Making peace with femininity

[David Quinn]

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.

I thought it was a fair and reasonable assessment of the situation and I stand by it 100%.

Shut up Hitler! You killed Socrates and Jesus!

I did say that Robert was far too timid to be compared to Hitler. Perhaps that is what he objects to?

-

[Unidian]

So he's Hitler, but with no balls. Somehow I doubt that's any better. It's essentially saying "you'd be Hitler if you had any backbone." But that's typical David Quinn - never assume an insult from DQ is any less than the worst it could be.

But Robert does have backbone, in my estimation. It takes a great deal of courage to live without some Ultimate Religious Truth which makes our lives meaningful and worth living. That's why 90% of the world subscribes to such things, you know. Without their various Ultimate crutches to hold them up, the absurdity and irrationality of life is too much for them, and most would do away with themselves hastily if they actually had to face it for any length of time. That's why they are willing to defend their pet beliefs to the death, in many cases. It really is, as Sue once put it, "a matter of life and death," but you're not on the side you think you're on. With your "Ultimate Truth" and "enlightenment" and "Sagehood" and "renouncing the world," you're firmly on the side of the religious 90% who can't live without such things, and have always been found preaching them to the recalcitrant masses since the dawn of history. But rare individuals like Robert are on the other side, the road less traveled, and that (as the poet wrote), has made all the difference.

So, when it comes to "timidity," that term applies to you and the rest of the religious majority, afraid as you are to face life as it is. For that matter, the "Hitler" comparison also fits much more snugly with those who preach various absolutes and dogmas... although I'll leave that alone out of an unwillingness to stoop to that level.

[Dan Rowden]

But Robert does have backbone, in my estimation.

It's only an estimate? I'd concur with that judgement :)

It takes a great deal of courage to live without some Ultimate Religious Truth which makes our lives meaningful and worth living.

No it doesn't, not if you have an understanding of how reality is; I thought you and Robert possessed such.

That's why 90% of the world subscribes to such things, you know. Without their various Ultimate crutches to hold them up, the absurdity and irrationality of life is too much for them, and most would do away with themselves hastily if they actually had to face it for any length of time.

100% blather. "Life" is neither absurd or irrational. You'd think a Daoist would appreciate this. If Robert goes around battling the heady demons of the irrationality and absurdity of life then he's an ignorant tool. I know you were just trying to score points with that post but it's pretty lame.

[David Quinn]

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.

Of course. I'm sure that toilet brush is very threatening. Not to mention the sticky bun!

Domesticating the infinite and turning it into bathroom appliances and sweet food would surely horrify most women.

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.

Nor am I. It is a particular mentality and set of values that I oppose, one shared by nearly all women, and many men.

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?

I was referring to your constant attempt to emasculate thought, as though you were afraid that it might take something from you.

A Buddha is just as conscious of the infinite while conceptualizing as he is doing anything else.

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

What do you make of the Buddha's attempt to teach others about the path and remonstrate against deluded behaviour?

DQ: 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.

You're trying to have it both ways here. If a person has a "direct experience" of something and yet doesn't understand it, he has no basis for drawing any conclusions about it, other than he doesn't understand it. He literally hasn't the faintest idea of what he has experienced. However, as soon as he begins concluding things like that it is beyond concepts, that it is the Tao, that it underlies all understanding, etc, then he immediately believes or assumes that he does have at least some understanding of it. Which immediately places him in self-contradiction.

He could escape this contradiction by saying that it is at least partially understandable. But then that would only rob him of the egotistical pleasure and relief in not having to take personal responsibility for his understanding. It is much easier to have the option available of being able throw up one's hands and take flight into the refuge of incomprehension at a moment's notice. It becomes a handy back way out of any accountability demanded upon him.

In my view, any experience that doesn't involve full comprehension cannot be classed as a spiritual attainment. At best, it can be classed as an altered state, which in some cases can echo a little wisdom, but still remains a very lowly attainment, a crumb, compared to the big prize which is on offer.

Perhaps your toilet brush philosophy hinges on the experience of these little crumbs, reinforced by a misreading of Taoist texts?

