Wisdom of the Infinite - Part One by David Quinn
-
David Truth
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:02 pm
Re: ---
Sugerez...what kind of question is that..?
-
David Truth
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:02 pm
Re: ---
Don't forget folks, Natural thinks the big bang solves everything.
He has a popular website full of 18-22yrs olds all obsessed with science.
Their fanaticism is nauseating.
EDIT:
Natural has made approx 12 000 posts in 3 yrs...they must be mainly one-liners.
The mans a GOOSE. Edited by: David Truth at: 7/7/03 2:55 pm
He has a popular website full of 18-22yrs olds all obsessed with science.
Their fanaticism is nauseating.
EDIT:
Natural has made approx 12 000 posts in 3 yrs...they must be mainly one-liners.
The mans a GOOSE. Edited by: David Truth at: 7/7/03 2:55 pm
-
David Truth
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:02 pm
Re: ---
Eco-philosophy is becoming more relevant each day as a necessity.
The fundamental difference between eco and typical philosophy is that eco is based life and uses a pluralistic epistemology whereas typical philosophy is based on matter and the influence of scientism which relies on empirical knowledge.
We're in the era of scientism, and we've all been brainwashed to some degree by that ethos.
Those who merely articulate the flawed dictates of their era are not genius's, they're just eloquent spokespeople for inadequate thinking, what you might call inadvertant spin-doctors, doing the elite's dirty work.
Nothing is more important than creating the conditions in which all of societies members can thrive.
Sociopathy is a political policy, it is acceptable and engineered by the elite's inadequacy.
The fundamental difference between eco and typical philosophy is that eco is based life and uses a pluralistic epistemology whereas typical philosophy is based on matter and the influence of scientism which relies on empirical knowledge.
We're in the era of scientism, and we've all been brainwashed to some degree by that ethos.
Those who merely articulate the flawed dictates of their era are not genius's, they're just eloquent spokespeople for inadequate thinking, what you might call inadvertant spin-doctors, doing the elite's dirty work.
Nothing is more important than creating the conditions in which all of societies members can thrive.
Sociopathy is a political policy, it is acceptable and engineered by the elite's inadequacy.
-
David Truth
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:02 pm
Re: ---
You keep popping out the one-liners Suger, I'll tackle the truth...ok..?
Re: ---
Quote:Quote:<hr>Don't forget folks, Natural thinks the big bang solves everything.<hr>I do?
Quote:Quote:<hr>He has a popular website full of 18-22yrs olds all obsessed with science.<hr>Actually, we ran most of the kids out, and the science forum is only one of eight forums. But don't let the facts bother you.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Their fanaticism is nauseating.<hr>All fanaticism is nauseating. If we have any fanatics at Zetetica, you can be assured that I find them just as distasteful as you do.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Natural has made approx 12 000 posts in 3 yrs...they must be mainly one-liners.<hr>No, most of them probably average around 10-20 lines, with some significantly longer. Perhaps no more than 1000 of them are 'one-liners.'
Quote:Quote:<hr>The mans a GOOSE.<hr>Not sure what that means, but ok. I'm a "goose." Is that like being a lunatic?
Quote:Quote:<hr>He has a popular website full of 18-22yrs olds all obsessed with science.<hr>Actually, we ran most of the kids out, and the science forum is only one of eight forums. But don't let the facts bother you.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Their fanaticism is nauseating.<hr>All fanaticism is nauseating. If we have any fanatics at Zetetica, you can be assured that I find them just as distasteful as you do.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Natural has made approx 12 000 posts in 3 yrs...they must be mainly one-liners.<hr>No, most of them probably average around 10-20 lines, with some significantly longer. Perhaps no more than 1000 of them are 'one-liners.'
Quote:Quote:<hr>The mans a GOOSE.<hr>Not sure what that means, but ok. I'm a "goose." Is that like being a lunatic?
-
David Truth
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:02 pm
Re: ----Natural
Quote:Quote:<hr>I do?<hr>
As far debunking God myths.
Quote:Quote:<hr>All fanaticism is nauseating. If we have any fanatics at Zetetica, you can be assured that I find them just as distasteful as you do.<hr>
Ok...but from my POV, the worship of rationality as the "only" origin of knowledge is also fanatical+ the deifing of physical facts at the expense of intuitive knowledge and or transphysical knowledge/feelings/beliefs.
If humans are the most complex matter, then we are the cosmos's most advanced expression.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Not sure what that means, but ok. I'm a "goose." Is that like being a lunatic?<hr>
No, it's much tamer...but I'm considered a lunatic by those who hate truth or have a vested interest{can be emotional or financial} in containing the truth of any matter which I've made myself familiar with.
As far debunking God myths.
