Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Post by Iolaus »

Elizabeth
That can only come from God, and God's wisdom includes the soul.
Jamesh - I presume you mean God as in Nature. Nature has no directive wisdom, it has no overall wisdom.
and
Perhaps you were indirectly indicating that wisdom comes only from experiencing nature, which is true,
See Elizabeth how you are being every so gently and firmly scolded and guided back to the fold. This is a dismal religion they are promoting here. We mustn't let ourselves have any real hope of transcendence, or imagine that there is any more to the mind of God than intentionless chemical interactions.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

To those who use the word God in reference to the Totality.
See Elizabeth how you are being every so gently and firmly scolded and guided back to the fold. This is a dismal religion they are promoting here. We mustn't let ourselves have any real hope of transcendence, or imagine that there is any more to the mind of God than intentionless chemical interactions.
God I hate people here using the word God. You see what comes of it - people go back to what they were taught when young, namely that God is like a being that has a mind and that God is somehow superior to us. Neither of which is true.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

clyde wrote:Since "To [your] understanding, all that is, is God," how are you going to control the Totality? Doesn't that sound delusional?
When you twist words like that, yes it does. Are you saying it is impossible to control one's emotions? Not having free will does not negate control. When you drive your car, hopefully you have your car under control. That does not mean that you personally guide each piston, direct how well the fuel injectors work, rotate each of the belts, etc. - and you do not have control over whether the molecules hold together or gravity keeps the car on the road - yet generally you are in control of where the car goes, how fast it goes there - so indirectly by pressing the accelerator you are controlling how much fuel goes through the fuel injectors, etc. You are a part of the chain of causality. If another car runs into your car and spins your car around 4 or 5 times, during that time, you are no longer in control of your car.

Yes on the ultimate level, you are God, the fuel is God, the fuel injector is God, so ultimately only God is controlling God. God would also be the other car, so in that case, even when your car is spinning around, God is in control.

If you were driving and suddenly decided you were not in control of your car anyway, so you might as well take a nap, the car would likely crash. Doesn't that sound like far more delusional behavior than controlling one's own emotions?
Iolaus wrote:See Elizabeth how you are being every so gently and firmly scolded and guided back to the fold.
James? Gentle? You have been gone a long time, haven't you? If James was going to scold me, he'd do so upside my head. James knows that I have meant the Totality when I have referenced God for the last 20 years, even though I had not encountered the term Totality until I got here. I do generally prefer that name, but sometimes the meaning is clearer when I use other names.
.
clyde
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:04 pm

Post by clyde »

Elizabeth;

My intention was not to “twist words”, but to point to the impossibility to control one’s emotions. I agree with your analysis and would add that our awareness and choices have some effect (not control) on our emotions.

clyde
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Post by Iolaus »

James-
God I hate people here using the word God. You see what comes of it - people go back to what they were taught when young, namely that God is like a being that has a mind and that God is somehow superior to us. Neither of which is true.
Ah, well, then, it is great you know the true nature of God.

Eliza, Isa, Bell,
James knows that I have meant the Totality when I have referenced God for the last 20 years,
I certainly think God is the Totality, but what,really, at bottom, is the Totality, what are its secrets?

So anyway you indicated you were here years ago - who were you back then? I thought you were young...
but sometimes the meaning is clearer when I use other names.
Yeah, funny that. Now if we say
Of course the wisdom is quality material; it would have to be for people to be willing to pay their souls for it - but it is not the highest quality material. That can only come from nature, and nature's wisdom includes the soul.
it doesn't quite pack the same punch.

Everyone, I tell you, hides from God and religion is one of the best ways. Keep God in the box of your own understanding, allow God to have only that and no more than you can endure, for our God is a consuming fire...
Truth is a pathless land.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Iolaus wrote: I certainly think God is the Totality, but what,really, at bottom, is the Totality, what are its secrets?
That's more than would fit in one post.
Iolaus wrote:So anyway you indicated you were here years ago - who were you back then? I thought you were young...
I'm 37. When GF was on the ezboard network, I was registered under wannabealot. My first thread asked if world peace was possible - that thread got lost in the ezboard crash. There are still a couple of my posts as wannabealot back on the oldest page.
Iolaus wrote:
but sometimes the meaning is clearer when I use other names.
Yeah, funny that. Now if we say
Of course the wisdom is quality material; it would have to be for people to be willing to pay their souls for it - but it is not the highest quality material. That can only come from nature, and nature's wisdom includes the soul.
it doesn't quite pack the same punch.
Well, with a capital N it would say the same thing - but since I was using the Christian story of Lucifer, it made the most sense to use the term God.
.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re:

Post by Jason »

David,
David Quinn: A thing always has the capacity to be mentally divided into parts.

