Wisdom of the Infinite - Part One by David Quinn

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)

--

Postby suergaz » Thu Jul 17, 2003 8:39 am

Since I know how to judge a book by its cover, there's little hope of my finding time to read it.
suergaz
 

Re: DQ Book Part One

Postby David Quinn » Sat Jul 19, 2003 5:03 am

Thomas wrote:

Quote:
Quote:<hr> 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? <hr>
Intelligent people who aren't content with being mere armchair critics and finger-fixators, but who desperately hunger for the moon.


Quote:
Quote:<hr> 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. <hr>
I was gently letting you know that you misunderstood the nature of the work.
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

-----

Postby suergaz » Sat Jul 19, 2003 6:21 am

Quote:
Quote:<hr>Intelligent people who aren't content with being mere armchair critics and finger-fixators, but who desperately hunger for the moon.<hr>


Ahh, you want madmen to read it!
suergaz
 

Re: DQ Book Part One

Postby B0ndi » Sat Jul 19, 2003 12:14 pm

Just my two cents, for all the "critics": haven't you know about Aesop's tale of the miller, his son and their donkey...? It would be pointless to accept all these "improving" ideas.
B0ndi
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2001 8:40 pm

Re: DQ Book Part One

Postby MKFaizi » Sun Jul 20, 2003 4:05 am

David,

I must wonder one thing that Thomas brought up. If you are not writing your book for Thomas and his kind, for whom are you writing it?

Surely not for the jackals writing here!

Faizi

MKFaizi
 

Re: DQ Book Part One

Postby MKFaizi » Sun Jul 20, 2003 5:01 am

When you say that you write for those who desperately hunger for the moon, what do you mean? This is quite a poetic statement. No doubt a reflection -- pun intended -- of your feminine side.

When one hungers desperately for the moon, does one have an innate and consuming need to explore the philosophical reaches of his mind to its limits, even to the understanding or, at least, the acceptance of infinity that surpasses what can be known through simple deduction?

Reason and basic logic tells us that 1+1=2. This is the logic of worldly knowledge. It is never wrong. Any idiot can prove it. Any idiot, i.e., a trained scientist or technician, can prove the geometrical shape of the universe.

But A=A cannot be proved except through mental excursion that cannot be wholly explained in the same way of any science; nor through superstitious belief.

What is the hardest thing to accept for most people -- jackals -- who dabble in philosophy is that philosophy is the construction of a mind; not scientific or religious explanation or theory. It is pure thought that is reasoned and thought -- created -- and reasoned again. It is the construction of perfection. It is singularity and individualism without attachment to any common ideal.

Faizi
MKFaizi
 

----

Postby suergaz » Sun Jul 20, 2003 5:45 pm

Marsha ---------Philosophy:It is singularity and individualism without attachment to any common ideal.

It almost sounds as though you could love solitude!

Philosophy is still the love of wisdom. My wisdom comes to me.
suergaz
 

translation of a chapter

Postby B0ndi » Sun Jul 20, 2003 8:55 pm

For anyone interested, I translated Chapter Two ('Entering the Logical Realm') into Hungarian. That's a very insightful chapter for me. Well, I remember only one Hungarian has written here, however, I think it's important to let David know about this. You can download it <a href="http://mappa-data.prim.hu/data/-TMTA1OTA4NzU0NTA=/2e/2ed626eb/36663f0b/wisdomhu.zip">from here</a>. I compiled it into the same HTML format, to keep its original appearance.
B0ndi
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2001 8:40 pm

Re: translation of a chapter

Postby MKFaizi » Mon Jul 21, 2003 3:13 am

I don't love solitude. I prefer it, jackal.

Faizi

MKFaizi
 

Forum and MKF

Postby David Truth » Mon Jul 21, 2003 12:04 pm

I liked the book, and do look forward to reading the remainder...it's the work of genius, but the genius is not error free{nor am I}.

MKF...who are the jackals here?
What is your opinion of Nemo Underwater?

Bye.
David Truth
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:02 pm

Re: DQ Book

Postby Notsure7 » Mon Jul 21, 2003 9:40 pm

What amazes me is how few see that this very same problem that this book is claiming to solve or explain or end(Un Enlightenment) is created by(or is the) same thing that you now claim you are going to use to fix this problem.

Seems you don't trust anything about thought except that there is this enlightenment that is OUT THERE and you have to or CAN do something about it, to bring it into being. Exercise the very problem, thought, to get rid of the problem that thought has created. Using the ego to get rid of the ego. The biggest Ego trip going.