Quote:Quote:<hr>All fanaticism is nauseating. If we have any fanatics at Zetetica, you can be assured that I find them just as distasteful as you do.<hr>
Ok...but from my POV, the worship of rationality as the "only" origin of knowledge is also fanatical+ the deifing of physical facts at the expense of intuitive knowledge and or transphysical knowledge/feelings/beliefs.
If humans are the most complex matter, then we are the cosmos's most advanced expression.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Not sure what that means, but ok. I'm a "goose." Is that like being a lunatic?<hr>
No, it's much tamer...but I'm considered a lunatic by those who hate truth or have a vested interest{can be emotional or financial} in containing the truth of any matter which I've made myself familiar with.
-
David Truth
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:02 pm
Re: ----Sugarboy
Quote:Quote:<hr>Sure, since you can't grasp it, why not? But you won't be able to take it down.<hr>
Whinge, whinge Fu..en whinge.
Whinge, whinge Fu..en whinge.
Re: DQ Book Part One
Well, taking the thread back to the original question...
I should point that you are full of evolutionism, psychologism, scientifism, moreover you accept some misconceptions. (For example, you do reject the false interpretation of karma as a "moral punishment" but you accept the rest of the 'interpretation', i.e. karma means cause and effect. While karma means action and that's all.) I should point these if I were to continue the more or less irrelevant arguments. That is, I can argue with what you say, not what you mean. As far as I can see (or "judge"), the book should not be changed, it is reasonable in its purpose: banishing false ideas to see the Truth. For me, the 'strength' of the book is indeed the dismantling of such false ideas as the myths of modern science (quantum-mechanics etc.) and the even more false ideas of neospiritualism (the sentimentalistic daydreaming of the New Age movement etc.). I haven't read through the 1st Chapter yet, but I'm looking forward to the following chapters.
I should point that you are full of evolutionism, psychologism, scientifism, moreover you accept some misconceptions. (For example, you do reject the false interpretation of karma as a "moral punishment" but you accept the rest of the 'interpretation', i.e. karma means cause and effect. While karma means action and that's all.) I should point these if I were to continue the more or less irrelevant arguments. That is, I can argue with what you say, not what you mean. As far as I can see (or "judge"), the book should not be changed, it is reasonable in its purpose: banishing false ideas to see the Truth. For me, the 'strength' of the book is indeed the dismantling of such false ideas as the myths of modern science (quantum-mechanics etc.) and the even more false ideas of neospiritualism (the sentimentalistic daydreaming of the New Age movement etc.). I haven't read through the 1st Chapter yet, but I'm looking forward to the following chapters.
-
WolfsonJakk
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:50 pm
Chapters 3 and 4
I have been pondering Chapter 3 for several days now. I have been of the opinion that freewill was a relative assessment of outcomes based on perspective but limited by certain parameters. The idea was based in patterns in quantum mechanics and set theory and could be exemplified by the metaphor "A caged lion roams his cage freely."
Using your own example, I would have said an individual was free to choose between getting out of bed now or five minutes from now. But after thinking hard on it, that seems ridiculous. I would get out of bed now if I felt like it. I would hit snooze on the alarm if I was tired. Both outcomes are entirely caused by the circumstances of the situation. It seems my mental processes always assess the situation and choose the path that appears most beneficial. Where is the freewill in that? It is entirely based in the situation and my desire for some benefit.
The ego is a tricky thing. I desire that freedom to choose, I think. I will certainly continue making descisions based on input, but I am clearer on the source. I am grateful for that insight.
Also, the link at the bottom of Ch. 3 which is meant to go to a particular thread, I believe, actually links to the Genius Forum splash page.
Chapter 4 was excellent. I will read 5 and 6 tonight.
Tharan
Using your own example, I would have said an individual was free to choose between getting out of bed now or five minutes from now. But after thinking hard on it, that seems ridiculous. I would get out of bed now if I felt like it. I would hit snooze on the alarm if I was tired. Both outcomes are entirely caused by the circumstances of the situation. It seems my mental processes always assess the situation and choose the path that appears most beneficial. Where is the freewill in that? It is entirely based in the situation and my desire for some benefit.
The ego is a tricky thing. I desire that freedom to choose, I think. I will certainly continue making descisions based on input, but I am clearer on the source. I am grateful for that insight.
Also, the link at the bottom of Ch. 3 which is meant to go to a particular thread, I believe, actually links to the Genius Forum splash page.
Chapter 4 was excellent. I will read 5 and 6 tonight.
Tharan
Re: Chapters 3 and 4
Sugar-gays: re motherfucka. It's better to use the word mothersucka. More offensive in a way as it indicates one is a little baby or feminine.
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5740
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Link to forum
Wolf wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>Also, the link at the bottom of Ch. 3 which is meant to go to a particular thread, I believe, actually links to the Genius Forum splash page.<hr>
That was deliberate. I thought a reference to the Forum without a means to check out what that meant was somewhat useless.