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.

And yet you are constantly boasting about yourself, in your own surreptitious way. Isn't that so?

-

[Unidian]

Dan,

No it doesn't, not if you have an understanding of how reality is; I thought you and Robert possessed such.

Whether we do or don't, how could such an "understanding" negate the fact that life without the presence of some intellectually-accessible Ultimate Truth requires courage? The human animal survives by making rational sense of things - and above all else, we want to make rational sense of our entire lives and the whole Universe. When we can't, we naturally feel ill-at ease in the world, because the entire thing represents an unknown quantity - which, for an animal which relies on its ability to rationalize things to survive, equates to death. Psychologically speaking, the entire world becomes a death threat. In my view, things like Zen and Taoism are simply about altering our viewpoint in order to cope with this psychological fact and become more comfortable with an inherently irrational (or trans-rational) world.

100% blather. "Life" is neither absurd or irrational. You'd think a Daoist would appreciate this. If Robert goes around battling the heady demons of the irrationality and absurdity of life then he's an ignorant tool. I know you were just trying to score points with that post but it's pretty lame.

You don't "battle" it, you learn to live with it. A Daoist would appreciate this because it's what Daoism is about. "Going with the flow," so to speak - accepting reality as it is instead of allowing our basic psychological fear of irrationality push us into either manufacturing elaborate conceptual frameworks or giving in to the hopeless angst of the existentialists and nihilists. Daoism as I see it, briefly put, is the process of learning to say "yes" to Nature even though Nature says "no" to our fundamental desire for conceptual meaning and rational understanding.

[Unidian]

David,

I was referring to your constant attempt to emasculate thought, as though you were afraid that it might take something from you.

Gimme a break. What else could it take from me? The job or career I already gave up? The money I already gave up? The respect from society I already gave up? The hope for normal human relationships I already gave up? The sense of self-importance I already gave up? The conceptual purpose and meaning in life I already gave up? The free will I already gave up? The soul I already gave up? I don't have much more to lay up on the sacred alter of thought, David.

I don't "emasculate" thought, nor am I the slightest but afraid of it for my own sake. I've already sacrificed everything for thought, and I can't get any of back despite the fact that thought proved itself useless in the end. There are no refunds with this. What's thought can't be un-thought. The only regard in which I fear thought is for the sake of others I care about. Heaven forbid my younger brother becomes a thinker, for example, which he is in danger of doing. He too will lose everything and gain nothing in return, unless perhaps he goes your road and declares himself an enlightened sage. I almost hope he does, because at least then he will get some psychological satisfaction out of being reduced to zero.

Boy howdy David, you really do have no clue where I'm coming from.

A Buddha is just as conscious of the infinite while conceptualizing as he is doing anything else.

I wouldn't know or care anything about "a Buddha."

What do you make of the Buddha's attempt to teach others about the path and remonstrate against deluded behaviour?

Very nice of him. What do you make of my attempt to teach you about your self-delusion and remonstrate against your deluded behavior? Do you, perhaps, think that I haven't got the slightest qualification to do such a thing? If so, good. It might (if a miracle occurs) allow you to catch a glimpse of your own all-pervading self-importance.

You're trying to have it both ways here. If a person has a "direct experience" of something and yet doesn't understand it, he has no basis for drawing any conclusions about it, other than he doesn't understand it. He literally hasn't the faintest idea of what he has experienced.

Precisely. Thus Bodhidharma and Hui-Neng's "don't know."

However, as soon as he begins concluding things like that it is beyond concepts, that it is the Tao, that it underlies all understanding, etc, then he immediately believes or assumes that he does have at least some understanding of it. Which immediately places him in self-contradiction.

No. This is just like saying "atheists assume knowledge of God's non-existence by refusing to believe in God." For a former Big Poobah of the (Australian Atheist Society or whatever it was) to say this is pretty amazing. To say "don't know" is not to claim knowledge. It is to acknowledge unknowing-ness and a lack of basis for belief.