So even though to you, in a particular moment, a thing might appear as a unity, another person could easily come along and conceive of it as having parts.

Jason: The existence of other people's consciousness, let alone the contents of their consciousness, is uncertain.

DQ: That's true, but not relevant to this issue. It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical observer mentally breaking the thing into parts. The key point is that a thing has the capacity to be mentally split into parts at any time.
So this "proof" of yours consists entirely of imaginings and hypotheticals. I think that's an exceedingly weak proof indeed, so weak in fact that we can safely ignore it. But if that is the type of proof you think is relevant I've got a humdinger for you:

"It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical Jason being faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. The key point is that Jason has the capacity to be Superman at any time."
DQ: I'm not denying the appearance of boundaries in our moment-to-moment experiences. Indeed, it is only through the appearance of boundaries that consciousness can operate and we can distinguish anything at all. But nonetheless, these apparent boundaries only find their existence in the moment of their appearing to us. They aren't really "out there" in the world. They are simply a product of our conceptual frameworks.

J: Yes all we have is momentary appearance, that being the case, if boundaries exist in the moment then they are the very bedrock of what reality is. I find that your philosophy and book in general repeatedly try to cast boundaries in a light that suggests that they are unreal, imaginary, delusional, projected and so on, and I think that's one of the dominant and fundamental flaws with your ideas and/or your teaching style/arguments.

DQ: Maybe we are at cross-purposes here. I agree with you that in a particular moment the boundaries that we experience form the bedrock of reality. But this doesn't conflict with idea that boundaries are imaginary projections.
Again, projected onto or over what? This is one of the core and recurring problems I see with your arguments in this tread. If you can address this we might make some real progress.
J: Secondly, reality includes within it the mind, and if we take your belief that the mind creates boundaries, then reality must also therefore include the boundaries that the mind creates.

DQ: Yes, so when I say that there are no boundaries in reality, I am meaning it in the sense that there are no boundaries outside of what our minds "choose" to project onto reality at any given moment.

J: If there is nothing but/beyond/behind direct appearances of the moment, then why use the words "project onto reality"? That gives the impression that there is something beyond that can be projected onto. It suggests that appearances and boundaries are less real, because they are projected over real reality.

DQ: It helps people break free of the idea that things inherently or objectively exist.
So this argument of yours about "projecting" boundaries onto reality is not actually truth, it's just a teaching method? A technique you use to mold peoples minds into the shape you want, despite the fact you know it is ultimately false? Isn't it kind of dishonest to try discuss truth on a philosophy forum knowingly using false ideas presented as truth? How can I make progress with this discussion if you are going to do that?
DQ: If a person can see that all beginnings and ends in nature are illusory, then he is a position to understand the interconnectedness of all things - or better yet, the formless nature of all things.


Riiiight. So is this just more teaching? Any understanding a person gets from a misleading teaching argument would be baseless, with no foundation of truth.

Anyway, saying I play along with what you wrote: you agreed before, boundaries make up the very bedrock of reality, yet you also believe we should see all beginnings and ends as "illusory"? Wanna tell me how that works?
DQ: When a person realizes, for example, that the boundaries of his own self have no more substance than the lines of longitude and latitude that we project onto the earth, then that can be a powerful, life-changing insight.
Is that a truth, or a fundamentally false "intermediate" truth/teaching-method? If it is anything but a truth, you also might want to consider exactly what the great value is in having a life-changing insight that is based on falsity.

What is real, ultimately, is just what is. If the self happens to exist then the self is ultimately real, if the self doesn't happen to exist then that is what is ultimately real. Yet you want to push this idea that not having a self is somehow more real and true.
J: Third, pure direct experience at this exact moment shows that there is no lack of boundaries - this is beyond doubt.

DQ: Yes, the appearances of each moment are undeniable.

J: Agreed, so why imagine(or phrase ideas like) there is some reality that is beyond our perception of momentary apperance, upon which we "project" boundaries?

DQ: Because the average person locked within the conventional mindset, still being spellbound by the idea that the physical world objectively exists, will have more chance grasping the intermediate truths that I phrase. In Buddhism, these intermediate truths are called "relative truths". They are truths which, while ultimately false, deal effectively with the issues that are being grappled by those who are still lost within gross delusion.


