The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:05 am
Location: Elijah-Loka

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Jupi, there is a Law of Diminishing Return in operation in my conversatio with you: the more I put in, the less I get out. And with each response of yours the domain of your concerns shrinks.
Alexis wrote:In some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
What this means is that, to consider the positions you forward, so wedded as they are to ethics, one must know much about your 'personal conduct, character, motives'. In this sense it is all 'to the man'. But, if you say I believe recycling is important, and I answer, His ancestors were maurading Aryans! How is he qualified to recommend recycling!? You would be able to nail me for the ad hominem fallacy. But I am entitled, as it pertains to grand recommendations about how life should be lived, perceived, to focus on the conduct, character, and motives of those who are making these recommendations.

If we are talking about 'mere abstractions' like, say, a mathematical equation, there is really no personal consequence, so the personal element is largely irrelevant. But when it comes to the Grand Issues, and when it is stated in the Instruction Manual prepare to bloody yourself, it all becomes, essentially ad hominem.
Child and singing cradle one
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by jupiviv »

Alexis Jacobi wrote:What this means is that, to consider the positions you forward, so wedded as they are to ethics, one must know much about your 'personal conduct, character, motives'. In this sense it is all 'to the man'. But, if you say I believe recycling is important, and I answer, His ancestors were maurading Aryans! How is he qualified to recommend recycling!? You would be able to nail me for the ad hominem fallacy. But I am entitled, as it pertains to grand recommendations about how life should be lived, perceived, to focus on the conduct, character, and motives of those who are making these recommendations.
Even if I am, say, a mass murderer, any logical truths that I may express are not falsified. You completely ignore the actual arguments I make, and instead choose to ask me what "motivated" me to put forward those arguments. And if I on my part ignore that question, or declare it to be irrelevant, then you immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm in denial of my true self. As a result, I've lost interest in discussing anything with you, and this post is probably the last one that I shall direct at you.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:05 am
Location: Elijah-Loka

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Jupi wrote:Even if I am, say, a mass murderer, any logical truths that I may express are not falsified. You completely ignore the actual arguments I make, and instead choose to ask me what "motivated" me to put forward those arguments. And if I on my part ignore that question, or declare it to be irrelevant, then you immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm in denial of my true self. As a result, I've lost interest in discussing anything with you, and this post is probably the last one that I shall direct at you.
No Valentine's Day card, eh? Jupi, relax. I have been speaking in general terms and haven't been speaking about you personally. You really haven't presented any factual arguments worthy of note, and anyway I am furiously defending myself on 3 (-1/245th if we include Dreadful Dennis) fronts. Show a little mercy, my Indian brother. Be a mench a restate any particular factual argument you'd like me to address. I believe I understand (and will happily restate if you wish) why you think that a logical argument should be taken on its own merits. But do you understand, and can you restate, why, when discussing these very important existential issues, the activity and conduct of the opiner needs to be considered?
Child and singing cradle one
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Post by Tomas »

-Bobo-
Here it goes some sources. It seems that David got it from zen:

-tomas-
Always appreciate "good" research from the reliables here at Genius. Thank you Bobo.

Tomas Note: Any additions from David are mere icing on the cake. The first shall be last and the last shall be first ;-)

PS to David: Give us a report on your recent sojourn to VietNam.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by jupiviv »

Alexis Jacobi wrote:You really haven't presented any factual arguments worthy of note
For what?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:05 am
Location: Elijah-Loka

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

You wrote: You completely ignore the actual arguments I make.
I said: You haven't made any factual arguments.
You said: For what?
I say: For whatever you wish to express.
Child and singing cradle one
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Blair »

Alexis Jacobi wrote:I have definitely seen A=A a billion times but for most of those billion times it has only amounted to a tautology though I admit that I 'sort of' get what it is intended to mean.
It's actually irrelevant how many times you have seen it, since comprehension of it lies outside the barriers of time and space, constructs of the ego.

The ego is a mechanism to preserve the status quo within the organism. You are 'seeing' A=A outside of your conceptual self, mirroring it inside of your self, then proceeding to grapple with it, in the same way your feet and sense of balance grapple with the ground and it's bumps and curves it confronts you with every waking moment.
If the ego is sufficiently subdued, the desire to conceptualize A=A would dissipate. Bear in mind A=A is an abstract representation of an absolute truth. It has to be in this form in order for an unconscious person to be able to realize why it is true, to free oneself from the tyranny of the ego's survival game, that is, to dispute that which is alien to raw awareness, that which threatens the biological evolutionary tendency towards change, movement towards what is sustaining (food, mate, kin, warmth etc) and away from that which endangers (faeces, rejection, abandonment). There's a reason why the anus drops fecal matter behind the body, whilst the legs propel one forward. A primal reason, on which the ego is a more sophisticated modeling thereof. Away from death, toward life.

However, if one does not circle around and step in ones own dung again, someone else will.

Everybody dies and the matter of which they are constituted becomes something else. There is no escaping this reality.