I do not accept these injuries and problems with this Ego that you manifest so as to help people get rid of. Maybe your time would be better spent, how was it "Beating up Grandmothers and raping small children" as writing books where I must accept that I am BROKEN before I can use the very information that you posit. I am not saying that much of the information in these parts of the book are not sound facts. Many of them are but for you to claim that you can help people in any way to find their own path has be laughing as I fall off of mine, which can never exist.

I am sure it gives your ego a tickle each and every time you imagine you are free of it and that you can help other people to be free of theirs or to get or achieve some state which you don't seem to be able to explain HOW it is you know that it (Enlightenment) even existed before you went on this search for some other lost fools ideas.

It is amazing how great the ego is at fooling itself into thinking it is not there as it goes on another search for ideas to keep it going, keep it going , keep it going. Amazing as well how open mindedness only seems to apply to OTHER PEOPLE and not the authour.

Keep it up, you got a great game going there.
Notsure7
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 9:40 pm

Re: DQ Book

Postby MKFaizi » Tue Jul 22, 2003 5:21 am

There are many jackals here. Nearly all. Tharan seems to be human. He makes the effort, at least.

The Nemo character is a particularly low form of jackal. Like a jackal with a morbid case of flea dermatitis who, though he endeavors to follow the pack, cannot even do that successfully. Too busy biting his butt.

That is not a put-down and I don't want to get him started. God forbid. It is just a simple statement of fact.

Because you pin-pointed him, I can only conclude that you are a jackal with microencephaly. A pin-headed pin-pointing jackal, so to speak.

Leo is like a pregnant jackal. Full of himself and a couple of others. Unlikely that he will ever give birth to a viable offspring. Not for lack of trying through several miscarriages over six years.

The rest of you seem like the usual jackals. Running with the pack, licking each others' hind ends when applicable or presented.

No offense, of course.

Faizi


MKFaizi
 

Re: DQ Book

Postby MGregory » Tue Jul 22, 2003 5:28 am

I am not a jackal.
MGregory
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2001 2:46 pm

Re: DQ Book

Postby suergaz » Tue Jul 22, 2003 5:29 am

Marsha, that was a perfectly poisonous post, but you must take back your calling me a jackal in the one prior to that or I won't love you anymore.
suergaz
 

Re: DQ Book

Postby David Truth » Tue Jul 22, 2003 6:02 am

Quote:
Quote:<hr>Because you pin-pointed him, I can only conclude that you are a jackal with microencephaly. A pin-headed pin-pointing jackal, so to speak<hr>


How dare you!!!

More homicidal rage...I bet you wish you were a man and could beat me up.
David Truth
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:02 pm

Re: DQ Book

Postby MKFaizi » Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:00 am

Matt,

I did think of you after I wrote. Had you not posted that picture of the kitten, I could consider you human.

Faizi
MKFaizi
 

Re: DQ Book

Postby MKFaizi » Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:02 am

David Truth,

I don't have to wish that I am a man and, plainly, I did beat you up.

Faizi
MKFaizi
 

Re: DQ Book

Postby MKFaizi » Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:05 am

Suergaz,

You are a jackal.

As such, you will continue to love me.

Faizi
MKFaizi
 

Re: DQ Book

Postby suergaz » Tue Jul 22, 2003 1:34 pm

If I was a jackal I couldn't possibly love you, unless you got me a little bowl and a kennel and meat and a frisbee and the odd bone and regular walks and outings.
suergaz
 

Re: DQ Book

Postby David Quinn » Wed Jul 23, 2003 3:26 am

Notsure 7 wrote:

Quote:
Quote:<hr> I am not saying that much of the information in these parts of the book are not sound facts. Many of them are but for you to claim that you can help people in any way to find their own path has be laughing as I fall off of mine, which can never exist. <hr>
I disagree with this. I can certainly help people find their own path by exposing the cultural and herdish illusions that we are all brainwashed with. A person cannot really begin to find his own path until his mental blinkers have been eliminated and he possesses the clarity and vision of enlightenment. Until this happens, he will always remain a slave to other people's ideas and will always follow a false path.


Quote:
Quote:<hr> I am sure it gives your ego a tickle each and every time you imagine you are free of it and that you can help other people to be free of theirs or to get or achieve some state which you don't seem to be able to explain HOW it is you know that it (Enlightenment) even existed before you went on this search for some other lost fools ideas. <hr>
When I started taking philosophy seriously, I had no idea whether enlightenment existed or not, which is no surprise since I was still in a state of ignorance. Other people said it existed, which excited my interest, and I was dissatisfied with my ignorance enough to want to investigate it thoroughly.