What you propose is to replace this conventional mindset with false truths. But I don't want to get bogged down in critiquing your teaching methods at the moment. The perhaps bigger probem is that you seem to have actually used these false intermediate truths, such as "we project boundaries onto reality", to form central aspects and foundations of your final philosophical conclusions, which has then led to the serious errors and flaws in your so-called enlightenment.
DQ: Another example of a relative truth is, "All things are created by the mind." While this is false from the ultimate perspective, it nevertheless has the capacity to help people break free of their attachment to materialism and objective existence. Another example of a relative truth is, "There is only momentary appearance".


I find with this discussion that as I press you on each of your "intermediate" teachings, and you in turn relinquish each subsequent intermediate teaching as just a teaching tool which is actually false, you incrementally lose the foundations that form your final realization. So the final realization is false because of its rotten foundations.

I started this thread because I was having little success in engaging you in arguments against your philosophical ideas at the higher levels of realization. The difficulties apparently arose, according to you, because I must have misunderstood some of your more fundamental points that supported your final conclusions. But now I come down to engage at the more basic levels and I find you agreeing with me that your intermediate teachings do, under closer scrutiny, fail and are false. So it leaves me wondering what substance or foundation there is, if any, supporting your final realizations.
DQ: The fact that boundaries can change from moment to moment is proof enough that they are mentally-created.

J: If that's sufficient proof, then you have certainly set a low bar for proof in this particular instance.

DQ: How would you account for the fact that the same physical object can have different boundaries, depending on how you look at it?


I'm not sure there is even any need in serious philosophy to "account"(in the way you seem to propose) for this in the first place. No more need than say figuring out why the sky is blue, or why water runs downhill.

In the end it doesn't even really matter if we were to accept that the mind creates boundaries. You think that by asserting that the mind creates boundaries that it somehow weakens boundaries, but that is not the case. The stuff of mind is no less real than anything else. You are playing on the commonly held belief that there is some objective universal substrate existing beyond the mind and senses, and that the subjective mind projects delusionary and false boundaries onto this substrate, and that you are here to remove those delusions and errors and uncover the objective univeral substrate. But you know as well as I do that there is no beyond mind, no beyond appearance. Mindstuff and boundaries, related or not, are as solid as a rock, they are as real and as fundamental and true parts of reality as anything else.
DQ: Where a thing's boundaries are imagined to exist is dependent upon how one conceives of the thing in question.

J: If boundaries are absolutely certain and undeniable appearances, it is ridiculous then to say they are "imagined". Imagined compared to what? There is nothing imagined because there is no alternative, there is no hidden "non-imaginary" reality beyond these so called "imagined" boundaries.

DQ: Are you denying that the mind plays a role in shaping what we experience in each moment?


It's amazing how many words you have in your arsenal to push the idea that beyond our minds there is something that is objective, and that we are overlaying and projecting onto this hidden reality. The mind doesn't "shape" reality, because that suggests, yet again, that there might be something beyond our minds that we are shaping. If I were to say what relationship mind has with experience, I would say: the mind is part of experience.

J: So your proof is invalidated then. My very point was that part of your argument in your last post was based on the use of something resembling the scientific method, which went something like this:
1. The last fifty times my perspective changed, boundaries changed also.
2. There must be a link.
3. I'll assume therefore that boundaries are caused by perspective.

DQ: As I say, empirical experiences can suggest truths, but it is only later with logic and infinite understanding that these truths can be proven or disproven in an absolute sense.
That's another one of your arguments/teaching methods dispensed with then.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by David Quinn »

Jason,
David Quinn: A thing always has the capacity to be mentally divided into parts.

So even though to you, in a particular moment, a thing might appear as a unity, another person could easily come along and conceive of it as having parts.

Jason: The existence of other people's consciousness, let alone the contents of their consciousness, is uncertain.

DQ: That's true, but not relevant to this issue. It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical observer mentally breaking the thing into parts. The key point is that a thing has the capacity to be mentally split into parts at any time.

Jason: So this "proof" of yours consists entirely of imaginings and hypotheticals. I think that's an exceedingly weak proof indeed, so weak in fact that we can safely ignore it.
There is nothing hypothetical about it. I can mentally split up any object at will. Can't you?

But if that is the type of proof you think is relevant I've got a humdinger for you:

"It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical Jason being faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. The key point is that Jason has the capacity to be Superman at any time."
He does have that capacity, if the conditions are ripe.

J: If there is nothing but/beyond/behind direct appearances of the moment, then why use the words "project onto reality"? That gives the impression that there is something beyond that can be projected onto. It suggests that appearances and boundaries are less real, because they are projected over real reality.

DQ: It helps people break free of the idea that things inherently or objectively exist.

Jason: So this argument of yours about "projecting" boundaries onto reality is not actually truth, it's just a teaching method? A technique you use to mold peoples minds into the shape you want, despite the fact you know it is ultimately false? Isn't it kind of dishonest to try discuss truth on a philosophy forum knowingly using false ideas presented as truth?
The conflict you are seeing isn't really there. There is no such thing as truth, other than the overturning of delusion. For example, the truth that "boundaries are projected onto reality" gains its truth from the way it overturns the delusion that boundaries inherently exist within the fabric of a physical world imagined to be objectively existing.

This is how all teaching and all articulation of truth operates. The process of becoming enlightened is one of getting rid of successive delusions, each more subtle than the last, until there are none left. And when that finally happens, the concept of truth no longer has any meaning.

DQ: If a person can see that all beginnings and ends in nature are illusory, then he is a position to understand the interconnectedness of all things - or better yet, the formless nature of all things.

Jason: Riiiight. So is this just more teaching? Any understanding a person gets from a misleading teaching argument would be baseless, with no foundation of truth.
No, these are successive steps that a person has no choice but to take on the path to realizing emptiness.

Anyway, saying I play along with what you wrote: you agreed before, boundaries make up the very bedrock of reality, yet you also believe we should see all beginnings and ends as "illusory"? Wanna tell me how that works?
The truth that "all beginnings and ends are illusory" overturns the delusion that boundaries inherently exist within the fabric of a physical world imagined to be objectively existing, while the more subtle truth that "boundaries are real appearances in the moment" overturns the more subtle delusion that boundaries do not appear to the wise.

In other words, these successive steps re-orientate the mind and allow it to observe the manner in which boundaries are spontaneously created by Nature in each moment. It affirms the reality that boundaries are indeed experienced by the enlightened mind, just as they are by everyone else, and also that these boundaries don't have any other reality than how they are experienced in that moment.

-
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re:

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Iolaus,
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Elizabeth, you don't yet understand the Truth, nor the steps to get there. You are pretending to be far more advanced in your thinking than you really are.
I do not see it that way. I am certainly not pretending anything. If you think I am deluded about my thinking, then address that - but I guarantee you that to my knowledge, I am not pretending.
You are right that there will be no direct confirmation, but they have said before that the truly enlightened don't need confirmation from others. They have also said that the enlightened know how enlightened they are. Kevin did not refute me when I told him that I am more enlightened than he is, and it has been over 24 hours since I refuted David's accusation that I am pretending to be more advanced in my thinking than I am. A lack of refuting is as close to confirmation as any will get from them, and it seems that I have gotten that.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Iolaus »

Kevin did not refute me when I told him that I am more enlightened than he is,
Where was that?
Truth is a pathless land.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

The new search engine sucks, so this could take awhile to find - but I'll find it.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Jamesh »

Kevin did not refute me when I told him that I am more enlightened than he is,
It is not rational to read as much into this as your are, so therefore this alone proves you are not enlightened.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Iolaus - found it. The actual words I used were "more conscious" rather than more enlightened, but the search engine was not even giving me the result just looking for the word "more."

James, I did not claim full enlightenment - I only claimed more than Kevin. Do you refute that?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:A lack of refuting is as close to confirmation as any will get from them, and it seems that I have gotten that.
You need to stop and consider whether this inference is the actual refutation that Kevin didn't bother offering. No need to shoot someone whose holding a gun to their own head :)

[edit: damn, Jimbo got there before me]
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by Kevin Solway »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:A lack of refuting is as close to confirmation as any will get from them, and it seems that I have gotten that.
It could just be that we don't read everything you write.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Re:

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Kevin Solway wrote:It could just be that we don't read everything you write.
Considering that you responded to the post in question, that would explain why some of your responses are so off. A conscious person would at least read what he was responding to. In fact, I said as much in my response to your response after the linked post:
Elizabeth wrote:Obviously, you are not even reading accurately. Let me repeat:
Last edited by Elizabeth Isabelle on Wed May 23, 2007 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Kelly Jones »

I ignore about 90% of what Elizabeth writes.

One would think that such a huge shadow must be cast by something huge ---

But where is it?
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Jamesh »

James, I did not claim full enlightenment - I only claimed more than Kevin. Do you refute that?
Yes, I would. You seem to have far too many psychological issues to be considered enlightened - for example, your reaction to Katy has been most juvenile. You also seemed to be an easily frightened person, not going out for weeks at a time.

Please don't go defending yourself about what I've said here, as that also would be another sign of you being less enlightened.