Dan Rowden
Quote:Quote:<hr>Also, the link at the bottom of Ch. 3 which is meant to go to a particular thread, I believe, actually links to the Genius Forum splash page.<hr>
That was deliberate. I thought a reference to the Forum without a means to check out what that meant was somewhat useless.
Dan Rowden
Re: DQ Book Part One
Just a stir. But lets not fill this thread up with too much more rubbish.
-
Thomas Knierim
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm
Re: DQ Book Part One
I can't say that I have found anything new in the book. The thoughts and ideas expressed are basically those we have discussed in the past years.
I can't help to register a certain stagnancy. There is a decisive clinging to "traditional" themes, such as that of causality, determinism, emptiness, all of which fall into the "beaten path" category of philosophy. Although these views are presented in a well-written form, providing an interesting read to the novice, the treatment is sketchy and the strokes are broad. Given the author's strong bias, I wonder whether an in-depth understanding of highly perplexing topics, such as causality and determinism, is possible at all.
Although the first part of the book is spent almost entirely on investigating the problem of causality and free will, the theories that Descartes, Hume, Kant, Popper, and others are developed on the topic are largely ignored. Hume is mentioned briefly, but the full scope of Hume's philosophy is not addressed. The author denies Hume's conclusion that the senses and mind have no "access" to causality on the same grounds as Kant. However, Kant's landmark work "Critique of Pure Reason", which contains a comprehensive answer to this problem, is completely ignored.
The same disregard is paid to contemporary physics, in particular non-linear systems, quantum theory, and relativity, which are extremely relevant to the topic of causality. The perspective of physics is treated -pardon me for saying this- from a position of complete ignorance. Saying that causality in the subatomic world is substantiated by the absence of mass particles of the size of a mountain is unscientific and misses the point. It is also mistaken to suggest that quantum theory is based on acausality at the subatomic level, since there is a rich variety of interpretations of quantum phenomena. There are no references to the Uncertainty principle, quantum fluctuation, Bell's theorem, and quantum field theory. Under these circumstances, it might have been preferable to make no mention of physics at all.
Enlightenment is another theme discussed intensively in this book. It seems that David equates enlightenment with the consistent application of rational, logical thought to one's world view. Consequently he points out tirelessly which views are right and which are wrong. How he can do this in a consistent fashion while criticizing people for thinking dualistically is beyond me.
Despite all the emphasis on logic, the author unfortunately fails to investigate logic itself. There is no mention of Aristotle, Bool, Frege, Russel, and Gödel. The author also avoids to give an account of how logic is connected to consciousness. Instead of conducting a much required epistemological enquiry, he draws on pop psychology and themes from Buddhism to support his view, yet without addressing the core topics AWARENESS and MINDFULNESS in any depth. The fact that awareness and mindfulness are ignored is perhaps indicative of how far the topic of enlightenment is missed.
Being an optimist, I hope that the remaining parts of the book will make up for this one.
Cheers, Thomas Edited by: Thomas Knierim at: 7/11/03 2:11 pm
I can't help to register a certain stagnancy. There is a decisive clinging to "traditional" themes, such as that of causality, determinism, emptiness, all of which fall into the "beaten path" category of philosophy. Although these views are presented in a well-written form, providing an interesting read to the novice, the treatment is sketchy and the strokes are broad. Given the author's strong bias, I wonder whether an in-depth understanding of highly perplexing topics, such as causality and determinism, is possible at all.
Although the first part of the book is spent almost entirely on investigating the problem of causality and free will, the theories that Descartes, Hume, Kant, Popper, and others are developed on the topic are largely ignored. Hume is mentioned briefly, but the full scope of Hume's philosophy is not addressed. The author denies Hume's conclusion that the senses and mind have no "access" to causality on the same grounds as Kant. However, Kant's landmark work "Critique of Pure Reason", which contains a comprehensive answer to this problem, is completely ignored.
The same disregard is paid to contemporary physics, in particular non-linear systems, quantum theory, and relativity, which are extremely relevant to the topic of causality. The perspective of physics is treated -pardon me for saying this- from a position of complete ignorance. Saying that causality in the subatomic world is substantiated by the absence of mass particles of the size of a mountain is unscientific and misses the point. It is also mistaken to suggest that quantum theory is based on acausality at the subatomic level, since there is a rich variety of interpretations of quantum phenomena. There are no references to the Uncertainty principle, quantum fluctuation, Bell's theorem, and quantum field theory. Under these circumstances, it might have been preferable to make no mention of physics at all.
Enlightenment is another theme discussed intensively in this book. It seems that David equates enlightenment with the consistent application of rational, logical thought to one's world view. Consequently he points out tirelessly which views are right and which are wrong. How he can do this in a consistent fashion while criticizing people for thinking dualistically is beyond me.
Despite all the emphasis on logic, the author unfortunately fails to investigate logic itself. There is no mention of Aristotle, Bool, Frege, Russel, and Gödel. The author also avoids to give an account of how logic is connected to consciousness. Instead of conducting a much required epistemological enquiry, he draws on pop psychology and themes from Buddhism to support his view, yet without addressing the core topics AWARENESS and MINDFULNESS in any depth. The fact that awareness and mindfulness are ignored is perhaps indicative of how far the topic of enlightenment is missed.
Being an optimist, I hope that the remaining parts of the book will make up for this one.
Cheers, Thomas Edited by: Thomas Knierim at: 7/11/03 2:11 pm
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: DQ Book Part One
Thomas,
Your response was very predictable and uninspired. I already knew, when writing the book, that it would have no impact upon you or your kind. This sort of philosophizing will always fly over your head.
The mean reason why I didn't venture very far into the academic realm is because it isn't an academic work. Rather, it is a Zennish work designed to stimulate the mind into enlightenment. Is the Tao Te Ching, or the Diamond Sutra, an incomplete work because it fails to deal with the scholarly theories of its day? Despite the great value that academics place on the theories of Kant, Popper, and co, they are virtually irrelevent to the process of becoming enlightened, and hence I had no reason to address them.
I could have easily written ten times more about each of these topics than I did, but I reasoned that if I did that then I would only be pandering to morons who have to have everything spelt out for them. I don't see any value in that.
The fact that you find my book a stagnant work speaks volumes of your own mentality. Since you have no personal connection to enlighenment yourself, all you see in my work is the empty outer shell. You don't see the life which underpins it, and which drives every statement. It's a classic case of remaining too focused on the finger and ignoring the moon.
If my work is stagnant, then Truth itself must be stagnant. What does this say about your own approach?
Your response was very predictable and uninspired. I already knew, when writing the book, that it would have no impact upon you or your kind. This sort of philosophizing will always fly over your head.
The mean reason why I didn't venture very far into the academic realm is because it isn't an academic work. Rather, it is a Zennish work designed to stimulate the mind into enlightenment. Is the Tao Te Ching, or the Diamond Sutra, an incomplete work because it fails to deal with the scholarly theories of its day? Despite the great value that academics place on the theories of Kant, Popper, and co, they are virtually irrelevent to the process of becoming enlightened, and hence I had no reason to address them.
I could have easily written ten times more about each of these topics than I did, but I reasoned that if I did that then I would only be pandering to morons who have to have everything spelt out for them. I don't see any value in that.
The fact that you find my book a stagnant work speaks volumes of your own mentality. Since you have no personal connection to enlighenment yourself, all you see in my work is the empty outer shell. You don't see the life which underpins it, and which drives every statement. It's a classic case of remaining too focused on the finger and ignoring the moon.
If my work is stagnant, then Truth itself must be stagnant. What does this say about your own approach?
-
suergaz
----enter the dragon.
Quote:Quote:<hr>If my work is stagnant, then Truth itself must be stagnant. What does this say about your own approach?<hr>
Not at all my good Quinn, the truth doesn't cling to your coat tails!
Not at all my good Quinn, the truth doesn't cling to your coat tails!
-
Thomas Knierim
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm
Re: DQ Book Part One
David: I already knew, when writing the book, that it would have no impact upon you or your kind.
Perhaps that is exactly the point. You are writing this not for "me and my kind". Then I must wonder for which kind of people you are writing. Do you have any particular demographics in mind?
My criticism was not to shoot your book down. I made some concrete remarks about what I perceive to be weaknesses with potential for improvement. Instead of addressing these points constructively, you tell me that it is not written for my kind.
Alright. Good luck with this approach.
David: I could have easily written ten times more about each of these topics than I did, but I reasoned that if I did that then I would only be pandering to morons who have to have everything spelt out for them.
As long as you divide your readers into groups, such as "morons", "academics", and "people without interest in enlightenment" you will probably only reach those who hold equally bigheaded opinions about themselves. And that ought to be a tiny fraction.
Cheers, Thomas
Perhaps that is exactly the point. You are writing this not for "me and my kind". Then I must wonder for which kind of people you are writing. Do you have any particular demographics in mind?
My criticism was not to shoot your book down. I made some concrete remarks about what I perceive to be weaknesses with potential for improvement. Instead of addressing these points constructively, you tell me that it is not written for my kind.
Alright. Good luck with this approach.
David: I could have easily written ten times more about each of these topics than I did, but I reasoned that if I did that then I would only be pandering to morons who have to have everything spelt out for them.
As long as you divide your readers into groups, such as "morons", "academics", and "people without interest in enlightenment" you will probably only reach those who hold equally bigheaded opinions about themselves. And that ought to be a tiny fraction.
Cheers, Thomas