He could escape this contradiction by saying that it is at least partially understandable. But then that would only rob him of the egotistical pleasure and relief in not having to take personal responsibility for his understanding. It is much easier to have the option available of being able throw up one's hands and take flight into the refuge of incomprehension at a moment's notice. It becomes a handy back way out of any accountability demanded upon him.

Yeah, clearly holding the "don't know" view robs one of any accountability. How in a Purple Pogo Stick do you figure that? If anything, "don't know" makes on genuinely accountable in every sense, because there is nothing to refer to outside one's own views and actions. One cannot explain anything away with reference to some conceptual framework.

In my view, any experience that doesn't involve full comprehension cannot be classed as a spiritual attainment. At best, it can be classed as an altered state, which in some cases can echo a little wisdom, but still remains a very lowly attainment, a crumb, compared to the big prize which is on offer.

Perhaps your toilet brush philosophy hinges on the experience of these little crumbs, reinforced by a misreading of Taoist texts?

Yeah, if even that. I'm hesitant to take credit for even "little crumbs," because I'd rather you think I have absolutely nothing. I neither have nor desire what you have, and the reverse is clearly true as well.

I'm satisfied with that state of affairs.

And yet you are constantly boasting about yourself, in your own surreptitious way. Isn't that so?

Nope. It only seems so to you because boasting is central to your psychology and you can't help but project it onto others.

I don't mind that, either, though.

[David Quinn]

Dan,

No it doesn't, not if you have an understanding of how reality is; I thought you and Robert possessed such.

Whether we do or don't, how could such an "understanding" negate the fact that life without the presence of some intellectually-accessible Ultimate Truth requires courage? The human animal survives by making rational sense of things - and above all else, we want to make rational sense of our entire lives and the whole Universe. When we can't, we naturally feel ill-at ease in the world, because the entire thing represents an unknown quantity - which, for an animal which relies on its ability to rationalize things to survive, equates to death. Psychologically speaking, the entire world becomes a death threat. In my view, things like Zen and Taoism are simply about altering our viewpoint in order to cope with this psychological fact and become more comfortable with an inherently irrational (or trans-rational) world.

In other words, making the ego more comfortable.

First treat Nature as though it were the enemy. Then close up shop and passively try to ride out Her unexpected twists as best you can. Lastly, try to accept this state of affairs enough to feel comfortable.

That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is Taoism.

-

[David Quinn]

David,

I was referring to your constant attempt to emasculate thought, as though you were afraid that it might take something from you.

Gimme a break. What else could it take from me? The job or career I already gave up? The money I already gave up? The respect from society I already gave up? The hope for normal human relationships I already gave up? The sense of self-importance I already gave up? The conceptual purpose and meaning in life I already gave up? The free will I already gave up? The soul I already gave up? I don't have much more to lay up on the sacred alter of thought, David.

Your fear of Nature immediately comes to mind, as mentioned in your last post. Your fear of conquering that fear through understanding and the piercing of illusion, as opposed to simply bunkering down and submitting with ego intact, is another.

The inner, intangible attachments can be just as strong as the outer, materialistic ones.

You're trying to have it both ways here. If a person has a "direct experience" of something and yet doesn't understand it, he has no basis for drawing any conclusions about it, other than he doesn't understand it. He literally hasn't the faintest idea of what he has experienced.

Precisely. Thus Bodhidharma and Hui-Neng's "don't know."

Why do you put quotes around "don't know"?

-

[Unidian]

In other words, making the ego more comfortable.

First treat Nature as though it were the enemy. Then close up shop and passively try to ride out Her unexpected twists as best you can. Lastly, try to accept this state of affairs enough to feel comfortable.

That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is Taoism.

If that's what you got out of what I said, your religious beliefs have degraded your reading comprehension skills (which is actually a common result).

I talked about a process of coming to terms with Nature as it is, not one of making it the enemy. In case you forgot, that's what you guys do with your "masculine thinking" shtick - envisioning Nature as a woman to be conquered and dominated through intense effort and "penetrating thought." It's essentially the same neurosis the Christians and the whole Western world has partaken of, and which has left us knee-high in garbage and pollution. The difference is that you guys drag things like Zen and Taoism into it, to the unending protest of people who actually value those traditions.

[Unidian]

Your fear of Nature immediately comes to mind, as mentioned in your last post. Your fear of conquering that fear through understanding and the piercing of illusion, as opposed to simply bunkering down and submitting with ego intact, is another.

I don't have a "fear of Nature," you presumptuous religious idiot. Until last week, I was on the board of directors of the Universal Pantheist Society - a position I held for over five years. Do people with a "fear of Nature" generally hold leadership positions in organizations which promote the idea that "Nature is God?"

Duh. And just in case you're curious, I resigned because I've decided over the years that I have no interest in religion of any kind, and due to the realization that saying "Nature is God" is the same as saying "mu."

Why do you put quotes around "don't know"?

Because it's a quote. From Bodhidharma, traditional founder of Zen.

[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?

Neither David Quinn nor Dan Rowden answered those observations in their subsequent posts. Almost all of us are experienced at message boards, we have seen libels written during the course of argument, and all of us can recognize the circumstances which bring such libels into existence. If libels are not always written in desperation, when are they not always profound failures of character? Quinn's answer, 'I thought it was a fair and reasonable assessment of the situation and I stand by it 100%', proves none of it, leaving those libels unsupported four years later (from February 2 - February 8, 2004). Quinn could have attempted to prove them at the time of the debate and he could have attempted to prove them earlier today when he wrote his answer but he did not.

The Ten Rules For Bodhisattvas are:

1. not to kill
2. not to steal
3. not to commit adultery
4. not to tell lies
5. not to use harsh words
6. not to utter words causing enmity between people
7. not to engage in idle talk
8. not to be greedy
9. not to be angry
10 not to have wrong views

In libeling his opponent and willfully refusing to prove up his charges Quinn violates the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 10th Rules For Bodhisattvas*, evidence within the dharma community that David Quinn is not an enlightened man. Would an enlightened individual libel another human being? If David Quinn is not lying and he is not libeling his opponent, why are those allegations still unsupported after four years?

David Quinn wrote this during the debate:

... [Hitler] used to whip up crowds into a frenzy by adopting self-righteous poses and snarling at the "despicable" members of humanity. It is hard to see the difference between Robert's frothing-at-the-mouth torrent of invectives and Hitler's frothing-at-the-mouth speeches at rallies. In both cases, a group of people are demonzied, painted as retarded and mentally ill, and virtually told that they barely deserve to live - all for the sake of trying to win a popularity contest. It's pitiful. I'm not saying that Robert is on the same level as Hitler (Robert is far too timid for that), but there are striking similarities in their psychology.

- David Quinn, Larkin Debate, Final Rebuttal, the final post and which could not be answered in the debate.

From your own experience at message boards, what could reasonably have motivated David Quinn to make outrageous charges against another individual and fail to support them in any way whatsoever? From your own experience, why would those charges remain unsupported four years later? When is it not a failure of character to libel another human being? Is my well-being so unimportant that David Quinn can libel me and simply walk away from his actions?


*He violates #4 by lying; he violates #5 by using harsh words; he violates #6 by publicly defaming another individual therefore creating enmity between the defamed individual and the community; he violates #10 by assuming the view that libeling an individual is acceptable behaviour. Given the evil of libeling another individual, #7 hardly applies.

[spelnxpert]

Ok, I read it Laird, now let's hope Sue is inclined to explain why your picture of reality is less true or ultimate than her own. Isn't this the same as asking her to prove why her picture or description is ultimately true. Isn' it her position that she knows it's true b/c once you experience it for yourself there's no possibility of doubt remaining? Perhaps you (Laird) don't believe Sue has had this experience, and that she is simply parroting philosophy. I can't see how anyone could prove to you (or explain successfully w/o you experiencing it yourself) either that their picture is true or that they know from experience.
So this question you put to her- Why not separate instead of connected- I can't see what she could say to satisfy you. If you can, give her a clue.

