Thou Shalt Not Disappoint Her

[Shahrazad]

Your emotional outbursts and ad hominem are not going to help you nail Trevor, Kissaki. Give it up already.

[kissaki]

Your emotional outbursts and ad hominem are not going to help you nail Trevor, Kissaki. Give it up already.

Yes, mother.

[kissaki]

Women are Nature's consolation prize. Why should I be satisfied with what every mother-fucker has received up to this point?

[kissaki]

War is man's finest accomplishment, after recognition of Void of course. Just imagine, the metaphysics of Void and the physics of the U.S Military fused into one unitary body. If you think what I have to offer is brutal, then what is in store for mankind will be incomprehensible to you.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

kissaki,

You got emotional because there are contradictions in your thoughts, and you cannot handle having these flaws pointed out. I can only wonder what would have happened if I were not someone who could deal with your anger issues with a chuckle and a shrug. Take it out on a television set next time.

It is not my fault you went on an emotional rampage. That is victim blaming. You should expect that people in a forum associated with something called "The Thinking Man's Minefield" will say things that you disagree with. If you cannot deal with disagreement -- or in this case, a few well-placed questions -- without anger, that is a problem with your emotions.

[kissaki]

Bah! The canned above-it-all sage swoops in to tell me how to interpret my own thoughts and emotions. Ah, how he never fails.

100! Magnitudes of power. Think more than write. Action better than words. Personal not impersonal. Indebtedness to the Aussie trifecta for setting the sights high.

[Iolaus]

It's because I've been lied to about every single thing in life by every single person I've known

In that case, it's time to upgrade the people you hang out with.

Women are Nature's consolation prize. Why should I be satisfied with what every mother-fucker has received up to this point?

What then, would you have?

War is man's finest accomplishment, after recognition of Void of course. Just imagine, the metaphysics of Void and the physics of the U.S Military fused into one unitary body. If you think what I have to offer is brutal, then what is in store for mankind will be incomprehensible to you.

This is very dark and troubled, Kissaki, are you sure you don't have similar psychological problems you accuse Trevor of? If this is your inner world, it does not surprise me that the people in your life are all liars.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

kissaki,

The canned above-it-all sage swoops in to tell me how to interpret my own thoughts and emotions.

The only alternative is to interpret your emotional outbursts and hypocracies as good things, but then I would hardly consider you to have set your sights on the same thing that QRS allude to.

Instead of thinking I'm a pretentious prick, as you did from the first, why don't you try -- just once -- to interpret me as someone who knows what he's talking about? Since none of your wild swings have connected, the overwhelming evidence is that I am not what you have decided I am. I just might be someone who pretends to speak sagely in the same sense that a mathematician who just solved a tricky problem pretends to know the answer.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Iolaus,

This is very dark and troubled, Kissaki, are you sure you don't have similar psychological problems you accuse Trevor of?

It was strange that the two mental illnesses he accused me of having are not the one I actually suffer from. The only part of it he got correct was that I'm on medication, yet even that was not taken as a sign that what I have is treatable and affects me not at all -- but rather as a sign that my rationalist philosophy is only a side-effect of drugs.

[kissaki]

Why are some individuals so nice here? It's too cozy, like some kind of fun family atmosphere built around the topic of ultimate reality. Blah. I suppose it might generally be more conducive to thought than my attempts at riling up chaos and committing personal attacks, but I suggest that some of you are too comfortable. I'll stick to the point from now on, however, I remain diametrically opposed to anyone's personal preferences for certain phrases or combination of words as final proof and resting place of truth. If the Void is indeed the true Void, then it is recognizable in a myriad of forms.

Trevor,
Science is a discipline of amazement and wonder. This is precisely why most individuals pursue science, because this wish to know the hidden causes behind causes, I know this was certainly my motivation. Scientists pride and excite themselves on knowledge of esoteric things such as the fact that walking on a floor is really floating along a series of repulsion forces from electron clouds. So why contrast this mindset against the Zen mind? Well, because Zen isn't interested in such hair splitting. What does it matter if a thing happens on a very hidden scale or if it happens on an obvious one like a cloud drifting along in the sky. The fact that some knowledge requires complicated means and methods to uncover and bring into consciousness does not make it fundamentally separate or different from Void. It is still an appearance. So, the Zen mind is free move between all things, penetrate their fundamental nature, and never be touched by them -- electron cloud or otherwise.

