Women, Freedom, Entrapment, Strategy

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I get it, I know, you guys like to be exact, a real slow process, a real bore,

but I will do it in this case, you will make the perfect test subject, and I'll let you know in advance the testing might go for a while.

If eventually it does end up on the same page, you will make a much better candidate to go on to show Alex.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Yes! We'll put you on The Alex Show! The Ultimate Reality Variety Show. But we'll first do a real heart-to-heart interview where you come on and describe your work setting up a Department for Destruction of the Possibility of Knowing at Sydney U. You will mention how you got your start as Self-Realization Teacher on the Genius Forum and we'll have a Pod Cast type conversation with Dan and Dave and Kevin and maybe a sing along? But the best part will be when we bring on Dennis to recite Tao Te Chingisms of such magnificent wisdom that in their own way destroy the written word and the possibility of communication. But we can make this all really practical too and have him teach the audience how to reduce their intellectual process to witless utterance and how to dominate the intellectual space of their world with preachy witlessness!

Naturally we'll bring on 'the girl with the crocodile in her moneymaker'...and the Talking Ass with his cloppy four-hooved tap-dancing.

And then a National call-in where you will answer questions and respond to people's deeply felt thanks: the same thanks I deeply feel when I read your and Dennis's nonsense, page after tiresome page! Thank You!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Everything you write is nonsense. ^

Only destroying the possibility of knowing what you don't know.

Wit is the intellectual expression of a love for the self.

Love for the self leads to the false belief that you are intelligent,

it doesn't allow room to accept your own ignorance. Does it?

Witless equals empty mind

empty mind equals wisdom

Witless:

"I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty.

Other people are bright;
I alone am dark.
Other people are sharper;
I alone am dull."
-Lao Tzu

[Dennis Mahar]

John,

Live like the tree, it's a good analogy, very peaceful. Accept it, I am, I'm almost completely done.

The 'complaint' is a silent, insidious aspect that hides in the background.
Most people don't really like being alive and in-the-world.
They've taken too many 'hits', such a 'buffetting'.
Woundedness.

To get in touch with that a Spiritual Aboriginal man took me and three other guys out into his 'country' for a week.
To be 'at poise' in your loungeroom and in your kitchen is one thing.
What about 'at poise' in your 'country'.

The semi desert area he took us to,
the ineffable silence,
'screamed'.

After a couple of days, talking broke down as an activity.

We sat silently next to trees and 'got' trees.
We sat silently next to dry creek beds and 'got' dry creek beds,
We sat silently next to termite mounds and 'got' termites.
We sat silently next to waterholes and 'got' water.

We 'got' environment and 'getting' environment 'got' poise and the ineffable silence always/already abiding that gets covered up.

Coming back I've stood silently at the abattoirs and 'got' the 'food supply'.
life at the abattoirs, chilling, confronting, so much pain.

I've sat silently in police courts 'listening'.
so much pain. so much lying.

I've sat in hospital waiting rooms 'listening' ,where the ambulances rush in and the ER guys work frantically to get a body functioning again and the faces of the body's relatives are lit with grief and shock.

To walk your 'country' at poise,
is to be fully intimate with every aspect of your country.

To 'get' your country intimately is to realise the background complaint as it releases.
in-the-world shows up the possibility of 'effortlessness'.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The 'complaint' is a silent, insidious aspect that hides in the background.

..

in-the-world shows up the possibility of 'effortlessness'.

Definitely, but I knew this, that the feeling/thought was just a thought, "So what, move on".

Effortlessness is my forte'.

Laird and Alex won't understand the possibility of effortlessness.

*We need to be intelligent and have knowledge so we can make good decisions, plan ahead and secure our future.*

"empty mind" is not a possibility.


But, when empty mind is taken up, what happens?

Paradise is realized, eternal life, no worries, all ideas/fears being delusions that only exist as manifestations/appearances


* "aimless as the wind"

[Dennis Mahar]

What Alex finds 'untoward' in our expression,
finds 'unappealing',
finds 'distasteful'.
'rails against'

to him it looks like 'flatlining'
'barely a pulse'
'coma'

Legitimate Inquiry.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

These guys don't hold eastern philosophy in very high regard, idiots.
I just can't help but quoting, it is too relevant to what you said

"When a superior man hears of the Tao,
he immediately begins to embody it.
When an average man hears of the Tao,
he half believes it, half doubts it.
When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud.
If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao.

Thus it is said:
The path into the light seems dark,
the path forward seems to go back,
the direct path seems long,
true power seems weak,
true purity seems tarnished,
true steadfastness seems changeable,
true clarity seems obscure,
the greatest are seems unsophisticated,
the greatest love seems indifferent,
the greatest wisdom seems childish."

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I don't know what else to say, I want to express how significant it is:

"Seeker! Do not be restless. Meditate constantly. Or you will swallow fire And cry out: "No more!' If you are not wise, How can you steady the mind? If you cannot quiet yourself, What will you ever learn?"

I hear your! I hear you!

Do you hear?

"They hear but do not listen" -
"...the fires, there, will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth" -Jesus

[Dennis Mahar]

The quotes can be rolled out like cars on a factory production line.
To the 'cognisant' the quotes stand out luminously.

To the unenrolled,
the reading eyes 'glaze over',
contempt arises.

To be cognisant includes,
to be aware of the opponents hostility.

How to deal?
The legitimacy of the opponents hostility.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It must be a one on one conversation, let them teach you first for a bit sounds like a good idea, lead them to not-knowing through asking them what they know about the simple stuff,

"What is consciousness?"

"what is matter, energy, light, atom?"

When you hear crickets, point out the sound to them, use what delusions they agree upon to lead them to the end of delusion.


Eventually they may realize all they are doing is labeling different manifestations of sensation/feeling,

that even the knowledge is made up of appearances. Let's agree a lot more and go on from there


"How will you become free? With a quiet mind Come into that empty house, your heart, and feel the joy of the Way beyond the world. Look within - The rising and the falling."

Such luminous and inspiring words from the sages,
remind me never to get caught up in trying to prove my point!!! If you see me doing it remind me to forget! * Instead, to deal, just keep making good points

[Dennis Mahar]

Well, its a supply issue as always when the being of human being is opened up.

Alex's thrust is the concept of 'living in a coma' which he attributes to it as a property.
In other words he thinks there is something about it that 'cuts off supply' to be fully alive.

Laird stands Pye out as a 'fine supplier' of immaculate goods.

I'm not finding blemish in your fearless, exuberant expression John.
I'm just looking at the conditions the way I see it.

This statement:

"How will you become free? With a quiet mind Come into that empty house, your heart, and feel the joy of the Way beyond the world. Look within - The rising and the falling."

as an always/already condition I'm enrolled in,
completely satisfies a sense of a 'lack of supply' I once had a long time ago.
I can walk in my 'country' with ease.

it doesn't show up as a quick fix,
like a beer to an alcoholic
a line to a cokehead

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Merry Christmas by the way,

Something I just got was an insta fold out tent.

Had tent problems a few times.

Will allow for even more time outside in the country,

All good, the real supply for "fully alive" is to just completely let it go, that sense of a lack of supply.

If only it could be understood on their side that you can practice non-doing, no goals, stay empty minded and not move until the next action prompts itself, forever, and that this is the perfect way to live.


"If you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world is yours"

This was re-hitting me again last night when I was listening to my family talk about the greater unknown, the possibility of more, if only it could be remembered how great what already is is, familiarity creates that sense of a lack, as Pam said, "You are only aware of the limitations, because of the extent of what already is"

All past associations have to be abandoned.

Word jumble!
The fact of so much ignorance is, there is no matter.

[Dennis Mahar]

Good will to all.

and a partridge in a pear tree
tra la la

[SeekerOfWisdom]

oh the weather outside is frightful!
In Sydney at least

[Pye]

Seeker writes: And Laird, I won't be doing a single thing if I go on a trip or move haha, I will sit there like I always do until someone directs me and then I will do, if no one directed me (If my action didn't clearly arise on it's own) I wouldn't do anything.

So in addition to the wise man knows nothing is the wise man does nothing.
This, of course, is a doing in itself - to be the thing moved by other things around it, one possibility. One will, of course, always be doing something, whether by one's agency or someone else's. The wise man might be fooling himself about his 'nothing.' But he will cling to it as surely as any conceptual junky :)

season's greetings from the northern hemisphere on christmas eve. I've had 2 vegetable egg rolls and a cup of tea. A snowstorm is headed this way. I'm sort of excited about that. :)

[SeekerOfWisdom]

There's a northern hemisphere? I thought we were alone here in aus. Snow, jealous :(

So in addition to the wise man knows nothing is the wise man does nothing.

not-knowing doesn't mean knows nothing.

non-action/ "not-doing" doesn't mean does nothing.

It means,

Don't try to direct what happens(desires), don't think you know about the things you don't, and let your actions and life play out on their own (It goes smoother when your not worrying about how it goes)

[guest_of_logic]

John,

As I told you in my PM, I originally sent this to you privately to save you any discomfort you might feel to have it posted publicly, but you have, since then, chosen to publicly label me (and Alex) as an idiot (for not sharing your views on Eastern philosophy), so I don't think you deserve that mercy after all, especially given that this analysis might be interesting to others (it might also be too dry and long for anyone to be interested in, but who knows?).

So, here's our exchange as I see it (the footnotes link to the posts in question). Some of the implicit dynamics from my side are not exactly what I was explicitly thinking at the time, but I think they capture the essence of the exchange. I have clarified it in a few small ways since sending it to you privately.

John[1]: Laird, what do you think of these quotes?

Laird[2]: I accept them to a point, but here's why I think some of them are too extreme [because they imply that knowledge is not even useful, when really it is indispensable in our everyday lives, especially if we are to make responsible decisions].

John[3]: [Implicitly] I either don't care why you think they're too extreme, or at least I'm going to ignore the reason you offer, but [explicitly] I assert anyway through rhetorical questions that they're NOT too extreme.

Laird[4]: OK, well, I can't accept your assertion unless/until you address the reason I just gave you why I don't accept it.

John[5]: [Implicitly] I still refuse, without saying why, to address your reason, but [explicitly] here are some other justifications for my views [implicitly] that don't take your reason into account.

Laird[6]: [A little frustrated that John continues to ignore his reasoning] [Implicitly] OK, well, if you're still going to ignore my reasoning, then let me try to express it to you another way, through [explicitly] an example.

John[7]: [Implicitly] I can't deny the sense of your example, so instead I shift the goalposts and hope that you don't notice: even though my position until now has been that these quotes are absolutely correct no matter how extremely you interpret them in their applicability to knowledge (i.e that they apply to "all" knowledge, that "all" knowledge is a "disease"), [explicitly] I now limit their sense to "false" knowledge, "pretended" knowledge and "delusion", [implicitly] which fundamentally changes my claim to one that hardly anyone would disagree with, because it is almost tautological, however, I implicitly conflate it with my original extreme claim, hoping that that extreme claim now stands up in the face of the reason you offer why it doesn't. I also fail to clarify the boundaries of these new types of knowledge that I have introduced. In addition, I introduce a new exception to what has otherwise been my extreme position, that exception being [explicitly] "obvious" truths, [implicitly] and, again, I fail to clarify the boundaries of this new distinction. [Implicitly] Furthermore, even though your example has caused me to radically modify my position without acknowledging that I have done so, [explicitly] I ridicule that example as "silly".

Laird[8]: [Implicitly] OK, you have introduced some exceptions to your original extreme claim without acknowledging that you have done that, but I politely ignore this. Presumably, then, you hope to keep these exceptions as limited as possible, so [explicitly] here's an example to show you that the extent to which you can limit them is very minimal.

John[9]: [Implicitly] I don't have an objection to your example so instead [explicitly] I offer some irrelevancies [implicitly] and hope that they count. [Implicitly] I realise subconsciously that they don't count though, so I try to counter your example in another way, by introducing another limitation to the originally unlimited domain of my original extreme claim, and again I fail to acknowledge that I am *radically* changing my claim. The new limitation to the domain that I offer is that rather than my original extreme claim that "all" knowledge is useless, [explicitly] now only the domain of "ultimate" knowledge is useless. [Implicitly] Again, I fail to clarify the boundaries of this new limitation, nor to acknowledge that I am conflating a highly controversial claim with a far less controversial one. I reassert though my previously introduced limitation that [explicitly] my claim applies only to "pretended" knowledge, and [implicitly] I offer *some* guidance as to what I mean by this by asserting a false [explicitly] dichotomy between "pretended" knowledge and "obvious" knowledge. [Semi-explicitly] I imply vaguely, whilst making it difficult to recognise that I am doing so, that philosophers and scientists deal in this "pretended" knowledge. [Implicitly] I fail to recognise that to some extent this is irrelevant because at least scientists, and arguably philosophers, mostly deal in a domain other than the one ("ultimate" knowledge) to which I have just restricted my claim.

Laird[10]: [Becoming impatient with the unacknowledged shifting of goalposts and careless thinking] [Explicitly] I call you out on your irrelevancies, your goalpost shifting, and your false dichotomy, and, [implicitly] still hoping that you will at some point acknowledge the original reason I offered you as to why I find the quotes you offered to be too extreme, I reframe that reason in terms of [explicitly] the utility of the middle knowledge - uncertain, provisional, tentative knowledge - that you excluded from your false dichotomy, and I point out that this category of knowledge is by far the largest, and that it is *this* knowledge that philosophers and scientists mostly deal in, not in pretended knowledge.

John[11]: [Implicitly] I reject the category of middle knowledge that you just pointed out to me [semi-explicitly] by conflating it with one of the poles of my false dichotomy, the "obvious" pole, [implicitly] and I re-assert using new terms my previous unacknowledged-as-false dichotomy, this time using, rather than "obvious" and "pretend" knowledge, [explicitly] the terms "really" knowing and "presuming" to know. In addition, [implicitly] I straw-man your response to the Socrates quote, [explicitly] putting explicit words in your mouth [implicitly] even though you have already provided me with a different explicit response that means nothing of the sort. [Implicitly] Even though you have offered me the service of patiently and politely pointing out to me the carelessness of my thinking on a philosophy forum, [explicitly] I reject that service as "robotic", and suggest that I want to kill you.

[remove the space after "http" to reconstruct the URL - I have to do it this way to avoid the 3-URL-per-post limit]

[1] http ://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7116&start=325#p138357

[2] http ://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7116&start=325#p138364

[3] http ://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7116&start=350#p138367

[4] http ://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7116&start=350#p138369

[5] http ://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7116&start=350#p138371

[6] http ://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7116&start=350#p138374

[7] http ://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7116&start=350#p138375

[8] http ://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7116&p=138411#p138394

[9] http ://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7116&start=375#p138401

[10] http ://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7116&start=375#p138410

[11] http ://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7116&start=375#p138412

Where does this leave us? With two radically different claims, the original highly controversial claim that no matter how extremely you interpret a quote that all knowledge is useless (a "disease"), that quote is correct, and your adjusted, almost tautological claim that only 'pretended', 'false' and 'delusional' knowledge in the domain of 'ultimate' knowledge is useless. Also, it leaves us with a continuing false dichotomy and the denial of a whole category of knowledge that is relevant to your claims: uncertain, provisional and tentative knowledge.

This leads us to the major problem in your thinking: conflation. You make highly controversial claims that you then attempt to justify by conflating them with far less controversial, even approaching the tautological, claims - and when people call you out on your equivocation, you complain about your critics being too "literal". You're on a philosophy forum, it's your task to be consistent in your claims, and to acknowledge when you are changing them, and preferably to explain why you are changing them. How are we to even know whether or not we agree with you when you are constantly changing your position? If you're going to make controversial claims, and someone offers you reason for disbelieving those claims, then the appropriate response is to address that reason, not to adjust your claim to something less controversial that avoids the offered reason without acknowledging your change, and hope that your original controversial claim still stands up (it doesn't).

I think there is a lot that we do agree on, but you want to manipulate my agreement with certain claims into agreement with other extreme and controversial claims, and that's just bad sportsmanship. Am I wasting my time here? It's very possible. It really depends on you though.

By the way:

Don't try to direct what happens

But that's mostly what you've been trying to do on this forum since you got here, whether it be by trying to direct people to form a private off-forum group, or to direct them through zealous preaching to accept your views.

[Dennis Mahar]

John,
If you are going to play with Laird you are playing with a Sophist.

His game is Sophistry,

The gestalt of Sophistry is 'Gotcha!

The 'gotcha!' guy is only interested in 'gotcha!.
At every turn there's a gotcha! moment for the 'gotcha' guy.
Its not listening.

Gotcha! appears to be significant conventionally,
as we know, ultimately its of no account.
its empty and meaningless.

Nevertheless, in your aliveness you have to cope with the gotcha! guy.
There's no reason for discouragement.

[guest_of_logic]

sophistry
[sof-uh-stree]
noun, plural soph·ist·ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

If you read my last post carefully, you will recognise that far from being sophistical, it actually points out John's sophistry.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

lol Dennis I wish this forum had a "like" button.

I'm not discouraged don't worry, at least I have someone reasonably reasonable that will reply and consider,

That is already enough to lead him in the right direction, which I won't stop doing till it's done.

Laird

If all you are doing is looking for the fallacies in somebody's argument instead of listening to the clear meanings conveyed, aka, being a gotcha guy, then you are committing an etymological fallacy, or whatever the fuck, missing the point, forget the words!

"Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a conversation with him?"
-Zhuangzi

[guest_of_logic]

instead of listening to the clear meanings conveyed

One of the main points of my analysis is to show that you are not conveying clear meanings: you change your meaning in response to each post I put to you. I'd have been happy to have listened to a clear meaning. Here's your chance to provide one by answering this question:

Do you stand by your original claim that no matter how extremely you interpret those quotes, they are correct - that literally "all" knowledge is a "disease", or do you accept that, as I have put to you, some knowledge (not just the indisputable knowledge of direct experience, but much knowledge that is tentative, provisional and uncertain) is actually useful (i.e. not diseased), and in fact indispensable?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It didn't say knowledge was a disease.

It said presuming to know is a disease.

That not-knowing, (translate:knowing you don't know) is true knowledge.

Alternative: " I am the wisest man alive for I know one thing, I don't know"



Like I said, if you don't like those ones, ignore them, use this clearer one:
....with exactly the same meaning

"True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance" -Confucius



Now, the meaning of "not-knowing" I still hold to it's extreme, it doesn't say all knowledge is "false" or "wrong", just that all thoughts are illusory...including all sensations/feelings (experiences of "universe"), aka, what is known as universe is an illusion of consciousness existing only in what is seen/experienced, not independent of consciousness,

Translation: thoughts exist only as imaginative experiences (like thoughts in a dream), and they refer only to what exists as imaginative experiences.
(Like thoughts about the physics observed or events oncurring in a "dream"{translation: an illusion of consciousness, existing only of the mind})

Understand? Your words could still be correct in a dream-like existence if it were certain, for example, saying "I am seeing a cup" if you were seeing a cup,

but if you try to go much further, or say anything that implies your words and meanings are anything more than dream-like imaginative experiences,
or imply in any way that your knowledge is anything more than dream-like imaginative information, (whether it seems true to your perception at the time or not) then you have already gone beyond your limits of knowing.


Read twice, then please do not reply having analyzed the specifics of my language, if you grasped my point then reply in kind,
if you didn't clearly grasp the point let me know, there will be further explanation, although, this understanding is only one I can point to.

It must be realized "within one's inmost consciousness", aka, got to have some major and personal epiphany's before grasping it properly.

Give us the benefit of the doubt when we say we are 100% sure this is the final step up, which is "not-doing" and "not-knowing", "witless" according to Alex.

"I am like an idiot my mind is so empty.... I am different from ordinary men, I drink from the great mother's breasts" - Lao Tzu

Try taking that quote literally gotcha guy!

[Dennis Mahar]

You play gotcha! on people Laird.

try and get 'em down and get your foot on their neck and choke the life out of them.
tie 'em up in useless shit.

tie 'em up in red tape.

control drama.
look back at your life so far.
how you've dealt with it.

geddit?

John, there's a Socratic dialogue on Sophistry as I remember.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Nice try, Laird! But you are dealing with some folks who allow themselves the 'ultimate luxury' in ontology and epistemology: everything that we see and are is 'unreal' (though Dennis differs significantly on what 'unreal' means) and therefor anything that might be said or known about it is irrelevant. A cup may indeed be a cup and in fact one can say many things about it: how made, where made, what shape, what glaze, etc. But since you are dreaming it, and 'relating' to a dream image, you simply must accept that the entire platform is not real, and so to believe you 'know' anything about it or yourself in the dream, is irrelevant. Not useless, irrelevant. To achieve relevancy you have to understand what Confucius, Jesus, Lao Tsu and some selected others understand. But since you don't or won't, you are the 'problem' and you are the 'subject' that requires modification to come into harmony with this [sic] enlightened view.

Again: this is a form of religious irrationality. It is opposed to the entire structure of Occidental rationalism and to all it necessary presuppositions. Those who hold these views and 'operate' them, unwittingly 'destroy' the possibility of knowing in this world (and of acting concertedly with knowledge). It moves with sure strides to obscurantism. This is what religious fundamentalism does.

Finally, reasoning with them is useless: a sham. They do not function within the parameters of reason. They function within the parameters or irrationality and sentiment (essentially).

Trading our heritage 'for a mess of pottage'.

Upshot: we all need to carefully examine our presuppositions and essential predicates. This is not just Dennis and John but a very widespread 'infection' of the 'Western mind'.

[Alex T. Jacob]

To recur to a narrative (by Plato) in which his character, Socrates, thinks about the response to a question posed to the god Apollo, and to employ that response in one's own arguments is, funnily enough, an extreme use of the 'argument from authority' fallacy!

And anyone who has studied this character 'Socrates' should know that he is a character rife with conflicts. Self-righteous, 'resentful' in the Nietzschean sense, and desirous to piss people in his milieu off! And he succeeded.

But I guess that for Swami Sockit-to-me this 'Apollo' is none other--- that's right folks, you guessed it!---Old Man Tao in his Hellenic get-up...

We should all sit on a tripod over a fissure in the earth and sniff the fumes! And prophecy my children!

But we will invite the Pythonic Priestess of Apollo to the debut of The Alex Show! It's gonna be HOT!