Making peace with femininity

[Unidian]

Darwin talked me into quitting Sunday School,and i thank him for that.The Christian's fear is real.

But if Christian doctrine is true, then Jesus will keep knocking at the door of your heart, no? Nothing stands in your way of re-accepting Christianity unless God himself hardens your heart. If God wants to draw you back, what could stop him?

Their fear is real to the extent that their faith is weak.

[Unidian]

Dave Toast,

All those things you’ve imagined I’ve said, and all the things Bob imagined I had said, are purely a product of the spectacles your ‘prominent internet philosopher drama’ brings to the reading of my words.

Is all of this fuss your way of trying to deny being influenced by QRS views in regard to causality?

Whether you like it or not, QRS do exist, they do have views, and this is a forum dedicated to discussion of those views. You expect us to disregard all of that in order to give your views a hearing in some kind of vacuum? Who are you, Little Lord Fauntleroy? In my opinion, it's no different than some creationist claiming "but really, I'm different from all those OTHER Creationists, and there's no way you can understand me if you involve anything you've heard from them."

[Ataraxia]

While we're on the subject I move that Ken Ham have his Australian citizrenship revoked and if he ever steps foot in this country again he be charged under the terrorism act for crimes against humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum

[David Quinn]

Dave Toast,

All those things you’ve imagined I’ve said, and all the things Bob imagined I had said, are purely a product of the spectacles your ‘prominent internet philosopher drama’ brings to the reading of my words.

Is all of this fuss your way of trying to deny being influenced by QRS views in regard to causality?

Whether you like it or not, QRS do exist, they do have views, and this is a forum dedicated to discussion of those views. You expect us to disregard all of that in order to give your views a hearing in some kind of vacuum? Who are you, Little Lord Fauntleroy? In my opinion, it's no different than some creationist claiming "but really, I'm different from all those OTHER Creationists, and there's no way you can understand me if you involve anything you've heard from them."

I think it's pretty clear that Dave has thought through these issues himself. It doesn't matter where he initially received his influences - whether from here or elsewhere. He has made his knowledge of causality his own.

The key factor is the quality of the individual thinking involved. This is what distinguishes Dave's acknowledgment of causality different from a creationist's acknowledgment of Creationist's doctrines. Your constant attempt to keep playing the "cult" card on this forum is both lazy and agenda-driven.

When people come together on a mathematics forum and agree that 1+1 does equal 2, does that make them part of a cult, or part of a community that likes to acknowledge mathematical truth? The acknowledgment of causality, when properly recognized and understood, is essentially no different.

-

[Dave Toast]

Dave Toast,

All those things you’ve imagined I’ve said, and all the things Bob imagined I had said, are purely a product of the spectacles your ‘prominent internet philosopher drama’ brings to the reading of my words.

Is all of this fuss your way of trying to deny being influenced by QRS views in regard to causality?

Whether you like it or not, QRS do exist, they do have views, and this is a forum dedicated to discussion of those views. You expect us to disregard all of that in order to give your views a hearing in some kind of vacuum? Who are you, Little Lord Fauntleroy? In my opinion, it's no different than some creationist claiming "but really, I'm different from all those OTHER Creationists, and there's no way you can understand me if you involve anything you've heard from them."

You're at it again.

Not a thought for intellectual integrity in addressing the points put to you as to how what you say about my position in this thread are completely misrepresentative and outright lies. Instead you imagine the egotistical concerns you impute onto me are the issue that needs addressing.

Unbelievable.

[Unidian]

DQ,

Your constant attempt to keep playing the "cult" card on this forum is both lazy and agenda-driven.

Is it? What's my agenda, then? Would it perhaps be to Stamp Out the Flame of Ultimate Truth and deny these eager young seekers their place in the ranks of the faithful? Am I bringing my Womanly and Worldly attachments into the fray in order to tempt promising men away from The Lofty Truth, like I've done before?

Yeah, that's probably pretty much it.

As for it being a cult, yes and no. Some QRS, like Dan for example, show pretty much zero cult-like behavior. Others, like Sue Hindmarsh and a few others, would not only drink the Kool-Aid, they'd buy it from you at fair market value.

When people come together on a mathematics forum and agree that 1+1 does equal 2, does that make them part of a cult, or part of a community that likes to acknowledge mathematical truth?

Depends on whether they view the forum owner as one of the wisest men walking the face of the Earth, as you and Kevin have been known to bill yourselves. It also depends on whether, when said forum owner declares that 1+1=273, they parrot it using the exact same rationalizations he uses.

[David Quinn]

DQ,

Your constant attempt to keep playing the "cult" card on this forum is both lazy and agenda-driven.

Is it? What's my agenda, then? Would it perhaps be to Stamp Out the Flame of Ultimate Truth and deny these eager young seekers their place in the ranks of the faithful? Am I bringing my Womanly and Worldly attachments into the fray in order to tempt promising men away from The Lofty Truth, like I've done before?

Yeah, that's probably pretty much it.

I think it's more a case that you're bored with too much time on your hands, and you like engaging in emotional dramas to fill in the time.

You do seem pretty aimless, overall. Emotional dramas can be an effective way of pushing that to one side.

When people come together on a mathematics forum and agree that 1+1 does equal 2, does that make them part of a cult, or part of a community that likes to acknowledge mathematical truth?

Depends on whether they view the forum owner as one of the wisest men walking the face of the Earth, as you and Kevin have been known to bill yourselves.

You have no sense of humour.

It also depends on whether, when said forum owner declares that 1+1=273, they parrot it using the exact same rationalizations he uses.

That would obviously be a problem. As you say, it's a mixed bag here. But to see a person speak out of his own knowledge, as Dave has done, and still accuse of him being a mindless drone, that is very silly.

-

[Unidian]

I think it's more a case that you're bored with too much time on your hands, and you like engaging in emotional dramas to fill in the time.

Yep, true enough. I also like substantive debate. You seem to suggest that the two can't occur simultaneously. I think they can, and in fact I find that the best and most thought-provoking discussions are those in which there is significant emotional engagement.

You do seem pretty aimless, overall.

Thanks. In light of Chuang-Tzu and Lin-Chi, that is a major compliment.

Followers of the Way, as I look at it, we're no different from Shakyamuni. In all our various activities each day, is there anything we lack? The wonderful light of the six faculties has never for a moment ceased to shine. If you could just look at it this way, then you'd be the kind of person who has nothing to do for the rest of his life.

You have no sense of humour.

Oh please. Don't even insult anyone's intelligence with that ploy. You guys don't bill yourselves as sages, Zen masters, and enlightened beings for humor value. While it's possible you do find it funny on some level, years of experience have shown that it is very much a sincere claim.

That would obviously be a problem. As you say, it's a mixed bag here. But to see a person speak out of his own knowledge, as Dave has done, and still accuse of him being a mindless drone, that is very silly.

Don't put words in my mouth. Dave Toast is not "a mindless drone." It's clear he's well-versed in the basics of quantum mechanics and I don't doubt he's done plenty of independent thinking. I'm just not going to act as if your influence doesn't exist.

[David Quinn]

Good words, such as those by Nagarjuna, can help point the mind in the direction of nirvana and help break down its delusions. That was why he wrote them.

Mr. Quinn,

Has your understanding of Nagarjuna changed since the time of the Larkin Debate? If so, how has it been modified?

It hasn't changed too much. I still agree with everything I said in that debate. My understanding has deepened, though.

-

[David Quinn]

I think it's more a case that you're bored with too much time on your hands, and you like engaging in emotional dramas to fill in the time.

Yep, true enough. I also like substantive debate. You seem to suggest that the two can't occur simultaneously. I think they can, and in fact I find that the best and most thought-provoking discussions are those in which there is significant emotional engagement.

So why is an intelligent bloke like Dave Toast disgusted with your antics, then?

You do seem pretty aimless, overall.

Thanks. In light of Chuang-Tzu and Lin-Chi, that is a major compliment.

Followers of the Way, as I look at it, we're no different from Shakyamuni. In all our various activities each day, is there anything we lack? The wonderful light of the six faculties has never for a moment ceased to shine. If you could just look at it this way, then you'd be the kind of person who has nothing to do for the rest of his life.

I think you're flattering yourself here. You're somewhere in between the two extremes - neither not doing nothing, nor doing anything. Instead, you're doing small things aimlessly.

In truth, the art of doing nothing is utterly beyond your capacity at the moment. This won't change until you cease believing that you're already "there".

You have no sense of humour.

Oh please. Don't even insult anyone's intelligence with that ploy. You guys don't bill yourselves as sages, Zen masters, and enlightened beings for humor value. While it's possible you do find it funny on some level, years of experience have shown that it is very much a sincere claim.

It is a sincere claim, and yet it is employed with humour. We are both fully aware that it doesn't really mean anything.

I like it because it blows away all the false humility which bogs down the generic spiritual industry. It clears the air. Straight away, whole reams of egotistical game-playing disappear.

That would obviously be a problem. As you say, it's a mixed bag here. But to see a person speak out of his own knowledge, as Dave has done, and still accuse of him being a mindless drone, that is very silly.

Don't put words in my mouth. Dave Toast is not "a mindless drone." It's clear he's well-versed in the basics of quantum mechanics and I don't doubt he's done plenty of independent thinking. I'm just not going to act as if your influence doesn't exist.

If a person reaches his own knowledge and insight, then you can't really talk about influences anymore. He's his own man. As Dave suggests, it would be better if you simply addressed his points on their own merits, rather than bringing in irrelevant stuff about me or whoever.

-

[RobertGreenSky]

Good words, such as those by Nagarjuna, can help point the mind in the direction of nirvana and help break down its delusions. That was why he wrote them.

Mr. Quinn,

Has your understanding of Nagarjuna changed since the time of the Larkin Debate? If so, how has it been modified?

It hasn't changed too much. I still agree with everything I said in that debate. My understanding has deepened, though.

-

There is a problem in that, given that in the debate you were shown to be in agreement not with Nagarjuna but with Nagarjuna's contemporary opponent. If your understanding has not changed, and you were wrong then, aren't you still wrong?

[Unidian]

So why is an intelligent bloke like Dave Toast disgusted with your antics, then?

Who knows? That's his business. One can't please all the people all the time, and only fools try.

I think you're flattering yourself here. You're somewhere in between the two extremes - neither not doing nothing, nor doing anything. Instead, you're doing small things aimlessly.

Yes, of course. Whatever the position is which minimizes me to the greatest possible extent, that's where you're going to put me. What you presumably fail to realize is that I don't care. Please feel free to consider me utterly unenlightened, utterly foolish, utterly absorbed in nonsense, or whatever else you like.

In truth, the art of doing nothing is utterly beyond your capacity at the moment. This won't change until you cease believing that you're already "there".

Hahaha... the woman will fall on the floor laughing when she reads that the art of doing nothing is "utterly beyond my capacity." That is one fine art which I am not afraid to pronounce myself a master of, and all who actually know me will line up to concur (much to their chagrin). :)

As for being "already there," don't worry about it. As you've made quite clear, it's no place you're interested in. Zen master Lin-Chi says that here, Buddhas are "filth in the latrine." You're not interested in that.

It is a sincere claim, and yet it is employed with humour. We are both fully aware that it doesn't really mean anything.

I like it because it blows away all the false humility which bogs down the generic spiritual industry. It clears the air. Straight away, whole reams of egotistical game-playing disappear.

Then why has the entire history of your efforts been characterized by "egotistical game-playing" from every side?

You can't claim to be attacking people's ego and simultaneously claim that ego-dynamics "disappear." That's having the cake and eating it too. When one proclaims themselves wise, as you know, the egos of the audience go into immediate overdrive, thinking "how dare that guy put himself above me?"

This excuse doesn't work, either. If you'd said you were doing it to create more "egotistical game-playing" (for the purpose of exposing and thereby diminishing it), you would have had more credibility. You should take a lesson from Dan. He's smart enough to use that line.

If a person reaches his own knowledge and insight, then you can't really talk about influences anymore. He's his own man. As Dave suggests, it would be better if you simply addressed his points on their own merits, rather than bringing in irrelevant stuff about me or whoever.

I did address them, but he chose to ignore it because I made reference to you.

[RobertGreenSky]

So why is an intelligent bloke like Dave Toast disgusted with your antics, then?

Oh and Baby Jesus is crying too. Do you really pass that off as intelligent answer? We don't stoop to that level; why do you?

[Dan Rowden]

In truth, the art of doing nothing is utterly beyond your capacity at the moment. This won't change until you cease believing that you're already "there".

Hahaha... the woman will fall on the floor laughing when she reads that the art of doing nothing is "utterly beyond my capacity." That is one fine art which I am not afraid to pronounce myself a master of, and all who actually know me will line up to concur (much to their chagrin). :)

You might want to rethink that response as it kind of makes Dave's point (unless you are being entirely satirical). Sitting around bum-like doing nothing - commendable as it may be - has nothing to do with "doing nothing".

[Dan Rowden]

So why is an intelligent bloke like Dave Toast disgusted with your antics, then?

Oh and Baby Jesus is crying too. Do you really pass that off as intelligent answer? We don't stoop to that level; why do you?

I'm confused, what level is that, exactly?

[spelnxpert]

by Sue Hindmarsh on Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:59 am

Laird wrote:
How do you know that it's not even more correct to view things as essentially separate but reacting, responding and communicating with one another?

It is impossible to answer your question because you provide no basis to your idea of things being “essentially separate but reacting, responding and communicating”. I can’t compare my knowledge of causality with your bit of whimsy unless you tether it to something more substantial.

For example: you write of things being “essentially separated” - but this remains a meaningless concept unless you put it into context. To provide meaning, you’ll have to describe what you think it means in detail. You could do this by using examples of particular things (like a chair, or a flower) and show how these things being “essentially separate” “react, respond and communicate” with one another. This way you'll be able to show how your idea is the timeless and never changing basis of all existence.

Again more good answers, as well as questions, have they left you speechless my hairy friend! :)
How you can just let this lie there I don't understand.
To summarize, Sue, you say (forgive me) all is connected so there is no real separation so there are no things, no me, no you, each of us is actually the same totality (by the way I think I missed the proof) and this view/understanding supercedes all views, such as Laird's suggestion that perhaps a more ultimate view is that all things are seperate as they appear and react together like billiard balls.
Which brings us to the present point, above, where Sue seems to be saying she requires more information about Laird's view in order to prove or better support the higher truth of her own.

I'm not sure whether Laird considers this response a cop-out, simply not worthy of his time, or as I hint to above, an unexpected fantastic answer.

[Unidian]

You might want to rethink that response as it kind of makes Dave's point (unless you are being entirely satirical). Sitting around bum-like doing nothing - commendable as it may be - has nothing to do with "doing nothing".

It doesn't?

Doing nothing is doing nothing. I could work my ass off while doing nothing, but I prefer not to, because sitting here doing nothing is easier. Of all the various nothings I could do, nothing seems preferable to nothing much.

Granted, being a bum is just being a bum. But many bums are Taoists in disguise.

[David Quinn]

Hahaha... the woman will fall on the floor laughing when she reads that the art of doing nothing is "utterly beyond my capacity." That is one fine art which I am not afraid to pronounce myself a master of, and all who actually know me will line up to concur (much to their chagrin). :)

The trouble is, if you were really "doing nothing", she would be horrified at the dangers you would present at every turn.

As for being "already there," don't worry about it. As you've made quite clear, it's no place you're interested in. Zen master Lin-Chi says that here, Buddhas are "filth in the latrine." You're not interested in that.

I don't share your obsession with toilets, no.

Buddhas are also in the words we speak and the concepts we think. Yet there you are, day after day, busily trying to wipe them away with a toilet brush. And you say you are doing nothing!

It is a sincere claim, and yet it is employed with humour. We are both fully aware that it doesn't really mean anything.

I like it because it blows away all the false humility which bogs down the generic spiritual industry. It clears the air. Straight away, whole reams of egotistical game-playing disappear.

Then why has the entire history of your efforts been characterized by "egotistical game-playing" from every side?

You can't claim to be attacking people's ego and simultaneously claim that ego-dynamics "disappear." That's having the cake and eating it too.

I didn't say that all ego-dynamics disappear. Only those tiresome double-faced ones involving humility, which have a habit of papering over everything that is important. It enables discussion to become more open and direct. Any subsequent ego game-playing that goes on becomes more visible. It is no longer hiding away pretending to be something it isn't

When one proclaims themselves wise, as you know, the egos of the audience go into immediate overdrive, thinking "how dare that guy put himself above me?"

Yes, all sorts of interesting things come to the surface. One of the biggest ones is people's sheer reluctance to confront the possibility of actually understanding reality directly, without compromise, and without the need to put on a show. From my experience, that frightens the life out of people.

-

[RobertGreenSky]

So why is an intelligent bloke like Dave Toast disgusted with your antics, then?

Oh and Baby Jesus is crying too. Do you really pass that off as intelligent answer? We don't stoop to that level; why do you?

I'm confused, what level is that, exactly?

Why Dan I just can't believe you're confused on that. David was attempting to substantiate criticism of Nat's behaviour by 'merely labeling' Mr. Toast 'an intelligent bloke' and without really substantiating the criticism. Have you really never seen such a thing? HERE?????? Oh come on now Dan. But then perhaps you are confused since earlier you did try to write as if you were beyond it all, and perhaps that is one of the things - perhaps quibbling also - you are just ever so far beyond.

[Unidian]

The trouble is, if you were really "doing nothing", she would be horrified at the dangers you would present at every turn.

How do you know she isn't? Your assumptions blind you to reality (once again). Just because I reject most of your claims does not mean I am involved in this animal-level mentality you foolishly attribute to me. In reality, I'm very outspoken in the home in regard to matters of principle, integrity, philosophical development, etc. In fact, I'd bet $100 cash I've met more actual resistance from women in one year than you have in your entire life. Unlike you, I don't just pretend to be "a thinker" on the Internet in order to cultivate a pleasing self-image. I live the whole deal day in and day out, for better or worse - and in terms of my home life, it's almost always on the "worse" side.

The difference between you and I is that I'm unwilling to turn against an entire gender just because one or more of its members are opposed to my ideas.

Buddhas are also in the words we speak and the concepts we think. Yet there you are, day after day, busily trying to wipe them away with a toilet brush. And you say you are doing nothing!

Oh dear, have I been trying to wipe you away, O Buddha?

If you were a Buddha you couldn't possibly care what efforts I was making to do anything.

Yes, all sorts of interesting things come to the surface. One of the biggest ones is people's sheer reluctance to confront the possibility of actually understanding reality directly, without compromise, and without the need to put on a show. From my experience, that frightens the life out of people.

I doubt it, because it's an impossibility. You can't "understand reality directly" because understanding is always secondary to experience. For someone who wrote an entire book about cause and effect, you seem to make some ghastly boo-boos. Experience is the cause of any thought - whether that experience is direct awareness or of a preceding thought.

And this includes the thought of "direct awareness" or "direct experience," etc. These thoughts and concepts are secondary to the experience they point to. An understanding, at least by any sensible definition such as that of the dictionary, is a conceptual structure consisting of thoughts. No "understanding" substitutes for what underlies all understandings. And if by "an understanding" you mean something that is in fact NOT an understanding in any meaningful sense, then you should give up the whole pretense - but you won't because only by having "an understanding" can you prop up the idea that you are someone special. Direct experience of reality allows for no such boasting.

[Laird]

[quotes rearranged]

Again more good answers, as well as questions, have they left you speechless my hairy friend! :)
How you can just let this lie there I don't understand.
[...]
I'm not sure whether Laird considers this response a cop-out, simply not worthy of his time, or as I hint to above, an unexpected fantastic answer.

I'm sorry spelnxpert, I know that you're interested in this subject (as am I) and I should have answered this the first time. To be honest, I can't remember why I didn't. Perhaps I was still injured, or perhaps I postponed it and forgot about it. Anyway, here's my thorough response.

How do you know that it's not even more correct to view things as essentially separate but reacting, responding and communicating with one another?

It is impossible to answer your question because you provide no basis to your idea of things being “essentially separate but reacting, responding and communicating”. I can’t compare my knowledge of causality with your bit of whimsy unless you tether it to something more substantial.

For example: you write of things being “essentially separated” - but this remains a meaningless concept unless you put it into context. To provide meaning, you’ll have to describe what you think it means in detail. You could do this by using examples of particular things (like a chair, or a flower) and show how these things being “essentially separate” “react, respond and communicate” with one another. This way you'll be able to show how your idea is the timeless and never changing basis of all existence.

Let me explain using the example of a cupboard then. Let's assume that the cupboard is primarily made of wood. Wood is a material with an entirely different chemical nature than the air and carpet against which the cupboard rests, so it's fair to say that the cupboard is essentially a separate thing. We might quibble as to whether, when the door is closed, the cupboard comprises also of the empty space (air) inside, but this is a minor distraction: the way in which we conceptualise a thing is in some sense open, but it's not completely arbitrary. For our purposes let's define that the air inside the cupboard is not in fact a part of the cupboard (in keeping with our notion that it is primarily the different chemical composition of the wood that determines the separateness of the cupboard).

Now all things can be broken down further, possibly without limit or possibly into an ultimate quanta - I don't know the science well enough and I'm not even sure that science has a final answer on this question anyhow. So let's examine more closely: the cupboard has doors attached with metal hinges. Again, the metal hinges are of an entirely different chemical nature than the wooden doors, so we can easily describe both the doors and the hinges as separate things. The hinges allow the doors to swing upon and shut; the doors will stop moving inwards once they are fully shut and won't swing open more than the limit imposed by the hinges: in this way we can say that the doors react and respond to force in the broader context of the cupboard and that the hinges "communicate" the limits of their behaviour to the doors.

So whilst there is some scope for defining boundaries (is the air inside the cupboard a part of it or not?), mostly it is chemical composition or phase (gas, liquid, solid) that points us to the essential things, which can in turn be broken down as far as is useful to us - grains in the wood; chemical compounds; atoms; etc.

Sue, spelnxpert - over to you.

[Nick]

In truth, the art of doing nothing is utterly beyond your capacity at the moment. This won't change until you cease believing that you're already "there".

Hahaha... the woman will fall on the floor laughing when she reads that the art of doing nothing is "utterly beyond my capacity." That is one fine art which I am not afraid to pronounce myself a master of, and all who actually know me will line up to concur (much to their chagrin). :)

The funny thing is, the woman, is the reason you find it so easy to be lethargic. If you didn't have her you would be out and about, probably joining yoga classes or something along those lines, hoping to find another wife.

[RobertGreenSky]

Good words, such as those by Nagarjuna, can help point the mind in the direction of nirvana and help break down its delusions. That was why he wrote them.

Mr. Quinn,

Has your understanding of Nagarjuna changed since the time of the Larkin Debate? If so, how has it been modified?

It hasn't changed too much. I still agree with everything I said in that debate. My understanding has deepened, though.

-

Another question before returning to the thread: Noting that you affirmed everything you said in the debate, there were a number of interesting characterizations of your opponent (and others). Do you maintain that those characterizations were accurate and that they remain accurate? Do you affirm absolutely everything you wrote in the debate thread? I'm sure you can understand why the opponent might be prompted to enquire.

[Unidian]

Shut up Hitler! You killed Socrates and Jesus!

[RobertGreenSky]

If most of us had been reduced to arguing our debate opponent was much like Hitler and that there was a certain class of individuals, the Opponent Type, individuals so despicable they were the type of individuals who killed Socrates and Jesus, then we'd understand and admit, at least to ourselves, that we would only do such a thing if we were getting the living shit kicked out of us. Only then would we resort to such desperate and libelous tactics, that is if we were sufficiently impoverished of character to allow it. Ironically, I myself, despite having once been assigned to the Opponent Type, have never once done such a thing. Of David Quinn and myself, one might suspect it would have been me, a member of the Opponent Type, who would have done such a thing, yet it was Quinn! Is there a lesson available in it?