion his own meanings for terms and can use logic to reach absolute truth for himself. He doesn't have to remain a slave to what others think."

This is important, I think, the mood of it, an innate declaration of freedom to consider and decide. True, I would change the terms to avoid vulgar absolutisms---and I never hang on to the pamphlets that come to me from the Church of Genius---but the general mood is highly important. I submit that one MUST remain aloof of these absolute doctrines, and must cultivate the behavior that would keep 'possessive ideas' from getting ahold of one, tying one up, locking one down. You absolutely need to cultivate fluidity. Meaning, the spiritual path is a path of freedom, discovery, uncovering, and not submitting ot other's definitions. And goddamm! but do y'all bicker over definitions! Part of this 'game of definitions' has a great deal to do with arriving at terms of agreement that only function in these forum-based conversations. Most often, they seem political to me, and therefor I just annihilate them with my 'superior armory'.

Kevin: "But the only people who are totally without any emotions are perfectly enlightened Buddhas, of which there may never have been any."

Acha! Now we come to another very important core here. I think the moon has gone into a very clear sign. Pay close attention, children! 'Of which there may never have been any'. The fact is, there really is none! Indeed, there can't be any since we are dealing, in the end, at the farthest extreme, with mathematical formulations that titillate a certain kind of mind, a certain personality type.

About 97.29% of these conversation always have to do with these unreal abstractions, this algebra of convolutions. And here is the other side of the formula: You would understand what I mean if you had realized this Truth.

Okay, I am on your Train of Thought but I am not certain if I want to end up where these tracks lead. While looking out the window at the passing countryside, passing what looked like the towers of prisons and internment camps, a poem came to me inspired by a fleeting tree:
____________________

Alrededor de la copa
del arbol alto,
mis suenos estan volando.

Son palomas, coronadas
de luces puras,
que, al volar, derramen musica.

Como entran, como salen
del arbol solo!
Como me enredan en oro!*
__________________________

I submit to you that, if you were to drink this poem, it has the potential to take you farther---much farther!---than the majority of the blather one is clobbered over the head with around here. In that sense, poetry could be our very salvation, and may keep us from using that cold steel revolver to bring an end to endless, reductionist linguistic circles of pure nonsense!

At the tops of the highest trees
dreams of my real self fly round

Like doves imbued with pure light
that as they fly
give forth music

They go in and out
of a tree standing alone
and make my whole being shine

Okay, not the best translation, but it will have to do. Now, let's break out the machinery of intellect and completely destroy it, shall we?

'Mis suenos estan volando', now that is a bunch of useless bullshit! My dreams are flying! Dreams don't fly and they never have! I want cold, precise and accurate terms, as it is only with these I can build my little conveyance and can...move along the tracks in my Train of Thought. I refuse to imbibe these sops of nonsense!

So, these doves are 'crowned' with 'luces puras'. Have you ever heard such drivel, such emotional garbage?! I want my doctrines raw & sharp like little lizards that bite! Doves? Crowned with golden light?!? Huh? Who are you trying to kid? I march forward to the drumroll of the Self! And if it isn't about 'Atman' I don't want to hear about it! And anyway, what are you trying to imply when you say that they 'derramen musica' (emit music). I have swept a space clear for myself and have set up my meditation seat according to Patanjali, and I have carefully separated myself, in my little fantasy-game, from all of the earth's phenomena! Auuuum! Auuuum! If you have anything to say to me---who am barely human anymore, who has transcended all that is base and 'unreal---please don't say it in 'music'. I don't get music, music cannot reach me. And anyway, the music I like is completely devoid of 'emotionalism', and is a peculiar mathematical monotony. An acquired taste, my little chela, an acquired taste!

Como entran, como salen
del arbol solo!
Como me enredan en oro!

They fly in, and they fly out
of a solitary tree,
and envelop me in gold!

Now that is just wrong people! There is no 'coming and going', for what has never left can never arrive! (you must hold up your index finger as you unctuously pronounce these words), there are no birds-a-flying, for the Self needs no means of conveyance, and resides eternally in the immutable nothingness of nowhere; and there is no getting 'enveloped in gold'!

I am on the verge of getting angry and casting you derilict wordsmiths from out of the Temple of the Lord! Blasphemy I scream! Blasphemy! (But if you look closer, my face is anything but contorted in rage, and in my downturned aspect you see the hint of a smile...)