[Unidian]

Robert,

From your own experience at message boards, what could reasonably have motivated David Quinn to make outrageous charges against another individual and fail to support them in any way whatsoever?

He is full of it.

Whoops, there goes #5 for me, but who's counting...

From your own experience, why would those charges remain unsupported four years later?

They are phony hyperbolic charges used as a rhetorical ploy. They were presumably never meant to be substantiated, nor could they be without the introduction of further hyperbole and rhetorical gymnastics.

When is it not a failure of character to libel another human being?

Never - nor was it when Victor did it to me with false charges of fraud way back when, or when Sue did it to me just last night. But Victor, making no claim to anything beyond a penchant for kicking people around to his own amusement, can be excused more readily than either Sue or David, both of whom attach themselves to doctrines which traditionally require ethical behavior.

Is my well-being so unimportant that David Quinn can libel me and simply walk away from his actions?

Your whole existence is profoundly unimportant to individuals like David Quinn, who has called for the drowning of female infants and the mass slaughter of "unenlightened" elderly in the past. For people like David, ignorant and deluded individuals such as ourselves are of no worth apart from perhaps a capacity to produce goods needed by the worthy, and/or if we exhibit a potential to eventually think like David. Otherwise, we are quite disposable, and disposing of us would probably do the world a favor. After all, we've already killed Jesus and Socrates with our "foaming-at-the-mouth" behavior.

[Dan Rowden]

This is getting to the stage of satire. Nat calls David religious, then Robert posts:

The Ten Rules For Bodhisattvas are:

1. not to kill
2. not to steal
3. not to commit adultery
4. not to tell lies
5. not to use harsh words
6. not to utter words causing enmity between people
7. not to engage in idle talk
8. not to be greedy
9. not to be angry
10 not to have wrong views

Rules for Bodhisattva's? This is all just too surreal for me; I'm gonna go rob someone in Thief 3.

[Ataraxia]

... I resigned because I've decided over the years that I have no interest in religion of any kind, and due to the realization that saying "Nature is God" is the same as saying "mu."

Wise decision in my view.

Arguments over 'who knows the REAL Tao' always remind me of a favorutie bit from 'Beyond Good and Evil.'

9

Do you want to live “according to nature”? O you noble Stoics, what a verbal swindle! Imagine a being like nature — extravagant without limit, indifferent without limit, without purposes and consideration, without pity and justice, simultaneously fruitful, desolate, and unknown — imagine this indifference itself as a power — how could you live in accordance with this indifference?* Living — isn’t that precisely a will to be something different from what this nature is? Isn’t living appraising, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And if your imperative “live according to nature” basically means what amounts to “live according to life” — why can you not just do that? Why make a principle out of what you yourselves are and must be?

— The truth of the matter is quite different: while you pretend to be in raptures as you read the canon of your law out of nature, you want something which is the reverse of this, you weird actors and self-deceivers! Your pride wants to prescribe to and incorporate into nature, this very nature, your morality, your ideal. You demand that nature be “in accordance with the stoa,” and you’d like to make all existence merely living in accordance with your own image of it — as a huge and eternal glorification and universalizing of stoicism! With all your love of truth, you have forced yourselves for such a long time and with such persistence and hypnotic rigidity to look at nature falsely, that is, stoically, until you’re no long capable of seeing nature as anything else — and some abysmal arrogance finally inspires you with the lunatic hope that, because you know how to tyrannize over yourselves — Stoicism is self-tyranny — nature also allows herself to be tyrannized. Is the Stoic then not a part of nature? . . . .

But this is an ancient eternal story: what happened then with the Stoics is still happening today, as soon as a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates a world in its own image....

[RobertGreenSky]

Robert,

From your own experience at message boards, what could reasonably have motivated David Quinn to make outrageous charges against another individual and fail to support them in any way whatsoever?

He is full of it.

Whoops, there goes #5 for me, but who's counting...

From your own experience, why would those charges remain unsupported four years later?

They are phony hyperbolic charges used as a rhetorical ploy. They were presumably never meant to be substantiated, nor could they be without the introduction of further hyperbole and rhetorical gymnastics.

That is good analysis. Unfortunately for Mr. Quinn I am not some fictional character. I am a living human being whom he intentionally wronged. It is fair to ask, would the Buddha have done such a thing? Would Laozi or Jesus have done such a thing? Quinn having claimed spiritual brotherhood with those individuals, he is fairly compared to them and in the comparison David Quinn is wanting.

When is it not a failure of character to libel another human being?

Never - nor was it when Victor did it to me with false charges of fraud way back when, or when Sue did it to me just last night. But Victor, making no claim to anything beyond a penchant for kicking people around to his own amusement, can be excused more readily than either Sue or David, both of whom attach themselves to doctrines which traditionally require ethical behavior. [/quote]
When is libel not a serious wrong against another human being? What possible circumstances could make it permissible?

Is my well-being so unimportant that David Quinn can libel me and simply walk away from his actions?

Your whole existence is profoundly unimportant to individuals like David Quinn, who has called for the drowning of female infants and the mass slaughter of "unenlightened" elderly in the past. For people like David, ignorant and deluded individuals such as ourselves are of no worth apart from perhaps a capacity to produce goods needed by the worthy, and/or if we exhibit a potential to eventually think like David. Otherwise, we are quite disposable, and disposing of us would probably do the world a favor. After all, we've already killed Jesus and Socrates with our "foaming-at-the-mouth" behavior.[/quote]
If we fit into the 'Opponent Type, how is it we have not libeled while David Quinn has? When is any individual so unimportant that he can be libeled with impunity? Would the Buddha, Laozi, or Jesus have ever libeled another human being?

[RobertGreenSky]

This is getting to the stage of satire. Nat calls David religious, then Robert posts:

The Ten Rules For Bodhisattvas are:

1. not to kill
2. not to steal
3. not to commit adultery
4. not to tell lies
5. not to use harsh words
6. not to utter words causing enmity between people
7. not to engage in idle talk
8. not to be greedy
9. not to be angry
10 not to have wrong views

Rules for Bodhisattva's? This is all just too surreal for me; I'm gonna go rob someone in Thief 3.

Dan Rowden walks away from libel without answer.

[Unidian]

This is getting to the stage of satire. Nat calls David religious, then Robert posts:

<snip>

Rules for Bodhisattva's? This is all just too surreal for me; I'm gonna go rob someone in Thief 3.

Robert didn't say he adhered to or even necessarily valued those rules himself. I've never heard Robert claim to be either a Buddha or a Bodhisattva. David, on the other hand, has made both explicit and implicit claims most of us are familiar with. Robert is just holding him accountable for those claims.

Is Thief 3 any good?

[Unidian]

Ataraxia,

Thanks for that Nietzsche quote. While I'm generally not a huge N fan, he definitely hit one out of the park there. Well-written by him and well-quoted by you.

[David Quinn]

Your fear of Nature immediately comes to mind, as mentioned in your last post. Your fear of conquering that fear through understanding and the piercing of illusion, as opposed to simply bunkering down and submitting with ego intact, is another.

I don't have a "fear of Nature," you presumptuous religious idiot.

If that is the case, why did you write:

The human animal survives by making rational sense of things - and above all else, we want to make rational sense of our entire lives and the whole Universe. When we can't, we naturally feel ill-at ease in the world, because the entire thing represents an unknown quantity - which, for an animal which relies on its ability to rationalize things to survive, equates to death. Psychologically speaking, the entire world becomes a death threat. In my view, things like Zen and Taoism are simply about altering our viewpoint in order to cope with this psychological fact and become more comfortable with an inherently irrational (or trans-rational) world.

Phrases like "entire world becomes a death threat", "in order to cope with this psychological fact", and striving to "become more comfortable" certainly smack of fear and distrust of Nature to me.

I talked about a process of coming to terms with Nature as it is, not one of making it the enemy.

Again, phrases like "entire world becomes a death threat", "in order to cope with this psychological fact", and striving to "become more comfortable" indicate otherwise.

