Girls Playing Rugby in Prom Dresses
David, I am convinced after going over your site that you are quite willing to plum anything, even at the expense of your own veracity and dignity Iin particular, I realized this after reviewing your detailed multi-part replaying of your humiliation at the hands of the Ne Plus Ultra folks. It was as if Reno and Benteen declared victory over the Hunkpapa, Ogalala and Cheyenne because they survived to tell about it. It tells a lot about your ability to strive for accuracy despite adversity.DavidQuinn000 wrote:Having said that, "Sub-standard material" appeals to my sense of perversity, so I would plum for that one if you want to go that route.
-
Me, even when I triumph, I somehow nurse wounds first. I admire than Teilhardian streak in you. It was almost as if you had the ghost of Walker Percy behind you feeding you gin fizzes.
So far my exploration of Genius has been enlightening. I hope this continues
-
MKFaizi
-
MKFaizi
Oborden wrote:
I think most of us had grown accustomed to the Brothel. Kind of grew on you -- like a canker sore.
To me, the name does not really matter. What I resent is the shoddiness of the moderation -- the dumping down of obvious spam rather than bothering to get rid of it; the put-down of some discussion on the Whatever You Call It that is sometimes equal or superior to the yammering that passes for serious discussion upstairs. I do not call indiscriminate processing moderation. I call it laziness. Worse than that -- uncaring; lack of interest; seeking "glory" elsewhere.
Ultimately, I don't care all that much about what you call it or what you do. In the future, I expect to be writing much less here. I am sure that I will still be drawn to it. But I expect to soon be spending a lot of time sitting on the swing on my covered porch reading some Nietzsche or Kierkegaard and cat-napping here and there. Under a big shady oak.
Might even grow a beard and put on some unmatched clothes. I might just sit there on that porch swing and not comb my hair. Might chew some tobacco or smoke a cigar. Been years since I had a good cigar. I might drink some Hennessey and smoke a damned good cigar, grow a beard, put on some unmatched clothes and read some Nietch and Kierk with blindflolds on -- or beer goggles.
Just lie there on cool summer Virginia mountain nights; listen to the ciacadas; the passing train -- I love to listen to trains speeding by -- peaceful on a dewy southern night.
Just lie there with my twelve guage in my hand -- in case of invading teenagers. My pit bull/rottweiler by my side along with the evil twin Heelers -- in case of teenagers. No need for the barbed wire, I reckon. I got the Chow.
Hell, I might even think. I might think a lot -- enjoying living in my eighty year old house.
My father asked me if I worry about ghosts. No way. I like 'em. More the merrier.
Better ghosts than teenagers.
Faizi
"The Brothel" was a good name too, why the change?
I think most of us had grown accustomed to the Brothel. Kind of grew on you -- like a canker sore.
To me, the name does not really matter. What I resent is the shoddiness of the moderation -- the dumping down of obvious spam rather than bothering to get rid of it; the put-down of some discussion on the Whatever You Call It that is sometimes equal or superior to the yammering that passes for serious discussion upstairs. I do not call indiscriminate processing moderation. I call it laziness. Worse than that -- uncaring; lack of interest; seeking "glory" elsewhere.
Ultimately, I don't care all that much about what you call it or what you do. In the future, I expect to be writing much less here. I am sure that I will still be drawn to it. But I expect to soon be spending a lot of time sitting on the swing on my covered porch reading some Nietzsche or Kierkegaard and cat-napping here and there. Under a big shady oak.
Might even grow a beard and put on some unmatched clothes. I might just sit there on that porch swing and not comb my hair. Might chew some tobacco or smoke a cigar. Been years since I had a good cigar. I might drink some Hennessey and smoke a damned good cigar, grow a beard, put on some unmatched clothes and read some Nietch and Kierk with blindflolds on -- or beer goggles.
Just lie there on cool summer Virginia mountain nights; listen to the ciacadas; the passing train -- I love to listen to trains speeding by -- peaceful on a dewy southern night.
Just lie there with my twelve guage in my hand -- in case of invading teenagers. My pit bull/rottweiler by my side along with the evil twin Heelers -- in case of teenagers. No need for the barbed wire, I reckon. I got the Chow.
Hell, I might even think. I might think a lot -- enjoying living in my eighty year old house.
My father asked me if I worry about ghosts. No way. I like 'em. More the merrier.
Better ghosts than teenagers.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
David Quinn wrote:
I have not much differed with the act of dumbing posts down -- WITH THE EXCEPTION OF OBVIOUS TRASH AND SPAM -- LAZY MODERATORS. I do differ with the so called superiority of the upstairs posts with the downstairs posts. I am not stupid. I know the difference between enlightened topics and wordly topics. I also know the difference between complacency and innovation. I know what rings true and what is hollow.
I think that you often entertain the hollow without bothering to think about it. Just because a poster puts something up that fits in with what you think -- no matter how shallow -- you put it on a pedestal that you deem to be above political or historical discussion -- but has nothing to do with truth. If someone posts about Buddha, you are going to go for it; no matter that it may be crap.
In fact, a poster could probably name a thread, "BUDDHA AND ENLIGHTENMENT" and, even if he discussed The American Civil War with a mention or two of Buddha. that would make it enlightened discussion.
If a post is entitled, The American Civil War, but does discuss enlightenment without mention of Buddha or Jesus, it is dumbed down to WHATEVER YOU CALL IT.
Presently, this discussion is better than anything going on upstairs.
I don't think you or Kevin are attentive. The post about the night time masturbatory episode stayed on GENIUS for a couple of weeks and was only dumbed down when I pointed it out.
Rather than making derogatory remarks about Marsha Faizi, I think that you might want to look in the mirror.
Faizi
Flood the forum. HAHA. Drama Queen. Hyperbole. Hobby Horse -- David, I know that you know me better than that. I am not some asshole. I am not some stupid female who just gets on a plastic horse and rides. I have plenty of respect for you but I will not accept your ignorant and childish putdowns of my serious comments. Have you not developed beyond a twelve year old mentality?The problem is, Marsha will only get on her hobby horse and flood the forum with complaints about how such and such a post has been shafted down to "The Material World" or "The Lesser Lights". Those sorts of names inflame her ego too much, as happened with "The Brothel".
I have not much differed with the act of dumbing posts down -- WITH THE EXCEPTION OF OBVIOUS TRASH AND SPAM -- LAZY MODERATORS. I do differ with the so called superiority of the upstairs posts with the downstairs posts. I am not stupid. I know the difference between enlightened topics and wordly topics. I also know the difference between complacency and innovation. I know what rings true and what is hollow.
I think that you often entertain the hollow without bothering to think about it. Just because a poster puts something up that fits in with what you think -- no matter how shallow -- you put it on a pedestal that you deem to be above political or historical discussion -- but has nothing to do with truth. If someone posts about Buddha, you are going to go for it; no matter that it may be crap.
In fact, a poster could probably name a thread, "BUDDHA AND ENLIGHTENMENT" and, even if he discussed The American Civil War with a mention or two of Buddha. that would make it enlightened discussion.
If a post is entitled, The American Civil War, but does discuss enlightenment without mention of Buddha or Jesus, it is dumbed down to WHATEVER YOU CALL IT.
Presently, this discussion is better than anything going on upstairs.
I don't think you or Kevin are attentive. The post about the night time masturbatory episode stayed on GENIUS for a couple of weeks and was only dumbed down when I pointed it out.
Rather than making derogatory remarks about Marsha Faizi, I think that you might want to look in the mirror.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
On some other Whore House threads, I have seen drama queens say that they will bow out from discussion. Such sychophants. Suck ups.
I loathe suck-ups. Suck-ups go into a hysterical swoon over these posts -- because suck-ups are so REASONABLE. Suck-ups post only on REAL GENIUS so that they can be approved. Reminds me of the police. I hate the police.
Sneaky. Police suck-ups are real sneaky.
"Well, I don't want to get dumbed down to the low IQ 'Ho House Forum. I know what I'll do. I will include ENLIGHTENMENT or Buddha or Jesus or Genius or Weininger in the title of my post. Then, I won't have to go DOWN THERE even if the only thing I write about is my dick. As long as I write within the law -- I will write about masturbation and Buddha."
Pathetic. Transparent as hell.
Faizi
I loathe suck-ups. Suck-ups go into a hysterical swoon over these posts -- because suck-ups are so REASONABLE. Suck-ups post only on REAL GENIUS so that they can be approved. Reminds me of the police. I hate the police.
Sneaky. Police suck-ups are real sneaky.
"Well, I don't want to get dumbed down to the low IQ 'Ho House Forum. I know what I'll do. I will include ENLIGHTENMENT or Buddha or Jesus or Genius or Weininger in the title of my post. Then, I won't have to go DOWN THERE even if the only thing I write about is my dick. As long as I write within the law -- I will write about masturbation and Buddha."
Pathetic. Transparent as hell.
Faizi
I named my mug Wittgen, an enlightened stein
MKFaizi wrote:I know what I'll do. I will include ENLIGHTENMENT or Buddha or Jesus or Genius or Weininger in the title of my post. Then, I won't have to go DOWN THERE even if the only thing I write about is my dick. As long as I write within the law -- I will write about masturbation and Buddha."
Dear me, I had quite the chortle out of your delightful lambasting syncophantical prounouncements. And to your final comment. Didn't Buddha need glasses?
On the serious side of your post, or posts, the fact is enlightened thought can be brought into any discussion and doesn't need for instance, the Augustianian existentialist pontificating on the Heglian hypotheses alignment to Shopenhauer (never couled spell that one) to be deep. I have a friend, who if one pauses to gather thoughts and says "well," compulsively answers, "That was deep."
And the fact of the matter, he is usually right, both in the literal and metaphorical aphorism. I know a woman dying of cancer in a nursing home because her family was unable to properly care for her and she developed a DU on her posterior I can fit my boxer's fist into. She was crying one time when I went in to help clean her up of the betrayals of a failing body, and she was praying and crying as I entered. "What's wrong Miss Lou," I asked in my softest baritone consilatory tones. It struck her as amusing that I had to ask.
"I am dying, she said. "But so are you, and so is everybody. But I'll be OK in a little bit and you will still be dying."
Her voice was almost merry by the time she completed her observations. I did my ablutions and when leaving her asked her to say one for me when she started praying again.
"I already do," she said.
"Well," was all I could say.
I didn't mean existentialism like Sartre or Camus. By existential I meant the aspects of existence that are generally considered fundamental to all experience of reality. Such as perception, senses, thought, time, memory, consciousness, self and other etc.(there is an argument to be made that nothing is more fundamental than anything else, but I don't think it's worth getting into in the current discussion.)MKFaizi wrote:Please define existential in concrete, concise terms.
If you viewed your life as a dream, the people in your dream world would have no consciousness, therefore showing respect to patients at your job would be rendered meaningless. You wouldn't be bothered by fictional politics in the middle east, or Bush, or wars or fictional masculine and feminine ideas, or Islamic affairs. Being concerned about many of the things you are now would be like having a deep concern for minor backstory in Star Trek. "10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths" would be like "10,000 Klingons killed on Zarkon 5."Jason: If I were to say "Your entire life might be a dream or a hallucination.", how would you respond to that?
Marsha: I would say so what if my entire life might be a dream or hallucination? So what if it is? I still have to work if I want to have a place to live and food to eat.
The idea that reality is not a dream effects you in many ways. Just think about the way you treat your dreams now, and transpose that onto your waking life.
"Reality doesn't work like that." - here is one of your core beliefs about reality. You spoke of challenging the status quo, and the status quo in yourself and all of society is that reality is not a dream or hallucination, are you willing to subject this status quo to challenge?It would be nice if I could just change dream channels and dream some other kind of life. But reality does not work that way.
Maybe you are just dreaming that you have been alive for fifty three years and this particular dream has only just started. You might wake up at any instant.I have been alive for fifty three years and I have not awakened from the reality of reality.
The fact that you see it as escapism instead of a basic issue at the core of every moment of your existence shows your inability to treat it with any seriousness. You have inverted the situation. The real philosophical escapism is when people don't face the possible uncertainties which are fundamental to every moment of their existence. Unless you can find a way to deal with these uncertainties everything else you build upon them is uncertain too.Reality kind of sucks. It consists mainly of, "You're on your own, chump. Deal with it or bail out."
Good for you if you can escape it.
I cannot see that escapism has anything to do with philosophy or truth.
I'm sure there would be plenty of worldy people who think you are practicing escapism with your shunning of romatic relationships, femininity and being a bit of a hermit etc. If you suggested to them that love was delusional and that there were other possibilities they might respond like you have saying something like "but reality doesn't work like that." As I see it, I'm just continuing this challenging of the status quo to more fundamental levels, but now it is you who is bringing out the escapism line.
I'm not suggesting necessarily that people should believe life is a dream. My basic point in investigating that life could be a dream is that is exposes a very deep level of uncertainty in life. To me, the goal of philosophy is to find truth that is beyond uncertainty, and so it is of the utmost importance to deal with this dream issue. Are you ok with your philosophy and truth lacking certainty from the ground up?
Reality is the appearance of reality
One of the great post-Newtonian effects of philosophy, besides the divorce that Newton himself consciously caused between the philosopher as thinker about life (the Aristotlean) and philospher as the empirical scientist (AKA mathemetician), has been the quest for an understanding of reality that does not infringe on any turf of the various thinkers.
One of the problems with defining reality in purely philosophical terms is a flaw in the philospher, that is the very temporary nature of consicousness, rational thought or what have you. IT is measured at the most around 100 years in non-relativistic terms. The vessel that contains the concept of reality in each individual is an extremely fragile organ, subject to mis-wiring by all manner of chemcial maladies, most frequently hypobaric deprivation brough on by trauma or vascular blockages. or that body of neurological disfunctions labeled Alzheimer's Disease, now that senility is considers a perjorative term.
What this does is leave the concept on reality to be defined by a consensus of consiousnesses with widely differing experiences as to what reality is, ranging from a almost experiential reference to the almost totally internalized "cogito ergo suum" extreme of an Cartesian literalist. (rhetorical question,n queston mark needed) It is interesting, and heartbreaking, to see the concept of reality change in a person with rapidly progressing Alzheimer,s. In that point before the brain ceases attempting external communication with even non-existing persons in the waking dream that is the disease at its most distressing to others, it changes from a cultural acceptance of reality into an more and more internalized, dream-like reality that ultimately vanishes like a candle burned to the stick.
The hard part about any discussion of reality in philosphical terms, taken outside the realm of the emperical (and in the imperical reality cannot be defined in terms that satisfied the self-referential being seeking to understand his or her own reality) is defined by each individual consciousness's perception of the real. This is one of the reasons that genuine insanity is so hard to define. Whose reality we are defining? For instance, if a man living in say Pierre South Dakota suddenly started thinking of fourteen year-old girls or 11-year-old boys as the sine qua non of his sexual reality, most would probably call him a sicko, except mothers in denial who give their boys to peter pan celebrities who think they are white women, despite what their genes say. However, in the past, it was considered a mark of his glory that King David was given a 14r-year-old virgin Abashag to warm his geriatric bed and Al Eskandar was given young lads if much the same way as jelly bellies were once rained on the Beatles.
Reality is a consensus at best, and some of the most rock solid part of any individual's reality is at best a hazy dream in someone elses.
It is for this reason we have as a society decided there is an emprical reality, the straying from which displays some form of disfunction, the least on which is the inability to hide one's own socially untenable reality from the consensus monitors, AKA shrinks and cops.
The best that can be said for reality seekers, until some mutually acceptable algorithm outside of consensus is developed is that sane people know what it is, the rest of the world are philosphers. :-)
One of the problems with defining reality in purely philosophical terms is a flaw in the philospher, that is the very temporary nature of consicousness, rational thought or what have you. IT is measured at the most around 100 years in non-relativistic terms. The vessel that contains the concept of reality in each individual is an extremely fragile organ, subject to mis-wiring by all manner of chemcial maladies, most frequently hypobaric deprivation brough on by trauma or vascular blockages. or that body of neurological disfunctions labeled Alzheimer's Disease, now that senility is considers a perjorative term.
What this does is leave the concept on reality to be defined by a consensus of consiousnesses with widely differing experiences as to what reality is, ranging from a almost experiential reference to the almost totally internalized "cogito ergo suum" extreme of an Cartesian literalist. (rhetorical question,n queston mark needed) It is interesting, and heartbreaking, to see the concept of reality change in a person with rapidly progressing Alzheimer,s. In that point before the brain ceases attempting external communication with even non-existing persons in the waking dream that is the disease at its most distressing to others, it changes from a cultural acceptance of reality into an more and more internalized, dream-like reality that ultimately vanishes like a candle burned to the stick.
The hard part about any discussion of reality in philosphical terms, taken outside the realm of the emperical (and in the imperical reality cannot be defined in terms that satisfied the self-referential being seeking to understand his or her own reality) is defined by each individual consciousness's perception of the real. This is one of the reasons that genuine insanity is so hard to define. Whose reality we are defining? For instance, if a man living in say Pierre South Dakota suddenly started thinking of fourteen year-old girls or 11-year-old boys as the sine qua non of his sexual reality, most would probably call him a sicko, except mothers in denial who give their boys to peter pan celebrities who think they are white women, despite what their genes say. However, in the past, it was considered a mark of his glory that King David was given a 14r-year-old virgin Abashag to warm his geriatric bed and Al Eskandar was given young lads if much the same way as jelly bellies were once rained on the Beatles.
Reality is a consensus at best, and some of the most rock solid part of any individual's reality is at best a hazy dream in someone elses.
It is for this reason we have as a society decided there is an emprical reality, the straying from which displays some form of disfunction, the least on which is the inability to hide one's own socially untenable reality from the consensus monitors, AKA shrinks and cops.
The best that can be said for reality seekers, until some mutually acceptable algorithm outside of consensus is developed is that sane people know what it is, the rest of the world are philosphers. :-)
-
MKFaizi
-
MKFaizi
Jason wrote:
I can see how you might say or believe that I -- or anyone -- should just say, "Fuck it. This shit is not real. It's just a one-act play." I can understand that -- grok it -- whatever term you prefer. I can rationalize and say, "Well, flesh is not real. Death is not real" and so on. I could say that suffering -- any kind of suffering -- physical or mental -- is not real. To some degree, I can agree with that sort of thinking. Just not completely.
There is the material world and there is the real world. I don't think it suffices to just say, "Well, none of this bullshit is real so fuck it." Much may be illusion but, in illusion, there is still pain and bloodshed and murder. In fact, it is because of illusion that there is pain, bloodshed, and murder. To me, rather than putting my head in the sand and crying, "It's all an illusion" -- whether it is or not -- it is worthwhile to make some effort to comprehend madness; to make some effort to reduce delusional non-thinking.
Kind of like a stinking IQ test: If all quirks are quarks and some quarks are snarks, are all snarks quirks? I know that there is no answer to such idiotic questions -- why I am borderline retarded -- but I do think it is worthwhile to dig down as far as I can through the insanity that is the world -- to make some small dent in it; some hint of reason -- even if reason is the highest mound of solitude on the face of the earth. The effort is worthwhile somehow.
I do not believe that one should just take it on the chin that there are enough nuclear bombs in the world to blow the planet to smithereens. Existentially, I believe in fighting against that. I believe in railing against corporations taking over the world. I believe in cultures learning to understand each other. Unfortunately, war often achieves understanding.
All the crap in the world might be a dream but it is a shared dream. The planet might be a dream but it is a shared dream. The dream ends when the world is shattered. Philosophy ends. Jesus ends. Buddha ends. All discussion ends. It's done. No Nietzsche, no Weininger; no QSR.
I am not so willing to just roll over and say, "None of this matters. It's just a dream; an illusion" -- even if it is a dream and illusion. None of it may matter ultimately but it does -- if you yet want the freedom and the life to conjecture.
