Videocy/Literacy

[Cahoot]

Emotional anything is the ignorance I was exposing. Reciprocity is an emotional reaction. Marx used the word in the sense of it being an enlightened activity. Reaction is not an enlightened activity.

Not exactly.

Reciprocity is a type of response.

A response may be an emotional reaction.

A response may be an attempt to rationally communicate.

A response may be an attempt to communicate via emotion, if the receiver is tuned to emotion rather than rationality. The default transmission for children and animals is emotion. Fine tune the communication from rationality to emotion for adults, if necessary, particularly adults whose default response is to react emotionally.

Of course it goes without saying, a response may also be pure gibberish, or cant by rote.

However, defensive armoring as a response to open rational communication is not reciprocity.

its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless.

Not exactly.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

" epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing". The only thing that a more Platonic approach might add is that an abstract would trump any plain sense experience as far as the quality of addressing reality.

Ironic, isn't it? The genuine idealist--the true philosopher--is actually a materialist, knowing as he does that the only thing you can know is necessarily a mind-dependent thing, and from this it is only such a one who is able to distinguish subjectivity from reality.

Why is that? Didn't he just declare subjectivity to be reality? It seems to me that only the materialist ever makes this distinction. Actually one could actually suggest that the materialist is the one with the edifice, the declaration to know that reality as some absolute, in the form of matter, sense, common sense, forces like production and so on. For the materialist certain ideals have materialized and become certainty in sense objects and learned structures. However the philosopher will forever doubt since he knows causality. This is why his use value is normally estimated as pretty low as far as the contemporary goes.

[Pam Seeback]

Both views are applied tho' right?
A cup is still a cup.
oh what fun.
the winning formula is still applicable.

Perhaps we have different understandings of winning formula. To me, winning contains the shadow of its contrast or opposite, losing. When the I is not present, there is nothing to lose, therefore, there is nothing to win.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
Emotional anything is the ignorance I was exposing. Reciprocity is an emotional reaction. Marx used the word in the sense of it being an enlightened activity. Reaction is not an enlightened activity.

Cahoot: Not exactly.

Nothing is exactly.

Reciprocity is a type of response.

Indeed, a reflection of tit for tat.

A response may be an emotional reaction.

True.

A response may be an attempt to rationally communicate.

It may be an attempt to rationally communicate, but until the I-emotion is allowed to come to rest, rational communication is impossible. This goes back to "know thyself". Be conscious of the rising up of the I, always a sign that rationality is going out the window.

A response may be an attempt to communicate via emotion, if the receiver is tuned to emotion rather than rationality. The default transmission for children and animals is emotion. Fine tune the communication from rationality to emotion for adults, if necessary, particularly adults whose default response is to react emotionally.

It actually isn't that difficult to be conscious of the welling up inside one to give their thoughts on a subject. Where waters swells, reflection is distorted.

Of course it goes without saying, a response may also be pure gibberish, or cant by rote.

Gibberish is in the eye of the beholder.

However, defensive armoring as a response to open rational communication is not reciprocity.

Agreed. However, neither is open rational communication to defensive armoring reciprocity. My point is that when one rests in emptiness, one is not conscious of giving or receiving or even of reflecting.

[Leyla Shen]

Pye wrote:

(Mine is a comment of future possibility, rather than) the misfired marxist helmet of history pulled down over the ears.

(:

I like that.

One need look no further than their own lives to measure any effects of socialist praxis on their immediate species well being.

Yes, in its present historical context, necessarily driven predominantly by bourgeois ideologues, since they're not quite done covering the globe entire just yet. Or, as Engels expressed it, "Conservative/Bourgeois socialism". "Conservative" socialism because it can only preserve its own conditions as antithesis (material and philosophic) against those yet remaining which it rose to revolutionise.

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert wrote:

Why is that?

I’ve already answered that.

Didn't he just declare subjectivity to be reality?

No.

It seems to me that only the materialist ever makes this distinction.

Sure it seems that way to you. Why wouldn’t it:

For the materialist certain ideals have materialized and become certainty in sense objects and learned structures. However the philosopher will forever doubt since he knows causality.

So now you want to give up on the whole notion of mind-dependent things altogether and think yourself a philosopher for it?

So, as we have now established, because this Diebertian “philosopher” “knows” that mind-dependent thing “causality”, he forever doubts everything (and not merely mind-independent things), including—

• 1. The existence of, let alone any difference between (since, you know, there’s no evidence that human society hasn’t always existed this way—evidence? What’s that? What the hell is everyone talking about, from Aristotle to Marx), agricultural and industrial means and modes of production, and;
  
  2. The existence of any causal factors whatsoever giving rise to them, and therefore;
  
  3. Causality itself; viz, manifest change/transformation.

So: “Quality of addressing reality”?

Got it. Nihilistic.

[Dennis Mahar]

The misfired comment rose out of a political prejudice.
Pye has a script for herd.
rescuers and rescue remedies.
my team's violence is fine as a means to an end Pye implies.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis, found your definition of winning formula:

Winning formulas are protective shields.
suits of armour.

Is it your understanding that when the I is not present a protective shield/suit of armor is being worn? If so, this is not my understanding of consciousness without-an-I.

[Dennis Mahar]

living without an I
what response do you recommend Pam

be like stone be like wood.

[Dennis Mahar]

You've already declared 'be like stone' in the face of political/social theory as wisdom access.
there is a point where people, ideas, institutions, things vanish completely and never were except by imputation or meaning 'held'

[Pam Seeback]

living without an I
what response do you recommend Pam

be like stone be like wood.

Like stone, like wood? What are you talking about? Look at your posts, you don't use an "I". Do you reflect stone or wood in your writings, which I assume, are representative of your living? It was you who said that winning formulas are protective shields or suits of armor. Are you imputing that your I-less bliss is your winning formula, your protective shield, your suit of armor? If so, my I-ego already covers me with that shit, I'm here to disrobe so no Dennis-bliss for me :-)

The fire of wisdom burns in every conversation on this board, the residue of ignorance (dualism) fighting to its last breath.

[Pam Seeback]

You've already declared 'be like stone' in the face of political/social theory as wisdom access.

I did not declare that simile, nor did I imply that simile.

there is a point where people, ideas, institutions, things vanish completely and never were except by imputation or meaning 'held'

Cannot logic take care of those pesky 'meaning held' hanger-on-ers? And when logic is not needed, does not joy fill the void? An example: I am a grandmother of a one year old. The moment I think of him, I am filled with joy to overflowing, this is natural, this is to his benefit, this is to my benefit, this is to life's benefit, but I do not hold on to this joy like a winning formula that I must employ in order to think of him. When I am with him joy and logic is my reflection to him, the two things, of course, not being mutually exclusive. I used my I to say these things to you, was I like stone or wood? ;-)

[Dennis Mahar]

Yeah,
Bliss is conditional.
Generated

You said earlier something about not doing social critiqueing to protect wisdom mind.
something like that
whatever.

Hence
be like stone in the matter of

[Pam Seeback]

Yeah,
Bliss is conditional.
Generated

You consciously generate bliss to avoid not being in bliss? Grumpy Dennis, time to generate bliss?

[Dennis Mahar]

You need an object to get at bliss dummy.

[Pam Seeback]

Mr. Hyde shows his face.

[Pam Seeback]

Being in joy because of being at ease because of letting go of ego-I of the protective shield does not need an object to be got at dummy :-)

[Dennis Mahar]

don't obfuscate to save face.
a thought is an object.

[Pam Seeback]

A thought is an object, this is true. Are you always conscious of objects?

[Dennis Mahar]

Other names for winning formula are vehicle, covenant, crafted response.
jesus had love thy neighbour
buddha the 8 fold
Islam jihad
zen, chop wood carry water

living inside little suits of armour in order to for the sake of protection.
a set of rules.
sure enough an abiding bliss follows emptiness and a protection racket with it.

Recognition of emptiness being a phenomemal experience necessarily is dependently arisen.

[Dennis Mahar]

Quinn's winning formula is 'trust in the infinite'.
Cool huh?

What's on the menu?

[Dennis Mahar]

The inferential cogniser might be postulating a creator god.
the only thing around here is the inferential cogniser

imagination running riot.
Imputing mind.
May as well mock up pure mind/buddha mind.
what does that look like?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

For the materialist certain ideals have materialized and become certainty in sense objects and learned structures. However the philosopher will forever doubt since he knows causality.

So now you want to give up on the whole notion of mind-dependent things altogether and think yourself a philosopher for it?

If you see the philosopher as the one who doesn't see mind as object, sure, it's the requirement for philosophy to happen. Otherwise we're doing science or psychology and such.

So, as we have now established he forever doubts everything (and not merely mind-independent things)

Enough doubt to give up on wading into ideologies or, like in Marx's case perhaps: obscurantism.

1. The existence of, let alone any difference between agricultural and industrial means and modes of production

The differences are more arbitrarily than you think and of limited use when addressing ultimate and enlightenment. And even then Marx makes erroneous (fundamental!) distinctions in places and proper one in others. See also my earlier posts on Marx.

2. The existence of any causal factors whatsoever giving rise to them

Causality is why you can doubt, it doesn't need any "factors". Each factor will have other factors and only a few of those will be known until overthrown by another factor.

3. Causality itself; viz, manifest change/transformation.

But didn't I write: " the philosopher will forever doubt since he knows causality". Causality is no object or structure, no factor or "mode".

Got it. Nihilistic.

No, you're just refusing to read with enough attention currently. And my detailed criticism on Marx his "essence" and conflicted view on human nature has again not been addressed by you. Instead you attack a person, a forum or the philosophy being discussed on the forum but you don't seem to have the stomach for addressing the actual criticism. Perhaps you don't know Marx as well as you think you do? In a larger context? Perhaps you're standing too close, too much invested.

[Pye]

Cahoot offers: Thomas Sowell – Human Livestock

Oh, right – the “competition argument”: a perennial favourite of the capitalist cheerleaders.

Do you know what industry occupies the largest portion of GDP (gross domestic product) in the U.S?

It’s illness. The largest ratio of the gross domestic product in America is illness – the medical industry.

If conservatives are so terribly concerned about the health, flourishment, and sharp edges of the species, they might take a look at the conditions that the competition/profit model has brought forth for us: food with disappearing nutritional value; sick-buildings in which to work; button-pushing chump-hood that’s producing new “sitting diseases”; impoverished spirit from a “material-only” message; stress related diseases/syndromes from all the “healthy” competition to secure the most basic of living needs; the general and overall paucity of planetary well being.

Now, I guess if conservatives feel the aforementioned is simply another opportunity to weed out those who cannot “cut it” in the competition/profit model of resource distribution and living conditions, then it’s certainly a dream-world for them right now. There’s a big leap between gossamer references to the competition of the great Olympian athletes and the type of competition that takes place now.

If the capitalists themselves were actually producing a healthier, better, more innovative, stronger, more enlightened and better adapted bunch of human beings, well then, they can make their comparisons. But this is so far from the truth, that the light from the truth cannot even reach it from space . . . .

[Dennis Mahar]

Now and then a radiant beauty calls you up and it's not a long time before she chews you up and spits you out as more grist for the mill in her chick flick. Be like stone she goes.

So Pam,
Buddha mind is your project.
how does that mind know objects appearing?