For Kelly Jones

[Kelly Jones]

Yes, without "argument", there is "towards the man."

[Dennis Mahar]

Kevin,

The only thing that matters is that a person is speaking the truth. It doesn't matter whether a person has a mental illness since people who are mentally ill can still speak the truth.

In conversations truthfulness can be something that uses you rather than you using truth, it's a surrender to truthfulness or a commitment, which is what I think Kelly is saying.
When Kelly is saying it's not personal, I think she means 'truth is using her', that Kelly herself has stepped aside and truth speaks thru' her. Whether it looks brash isn't so much of consequence, rather that Reality is reflected. I would say Kelly, for the most part, reflects Reality and looks brash.

In the same way duplicity can use you, and be revealed as a commitment.

Mastery in a conversation would be surrendering to and being thoroughly used by whatever is the commitment.

[Kelly Jones]

If you say prince is mentally ill and he is not, and you say it in a public forum, which this is, then I would say that is defamation.

Part of Blair's mind is attracted to being nasty. It be defamation if I called that part of him sane. I can't retract what I see as true. That would be wrong.

Everybody has childhood traumas. For a sensitive person, childhood itself can be an ongoing trauma.

Yes, you're right. Perception can create a storm out of a tea-cup. Also, the more conscious and sensitive a person is, the greater their capacity for mental illness (and wisdom), because they experience more intensely. So, if Blair is that sort of person, and I'm not saying he is, then it's doing him a disservice to ignore the crap he expresses so much of the time.

I am pretty sure if prince Blair is mentally ill, then so are most people who reach adulthood. Including you and me.

Most people are mentally ill. It's a wonder they live as long as they do.

This thread was not supposed to be about Blair. You are not a doctor, Kelly, no matter how intelligent you are. Just think how fast this thread would sink if you were to admit an error and watch it drop.

Blair and his defenders made it about him, when he tried to justify his rudeness, by saying he wouldn't be so abhorrently rude if I hadn't at some point during the conversation with Carmel, pointed out that he was psychologically crumbly, and no typical indication of the rejection of feminine-mindedness.

I mean.....Hello!? If that statement about him to Carmel wasn't true, then it'd wash off like water down a duck's back. A psychologically stable, calm, masculine-minded person would never get upset about a false claim about themself. They'd simply refute it with argument. So, his rudeness proved the statement was true. In fact, the more vehement he becomes, the more he proves it. I'm sorry, but it's blatantly obvious that kind of argumentation doesn't signify a sane person.

I've never pretended to be a doctor. You're forgetting that Blair admitted to being deeply affected by certain childhood traumas. Also, you're forgetting - or perhaps you still don't get it - that sanity is judged properly from a metaphysical perspective - at least, that's how I try to see it.


.

[Kelly Jones]

The actual point is how to deal with a person who can't handle rational discussions, but reacts with unwarranted hostility. Ignoring that behaviour seems downright idiotic.

Actually, if a person actually could not handle rational discussions, the best course of action usually is to ignore the behavior because no progress could be made. If the person is unable to handle rational discussions and is causing a significant disturbance, the next level is to remove that person. Any intervention beyond that with a person who is actually unable to handle rationale discussions is best left to professionals in a professional environment.

I haven't been trying to engage Blair in discussion, but for the most part ignore him. But lately, his aggro, largely meaningless responses have been more frequent, and worse perhaps. So I mentioned he should get expert help. When he reacted to that with the vitriol we saw earlier in this thread, I voted in favour that he be asked to leave, so he would be forced to deal with it.

Even if someone does not have a mental illness, they are likely to be antagonized by being called mentally ill.

I don't think so. If someone is stable, they aren't antagonized at all by false labels. It's only when a person does feel they're unstable, and don't trust themselves, that the worry, anger, and angst comes out, because they're trying to defend themselves from something they feel is real.

I think that your underlying thought is that everyone who is not a fully enlightened buddha is mentally ill. Where that as a stand-alone thought is good insight, and actually has more technical accuracy than going around and calling all unenlightened people women, there is a difference between being unenlightened and being mentally ill.

Conventional (diagnosed) mental illness stands out more, because it's unusual by contrast with the widespread, socially-acceptable forms of insanity. It brings to the surface what is often suppressed; typically, the suppression is self-conditioning by a fear of not fitting-in.

The socially-acceptable forms of insanity are probably worse, because of the hypocrisy involved in the pretense and masquerades (e.g. politeness). Regards your belief that it's inaccurate to call all the unenlightened of society women, the things is: society is dominated by Woman's needs. Really and truly. Although Vilar implies women are consciously enslaving everyone (men) to serve their needs, her book is generally right on the mark. Ignorance of reality and feminine-mindedness go hand-in-hand. The feminine-mindedness is the will to untruth, the will to insanity.

Your attack on Blair was not correlative with his behavior, so all that you showed him was that the world is a little uglier than he previously thought, and that the esteem that he had for you was misplaced.

I don't give a rat's fart for the view that people should act better towards those they esteem, or that their worldview looks better through someone else's eyes. Supposing they're dependent on others for their moral choices is animal-speak. And, by Zeus, I couldn't possibly make Blair's outlook any uglier. Go check out his rant on the first page of this thread.

Kelly attempting to refute Alex's proposition that QRS, Kelly, Prince, and others named later are more caustic than promoting of growth by Kelly throwing ad hominems at prince does more to prove Alex's point at least in regards to Kelly than it does to refute it.

I've been accused of hating women just because I use the word misogyny. These accusers then believe themselves justified in letting rip with the nastiest, bleakest, depraved statements about me. Why? Because they can't see a difference between cool, simple, direct, rational critique of the feminine mind's black and nasty corners ---- and being nasty oneself.

That's what was going on with Alex and Carmel. Alex's point (and Carmel's) was that pointing to unconscious behaviour in a direct, simple manner, and calling a spade a spade, is spiritually retarded or retarding. They mistakenly associated vitriol with rejection of vitriol.. They mistakenly associated Blair's vitriol with rejection of the feminine-mind. So all I was doing was to state that Blair's style isn't an example of the rejection of feminine-mindedness. Again, I wasn't really talking about Blair, per se. That's all the point was.

In fact, the last couple of pages of this thread seem to exemplify what Alex said in that same post in regards to you:

Kelly, as is usual and predictable, pours her 'acid' on the Fromm-list, sits back and watches it hiss and bubble and melt. With at least some genuine respect for her I would suggest that, pretty much across the board (no pun intended) this is her favorite activity.

Alex was defending his attachment to Fromm's views, because he agrees with him. He doesn't like to see them criticised. Yet he is happy to criticise and "pour acid" on those who criticise what he loves. So he was being a hypocrite.

You are trying to justify your statements as being for prince's best interest, when clearly that was not your intent at the time.

No, because the topic has changed. The intent then was to show that Blair's vitriol and hate speech had nothing to do with wise misogyny. He wasn't the focus of the topic, and really, he still isn't. The intent now is to look at where it may be appropriate to tackle personal behaviour, and he happens to have been the example for both topics. If he wants to benefit, then that's his choice.

Now you are even calling Carmel mentally ill when you know that she can not even come here and defend her reputation.

This is getting ridiculous, Elizabeth. My analyses of past philosophers, dead philosophers, is public, where I judge them as spiritually dead, insane, ignorant, etc. Are you going to call me out on that too?

I am beginning to suspect that your attachment to appearing right to others, at least in your eyes (meaning you want to think that others think that you are right, whether or not they actually do) may be making you incapable of rational discourse about this topic at this time. I suggest that you devote much of this day to examining your attachment to "being right" before you do work yourself into a state of not being able to handle rational discussions.

If you wish someone to be corrected, then you correct them --- as you are attempting to do with me.

That's all I do with people. But I get called acidic, a know-it-all, spiritually retarded, obsessed with "being right", etc.


.

[Bob Michael]

Most people are mentally ill.

Interesting observation. One which I agree with. What do you think is the root of this human dilemma and the solution to it?

It's a wonder they live as long as they do.

Yes, so-called 'karma' doesn't really seem to work all that well, does it? I think here of the observation of the preacher of long ago: that often the just perish in their righteousness while the wicked often prolong their lives in their wickedness. Actually I take it a step further and observe that often the wicked not only prolong their lives in their wickedness but they also prosper and flourish in their wickedness. Hence it seems clear here that the human species has come to totally usurp the survival of the fittest principle.

[Kelly Jones]

[Musing:] The movements of the mind that wishes to hide itself from understanding show repulsion from a single point: the point of loss of contact with conscience. All these movements seem complicated and detailed, and hence a head for psychological nuances is needed to describe them, and to draw them back to the originating principle.

Unfortunately, that mind, because of its habitual repulsive movements, has blocked out subtleties and complications. It doesn't have a head for detail. This raises the issue of how to communicate consciously with those who can hardly bear to listen.

It becomes more difficult if one wants the truth - and watches carefully the way all the complications manifest - from the motive of being afraid of losing contact with conscience, afraid of being subsumed within the fog of those who find this consciousness torturous. For such a one, the truth-willing consciousness is prioritised over the communication, for the sake of keeping a watch over the way the psychologies manifest, making the details ever-clearer rather than making the principle ever-clearer for the sake of those listening. If this is the case, then the study ought to be mostly private, and only when it has reached its simplest crystallisation should there be an attempt to communicate. Otherwise, one would only fall into disgust for the herd, as in Zarathustra's flight from Pied-Cow into his star-drenched summit cave.

____________________

Conclusion: That's all, folks.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I haven't been trying to engage Blair in discussion, but for the most part ignore him. But lately, his aggro, largely meaningless responses have been more frequent, and worse perhaps.

By lately, do you mean since say, the beginning of December? That's when you posted the ad hominem that he has been riling against in the only way he knew how.

Blair and his defenders made it about him, when he tried to justify his rudeness

Dan insisted that he explain his rudeness. People are fighting against wrong speech against Blair the same way that people in this very same thread fought against wrong speech when it was directed against you. As for justifying rudeness, it is virtually comical how everything that you have said about Blair more accurately describes yourself.

Even if someone does not have a mental illness, they are likely to be antagonized by being called mentally ill.

I don't think so. If someone is stable, they aren't antagonized at all by false labels.

Then why is an ad hominem a formal logical fallacy? And why is defamation of character, libel, illegal when the harm can be proven in the eyes of a court?

I don't give a rat's fart for the view that people should act better towards those they esteem

That isn't what I said. I said that prince thought that you were a far more advanced person than you are. Now he knows better.

I couldn't possibly make Blair's outlook any uglier. Go check out his rant on the first page of this thread.

True that at this point you could not, because you already did that a month and a half before this thread was created.

The intent now is to look at where it may be appropriate to tackle personal behaviour

Attacking personal behavior is appropriate on GF. Attacking the person is not.

I've been accused of hating women just because I use the word misogyny.

Are you sure it was just the use of that word?

These accusers then believe themselves justified in letting rip with the nastiest, bleakest, depraved statements about me. Why? Because they can't see a difference between cool, simple, direct, rational critique of the feminine mind's black and nasty corners ---- and being nasty oneself.

Their nastiness obviously did not teach you not to be nasty to others.

My analyses of past philosophers, dead philosophers, is public, where I judge them as spiritually dead, insane, ignorant, etc. Are you going to call me out on that too?

Good point; I have also been guilty of passing judgement on the dead. Ad hominems are also wrong against the dead (even though the damage may not be as bad because you probably can not hinder the individual's post-mortem growth, though you may hinder the spread of their ideas)- again, when they are ad hominems. There are material differences between ad hominems and analyses.

If you wish someone to be corrected, then you correct them --- as you are attempting to do with me.

That's all I do with people. But I get called acidic, a know-it-all, spiritually retarded, obsessed with "being right", etc.

It isn't so much that you are doing this (at least not on this message board, though in other areas of life it often would be)- it is how. A number of us have been working on the "how" with you on this thread. Hopefully some of this has been useful to you.

[Kelly Jones]

Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy not because criticism upsets fragile people, but because an argument without references to the presenter of the argument cannot be disproven by bringing in that content. It's a category error.

[Kelly Jones]

Now, examine this argument:

"Anyone who criticises women, on the basis that they're irrational, is spiritually retarded. This fact is demonstrated by Blair."

Notice how the argument relies on a personal character assessment as an attempt to prove it.

So, to disprove the argument, one has two options:
1. clarify the terms, to see if the principle itself is sound. (What does spiritual growth mean? Is rationality important to it? Is criticism of irrationality important to it?)
2. examine whether the proof is relevant. In this case, is Blair an excellent example of criticising the irrationality of women?

The second option shows why it is valid to use the ad hominem. From Wiki: "The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue." This page is also interesting.


.

.

[Bob Michael]

Therefore when it comes to matters of truth the question of mental illness should not arise.

You seem more like an apologist for mediocrity or even degeneracy than a Man of the Infinite, Kevin

[Pam Seeback]

Elisabeth: Good point; I have also been guilty of passing judgement on the dead. Ad hominems are also wrong against the dead (even though the damage may not be as bad because you probably can not hinder the individual's post-mortem growth, though you may hinder the spread of their ideas)- again, when they are ad hominems. There are material differences between ad hominems and analyses.

Elisabeth, I have started a new thread based on your thoughts above called "Why existence does not equal appearance."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Attacking personal behavior is appropriate on GF. Attacking the person is not.

And there's so much more to a person than the sum of personal behaviour, caught in some loosely defined array of categories?

C'mon Elizabeth, it's time to admit you're just trying to blab your way out of this but you can't. You're dead wrong about the ad hominem argument and everything else you try to teach Kelly here.

One cannot help but agree with Prince Bellair's rude boyishness: when it comes to it there's often still a lot of woman seeping out of both of you, the pettiness, the obsessive "nurturing", patronising and over-analysing when larger strides would be in order. But at least Kelly is knowledgeable and skilful in how she goes about it. Again this is not about an argument against what is being said here. It's a separate argument being raised about another matter entirely, the question of character in context.

[Blair]

Girls get their knickers in a twist..they are mentally and biologically 'designed' for it. hehe.

[Kelly Jones]

Diebert,

You may believe it's petty, "overnurturing" (whatever that means), and overanalysing, but I believe that since unconsciousness strives to be oblivious to its evasiveness and suppression, that a healthy will to truth will and must drag things into the clear light of day - however difficult and complicated that may be. Evasion is intrinsically tied to fear and despair, while consciousness almost always brings relief. So bringing things to the surface, letting all be seen for what it is, is deeply healing and resolving. Truth is good. Anyway, I find this works: if there's cognitive dissonance and confusion, then in in order to be honest, it needs to be set to rights. One has to know.

The general gist of the complaints against me lately are worth challenging. As my recent thread titled "Animal vs. Spirit: the Necessary Conflict" indicated, I'm not interested in defending myself, but in bringing that unconsciousness and evasiveness from truth to the surface. I'm trying to elucidate that conflict, not for any of the reasons that my accusers present, but because I see an abyss of unconsciousness threatening to drag us down, if we submit to the memes in those accusations.

Those complaints are as follows, and I think the mass of them are all directly tied to the creation of this thread by cousinbasil:

- From Alex and Carmel, there's the accusation that my style/behaviour is negative, destructive, acidic, and spiritually retarding. That is blatantly false, since my project here is as described above: to bring all the crap up to the surface. To dismantle cosy assumptions. I have said it before: I'm a concept auditor.

- From movingalways, there's the complaint that promoting masculinity is deluded. Yet her belief that there is no dualism or reasoning (conceptualism) in Reality is false, moreover, the feminine state of mind where everything is mushed together must be grown out of. She believes any criticism of personhood or character retrogresses one into clinging to delusional identities, but she has not yet realised that all concepts are the real, moreover, she illustrates a feminine-mindedness that fears the conflict.

- From cousinbasil, the argument is that a highly intelligent person who promotes wise misogyny and an-all-encompassing attack against all human illusions, in the way I do, is unreasonable, and indicates monomania (as in a lawyer's semantic cunning), with masochistic tendencies. He sees my behaviour as abnormal, and Carmel and prince's as normal; in other words, he believes that the majority is right. He cannot see the value in the individual's sense of their own destiny, and the earnestness and passion required. This herd-minded complaint I'm sure you could overturn in a second.

- Lastly, Elizabeth's argument is that anyone who uses an ad hominem argument or approach is unskillful in communicating with people. Clearly, there is more to the issue than this superficial point, since: 1. she herself was ready to use that approach in this thread, saying I had psychological issues that I needed to deal with; and, 2. she mentions that likening the unenlightened to women is wrong. So, I suspect that the issue with Elizabeth is the same as all the others. Namely, the inability to see - or rather unwillingness to accept? - the extent of the irrational/unconscious in society and in oneself. Perhaps the best way to summarise that blindness is love of emotion, and consequent hatred of reason with the inevitable grumbles against my attempts to disclose their irrationality.


Kelly

[Blair]

Feel like I've just been sprayed with ovarie juice.

Yeech. get it the fuck off me.