I will never abandon you! Never!
________________________

*Poem by Juan Ramon Jimenez

[Kevin Solway]

But the only people who are totally without any emotions are perfectly enlightened Buddhas, of which there may never have been any.

The fact is, there really is none!

That's not something we can know for sure. There may be many.

It might be a mathematical extreme, but I can't see any reason why that can't be achieved. Otto Weininger thinks that perfection is something we can only ever approach but never reach - but his argument doesn't convince me.

But I'm not overly critical of Weininger's view, since I consider that 99.99999999999999% perfect is good enough. I'm not a perfectionist.

poetry could be our very salvation

As far as I'm concerned all language is poetry. For example, "Your argument is bullshit" is poetic metaphor.

As a matter of interest, Dan Rowden is a poet, and here's one of his poems:

"What then?" by Dan Rowden

If I said I love you,
What then?
Would the rainbow's gentle arch
Fall silently upon the ashen sea?
Would the swallow's playful dance
Forever be as still as earth-felt snow?
Would summers die,
If I said I love you?

Would the Heavens quake and thunder
And Lucifer himself bemoan his birth,
Tearing at his heart in wild perdition?
Would the trembling of your heart
Bring muteness to the softness of your lips,
And time itself be forever stilled?
Would statues weep,
If I said I love you?

But here's a poem by Hakuin that appeals to me:

In the realm of the thousand buddhas
He is hated by the thousand buddhas;

Among the crowd of demons
He is detested by the crowd of demons.

He crushes the silent-illumination heretics of today,
And massacres the heterodox blind monks
of this generation.

This filthy blind old shavepate
Adds more foulness still to foulness.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

But the only people who are totally without any emotions are perfectly enlightened Buddhas

But here's a poem by Hakuin that appeals to me:

...
He is hated by the thousand buddhas;

the hate of a thousand buddhas...

interesting koan

[Laird]

What you say here is a scripted view, one that is commonly taught nowadays

It is my own view: one which I have arrived at through personal thought and which has not been taught to me.

and one that conveniently rationalizes your attachment to women, egotism and emotional life.

I don't see what my opinion on the nature of logic and modelling has to do with women, egotism and emotional life.

But it only applies to empirical modeling. I know you want to believe that empirical modeling is all there is, but that is a limited view. It doesn't take into account other ways that definitions, concepts and reason can be used.

No matter how you use definitions, concepts and reason, you are ultimately engaged in a process of modelling reality.

Observation needn't just be empirical in nature, it can also be purely logical in nature. For example, one doesn't need to pull out a telescope in order to observe whether there are any married bachelors in the world. One only has to observe logically that such an entity can never be. This is how philosophy always works. It logically dissipates what is falsely imagined and what cannot possibly be.

A valid use of logic in modelling is to disprove a model by discovering contradictions. Thus, we can be confident that the model in which the world contains a married bachelor is a false one. Logic cannot, however, be used to prove a model in an ultimate sense: all that we can hope for is to know that so far we have not discovered any inconsistencies.

Unfortunately for QRS, your model of reality contains - off the top of my head - at least one contradiction (relating to an infinite past), at least one paradox (relating to an uncaused Totality) and at least one article of faith (that determinism trumps quantum mechanics). All of which leaves you very far from a consistent model, let alone having "proved" anything in the slightest.

DQ: Our openness to truth is also endless.

Laird: Those phenomena that you deny and that I listed are a part of truth. Your denial of them proves that your openness to truth is far from endless.

DQ: This depends on what is meant by "truth". What do you mean by it?

Laird: In this context by "truth" I mean that which has meaning in life.

DQ: I'm not sure that I can think of a more meaningless definition of truth.

Laird: Granted, I didn't phrase it particularly well. What I intended was that by "truth" in this context I mean typical (as in dictionary-definition) truths that are also those most significant and meaningful in life.

David: As in genocide, racism, sexism, molestation, etc? These are all in the dictionary and many people find them very significant and meaningful in their lives.

Laird: Then I would say that those people are - in your parlance - "deluded" and have not actually found truth.

David: But according to your definition above, they have indeed found truth.

As I said, I would consider the "truth" that they have found to be a delusion: they are placing false meaning on what are in my opinion meaningless (in the sense of destructive) activities. And no doubt your rejoinder will be something like "Ah, but doesn't this make truth a personal thing?" To which I would respond: in some sense, yes, but it doesn't stop me from valuing my version of truth above those which I consider to be unsatisfactory, such as those which you pointed to. And it doesn't stop me from attempting to find those truths which are common to humanity.