[brokenhead]

So, the Zen mind is free move between all things, penetrate their fundamental nature, and never be touched by them -- electron cloud or otherwise.

So that's what I've been doing all this time. Nice.

[kissaki]

Sage-hood in the classical popular sense is dead. It's tied to a past cultural definition that is almost entirely gone. Although, I can understand why someone living in Australia and those parts can still achieve something close to it. However, why should I have to travel there, or anywhere really, to gain knowledge of ultimate reality? If truth really is then its location and time is irrelevant. Only its expression is tied to the nature of things, which is to say change. Since ultimately persons are tied to their environments then the same fact applies to personal attributes. Why should I live up to the exact personal traits of past wise men? How wise that? To attempt to live up to backwards-looking and polished fabrications of people long gone is a fool's game. Besides, their very words betray such notions. The immediate future expression of truth is electronic, algorithmic, and not separate from what already is and is to be.

[Alex Jacob]

[Snore]

[Awaken...]

Huh? Wha-?

"If the Void is indeed the true Void, then it is recognizable in a myriad of forms."

If the void...is the true...void...it is...recognizable in? What the----?

[Snore]

"Scientists pride and excite themselves on knowledge of esoteric things such as the fact that walking on a floor is really floating along a series of repulsion forces from electron clouds."

So that's what I've been doing all this time. Nice!

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I remain diametrically opposed to anyone's personal preferences for certain phrases or combination of words as final proof and resting place of truth. If the Void is indeed the true Void, then it is recognizable in a myriad of forms.

The Void is formless, so it is not recognizable in any form at all. There are, therefore, boundless false ways to speak of it. Enlightenment focuses on removing these delusions; trying to give the Void any form whatsoever is one such delusion.

As to your relativism, I would suggest not mixing some aesthetic or moral distaste regarding absolute truth with the certainty that some statements are absolutely true. It is hardly a matter of preference that I choose "A=A" as an example of an absolute truth. Self-identity is the basis of all logical thought, so when introducing absolute truth, it is the best place to start, regardless of what I prefer.

Science is a discipline of amazement and wonder. This is precisely why most individuals pursue science, because this wish to know the hidden causes behind causes, I know this was certainly my motivation. Scientists pride and excite themselves on knowledge of esoteric things such as the fact that walking on a floor is really floating along a series of repulsion forces from electron clouds.

Thus, this is from experience, and is not necessary to science at all.

So why contrast this mindset against the Zen mind? Well, because Zen isn't interested in such hair splitting.

You are criticizing hair-splitting, then, and not science.

So, the Zen mind is free move between all things, penetrate their fundamental nature, and never be touched by them -- electron cloud or otherwise.

The Zen mind would be perfectly free to move scientifically, as well. And it would be free to split hairs.

Sage-hood in the classical popular sense is dead.

Your description of sage-hood is more romantic than accurate, so it's no wonder you call it dead. The reasons you use against it are half-way there. For instance, location and time is irrelevant to sage-hood. Never once have the moderators suggested anyone move to Australia to learn from them. Location and time have nothing to do with ultimate reality, therefore they have nothing to do with sage-hood.

Even when some of the greatest sages were writing, they never desired anyone live up to their "exact personal traits". That would be unwise, and sages are those with wisdom. In the West, sages have from the very start (with Thales, the first philosopher and one of the Seven Sages of Greece) disagreed with one another and promoted disagreement amongst each other. The same is true in the East. Confucius is recorded as criticizing one of his students for never disagreeing. He thought he was an idiot.

So much for the history. The words of ancient sages are only wise so far as they are timeless, and thus still relevant today. As to whether or not that is true, we are left with your closing, which is just an appeal to novelty. I will argue with something that I see as false, but I will not argue with a fallacy. If you want to argue that the thoughts of a sage are not timeless, you'll need something recognizable as an argument.

[kissaki]

The Void is formless, so it is not recognizable in any form at all. There are, therefore, boundless false ways to speak of it. Enlightenment focuses on removing these delusions; trying to give the Void any form whatsoever is one such delusion.

This sentence is not separate from Void yet it is recognizable, therefore form, and but one of many of the boundless false ways to speak of Void. So why is your sentence better than mine? This is precisely why I initially refused to debate with you and leveled the accusation of arrogance against you. This is why I think the term robot is appropriate to you. All form comes forth from Void, so why shouldn't an awakened mind be able to appropriately recognize Void in any of its expressible forms.

As to your relativism, I would suggest not mixing some aesthetic or moral distaste regarding absolute truth with the certainty that some statements are absolutely true. It is hardly a matter of preference that I choose "A=A" as an example of an absolute truth. Self-identity is the basis of all logical thought, so when introducing absolute truth, it is the best place to start, regardless of what I prefer.

A=A is a powerful and easy way to express the nature of form issued from Void, but it is still a preference. To start at strict logical truth definitions is still a preference. Are you unwilling or incapable of coming up with your own alternative means of explaining the identity of things? Ultimately I cannot criticize you for not desiring to express truth in an original and personal way, Void ultimately is indifferent to such actions, however, that does not mean originality in expression is always useless or deluded. Zen is personal expression of Void, something that apparently offends your own conception of what Void is.

Thus, this is from experience, and is not necessary to science at all.

Are you kidding me? You are saying that experience is not necessary to science? Science is empirical and thus completely in the realm of experience, however, it is shared experience, corroborated experience, repeatable experience. Your allusions to some science disembodied from experience is the true delusion.

You are criticizing hair-splitting, then, and not science.

You must be jesting because this is completely contrary to the nature of what science is. Science is most certainly hair splitting. It splits causes into further causes and so on until a useful set of judging criteria is established for a particular event or observation, which of course is itself an experience.

The Zen mind would be perfectly free to move scientifically, as well. And it would be free to split hairs.

Zen is not interested in science. Zen is much more immediate, direct, and obvious than science will ever be.

Your description of sage-hood is more romantic than accurate, so it's no wonder you call it dead. The reasons you use against it are half-way there. For instance, location and time is irrelevant to sage-hood.

That's exactly what I said.

If truth really is then its location and time is irrelevant.

If truth is indistinguishable from sage-hood, which it should be since sage-hood is supposedly truth in action so to say, then my statement is effectively the same as yours. You are arguing just because I frown upon using the word sage-hood to describe such activity because of attachment to such concepts, which you demonstrate so clearly. Like I mentioned in my first tirade against you, you are only interested in hearing specific combinations of words.

Never once have the moderators suggested anyone move to Australia to learn from them.

I never suggested that. Cmon Trevor, I clearly am referring to those who simply wish to copy them in all aspects, and more generally, those who wish to copy any traditional sage-hood role. You do not copy classic sage-hood in location, but certainly in speech and mode of thought.

Location and time have nothing to do with ultimate reality, therefore they have nothing to do with sage-hood.

Cannot I not use the word truth as a synonym for ultimate reality? Is the following not legit: sage-hood=ultimate reality=truth? How is what I have said any different from what you say? You are simply disagreeing over the form of my statements even though the spirit of them is clearly the same. You claim to value Void, the formless, but you squabble over form. This is subtle delusion.

Even when some of the greatest sages were writing, they never desired anyone live up to their "exact personal traits". That would be unwise, and sages are those with wisdom. In the West, sages have from the very start (with Thales, the first philosopher and one of the Seven Sages of Greece) disagreed with one another and promoted disagreement amongst each other. The same is true in the East. Confucius is recorded as criticizing one of his students for never disagreeing. He thought he was an idiot.

None of my original statements disagreed with that. Seems to me you are just showing off some bits of knowledge you have about particular sages. Why, is that? I think it's because you still secretly wish to emulate them in all their particulars. If you really valued their words you'd throw them out as soon as you understood them. Again, my expressions are not up to your particular preferences and so you must put on this big show of sage this sage that.

So much for the history. The words of ancient sages are only wise so far as they are timeless, and thus still relevant today.

I said space and time is irrelevant to truth. Is that not good enough for you? Apparently not.

As to whether or not that is true, we are left with your closing, which is just an appeal to novelty. I will argue with something that I see as false, but I will not argue with a fallacy.

Look Trevor, you clearly have not practiced science and I suspect you do not posses all that much insight into mathematics either. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong, however, is thinking that because Nature did not happen to align your mind to such concepts that they are then somehow outside the bounds of anything a real sage would do. If a sage is truly as adept as you paint him to be, then why should such practices be forbidden from him if he has a capable mind for them? There is nothing contradictory about an enlightened person engaging in science or math. Thinking that science or math is truth or ultimate reality is wrong however. Your prejudices are clear as day. You simply don't like the coloration Nature has seen fit to give this mind. When it is said that Zen is the art of doing nothing, it does not mean sitting on your ass literally not partaking in any activity. It is about the awareness of who is credited with said activity.

