Re: Otto Weininger on MTV
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:20 pm
Who are you?
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/
Lady GagaDennis Mahar wrote:Who are you?
Interesting.David Quinn wrote: Of course, in that piece I am assuming that the Buddha was a rare guru who lied with the best of intentions.
-
The example of the stated dilemma demonstrates that truth-values are at the core not to be applied to descriptive statements like "there is a man hiding in my house" or "sheepish folks never become wise" (or the epistemological). Truth becomes only truth when acting on ones value (being true to oneself). While "the sky is blue" can appear like a true statement on a cloudless day, its truth-value is actually not derived from the sky or its color but from the value the observer places in those circumstances on consistency, communication of that consistency and defining a difference between blue and gray in the first place. This value can be overruled by other concerns like valuing someone hiding in the house or making some kind of absurd joke like "the sky is pink today". In all cases the importance is shifted and something is said what for someone else would be a lie, or in other words for that person's value system and hierarchy of importance, the statement could be now false. This is the relativity of good and evil, of truth and false. It's easy to see why wise men could be "caught" lying since they might evaluate the situation completely differently. From their perspective they don't even lie at all; they follow truth.David Quinn wrote:(Taken from The Role of Lying in the Life of Truth)
The key issue for the wisdom-valuer, then, is not whether he can refrain from lying at all times - which, as I have just articulated, is impossible due to the value he places on wisdom - but whether the lies he creates are wise in nature and lack any trace of ego
I think only wise people can truly be said to lie perfectly, because only they would know what the truth is. Wer nicht lügen kann, weiss nicht, was Wahrheit ist(and vice versa.)Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's easy to see why wise men could be "caught" lying since they might evaluate the situation completely differently.
cousinbasil: Everything may be connected, but the A in A=A is not everything. If it were, the meaning would suddenly vanish. A=A implies and not something else. Which of course acknowledges that there is something else.
Well let A equal oneself; in other words, there may be reasons aplenty for one's actions, but if they are entirely caused by ~A, then there can be no heroism or courage.
David: This is like saying that since all things are caused, there is no difference between a healthy tree and a diseased tree.
Yes, in one sense, there is no difference, since both trees are equally determined by Nature's causal processes. Yet this doesn't change the reality that only one of the trees will produce healthy fruit.
Likewise, courage and cowardice are both equally caused, yet each of them can trigger very different outcomes.
A book is not defined by its length but by some type of "bundling" creating a "volume". And in contemporary times publishing ongoing short aphoristic ideas is pretty normal. One could say writing has become decentralized and fractioned with often emphasis on interaction by the readers or other contributors. In that way, you're publishing already! But to counter myself I'd have to add that there's wisdom in pulling it all together in one coherent flow as to make some additional overarching unifying point easier to stand out.jupiviv wrote:Diebert van Rhijn wrote:When are you going to publish your book? Or are you going to remain forever "advanced reader"?
I don't have a knack for writing at the length of what would be considered to be a book. I sometimes write down thoughts in a diary as aphorisms. I may decide to publish them some day, if they get bulky enough.
On a small scale, yes, but I'm not into that sort of post-modern stream of consciousness stuff. I've a "poison for the heart" type book in mind, where aphorisms relating to a specific subject are expanded and developed into a chapter about it. It'll be hard work though. I'm extremely lazy when it comes to writing anything.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And in contemporary times publishing ongoing short aphoristic ideas is pretty normal.
jupiviv wrote: I'm extremely lazy when it comes to writing anything.
That could be a problem as well. It depends on the quality of the individual involved. If he has enough quality, he can find all sorts of ways to have his ego challenged. He doesn't need to attach himself to a particular individual for this to occur.Kunga wrote:How about people that think they don't need a teacher, in essence they are too arrogant to be subservient to anyone . It's much easier to be your own boss. A challenge to have your ego busted by someone else.
Only entrenched slaves believe that being a boss is easier, for they know they will never be one. For most people, it is the primary reason for bowing down to a guru in the first place - to avoid taking control of one's life.It's much easier to be your own boss.
jupiviv wrote:A conspiracy theory about Buddhism - that's a new one!David Quinn wrote: It may well be that the religion of Buddhism is little more than a giant lie concocted by Gautama Siddharta (the original Buddha) for the purpose of preserving his highest wisdom. In other words, he created a religious community in which everyone was required to wear the same robes and the same haircut, and flooded it with reams of simplistic dogma and superficial rules, knowing that it would attract sheep-like individuals in droves. Although sheep-like individuals have no potential for wisdom, they tend to be very good at mundane things like building temples, copying texts, organizing lectures, administrating communities and so on. The Buddha saw, perhaps, that they could be harnessed to create a vehicle in which his deepest truths would be preserved for the sake of those few advanced thinkers in future generations.
The process is a bit like a bird eating a tasty seed and flying away to defecate the seed in another spot. What attracts the bird is the taste and smell of the seed, while the most valuble part of the seed is the genetic material contained within it, which the bird knows nothing about. Similarly, the rituals, rules and dogmas of the Buddhist religion are the "tasty" elements which attact multitudes of witless monks, and it is through their mundane, sheep-like activity that they unwittingly preserve the genuine wisdom which exists deep within Buddhism. In other words, the Buddha created a lie for the sake of truth.
I don't know if this is what really happened, but I cannot think of any other (wise) reason why Buddhism was created in the first place. There is no other way that its existence can be justified from the point of view of wisdom. Unless, of course, the Buddha was really a Rashneesh-type charlatan. (But if that were the case, then the presence of the genuine wisdom which does exist in certain parts of Buddhism would still need to be explained.)
Firstly, as I said, this is a conspiracy theory.
Let me ask you this: Would you ever consider joining an organization that required you to dress the same, obey the same rules and address the leader as "Lord"?Just because 9/11 helped the US government to do what they wanted(wage war on Iraq), it doesn't mean they were behind it. Similarly, just because mainstream Buddhism is crass, it doesn't mean the Buddha intended it to be that way.
And so they were. But fortunately, there was enough wisdom preserved within the dross. As I say, the intended audience for his teachings wasn't the actual people who joined his organization, but the likes of you and me - intelligent outsiders who come into contact with the wiser teachings and have the freedom to do something with them.Secondly, this strategy would have resulted in his teachings getting even more distorted. People with genuine potential would have been regarded as the same as the blind followers and academic types, in order to keep up the lie. Because of this, the teachings would have been distorted right after his death, since most of the people passing them on wouldn't understand them.
cousinbasil wrote:cousinbasil: Everything may be connected, but the A in A=A is not everything. If it were, the meaning would suddenly vanish. A=A implies and not something else. Which of course acknowledges that there is something else.
Well let A equal oneself; in other words, there may be reasons aplenty for one's actions, but if they are entirely caused by ~A, then there can be no heroism or courage.
David: This is like saying that since all things are caused, there is no difference between a healthy tree and a diseased tree.
Yes, in one sense, there is no difference, since both trees are equally determined by Nature's causal processes. Yet this doesn't change the reality that only one of the trees will produce healthy fruit.
Likewise, courage and cowardice are both equally caused, yet each of them can trigger very different outcomes.
You are missing the essence of my objection by likening people to trees and then talking about trees. Let me restate what I see as contradictory in your point of view. You extol the courage of one who ruthlessly and at great self expense pursues the truth. But courage and cowardice must be equally entirely meaningless if they are equally entirely caused.
I have a very clear idea of what human spirit is, but you don't like it because it conflicts with certain cherished ideas you have about yourself. You are still part of the mirage-protecting endeavour that humans call "life".cousinbasil wrote:You, David, simply can't believe that no one can be responsible for any action. And you seem to get this when you use terms like courage and cowardice. But then you obfuscate because you do not have a firm concept of what the human spirit is.
That is a very profound observation, I must say. Have you considered writing a book on the art of living (maybe like Poison of the Heart but more systematical), David? I would be interested to see more schemed works from you.David Quinn wrote: It seems paradoxical, but it isn't really. Enlightenment itself is one of the delusions that needs to be abandoned. It is in fact the very last delusion to be abandoned.
As soon as you think you have found or experienced enlightenment, you have been snared by delusion. You have been taken in by the delusion of self and other, and your mind is no longer enlightened.
-
Actually, I share that lack of deep seated desire to believe my free Will is absolutely real. This is because I see little motivation to have this question answered. When I say little motivation, I mean it would solve nothing, change nothing. Yet there is that annoying place I keep returning to like a moth to a light bulb, where free will and causality do conflict with one another. Logically, they have to, don't they? Or is this an example of different "levels of reality"? Like a moebius strip being traversed - one minute one thing is right, the next moment the contradictory thing is right, and so on. I somehow intrinsically resist the notion that I cannot cause something, without that having been predetermined. I resist it because I do not think it is the truth.Okay, so basically you are having difficulty reconciling free will with causality. You believe they conflict with one another. To my mind, they don't conflict at all - but then again, I don't have a deep-seated desire to believe that my free will is absolutely real.
Exactly! I am actually attracted to that way of thinking - and have lived considerable periods of my life doing just that, far more than anyone else I know, just attending to my duties and abandoning material ambition. Because the world keeps saying to you, you could have become this, you could have become that, and you end up just another cog in the machine.What did Meister Elkhart say? "I must become less, so that God can become more." Very few people like that sort of thinking.
It's not so much that you cannot cause anything. You are caused to experience free will, as we all are. The key is to know that your experience of free will is just that.. an experience. It is the ego that "intrinsically resists" this truth.cousinbasil wrote: I somehow intrinsically resist the notion that I cannot cause something, without that having been predetermined. I resist it because I do not think it is the truth.
It gets old, doesn't it? Living in the bible belt, I've seen this type of blind stubbornness all my life. My whole family is religious, and it's just so odd for me to see them not one time in their lives question whether or not their beliefs really reflect reality. It makes me think that the "herd mentality" in humans is extremely hard to break for most people, mostly because their ignorance utterly blinds them from ever getting close to seeing the bigger picture.Exactly! I am actually attracted to that way of thinking - and have lived considerable periods of my life doing just that, far more than anyone else I know, just attending to my duties and abandoning material ambition. Because the world keeps saying to you, you could have become this, you could have become that, and you end up just another cog in the machine.
I'm about to start a regular blog which will feature a higher level of writing than what I do here. More detailed and more schematic. I believe it will comprise my best writing yet.Liberty Sea wrote:That is a very profound observation, I must say. Have you considered writing a book on the art of living (maybe like Poison of the Heart but more systematical), David? I would be interested to see more schemed works from you.David Quinn wrote: It seems paradoxical, but it isn't really. Enlightenment itself is one of the delusions that needs to be abandoned. It is in fact the very last delusion to be abandoned.
As soon as you think you have found or experienced enlightenment, you have been snared by delusion. You have been taken in by the delusion of self and other, and your mind is no longer enlightened.
cousinbasil wrote: Yet there is that annoying place I keep returning to like a moth to a light bulb, where free will and causality do conflict with one another. Logically, they have to, don't they? Or is this an example of different "levels of reality"?
Or, he could just be fooling himself.David Quinn wrote:It depends on the quality of the individual involved. If he has enough quality, he can find all sorts of ways to have his ego challenged. He doesn't need to attach himself to a particular individual for this to occur.
Westerners have a real issue with this, not so in the East, where teachers are revered..and considered Buddhas.David Quinn wrote: the primary reason for bowing down to a guru
David Quinn wrote:It is the sort of thing I would consider doing if I had no internet or printing press to preserve my thoughts.jupiviv wrote:A conspiracy theory about Buddhism - that's a new one!
Firstly, as I said, this is a conspiracy theory.
Let me ask you this: Would you ever consider joining an organization that required you to dress the same, obey the same rules and address the leader as "Lord"?
If it were only foolish people who passed them on then there wouldn't have been any wisdom preserved. However, it's obvious that a certain method of thought was preserved, and that couldn't have been done without wise people.And so they were. But fortunately, there was enough wisdom preserved within the dross.
Well, Nagarjuna, Hakuin etc. were Buddhists, and they also more-or-less followed the dress-code and rules of their organizations from what I can see. Asian people aren't as fashion-conscious as westerners are. :-)As I say, the intended audience for his teachings wasn't the actual people who joined his organization, but the likes of you and me - intelligent outsiders who come into contact with the wiser teachings and have the freedom to do something with them.
Yes, it is one of the definciencies of Eastern culture, that of everyone dissipating their minds away - to the collective, to the family, to a guru. It is the reason why Asian cultures rank among the most oppressive in the world.Kunga wrote:Westerners have a real issue with this, not so in the East, where teachers are revered..and considered Buddhas.David Quinn wrote: the primary reason for bowing down to a guru
jupiviv wrote:Like school, university, the fashion industry, the army or a company?David Quinn wrote:Let me ask you this: Would you ever consider joining an organization that required you to dress the same, obey the same rules and address the leader as "Lord"?
I'm not saying that nothing but the essence is relevent, but rather that the essence needs to be understood first before anything else is considered. "Seek first the Kingdom of God", as Jesus urged. First go to the root and then deal with the branches in the light of its clarity and understanding.Talking Ass wrote:Possibly because, in some important senses, David is [and QRS represents] a Radical Christian. A Radical Protestant. "Nothing but the essence is relevant, and I will deal on this as I choose and as I decide!"