What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by jupiviv »

The problem with Laird is that he refuses to think about the idea of the "metaphysical force" in and of itself. Instead he spends his time devising arguments that support the idea, while the idea itself is lacking in his mind(which is why he calls it "personal experience").
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

David,

It's good to see that you're keeping an open mind.

Ordinarily I do not even acknowledge publicly let alone discuss publicly any psychiatric diagnosis that I might have, and would consider it, as you say, in bad taste for another person to bring it up. It is in my eyes very much like forcing a gay man to "come out" without his consent. Under the circumstances, I recognise why you raise it, and I recognise that I can hardly expect to avoid it, and so, even though I do not appreciate you bringing it up - you have forced me to "come out" against my will - I will answer your (otherwise legitimate) question.

The short answer to your question is that I have simply known from the start, based partly on the actual experiences I've had and partly on "inner knowing", that my condition is spiritual and not psychiatric. For that reason I rarely if ever apply the label "schizophrenic" to myself, simply because I do not appreciate the psychiatric connotations that it has. To the extent that I even acknowledge the diagnosis, it is only as a cluster of experiences that I share with other people to whom the label has also been applied. Of course, this is unhelpful as an answer to someone looking for objective proof, so let me in a longer answer offer a couple of more helpful resources and anecdotes that might achieve that aim.

The first is of an experience that I had prior to the onset of any condition. As a traveller back in 1997 I was visiting friends near Shepparton in Victoria, and the idea came up that we would try to conjure spirits one night with a ouija board, as I had never done that before and was (foolishly) curious about whether these boards "worked". There were four of us, and one of the others had a diagnosis of schizophrenia - this was long before I even knew much about what that meant. We gathered together in the house of the parents of one of our group (the parents were out at a social event), drew up the letters in a circle on some paper, placed an upside down glass on the board and placed our fingers on the glass. Then we began calling for any benign spirit to come and talk with us.

The freaky thing is what happened next: not long after we began invoking, and in a house in which all doors and windows were closed, a huge wind tore through the living room where we were sitting, and after that the glass began to move in answer to our questions. We were able to determine through a process of elimination (I had us each rub our fingers up and down the glass in a direction perpendicular to that in which it was moving, so as to remove impelling force from it) that the glass was being moved physically by my friend diagnosed with schizophrenia, so I can't offer any evidence of anything "supernatural" there except to say that he experienced a presence moving the glass "through" him, but the wind... I can't explain that wind in any other way than "supernaturally", and, in contrast to the many similar experiences I've had that have been purely personal, this one was shared with other people who agreed with my interpretation.

The second, and more valuable, I believe, is a resource that has been immensely helpful to me in validating my understanding in a way that (I hope and believe) is accessible to third parties. That resource is a book by Roy Vincent titled Listening to the silences: http://www.royvincent.org/. Bear in mind that I have had this understanding from the start - it is not something that I have picked up from Roy, it is instead something I have found validation for in his writing, and for that reason I very much appreciate his taking the time to relate his experiences. In the book you will find what any fair minded person, accepting that Roy is speaking truthfully, would, I believe, also accept as proof that his voices are of external origin. There are some parallels with my experience in that he has a history of communicating with spirits through external devices.

If that's not enough for you, then check out the books that Roy lists in his glossary, some of them by doctors both in the medical and academic sense. I have made my way through some of them and they are also compelling in different ways.

To answer your question in another way: it is only in recent years that the idea that experiences like mine might not be spirit-related has arisen. Virtually all (and I only qualify that because I haven't done the research - it could be that the qualification is unnecessary) cultures across the world have a history of recognition of a spirit world. To dismiss all this as "fable" and "myth" is, in my opinion, naive and short-sighted. There are cultures where experiences like mine and Roy's are entirely accepted as a normal part of life, and where there would be no thought to dismiss them as "all in the mind". In these cultures, there is a specific role in society for one who is adept in the spirit world, the shaman. The shaman, as intermediary with the spirit world, is responsible for healing spiritual illnesses amongst his tribe that we as Westerners would label as psychiatric and dope one another up for.

I don't offer these observations as "proof", because, naturally, you are free to claim that all this is just myth and fable, but they are another something that bears thinking about.

The question of "delusion" is one that naturally is going to arise, and I think it's an important one. I can't deny that from time to time I experience thoughts about reality that in retrospect are either contradictory or implausible. What I would say to that is what I alluded to earlier in this thread when answering Dan on DonaldJ's "suffering": that delusion is often the outcome of interaction with spiritual reality, and not the cause of a perception of a spiritual reality. Roy goes into this in sections of his book where he discusses techniques external entities have of influencing the minds of their victims.

Liberty Sea,

I'm finding that our exchange is becoming a little ungrounded - what would be very helpful for me is if you would respond to the rubber-meets-road scenario that I put to you earlier. Let's ground things. I want to know what the practical implications of your world-view are.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

The interesting part in this is somewhat different than we might suppose. May I refer to a Jungian perspective? Our long, long human history and the way we have 'organized perception' still remains with us and in us. It seems we deal with entire systems of perception---'epistemes'---that only quite recently have neen challenged by the rationalistic orientation. In a Freudian sense this means reducing all such psychic disturbance to trauma, and all the notions that arise in the mind to support any externalization or fantasy of symptoms, to 'neurosis', and that includes of course the whole idea of God and divinity. One must note that this diagnosis would also have a thing or two to say about David's own senze of 'God' and the underlying projections that seem to function there.

I would again refer to the Upanishad I quote earlier. One can visualize, if you will, two worlds and a third, intermediate world which is I think the 'world' David refers to when he mentions the mind. The wind in Laird's narrative burst into that third, intermediate world, but in exactly the same way, or rather in a related way, a 'banishment' can occur. That is related to the 'old' idea of a 'magic.circle', of.impenetrable spiritual barriers, but oddly enough to faith in or knowledge of God however this is defined. The interesting thing is that, nowadays, we live in a confused confluence of radically different epistemes. The purely 'rationalistic' one, I have noted, is.not sufficient for many people. It doesn't answer their own internal.structure. The rationalistic 'talking cure' (as Jung felt) was not sufficient. One had to engage with oneself on a complete.level.