If you want to argue that the thoughts of a sage are not timeless, you'll need something recognizable as an argument.

Again, sage-hood=ultimate reality=truth, thus my statements are not saying that sages are not timeless. You simply cannot get enough of the word sage and all its particulars.

Regarding your dismissal of appealing to novelty, the world is moving to electronic mediums, and it's language is algorithmic. That is an indisputable fact. Just because you have reached your own limit in the realm of knowledge-things does not mean everyone should also limit themselves similarly. It does not mean that sages cannot move in and out of such arenas and express Void in them as well. What forms is Void limited to? None. It takes on the appearance of all forms.

You are a robot Trevor. I called your nonsense out from a mile away and you still walked right into your programmed pattern. You are caricature of your valued sage. You claim to be free of preferences when you are anything but. All your activity in opposition to me is because I have not danced your danced, because I have not said yes Trevor, that specific sentence you wrote is it!

Why don't you be honest and simply say you think my Zen insights are crap and serve no use to you so I can then reply, "Kiss my Void ass" and be done with your so called debate.

You have no substance. Countless of your so called sages, especially those of the colorful Zen varieties, disprove every word you say, and none of them had or used what you think is the ultimate and only legit expression, A=A. You are the ultimate in hypocrisy, and thus my original response to you proves to have been performed in good faith.

[kissaki]

The entire purpose for the strict logical definitions created by The Men of Infinite is so that a reader knows exactly what they are referring to. It is so that the older, more ambiguous, more colorful expressions used in the past are completely short circuited. Once Void has been exceptionally and clearly pointed to without a doubt using the definitions and a person employs them in their own thinking then said person is free to drop the definitions for other expressions or continue using them if they wish. It matters not. The intention is not to hold an original definition up forever as the end all be all form of reference to Void. That is how you got into this predicament in the first place, engagement in a very subtle delusion of what the said pointing to Void is intended to eliminate. You are free from the confines of form you fools!

What is Buddha?
Three pounds of flax seed.

[kissaki]

If you know Void, and I know Void, then what is Void?

Nods between monks.

Do not show me what I already know Void to be. Show me what Void is yet to be.

[Shahrazad]

kissaki,

Why are some individuals so nice here?

There are no rules here that forbid being nice, you asshole.

[kissaki]

kissaki,

Why are some individuals so nice here?

There are no rules here that forbid being nice, you asshole.

Yes, mother.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

This sentence is not separate from Void yet it is recognizable, therefore form, and but one of many of the boundless false ways to speak of Void. So why is your sentence better than mine?

You said Void is recognizable in myriad forms, and I replied that it has no form at all. There is a huge difference between these two statements. Mine was a negation of form, whereas yours was an affirmation.

This is precisely why I initially refused to debate with you and leveled the accusation of arrogance against you. This is why I think the term robot is appropriate to you. All form comes forth from Void, so why shouldn't an awakened mind be able to appropriately recognize Void in any of its expressible forms.

Void can only be recognized as far as no positive statements can be said about it. It is still a mystery why you are calling me arrogant for disagreeing with you on an epistemological point (or how you can call me both arrogant and robotic, which seem to contradict each other). You think that it has expressible forms, and I reply that there are no expressible forms.

A=A is a powerful and easy way to express the nature of form issued from Void, but it is still a preference. To start at strict logical truth definitions is still a preference. Are you unwilling or incapable of coming up with your own alternative means of explaining the identity of things?

You mean, am I unwilling or incapable of speaking about philosophic truths illogically? The answer is in the question.

Ultimately I cannot criticize you for not desiring to express truth in an original and personal way, Void ultimately is indifferent to such actions, however, that does not mean originality in expression is always useless or deluded. Zen is personal expression of Void, something that apparently offends your own conception of what Void is.

You are making more positive claims about Void. Its indifference cannot be established conclusively.

Anyway, why should your attacking one of my epistemological positions offend me? I think you should lay off trying to guess my values (for instance, neither originality nor personality are important, so are ineffective snipes). It's causing you to imagine things.

You are saying that experience is not necessary to science?

No, I said that your experience of science -- including your emotional reactions -- are not necessary to science. As such, the little bit that follows is not relevant.

You must be jesting because this is completely contrary to the nature of what science is.

Good, you almost caught one of my jokes (this conversation could be seen as splitting epistemological hairs). But, there was an element of seriousness to it: are you criticizing science, or are you criticizing hair-splitting? These are not one and the same. A person can split hairs without being scientific at all.

Zen is not interested in science. Zen is much more immediate, direct, and obvious than science will ever be.

Who is Zen?

That's exactly what I said... If truth is indistinguishable from sage-hood, which it should be since sage-hood is supposedly truth in action so to say, then my statement is effectively the same as yours.

Yes, but the context was different. You were saying that sagehood is specific to time and place, therefore it can't deal with truth. I said that since sages deal with truth, sagehood is not specific to time and place. Our statements were the exact opposite.

You are arguing just because I frown upon using the word sage-hood to describe such activity because of attachment to such concepts, which you demonstrate so clearly. Like I mentioned in my first tirade against you, you are only interested in hearing specific combinations of words.

If you were that committed to not talking, I don't think you'd be using all these words. Instead of attacking sage-hood, you simply could have asked me what I meant by sage when I asked if you were one. You were so attached to your conception of sage that you denied being one before asking what I meant when I used it. I think, given the situation, that would have been the best question to ask.

For instance, none of this is relevant to sage-hood:

I clearly am referring to those who simply wish to copy them in all aspects, and more generally, those who wish to copy any traditional sage-hood role. You do not copy classic sage-hood in location, but certainly in speech and mode of thought.

One of the first lessons you learn in philosophy is to be wary of using words like "obviously" or "clearly". What you mean by sage is not what I mean.

Cannot I not use the word truth as a synonym for ultimate reality?

Truth is not often used in that sense, as the meaning of the sentence "the truth about ultimate reality" would suddenly vanish. If you want to be understood, you either need to adopt the language of those around you, or explain new definitions.

Is the following not legit: sage-hood=ultimate reality=truth?

If you want them to be equal, sure, but be consistent with your word usage. And, be aware that the sentence "sagehood is knowledge of the truth about ultimate reality" would be identical with "ultimate reality is knowledge of the ultimate reality about ultimate reality" by such definitions.

How is what I have said any different from what you say? You are simply disagreeing over the form of my statements even though the spirit of them is clearly the same.

I don't believe in spirits. I believe I have made it clear on which points I am disagreeing with you. If you cannot recognize the difference between the two epistemological positions, I can rephrase it at your request.

You claim to value Void, the formless, but you squabble over form. This is subtle delusion.

I made no claim that I value Void, only that I understand that it can never be understood through any forms. I am not "squabbling over forms", but hitting nails into a coffin. There can be no "myriad forms" through which the Void appears to us: such thinking is false. It doesn't appear at all. It doesn't have any form whatsoever. This is the bottom of the issue, and one can go no farther. The Void never appears. The end.

Seems to me you are just showing off some bits of knowledge you have about particular sages. Why, is that?

Am I not allowed to give examples now? How about definitions? Am I allowed to use those?

I said space and time is irrelevant to truth. Is that not good enough for you? Apparently not.

One more step is needed. Since space and time are irrelevant to truth, sage-hood is irrelevant to space and time. Would it have killed you to admit that?

Look Trevor, you clearly have not practiced science and I suspect you do not posses all that much insight into mathematics either.

Ad hominem, and false at that. I told you I don't debate fallacies, so why did you precede your argument with one?

Remember: I was not arguing with a fallacy, not with something I saw as false. You didn't have an argument, but a single poorly supported statement.

Here is your argument, and what you should have started with:

There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong, however, is thinking that because Nature did not happen to align your mind to such concepts that they are then somehow outside the bounds of anything a real sage would do. If a sage is truly as adept as you paint him to be, then why should such practices be forbidden from him if he has a capable mind for them? There is nothing contradictory about an enlightened person engaging in science or math. Thinking that science or math is truth or ultimate reality is wrong however. Your prejudices are clear as day. You simply don't like the coloration Nature has seen fit to give this mind. When it is said that Zen is the art of doing nothing, it does not mean sitting on your ass literally not partaking in any activity. It is about the awareness of who is credited with said activity.

Minus the ad hominem attacks (where you falsely imagined my prejudices and skill-set), I agree with this, and this was what I was trying to get you to agree with in the first place. Sages can practise science. Your separation into "the science mind" and "the Zen mind" is not a good division: it was not science that you were attacking, but emotions. So, "the emotional mind" and "the Zen mind" would have been more appropriate.

