Core Dysfunction and what it does

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Leyla Shen » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:44 pm

Nope, still a moron.
A thing and its meaning(whatever it is said to be) are both in God [snip]
In what?
Between Suicides

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dennis Mahar » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:25 pm

weininger,
I cannot escape from various other things, either, e.g., from myself.
He shot himself.

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Alex Jacob » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:28 pm

Bobo wrote:If we say that the house philosophy is based fundamentally on emotionalism, does it make sense to be against QRS's axioms? Be it on 'freedom of will', 'no-self', 'Buddhism' or all spirituality being one thing.
I said that it has a strong current that can be described as 'emotive' which is somewhat different than 'based fundamentally on emotionalism'. To understand what I mean one need only go back through the podcasts and the transcripts and to note the areas where, if you'll permit me, it leaps out.

I suggest that 1) it engenders a sort of 'hastiness' in concluding things, things that need to be mulled over much more slowly and carefully, 2) to the establishment of basic errors right at the very beginning because of 'zealousness' which is linked to 'basic ignorance' especially of 'our own traditions', and 3) a marked tendency to fight, thrash and trash to put it colloquially.

The term 'our own traditions' becomes tiresome, I know, but I have no other to replace it. It is the basic platform or underpinning of Western philosophical ideation of which we are 'composed'. Such a term and definition can be used pretentiously, without understanding. I allude to it more as a challenge both to myself and to others to gain a greater understanding of what it suggests. It cannot be simply a short, terse statement that can be attached as a lightening flash 'rebuttal' to a post, like some fantastic triple backward flip by a cheerleader. I suggest that it takes some years of study and consideration. If there is a conversation about it, it is a slow conversation but one that requires preparation.

I suggest that it is necessary and 'good' to examine the use of the QRS axioms---for example in Dimpled Dennis and Johnny Jr (among many who might be listed)---and to note how they use these ideas, these axioms. While I do think that a philosophical rebuttal to their core definitions is possible (Laird for example posted a very thorough one here), I have had the sense that, through some bizarre magic that only the Enlightened Sages possess, any substantive argumentation can be defeated simply by ignoring it and then declaring victory as a football star after a goal (gestures, hand-slapping, hugs, and all the 'swagger' one notes in these pages)(even the girls get in on this one, e.g. Leyla), or by convoluted 'counter-argument'. I suggest it is *impossible* to argue against the QRS since, a priori, they possess the Absolute Truth. It seems to have a great deal to do with the original declaration and to 'declaration' in general. Heraldic standards snapping in the wind on a field of battle and all that. I also suggest that many if not all religious positions founded in 'absolutes' share this strange characteristic. It invites people who desire it---as a shield and as a sword. The reasons why it is needed are complex.
Russell wrote:No sort of rebuttal whatsoever towards Dan's response regarding inherent existence. He automatically assumes it's "problematic" on the face of it.
I use the term 'problematic' and 'knotty' to indicate areas that can never be explained or settled by some insta-rebuttal on a thread in a forum. To understand the complexity of these issues requires first of all an audience with some receptivity. Think about it: if your readers are all closed even to the possibility of an alternate viewpoint, and if their basic game is simply 'assertion' of Absolute Truth, you will never be able to influence them. This is the difference between 'good faith argument' and other classes of argument. I have indeed suggested that the QRS position is one designed to 'take on all comers' and defeat them. It moves into the world with battle-cries. It counts coup. It has won already as an a priori.
John-Seeker wrote:It gets to a point where enough is enough, shouldn't even refer to him (A, the dark one) by name, lest he lead us into his realm of ceaseless repetition and damnation.
I have to admit I cannot distinguish clearly if this is an expression of irony or an attempt to establish a rallying cry. Either way it is damned funny.

Dan: I desire to change my user name to 'Dark Alex'. It is a reasonable request and there would be no confusion about my identity (as when I desired to change Talking Ass to 'The Ass of God'). It would also be rather funny, don't you think? I will contribute US$100.00 to Solway via PayPal if you do.

Dark Alex---I love it!
Ni ange, ni bête

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Alex Jacob » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:28 am

Gilbert Murray in 'The Legacy of Greece' edited by RW Livingstone wrote:"FOR MOST RACES and nations during the most of their life are not progressive by simply stagnant, sometimes just managing to preserve their standard customs, sometimes slipping back to the slough. That is why history has nothing to say about them. The history of the world consists mostly in the memory of those ages, quite few in number, in which some part of the world has risen above itself and burst into flower or fruit.

"We ourselves happen to live in the midst or possibly the close of one such period. More change has probably taken place in daily life, in ideas, and in the general aspect of the earth during the last century than during any four other centuries since the Christian era: and this fact has tended to make us look on rapid progress as a normal condition of the human race, which it never has been. And another such period of bloom, a bloom comparatively short in time and narrow in area, but amazingly swift and intense, occurred in the lower parts of the Balkan peninsula [Ancient Greece] from about the sixth to the fourth centuries before Christ."
TO ESTABLISH a point of comparison and a point at which Value can be discussed, I think we need to identify the area or the areas where we locate 'real and valuable attainment'. I suggest that it can only be said to 'exist', or that it does exist, in tangible productions of consciousness and not in dreamy and imagined states of 'enlightenment'. In comparison to, say, the burst of creativity in use of consciousness that underpins Greek attainment, which effectively made our world, the drunk fantasies about 'enlightenment' and almost all of this cock-sure posturing, seem empty of content. Empty of fucking content. And the 'conversations' that occur within that empty field of concern devolve to what we see played out by the Geniuses in these recent last posts. Now, from this perspective I think we can turn our gaze back to the axioms offered by the tendentious QRS brand of 'Buddhism', and it is in this light that I suggest they can lead to no tangible attainment except an elaborate form of psycho-babble that take form within vain contentiousness. It starts there, it functions there, and it will end there. On all levels---on all levels---it draws a given mind (and life) to spheres of non-attainment. To waste. It is only to the degree that a given person does not conform to that motion, and resists it, or disobeys it if you will (even if one merely yacks for yacking's sake, as does Leyla), that they can be said to have some 'relevancy' and 'effect'. In this sense it is, overall, a 'destructive' path.
Ni ange, ni bête

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dennis Mahar » Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:13 am

Alex,
gestalt inclusion and exclusion.

are you in, out, both or neither.

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Russell Parr » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:31 am

Alex Jacob wrote:Dark Alex---I love it!
Another costume. Still dodging the main points, they're just too troubling, too deep for the surface dweller. Claims its not within the scope of a discussion forum, yet goes on to writes the longest posts by anyone, pseudo-analyzing his own made-up version of what we're doing here.

I vote for the name change to "Drama Queen Alex" instead. I don't have any bribing money to fork up, though.

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dennis Mahar » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:56 am

If someone asks you ,
How are you?
they are 'interrogating' being aren't they?
an existential query.

implicit in 'how are you' is.
are you, in, out, both, neither
for,against, both, neither
open, shut, both, neither

the human condition:
embodied
embedded in culture
enactive (performer performing)
affective (moody)
extended ( environmentally reliant on food, oxygen etc.)

being-in-action

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Alex Jacob » Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:16 am

Russell wrote:Still dodging the main points, they're just too troubling, too deep for the surface dweller. Claims its not within the scope of a discussion forum, yet goes on to writes the longest posts by anyone, pseudo-analyzing his own made-up version of what we're doing here.
I could also state that you are avoiding 'the main points'. In my view you use sleight-of-hand by making a reference to this 'deep' but you, Russell, do not write anything that suggests 'deep'. And along those lines I think you need to write out more your own ideas as opposed to relying on the monolith of QRS writings or viewpoints. I most certainly do NOT say that it is not within the scope of a discussion forum---how could you attribute that to me? I say that to really discuss in other than surface terms requires a slower approach. But if you think you can sew up this whole issue in one post---let's see it! Lay out the one, thunderous post that will settle it definitively. Also, I don't agree that I am a 'surface dweller' but I do dwell in a different space.

Please also describe why you think I am operating against a 'made-up version'?
Ni ange, ni bête

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dan Rowden » Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:44 am

Alex Jacob wrote:Dan: I desire to change my user name to 'Dark Alex'. It is a reasonable request and there would be no confusion about my identity (as when I desired to change Talking Ass to 'The Ass of God'). It would also be rather funny, don't you think? I will contribute US$100.00 to Solway via PayPal if you do.

Dark Alex---I love it!
No. The only name changes I'm going to make for anyone are from pseudonym to real name. If you want a different toy go to a different playground.

User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Tomas » Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:59 am

Dan Rowden wrote:
Alex Jacob wrote:Dan: I desire to change my user name to 'Dark Alex'. It is a reasonable request and there would be no confusion about my identity (as when I desired to change Talking Ass to 'The Ass of God'). It would also be rather funny, don't you think? I will contribute US$100.00 to Solway via PayPal if you do.

Dark Alex---I love it!
No. The only name changes I'm going to make for anyone are from pseudonym to real name. If you want a different toy go to a different playground.
Well then, you can change mine to my actual given name.

Roddy

PS - Alex will contribute the $100 for the name change.
Don't run to your death

User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Kunga » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:07 am

Dan Rowden wrote:No. The only name changes I'm going to make for anyone are from pseudonym to real name. If you want a different toy go to a different playground.

But if he offered you $100,000 - $500,000 .....you'd let him buy the playground !

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dan Rowden » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:09 am

Tomas wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:
Alex Jacob wrote:Dan: I desire to change my user name to 'Dark Alex'. It is a reasonable request and there would be no confusion about my identity (as when I desired to change Talking Ass to 'The Ass of God'). It would also be rather funny, don't you think? I will contribute US$100.00 to Solway via PayPal if you do.

Dark Alex---I love it!
No. The only name changes I'm going to make for anyone are from pseudonym to real name. If you want a different toy go to a different playground.
Well then, you can change mine to my actual given name.

Roddy

PS - Alex will contribute the $100 for the name change.
Haha. $100? I don't get out of bed for less than $1000

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dan Rowden » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:10 am

Kunga wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:No. The only name changes I'm going to make for anyone are from pseudonym to real name. If you want a different toy go to a different playground.

But if he offered you $100,000 - $500,000 .....you'd let him buy the playground !
Oh, ok, now we're talkin'...

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dan Rowden » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:06 pm

The following is a short list of common informal logical fallacies. As an exercise, I wonder how many of them can be identified in Alex's (or even our own) approach and posts (remembering that they declare themselves more fully in the absence of accompanying technical argument, the presence of which may mitigate their use or significance):

Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument

Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says

Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so

Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality

Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same

Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer

Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion

Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning

Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side

Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents

Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous

Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason

Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer

Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true

Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence

Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) - inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a false

Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held

Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment

Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy, naturalistic fallacy) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is

Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card) – comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled

Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Alex Jacob » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:30 pm

You forgot one: argumentem ad muppetiam. ;-)
Ni ange, ni bête

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Russell Parr » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:35 pm

Alex Jacob wrote:Please also describe why you think I am operating against a 'made-up version'?
Because you can't dispute us without disputing the actual point(s) being made.
I could also state that you are avoiding 'the main points'. In my view you use sleight-of-hand by making a reference to this 'deep' but you, Russell, do not write anything that suggests 'deep'. And along those lines I think you need to write out more your own ideas as opposed to relying on the monolith of QRS writings or viewpoints. I most certainly do NOT say that it is not within the scope of a discussion forum---how could you attribute that to me? I say that to really discuss in other than surface terms requires a slower approach. But if you think you can sew up this whole issue in one post---let's see it! Lay out the one, thunderous post that will settle it definitively. Also, I don't agree that I am a 'surface dweller' but I do dwell in a different space.
There have been attempts to engage you in a step by step "slow" approach to understanding the absolutes countless times, in this thread included. Anytime it gets close to an actual advancing discussion, you play like it's just a deflective ploy and snap back into commentary mode.

It doesn't matter who speaks the truth, as long as it's the truth. So let's try getting back to the point at hand? You brought up Kevin's quote about 'no self' in the face of causation, and Dan pointed out that Kevin was referring to the non existence of an inherent self.

What makes this an absolute truth is that it is logically consistent with the fact that all things are caused. If all things are caused, including our experience of consciousness, then any appearance of an act of free, self-imposed will is just that, an appearance. However, it is a necessary appearance we must partake in if consciousness is to exist, and consciousness obviously exists.