Enlightenment simply means freedom from all delusion. It isn't really a religious or spiritual concept, and hence it ultimately has nothing to do with opther people's ideas. It is simply a philosophical ideal, which I claim is attainable. Any individual who seriously pursues enlightenment will necessarily question everything, including other people's ideas and even the concept of enlightenment itself. No stone is left unturned.
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: translation of a chapter

Postby David Quinn » Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:29 am

Are there many Hungarian thinkers, Bondi?
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: DQ Book

Postby Notsure7 » Thu Jul 24, 2003 1:31 pm

"I disagree with this. I can certainly help people find their own path by exposing the cultural and herdish illusions that we are all brainwashed with. A person cannot really begin to find his own path until his mental blinkers have been eliminated and he possesses the clarity and vision of enlightenment. Until this happens, he will always remain a slave to other people's ideas and will always follow a false path."

It seems you posit some clarity and vision that must be gotten from the mind that is not this(clear and with vision). So if this mind is not clear as you posit and as yours must have been once,,, then what I am asking is how can you know you are clear about Enlightenment?

As for you helping others to follow their own path this idea makes me smile. A path is a groove and can not lead to anything living. A path leads to a know thing, a dead thing and it seems that you have charged yourself with choosing what is best for others. Maybe this waking others up is useless and harmful to them. I wonder if you have asked if you are not doing it all for little old you and that Ego.


"When I started taking philosophy seriously, I had no idea whether enlightenment existed or not, which is no surprise since I was still in a state of ignorance. Other people said it existed, which excited my interest, and I was dissatisfied with my ignorance enough to want to investigate it thoroughly."

I think that is what I was saying. You could not have had any idea about it until some fool told you about it, as with everything else you claim to know. Now I will ask you again in a little different way. How could you, being in the state you claim you and others must have come from, how is it that you can be trusted first of all to choose and then to believe or ascertain that this idea that you must have been given was real. I wonder if you have ever really asked what it is that has you seeking this idea provided by the people who made the world what it is and the very ones who must have also played this cruel game on you of making you deluded and blind and now claim to use the same process to help you to escape it with a new idea supplied from the same source. It seems that many facts do not escape your grasp but this one surely has. Enlightenment is, was and never can be your idea so you are not on your path nor could you ever be. It is utterly impossible and simple to see unless you are out to prove something else. No person who has sought God would be short of what they claim to be evidence of such. No person seeking Enlightenment could possibly then also be asking the hard questions about it. If the hard questions were asked then it would never be sought in the first place. Your seeking it is nothing short of the same "cultural and herdish illusions that we are all brainwashed with" that you some how seem to imagine you are free of. It is one of those illusions that you talk of that you seem to be under.

Notsure7
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 9:40 pm

...

Postby Rairun » Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:21 pm

I agree with Notsure. While most of your ideas are logical, you fail to understand that the "path" you describe is yours alone. It seems to me that you're just trying to put your own experiences in a frame of thought, in a way that might allow you to be truthful to yourself. Your biggest mistake is to assume that your experience of "enlightenment" is universal and that people should try to reach it. There's no enlightenment, you're just being you. That or you are indeed enlightened... but then everyone else is too. Same difference.

It all sounds like a fancy self-assurance mechanism to me. It's good that you feel like you are having things your way, but your idea that your way is the same as other people's is silly at best. It's definitely not like mine.
Rairun
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:21 pm

Re: DQ Book Part One

Postby prozak997 » Thu Jul 24, 2003 7:27 pm

"I don't have to wish that I am a man and, plainly, I did beat you up. "

Logical fallacy - cannot wish to be what one is not as one's conception is predicated upon the being that one currently is.

prozak997
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 7:27 pm

Re: DQ Book Part One

Postby prozak997 » Thu Jul 24, 2003 7:30 pm

In my view, DQ, good ideas, good method, but underlying liberal dogma - one of these delusions you describe. I believe the Hegelian method of activism has shattered history as Fukuyama states.

"Enlightenment simply means freedom from all delusion. It isn't really a religious or spiritual concept, and hence it ultimately has nothing to do with opther people's ideas. It is simply a philosophical ideal, which I claim is attainable. Any individual who seriously pursues enlightenment will necessarily question everything, including other people's ideas and even the concept of enlightenment itself. No stone is left unturned. "

Freedom from all delusion can also be described, perhaps another form of the same, as nihilism: recognizing that nothing is real, perhaps a very scientific form of idealism.

prozak997
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 7:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron