The enlightenment quiz

[Shahrazad]

Sure, it was intended in part to make light of QRS views, but why care?

For the same reason that they didn't like Laird's satire. Or were you not here then?

[Unidian]

Dan,

Of the options given, which "correct" answers (3 point ones) do not accurately reflect the view closest to that of GF philosophy? I'm just curious.

Shar,

For the same reason that they didn't like Laird's satire. Or were you not here then?

I saw some of it. Laird is a talented writer with a gift for satire. But in fairness, being satirized can be tough on the target. I wouldn't have cared to have it aimed at me, either. But this quiz seems fairly harmless.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

Of the options given, which "correct" answers (3 point ones) do not accurately reflect the view closest to that of GF philosophy? I'm just curious.

The quiz is almost bereft of worth for a few reasons, one of which is that answering the questions doesn't really express anything. Here's my appraisal of them, one by one:

1. Emotions are:
A. a great way to manipulate people
B. delusional and based on the illusion of a false ego
C. what you feel when you don't have any beer
D. possible to transcend

Responding to these options doesn't provide any actual information about what emotions are. If I answer B, what have I thereby said? Not much, frankly. It's an exercise in choose your unsubstantiated assertion, or, "choose the option that most sounds like something QRS might have said at one time or another". Woo hoo. This problem exists in the very concept of the quiz. However, superficially, B is the sanest response.

2. A "thing" is best defined as:
A. that which is finite and has boundaries
B. an object, entity, quality, concept or event
C. for example, German Christmas cake, cheese, orange juice, a jumper, slippers
D. hey, isn't "beer" a thing?

I don't especially like any of these options, though A is the sanest despite the redundancy of the last 3 words. B is a mere categorical breakdown of A that may not even be complete and therefore insufficiently definitional.

3. Enlightenment is:
A. kind of like being drunk but not as much fun
B. a totally rational mindset that has discarded duality
C. an absence of delusion
D. ineffable

C is the sanest response here (though I'd prefer "the" absence to "an" absence). If you answered B you're a tool.

4. The vast majority of men are:
A. women
B. living in the animal realms
C. deluded
D. all of the above

Hard to say what the value of this question is supposed to be, but none of the responses work. If A read "feminine" I'd be more inclined to tick D as the best response.

5. The greatest book ever written is most likely to be:
A. The Bible
B. Where's Wally?
C. Poison for the Heart
D. Wisdom of the Infinite

This is a piece of worthless inanity that doesn't deserve any response.

6. A "boundary" is best defined as:
A. the perimeter of a region
B. a line or plane dividing two things
C. four runs or six, depending on whether the ball hits the ground before or after the rope
D. an expensive cocktail containing absinthe

None of these options are sufficiently accurate. What they show is that Laird doesn't understand what boundaries are. Whatever you answered here, you're wrong.

7. "The Totality" can best be described as:
A. the place where you go to punt on the ponies
B. the most expansive framing of the universe
C. the Terminator's nemesis
D. everything that exists; causeless and infinite

Aside from wondering how many people understood A, D is the sanest response.

8. "God" is:
A. the bearded white guy who created everything and who rules in Heaven
B. synonymous with the Totality
C. the word that we use to describe all that is a mystery in the universe
D. Nietzsche's worst nightmare

There cannot be a correct answer to this one because God is a term that carries multiple possible definitions and meaning. Obviously B is what I would choose.

9. Women:
A. are fundamentally unconscious with practically no hope of becoming conscious
B. have bits that are fun to play with
C. gossip and shop but not much else
D. are respect-worthy companions on the journey of life

Another one whose value and intent is open to question. There's also no correct answer to this one, so how a point scale can be derived from it beyond my ken. A, B, or C may be equally and/or collectively true depending on your perspective. I would answer A if it were more sensibly worded.

10. Albert Einstein:
A. was a genius
B. had a sense of wonder for the world that was fundamentally immature
C. was a mixture of Santa Claus and God
D. did what anyone with half a brain could have done

Another one pointless question. All the options suck.

11. The enlightened man's only goal is:
A. to look down upon the deluded animal hordes from a lofty height
B. the propagation of wisdom
C. to drink beer and to sing karaoke
D. to collect a pension and to post to internet forums

This one doesn't contain an accurate response. You may think you were right to answer, B. You weren't.

12. Famous people who were probably enlightened include:
A. Charlie Chaplin, Marilyn Monroe and Greta Garbo
B. Mother Theresa and Florence Nightingale
C. the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Hakuin and Jesus
D. all of the above

Yawn. Total, complete, yawn.

13. Happiness is:
A. overrated
B. delusional
C. a sign of weakness
D. all of the above

A is too ambiguous to have meaning. B is correct if containing no information. C is also too ambiguous. Therefore D is not a reasonable response.

14. Science is:
A. the best hope that we have of understanding the reality in which we live
B. useful in practice but incapable of determining absolute truths for which we must turn to the logical proofs of philosophy
C. a great way to discover new things and to make a name for yourself
D. the transmission of truth from God to man

If you answered A you're a quasi-tool (mostly because the option is poorly worded); B is simply irrefutably true.

15. In the reverse direction, time is:
A. beginningless, duh
B. bounded
C. hexagonal
D. any one of various models that we will probably never be able to decide upon

"Time" doesn't have a reverse direction, it goes forward by definition.

[Unidian]

Thanks for the response.

I didn't do too badly by your reckoning - I only displayed questionable sanity on a couple of counts and I am "a quasi-tool." Could be worse. :)

I think I'll write up the quiz with my own write-in "E" answers, just for fun.

EDIT: I incorrectly stated that Laird had mis-scored question 3. Sorry, Laird.

[hsandman]

Aside from wondering how many people understood A, D is the sanest response.

You did, as the test tailored to you. He spent good effort to write it, but a test also betrays the creators bias.

hmm.

[Dan Rowden]

Thanks for the response. I'd agree that Laird was off on the scoring of question 3. And I didn't do too badly by your reckoning - I only displayed questionable sanity on a couple of counts and I am "a quasi-tool." Could be worse. :)

Well, the science one only needed to have been worded differently to have been viable.

[Unidian]

1. Emotions are:

Natural physiological responses which evolved to aid in the attainment of biological goals.

2. A "thing" is best defined as:

An aspect of Nature delineated by the human mind through the application of criteria.

3. Enlightenment is:

Mu.

4. The vast majority of men are:

Human.

5. The greatest book ever written is most likely to be:

The one that helps end the need for books (though not necessarily the attraction to them).

6. A "boundary" is best defined as:

The only thing consciousness creates.

7. "The Totality" can best be described as:

Mu.

8. "God" is:

Mu.

9. Women:

Are human.

10. Albert Einstein:

Brought dialectical monism to physics. (E=mc2)

11. The enlightened man's only goal is:

Mu.

12. Famous people who were probably enlightened include:

Fred Rogers.

13. Happiness is:

Not something to seek. The fastest way to be unhappy is to worry about becoming happy.

14. Science is:

How knowledge that is actually "knowledge" is obtained.

15. In the reverse direction, time is:

The same as it was before.

[hsandman]

by Dan Rowden on Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:30 pm

I was thinking of composing an inanity quiz then I realised how redundant that would be.
Dan Rowden


by Shahrazad on Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:37 pm

Why not do it anyhow? It would be entertaining.
Shahrazad

by me :D
Let's appropriate one in progress. :=)

A new Quiz (Still in progress)

1. Emotions are:
C. The supplier of one third of our experience.
U. Natural physiological responses which evolved to aid in the attainment of biological goals.

2. A "thing" is best defined as:
C. The counterpart of all it is not.
U. An aspect of Nature delineated by the human mind through the application of criteria.

3. Enlightenment is:
C. Serenity through knowledge and acceptance
A paradoxical concept in which the attainment thereof renders the concept meaningless.

4. The vast majority of men are:
C. Ignorant
U. Human.

5. The greatest book ever written is most likely to be:
C. For you, your own.
U. The one that helps end the need for books (though not necessarily the attraction to them).

6. A "boundary" is best defined as:
C. An imaginary line
U. The only thing consciousness creates.

7. "The Totality" can best be described as:
C. All that is; Everything, Always.
U. Mu.

8. "God" is:
C. Unknown; alternately The Big Holy
U. Mu.

9. Women:
C. Imperfect embodiments of the Divine Feminine
U. Are human.

10. Albert Einstein:
C. Workingman Scientist
U. Brought dialectical monism to physics. (E=mc2)

11. The enlightened man's only goal is:
C. As a star, to shine.
U. Mu.

12. Famous people who were probably enlightened include:
E. Celebrity is unimportant to the thousands in the firmament.
C. Fred Rogers.

13. Happiness is:
C. One emotion among many.
U. Not something to seek. The fastest way to be unhappy is to worry about becoming happy.

14. Science is:
C. The foundation of art, logic, and enlightenment itself.
U. How knowledge that is actually "knowledge" is obtained.

15. In the reverse direction, time is:
C. Still relative (to experience).
U. The same as it was before.

[Laird]

6. A "boundary" is best defined as:
A. the perimeter of a region
B. a line or plane dividing two things
C. four runs or six, depending on whether the ball hits the ground before or after the rope
D. an expensive cocktail containing absinthe

None of these options are sufficiently accurate. What they show is that Laird doesn't understand what boundaries are. Whatever you answered here, you're wrong.

Tell it to Kevin.

In this post we establish that he holds that a boundary is a line:

Laird: First of all who said that a boundary was a line?
Kevin: I did

And in this post we establish that he believes that a boundary separates two things:

There would still be two sides to the boundary, and each side is a thing.

Option B's looking pretty good after all, huh?

7. "The Totality" can best be described as:
A. the place where you go to punt on the ponies

Aside from wondering how many people understood A [...]

Glad to see that it wasn't lost on you.

[Dan Rowden]

6. A "boundary" is best defined as:
A. the perimeter of a region
B. a line or plane dividing two things
C. four runs or six, depending on whether the ball hits the ground before or after the rope
D. an expensive cocktail containing absinthe

None of these options are sufficiently accurate. What they show is that Laird doesn't understand what boundaries are. Whatever you answered here, you're wrong.

Tell it to Kevin.

If Kevin thinks any of those options is what best defines "boundaries", he's wrong too.

In this post we establish that he holds that a boundary is a line:

Laird: First of all who said that a boundary was a line?
Kevin: I did

Option B's looking pretty good after all, huh?

No, it isn't. Both A and B are correct in that they are forms of boundaries, but they do not define, let alone at best, what a boundary is. From memory you and Kevin were not talking about all differentiation in that exchange but somewhat specific forms. My memory sucks so I could be wrong there. I think you need to rethink the boundary concept if you want to derive a more sound and universal definition. Actually, a rewording of A might even get you close(r) to it.

[Laird]

I think you need to rethink the boundary concept if you want to derive a more sound and universal definition.

I don't. Personally I'm satisfied with "the perimeter of a region".

But hey, if you don't agree with Kevin that a boundary is best defined as "a line or plane dividing two things" then perhaps you should tell him exactly what's wrong with his definition and come up with your own alternative.

[Dan Rowden]

I think you need to rethink the boundary concept if you want to derive a more sound and universal definition.

I don't. Personally I'm satisfied with "the perimeter of a region".

But hey, if you don't agree with Kevin that a boundary is best defined as "a line or plane dividing two things" then perhaps you should tell him exactly what's wrong with his definition and come up with your own alternative.

Where's the perimeter or line or plane differentiating the set of all prime numbers from that which is not the set of all prime numbers? Where is the perimeter or line or plane differentiating the ugly from the beauteous?

[Laird]

Where's the perimeter or line or plane differentiating the set of all prime numbers from that which is not the set of all prime numbers? Where is the perimeter or line or plane differentiating the ugly from the beauteous?

In those cases it's a conceptual perimeter.

But please do go on simply sniping and criticising, Dan - that way you won't have to actually present a more plausible alternative.

[Dan Rowden]

Excuse me? Asking a question is criticising and sniping? Good grief, get over yourself.

In those cases it's a conceptual perimeter.

All perimeters are conceptual. Indeed all things are too.

[Unidian]

Dan's right about that.

Note that it doesn't mean reality is conceptual, though. The concept of reality is, but not what it points to.

[Laird]

Excuse me? Asking a question is criticising and sniping? Good grief, get over yourself.

Yeah, I figured that you'd object to that. It's not just the question, it's the question in combination with stuff like this: "What they show is that Laird doesn't understand what boundaries are. Whatever you answered here, you're wrong."

You don't really like to own your attitudes, do you? It took a lot of convincing for you to own an attitude of disrespect towards women, now you don't want to own a critical, sniping attitude.

Laird: In those cases it's a conceptual perimeter.

Dan: All perimeters are conceptual.

I predicted a response similar to that. But does it disprove my point? No, it simply affirms it.

Indeed all things are too.

Personally I make the distinction between the thing itself and the concept of the thing.

[Unidian]

Personally I make the distinction between the thing itself and the concept of the thing.

That would be a false dichotomy, in my view. The "thing itself" is defined conceptually. The concept of the thing is the thing itself. Otherwise, the term "thing" doesn't make any sense. It is a term of convenience we use to apply conceptual criteria to a trans-conceptual reality.

[Dan Rowden]

Laird: In those cases it's a conceptual perimeter.

Dan: All perimeters are conceptual.

I predicted a response similar to that. But does it disprove my point? No, it simply affirms it.

Not exactly, since you said "in those cases". I'm saying all boundaries are conceptual.

Indeed all things are too.

Personally I make the distinction between the thing itself and the concept of the thing.

Your things in themselves are phantoms. They are also conceptual. Things are concepts because boundaries are conceptual.

[Laird]

Laird: In those cases it's a conceptual perimeter.

Dan: All perimeters are conceptual.

Laird: I predicted a response similar to that. But does it disprove my point? No, it simply affirms it.

Dan: Not exactly, since you said "in those cases". I'm saying all boundaries are conceptual.

Right, good catch. I forgot just what my position is in that response. Yes, all perimeters exist as concepts, much like mathematical points do. But in my opinion that concept can be considered to map to something in reality. I consider this to be a fairly arbitrary position to take and I choose to take it simply because I like it. I don't really care if you tear it down, and I don't care to debate it because it's so arbitrary and because it is, in my opinion, pretty irrelevant.

What I was getting at then is that for physical things, the perimeter is not simply conceptual but is a physical reality, whereas for the kinds of things that you were talking about there is no physical reality for it to map to - it's purely conceptual. Now that I think about it, "conceptual", might not have been the best word to convey what I was trying to get at: "abstract" was probably a better choice.

Dan: Indeed all things are too.

Laird: Personally I make the distinction between the thing itself and the concept of the thing.

Dan: Your things in themselves are phantoms. They are also conceptual. Things are concepts because boundaries are conceptual.

You and Nat seem to have the same position. Let me put it to you this way - here are a few definitions of "thing" from dictionary.com:
* a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object
* An entity existing in space and time
* An inanimate object
All of these seem to be pointing to an existence in physical reality independent of the mind - note in particular "existing in space and time". Not "existing as a concept in consciousness": existing in physical reality. So all I can say is that you and Nat have an unconventional understanding of what a thing is. Fair enough, you're free to decide on the way that you want to conceptualise reality - whatever works for you. Jeez, I sound like Sam now.

[Unidian]

My position is that reality is neither "objective" or "subjective." It is prior to that dichotomy.

But since that actually doesn't express anything meaningful, that's all I can say. "Neti neti."

[Dan Rowden]

Laird,

Firstly, getting your philosophical working constructs from dictionary.com is not something I would recommend. It is hardly intended for the purpose.

What I was getting at then is that for physical things, the perimeter is not simply conceptual but is a physical reality,

And what I'm attempting to convey to you is that this is wrong. The difference between the abstract and the empirical does not lie in their essential "thingness", but in their secondary characteristics and in the way we engage them. The "physical" is no less conceptual than the "abstract". When we first started the Atheist Society of Australia we knew this guy called Ian something (can't recall his last name offhand or I'd Google him and find out what he's doing these days). He was into physics. When we'd discuss with him the illusory or conceptual nature (or whatever similar language we'd employ) of the realm of physical entities, he would love to bash his hand down on a table and say, "This table is fucking real, dammit!". He was sort of right, but not in the way he imagined. Any thing is "real" - partakes of reality - if it presents an appearance in some way, but it doesn't mean it possesses objective or inherent reality.

Consider any physical object of your choice. I challenge you to show where it begins and ends in a definitive manner - not merely one based on natural or practical inference (i.e. what appears to us in a brute sense), but where it really, definitively begins and ends. The truth is you can't because the boundaries are just appearances. It doesn't matter how closely you look for the true or real place or plane or point or line - or anything of differentiation, you can never get past the appearance, the natural and automatic inference of boundaries and where and how they fall. You just create new ones with each change of perspective. At no point does an objectively real or definitive boundary appear, therefore at no point does an objective, definitive, thing in itself physical object appear either. The reason is that every object we experience, in whatever mode we experience it, only presents itself in relation to something else. Thingness arises because of differentiation. More than that, thingness is differentiation.

Now, I could take this further into differentiation being consciousness itself and how that makes the self/other duality, the subjective/objective duality, break down, but that's a step too far I think in this present discussion, so I won't.

Basically what I'm saying is that this mysterious entity we call a "physical object" that we wish to believe is other than conceptual, never arises at all. We simply experience it via different aspects of consciousness than the abstract. We call it "physical" to distinguish it in that sense, from the abstract.

[Laird]

That's the first substantial presentation of a philosophical idea that I've seen you make in a long time Dan. I'm pleased to see that you haven't given up on explaining your philosophy. I'm going to read through it a few more times and ponder it awhile. There are some things that trouble me about it but I'm certainly not going to go gung-ho on the attack without giving it due consideration. I don't know when/if I'll respond - I'm feeling a little drained after all of the posting I've been doing of late.

[Dan Rowden]

Take your time. Such matters need to be meditated upon.

[Ataraxia]

Not exactly, since you said "in those cases". I'm saying all boundaries are conceptual.

Indeed all things are too.

I'd never heard of Anthony de Mello up until a few days ago when i stumbled across this link.Not a bad effort of explaining the finger pointing to the moon thingme(i dare not call it a concept) :D

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/mello.html

[Shahrazad]

Something serious has come out of this entertaining quiz, Laird. That is good. I liked Dan's post on why things don't really exist.

Jeez, I sound like Sam now.

You sure do. Pretty soon you'll be saying "it's true if it's true for you".

-