What you've learnt has not gone into the far reaches of your subconscious, whereas I think it has in Kevin. With you I still sense a feeling that you are repeating the memes of others, that your belief in these memes comes about because others believe them, and I agree with the whoever said that you play the victim game.

I do sometimes think what you say is more accurate than Kevin or David - you make some good posts that are a little undervalued. The problem with Kevin and David is that they tend to stick to the basics in their explanations; they don't often expand things out. Perhaps I am making excuses for them but I think they've been through a lot of what to want to talk about 10 or so years ago, but they didn't get anywhere, they didn't achieve any new certainties, so now they just don't bother to go there.

It is often not so much what they say, as they are not saying that much that is new, but it is their less emotional attitude that makes me think their "way" might be worthwhile, that they are more "enlightened". They seem to be able to cope better than anyone else here [I think Tharan is about the same, but he doesn't post]. I still reject them however because of the promotion of what I see as religiosity, such as the form of Christianity described by folks like Kierkegaard, and what often seems to be delusions of grandeur - it raises doubts about whether they have just become experts in the "acting" role of supreme philosopher.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Well James, thank you for your frankness. I believe what you said is fairly accurate - and I do recognize I still have progress to make in implementation of my thoughts.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Jamesh wrote:It is often not so much what they say, as they are not saying that much that is new, but it is their less emotional attitude that makes me think their "way" might be worthwhile......it raises doubts about whether they have just become experts in the "acting" role of supreme philosopher.
How much calmer would you be if all you had to do was collect unemployment or disability? They say Kevin is no longer on the dole, but we are hearing nothing about what his work conditions are actually like - actually they did not specifically say he was working, just that he was no longer on the dole... and Kevin only once said he got his income in a more traditional method, but we only later found out that he was living with a woman and her children considered Kevin a father - when he said that, he could have been a being supported by the female while he watched the kids... which is a traditional role that one spouse works while the other takes care of the family. We just don't know. A person could pretend to be anything that was within their capacity to pretend to be on the internet. Guys do a lot of pretending in person, too - the guy here the other day to service my air conditioning got a call, and he claimed to be in the office with a client. When he hung up, he explained that his friends don't know what he does for a living.

To the chagrin of many on the board, I have been rather open with my life. OTOH, of these guys who have supposedly dedicated their life to Truth, David has been the most open on the board, and Kevin has been so closed as to come across as actually secretive. None of them have mentioned what they are doing to further their growth - and it even seems to some that they do not view themselves as needing improvement (although even Kevin admitted on the podcast that he is only, at most, 70% enlightened). I've made steps to improve myself, from going back on medication, to recently getting a puppy so I could get more used to random noises and have something to talk to (if you want the dog to behave, you have to tell it what to do). It's also getting me out of the house every week for puppy obedience classes. Leaping right back into interacting with people didn't work out so well, but this is a realistic stepping stone.

As for "playing the victim" - truthfully I have been through a lot more than most people, so it is realistic to take that into account. I am also doing a lot better than most people who have been through even half of what I have. I know that does not grant me any extra credit because we are all products of the whole causality that went into us. Whatever made me strong enough to survive all this is no more to my credit than all the garbage is my fault. Again, I consider being open is for the greater good of understanding. Believe it or not, hearing what I have been through and seeing where I am and how I progress despite it all gives some people strength and hope. As for those who are not strong enough to even hear this - it isn't like this is a captive audience. A person can skip reading anything on a message board.

Please don't take this as me being defensive. I recognize that the above paragraph could be read with a defensive tone, so this is one of those times when I wish actual tone of voice could be transmitted so you would recognize that I am saying all of this merely as a matter of fact.

I also recognize that some people value a closed-up attitude like Kevin's, whereas other people value more openness. Neither Kevin's way nor my way is right for all people.

Again James, thank you for your thoughtful analysis.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Jamesh wrote:It is often not so much what they say, as they are not saying that much that is new, but it is their less emotional attitude that makes me think their "way" might be worthwhile......it raises doubts about whether they have just become experts in the "acting" role of supreme philosopher.
How much calmer would you be if all you had to do was collect unemployment or disability?
What has this got to do with anything? If you think people ordinarily don't experience stress and anxiety etc etc on a low income and having to deal with government bodies and have their lives microscopically scrutinised, you have a false perception of things. A calm person remains calm because of their mentality, not because of their environment.
They say Kevin is no longer on the dole,


