No Dennis, like food, some kinds shouldn't be digested, served or stored at all. Especially when passed expiration date.Dennis Mahar wrote: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.
That's not even close to being correct, Diebert, by the way. Informal logical fallacies occur in every day arguments at the pub.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: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.
I had ad hominem arguments in mind here but all I'm saying is that it all depends on what else is there. If there's a case somewhere.Dan Rowden wrote:That's not even close to being correct, Diebert, by the way. Informal logical fallacies occur in every day arguments at the pub.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: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.
Yeah especially adhoms are tricky. In your example there was still a valid argument, rudely presented. Now if Johno would say "Bla di bla, you [plural] are alllll dysfunctional", then he would not have an argument (or a very ambiguous one) and neither would it be ad hominem. It would just be a random slur unless Johno would say something like: "Not gonna buy any round because you and your parents are dysfunctional". The main argument has now become the ad hominem.Leyla Shen wrote:In Johnno's case, there's no adhom. Bazza is a cunt who should get fucked!
Ernst Becker wrote:"Personality is less responsible for personality change than the group itself. Plunged into an alien group under constant pressure to adjust to its standards, the patient is hard pressed to hasten his espousal of the new norms. His own values do not apply; and his consequent sense of personal deflation combines with his inner tension and anxiety to drive him to the desire to be accepted. Nor can he test these new standards to which he is opposed, or discuss or reflect upon them with someone of differing persuasion; he is alone in the hostile group, which will only give him its support when it observes changes in him and his behavior. Insistence on his personal values only brings condemnation from the group, so the patient's main concern becomes one of avoiding anticipated retaliation. He tries to make himself less vulnerable by divining what the group expects of him. Under these pressures he comes to understand that only those acts are "good" which aim toward the goal of mental health; any activity resisting this aim is "bad'. The new superego is unambiguous."
He deviated for a split second but he's back with you, Dan. I suppose you might have been worried for a second. I was!Diebert wrote:And yes, that in itself might be called one big fallacy but I prefer to call it non-participation or just putting on a show. Much like at the pub! When one side just has not arrived yet into any meaningful discussion, how can one even point out a fallacy? Don't forget that one party does not want to discuss according to any standard. The appearance of discussion has become then just a cover for seduction, projection, offloading etc. It's more like listening to a drunk emotional guy at the pub I suppose.
Once you have noted the dynamic and the function at a core level of a coercive system of thinking (what I am labeling 'core dysfunction'), and once you have identified the players within that system as being unconscious of their own use of such a system, the exposure of the game changes form. In a sense I guess it steps out of 'good-faith dialectic' and become one of 'dragging into the light'.Ernst Becker in 'Zen: A Rational Critique' wrote:"The Westerner who finds some charm in Zen is often hard put to reconcile the antimony, so foreign to his own traditions, between its poignantly esthetic musings about man and nature and its blatant denial of life. The purpose of this book is not to effect reconciliation, but rather to show that Zen really is a denial of life, a negation of the Western ethic of individuation and autonomy which was so laboriously fashioned by Mediterranean civilization and is still too precariously grasped. It is a trite observation that knowledge accumulates so quickly and voluminously that we are constantly forced to rediscover something long known which has been quietly buried under the silt of more up-to-date thought or more pressing research. Yet this is what seems to have happened with Zen. The credulous new generations have to start again at the beginning and learn things all over; and with an ever new spirit animating their strivings, it is inevitable that they should choose to delight themselves with the wrong things."
"Many in the West revolt both against reason's obviously majestic creations for the good life, as well as its utter failure to solve problems of personal contentment and creativity. But less well known than the negation of mind, and fundamental to any appraisal of it, is the method Zen uses to proselytize. Zen is basically a technique by which to achieve a mental breakdown of people so that they can be made to accept a new ideology."
The fallacy in that exchange is: pub that gives receipts.Leyla Shen wrote:What, you mean as in:
Bazza: It's your round.
Johnno: Get fucked, you cunt, I bought the last three! [produces the receipts]
Bazza: Ah, fuck you, you tight arse!
In Johnno's case, there's no adhom. Bazza is a cunt who should get fucked!
Not so in Bazza's case, though!
Yes, ad homs can appear to exist where they do not. Certainly most insults are not ad homs at all. I totally agree on that point. Ad homs are slightly slippery and the accusation of them is very often wrong. However, in Alex's case it's his entire posts that are often the ad hom and not always individual statements within them.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I had ad hominem arguments in mind here but all I'm saying is that it all depends on what else is there. If there's a case somewhere.Dan Rowden wrote:That's not even close to being correct, Diebert, by the way. Informal logical fallacies occur in every day arguments at the pub.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: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.
Actually they more identify the moments where such rationality is set aside or doesn't exist.Even informal fallacies still assume a rational attempt of persuading someone of something, some reasoning and concluding.
It's a bit like that, yes, but even in those pub arguments, informal fallacies appear all the time. The reason I raised Alex's indulgence in them is basically because he won't be told by any of us. Everything we say is a mind fuck and a logic game; we cannot reach him, so I thought some "authority" outside of ourselves might shift his mind a little. It's my last hope and one pretty much pre-judged as forlorn.But all I was saying is that there's in this instance never a case being made which could be debated rationally. And yes, that in itself might be called one big fallacy but I prefer to call it non-participation or just putting on a show. Much like at the pub! When one side just has not arrived yet into any meaningful discussion, how can one even point out a fallacy? Don't forget that one party does not want to discuss according to any standard. The appearance of discussion has become then just a cover for seduction, projection, offloading etc. It's more like listening to a drunk emotional guy at the pub I suppose.
Another example how disingenuous you play in each and every sentence you write. So while you talk about founders communicating a dysfunctional, coercive system to proselytizing disciples, my summary of your idée fixe being about some "big dysfunctional cult-like Family" is now inaccurate?Alex Jacob wrote:Inaccurate portrayal. The founders of the forum operate with a basic 'system of thinking' that, in my view, can be described as 'dysfunctional', 'coercive', etc.
I have decided based on this and other correspondence to exercise that freedom and propel you towards endeavours other than the one you are currently engaged in here.Alex Jacob wrote:At any moment Dan is free to deactivate my user names. I offer no argument either in pro or in contra to being 'active'. It is not my decision to make. It is your forum and as I said privately to you, you have the right to engineer it. But while I am here I will express myself according to my sense of 'how things really are'. I have faith that people will make their own assessments.
[Those usernames are by the way: Talking Ass, Alex Jacob, Alexis Jacobi, Alex T. Jacob.]
By the way, Jupiviv, show us some real balls.If, rather than acknowledging the proposition A = A, I wanted to attempt to refute it, in so doing I would have to make use of logic, i.e., of exactly this proposition. If at some point I did not comply with it, that would mean that my deduction was false. The proposition itself is thus the criterion of truth and falsity, and from the start it is the measure of my deduction, the standard which I work from as soon as I begin to deduce. Therefore, I can at most reject all inferences, and abstain from judgement.* Whether I undertook to refute the proposition, or to prove it, in both cases it would already be presupposed in the argumentation, in both cases I would have obtained the result by fraud. The proposition thus remains a thesis that can neither be proven nor disproven. I can trouble myself about it, but am not logically obliged to, for logic culminates precisely in the content of this proposition (and its other two forms of expression, the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle4, the relative advantages of which, greater or lesser, will not be gone into here). That I cannot escape from this proposition may be of interest to pathological psychology, but it is of no significance for the explanation of the proposition; I cannot escape from various other things, either, e.g., from myself. Thus logic cannot be proven, cannot be derived from something else: Q.E.D.
L: And since truth is belief because it can't be proven, anything goes, right Jupiviv!
J: Any *thing* goes, yes. That's irrefutable, yet unprovable, since all proofs are in it.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
L: All proofs are "in" (meaning derived from) A=A, not God.
J: Besides, A=A, like 1+1=2 or x^2*x^2=x^4, doesn't provide any meaning in itself.
Explain how something being in x is equivalent to it deriving its meaning from x.
L: The first is a law, the balance of your examples, mathematical function. The law is a law derived from and for meaning, coherence and non-contradiction.
J: A=A is no more or less of a law than 1+1=2, and provides as much/as little meaning etc. If you really believe it to be the source of meaning/coherence then you're a moron.
L: Explain how truth is the same as belief.
~J: Because [belief] cannot be proven to be true.
The ultimate axiom?It is simply something understood.