This line of thought directly interacts with our sense of self, which most people have a negative reaction to. We humans have an advanced capacity of memory that enables us to memorize and apply evaluations in numerous complex ways. Keeping various concepts of 'self' in high priority is necessary for obvious reasons, i.e. we are driven to survive. Unfortunately, this mechanism is easily 'corrupted' (or perhaps works too well), resulting in our consciousness becoming overwhelmingly attached to the survival of various states/senses of 'self'. This makes it easy to neglect the humbling fact that our consciousness is simply an emergent phenomena bounded by endless causation. Most people choose the illusion of "controlled environment" over the realization of the Infinite. Needless to say, this has caused massive problems throughout the history of human civilization.

Now this doesn't mean that we should just simply stop using the evaluation mechanism.. which is impossible anyway. It is part and parcel to the experience of consciousness. It should be our duty, however, to make sure that our use of this mechanism is consistent with our logical formulations about reality, lest we become illogical, by definition.

There you go, let's see if you can debate the actual substance of the ideas presented. Are they factual? If not, explain why.

User avatar
Alex Jacob
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Cutting the Gordian Knot

Post by Alex Jacob » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:06 pm

Wonderful! Let's experiment with different approaches here! A wonderful new opportunity for growth among long-lost 'star-brothers'!

I understand the presentation of ideas and I have from day one. I see it as a 'logic game'. Because you have willed it so, and in this sense because you as a 'group' (the 'we' that has been used) have set up a logic game, or a logic trap, into which you draw your opponent or the one you are preaching to. You corner them within a pre-established maze out of which there is one 'escape': to capitulate to you and accept whatever it is you are preaching, or perhaps to join your group. It smacks of coercion. These are indeed the sort of logic mazes that cults use to trap people. At the very least you should see and understand how such mental deviousness can be applied to unsavory ends. Not that you are involved in anything like this, truth seeker that you are.

But here is one counter-approach, tell me what you think

I won't even step into the trap, and instead of getting worried about it, or shamed, I upend the table where the ridiculous little game is being played, put a cocked and loaded revolver to your doped-up head, and tell you:
  • "Say that one fucking time more, cunt! I dare you! I double-dare you! Go on, say it!'
What I am trying to point out to you is that, despite what you think, or your calm presentation, I think you are working a scam, a mental game, with mental trickery, subterfuge, image-management, stage-management, etc. Instead of allowing you, you pimp, to get inside my head and fuck with me (and really by extension other people on whom you may indeed succeed in pulling it off), I make it plain that the real issue here is personal power, and personal integrity, and personal sovereignty.

What do you think about that, bitch? Don't you notice how it subtly changes the dynamic? An ever-so-slightly subtle 'non-cooperation' with your program?

Which particular fallacious 'argumentum' would you place this one under I ask?

;-)

On a certain very real level I see these---your---games being played out within a power-dynamic and not a truth-dynamic. There is this point, you see, where you cannot con me. When you get clear about that, the whole situation will change.

Thoughts?
Ni ange, ni bête

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dennis Mahar » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:33 pm

That's you lad.
How your mind is organised.
Projector.

Geddit?

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Cutting the Gordian Knot

Post by Dan Rowden » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:53 pm

I've invented a new game. Let's play "Spot the Fallacy!" Here goes (you have to name the actual fallacy, I'm just pointing out where they exist - other than the one expressed by the post per se):
Alex Jacob wrote:Wonderful! Let's experiment with different approaches here! A wonderful new opportunity for growth among long-lost 'star-brothers'!

I understand the presentation of ideas and I have from day one. I see it as a 'logic game'.
That's #1
Because you have willed it so,
That's #2
and in this sense
That's #3
because you as a 'group' (the 'we' that has been used) have set up a logic game, or a logic trap, into which you draw your opponent or the one you are preaching to.
That's #4 and maybe even #5 and #6. He's on fire.
You corner them within a pre-established maze out of which there is one 'escape':
Let's call that #7.
to capitulate to you and accept whatever it is you are preaching, or perhaps to join your group. It smacks of coercion.
#8
These are indeed the sort of logic mazes that cults use to trap people. At the very least you should see and understand how such mental deviousness can be applied to unsavory ends. Not that you are involved in anything like this, truth seeker that you are.
#9
But here is one counter-approach, tell me what you think

I won't even step into the trap, and instead of getting worried about it, or shamed, I upend the table where the ridiculous little game is being played, put a cocked and loaded revolver to your doped-up head, and tell you:
  • "Say that one fucking time more, cunt! I dare you! I double-dare you! Go on, say it!'
What I am trying to point out to you is that, despite what you think, or your calm presentation, I think you are working a scam, a mental game, with mental trickery, subterfuge, image-management, stage-management, etc.
#10
Instead of allowing you, you pimp, to get inside my head and fuck with me (and really by extension other people on whom you may indeed succeed in pulling it off), I make it plain that the real issue here is personal power, and personal integrity, and personal sovereignty.
#11
What do you think about that, bitch? Don't you notice how it subtly changes the dynamic? An ever-so-slightly subtle 'non-cooperation' with your program?