[Kelly Jones]

Can't you do any better than that? You're a great machine for spewing out emotionality, Blair. Thanks for being here. Everyone can benefit by finding out whether they're attracted or repulsed by you.


.

[Kelly Jones]

As a side note, perhaps I'm being unrealistic for expecting people on the Genius forum to present actual arguments and reasoning, given the way society is. But if I am to stop making my demands on others to lift their game, here as elsewhere, then I might as well be a complete recluse. God knows life would be much easier, and more comfortable, for me that way. Like the majority, I too would like to run from the conflict and bed down in some safe hidey-hole. Then I would be popular, but I would also be a liar, and a trampling swine who rips wisdom to shreds.

So what's it to be? Run the gauntlet, throw my pearls before swine and be trampled on? Yes, that's the way of spirit. Be eaten alive? Yes. But if I take this path, I will certainly try to drag others with me, not in friendship but to have them be martyrs also, or else it would all be for nothing. The thing is - are there any who have ears to listen?

[Dennis Mahar]

Kelly,
He could be Zen.
Direct experience, like water is wet, rocks are hard,
that's not battling intelligences constructing uncertain predicates..

Could be needling you..

He won't explain.

be yourself Kelly, it's good.

[Kelly Jones]

Blair's insults aren't remotely Zennish, Dennis. He is a snarling human, who simply enjoys belittling and insulting for its own sake. It's an ego thing: his joy is in the very mediocre level of spinning creative insults. People like him are a dime a dozen. Zagreus, for instance, a real bore, was a thousand times more interesting because he carried on the spirit of the young Nietzsche - and even Alex at that game is better.

If he could actually present an argument, it'd be interesting. He's managed to do that occasionally, and it's good. But it's rare, unfortunately.

His behaviour is a very far cry from the playful wisdom of the Infinite, that contains the mirth of eternity even as it denounces. A very, very, very far cry.

[Blair]

If he could actually present an argument, it'd be interesting.

Do you still not get it? There is nothing to argue about. No debate, nothing.

We are animated balls of grit and sand, rising up to confront each other in delusion.

[Kelly Jones]

Miracle! An argument. Yes, unfortunately, nihilism is an argument, so you've contradicted yourself. You're arguing that everything is meaningless, but you yourself are the one imposing a meaning there. That's what meanings are. That all our ideas are arbitrated purely by ourselves, and that there is no final God giving the absolute foundation or arbitration, and therefore, that there's no point to doing anything, is an immature resolution. That meaning is created by the individual, vis-a-vis the Infinite, is the way it has always been. That doesn't empty meaning out of one's ideas, nor does it make the Infinite sterile and pointless, nor does it make one's own projects and plans futile and ridiculous. If you were looking for some special purpose in your life, some endorsement by a majestic deity, then you've been barking up the wrong tree.


.

[Blair]

MmmK Kelly, you win.

[jupiviv]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but my position on ad-hominem is the following:

The only thing that matters is that a person is speaking the truth. It doesn't matter whether a person has a mental illness since people who are mentally ill can still speak the truth.

Therefore when it comes to matters of truth the question of mental illness should not arise.

If a person is not speaking the truth it might be interesting to speculate on the reasons why they are not speaking the truth, but that kind of speculation should be done privately, unless the person requests otherwise, and the speculation may be entirely misguided.

I was going to make this exact same point, when I saw this post. I wonder why Kelly Jones hasn't responded to it.

The actual point is how to deal with a person who can't handle rational discussions, but reacts with unwarranted hostility. Ignoring that behaviour seems downright idiotic. One has to characterise it, to work out the best way to deal with it.

Why? You can't force anyone to be reasonable about anything, for the same reason that you can't force yourself to be reasonable about anything. If the irrational behaviour of someone is harming you, then you can take measures to defend yourself.

[Kelly Jones]

What happened with your internet access? Did the electricity/ADSL cables freeze or something?

I didn't respond to Kevin's point about the ad hominem because it was a good point, but somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't focus on what to do with someone who, by sheer luck, happens to speak the truth occasionally, but does so with enough bile to drown a Nazi mermaid.

I do think it's possible to influence or stimulate people to be more reasonable, or at least not to be more unreasonable. Sometimes removing the ability to be nasty for a while can be a relief to them, because they can't control themselves.

[Kelly Jones]

MmmK Kelly, you win.

Does that mean you disagree with the reasoning I gave?