But enough of my definition of truth: let's consider yours. No doubt you will quote to me your definition of an "absolute truth" as "one that is true in all possible worlds". Leaving aside that the definition of "world" is debatable, this is not very far from my definition of truth anyway. That which is true in all worlds is that which is most meaningful and significant.

[Laird]

Anger is fine, in the extreme short term, for the person who is angry. That's exactly why people are angry - because it feels good.

For properly managed anger, the results can be long-term and go beyond the person who is wielding the anger. Take, for example, a man who is witnessing an assualt by a thug upon an innocent victim. His anger might flare and take him into the middle of the fight, where he helps to beat off the thug and saves the life of the victim. In this case, the effects are long-term and go beyond the man who became angry.

But anger can be very unpleasant indeed for those who are on the receiving end of it, or who are anywhere nearby and within earshot of it.

Yes, it can be unpleasant to have pointed out to you that you are doing the wrong thing, but sometimes things don't change unless the pointing out is done in a particularly powerful way.

Therefore anger always produces massive amounts of bad karma.

I disagree. In my opinion, at least one type of anger - anger that rights a wrong - does not produce bad karma.

[T]he cause of anger, the ego, needs to be dissolved.

Mumbo jumbo. The ego is intimately related to consciousness. If you are conscious then you have an ego. What you are proposing is completely impossible.

Laird: To be constantly angry is a sign of a disordered personality, however to be able to tap one's anger as appropriate is a means of power.

Kevin: You mean like Hitler? He tapped his anger very skillfully indeed, and achieved great power.

Yes, that's the sort of power that I'm talking about, except that as I'm sure we will all agree Hitler used his power to the wrong ends, but just because one man abuses power does not mean that it cannot be used wisely.

As far as Jesus turning over the tables of the tax collectors goes, it doesn't follow that he was angry. He may have just been making a statement. The look on his face as he turned over the tables may have been perfectly calm.

Yeah, I can just imagine him speaking in a small little voice, "Please everybody, please, listen to me now. Now see here, you're all being very very naughty, and ... are you all listening?... Now please, just pack up your things and leave this temple or I'll... I'll... well, I won't get angry but I'll do something anyway." Of course he was using his anger: that's how you accomplish huge feats like ridding an entire temple of merchants.

Yes, that's certainly emotional, and is a fault. It shows that Hakuin was experiencing a sense of loss - which is deluded.

More mumbo jumbo denialism. If one loses something, such as a great teacher, then it's sane and reasonable to acknowledge that one has lost something.

Laird: So definitely Hakuin does not advocate that the emotion of joy be "dissolved through a recognition of the illusory nature of the self", or some such twaddle.

Kevin: Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are arrogantly thinking that you have understood Hakuin's teaching, when in fact you aren't even on the first rung of the ladder.

I have understood that Hakuin was an emotional man who freely shared his emotional experiences without any qualification that they were "deluded", but rather with the implication that they were natural, healthy and normal. And how well do you understand this man anyway? Here's you preaching the dissolution of all emotions, and there's Hakuin fully experiencing his emotions. Here's you denying the value of meditation, and there's Hakuin sitting for days at a time. How long have you pondered the koans for that led Hakuin to his breakthroughs?

All emotions are based on a feeling of power or a lack of power. These feelings are completely and unreservedly deluded.

More mumbo jumbo. If one has power, or if one does not, then to acknowledge that is simply an act of truth. There's nothing deluded about acknowledging reality.

Laird: But aside from the practical value of emotions, there is always the intrinsic value that they have as rich, complex human experiences.

Kevin: Like the complex emotional life of a serial killer and rapist?

What's that supposed to prove, Kevin? That just because misguided people share things in common with us that those things are wrong? Serial killers and rapists eat too - does that mean that eating food is wrong?

[Kevin Solway]

For properly managed anger . . .

Well you go ahead with your "properly managed anger" - it's your life. I reckon you're going to have to learn the hard way.

Take, for example, a man who is witnessing an assualt by a thug upon an innocent victim. His anger might flare and take him into the middle of the fight, where he helps to beat off the thug and saves the life of the victim. In this case, the effects are long-term and go beyond the man who became angry.

The job of policing, or even soldiering, is performed much more effectively and professionally without anger. But you are convinced otherwise - then so be it.

But anger can be very unpleasant indeed for those who are on the receiving end of it, or who are anywhere nearby and within earshot of it.

Yes, it can be unpleasant to have pointed out to you that you are doing the wrong thing

It can be unpleasant to be told you are wrong, but when the person telling you is angry, then there is an extra element. The anger is unnecessary, and will trigger many bad consequences. But you will just have to find this out for yourself with experience.

but sometimes things don't change unless the pointing out is done in a particularly powerful way.

Anger is not power, but evil.

A person who can communicate with you in calm, decisive, and clear way, has by far the most power.

The ego is intimately related to consciousness. If you are conscious then you have an ego. What you are proposing is completely impossible.

This sentence indicates that you haven't understood a word of what you have read on this forum for the past year. You still think that by "ego" we mean "self".

As far as Jesus turning over the tables of the tax collectors goes, it doesn't follow that he was angry. He may have just been making a statement. The look on his face as he turned over the tables may have been perfectly calm.

Yeah, I can just imagine him speaking in a small little voice, "Please everybody, please, listen to me now."

Just because a person is not angry doesn't mean they have to speak in a "small little voice".

Have a read of the teachings of the Buddha. Never is the Buddha angry, and never does he speak in a "small little voice". Likewise with a top policeman. He will speak with authority that commands respect, but without anger. The moment he becomes angry he will lose all respect.

it's sane and reasonable to acknowledge that one has lost something.

Of course it is, but it's insane to fall in a heap of tears. To have such a self-pitying emotion is in fact to be hateful of God, and of God's will.

Here's you preaching the dissolution of all emotions, and there's Hakuin fully experiencing his emotions.

No, he doesn't fully experience emotions. He doesn't fully experience extreme hatred, or anger, or a consuming sexual desire for anything in a skirt, etc. So you completely misunderstood his teaching.

Here's you denying the value of meditation

I have never denied the value of meditation. On the contrary, I say that one should do it literally all the time, and not just when sitting.

All emotions are based on a feeling of power or a lack of power. These feelings are completely and unreservedly deluded.

More mumbo jumbo. If one has power, or if one does not, then to acknowledge that is simply an act of truth. There's nothing deluded about acknowledging reality.

That's exactly why it's important that not only do we acknowledge the fact that we have emotions, but also that they are deluded.

Laird: But aside from the practical value of emotions, there is always the intrinsic value that they have as rich, complex human experiences.

Kevin: Like the complex emotional life of a serial killer and rapist?

What's that supposed to prove, Kevin?

You are arguing that the complex emotional life of a serial killer and rapist, which leads him to be a serial killer and rapist, has an "intrinsic value" just by the fact that they are rich and complex. That is nonsense.

[Laird]

Well you go ahead with your "properly managed anger" - it's your life. I reckon you're going to have to learn the hard way.

And you go ahead with your condescension. You're convinced that you have nothing more to learn.

The job of policing, or even soldiering, is performed much more effectively and professionally without anger. But you are convinced otherwise - then so be it.

The effectiveness of a job performed in dangerous, unfair circumstances can be enhanced through the energising effects of anger.

It can be unpleasant to be told you are wrong, but when the person telling you is angry, then there is an extra element. The anger is unnecessary, and will trigger many bad consequences. [...] A person who can communicate with you in calm, decisive, and clear way, has by far the most power.

It's important to judge when anger will be effective and when it won't be. Sometimes it serves no purpose but to inflame both parties. Sometimes though, it helps a person realise in a way that they couldn't otherwise easily see that what they're doing is having negative effects. It can be humbling to be subjected to another's justified anger, and it can teach one a lesson.

In my final year of high school I wrote off my car against a brick mailbox. The guy in the house came out furiously, tearing into me verbally and yelling that his children play in the path that my car travelled and that I was lucky that I hadn't killed anyone. It was very frightening to be subjected to that anger but he was fully justified in it and it reinforced in me how foolish I'd been to an effect that I can't imagine had he simply pointed it out to me in a quiet, calm way.

Of course one is free to choose - the gift of anger need not be opened and clearly you choose not to. That's fine, but to label all occurences of anger as "deluded" is an abuse: clearly it can play a role of empowerment, much like a drug.

I'd like to believe that ultimately there will exist a world in which there are no wrongs to right. In that world I can imagine that anger would not play so much of a role as it can in this world.

This sentence indicates that you haven't understood a word of what you have read on this forum for the past year. You still think that by "ego" we mean "self".

I'm clearly dealing here with another "genius" definition, because dictionary.com defines the ego as: "the 'I' or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought."

Kindly then enlighten me as to what you mean when you redefine "ego".

Just because a person is not angry doesn't mean they have to speak in a "small little voice".

Right, but you're clearly in denial as to the implications of Jesus' behaviour: a rational person would recognise it as motivated by anger; you however wish to pervert it to match your ideal of a completely unemotional sage. Would you like me to find other instances in the Gospels where Jesus exhibits emotion? They're there to be found. I seem to recall for a start that he shed a tear or at least became sad upon hearing of Lazarus' death.

Likewise with a top policeman. He will speak with authority that commands respect, but without anger. The moment he becomes angry he will lose all respect.

It's not his anger that will cause him to be disrespected, but his abuse of his anger. If he lashes out unreasonably then he can be condemned; if instead he uses his anger to empower him on a just course of action then he is respectable.

Laird: it's sane and reasonable to acknowledge that one has lost something.

Kevin: Of course it is, but it's insane to fall in a heap of tears. To have such a self-pitying emotion is in fact to be hateful of God, and of God's will.

Who is being hurt by one's "falling in a heap of tears"? Why can not a human being reinforce a life lesson through an experience of deep emotion?

Laird: Here's you preaching the dissolution of all emotions, and there's Hakuin fully experiencing his emotions.

Kevin: No, he doesn't fully experience emotions. He doesn't fully experience extreme hatred, or anger, or a consuming sexual desire for anything in a skirt, etc. So you completely misunderstood his teaching.

Those emotions that he has he experiences fully, and does not label them deluded as you do, which is my point.

Laird: But aside from the practical value of emotions, there is always the intrinsic value that they have as rich, complex human experiences.

Kevin: Like the complex emotional life of a serial killer and rapist?

Laird: What's that supposed to prove, Kevin?

Kevin: You are arguing that the complex emotional life of a serial killer and rapist, which leads him to be a serial killer and rapist, has an "intrinsic value" just by the fact that they are rich and complex. That is nonsense.

I'm not arguing that emotions should be accepted without question: I'm arguing for the balanced integration of emotion and reason. That a serial killer or rapist experiences emotions and acts unreasonably upon them does not detract from the possibility of sane, sensible people to experience emotions and act reasonably upon them.

[David Quinn]

What you say here is a scripted view, one that is commonly taught nowadays

It is my own view: one which I have arrived at through personal thought and which has not been taught to me.

They all say that.

DQ: and one that conveniently rationalizes your attachment to women, egotism and emotional life.

Laird: I don't see what my opinion on the nature of logic and modelling has to do with women, egotism and emotional life.

Because it enables you to keep the logical spotlight away from these false attachments.

DQ: But it only applies to empirical modeling. I know you want to believe that empirical modeling is all there is, but that is a limited view. It doesn't take into account other ways that definitions, concepts and reason can be used.

Laird: No matter how you use definitions, concepts and reason, you are ultimately engaged in a process of modelling reality.

No. Reality can only be found when all models are dismantled, so that is how I employ my concepts and reasoning. I am a destroyer of models, not a creator of them. I hack everything down until there is nothing left. Only then does reality have a chance to shine through.

DQ: Observation needn't just be empirical in nature, it can also be purely logical in nature. For example, one doesn't need to pull out a telescope in order to observe whether there are any married bachelors in the world. One only has to observe logically that such an entity can never be. This is how philosophy always works. It logically dissipates what is falsely imagined and what cannot possibly be.

Laird: A valid use of logic in modelling is to disprove a model by discovering contradictions. Thus, we can be confident that the model in which the world contains a married bachelor is a false one. Logic cannot, however, be used to prove a model in an ultimate sense: all that we can hope for is to know that so far we have not discovered any inconsistencies.

That's right. Becoming enlightened has nothing to do attaching oneself to a particular model.

Unfortunately for QRS, your model of reality contains - off the top of my head - at least one contradiction (relating to an infinite past), at least one paradox (relating to an uncaused Totality) and at least one article of faith (that determinism trumps quantum mechanics). All of which leaves you very far from a consistent model, let alone having "proved" anything in the slightest.

Again, you misunderstand the nature of philosophy. It has nothing to do with creating models.

As for your criticisms stated above, they don't have any meaning if you don't give supporting reasons. If you are going to provide some supporting reasons, then make sure you stop assuming that these things - e.g. an infinite past, determinism, etc - are part of a model. They're not. They are missives which attack all models.

-

[Kevin Solway]

It can be humbling to be subjected to another's justified anger, and it can teach one a lesson.

It is an even better lesson when the person you have wronged is not angry.

. . . it reinforced in me how foolish I'd been to an effect that I can't imagine had he simply pointed it out to me in a quiet, calm way.

A wise person could have reinforced it in you without being angry. It's just that you don't know any other way.

it can play a role of empowerment, much like a drug

That's right. Anger is a hard drug. As I explained previously, this can be useful for people who are in a very lowly condition and who can't be motivated to do anything other than, say, through anger and sexual desire. But for people who are on a higher spiritual plane, it needs to be abandoned.

Kindly then enlighten me as to what you mean when you redefine "ego".

We talk about it all the time. It's one of those things that you can easily pick up just by reading.

Right, but you're clearly in denial as to the implications of Jesus' behaviour: a rational person would recognise it as motivated by anger

You naturally interpret it that way because you don't know of any other way to interpret it.

In any case, I didn't say that Jesus wasn't angry, only that he may not have been. Jesus may have been completely deluded for all I know.

It's not his anger that will cause him to be disrespected, but his abuse of his anger.

All anger is abuse.

it's insane to fall in a heap of tears. To have such a self-pitying emotion is in fact to be hateful of God, and of God's will.

Who is being hurt by one's "falling in a heap of tears"?

The person who feels self-pity are themselves harmed, as well as anyone who comes in contact with them, directly or indirectly. This is because of the blatent disrespect of God (Reality) that is inherent in self-pity.

Those emotions that he has he experiences fully, and does not label them deluded

He does call them deluded. If he experienced anger or hatred, he would certainly label it deluded. He used to berate his students for humming tunes. Why do you think he did that if he thought emotions were good?

He used to berate himself for being sympathetic with his students.

I'm arguing for the balanced integration of emotion and reason.

I think that's fine when people don't know any better. If there's any reason in there at all, that's a lot better than nothing.

. . . the possibility of sane, sensible people to experience emotions and act reasonably upon them.

Since all emotions arise out of the feeling of power and lack of power, each "positive" (empowering) emotion has its opposite. Hatred rises in direct proportion to love.

[clyde]

Reality can only be found when all models are dismantled,

Reality is not hidden or lost, you need only cease confusing the models for reality.

so that is how I employ my concepts and reasoning. I am a destroyer of models, not a creator of them. I hack everything down until there is nothing left.

If only . . . YOU are the employer of your concepts and your reasoning; YOU are the destroyer of models, but falsely deny creating them; YOU make the empty claim to "hack everything down until there is nothing left."

Only then does reality have a chance to shine through.

Reality is always shining through . . . open your eyes,
and let your heart and mind follow.

[Alex Jacob]

Right, Kevin, and there you have it: bad poetry. As time passes, this is what I am beginning to conclude. It may come down to whether the life we live, and the way we live it, is circumscribed and held back by 'bad poetry', or if we have the good taste to take in only the very best of the best, and to 'submit' to it, to let it work on us like leaven. It has to do with what forces and potencies we allow to guide and animate our imagination! I like Dan, of course, but that was the most base and the most wretched---the most vulgar---poem that has come my way recently. If it were a drink I'd have to wash my mouth out. As idea and image, please give my consciousness some time to recover. Anyone, with the slightest interest, could have done infinitely better. Plagiarism is no crime for you, not if you consider that what the world doesn't need right now is low-brow pseudo-poetry. Am I supposed to thank you for having tossed it at me like some offal? Was that poem written for a human woman...of for his favorite mule? Upon hearing it, did she grab reflexively at her throat and then choke on her vomit? Is she dead now? Is this how you guys get even with 'Woman'? You do the world cruel disservice. Just as that is not even 5th rate sentiment (or idea), in a similar way all the ideas you guys express about life are...crappy. Trite. Brutally stupid. I say this with love in my heart, and because (though you don't think it is true) I actually want to help you. Don't publish anything! Don't put anything out into the world until you have run it by someone competent to critique it! I am really serious here, none of this is a joke. I am going to take the day off and try to forget what you did to me today. Everyone take care, Bye.

[Laird]

Laird: No matter how you use definitions, concepts and reason, you are ultimately engaged in a process of modelling reality.

David: No. Reality can only be found when all models are dismantled, so that is how I employ my concepts and reasoning. I am a destroyer of models, not a creator of them. I hack everything down until there is nothing left. Only then does reality have a chance to shine through.

Unbelievable. Until now you have tacitly accepted that you are modelling, but when the argument starts to take a turn that you don't like, suddenly you reject that you are modelling. And yet you have the hide to accuse me of lack of intellectual integrity; of having "no consistency in [my] thinking"; that I "just make up [my] views on the run".

Absolutely you are engaged in a modelling process. You model reality as a Totality that contains all causes but that is itself uncaused. You model reality as a Totality that stretches infinitely in both temporal directions and in all spatial directions. You model reality as entirely deterministic. You model reality as a set of interdependent causes such that there is no inherent existence, merely the interactions of causality. You conclude from this model that everything is empty including the self, and you further conclude from this model that all emotions are deluded.

Laird: A valid use of logic in modelling is to disprove a model by discovering contradictions. Thus, we can be confident that the model in which the world contains a married bachelor is a false one. Logic cannot, however, be used to prove a model in an ultimate sense: all that we can hope for is to know that so far we have not discovered any inconsistencies.

David: That's right. Becoming enlightened has nothing to do attaching oneself to a particular model.

I don't know what in the world you think that sentence has to do with what I wrote, but in any case if it's what you truly believe then you'd better retract your book because "Wisdom of the Infinite" is wholescale modelling.

Laird: Unfortunately for QRS, your model of reality contains - off the top of my head - at least one contradiction (relating to an infinite past), at least one paradox (relating to an uncaused Totality) and at least one article of faith (that determinism trumps quantum mechanics). All of which leaves you very far from a consistent model, let alone having "proved" anything in the slightest.

David: As for your criticisms stated above, they don't have any meaning if you don't give supporting reasons. If you are going to provide some supporting reasons, then make sure you stop assuming that these things - e.g. an infinite past, determinism, etc - are part of a model. They're not. They are missives which attack all models.

Right, this isn't modelling, these are "missives". Do you even know what the word "missive" means? It means "a written message; letter". So these components of your model aren't actually that, they're actually correspondences with... with whom? With Aunty Pauline and Uncle Bob?

Earlier you wrote to me that I "only see the outer frame". Again, tacit agreement that what you are doing is building a model of reality. But now you have switched to deep QRS denialism to avoid what I have plainly demonstrated to you: that there is no way to ultimately prove that a model is a truthful representation of reality; that the best that we can hope for is to compare it through observation and to find it so-far free of contradiction. Nevermind, I'm certainly not going to let you get away with such a blatant revert-and-deny trick. You are unquestionably and most definitely in the business of modelling.

Now you've suggested that I should give supporting reasons for my criticisms. I will do that one by one:

1. The contradiction of an infinite past.

This contradiction can be demonstrated through a syllogism:
a. The universe extends infinitely back in time.
b. The past is characterised by the fact that the "marker of time" (present moment) has moved over it at some previous point in time.
c. It is impossible to reach an infinity, only to approach it.
d. From (c): the marker of time has never been at the most infinite early point.
e. (b) and (d) are in contradiction.

2. The paradox of the uncaused Totality:
You claim that all things are caused. Then you claim that the Totality is uncaused. This is a paradox. You try to get around it by claiming that the Totality is not a thing, a thing being that which has boundaries. And yet we can put a name to it, so clearly it has boundaries of some sort; ergo it is a thing.

3. The article of faith: that determinism trumps quantum mechanics:
The best evidence and theories of quantum mechanics point to the fact that some events simply cannot be predicted whatsoever, no matter what access we have to privileged information. You, however, are very attached to the notion of determinism and so you claim - without any scientific evidence - that there must be some underlying explanation for it. This clearly flies in the face of reason. Granted, some such explanation might turn up at some point in the future, but at the present it seems very unlikely and you have no good reason to believe that such is the case other than your emotional attachment to the idea of determinism.

[Laird]

OK Kevin, we seem to have expressed our differing points of view as much as is possible. My position is that emotions are a gift that can express truth, teach lessons, empower and that are intrinsically valuable as part of the human experience. Your position is that emotions are fundamentally deluded and that nothing good can come out of them.

So let's then examine how you think emotions are deluded. You say that emotions are deluded because they arise out of the ego, which is itself a delusion. You reject the dictionary definition of "ego" yet when I ask you to provide your own definition you respond with:

We talk about it all the time. It's one of those things that you can easily pick up just by reading.

Which is typical Solway evasiveness. Look, it's a pretty simple and direct request: provide me with your definition of "ego". We can't really progress this conversation without it.

In another thread ("The distress of rape") I posed a question to David that is very relevant here and which he has not yet answered. I will repeat it here in the hope that you and he will at this point see fit to actually answer it:

I'm interested in seeing you elaborate on the relationship between this intellectualisation as to the illusionary nature of self and its supposed effect of dissolving emotion, because that's the most detail in which I understand your claim. I've discussed it with Kevin in person and that's as far as he goes too. You guys are claiming a cause (an intellectualisation) and an effect (the dissolution of emotion). OK, so then what's the mechanism by which this cause effects its result?

[maestro]

illusionary nature of self and its supposed effect of dissolving emotion,

This is most likely not related to the geniuses here but you may find Susan blackmore's ideas interesting on this issue.
She says that the self is not an entity but a collection of reinforcing ideas and habits, which is known as a memeplex. Many other mental habits (memes) ride piggyback on this memeplex. The dismantling of the memeplex leads to the dismantling of the other memes.


http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journal ... 201999.htm

[Kevin Solway]

I'll respond briefly to this, as I'm sure David will respond more fully:

Until now you have tacitly accepted that you are modelling

Definitely not. "Modeling" is something done by scientists, but since we are philosophers we don't do modeling.

You model reality as a Totality

Completely wrong. You are talking about "a Totality" as though there is more than one Totality, or as though there can be something other than the Totality, but you are wrong on both counts - of logical necessity.

that contains all causes but that is itself uncaused.

That too is a logical necessity, and not a model. A model is only an approximation but these logical statements are absolutely and necessarily perfect.

You model reality as a Totality that stretches infinitely in both temporal directions and in all spatial directions.

You have a very short memory. The Totality necessarily includes time and space, by definition, and therefore it doesn't exist in time, and doesn't stretch in any directions.

You model reality as entirely deterministic.

That things are caused is a logical and necessary truth, and not a model.

Earlier you wrote to me that I "only see the outer frame". Again, tacit agreement that what you are doing is building a model of reality.

It's like me pointing at the moon with my finger and you saying, "But that's just a finger". You're not interested in the moon.

1. The contradiction of an infinite past.

The Totality doesn't exist in time, as explained above and many times previously, but you can try and refute something else if you like.

This contradiction can be demonstrated through a syllogism:
a. The universe extends infinitely back in time.
b. The past is characterised by the fact that the "marker of time" (present moment) has moved over it at some previous point in time.
c. It is impossible to reach an infinity, only to approach it.
d. From (c): the marker of time has never been at the most infinite early point.
e. (b) and (d) are in contradiction.

You say, "it is possible to approach infinity".

But this is obviously false, since no matter how far you go you can never be any closer to infinity. I don't think you've thought at all about what infinity is.

the marker of time has never been at the most infinite early point.

There can be no "most infinite early point". That's what "infinite" means. So you are talking about nonsensical, nonexistent things.

In addition, the present has indeed been all points in the past, by definition.

. . . uncaused Totality:

And yet we can put a name to it, so clearly it has boundaries of some sort

It has no boundaries to itself, but its parts have boundaries (by definition). For that reason we can contrast it to its parts. Hence in-finite, or "not finite".

3. The article of faith: that determinism trumps quantum mechanics:

Logic trumps anything.

Those working in quantum mechanics rely on logic as much as they are able.

The best evidence and theories of quantum mechanics point to the fact that some events simply cannot be predicted whatsoever

Whether things can be predicted or not has got nothing at all to do with determinism. Many things are caused but unpredictable, like the throw of a dice, the weather, etc. There is absolutely no way I can predict what the weather will be tomorrow, or what the result of a dice throw will be, as single events, no matter what information I have access to. But that doesn't mean they're not caused.

Some such explanation might turn up at some point in the future, but at the present it seems very unlikely

People have arrogantly been saying exactly what you have just said for thousands of years. Some people believed the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, while others believed they were personally created by God. And they all believed they had reached the end point of knowledge, just as you do now (or at least, you think it is "very likely").

[Pye]

"Infinity" and "Totality" are a contradiction of terms.

[Kevin Solway]

"Infinity" and "Totality" are a contradiction of terms.

Not if you define "Totality" to mean "everything". :-)

It's not a sub-total!

[Pye]

It cannot be totaled at all!

[clyde]

Until now you have tacitly accepted that you are modelling

Definitely not. "Modeling" is something done by scientists, but since we are philosophers we don't do modeling.

Kevin, this is patently false, even laughable. If you sat silently, I might believe "Kevin is not modeling." But that you communicate using words which represent concepts (which are models) makes your statement absurd. It's as believable as the statement "I have no ego."