I find this all very interesting not insofar as it impinges.on demonic or parasitical entities either psychic, imagined or 'real', but insofar as it illuminates my own quite rich interior and imaginary life. There is one rather dramatic story I.have in mind which contains so many curious and improbale elements which, I think, reveals how psyche interacts with 'world' or how the third, intermediate world of mind and imagination (our novelesque) is the container with which we interact with existence and being.
fiat mihi
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by jupiviv »

guest_of_logic wrote:it is only in recent years that the idea that experiences like mine might not be spirit-related has arisen.

Your "experiences" have nothing to do with spirit. Even if there is a "spirit-world" somewhere it would essentially be no different from the non-spirit world in terms of its own spirit. Therefore the very fact that you lend so much importance to it is proof that you don't realise what your spirit is.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

The B.C. Boys

Post by Tomas »

Talking Ass wrote: There is one rather dramatic story I have in mind which contains so many curious and improbale elements which, I think, reveals how psyche interacts with 'world' or how the third, intermediate world of mind and imagination (our novelesque) is the container with which we interact with existence and being.
Yes, "Alex". Best you re-conjure up "Gary".

Since you've returned, he's gone missing...

Mark 7:23
http://bible.cc/mark/7-23.htm

Ass =
Gary
Legion
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

guest_of_logic wrote:Diebert, I'm not sure why you refer to me as a "false fundamentalist".
Well it sounded like it. And with the term I meant any brand of fundamentalism which adheres to diametrical opposed forces of good and evil. Or is it I and evil? Or the evil eyes? Although I was thinking Christian fundamentalism at first, perhaps it's better to call it Zoroastrian fundamentalism since I think here are the roots already for all the Abrahamic religions and subdivisions. This was in my view also the reason Nietzsche playfully took the name of Zarathustra (Zoroaster) as reforming character in his main work.

This as opposed to "true" fundamentalism which is trust in the real fundamentals which one can actually know by reason and experience each and every moment one is sober.
I haven't participated in an exorcism, Diebert, no. Traditional exorcisms aren't the only approach anyway, and in any case, I'm more interested in learning how to protect myself and others.
You mean reason and education is not enough? But for me it was a very illuminating moment when I participated with a group. The "possessed", a normal adolescent I knew turned suddenly violent, foaming, screaming, rolling, veins popping out, cursing, challenging, posing - all the 'classic' things. Hours of prayers were needed to calm him down. It had to sink in for a while before I realized what I witnessed was something entirely different from what was believed by most of the group and the possessed. Something happened though but it had to do with very interesting group dynamics, expectations, penned up frustrations being unleashed like a provoked catharsis of some kind. Further development around this case and other events confirmed this.

Again, the power of the mind, of wishes, of ideology and groups all tap deep into the emotional. It's an amazing thing to behold and understand why 'good and evil beyond' can become such an industry, such a 'life saver' to so many. But generally it occludes way more than it enlightens.
The basics seem to be pretty commonsensical: healthy diet, balanced life, avoiding drugs and alcohol, avoiding seances and other invocations of spirits, and avoiding repetitive and/or aggressive rock music. I've also seen it suggested to look into (and avoid) earth currents. There are different herbs that might assist in individual cases. I'm sure there's a lot more - I'm still learning.
But these are all connected to a million causes and effects. Which specific metaphysical forces are you thinking of? Something like Castaneda's predatory "flyers"? But we could talk about lets say the "spirit" of a tree, its essence, its biosphere, its genus without invoking hierarchies of beings and unclear rituals, couldn't we?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

guest_of_logic wrote:David,

It's good to see that you're keeping an open mind.

Ordinarily I do not even acknowledge publicly let alone discuss publicly any psychiatric diagnosis that I might have, and would consider it, as you say, in bad taste for another person to bring it up. It is in my eyes very much like forcing a gay man to "come out" without his consent. Under the circumstances, I recognise why you raise it, and I recognise that I can hardly expect to avoid it, and so, even though I do not appreciate you bringing it up - you have forced me to "come out" against my will - I will answer your (otherwise legitimate) question.

The short answer to your question is that I have simply known from the start, based partly on the actual experiences I've had and partly on "inner knowing", that my condition is spiritual and not psychiatric. For that reason I rarely if ever apply the label "schizophrenic" to myself, simply because I do not appreciate the psychiatric connotations that it has. To the extent that I even acknowledge the diagnosis, it is only as a cluster of experiences that I share with other people to whom the label has also been applied. Of course, this is unhelpful as an answer to someone looking for objective proof, so let me in a longer answer offer a couple of more helpful resources and anecdotes that might achieve that aim.

The first is of an experience that I had prior to the onset of any condition. As a traveller back in 1997 I was visiting friends near Shepparton in Victoria, and the idea came up that we would try to conjure spirits one night with a ouija board, as I had never done that before and was (foolishly) curious about whether these boards "worked". There were four of us, and one of the others had a diagnosis of schizophrenia - this was long before I even knew much about what that meant. We gathered together in the house of the parents of one of our group (the parents were out at a social event), drew up the letters in a circle on some paper, placed an upside down glass on the board and placed our fingers on the glass. Then we began calling for any benign spirit to come and talk with us.

The freaky thing is what happened next: not long after we began invoking, and in a house in which all doors and windows were closed, a huge wind tore through the living room where we were sitting, and after that the glass began to move in answer to our questions. We were able to determine through a process of elimination (I had us each rub our fingers up and down the glass in a direction perpendicular to that in which it was moving, so as to remove impelling force from it) that the glass was being moved physically by my friend diagnosed with schizophrenia, so I can't offer any evidence of anything "supernatural" there except to say that he experienced a presence moving the glass "through" him, but the wind... I can't explain that wind in any other way than "supernaturally", and, in contrast to the many similar experiences I've had that have been purely personal, this one was shared with other people who agreed with my interpretation.
That's a good post, Laird. I know it couldn't have been easy for you, but you handled it well.

To keep the discussion simple, I want to focus on the above incident for the time being. I have a number of questions: How well did you know these people before the incident? Why did they own a ouija board to begin with? Who suggested that they use it that night? What was spoken about in the events leading up to the ouija board session?

You see, it is easy enough for a cunning operator, with the right atmosphere and a few tricks, to create a fake ouija board session. A sudden, unexpected wind by an air-conditioner or fan device, remotely controlled, can easily, under the right conditions - at night-time, in an atmosphere carefully prepared by the cunning operator - fool any innocent soul who is dissatisfied with the mundane world and on the look-out for a little unusual excitement.

Derren Brown demonstrated on one of his shows that he could fool a group of university students into believing that they really had experienced spirits in a ouija board session, to the point of utterly freaking them out, simply by setting the atmosphere and using a number of tricks. From the cunning operator's point of view, it is all about exploiting people's psychological weaknesses and expectations.

Here is the show in question: Séance.

And here is a short video by Brown on the same subject, in which he offers a scientific explanation of glass-moving: Ouija board revealed!

-
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Jamesh »

You mean reason and education is not enough? But for me it was a very illuminating moment when I participated with a group. The "possessed", a normal adolescent I knew turned suddenly violent, foaming, screaming, rolling, veins popping out, cursing, challenging, posing - all the 'classic' things. Hours of prayers were needed to calm him down. It had to sink in for a while before I realized what I witnessed was something entirely different from what was believed by most of the group and the possessed. Something happened though but it had to do with very interesting group dynamics, expectations, penned up frustrations being unleashed like a provoked catharsis of some kind. Further development around this case and other events confirmed this.
I once saw a similar thing, though to a lesser degree (I don't recall the person vomiting or foaming, but it was 30 years ago). Maybe my sisters temporarily-born again boyfriend*, who conducted it, wasn't very experienced enough to bring out the worst.

It was a pretty scary event when I was 20 - I just helped hold him, I've never been Christain believer. He was just a young guy who was a bit of a thief and a liar - I think his dad might have been a real arsehole.

Not sure if it catharsis is the right word. I just see it like he was a trapped animal (as he was) - using the complexity of a human brain in every way possible to send warning signals to his captors, to try and scare them off. Like a horse he was tamed after it, though I didn't see him for long after that event, so I don't know how long he remained "gentled".

*[his best trick was to make one leg "grow longer" by an inch to the other - such are the nature of delusionary appearances.
His latest game though is Ayahuasca - the gateway to the "otherworlds" - something I'd hope to try at some point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U08pzoP ... re=related Great shaman soundtrack as well as cool visuals.
Last edited by Jamesh on Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Jamesh »

[The freaky thing is what happened next: not long after we began invoking, and in a house in which all doors and windows were closed, a huge wind tore through the living room where we were sitting, and after that the glass began to move in answer to our questions]

Reminds me of a Monthy Python skit.

Will this Wind...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hJQ18S6aag

Edit: Yeah OK, I probably shouldn't make light of what Laird has said.

I recall in the mid 90's, a period of a few months where a "voice in my head" was telling me to jump off the 11th floor balcony of where I worked. I used to smoke out there, but it got to dangerous, so stopped going out there.

What I do see now though, is that it was just one of the actors in my ego program, though it was the dominant Watcher in that particular situation.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Jamesh »

Heidegger

I doubt I'll ever attempt to read Heidegger. His words do nothing at for me. Perhaps my IQ is simply insufficient, it is certainly a factor, but I don't like any post-nietzsche western philosophers at all. They just rabbit on and on about what seems like nothing to me. Surely they could have said whatever their point was in a 3rd of the words, without being so anally retentive. I just see him as a Chess Player - someone who gets a thrill out of playing puzzle games.

I'd sum him up with his own quote- "Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy".
Liberty Sea
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Liberty Sea »

Jamesh wrote: I'd sum him up with his own quote- "Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy".
Great. Heidegger's most often quoted out-of-context quote. Another one who knows nothing about him and yet is quick to make judgement.
To quote him in context:
Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," ie, by entities. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness.
What he meant is that the pure philosophical truth cannot be scientifically, physically, factually proven. This is what he meant by 'intelligibility". He also said "science doesn't think" (from "What is called thinking")
So why won't we quote this: "The most thought-provoking thing in our thought-provoking time is that we are still not thinking."

I don't think Heidegger ever intentionally twisted his words to confuse his readers. It is just his style. If you understand Lao Tzu, then there is no need to read Heidegger if you are not interested in deconstructing academic philosophy. Heidegger's goal was to destroy academic philosophy from Plato to present, so that "thinking in the future won't be philosophy, in the sense it will become wisdom itself, instead of 'love for wisdom' [philo: love, sophia: wisdom]."

And I have always thought his analyses are very elucidating, indicating his careful examnination. For example:
"Nietzsche says in a note (1887-88) what he understands by value: "The point-of-view of 'value' is the point-of-view constituting the preservation-enhancement conditions with respect to complex forms of relative duration of life within becoming" (Will to Power, Aph. 715).
...
Precisely through this way of writing, in which the "and" is omitted between "preservation" and "enhancement" and replaced with a hyphen, Nietzsche wants to make clear that values as points-of-view are essentially and therefore constantly and simultaneously conditions of preservation and enhancement.
...
Preservation and enhancement mark the fundamental tendencies of life, tendencies that belong intrinsically together. To the essence of life belongs the will to grow, enhancement. Every instance of life-preservation stands at the service of life-enhancement. Every life that restricts itself to mere preservation is already in decline. The guaranteeing of space in which to live, for example, is never the goal for whatever is alive, but is only a means to life-enhancement. Conversely, life that is enhanced heightens in turn its prior need to expand its space. But nowhere is enhancement possible where a stable reserve is not already being preserved as secure, and in this way as capable of enhancement. Anything that is alive is therefore something that is bound together by the two fundamental tendencies of enhancement and preservation, i.e., a "complex form of life." Values, as points-of-view, guide seeing "with respect to complex forms."
This seeing is at any given time a seeing on behalf of a view-to-life that rules completely in everything that lives. In that it posits the aims that are in view for whatever is alive, life, in its essence, proves to be value-positing (cf. Will to Power, Aph. 556, 1885-86). "
(Heidegger, Nietzsche's word 'God is dead')

@Laird: I act on the basis of the difficulty level of the options I have given the situation. Not on the basis of moral obligation.
I don't claim to follow Krishnamurti's teaching, but he pointed out that goodness cannot be willed, and intention to do good is evil in disguise and would lead to self-righteousness.
"Goodness has no motive
If I have a motive to be good, does that bring about goodness? Or is goodness something entirely devoid of this urge to be good, which is ever based on a motive? Is good the opposite of bad, the opposite of evil? Every opposite contains the seed of its own opposite, does it not? There is greed, and there is the ideal of non- greed. When the mind pursues non-greed, when it tries to be non-greedy, it is still greedy because it wants to be something. Greed implies desiring, acquiring, expanding; and when the mind sees that it does not pay to be greedy, it wants to be non-greedy, so the motive is still the same, which is to be or to acquire something. When the mind wants not to want, the root of want, of desire, is still there. So goodness is not the opposite of evil; it is a totally different state. And what is that state?
Obviously, goodness has no motive because all motive is based on the self; it is the egocentric movement of the mind. So what do we mean by goodness? Surely, there is goodness only when there is total attention. Attention has no motive. When there is a motive for attention, is there attention? If I pay attention in order to acquire something, the acquisition, whether it be good or bad, is not attention it is a distraction. A division.
There can be goodness only when there is a totality of attention in which there is no effort to be or not to be. "
(Krishnamurti, The Book of Life)
Last edited by Liberty Sea on Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

I must admit Krishnamurti is pretty insightful, even though I find him a little abstract and generic at times.

The idea of "metaphysical forces" relates to what Heidegger and Krishnamurti said above, in that the need to believe in metaphysical forces erroneously turns philosophy into a fact-finding mission and a force for good.

As Heidegger says, philosophy has nothing to do with empirical facts. It is a discipline that exists purely for the individual and his logic, and the aim is to go beyond the need to believe in anything at all. If your spiritual and psychological well-being is dependent upon the existence of things like metaphysical forces, then you're relying on what is speculative and uncertain. You're building your house on sand, as Jesus used to say, and creating all sorts of unnecessary problems for yourself.

True wisdom, on the other hand, relies on nothing whatsoever. It remains the same regardless of whether particular things exist or not.

-
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by jupiviv »

Krishnamurti wrote:Every opposite contains the seed of its own

Yes, in that they cause each other. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't choose between two opposites.
When the mind pursues non-greed, when it tries to be non-greedy, it is still greedy because it wants to be something.
He's just parroting Indian philosophy here. If someone just wants to be non-greedy, without expecting anything else, then it is not greedy to that extent.
Greed implies desiring, acquiring, expanding; and when the mind sees that it does not pay to be greedy, it wants to be non-greedy
In this case it wants to be "non-greedy" in order to satisfy greed.
When there is a motive for attention, is there attention?
Ultimately, the motive for attention and attention itself are one and the same thing. When the motive for attention gains precedence over all other motives, there is complete attention. I am assuming of course that by "attention" he means consciousness. I like what Weininger said about this:

Genius is the highest morality and therefore everybody’s duty. A human being becomes a genius through a supreme act of the will, by af¤rming the whole universe in himself. Genius is something that “individuals endowed with genius” have taken on themselves: it is the greatest task and the greatest pride, the greatest misery and the greatest elation possible for a human being. However paradoxical this may sound: a human being is a genius if he wants to be one.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

jupiviv,
jupiviv wrote:Your "experiences" have nothing to do with spirit. Even if there is a "spirit-world" somewhere it would essentially be no different from the non-spirit world in terms of its own spirit. Therefore the very fact that you lend so much importance to it is proof that you don't realise what your spirit is.
You're using your own personal definition of "spirit" here, aren't you - or at least a non-standard definition? It seems a bit muddled, as though you were using multiple senses of the word at once. I have a hard time making sense of it. I don't have a problem with alternative definitions, so long as they're made explicit, it's just that if you're going to use your own definition, then - well, we're talking about two different things, aren't we? We might be using the same word, but we each mean something different by it. I'm sure this isn't what you intended to communicate, but the sense I'm getting out of your post is, "Your definition of 'spirit' is not the same as mine, and therefore you're wrong".

But let's not battle over definitions, let's talk meaning instead - what is "spirit" to you and why is it important to you?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And with the term ["false fundamentalism"] I meant any brand of fundamentalism which adheres to diametrical opposed forces of good and evil.
Oh, I had thought you meant it in the sense of fundamentalist Christianity, the stressing of the literal truth of the Bible. That's not my deal. Yes, I do think that the view of diametrically opposed forces of good and evil is the accurate one, based on my experiences and reading.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:This as opposed to "true" fundamentalism which is trust in the real fundamentals which one can actually know by reason and experience each and every moment one is sober.
OK, so what does this consist of? Do you mean the QRS trip, or did you have something else in mind?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You mean reason and education is not enough? But for me it was a very illuminating moment when I participated with a group. The "possessed", a normal adolescent I knew turned suddenly violent, foaming, screaming, rolling, veins popping out, cursing, challenging, posing - all the 'classic' things. Hours of prayers were needed to calm him down. It had to sink in for a while before I realized what I witnessed was something entirely different from what was believed by most of the group and the possessed. Something happened though but it had to do with very interesting group dynamics, expectations, penned up frustrations being unleashed like a provoked catharsis of some kind. Further development around this case and other events confirmed this.

Again, the power of the mind, of wishes, of ideology and groups all tap deep into the emotional. It's an amazing thing to behold and understand why 'good and evil beyond' can become such an industry, such a 'life saver' to so many. But generally it occludes way more than it enlightens.
But Diebert, wouldn't you agree that this one (or number of) false positive(s) could not erase the impact of even a single true positive? Are you content to rest in your experience of false positives, or are you willing to consider other people's true positives? Here are some true positives that aren't quite so dramatic as the false one you've detailed - true positives that quietly go about their business, as detailed in Dr Kenneth McAll's book, Healing The Family Tree:
Dr Kenneth McAll wrote:One of the most dramatic healings of my career happened with Claudine. She was fifty years old and had spent twelve years under constant supervision in hospital, suffering from chronic schizophrenia. Neither treatments nor drugs had affected her violent temper which was coupled with a delusional state of mind. Her doctors felt that there was nothing to lose - she could not deteriorate any further - and a decision was taken to operate on her brain in a London hospital.
The operation failed. Claudine did deteriorate further, losing the power of both sight and speech. With this irreversible damage and with no change in her schizophrenic state, Claudine was given up and left to 'vegetate' in a mental hospital. She became corpulent which combined with her baldness (no hair had grown on her head since her operation) gave her a rather repulsive appearance. About eighteen months later her family obtained permission from the institution in which Claudine lived for her to spend a day and a night at home.
She was brought to me. She gave no indication of understanding anything that was said to her and, after a quick check-up, I confirmed that there seemed to be no hope for her and I could recommend no therapy. The damage was indeed irreversible. At that time, I did not understand the influence of the Family Tree nor even realize the extent of the healing power of the Eucharist. Not knowing what else to say or do, I prayed aloud, simply trying to listen for the Lord's guidance and seeking his forgiveness for man's destruction of a human being. Then we said the Lord's Prayer together with its final plea, 'Deliver us from evil'. Our prayer was that Claudine might be left in peace. My patient and her famiy returned to their own home where she was to remain overnight.
Next morning, the whole household was awakened by Claudine shouting, 'Come and look at me!' Not having heard a word from Claudine since her disastrous operation, her startled parents rushed into the room. Claudine was gazing at her reflection in the mirror and shouting, 'Look at my hair!' During the night, a quarter-inch of hair had appeared all over her head. She could speak, she could see, she could grow!
Later that day, Claudine was taken back to the institution. Astonished by the change in her, doctors questioned her for several hours. Repeatedly she explained simply, 'They prayed with me'. The doctors could not understand what had happened. It was almost beyond belief that a patient who had suffered such total disabilities could be healed so suddenly and so completely that she could be re-admitted to the normal world outside.
Dr Kenneth McAll wrote:An unusual and extreme example [..] occurred in a lady in her mid-sixties who came from Australia. For fifty years she had constantly heard 'voices' with whom she conversed, calling them by name, and in all those years no medical treatment had helped her. Frequently, the advice of her 'voices' was disastrous but she could not escape their influence. They called themselves 'The Three Beasties' and had taken over when, as a non-Christian of sixteen years old, she had been anaesthetised for an appendix operation. Since there is more prayer power and discernment when praying with a team, four of us joined together to pray for her deliverance and freedom. We seemed to be successful for the 'voices', which had plagued her for fifty years, ceased.
However, that same evening, she discovered to her dismay that she had no will of her own after being totally controlled for so long. She did not know how to use a fork or even how to wash. It was only after nine months of patient training in the formation of new habit patterns and confidence-building that she was able to fly back to Australia by herself.
There are plenty of other case studies in the book.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Which specific metaphysical forces are you thinking of? Something like Castaneda's predatory "flyers"?
Sorry, I'm not aware of the details of Castenada's work. The specific forces I'm thinking of though are those that are conscious and malevolent in intent, demonic in nature, although I understand that there are different types of spirit entities.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But we could talk about lets say the "spirit" of a tree, its essence, its biosphere, its genus without invoking hierarchies of beings and unclear rituals, couldn't we?
We could, but then we'd be ignoring a swathe of reality.
David Quinn wrote:How well did you know these people before the incident?
I'd picked fruit with two of them and their parents for a couple of months up in Queensland earlier in the year, and met up with them at a week-long festival a bit before visiting them in their home, where they offered me their caravan to stay in for as long as I liked - I'd probably (educated guess) been with them for about a week when this incident occurred. They were an especially hospitable, welcoming and friendly family. I had no untoward or unpleasant experiences with them.
David Quinn wrote:Why did they own a ouija board to begin with?
They didn't. We constructed an ad hoc board by drawing on paper.
David Quinn wrote:Who suggested that they use it that night?
I don't recall - it could have been them, then again they had mentioned previous experiences they'd had with ouija boards earlier in the week and had piqued my curiosity, so it could also have been me. It's possible we planned it a day in advance, I really just don't recall.
David Quinn wrote:What was spoken about in the events leading up to the ouija board session?
I don't recall. My memory of the basic progression was: they described past experiences at some point, then one later evening we visited their friends' house and decided either on the spur of the moment or somewhat in advance to give it a go whilst the parents were out so that I could see what it was all about.
David Quinn wrote:You see, it is easy enough for a cunning operator, with the right atmosphere and a few tricks, to create a fake ouija board session. A sudden, unexpected wind by an air-conditioner or fan device, remotely controlled, can easily, under the right conditions - at night-time, in an atmosphere carefully prepared by the cunning operator - fool any innocent soul who is dissatisfied with the mundane world and on the look-out for a little unusual excitement.
Yes, well, that scenario really just doesn't fly. For starters, they weren't the types to pull that sort of stunt, they were straightforward, down to earth folk who just wanted to enjoy the simple life. Secondly, they had no good motivation to pull a stunt like that. Thirdly, it wasn't a carefully planned affair - they didn't even own a ouija board. Fourthly, this was not a wind that could be produced by an air-conditioner or fan device; it was the sort of wind that you get when you have both french doors open and it's windy out. Fifthly, even if they had produced it with some sort of device, it would have been visible given where the wind came from; furthermore it would have had to have been installed by their parents (who were out at the time), and their parents definitely didn't seem like the types to waste money so that their kids could pull a prank like that - this was an earthy, rural community, not a prankish university college.