Your depiction of "Nature as it is" comes from your ego's perspective which is concerned with its own well-being. It's a law of the jungle mentality. An animal's perspective. It has nothing to do with Taoism.

Nature is your very own self. So what is there to be threatened by? What is there to cope with?

Why do you put quotes around "don't know"?

Because it's a quote. From Bodhidharma, traditional founder of Zen.

Are you saying, then, that he didn't know reality at all?

-

[Dan Rowden]

This is getting to the stage of satire. Nat calls David religious, then Robert posts:

<snip>

Rules for Bodhisattva's? This is all just too surreal for me; I'm gonna go rob someone in Thief 3.

Robert didn't say he adhered to or even necessarily valued those rules himself. I've never heard Robert claim to be either a Buddha or a Bodhisattva. David, on the other hand, has made both explicit and implicit claims most of us are familiar with. Robert is just holding him accountable for those claims.

Oh, please, stop insulting my intelligence, Nat. You know, when you and Robert get together in a posting frenzy it's as though your mind takes a vacation. If Robert didn't think those rules were legitimate for Bodhisattva's there'd be no reason to toss them at anyone. Beyond that, you and Robert both know such rules would be a joke to David anyway. Therefore, posting them was simply brainless.

As an aide, given the sorts of insults that posters at Olio hurl around at people I think it utterly comical for Robert to be writing like he currently is.

Is Thief 3 any good?

As you'd expect it's graphically impressive, but game-play-wise it's a little tedious, actually. Too much time spent roaming around the same areas. Though, even with that it's a superior game.

[Unidian]

Phrases like "entire world becomes a death threat", "in order to cope with this psychological fact", and striving to "become more comfortable" certainly smack of fear and distrust of Nature to me...

Again, phrases like "entire world becomes a death threat", "in order to cope with this psychological fact", and striving to "become more comfortable" indicate otherwise.

Your depiction of "Nature as it is" comes from your ego's perspective which is concerned with its own well-being. It's a law of the jungle mentality. An animal's perspective. It has nothing to do with Taoism.

Nature is your very own self. So what is there to be threatened by? What is there to cope with?

Yeah, I know, which is why I don't fear Nature. You accused me of having such a fear, and I don't. I got rid of it, at least consciously, through a process of becoming at home in the world by realizing that Nature (or "mu") is not other than what I am. But this is still ultimately an intellectual shell game which does not touch real experience.

At bottom, the ego is primarily a subconscious phenomena. The fanciful intellectual baubles and conceits we toy with consciously mean little to the vast iceberg of the subconscious, which forces each of us to make a choice when confronted by the irrationality and absurdity of existence. Either we will escape in some cave of religious concepts, or we will learn to swim in the nameless ocean, with no one to throw us a rope. If we do neither, we will drown.

[RobertGreenSky]

This is getting to the stage of satire. Nat calls David religious, then Robert posts:

<snip>

Rules for Bodhisattva's? This is all just too surreal for me; I'm gonna go rob someone in Thief 3.

Robert didn't say he adhered to or even necessarily valued those rules himself. I've never heard Robert claim to be either a Buddha or a Bodhisattva. David, on the other hand, has made both explicit and implicit claims most of us are familiar with. Robert is just holding him accountable for those claims.

Is Thief 3 any good?

While Rowden can make sport of 'Rules for Bodhisattvas' I can post Buddhist ethics all day and well into tomorrow affirming honesty and denying dishonesty. When will Dan Rowden not walk away? How is Dan Rowden beyond ethics? If both Rowden and Quinn place themselves beyond ethical responsibility, can either of them be enlightened?

[RobertGreenSky]

Dan wrote: 'As an aide, given the sorts of insults that posters at Olio hurl around at people I think it utterly comical for Robert to be writing like he currently is.'

An obvious joke is not a libel is it Dan? Do you consider quibbling an honest activity?

[Dan Rowden]

I am beyond the ethical "rules" of others - which are necessarily of a mindless religious nature when expressed as rules for others. Get it?

Anyway, I'm about to be killed for robbing someone in Thief 3 so work it out for yourself or give me a cheat code that makes me invisible.