Kevin has not been on the dole in a long time afaik. Sometimes he hovers on the financial precipice. What is the import of the issue?
but we are hearing nothing about what his work conditions are actually like - actually they did not specifically say he was working, just that he was no longer on the dole...
Kevin has avoided the dole by making a modest living from his software. This has been the case for a long time. His income varies significantly, but he seems to get by sufficiently to have mostly avoided welfare over the years. That could change at any time. So, Kevin's "work conditions" consist of him programming into the wee hours of the morning, as I've always known him to do.
and Kevin only once said he got his income in a more traditional method, but we only later found out that he was living with a woman and her children considered Kevin a father - when he said that, he could have been a being supported by the female while he watched the kids... which is a traditional role that one spouse works while the other takes care of the family. We just don't know.
Kevin has spoken often enough about those circumstances. He hasn't been in them in years now. He's been busy trying to grow a second head.
A person could pretend to be anything that was within their capacity to pretend to be on the internet.
That's true enough, so why bother asking about his personal and/or work life if you have no intention of actually believing what he says? I could be lying too. If our default position is that the other person is probably or likely lying, then there's nothing to be discussed.
To the chagrin of many on the board, I have been rather open with my life.
So you say. But for all we know it could be all theatre and bullshit, right?
OTOH, of these guys who have supposedly dedicated their life to Truth, David has been the most open on the board, and Kevin has been so closed as to come across as actually secretive.
Perhaps he doesn't see relevance in the same sort of information that you do. And you have an slight penchant for seeing things that aren't there. You may like to also consider that having to reveal the details of your life to every "new" person who comes along can get seriously tedious (remember we've been doing this for 10 years now). I can tell you that we've all had to do it so many times over the years that it is, indeed, very tedious to have to keep doing it. It would require a very cogent point to cause me to go over stuff like that again.
None of them have mentioned what they are doing to further their growth - and it even seems to some that they do not view themselves as needing improvement (although even Kevin admitted on the podcast that he is only, at most, 70% enlightened).
There's not much to tell on that front. I think it's fair for me to say that we just quietly go about trying to bring our understanding into every minute of our lives. I think we're past all the various contrivances that one might employ in earlier stages of development (which is not to deny the utility of such things).
I also recognize that some people value a closed-up attitude like Kevin's, whereas other people value more openness. Neither Kevin's way nor my way is right for all people.
There's nothing especially "closed-up" about Kevin's attitude. If he sees value in speaking about his personal life and if he sees the questioner as asking for sincere and meaningful reasons, he has always been willing to address things.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Jamesh wrote:It is often not so much what they say, as they are not saying that much that is new, but it is their less emotional attitude that makes me think their "way" might be worthwhile......it raises doubts about whether they have just become experts in the "acting" role of supreme philosopher.
How much calmer would you be if all you had to do was collect unemployment or disability?
What has this got to do with anything?
Everything. There is a world of difference between one who is serene under difficult circumstances, and one who is serene without external stress.
Dan Rowden wrote: If you think people ordinarily don't experience stress and anxiety etc etc on a low income and having to deal with government bodies and have their lives microscopically scrutinised, you have a false perception of things.
I acknowledge that life is stressful for everyone, but different situations lead to different kinds of stress - and different people are more adept to one kind of stress, and others are more adept to another. James says he looks to you because of your calmness, but he still works a traditional job, and you ditched that years ago. My question was to James about what kind of a difference living like you would make on him and his demeanor. You look irritated at just the question.
Dan Rowden wrote: A calm person remains calm because of their mentality, not because of their environment.
To an extent, I agree - but some environments contribute to calmness whereas others do not.
Dan Rowden wrote:
They say Kevin is no longer on the dole,


Kevin has not been on the dole in a long time afaik. Sometimes he hovers on the financial precipice. What is the import of the issue?
If that is true, then I have more respect for him. What i respect most about him is that of the 3 of you, he does have the calmest demeanor. If he is maintaining that calmness under the circumstance of a high pressure job, then that calmness is of a higher quality than calmness displayed by someone who has a good support system under him.
Dan Rowden wrote:
but we are hearing nothing about what his work conditions are actually like - actually they did not specifically say he was working, just that he was no longer on the dole...
Kevin has avoided the dole by making a modest living from his software. This has been the case for a long time. His income varies significantly, but he seems to get by sufficiently to have mostly avoided welfare over the years. That could change at any time. So, Kevin's "work conditions" consist of him programming into the wee hours of the morning, as I've always known him to do.
and Kevin only once said he got his income in a more traditional method, but we only later found out that he was living with a woman and her children considered Kevin a father - when he said that, he could have been a being supported by the female while he watched the kids... which is a traditional role that one spouse works while the other takes care of the family. We just don't know.
Kevin has spoken often enough about those circumstances. He hasn't been in them in years now. He's been busy trying to grow a second head.
Uh, what?
Dan Rowden wrote:
A person could pretend to be anything that was within their capacity to pretend to be on the internet.
That's true enough, so why bother asking about his personal and/or work life if you have no intention of actually believing what he says?
I did not say that. I merely noted that he has avoided these questions and not been very forthcoming.
Dan Rowden wrote: I could be lying too. If our default position is that the other person is probably or likely lying, then there's nothing to be discussed.
You could be, but over the past 9 months, I have come to believe that you are truthful.
Dan Rowden wrote:
To the chagrin of many on the board, I have been rather open with my life.
So you say. But for all we know it could be all theatre and bullshit, right?
And that is why I have always been careful to back up as much of what I say as possible.
Dan Rowden wrote:
OTOH, of these guys who have supposedly dedicated their life to Truth, David has been the most open on the board, and Kevin has been so closed as to come across as actually secretive.
Perhaps he doesn't see relevance in the same sort of information that you do.
Yes, and that is part of what I meant by "Neither Kevin's way nor my way is right for all people."
Dan Rowden wrote: And you have an slight penchant for seeing things that aren't there.
Kind of like you seem to be doing on this thread? You have taken my statements regarding lack of disclosure by Kevin and partial disclosure of Kevin by you and David (IMO, if Kevin wanted these things said, he would have said them himself), and reinterpreted it. Furthermore, Kevin does not need your defense, and is quite capable of speaking for himself. Another thing that I respect about Kevin is that he is the only one of the 3 of you who only speaks for himself. Both you and David have spoken for Kevin, but Kevin allows both of you to speak for yourselves.

You are frequently coming to the rescue of Kevin and David, as well as speaking for them. I wasn't here long before sleuthing out that the 3 of you have some differing views and differing opinions despite this being called the QRS philosophy. yet you seem to be the QRS spokesman - and this speech sounds like it has some angry emotion in it.
Jamesh wrote: It is often not so much what they say, as they are not saying that much that is new, but it is their less emotional attitude that makes me think their "way" might be worthwhile
Although Kevin is excellent at appearing calm, both you (Dan) and David have had instances of showing a short temper - yet people get selective amnesia about your emotional way of putting some things, but memory like proverbial elephants for anyone else who makes a less-than-bland statement. I think that is interesting.
Dan Rowden wrote: You may like to also consider that having to reveal the details of your life to every "new" person who comes along can get seriously tedious (remember we've been doing this for 10 years now). I can tell you that we've all had to do it so many times over the years that it is, indeed, very tedious to have to keep doing it. It would require a very cogent point to cause me to go over stuff like that again.
This isn't for your therapy, this is because you are holding yourselves up as role models. If you were just giving bits and pieces of guidance, that would also be different - but you are advocating a lifestyle while hiding your own life. Can't you see how that would look a bit suspicious?
Dan Rowden wrote:
None of them have mentioned what they are doing to further their growth - and it even seems to some that they do not view themselves as needing improvement (although even Kevin admitted on the podcast that he is only, at most, 70% enlightened).
There's not much to tell on that front. I think it's fair for me to say that we just quietly go about trying to bring our understanding into every minute of our lives. I think we're past all the various contrivances that one might employ in earlier stages of development (which is not to deny the utility of such things).
Fair enough.
Dan Rowden wrote:
I also recognize that some people value a closed-up attitude like Kevin's, whereas other people value more openness. Neither Kevin's way nor my way is right for all people.
There's nothing especially "closed-up" about Kevin's attitude. If he sees value in speaking about his personal life and if he sees the questioner as asking for sincere and meaningful reasons, he has always been willing to address things.
I guess that is just one of those differing perspectives.
.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Kevin Solway »

Elizabeth, you are making life far too complicated for yourself if you are worried about what other people are doing, and whether or not they are being forthcoming, etc.

Life is difficult enough if you just try to sort out your own problems.

That should be your number one priority. It makes no difference what other people do or do not do.

For all you know, all other people could be frauds. So just assume that all other people are frauds, and sort out your own life. That's the only thing you can know for sure.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Pye »

Kevin writes:
Elizabeth, you are making life far too complicated for yourself if you are worried about what other people are doing, and whether or not they are being forthcoming, etc.
Life is difficult enough if you just try to sort out your own problems.
That should be your number one priority. It makes no difference what other people do or do not do.
For all you know, all other people could be frauds. So just assume that all other people are frauds, and sort out your own life. That's the only thing you can know for sure.
This is finally some true wisdom from you Kevin: timely, fluid, bright, for the exact moment; for the exact person; for the right reasons. It's the difference between teaching and teachings. The world's awash in the latter, and impoverished of the former.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

Post by Jason »

David,
David Quinn: A thing always has the capacity to be mentally divided into parts.

So even though to you, in a particular moment, a thing might appear as a unity, another person could easily come along and conceive of it as having parts.

Jason: The existence of other people's consciousness, let alone the contents of their consciousness, is uncertain.

DQ: That's true, but not relevant to this issue. It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical observer mentally breaking the thing into parts. The key point is that a thing has the capacity to be mentally split into parts at any time.

J: So this "proof" of yours consists entirely of imaginings and hypotheticals. I think that's an exceedingly weak proof indeed, so weak in fact that we can safely ignore it.

DQ: There is nothing hypothetical about it.
Look at what I was responding to David, you plainly said it was hypothetical, and before that you plainly added the hypothetical slant to your argument in response to my criticism against the non-hypothetical version of your argument.
DQ: I can mentally split up any object at will. Can't you?
Depends, for one thing I'm still not convinced that it can be proven beyond doubt that splitting of objects is done by the mind. Let me give you some examples why. Imagine a situation in which you hear a voice, but you can't locate the source of it, there appears to be no person or loudspeaker etc anywhere, but yet you continue to hear this voice. Now, could you say for certain that the voice was not simply a product of your imagination? That shows the difficulty in correctly differentiating between what originates in the mind and what doesn't.

Or another example: try to alter or remove a particular boundary that exists in your visual field, say the border that exists between the text and the background on your computer screen. Can you do it? Probably not. What does that say about boundaries? If you think that the ability for some boundaries to change, apparently by the power of mind, is proof that all boundaries are mind created, then what about counter-examples like this?

Another problem I see, and one which you seem to think you addressed, but I don't think you did, is the time aspect. Assuming for arguments sake that I did agree that the mind was responsible for creating bounaries. All I could really say for certain is: I have memories, which are inherently uncertain(alien implanted, drugs, memory lapse whatever), of mentally splitting up objects, and I could use that uncertain memory as a basis to make still more uncertain speculations that my mind could split objects up at some future date.
J: But if that is the type of proof you think is relevant I've got a humdinger for you:

"It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical Jason being faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. The key point is that Jason has the capacity to be Superman at any time."

DQ:He does have that capacity, if the conditions are ripe.
Alright, what about this one(which is a very slightly modified version of what you originally wrote):

"It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical observer not mentally breaking the thing into parts. The key point is that a thing does not have the capacity to be mentally split into parts at any time."

I mean if you reckon hypotheticals are enough proof, then this would seem just as viable as the alternative you offer.
J: If there is nothing but/beyond/behind direct appearances of the moment, then why use the words "project onto reality"? That gives the impression that there is something beyond that can be projected onto. It suggests that appearances and boundaries are less real, because they are projected over real reality.

DQ: It helps people break free of the idea that things inherently or objectively exist.

J: So this argument of yours about "projecting" boundaries onto reality is not actually truth, it's just a teaching method? A technique you use to mold peoples minds into the shape you want, despite the fact you know it is ultimately false? Isn't it kind of dishonest to try discuss truth on a philosophy forum knowingly using false ideas presented as truth?

DQ: The conflict you are seeing isn't really there.
Using something which is not fundamentally true to overcome delusion is like using a belief in the Easter Bunny to overcome belief in Santa Claus.
DQ: There is no such thing as truth, other than the overturning of delusion.
If there is no such thing as truth, then what is delusion?
DQ: For example, the truth that "boundaries are projected onto reality" gains its truth from the way it overturns the delusion that boundaries inherently exist within the fabric of a physical world imagined to be objectively existing.


You seem to be saying that truth is truth simply because it displaces current delusions, not because it accurately reflects reality.
DQ: This is how all teaching and all articulation of truth operates. The process of becoming enlightened is one of getting rid of successive delusions, each more subtle than the last, until there are none left. And when that finally happens, the concept of truth no longer has any meaning.
So why are you continually writing about truth on this forum if the concept of truth has no meaning?

-

You didn't answer one of my questions from the last post, and I'd really like you to, I think it could prove to be pivotal for this discussion, so here it is again:
DQ: Maybe we are at cross-purposes here. I agree with you that in a particular moment the boundaries that we experience form the bedrock of reality. But this doesn't conflict with idea that boundaries are imaginary projections.

J: Again, projected onto or over what?
Last edited by Jason on Sun May 27, 2007 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Locked