The reality is much more mundane: we were just a bunch of late-adolescent/early-adult guys looking for a bit of entertainment out on a farm one night.
David Quinn wrote:Derren Brown demonstrated on one of his shows that he could fool a group of university students into believing that they really had experienced spirits in a ouija board session, to the point of utterly freaking them out, simply by setting the atmosphere and using a number of tricks. From the cunning operator's point of view, it is all about exploiting people's psychological weaknesses and expectations.

Here is the show in question: Séance.
I think that show's been linked to here on GF before, but I watched it again because it's fascinating. There are a few unanswered questions in there, like how he got "London", "Harry" and "builder" into the envelope before the end of the seance. There's no doubt he's a skilled operator. I would, though, simply repeat to you a variation of what I wrote to Diebert above: the existence of fakes doesn't disprove the real thing. There are all sorts of motivations for hiding the truth of spiritual reality, not least of which is that knowledge is power, and darkness wants to disempower light.
David Quinn wrote:And here is a short video by Brown on the same subject, in which he offers a scientific explanation of glass-moving: Ouija board revealed!
As I wrote in my original post, I had established in the scene I described that one of the participants was physically moving the glass. This explanation in any case seems presumptuous: it offers no basis on which to exclude the possibility that spirits operate through the beings of those involved, at least in some cases. I have no compelling personal evidence that they do, but Roy describes some in his book where he operated a similar set-up, only with a pendulum swinging from his right hand rather than a group cup, and the pendulum answered questions that his companion beside him posed in her mind. The only compelling alternative I can see to "spirit involvement" in this case is "unconscious mind-reading".

Liberty Sea,

"I act on the basis of the difficulty level of the options I have given the situation. Not on the basis of moral obligation."

I have almost no idea what this means. On which basis do you choose - the most difficult or the least difficult option? Difficult in which sense - physically, mentally, socially, wilfully or something else? Why "difficulty" rather than "morality" - how are they different? And how does this relate to the scenario that you still haven't answered specifically: if it was "easy" (in whichever sense you intend it) to notify a nearby police officer of the torture and abuse being committed, would you instead choose a "harder" option that involved not informing the police officer and allowing the torture and abuse to continue? What might that "harder" option consist of?

The Krishnamurti quote that you produced is peculiar. It redefines "good" as "totally attentive", which seems according to Krishnamurti to entail being free from desire. I'm not sure, though, how it's even possible to live (as opposed to lying down and starving, motionless, to death) as a human without desire, unless some sort of distinction between desire and will is made, and I'm not sure Krishnamurti is making one - he seems to use "motive" and "desire" almost synonymously, in a willing sense. Perhaps he would retort that "lying down and starving, motionless, to death" can be as much a wilful act as any other, in the sense of willing motionlessness and willing to do other than eat. Granting, then, for argument's sake, the possibility of "non-willed action", on what basis would these actions be performed? Wouldn't it be the case that in the absence of will, actions would be arbitrary? Why ought we to consider arbitrary actions to be "good"? I'm just not getting a lot of sense out of this quote. Perhaps it reads better in context. Or perhaps he's suggesting something like ceding personal will to that of a higher power, and being "totally attentive" in enacting that higher power's will. This seems like a long shot though.

In the end, though, it's just words, isn't it? You can deny your morality with all the words that you like, but that's immaterial: what really counts is what you do when it comes to the crunch. That's why I keep raising the simple test case I put to you, and, I'm sure, that is why you keep avoiding answering it: because you know that, despite your protestations against morality, you would, in fact, do the moral thing, and for the same reasons any other decent human being would. I have that much faith in you.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

Laird: The "Golden Rule" world-view is a non-zero-sum game: it increases the sum of pleasure without limit.
Liberty: Yet a lion cannot have any pleasure if it is not at the expense of a deer's pleasure.
In what way does that have to do with what Laird is talking about here? Obviously a man can choose to live by - or aspire to live by - the Golden Rule. A lion cannot choose to live by any kind of ethic. You are therefore implying the lion's way is superior? Why not a skunk's way, or a rat's?
The carnivorous beasts are not responsible for their carnivorousness more than a pedophile is responsible for his pedophilia.
I suppose this answers my question! You are ignoring obvious distinctions. If a carnivorous animal eats its prey, it is in order to survive. If a pedophile buggers his, can the same thing be said? The first lacks the ability to choose, and therefore acts for survival; the second one - while experiencing human drives, certainly - does not lack the awareness of the existence of alternatives. And he will survive without today's sexual conquest. It's not even sex!
If God wants the greatest pleasures for all he wouldn't have created a world of suffering and beings that must struggles against each other for their own sake.
You are ignoring the fact of evolution. You are trying to explain the Grand Plan in childish terms.
The only ones who advocate the equality of life and happiness for everyone are those human beings who have been born in too fortunate circumstances. Have they ever struggled for their lives?
This is a popular notion, usually held by the chronically socioeconomically less fortunate. The fact is there are many cases of people who start out with nothing and who later find themselves rolling in it. Such people then become, for want of a better word, politicians---they advocate equality of life and happiness for everyone (and presumably wealth) but they mean no such thing. It is mere lip service to ward off the Grim Reaper, who doesn't always mean death, but could signify the newly wealthy person's inevitable loss of the material things which have somehow found him.
Liberty wrote:I dislike the word 'civilized'. It just mean that you protect what is beneficial for you, namely civilization, and it is no nobler than a beast protecting its horde. I claim neither goodness nor evil. I am neither for nor against. To begin to choose any side is the beginning of self-righteousness. I am neutral. I am absolutely amoral.
Laird wrote:That's why I keep raising the simple test case I put to you, and, I'm sure, that is why you keep avoiding answering it: because you know that, despite your protestations against morality, you would, in fact, do the moral thing, and for the same reasons any other decent human being would. I have that much faith in you.
Again, even David would at least bristle if he witnessed a bunch of kids setting fire to a stray cat. But who the heck knows? He might just run and get marshmallows.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by jupiviv »

guest_of_logic wrote:You're using your own personal definition of "spirit" here, aren't you - or at least a non-standard definition?

The definition of spirit is generally held to be the essence or "soul" of a person. That's the definition I'm using. There is only one true essence in a person, and that is the essence shared by all other things except that person as well.

There is another(possibly more) popular definition of spirit, which is an existence contrasted with material/physical existence. But what is meant by 'material existence'? It seems to refer to the sensory world. However, the 'spirit world' seems to be surprisingly similar to the material world the way most people describe it, in that all/most of the things in it have to do with emotions and things which can potentially be experienced through an alteration or intensification of the senses. The difference between the two seems to be one of knowledge and ignorance rather than sensory and non-sensory existence, i.e, the spirit world refers to those empirical things which we are not entirely clear about, and the material refers to those things which we feel sure of.

The definition you are using seems to be the latter one. However, my comment is still valid because there is no good reason to consider the empirical things that we are not entirely clear about to be 'special' in some way. The most reasonable thing to do would be to acknowledge that we are necessarily ignorant of some things, and leave it at that.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

It does sound like an amazing experience, Laird, the way you depict your encounter with the ouija board. I have a few more questions:
guest_of_logic wrote:My memory of the basic progression was: they described past experiences at some point, then one later evening we visited their friends' house and decided either on the spur of the moment or somewhat in advance to give it a go whilst the parents were out so that I could see what it was all about.
You say “their” friends’ house. Did you know these “friends” before that night? How many of them were there?

Did everyone there in the household participate in the ouija board session, or just some of them?

Were you drinking or taking drugs prior to the session? Were the others?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

Laird wrote:
Liberty Sea wrote:I don't defend evil. I prefer to go beyond [human definition of] good and evil. That is what I call 'goodness', if you like that word.
This is a Quinn-like contortion, and ultimately I'd ask you a similar question to that which cousinbasil asked David: what does this mean when the rubber meets the road? If you found proof that a young man you knew was trapping women and children in his basement and raping and torturing them slowly before slaughtering them painfully, would you take action to stop him or would you shrug and say, "Oh well, it's only evil by the human definition"?
This is a variation of the "deathbed-renunciation argument" which states that even an atheist will start praying when faced with the prospect of death.

And it's not too distant from what I call the "thug argument" in which a gun is pointed to a victim and told: "Renounce your beliefs or I will kill you" - an argument particularly cherished by Muslims, God bless 'em.

I will state openly that in no way would I consider the rapist/torturer in the above scenario to be "evil". I don't even consider Hitler and the entire Nazi system to be evil, any more than I consider their victims to be good. So why would I consider a solitary rapist/torturer to be evil?

If I came across such a situation, I would have to weigh things up. On the one hand, there are people suffering which from a wisdom point of view is undesirable, since suffering of that kind has negative karmic consequences in the form of trauma and the shutting down of the mind. So on that basis, I would be motivated to intervene.

On the other hand, I would have to assess the danger to my life. My life has value: my mind is wise, I can help people escape the hells and enjoy the freedom of nirvana. Is it really worth endangering that for the sake of rescuing some women and children?

If it was just women, then the answer is probably no. What value is there in rescuing beings who spend their lives more or less fully preoccupied with dresses, underwear and make-up? Children are a different matter, as there could be potential Buddhas among them - although given the deluded state of the world today it would be very unlikely.

So to sum up, if there was a switch that could suddenly turn off the scenario, I would, in the interests of minimizing karmic consequences, turn it off. If stopping the situation involved a risk to my life, then I would probably just phone the police.

Incidentally, you can see how Laird's mind works in posing this scenario. He is identifying with the women and children on the basis that they share his own pure, innocent self. In other words, he believes deep down that he possesses a pure, innocent self (unquestioned, unchallenged, it's just what he happens to feel) and then projects that onto the women and children. He doesn't know them from a bar of soap; it's merely an assumption that has been generated by another assumption.

From that basis, the rapist/torturer immediately becomes "evil', simply because he is trying to harm the pure, innocent self. Laird thus becomes trapped in a black-and-white world of his own making, all of it supported by unquestioned assumptions about himself. How could he possibly be in a position to help people under those constraints?

-
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

In the above, it is not hard to imagine a very, very strange ethic that would arise from your beliefs if practiced universally. If the bus perched on the cliff were filled with kids ('potential Buddhas') you'd send in the National Guard. But if it were a busload of women ('a bus full of Woman' you'd have to say), you would just let it roll of the cliff. Fifty-fifty women and men, well, that is a real moral quandary. But if it were a bus filled with frivolous women, I could imagine you, with a loudspeaker, asking them if they would consider changing their ways and them screaming back in horror "Yes! Yes! We'll shave our heads! We'll become celibates! Help! HELP!!" and then you think about it and know that they are lying (as Woman is know to). You say back: "Ladies, I am truly sorry. I cannot help you nor authorize help to be given. You long ago decided your own fate. Goodby!"
___________________________________________________

On a more serious note: I can see that you don't have much grasp on omens nor synchronicities (the language is poor and one has to resort to old terms or to the new, i.e. 'synchronicity').

I remember both you and Diebert shrugging it off and I realized that it just doesn't (it cannot in fact) fit into your rationalistic world-view. But from the description that Laird gave, I would say that for whatever reason there was an event that 'pushed open a door' and through that door came something negative and impacting. Something impinged on his life. The issue is less the description given to it (although there is such a thing as superstitious and hysterical excitement), but rather the effect that played out in a person's life. That only Laird can really know and it is understandable why he would not desire to have himself put under an examination lightbulb on a forum peopled with a rather odd crowd who sometimes crow loud of their 'wisdom' but often reveal just how foolish they are (not necessarily tossing this at you, David).

But very strange things happen in the lives of people who inhabit this earth. Perhaps in your ultra-controlled and rational world such things cannot even be imagined as possible. I think I can understand that. This is not a 'defense' of the existence of demons or evil spirits, about this I do not know, although I believe that there are certainly people whose lives are so complicated with conflict and sin (I use this in a fairly general sense as 'engaged in harmful, thoughtless, violent, unconscious activities and thinking') that their influence and activities have really terrible effects. It is not hard for me to imagine (though this may not have been Laird's case since the people there seemed rather innocent) a situation in which people act consciously to psychically 'do harm' to another person. Or perhaps it is not 'conscious' but occurs thrpough some other mechanism? In my neck of the woods (South America) I see and sometimes come in contact with people very encrusted with harmful energies. A sensitive or weakened person would have to exercise caution. And even strong ones have to know something about protection.

It is not impossible for me to imagine how a person could be affected by bad energy, but again the whole thing hinges on How to reverse it. How to deal with it. How to heal it. If something can enter a person's life, it can also exit, or be banished as I have been saying.
Last edited by Talking Ass on Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
fiat mihi
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by jupiviv »

There is a simple solution to this whole problem, but I doubt Laird or Alex will accept it. Whatever the enlightened person decides to be good, is good. In other words, goodness is to act in full consciousness. The problem is that people don't want to think about what they are doing, and instead just "go with the flow." However, they do think a little bit from time to time, and thus come up with the idea of good and bad. But instead of clarifying this idea they just use it in a way that suits their egotistical needs.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

I am not myself concerned for the issue of good and evil, or rather not too interested in a debate about it. I know about it all I need to know to keep myself as far away from 'evil' as I can. I have seen the ramifications. Still, I know that some people just have to go through what they have to go through.

I think that rational arguments have been given that relativize both in such a way that one can see that they are both part-and-parcel of the life we live. But this talk about it, in my view is logorrhea. Since I don't think or perceive is such terms as 'enlightened' vs 'non-enlightened', I certainly cannot believe that any person simply wishes, commands or demands these problems of living away. Yet perhaps, Jupi, in your world you can do and do do just that.

There is a rather obvious and quite terrible self-deception connected with your declaration "Whatever the enlightened person decides to be good, is good. In other words, goodness is to act in full consciousness", and one learns about that when one follows in the aftermath of those who consider themselves 'enlightened' and see what they end up creating. Man---and this human mind---has a terrible and time-tested ability to deceive himself. It is completely within the realm of possibilities that here, among you (and among us), there are many levels of error and self-deception operating. It is only wise to be aware of this. The story usually goes: If I only would have understood then what I understood now...

Still, to be conscious in how one lives cannot ever be said to be a bad thing.
Last edited by Talking Ass on Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

guest_of_logic wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:This as opposed to "true" fundamentalism which is trust in the real fundamentals which one can actually know by reason and experience each and every moment one is sober.
OK, so what does this consist of? Do you mean the QRS trip, or did you have something else in mind?
"Something else in mind": true fundamentalism!
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But Diebert, wouldn't you agree that this one (or number of) false positive(s) could not erase the impact of even a single true positive?
That reminds me of G.K. Chesterton's reasoning about strict non-believers not being able to afford to admit to the existence of even one leprechaun, while a "believer" since he's already accepted the unknown as a driving element won't be shocked at all by their existence or non-existence, making him the more free person. G.K's right of course in how non-believing can be often more fundamentalist than believing, like denial is stronger than embrace.

To answer your question: the point of one or any number of false positives is to learn from them, to understand the nature of their falseness. In logical, reasonable thinking falsification is all we have. "True positives" are very rare and very difficult. At best one can have a "highly probable" explanation. It's possible you wouldn't be able to give me one single true positive you know of. Just assumptions some people find likely and others don't. The main issue here is the amount of possibilities and circumstances in a complex universe should instill a high degree of carefulness and distrust before talking about "facts". Without some scientific or clear philosophical principle carrying it one has left only personal experience and speculation really, a perpectly flexible, moldable playing field for any emotional needs.

One remark about this wind business:
in a house in which all doors and windows were closed, a huge wind tore through the living room where we were sitting [...]this was not a wind that could be produced by an air-conditioner or fan device; it was the sort of wind that you get when you have both french doors open and it's windy out.
The moment you say all doors and windows were closed, to me that meant it would be a perfect scenario for a strong draft current when someone would open a door somewhere else in the house. It's a pressure thing. I've lived in houses like that so to me it doesn't sound like any strange element at all! You see, how relative this observation can be? And it's all far away in memory now which makes it even harder to be sure all the details survived in the group recall. How huge is 'huge' if tensions are already running high?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The moment you say all doors and windows were closed, to me that meant it would be a perfect scenario for a strong draft current when someone would open a door somewhere else in the house. It's a pressure thing.
Yes, that was my next thought.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

Talking Ass wrote:In the above, it is not hard to imagine a very, very strange ethic that would arise from your beliefs if practiced universally.
If it was practiced universally, there wouldn't be any women. Nor any torturers.

-
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Bobo »

David Quinn wrote: Incidentally, you can see how Laird's mind works in posing this scenario. He is identifying with the women and children on the basis that they share his own pure, innocent self. In other words, he believes deep down that he possesses a pure, innocent self (unquestioned, unchallenged, it's just what he happens to feel) and then projects that onto the women and children. He doesn't know them from a bar of soap; it's merely an assumption that has been generated by another assumption.

From that basis, the rapist/torturer immediately becomes "evil', simply because he is trying to harm the pure, innocent self. Laird thus becomes trapped in a black-and-white world of his own making, all of it supported by unquestioned assumptions about himself. How could he possibly be in a position to help people under those constraints?

-
The problem you seems to be addressing lies in projection being uncertain, and trespassing it making the uncertain certain. (Although this apparently is not impeding you from making assumptions on Laird's mind.)
One could say that the rapist/torturer is making such a projection and abusing reason's ability of deriving certain conclusions.
Also one could say that all rape should not occur. (And the basis so far would be A=A? eheh)
Locked