So, after all your anger and weird denials, and all your imaginative ideas as to what I'm actually saying or what my motivations are or who I am, you've finally affirmed what I was pushing for you to say in the first place. Next time, could you please hold the bullshit, and stick to the argument?

For example:

You have no substance. Countless of your so called sages, especially those of the colorful Zen varieties, disprove every word you say, and none of them had or used what you think is the ultimate and only legit expression, A=A. You are the ultimate in hypocrisy, and thus my original response to you proves to have been performed in good faith.

I'll tell you one thing about myself: my friends are always trying to make me angry. It never works.

It's even easier to not care when it's not true, so yeah... just stick to the argument, please. Tell me: do you still think the Void appears in myriad forms?

[kissaki]

You said Void is recognizable in myriad forms, and I replied that it has no form at all. There is a huge difference between these two statements. Mine was a negation of form, whereas yours was an affirmation.

And so the fuck what? Buddha is three pounds of flax seed.

Void can only be recognized as far as no positive statements can be said about it. It is still a mystery why you are calling me arrogant for disagreeing with you on an epistemological point (or how you can call me both arrogant and robotic, which seem to contradict each other). You think that it has expressible forms, and I reply that there are no expressible forms.

Negative statements are quite useful for arriving to Void, but once there, shall I forever use negative statements? Funny how that is, I'm the emotional angry motherfucker but I insist on speaking positively regarding Void. The emotionless sage on the other hand, the opposite. Buddha is three pounds of flax seed and there is nothing you can do about it.

A=A is a powerful and easy way to express the nature of form issued from Void, but it is still a preference. To start at strict logical truth definitions is still a preference. Are you unwilling or incapable of coming up with your own alternative means of explaining the identity of things?

You mean, am I unwilling or incapable of speaking about philosophic truths illogically? The answer is in the question.

The high and mighty sage raises his nose in disapproval. Not everyone is a stereotypical emotionless sage Trevor. You cannot claim sole rights to Void in any form, and when you do, I laugh.

Anyway, why should your attacking one of my epistemological positions offend me? I think you should lay off trying to guess my values (for instance, neither originality nor personality are important, so are ineffective snipes). It's causing you to imagine things.

Why do you imagine I wish or want to offend you? I simply show my distaste for your peculiarities. You seem to return the gesture. Instead of nodding to each other how about we just say fuck you and part ways?

You are saying that experience is not necessary to science?

No, I said that your experience of science -- including your emotional reactions -- are not necessary to science. As such, the little bit that follows is not relevant.

Well they certainly would be to an emotionless sage practicing science wouldn't they? A so called sage has nothing to fear about curiosity and wonder. This is why I don't believe you actually practice science in any real sense. Name one significant discovery made without interest, curiosity, and wonder.

You must be jesting because this is completely contrary to the nature of what science is.

Good, you almost caught one of my jokes (this conversation could be seen as splitting epistemological hairs).
But, there was an element of seriousness to it: are you criticizing science, or are you criticizing hair-splitting? These are not one and the same. A person can split hairs without being scientific at all.

I clearly used the word science, thus I refer to the splitting of hairs, discovery of endless causes, within science. And it wasn't criticism either, it was pointing out that Zen has no use for specifically favoring this or that cause. That is the realm of science.

That's exactly what I said... If truth is indistinguishable from sage-hood, which it should be since sage-hood is supposedly truth in action so to say, then my statement is effectively the same as yours.

Yes, but the context was different. You were saying that sagehood is specific to time and place, therefore it can't deal with truth. I said that since sages deal with truth, sagehood is not specific to time and place. Our statements were the exact opposite.

I said its expression is tied to the finite, any particular Buddha is dead and gone. Their dealing with truth is finite. When they die someone else picks up the seed and does it again and so on. What they deal with is what is not subject to time and space. You're not even all that precise in your own definitions of sage-hood so don't bullshit me. Sagehood and all the hoopla and reverence surrounding it can kiss my Void ass. Stop splitting hairs just so you can argue something that we don't fundamentally disagree on.

You are arguing just because I frown upon using the word sage-hood to describe such activity because of attachment to such concepts, which you demonstrate so clearly. Like I mentioned in my first tirade against you, you are only interested in hearing specific combinations of words.

If you were that committed to not talking, I don't think you'd be using all these words. Instead of attacking sage-hood, you simply could have asked me what I meant by sage when I asked if you were one. You were so attached to your conception of sage that you denied being one before asking what I meant when I used it. I think, given the situation, that would have been the best question to ask.

You poked me into dancing with words and here I am. Dance Dance Dance. Void is this, Void is not that. Oh, but this, no that, you said, I said. Fuck that. I don't use the word sage because it leads into the realm of gurus and worshiping and all kinds of things the vast majority of people get attached to. You want to go around proclaiming this sage and that sage? Fine. Don't expect me to agree with it, like it, or participate with it in any way. I don't care for discussion of sage-hood. It's not critical to understanding Void. I'll admit you got me dancing now. Woohoo you won.

For instance, none of this is relevant to sage-hood:

I clearly am referring to those who simply wish to copy them in all aspects, and more generally, those who wish to copy any traditional sage-hood role. You do not copy classic sage-hood in location, but certainly in speech and mode of thought.

One of the first lessons you learn in philosophy is to be wary of using words like "obviously" or "clearly". What you mean by sage is not what I mean.

I don't care what you have to say about sages or sage-hood. It is not necessary in order to understand Void.

Cannot I not use the word truth as a synonym for ultimate reality?

Truth is not often used in that sense, as the meaning of the sentence "the truth about ultimate reality" would suddenly vanish. If you want to be understood, you either need to adopt the language of those around you, or explain new definitions.

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment - Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection -

People who browse this board know exactly what I mean. The word truth is used synonymously with ultimate reality all over this board. You just want to play sage you dishonest fuck.

Is the following not legit: sage-hood=ultimate reality=truth?

If you want them to be equal, sure, but be consistent with your word usage. And, be aware that the sentence "sagehood is knowledge of the truth about ultimate reality" would be identical with "ultimate reality is knowledge of the ultimate reality about ultimate reality" by such definitions.

Oh yes I am so aware of that now. But I never used such phrases. Oh but at least I am aware now. Thank you great sage!

How is what I have said any different from what you say? You are simply disagreeing over the form of my statements even though the spirit of them is clearly the same.

I don't believe in spirits. I believe I have made it clear on which points I am disagreeing with you. If you cannot recognize the difference between the two epistemological positions, I can rephrase it at your request.

I'm not here to impress you or come to an understanding with your particular words or word usage. All you're interested in is definitions -- more words describing words.

You claim to value Void, the formless, but you squabble over form. This is subtle delusion.

I made no claim that I value Void, only that I understand that it can never be understood through any forms. I am not "squabbling over forms", but hitting nails into a coffin. There can be no "myriad forms" through which the Void appears to us: such thinking is false. It doesn't appear at all. It doesn't have any form whatsoever. This is the bottom of the issue, and one can go no farther. The Void never appears. The end.

The phrase "The Void never appears" appears, yet we know to what it refers. Therefore you lie! You understand the formless Void through form. That doesn't not mean Void is form itself, merely that it is not fundamentally separate from it. Just because you put a negation in there somewhere doesn't make it any less of a form-thing. Pointing to Void is pointing to Void. You just wish to rest and gloat in your particular phrases, sage. Besides, Buddha is three pounds of flax. You cannot escape such immediate observation.

Seems to me you are just showing off some bits of knowledge you have about particular sages. Why, is that?

Am I not allowed to give examples now? How about definitions? Am I allowed to use those?

The problem is you use too many of them. How much is enough? That was a rhetorical question.

I said space and time is irrelevant to truth. Is that not good enough for you? Apparently not.

One more step is needed. Since space and time are irrelevant to truth, sage-hood is irrelevant to space and time. Would it have killed you to admit that?

I already stated the equivalency x=y=z. So I don't disagree with what you say but I refuse to say it. Why is it so important to you that I say it? Am I not a true sage if I don't say it? Very well then, I am not a true sage! Let the celebrations begin!

Look Trevor, you clearly have not practiced science and I suspect you do not posses all that much insight into mathematics either.

Ad hominem, and false at that. I told you I don't debate fallacies, so why did you precede your argument with one?

I told you I don't usually treat fools who think of themselves as sages and bring it up constantly to others. That didn't stop you from getting to this point did it? You're not some commander of expression in others.

Science can't exist without interest or motivation. Now of course the experience of those things are different in an enlightened mind, but it doesn't preclude their existence. If one had no desire to categorize causes then science could not exist. There is nothing stopping an enlightened mind from saying that some particular thing or event is an interesting scientific observation. Your definition of science is false and unrealistic, all because you hold on to this emotionless sage ideal. Maybe you really are some emotionless sage. Good for you. Do your science. The proof is in the pudding, not in claims of emotionless states of mind as a true attribute of sages engaging in science.

Remember: I was not arguing with a fallacy, not with something I saw as false. You didn't have an argument, but a single poorly supported statement.

Here is your argument, and what you should have started with:

There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong, however, is thinking that because Nature did not happen to align your mind to such concepts that they are then somehow outside the bounds of anything a real sage would do. If a sage is truly as adept as you paint him to be, then why should such practices be forbidden from him if he has a capable mind for them? There is nothing contradictory about an enlightened person engaging in science or math. Thinking that science or math is truth or ultimate reality is wrong however. Your prejudices are clear as day. You simply don't like the coloration Nature has seen fit to give this mind. When it is said that Zen is the art of doing nothing, it does not mean sitting on your ass literally not partaking in any activity. It is about the awareness of who is credited with said activity.

Minus the ad hominem attacks (where you falsely imagined my prejudices and skill-set), I agree with this, and this was what I was trying to get you to agree with in the first place. Sages can practise science. Your separation into "the science mind" and "the Zen mind" is not a good division: it was not science that you were attacking, but emotions. So, "the emotional mind" and "the Zen mind" would have been more appropriate.

Thank you for telling me how I should do things, sage.

Your definition of science is completely impossible and I'm sure you are not living up to it. Are you without interest or motivation at all? In any way? Your profile said you were interested in working with a forge. Maybe it's not true anymore, but as some point it was no? The same interest you have in using a forge is not all that different from the science mind. It's about tools, discovery, and testing. All you've proven is that you thought the worst of my phrase so you could begin your stupid word dance and show what a superior sage you are through words. Good job.

So, after all your anger and weird denials, and all your imaginative ideas as to what I'm actually saying or what my motivations are or who I am, you've finally affirmed what I was pushing for you to say in the first place. Next time, could you please hold the bullshit, and stick to the argument?

Now kids remember, you must express yourself like this and this and not like that.

I'm not your friend. If my nature is below or offensive to you then why did you continue to engage me in your fruitless pursuits of ever more subtle definitions? Oh, because you're a sage and had to prove how right you were. Good job.

For example:

You have no substance. Countless of your so called sages, especially those of the colorful Zen varieties, disprove every word you say, and none of them had or used what you think is the ultimate and only legit expression, A=A. You are the ultimate in hypocrisy, and thus my original response to you proves to have been performed in good faith.

I'll tell you one thing about myself: my friends are always trying to make me angry. It never works.

Oh you have friends? Why bother with such things, emotionless sage?

It's even easier to not care when it's not true, so yeah... just stick to the argument, please.

I shall cater to your every whim great sage.

Tell me: do you still think the Void appears in myriad forms?

Clearly it does because you're using form to refer to it. Buddha is three pounds of flax seed. All your bullshit is due to your great sage-ness, and you continue to push it because otherwise how could you prove it. Enjoy.

[kissaki]

If I piss on sages, vomit on their words, refuse to venerate them, and even kill them, is Void disturbed? Once recognized, Void is no longer dependent on others.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I will not argue with hot air. That post was all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Kissaki, when your emotions have settled, you can give it another go. As it stands, you might as well be screaming at blue for being too similar to yellow.

[kissaki]

I will not argue with hot air. That post was all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Void is indifferent to sound, fury, or demonstrations of great sage-hood.

Kissaki, when your emotions have settled, you can give it another go. As it stands, you might as well be screaming at blue for being too similar to yellow.

What's the matter Trevor? Have you come across something that your words cannot get around or end in agreement with? I stand in defiance precisely for just that reason. Your best move was to never to engage in definitional arguments. Void encompasses all forms, so why did you actually expect to 'win' such an argument with form? Sage-hood, of course.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I'm not going to be taunted into debating with hot air. You can take another stab at your reply after you have slept on this matter, or had a hot bath, or gone for a long walk, or otherwise placated your emotions. When you can give me a reply that is more substance than rage, I will have no problems continuing this debate.