Alex thinks A=A is a tautology = Alex thinks A=A is a tautology
A=A
Alexis Jacobi wrote:I could go on and on and on with ever-opening up levels of critique based just on this, and it is still likely that in the end, you would not desire to understand (or rather you would not accept) any part of what I am suggesting. That is generally why I say that the GF position is like an 'intallation in the mind', it represents an unassailable position with the in-built ability to resist all comers. It appears to me more and more like an affliction and not a means of attaining 'wisdom'.
When and if you (your egotistical mechanism) ceases resisting it, the wisdom will arrive. It will be an aha moment, not filled with the pain of humiliation and defeat which you currently anticipate it as being, but a liberation. Noone is going to be laughing at you, Alex, but laughing with you! You will get the cosmic joke. All the confusion and mystery will be gone. You will simply see what was there all along, unfettered by the illusion that there was something there to be grappled with. There is no David Quinn to fight with, no Dennis to insult, no prince to ignore.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: The very nature of 'wisdom' has to do with experience, not with theory. So, I throw in my two-cents worth.
the nature of wisdom is not what you know,
'tis a gentle process of letting go...
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:05 am
Location: Elijah-Loka

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Blair wrote:...since comprehension of it lies outside the barriers of time and space, constructs of the ego.
In a forum dedicated to the rational and the reasonable, this statement is not only incomprehensible, it is indefensible. If one says: Oh, I get that! I suggest, again, that one is not within rational thought but within mysticism (or a kind of mysticism, which, in GF terms is a mystified mysticism, a tendentious and confused mysticism, etc.) I would also point out, as politely as I could contrive to do so, that Mr Blair seems not quite the person to speak about 'egolessness'. I think this is an example where one would have to consider the 'truth' forwarded in the light of the individual who forwarded it. From this I conclude the following: Blair knows nothing of what 'lies outside the barriers of time and space' or the 'constructs of the ego'. Blair, then, is speaking in some hypothetical language? Or dreaming? Or posing? Still, I suppose I might be mistaken and so would ask Blair to propose some demonstrations---some Euclidian proofs as it were---to indicate something about these barriers beyond time and space, and also what 'egolessness' is or means. I think that if Blair succeeds in this, Blair's ideas will become more credible. More credible than, say: 'fuckshit weasel douchella piss toad on a fucking stick licking assholes', which is, indeed, a crude paraphrase of some of Blair's elevated and edifying discourse...

The center part of your post I confess not to understand at all...
When and if you (your egotistical mechanism) ceases resisting it, the wisdom will arrive. It will be an aha moment, not filled with the pain of humiliation and defeat which you currently anticipate it as being, but a liberation. Noone is going to be laughing at you, Alex, but laughing with you! You will get the cosmic joke. All the confusion and mystery will be gone. You will simply see what was there all along, unfettered by the illusion that there was something there to be grappled with. There is no David Quinn to fight with, no Dennis to insult, no prince to ignore.
This is quite a bit like how Cult Psychology works. Okay: since what you are writing and proposing is pretty clearly irrational and idiosyncratic, to surrender my 'ego-mechanism' (to it) would not at all be a good idea (from my perspective). Certainly though, in your concocted fantasy, it would be a good idea, indeed it is necessary and even inevitable. So, instead of even pretending to accept this locura you propose, I suggest instead that you begin a process of resisting it yourself---untying these strange knots tied, deconstructing these strange constructions which, I think it must be clearly seen, are intimately tied up with your own 'ego', that is only to say your cultivated self. So, finally, there is still David to 'fight with' which to me only means bring up counter-arguments and alternatives to monlithic thinking, grandiose thinking, absolutist and binary thinking, and thinking with unrecognized 'unconscious tendencies'. Dennis, though I have been impressed that he is actually engaging in conversation, is still quite a little laughable, and Blair may indeed be more or less 'ignored' since, in fact, he brings nothing of value or use forward.

Do you see where I am coming from?

The rest goes like this: GF to speak generally is not a place for this 'rational thought'. It is not a place for open dialogue and exploration of existential ideas. It is a place where those ideas and that process of discovery is insulted. Most of the people who attempt to write so authoritatively on these subject demonstrate that, in fact, they do not have mastery of the idea or their ability to present those ideas. People come forward with alternatives, or genuine misgivings, and they are routinely shot down and more or less driven from the forum. With this, the conversation shrinks, and no longer becomes anything like a conversation but a tape-loop of irrelevant chatter about nothing, about inanities. In conversation after conversation, sticking quite carefully to the subject, I have decimated the illusion-based and badly-reasoned positions of those chatter-boxes who come forward with their cheesy arguments. It is all here, on these pages. Taken on the whole, one must conclude, 'you' are fakes, liars, poseurs and charlatans who pretend to some fantastic reasoning and yet fall prey to complete irrationality, to a drunk and irresponsible mysticism. The FACT that this is so, and the FACT that it is demonstrated for all to see, is intolerable, and so the only reaction is...silence. With this, or with this taken deeply into consideration, I suggest it is time to go back to work, that is, back to work on a deep consideration of the ideas that are used in the construction of a phoney, tendentious position; to a better understanding and exposition of them.

Hard work, yes it is. But certainly better than continuing in the farce.
___________________________________________________

Vocabulary

Poseur: 'One who affects a particular attribute, attitude, or identity to impress or influence others'.
Charlatan: 'A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud'.
Farce: 'A comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations'.

PS: The other alternative, which just occureed to me, is that like with Trevor, this upsurge from Blair...is just an elaborate irony. That would be really sort of devilish and even a little delightful! Hmmmm. I'll have to consider THAT now...
Child and singing cradle one
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Blair »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Still, I suppose I might be mistaken and so would ask Blair to propose some demonstrations---some Euclidian proofs as it were---to indicate something about these barriers beyond time and space,
I've already done so; A=A . It is true both within time and space, and outside of them; ie. absolutely true.

If Blair never existed (that is, Blair was never a construct of the space/time continuiim) A=A would still be true.

There's your proof.
Alexis Jacobi wrote:This is quite a bit like how Cult Psychology works. Okay: since what you are writing and proposing is pretty clearly irrational and idiosyncratic, to surrender my 'ego-mechanism' (to it) would not at all be a good idea (from my perspective). Certainly though, in your concocted fantasy, it would be a good idea, indeed it is necessary and even inevitable.
There was never any suggestion that you submit to it, I don't give a rat's ass if you do or not.

You see, I have all the 'time' in the Universe, you don't.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Blair may indeed be more or less 'ignored' since, in fact, he brings nothing of value or use forward.
Once again, I don't give a rat's about you insulting or dismissing me, 'tis water off a ducks back. I've got all the time in the Cosmos remember, you don't. ;)
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Taken on the whole, one must conclude, 'you' are fakes, liars, poseurs and charlatans who pretend to some fantastic reasoning and yet fall prey to complete irrationality, to a drunk and irresponsible mysticism. The FACT that this is so, and the FACT that it is demonstrated for all to see, is intolerable, and so the only reaction is...silence.
That's the usual schtick you present, and I will remind you once again, I couldn't care less, Alex if you continue the same line of disagreement on this forum for the next twenty years, or you died this second.

I don't care, get it? Not one iota.

I don't care, you do
That's why A=A will always be true...
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:05 am
Location: Elijah-Loka

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Well damn. There you go.

I...

I...

I...

(*shrugs*)
Child and singing cradle one
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Alexis Jacobi wrote:It is not a place for open dialogue and exploration of existential ideas. It is a place where those ideas and that process of discovery is insulted.
Please show us one place doing it so much better on the exploration of existential ideas! I'd love to visit. There must be one place you are not vomited out of after a while. Oh, that's right, that was this place. :-) It's your destiny to be here locked in with the insane trying to solve your own maze!
Taken on the whole, one must conclude, 'you' are fakes, liars, poseurs and charlatans who pretend to some fantastic reasoning and yet fall prey to complete irrationality, to a drunk and irresponsible mysticism.
Instead of arguing with that position I'd like to suggest to you to ask yourself if that position was not already taken by you almost from the very start a few years back. And then you might wonder where your fascination with it really lies. Do you really think you've been inserting something "new" or "truthful" here? Did you save anyone from the irrationality so far? Maybe you're just here for the psychopathic fun of it, toying with "lesser minds"? Trying to "dissect" insanity as way, as diversion, just to not confront your very own although you might think otherwise? You must wonder what's more insane then: to join a forum where some values and interests, at least some basic philosophical orientation is shared or to participate year after year while being fundamentally alien to its principles. In terms of holism it's no brain-teaser to see who is the alienated and unhealthy one here.
a deep consideration of the ideas that are used in the construction of a phoney, tendentious position; to a better understanding and exposition of them.
Perhaps over time you might come to realize the phoney and tendentious positions you might witness here are not different from how most of the world around you operates. It's time to turn the whole discussion around and try to identify your own cult, your own game and prejudices to a degree you haven't tried before. And then, and only then, you might understand that despite the outrageous nature of the claims and mysticism as perpetuated by some folks, there's at least an understanding occasionally shining through leading beyond it. Of course any notion of beyond is utter insanity to those who still are wholly focused on everything else instead and believe it somehow is crucial and all-important to keep engaging halfheartedly in a selfish pipe-dream of integration.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by guest_of_logic »

Alex,

I originally composed this as a personal message to you and then decided that it might have general interest, so I'm posting it publicly - its original composition as a personal message hopefully explains the style in which it is written.

Recently I had an in-person discussion with Kevin in which he described "the ego" as all of the beliefs, preferences and attachments that people have about and to themselves, and in which he asserted that this ego is as such comprised of "fantasy" and is a delusion. It struck me that so much of the Kevin/GF philosophy hinges on this. Kevin presents this as a wholly rational position to take, but it seems to me that it's more akin to the glass being half full or half empty - a matter of personal perspective. I view Kevin's perspective in the same way that I view a person's chosen reaction to the idea that everything is an illusion: if everything is an illusion, then "illusion" just becomes the new way of saying "real", and whichever word you choose to use depends on how you feel about the reality/illusoriness that you find yourself in. Something else that seems similar to me is the notion of whether things exist in an "inherent" or "non-inherent" sense: it depends on which perspective you look at them from - if you look at everything as being interdependent then you might say that things exist "non-inherently"; if you look from the perspective of the entire universe existing as an independent entity (a notion that GF promulgates), and each thing inside it being a portion of that independently existing entity, then you might say that things exist "inherently" (as a property derivative of the whole).

This is one reason why, I think, GFers can fairly be criticised as "binary thinkers". They fix their perspective and assert that they have so fixed it on purely rational grounds, without realising/acknowledging that opposing perspectives can equally be justified through "pure reason".

I think it's also interesting to explore the sort of ideas that might lead a person like Kevin (and the GFers) to take this position (that the ego as the totality of a person's beliefs, preferences and attachments is a delusion/fantasy). There are a few such ideas - two are the notion that nothing exists "inherently" and the notion that it's possible that we're living in a virtual reality, but the over-arching idea, I believe, is determinism: the Kevin/GF notion that the universe is wholly causal, leading to the notion that no aspect of a person is due to his own doing; that in fact there is no such thing as "own doing", that it's all "Nature's doing". This is the idea by which Kevin rejects especially emotions based on personal responsibility, either one's own personal responsibility or that of another individual. This covers a range of emotions, from pride (how can one be proud of that for which one is not personally responsible?) to anger (how can one be angry at another person when that person is not truly responsible for what they did?).

Here, again, I think it's a matter of perspective as much as anything. For a start, I think it's essential to recognise that most of us (at least as far as I know - certainly it applies to me) experience a feeling of freedom of will that is sufficient for us to hold ourselves personally responsible in the main for what we do. Now, assuming for the sake of argument that the universe actually is deterministic, does this really entail that the experience/feeling of free will and personal responsibility is in fact merely an elaborate illusion? One person who has an interesting justification for answering (according to my understanding of his position) "No" is Professor Norman Swartz, who outlines his view here: http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/freewill1.htm. In essence, he argues that even in a deterministic universe in which our choices are all mapped out in advance, this does not entail that in the making of them we are not free and not personally responsible for them: determinism, Professor Swartz asserts, describes but does not prescribe our choices.

The GF philosophy here is based on the binary thinking (the so-called "truth") that categorically eliminates the distinction between that which is external to a person and that which is internal to a person. It takes as a given (a "truth") that the boundary between a person and the rest of the universe is utterly arbitrary and thus illusory, and thus that a person is merely a ripple/cog in the deterministic ocean/machinery of the universe, with no capacity for self-originating actions/decisions. Once again, I see this as a matter of perspective, not a "truth", and I think that there are other possibilities, and perhaps even a balance to be found between the two extremes of "man is utterly incapable of self-origination" and "man is entirely self-originating".

One need not see the boundary between person and universe as illusory; in fact our everyday recognition of other people implies that we do not actually see it this way. A problem, too, with the extremeness of the GF perspective is that it perpetually postpones origination to the point that it postulates (go the P's!) an infinite regress, which, essentially, entails total lack of origination, or pure "is-ness", which is an odd thing to believe about the magic of reality: that it "just is".

A less extreme perspective than the GF perspective, and one that need not deny determinism whilst incorporating Professor Swartz's perspective, is to view people as roughly individuated within the rest of reality and as, within this individuation, free agents whose choices determinism describes but does not prescribe. I can see no slam-dunk, "purely rational" argument against this alternative perspective. Where this leaves the Kevin/GF notion that it is purely logical that all of a person's beliefs, preferences and attachments are delusion/fantasy is... not in a very good (sound) place. In this context, such an assertion/position looks very much like, as I put to Kevin, the result of aesthetic preferences far more than anything purely logical.

Here, then, is where you are justified in asking, "What motivates this philosophy?" It's not a fallacious ad-hominem, it's a to-the-point inquiry. What would motivate a man, given alternative choices of belief, to believe that he has no real free will, that his personality/ego is a fantasy/delusion, and that women are a dangerous hindrance to be avoided, all whilst holding on to a belief that reality must be accepted for what it is (A=A)? This is an open question that's very interesting to consider.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

guest of logic wrote:This is one reason why, I think, GFers can fairly be criticised as "binary thinkers". They fix their perspective and assert that they have so fixed it on purely rational grounds, without realising/acknowledging that opposing perspectives can equally be justified through "pure reason".
This too, of course, remains a matter of perspective and possible a "binary" proposition too (ie. that it is fixed on rational grounds opposing some other perspective). One cannot keep pretending all, or certain opposing perspectives are all true because that would mean ones own perspective is necessarily false (as one of the "true" perspectives is then that there's no all-compassing perspective, and perspective in the existential realms end up meaning choice, not just toeing the waterline in an armchair). So one ends always rejecting one and upholding the other. Which is fine. Which is to be encouraged. Because not doing so or at least implying one is not doing so is delusion: it doesn't work on so many levels!

Anyway, my impression of the forum has always been the opposite of what you are sketching: if there even is some overarching theme or thought here (which I doubt) it ends up being connected to the realization that there is no "fixed" perspective or assertion, or not even a fixed rational "ground" beyond the confines of ones own consciousness (A=A). The purpose of any assertions is only to diminish that "ego" you mentioned and the ignorance attached to it. It's ultimately a negative logic, not a binary one: not this, not that. And not not. It's not even rational and yet rationality remains the best tool: trust it! That is: your mind.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Laird,
it's understood.
You think GFers are stupid and you and Alex are not stupid.
direct seeing.
why muck about.
be honest.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by guest_of_logic »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:One cannot keep pretending all, or certain opposing perspectives are all true
What I'm trying to get at though is that the perspectives by which GF operates are often not amenable to truth or falsity in the first place: that they're often subjective (often aesthetic) judgements which derive their value from the benefit that they provide to their bearer rather than from any ("absolute" or "objective") truth - a domain from which they are often actually excluded by dint of their category - that they represent. In this I recognise the logic by which Alex asks after the effects of the idea on the person as opposed to the "truth" of the idea (a subjective thing not actually amenable to any objective or "absolute" truth) itself.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:So one ends always rejecting one [the opposing perspective] and upholding the other [one's own perspective]. Which is fine. Which is to be encouraged.
Indeed. Of course one chooses one's perspective as against opposing perspectives, and this is "fine", healthy, desirable and "to be encouraged", but when one then goes on to describe one's perspective as "Ultimate Truth"... well, then you draw the type of criticism as directed at this forum.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Anyway, my impression of the forum has always been the opposite of what you are sketching: if there even is some overarching theme or thought here (which I doubt)
You've asserted this before, and then, as now, it puzzled me. You have three founders who agree that there is one Ultimate Truth, and who set up this forum to promote it, and then you have a bunch of fans of that Truth[tm] who proselytise it - how then can you doubt that there is an overarching theme or thought here? It smacks to me of a need to not be seen as an automaton or robot; to be seen as a man with his own independent ideas, dare I say it as a man with his own free will? And so, it is true: you, Deebs, are drawn to the light. ;-)
Last edited by guest_of_logic on Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by guest_of_logic »

Dennis, why don't you respond to the actual ideas I expressed rather than a simplistic misrepresentation of my contribution? I'm not saying that anyone's "stupid". I'm saying that Kevin's and GF's notion that he/it is offering a platform of "Ultimate Truth" is mistaken, and that instead he/it is offering a subjective perspective on reality that might or might not be helpful for an individual, and that as such Alex is justified in asking after the effects of this subjective perspective on those who adopt it.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Don't fudge it Laird.
You think GFers are stupid, what else could 'mistaken' mean.
direct seeing.
why muck about.
be honest.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by guest_of_logic »

Dennis, if you're uncomfortable with the idea that you might be stupid, then prove that you're not by responding intelligently to the ideas that I presented. "Stupid" and "mistaken" aren't to be confused, by the way.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Dennis Mahar »

If someone is mistaken they are suffering from a form of stupidity.
else they wouldn't be the possibility of mistaken.
It takes 'not stupidity' to be 'not mistaken'.
why muck about with fancy definitions.
direct seeing.
Just say it Laird.
Common Sense.
show some guts mate.
You think GFers are stupid.
they're not going to kick you off the board.
no-one cares.
User avatar
Anders Schlander
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Denmark

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Anders Schlander »

Guest of Logic wrote:the Kevin/GF notion that the universe is wholly causal, leading to the notion that no aspect of a person is due to his own doing; that in fact there is no such thing as "own doing", that it's all "Nature's doing". This is the idea by which Kevin rejects especially emotions
Note: you can't reject emotions, you can reject what causes emotions. It's an important thing to understand. Although, when I say you, I don't intend to imply that one has free will about it all.
Guest of Logic wrote:It takes as a given (a "truth") that the boundary between a person and the rest of the universe is utterly arbitrary and thus illusory, and thus that a person is merely a ripple/cog in the deterministic ocean/machinery of the universe, with no capacity for self-originating actions/decisions.
This is utterly bullshit, this is not something taking for granted, as if you can't logically demonstrate it, If you build your house on sand, the house will crumble and fade away, if you made all your conclusions based on a false one, all your conclusions will be wrong. This is not the case here.

It logically follows that a person is recognized by being whatever that isn't around the person, and the rest of the universe is recognized by being whatever that isn't the person. It follows that because the two appear by each other's boundaries, they cause each other to be distinctly what they are. The small tiny person is seen in light of the big universe, the big universe is seen in light of the small tiny person. This means that whatever you imagine will always be caused by whatever it is not, hence there can be no free will, you are exactly as the rest of the universe makes you. If love and hate rest upon each other, pretending that they are utterly distinct would be rather foolish right?

You are so insistent on calling it the 'QRS' Philosophy, as if distinct from many corners of the world, perhaps universe, who have discovered the same truth(s). You pretend like 'QRS philosophy' is just one of many 'Taken for granted' "truths" as if making up their own religion based on fantasy. I have a hard time seeing what you could base this on...


guest of logic wrote:This is one reason why, I think, GFers can fairly be criticised as "binary thinkers". They fix their perspective and assert that they have so fixed it on purely rational grounds, without realising/acknowledging that opposing perspectives can equally be justified through "pure reason".
You're just going on and on with uncertainty about a lot of these concepts. Talking about perspective, and you say that opposing perspectives are 'justified' through 'pure' reason, excuse me, but what the fuck? What exactly is pure and un pure reason? How is truth a matter of perspective? If it isnt true in all possible perspectives, then it isn't true to begin with, your 'perspectives' have nothing to do with truth, perspectives are based in science. We are dealing with philosophy here. A truth isn't suddenly going to change if im a girl instead of a boy. Just because we mostly agree that the sky is blue, doesn't mean that its an ultimate truth that 'the sky is blue'. All perspectives can be justified, even opposed ones, like a guy saying the sky is blue, and a guy saying the sky is red, not knowing they see the sky at different times. But again, this is everyday stuff, it's the uncertainty of science, not the certainty of philosophy

Guest of Logic wrote:Here, then, is where you are justified in asking, "What motivates this philosophy?" It's not a fallacious ad-hominem, it's a to-the-point inquiry. What would motivate a man, given alternative choices of belief, to believe that he has no real free will, that his personality/ego is a fantasy/delusion, and that women are a dangerous hindrance to be avoided, all whilst holding on to a belief that reality must be accepted for what it is (A=A)? This is an open question that's very interesting to consider.
What would motivate a man to believe he has no free will? Evidence, Logic. Actually, why would he need to 'believe' if he knows he has no free will due to indisputable logic? sure if evidence merely appeared to be that he had no free will, which also happens to be the case, I.e. your perspectives, then he would simply believe it. But philosophy can tell you this with certainty. These questions are again based on your 'perspectives', as if you think the reasons for turning away from women, the ego etc. is merely a perspective of time, and thus, subject to change at any moment. You do this because then you can entertain that the opposite perspective is equally valid. Problem is, you don't focus on the cause of why one would reject the ego, or turn away from women, you focus on those very facts, as if it's just a 'perspective' that some people interestingly have, it wouldn't occur to you that the perspective of a person rejecting the ego or turning away from women is grounded in an absolute idea, and not on a mere perspective, which is why I note that one does not reject emotion, but the cause of emotion. Or rather, you don't simply have an opinion to reject emotion, the person absorbs the water that dissolves the ego all by itself, in a sense, Nature happens to gift that person with the causes that do just that, and the ego dissolves on it's own.


People have it all wrong. The subjective is not a matter of perspective and opinion per se. - It only is because people don't care for/know anything past herdly gossip and fashionable opinions, when pushed along, it reveals the absolute subjectivity, where the individual is no longer full of fleeting perspectives, but bases himself in something absolute.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by jupiviv »

guest_of_logic wrote:if everything is an illusion, then "illusion" just becomes the new way of saying "real"
You've hit upon a deep truth here - it doesn't matter whether *everything*, that is to say the totality of all things that exist, is called an illusion or a reality. They would mean the same. Likewise, people can talk about the same thing in different ways.

But that is not what you are saying, is it? Your position(and Alexis') is that two people can see the same thing as two different things, and still see the same thing(or conversely, see two different things as the same thing, and still manage to see two different thing).
Something else that seems similar to me is the notion of whether things exist in an "inherent" or "non-inherent" sense: it depends on which perspective you look at them from
I would say that they depend on the definition of "inherent" and "non-inherent". A thing cannot be something that it is not, so in that sense things do not have inherent existence. On the other hand, a thing always is what it appears to be, so it has inherent existence. In the first case, the thing is conceived of as being part of all things that could possibly exist. In the second case, we are merely focusing on the thing itself. As such, these are not different perspectives at all, but the same perspective. The difference is not in the perspective, but the language that is used to describe it.

On the other hand, you think that a person who uses the definition of the word "inherent" in a fallacious way to prove that things exist inherently(or who doesn't even have a clear definition of the word), is perfectly right in doing so, merely because he has a different "perspective."
The GF philosophy here is based on the binary thinking (the so-called "truth") that categorically eliminates the distinction between that which is external to a person and that which is internal to a person.
It eliminates the *attachment* to that distinction, which leads to a person thinking that he can do whatever he feels like doing, and that his actions won't have any consequences.
It takes as a given (a "truth") that the boundary between a person and the rest of the universe is utterly arbitrary and thus illusory
I would disagree with this idea, unless the word "illusory" means "impermanent."
A less extreme perspective than the GF perspective, and one that need not deny determinism whilst incorporating Professor Swartz's perspective, is to view people as roughly individuated within the rest of reality and as, within this individuation, free agents whose choices determinism describes but does not prescribe.

I don't know what you mean by determinism "describing" our choices. Are you saying that we can know what our choices would be before we make them? I would say that would depend on the definition of a "choice."
What would motivate a man, given alternative choices of belief, to believe that he has no real free will, that his personality/ego is a fantasy/delusion, and that women are a dangerous hindrance to be avoided, all whilst holding on to a belief that reality must be accepted for what it is (A=A)? This is an open question that's very interesting to consider.
Indeed, and it would also be interesting to consider what motivates a man to believe the opposite of those things - that he does have free will, that his ego is completely real, that his attraction to women is perfectly rational, and that reality mustn't be accepted for what it is. :-)
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:05 am
Location: Elijah-Loka

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Diebert wrote:Please show us one place doing it so much better on the exploration of existential ideas! I'd love to visit. There must be one place you are not vomited out of after a while. Oh, that's right, that was this place. :-) It's your destiny to be here locked in with the insane trying to solve your own maze!
It is odd to me, in the context, that this is essentially an 'ad hominem' statement. If the 'ad hominem' is the absolute fallacy it is said to be, it should be useless in argumentation, but in fact it is not. The questions Diebert poses are not in my mind irrelevant. But they are distracting, presented as he presents them.

You see, you might have participated in a more substantial way in this particular conversation at an earlier point, and you might have actually conversed the ideas. But you seem to do this less and less. The function of your thrust here is to cause me to restate all that I have already said. Then, you will find some 'red herring' and use that as a tactic to divert the conversation toward inanities, and then your contribution will simply peter out, as did Trevor's and Jupi's and to some extent Anders's. Those whose arguments or approach you don't like, are ignored. This is a tactic that is used here often. There is an alternative: deal strictly with the ideas presented when they are presented. I wrote a post where I describe that GF 'insults' the conversation in a grand sense. Do you even understand what I am saying and why? Can you restate it without compromising it? Can you actually listen?

To know and acknowledge there are far worse places in cyberspace is not an argument against the 'insult' I have identified. Go right to that. Address that. Not only was it stated in that post, it has been my general them for a long time, and still is.

Here are your 'arguments', Diebert:
  • You have been 'vomited out' of forums.
  • You were 'vomited out' of this one.
  • But you keep coming back.
  • You assert that there is someting unwell about the people who hold to 'absolute' opinions.
  • But then why do you find it necessary or important to even oppose them?
  • You are locked into participation in a place but what you are 'working on' is essentially your own 'maze'.
Mostly, as I think anyone can see, this is argument only for the sake of distraction. If only because you have mentioned the same group of insinuations, at the same juncture in conversations, numerous times before. It would be so much simpler and demonstrate more intellectual integrity to simply deal on the ideas presented.

So, what is the main question here? The one that really is relevant? It is the question of why a person (me) participates in a forum like this when one (me) has identified what one (me) describes as dysfunctional thinking. (It is not a bad question). As to the statement: 'In fact, dearest Alex, you are in and you are working on your own maze!' is a statement I like! I am not bothered at all by it. It is one of my most important points. But I'll get to that in a second.
  • Why would a person stay in a dysfunctional (intellectual) environment and work to present counter-arguments?
The answer is utterly simple. It is done in the belief that these ideas need to be aired here. That 'ideas have consequences' and that wrong or mistaken ideas can do harm. This is a statement of 'wisdom', not grand, astounding, earth-shattering GF wisdom but simple, basic wisdom. I see many people here who seem to me to be tied up in knots. Yes, it is likely that I will not be able to influence them, I accept that. But I carefully write out differing 'conceptual pathways' that a person can follow, and I hope (though I do not know) that this will lead them toward a better territory inside their own selves where they can consider intellectual, spiritual, existential and philosophical ideas in a better way, and of course avoid the rather terrible pitfalls that are quite easy to distinguish in the main players here (and I mean this in a 'to the man' sense).
  • You, Alex, are in your OWN maze! WE are not in that maze. YOU are the problem.
This is pretty basic, if very childish material. In different ways, one hears this sort of argumentation in children but usually children under the age of ten. So, let's work through it. According to my view, we are all in a maze. That is exactly the problem we face. I mean this more in our advanced modernity. So many ideas, so many perspectives, so many possibilities, so much that, like some machine with cutting blades, incises the individual, chops them up without caring one iota about them. Indeed, a machine is a machine and cannot 'care'. There are huge forces that surround all of us and that wish to do (were designed to do) exactly that: use persons within the machinery. As I have explained so FUCKING many times before, the individual is under assault. The individual seeks shelter and protection, and seeks idea structures that offer a means to comprehend Reality; as defensive tools. All this, against bad odds, to keep the individual intact. Which means, to keep the individual from falling asunder. Which is to say IN MADNESS, which is the undercurrent clearly visible and recognizable in many people who participate here. IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, that's one thing. And the ramification of ideas (those 'machines' that have been put in motion, that are the constructs of 'ideas') also have consequences, that's another.

I believe that in a significant degree the ideas of GF are not so much aids to help an individual gather himself together and hold himself together, but are tools used to take him apart. That means, they are like unto machine ideas that have been set in motion by other causes and that left to act on the individual can do HARM to that individual. IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

Alright, so essentially I agree with you: I am certainly in the same maze as anyone else. I am attempting to think and feel things through. I am looking for ideas that are 'key' and 'absolutely relevant'. I am looking for defenses against a mad exterior world (forces) that, given the chance, would dice me up only to be a particle in the machinery. And I call that 'Hell'. I propose that there are alternatives, and the alternative ('to the man' in another sense) is in holding the person and the personal as PRIMARY to all considerations and all conversations. If there is a position where the Individual can find refuge, wellness, 'salvation', unity, a sense of value and accomplishment, it is within the primacy of his own personal self. The key to everything relevant and valuable to us all is found there, indeed where the FUCK else could it be found!

This is essentially the angle that I work in these conversations. When I came to this forum I had no idea what was in store for me, what would be discovered, and what sort of work would be required. But I set to work AGAINST a group of machine-like persons, with machine-like ideas, whose 'purpose' was to cut up, dis-integrate, break apart and dehumanify the PERSON. It is done through forwarding a very effective group of LIES that are held up and represented as absolute truths, sheer and recognizable absolute facts, like an equation---Hey! Like A=A! The 'tool' of a person giving themselves over to machine thought!

Yes, yes, Diebert, I know that you do not and that you cannot recognize any part of this. You will NEVER criticize any of the core ideas presented on this forum as absolute facts, as necessities (in a philosophical sense). You will NEVER critique David or Dan or Kevin. You are the quintessential yes man! I guess the conclusion that one draws from this, that I draw anyway, is that you are part of the obscuring and (yes) wounding processes. I see that as your personal maze, as your trap.

Others may be able to avoid it. And that is one reason I write here.
Child and singing cradle one
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

guest_of_logic wrote: In this I recognise the logic by which Alex asks after the effects of the idea on the person as opposed to the "truth" of the idea (a subjective thing not actually amenable to any objective or "absolute" truth) itself.
That's understood but the whole idea of any principle is that it's not that much concerned about effects or bean counting. The principle underlies the common motive, a motive which operates on merely opinion, feeling or calculation. So it starts with being principled which needs first and formost character. Then the question remains: what is a good principle? I'd say it's better to have one bad principle than a good effect-calculation of a certain idea.
... when one then goes on to describe one's perspective as "Ultimate Truth"... well, then you draw the type of criticism as directed at this forum.
It's not "one's perspective", it's the fact of having a perspective at all. That there is perception is called ultimate truth. Why argue with that at all?
You have three founders who agree that there is one Ultimate Truth, and who set up this forum to promote it, and then you have a bunch of fans of that Truth[tm] who proselytise it - how then can you doubt that there is an overarching theme or thought here?
There are various considerations here and these are just my own perceptions as an active member and debater over the years. Perhaps the fact is also important I joined this forum without knowing anything about "founders" or their specific viewpoints. I noticed insightful posts and I jumped in. First impressions never die, so for me it's still a place with some interesting and insightful stuff going on, and as well baloney and pretense. The viewpoints of the administrators are still secondary in the way I view the forum and its members. Naturally the subject of ultimate truth remains the largest topic since it has been setup that way. The majority of the posts currently do not seem to reflect anything, or hardly of what I believe the founders intended to promote. Sometimes it might sound like it but really, it's the individual himself who needs to determine it, sometimes in debate, sometime by just mulling it over.

And are you sure your ideas on "fanboys" and "proselytes" are your own? It seems to me more an intellectual lazy way to dismiss and debase what one cannot handle: that there is such a sincere interest by individuals in these topics and approaches, all of them in their own way and imperfect. Some might have copied too much style and not enough substance but the same I could say about the way you voice your own criticism here. I might hear other stronger personalities echo through them, almost ad verbatim.But hey, it's all speculation in the end. Why not stick with what you can know?

Another factor is the way I perceive the themes being discussed at this forum. The language, terms and ideas do not differ that much from many other sources and traditions. I don't see it as special or deviant at all like some are doing. I think that those who are implying that might lack the experience and variety in diet to understand how the views you and yours are so often protesting against are very present in the philosophical discourse around the world, very much alive in past and present.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:05 am
Location: Elijah-Loka

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dearly Beloveds. I propose, as is often my wont, a soundtrack for this segment of our 'conversations'. It's my own nonchalant whistling that can be heard throughout these posts....
Diebert wrote:Instead of arguing with that position I'd like to suggest to you to ask yourself if that position was not already taken by you almost from the very start a few years back. And then you might wonder where your fascination with it really lies. Do you really think you've been inserting something "new" or "truthful" here? Did you save anyone from the irrationality so far? Maybe you're just here for the psychopathic fun of it, toying with "lesser minds"? Trying to "dissect" insanity as way, as diversion, just to not confront your very own although you might think otherwise? You must wonder what's more insane then: to join a forum where some values and interests, at least some basic philosophical orientation is shared or to participate year after year while being fundamentally alien to its principles. In terms of holism it's no brain-teaser to see who is the alienated and unhealthy one here.
The assertion here is (if I read correctly):
  • That my basic and expressed position is mystical. Or, in my sort of phrasing, 'utterly mystical'.
And (if it is a question) the answer is unequivocably yes. My relationship to being, to my existence, to my existence in this world, to my sense of God, divinity, and the 'progress' of the individual is, indeed and in very fact, certainly mystical.

But Diebert. Read a little better. I am not denying David or anyone the right to their profound mysticism! I am trying to point out that the use of 'reason' to defend it, is spurious! David's view is that his ideas or opinions or assessment or conclusion is utterly 'rational'. I suggest that it utterly isn't! Because David's position is 100% mystical, this means that all mystical positions are on the table as 'rationally considerable'! USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN, MAN! If that is so, the whole basis of the so-called rationalistic, logical position is thrown into question! Our rational and logical tendency may not indeed be quite so useful to us (on this grand level) as we assume. David utterly makes that assumption and so do many of the ducklings who follow after him, turning now to the right, now to the left...
  • Where, indeed, dear Alex, does your facination with it lie? That is, with the mystical position?
As I have said many times, I do not think that what we normally understand as the 'logical approach' or the exclusive use of reason(ing) can answer for us the largest existential questions. Quoting some Zen scripture, posted or linked to by Bobo, there are possible reasons why this is so. Did you read those? Those statements about Original Face or whatever it is called? About going beyond words or leaving words aside? I am not at all opposed to such a means of grasping or understanding, in fact this is exactly my point: each of us, essentially, defines a mystical perspective.

The real question is: Now what? If I have to explain, as if to a child, the importance of the question Now What, I will get on a plane, come to Holland, and kick your Dutch ass! Don't play stupid with me. It offends.
  • Do you really think you've been inserting something "new" or "truthful" here?
The only worthwhile 'thing' is to ask the questions. To keep coming back to the questions. The new thing I 'do' is to renew the questions. It is not a thing being done by QRS---they are only putting forward conclusions, and conclusions with specific ethical recommendations! I am casting their conclusions in the (new) light of questions and certainly casting into questionability their mass of 'conclusions'. So, yes, I am inserting something 'new' and 'truthful', if questions can be seen in that way. I also say many many new and useful things about the primacy of the individual and about personalist notions. In short, I am indeed wonderful.

As Tomas has asked: What have YOU done lately? ;-)
  • Maybe you're just here for the psychopathic fun of it, toying with "lesser minds"?
As I explained to Trevor, there are as many as 22 different reasons why I am here and why I do what I do. I am personally cognizant of seven of them and will happily---and with great gusto and panache!---carefully explain them in the dozens---nay! hundreds!---of posts that will follow. (Diebert: Stop being such a sucker! And stop asking stupid questions. It is insulting to you and to me).
  • Trying to "dissect" insanity as way, as diversion, just to not confront your very own although you might think otherwise?
Okay, now we get to a more interesting 'core'. This statement really means: I think you are insane. Or, you have mental problems. Or more simply You are the problem (not us). Or: even if you say you wish to be productive and helpful, I know you are actually insane and psychopathic.

And so:

I challenge you to describe in clear, direct prose why you think this is so. Please avoid that cheap, cheesy imitation-Nietzsche-prose of yours when you wish to get 'fancy' and convoluted. Let the analysis proceed! And with that analysis an affirmation of the usefulness and necessity of the 'ad hominem'! IT UNDERLIES EVERYTHING WE DO HERE! INDEED, IT MUST!

The rest of your statement is just a repeat (rehearsal I often say) of what you have already said.

Proceed, Diebert.

And why, WHY I ask, can't we have another down here at the foot?!? Fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa. No reason, not good reason at all.
Child and singing cradle one
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

Post by cousinbasil »

Dennis wrote:If someone is mistaken they are suffering from a form of stupidity.
else they wouldn't be the possibility of mistaken.
Perhaps all of your mistakes are stupid, Dennis. I know I myself at times make mistakes which I later think of as having been stupid, but more often I regard mistakes as part of the learning process which is to be alive. Logically, being able to learn does not preclude one from making mistakes. Might Laird have not called "GFers" stupid because that would have required making an assumption which was not consistent with his intent?
Anders wrote:This means that whatever you imagine will always be caused by whatever it is not, hence there can be no free will, you are exactly as the rest of the universe makes you.
This requires an a priori assumption that whatever is not A causes A. How does one prove that? Being that A can be "whatever you imagine"?
Locked