There could be an Australian politician who may cut off your dole. The Australian politician might be part of a big illusion but he will still cut off your dole. What if you were cut off the dole and your parents kicked you out? Not to harp on that but, if you had to struggle for yourself, how long would you have the luxury of saying, "It's illusion?" Your dream would become a dream of struggle. You might find reason to vote in an election. You would be forced to work. If you were forced to work, could you easily turn over and say, "My life is a dream?" You could say it but you would be forced to interact in that dream. Much of your reality would be tied to the world, whether or not the world is an illusion.
Justice may be an illusion but, if you were accused of a crime you did not commit, justice would have some meaning to you, even if, ultimately, you know that justice is an illusion. There is no such thing as justice -- just deals.
I agree with you, Jason, that life is a dreamworld and, ultimately, meaningless. I would love to be able to throw off the yoke of responsibility and live inside a dream-bubble of existential "this is this and that is that." Quite possibly, I could even fake that. Many people do.
However, the circumstances of my meaningless life dictate that I must live in the "world." I am part of the world and I will always be part of it. I accept that because there is no other way for me.
When I vote, I vote for the least delusional politician. I realize that you believe that George Bush is nothing -- an illusion -- but he effects the illusion negatively. His cronies effect the illusion negatively.
As long as we are at chosen/delusional war with Iraq, Islam in the dreamworld, is worth understanding as more understanding of the secular world is necessary for the Islamists.
I agree with you that the world is illusion and delusion. But illusion exists and delusion exists. Artificiality effects even the sage. A sage cannot think if he is a slave or if he is blown off the face of the earth by mad Islamists and so called Christians.
What makes you think Star Trek had no connection with the dualism of reality/delusion? I have always thought that Star Trek had some connection with reality. I could not care less that the murdered are Snarks or Quirks or Negroes or Vietnamese or whatever. Why would I be indifferent to Klingons, if I was living in Star Trek, a fictional reflection of "reality?"
In the real/dream world, I do not encounter others bobbing along effortlessly upon gentle, salty seas. I encounter struggle; conflict.
According to you, I could invert worlds. I could struggle in my dreams and bob along loftily in my reality/dream.
I see no difference.
That about does it for me tonight. Interesting topic and I plan to return to it tomorrow.
Faizi
All right. I did not think you were referring to Satre or Camus. Existentialism has become a very catch-all term when, generally, it refers to something specific. That is why I asked you to define it. You have defined it as the rudiments of thought/life -- perception, time, senses, memory and the other things.I didn't mean existentialism like Sartre or Camus. By existential I meant the aspects of existence that are generally considered fundamental to all experience of reality. Such as perception, senses, thought, time, memory, consciousness, self and other etc.(there is an argument to be made that nothing is more fundamental than anything else, but I don't think it's worth getting into in the current discussion.)
Jason: If I were to say "Your entire life might be a dream or a hallucination.", how would you respond to that?
Marsha: I would say so what if my entire life might be a dream or hallucination? So what if it is? I still have to work if I want to have a place to live and food to eat.
The people in the world -- not just my dream world -- have little or no consciousness. Yet, I will still show respect to them -- to a point -- as a nurse -- because on some level, they are human beings. Medicine, with all of its faults, is progressive.If you viewed your life as a dream, the people in your dream world would have no consciousness, therefore showing respect to patients at your job would be rendered meaningless. You wouldn't be bothered by fictional politics in the middle east, or Bush, or wars or fictional masculine and feminine ideas, or Islamic affairs. Being concerned about many of the things you are now would be like having a deep concern for minor backstory in Star Trek. "10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths" would be like "10,000 Klingons killed on Zarkon 5."
I can see how you might say or believe that I -- or anyone -- should just say, "Fuck it. This shit is not real. It's just a one-act play." I can understand that -- grok it -- whatever term you prefer. I can rationalize and say, "Well, flesh is not real. Death is not real" and so on. I could say that suffering -- any kind of suffering -- physical or mental -- is not real. To some degree, I can agree with that sort of thinking. Just not completely.
There is the material world and there is the real world. I don't think it suffices to just say, "Well, none of this bullshit is real so fuck it." Much may be illusion but, in illusion, there is still pain and bloodshed and murder. In fact, it is because of illusion that there is pain, bloodshed, and murder. To me, rather than putting my head in the sand and crying, "It's all an illusion" -- whether it is or not -- it is worthwhile to make some effort to comprehend madness; to make some effort to reduce delusional non-thinking.
Kind of like a stinking IQ test: If all quirks are quarks and some quarks are snarks, are all snarks quirks? I know that there is no answer to such idiotic questions -- why I am borderline retarded -- but I do think it is worthwhile to dig down as far as I can through the insanity that is the world -- to make some small dent in it; some hint of reason -- even if reason is the highest mound of solitude on the face of the earth. The effort is worthwhile somehow.
I do not believe that one should just take it on the chin that there are enough nuclear bombs in the world to blow the planet to smithereens. Existentially, I believe in fighting against that. I believe in railing against corporations taking over the world. I believe in cultures learning to understand each other. Unfortunately, war often achieves understanding.
All the crap in the world might be a dream but it is a shared dream. The planet might be a dream but it is a shared dream. The dream ends when the world is shattered. Philosophy ends. Jesus ends. Buddha ends. All discussion ends. It's done. No Nietzsche, no Weininger; no QSR.
I am not so willing to just roll over and say, "None of this matters. It's just a dream; an illusion" -- even if it is a dream and illusion. None of it may matter ultimately but it does -- if you yet want the freedom and the life to conjecture.
There could be an Australian politician who may cut off your dole. The Australian politician might be part of a big illusion but he will still cut off your dole. What if you were cut off the dole and your parents kicked you out? Not to harp on that but, if you had to struggle for yourself, how long would you have the luxury of saying, "It's illusion?" Your dream would become a dream of struggle. You might find reason to vote in an election. You would be forced to work. If you were forced to work, could you easily turn over and say, "My life is a dream?" You could say it but you would be forced to interact in that dream. Much of your reality would be tied to the world, whether or not the world is an illusion.
Justice may be an illusion but, if you were accused of a crime you did not commit, justice would have some meaning to you, even if, ultimately, you know that justice is an illusion. There is no such thing as justice -- just deals.
I agree with you, Jason, that life is a dreamworld and, ultimately, meaningless. I would love to be able to throw off the yoke of responsibility and live inside a dream-bubble of existential "this is this and that is that." Quite possibly, I could even fake that. Many people do.
However, the circumstances of my meaningless life dictate that I must live in the "world." I am part of the world and I will always be part of it. I accept that because there is no other way for me.
When I vote, I vote for the least delusional politician. I realize that you believe that George Bush is nothing -- an illusion -- but he effects the illusion negatively. His cronies effect the illusion negatively.
As long as we are at chosen/delusional war with Iraq, Islam in the dreamworld, is worth understanding as more understanding of the secular world is necessary for the Islamists.
I agree with you that the world is illusion and delusion. But illusion exists and delusion exists. Artificiality effects even the sage. A sage cannot think if he is a slave or if he is blown off the face of the earth by mad Islamists and so called Christians.
What makes you think Star Trek had no connection with the dualism of reality/delusion? I have always thought that Star Trek had some connection with reality. I could not care less that the murdered are Snarks or Quirks or Negroes or Vietnamese or whatever. Why would I be indifferent to Klingons, if I was living in Star Trek, a fictional reflection of "reality?"
I do not treat my dreams any way. My dreams are entirely pleasant -- floating on oceans of aqua colored water. Bobbing about upon lofty, salty seas. I have no problem reconciling my dreams with the rest or reality.The idea that reality is not a dream effects you in many ways. Just think about the way you treat your dreams now, and transpose that onto your waking life.
In the real/dream world, I do not encounter others bobbing along effortlessly upon gentle, salty seas. I encounter struggle; conflict.
According to you, I could invert worlds. I could struggle in my dreams and bob along loftily in my reality/dream.
I see no difference.
That about does it for me tonight. Interesting topic and I plan to return to it tomorrow.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
Continuing to Jason:
I am perfectly willing to say that we live in delusion/illusion. I could not care less what you call it. But I still have to pay my mortgage -- or rent, in the case of other people. I am happy to say that reality is the pleasant world in which I can float on buoyant water. But, in illusion, I still have to pay money to live.
Therefore, it does not matter to me which is delusion. In a dream world, I have to pay. In reality, I can just float on a sea.
What difference is nomenclatue? A rose is a rose is a rose. In the dream world, I have to pay for food. I have to pay for clothing. In reality, I am swimming in an emerald sea. In order to live in your definition of reality, I would have to be catatonic. Sounds good. I could do that.
Then, I would be placed either in a psych ward or a nusing home. Nice dream. Delusional shock treatments. But I may not care because I would enter a world of reality -- a stuporous state.
I could wake up at any instant and realize that I am twenty. So what? On LSD or in an Alzheimer's stupor, I might come to believe that I am twenty.
I have been alive for fifty three years. I could be twenty but my body and my mind are more like one who is past fifty than one who is twenty. I was twenty. I can say that I am twenty now but I look considerably older and I think considerably older.
When I was twenty, I could have been fifty. But when I was twenty I looked thirty years younger than fifty.
I could delude myself that I am twenty but I think anyone who met me would say that I am late forty to fifty three. If I met a fifty year old woman claiming to be twenty, I would not believe her.
Why would I lie or delude myself?
I will finish this tomorrow evening.
Faizi
Certainly. I do challenge status quo frequently. I don't mind saying that reality is a dream but I am still going to have to deal with it, whatever. Dream is that, if I do not work, I will not receive have any kind of living. Dream is that if a politician revokes your dole payments, you will have to work. You can call that hellish world of work a dream but you will still have to work."Reality doesn't work like that." - here is one of your core beliefs about reality. You spoke of challenging the status quo, and the status quo in yourself and all of society is that reality is not a dream or hallucination, are you willing to subject this status quo to challenge?
I am perfectly willing to say that we live in delusion/illusion. I could not care less what you call it. But I still have to pay my mortgage -- or rent, in the case of other people. I am happy to say that reality is the pleasant world in which I can float on buoyant water. But, in illusion, I still have to pay money to live.
Therefore, it does not matter to me which is delusion. In a dream world, I have to pay. In reality, I can just float on a sea.
What difference is nomenclatue? A rose is a rose is a rose. In the dream world, I have to pay for food. I have to pay for clothing. In reality, I am swimming in an emerald sea. In order to live in your definition of reality, I would have to be catatonic. Sounds good. I could do that.
Then, I would be placed either in a psych ward or a nusing home. Nice dream. Delusional shock treatments. But I may not care because I would enter a world of reality -- a stuporous state.
I could be dreaming that I am fifty three years old. So what?I have been alive for fifty three years and I have not awakened from the reality of reality.
Maybe you are just dreaming that you have been alive for fifty three years and this particular dream has only just started. You might wake up at any instant.
I could wake up at any instant and realize that I am twenty. So what? On LSD or in an Alzheimer's stupor, I might come to believe that I am twenty.
I have been alive for fifty three years. I could be twenty but my body and my mind are more like one who is past fifty than one who is twenty. I was twenty. I can say that I am twenty now but I look considerably older and I think considerably older.
When I was twenty, I could have been fifty. But when I was twenty I looked thirty years younger than fifty.
I could delude myself that I am twenty but I think anyone who met me would say that I am late forty to fifty three. If I met a fifty year old woman claiming to be twenty, I would not believe her.
Why would I lie or delude myself?
I will finish this tomorrow evening.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
Continuing to Jason:
What inability, Jason?
I think you are saying that I do not take dreams seriously or inner life seriously or thought seriously because I mostly engage in discussion of worldly matters. You are saying that I invert what may be important with what may not be important, i.e., I attach more importance to what you might call the outer world rather than the inward philosophical world.
I see no difference between the so called worldly charade and philosophy. If, indeed, the world is illusion, then, it is also true that what you differentiate as that which I do not treat with seriousness is also delusion. I do not believe in Jesus or Buddha or Muhammad or Nietzsche or Kierkegaard or Weininger more than I believe in Rumsfeld or Laura Bush.
All that I know is what is presented to me -- by vision, auditory, tactile, taste, smell. I think because I choose to think. Whether I think upon what you designate as worldy things or philosophical things does not matter. I see little difference between what you call dreams and reality. I do not see the value between writing about this thing or that thing. I can put as much thought into writing about politics as I can into writing about Zen. I can reveal as much about my perspective by writing about my kids as I can writing about Hakuin or whatever sage.
I have also spoken to older adults about never wanting to marry again and love as delusion. Not one of them has ever said to me, "But reality does not work like that." Most females are somewhat admiring of my independence. Their lives with husbands are more comfortable than mine but I have freedom. I do not have to cook.
No one has ever said to me that I am escaping reality by being single or my lack of the obvious feminine or by staying to myself.
Is your dream world dated 1942?
No, I am not okay with my philosophy and truth lacking certainty. I am quite certain.
I know that grates with you but I speak nothing less than truth.
I am not the same as you, Jason. I cannot be the same as you or anyone else here. Expecting me to conform to certain ideas is your delusion.
Faizi
My entire life has been uncertain at the most basic level. It is still very uncertain.The fact that you see it as escapism instead of a basic issue at the core of every moment of your existence shows your inability to treat it with any seriousness. You have inverted the situation. The real philosophical escapism is when people don't face the possible uncertainties which are fundamental to every moment of their existence. Unless you can find a way to deal with these uncertainties everything else you build upon them is uncertain too.
What inability, Jason?
I think you are saying that I do not take dreams seriously or inner life seriously or thought seriously because I mostly engage in discussion of worldly matters. You are saying that I invert what may be important with what may not be important, i.e., I attach more importance to what you might call the outer world rather than the inward philosophical world.
I see no difference between the so called worldly charade and philosophy. If, indeed, the world is illusion, then, it is also true that what you differentiate as that which I do not treat with seriousness is also delusion. I do not believe in Jesus or Buddha or Muhammad or Nietzsche or Kierkegaard or Weininger more than I believe in Rumsfeld or Laura Bush.
All that I know is what is presented to me -- by vision, auditory, tactile, taste, smell. I think because I choose to think. Whether I think upon what you designate as worldy things or philosophical things does not matter. I see little difference between what you call dreams and reality. I do not see the value between writing about this thing or that thing. I can put as much thought into writing about politics as I can into writing about Zen. I can reveal as much about my perspective by writing about my kids as I can writing about Hakuin or whatever sage.
I don't care what anyone thinks of me. I don't even care if anyone thinks period. I definitely suggest to my own children and other young people I encounter that romanticism of any kind is waste. Though my daughter agrees with me that kids are cute, she does not want any. My son loathes small children. He does not even think they are cute. He does not think puppies or kittens are cute.I'm sure there would be plenty of worldy people who think you are practicing escapism with your shunning of romatic relationships, femininity and being a bit of a hermit etc. If you suggested to them that love was delusional and that there were other possibilities they might respond like you have saying something like "but reality doesn't work like that." As I see it, I'm just continuing this challenging of the status quo to more fundamental levels, but now it is you who is bringing out the escapism line.
I have also spoken to older adults about never wanting to marry again and love as delusion. Not one of them has ever said to me, "But reality does not work like that." Most females are somewhat admiring of my independence. Their lives with husbands are more comfortable than mine but I have freedom. I do not have to cook.
No one has ever said to me that I am escaping reality by being single or my lack of the obvious feminine or by staying to myself.
Is your dream world dated 1942?
I have never doubted the uncertainty of life. In fact, I have known the big uncertainites of life. I am well acquainted with delusion. All things are as flimsy as dreams.I'm not suggesting necessarily that people should believe life is a dream. My basic point in investigating that life could be a dream is that is exposes a very deep level of uncertainty in life. To me, the goal of philosophy is to find truth that is beyond uncertainty, and so it is of the utmost importance to deal with this dream issue. Are you ok with your philosophy and truth lacking certainty from the ground up?
No, I am not okay with my philosophy and truth lacking certainty. I am quite certain.
I know that grates with you but I speak nothing less than truth.
I am not the same as you, Jason. I cannot be the same as you or anyone else here. Expecting me to conform to certain ideas is your delusion.
Faizi
You don't agree with me then, because I don't believe life is a dreamworld and ultimately meaningless(or that things are illusory). You incorrectly assumed this about me many times in your reply, but I'm not going to individually address all the others.I agree with you, Jason, that life is a dreamworld and, ultimately, meaningless.
Jason wrote: I'm not suggesting necessarily that people should believe life is a dream. My basic point in investigating that life could be a dream is that is exposes a very deep level of uncertainty in life. To me, the goal of philosophy is to find truth that is beyond uncertainty, and so it is of the utmost importance to deal with this dream issue. Are you ok with your philosophy and truth lacking certainty from the ground up?
So if life is uncertain and all things are as flimsy as dreams, then how can you find any certainty from this position? How can you build certainty from uncertain foundations?MKFaizi wrote: I have never doubted the uncertainty of life. In fact, I have known the big uncertainites of life. I am well acquainted with delusion. All things are as flimsy as dreams. No, I am not okay with my philosophy and truth lacking certainty. I am quite certain.
You say you're not okay with your philosophy and truth lacking certainty, so what philosophy or truth do you know that is certain?
I know that grates with you but I speak nothing less than truth.
No it doesn't grate with me at all, quite the opposite. I must be misinterpreting what you wrote ;)
-
MKFaizi
Ha ha.
You are so tricky.
I am so impressed by your trickiness. I am left breathless by your trickiness.
I paid apt attention to everything that you wrote and I took for granted some matter of sincerity. I sincerely endeavored to reply to you.
Oh, ha ha.
What a joke. How cleverly you showed me up.
Ha ha.
It is late here, jokester. Ha ha. I will read your post again tomorrow. Ha ha. How you made an ass of my sincerity. Ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha.
You are so wise and entertaining, Jason. Ha ha ha ha.
I will never again believe a word of anything you write.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Faizi
You are so tricky.
I am so impressed by your trickiness. I am left breathless by your trickiness.
I paid apt attention to everything that you wrote and I took for granted some matter of sincerity. I sincerely endeavored to reply to you.
Oh, ha ha.
What a joke. How cleverly you showed me up.
Ha ha.
It is late here, jokester. Ha ha. I will read your post again tomorrow. Ha ha. How you made an ass of my sincerity. Ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha.
You are so wise and entertaining, Jason. Ha ha ha ha.
I will never again believe a word of anything you write.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
Marsha, I've read through what you wrote several times, and I can't work out what you're trying to say. Maybe if you laid off the laughing gas you'd make some more sense. Do you think I was being insincere? Where or how exactly? The only possible "trick" I think you could accuse me of, is trying to expose possible flaws or inconsistencies in your philosophy. This is the best recent discussion I have had with you, and I thought it was getting really good. What problem do you have with what I wrote? I just don't get it.
-
MKFaizi
-
MKFaizi
Not tonight, Jason. I have a headache.:)
As I wrote above, I am willing to give your post a new crack. I am willing to look into the possibility of my misinterpretation.
Given your anxiety for a reply, I kind of wonder about your sincerity.
But, when I get the time, I will take another look at your post. I will take a look at it without prejudice.
I took much time and effort to answer you the first time. I took you at your word.
It will take me some time to reply to you again. My first thought was that you were disingenious. I am willing to take another look.
Keep your pants on.
Faizi
As I wrote above, I am willing to give your post a new crack. I am willing to look into the possibility of my misinterpretation.
Given your anxiety for a reply, I kind of wonder about your sincerity.
But, when I get the time, I will take another look at your post. I will take a look at it without prejudice.
I took much time and effort to answer you the first time. I took you at your word.
It will take me some time to reply to you again. My first thought was that you were disingenious. I am willing to take another look.
Keep your pants on.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
Sorry, Jason. I do intend to make another attempt at re-reading and responding to your post. Took much effort and time for me to do it the first time. Work has been extremely tiring lately. I can write a post about rock and roll or politics but I need more power of concentration to fully re-read and re-respond to your post.
I am still willing to look again at the possibility that I misinterpreted everything you wrote.
I have a three day weekend coming up. I should be able to find the time and thought then.
Faizi
I am still willing to look again at the possibility that I misinterpreted everything you wrote.
I have a three day weekend coming up. I should be able to find the time and thought then.
Faizi