Which particular fallacious 'argumentum' would you place this one under I ask?
The choices are manifold.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6051
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:06 pm

By the way, logical fallacies are only that when the arguments themselves are not sufficiently addressed. It might be rude or needless psychoanalyzing but unless it replaces the argument in the context of an actual agreed upon topical discussion, they cannot be called fallacies. Since everyone is believing right now that they have sufficiently addressed the arguments themselves and have started theories on why the counterpoints and critiques are not understood, the discussion has become a faint attempt at psychological profiling or plain mudslinging. Often in the guise of running commentaries. Also the topics themselves are already hard to distinguish from issues around character, psychology, motives, mental blocks and projections being challenged. Another reason fallacies are tricky to identify.

Lets drop the pretense theres' still a discussion with its possible fallacies happening! It passed that stage in my view a long while ago and now it looks more like a ritual being maintained.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dan Rowden » Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:19 pm

Well then we can say Alex has never engaged in a single logical fallacy. Ever.

I don't agree with your premise, actually, because he maintains he's maintaining and proffering an argument. In that sense, he is a walking fallacy.

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dennis Mahar » Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:23 pm

Get with it Diebert.

He has said all along 'you can't catch me, I've got a trick'.

one trick pony.

He does it everywhere, everywhen.
He's got a gal in the mode 'you can't catch me, I stashed the cash'.

He has run the MO on other forums.

I'm not saying it, he's saying it loud and clear.
To his credit he doesn't hide it.
Full and frank disclosure.

you too disclosed your delight in using him to bounce off and write really great stuff.
full and frank disclosure.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6051
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:19 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:Well then we can say Alex has never engaged in a single logical fallacy. Ever.
That's not what I wrote. It's just that he and nearly everyone else have already supplied logical arguments, no matter how faulty or flawless they might be. What happened after that stage is purely theorizing on why there's no real communication or progress possible, causing the persistent styles of running commentary and personal evaluations between him and others.
I don't agree with your premise, actually, because he maintains he's maintaining and proffering an argument. In that sense, he is a walking fallacy.
And you maintain that for yourself as well. Just like I wrote "since everyone is believing right now that they have sufficiently addressed the arguments...". But a fallacy is not just the case because a point is not agreed upon by all participants to be sufficient for the discussion! At some point there's just the realization one is not even in the same discussion or is able to apply the same standards. This failure to meaningful communicate can lead to the more personal analysis and motive analysis. Everyone has been doing that actually: you, me, David, Dennis, Alex, to name a few.

Bottom line, no matter who the adult and who the babes are, there's no real discussion possible without some basic common psychological structures in place. Logical fallacies happen inside an established debate but my point is that there's no actual debate here, only a stage left to perform on in this case. But feel free to keep providing it!

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6051
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:21 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:you too disclosed your delight in using him to bounce off and write really great stuff. full and frank disclosure.
That's the only potential purpose here. But lets not call it debate or contructing some deductive argument with or without fallacies. It never was and never will be that way.
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Core Dysfunction and what it does

Post by Dennis Mahar » Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:45 pm

Ultimately there's no 'I,me,mine' consciousness.

and yet, consciousness coalesces in an individual as a viewpoint.
all viewpoints are blameless,
they are just an individual expressing how the world occurs for them.
acts of consciousness.

Alex, dwelling in a 3rd world country, patriarchal, power/control religion/politics has perhaps appropriated that viewpoint as a survival option for that place and mistakes that viewpoint as appropriate in every place.



Dan's not interested in survival options per se.
he distinguished unconscious, conscious, meta conscious long ago and cleaned up his act and discloses how it is done.
Give the guy his due and his project respect.
how the world occurs for him.
That's the only potential purpose here
Fine.
well-being.
Last edited by Dennis Mahar on Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply