Scott and Nick's pit fight

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:08 pm

Carl: From the sounds of it, you have unknowingly veered into a dead-end alley, gone to the end, and declared, "There's nothing here but garbage cans and a passed-out wino."

Scott: No, it's more like this: I've passed over all of the city and found everything to be normal. I've found that there is no path, except the imaginary one you put yourself on. There's no pot of gold at the end, or harps, or some enlightenment crown you recieve. You just wake up and realize how stupid everything you've been doing was. It doesn't make you perfect. Nothing does. But it's surely the end of the path when you find that your path is actually infinite ground.

These analogies, as cute as they sound, are making the facts cloudy. Scott, would you mind giving a brief sketch of what you did without trying to fit it to Carl's metaphor?

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:17 pm

Scott,

I wasn't. I was speaking in general. By "you" I meant anyone here who is going to think that I quit. I have no idea about where you stand on any path.

I misunderstood you, then. Thanks for clarifying.

Shah: You think I want to devote my limited time and energy to something that is absolutely meaningless? What sort of retard do you take me to be?

Scott: Well what exactly are you doing on this message board? Something meaningful?

(1) I have this sort of passion for knowledge. This is a good place for me to acquire some.

(2) I can't find any other place where intelligent discussion takes place.

(3) I like drama if it involves people that I know. TV drama just doesn't cut it for me.

It doesn't seem that I'll be able to stay much longer, though. The misogyny is too blatant for my taste, and nobody seems to be open to changing their minds about it. It's understandable though, if you consider that it is the cornerstone of their whole philosophy.

.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:44 pm

Carl,

Okay, I won't.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:50 pm

The biggest problem I have with Scott is how he claims to have reached "the end" even though he has barely moved an inch, philosphically speaking. This is a result of his terrible reasoning is, which is pretty evident through out all his arguments. There are huge gaps in his logic, so huge I don't think it's possible to bridge what little logical ability he does posess together. Then when you try and point out the "faulty logic" in his arguments he uses the defense "that's just your point of view" which is entirely wothless where logic is concerned, or he misses the point all together. Then like clockwork he starts throwing out all kind of unreasonable claims and insults, which he seems to have a bag full of due to experience I'm sure, proving further how illogical his thought process really is.

Gretchen · Post by **Gretchen** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:00 pm

Passthrough,
Quote:
P: What purpose does it serve? A test of my endurance and patience with people who are not really trying to understand but â€œmouthing offâ€ because it makes them feel important by making me look like a fool? Iâ€™d rather not engage and look like the fool then fall into that trap.

S: There is very little purpose. Certainly no good purpose. Why do you want to appear wise, though?

Shame on you.

Quote:
Me: Exactly. Who is trying to appear wise now, though?

P: I wasnâ€™t trying to be, it was more of a rhetorical question in order to stimulate a philosophical discussion based on your wise admission of foolishness. I am far from wise for if I were, I would not be here trying to learn something.

S: I wasn't talking about you. I was saying that I don't care how I appear.

Shame on me.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:06 pm

Trevor,

Scott: No, it's more like this: I've passed over all of the city and found everything to be normal. I've found that there is no path, except the imaginary one you put yourself on. There's no pot of gold at the end, or harps, or some enlightenment crown you recieve. You just wake up and realize how stupid everything you've been doing was. It doesn't make you perfect. Nothing does. But it's surely the end of the path when you find that your path is actually infinite ground.

These analogies, as cute as they sound, are making the facts cloudy. Scott, would you mind giving a brief sketch of what you did without trying to fit it to Carl's metaphor?

I didn't do anything. It became clear that everything I had done towards the philosophical path had been moronic, and that there wasn't any actual path. That the entire path I had been on was simply the ego trying to bring meaning to life. That there isn't any actual meaning to life...it's just the way things are. It isn't some kind of game or movie, or a story...those things all have meaning attributed to them. There's always a plot. Not so with reality. So the main character, myself, had no further purpose in striving for anything imaginary. I simply am.

I found that continuing on with this philosophical path would just be jumping through flaming hoops set up by other egotistical morons, who are just like myself. What a circus. I'd rather not put on a show for them anymore, now that I have it figured out. I'm not going to be some clown. If they challenge my wisdom, that is something absolutely laughable to me...because I've attained everything now.

I am not perfect logically, down to the core. I have never known of anyone who was. Perfection isn't an attainment. It's a dream. It's like eating one candy bar and then imagining the world could be made out of chocolate. Just stupid.

I've grown contempt for people who try to pull it off as if they're perfect, when they're probably more flawed than anyone else. It's very misleading. But that contempt is a flaw of mine. Instead, I should feel sorry for them, because they were treated so bad in their lives that all they have left to hold onto are their delusion of grandeur. The reason I feel contempt is that they fool people who are just fine into becoming just like them. It's entirely unnecessary.

I look at the world and see a bunch of stupid people, but I also don't see a bunch of fools. I see that everyone thinks rationally...they just do it imperfectly and don't care to do it perfectly. So what? That's no reason to condemn them as some "wise people" do, and try to change them. Before attempt to perfect others, make sure that you are perfect yourself.

That about sums up the realization I had.

Shah,

I misunderstood you, then. Thanks for clarifying.

You're welcome. I was unclear. Thanks for understanding.

(1) I have this sort of passion for knowledge. This is a good place for me to acquire some.

(2) I can't find any other place where intelligent discussion takes place.

(3) I like drama if it involves people that I know. TV drama just doesn't cut it for me.

It doesn't seem that I'll be able to stay much longer, though. The misogyny is too blatant for my taste, and nobody seems to be open to changing their minds about it. It's understandable though, if you consider that it is the cornerstone of their whole philosophy.

Yeah it pretty much is. Funny how the more important stuff is usually overlooked or not talked about, and the personal issues these people have come up most.

I'm sure there's a better forum out there somewhere. Or people you could meet who are interested in learning and thinking. Sometimes it just takes some searching. Good luck, if you do leave.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:13 pm

Nick said,

The biggest problem I have with Scott is how he claims to have reached "the end" even though he has barely moved an inch, philosphically speaking.

Based on what? Your frustration with me, or something actual?

This is a result of his terrible reasoning is, which is pretty evident through out all his arguments.

As a philosopher, wouldn't you be able to point out and clarify my terrible reasoning? Why have you never done so?

There are huge gaps in his logic, so huge I don't think it's possible to bridge what little logical ability he does posess together.

It's certainly not possible when the engineer doesn't know how to build a bridge.

In other words - you are guilty of the very accusations you lob my way.

Then when you try and point out the "faulty logic" in his arguments he uses the defense "that's just your point of view" which is entirely wothless where logic is concerned, or he misses the point all together.

If I'm able to say that, you weren't making a very good argument in the first place. That should be pretty obvious to anyone that can think.

Then like clockwork he starts throwing out all kind of unreasonable claims and insults, which he seems to have a bag full of due to experience I'm sure, proving further how illogical his thought process really is.

I think all the claims I've made regarding you are pretty reasonable. This very post of yours is quite David-Quinn-esque.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:14 pm

sschaula wrote:I didn't do anything. It became clear that everything I had done towards the philosophical path had been moronic, and that there wasn't any actual path. That the entire path I had been on was simply the ego trying to bring meaning to life. That there isn't any actual meaning to life...it's just the way things are. It isn't some kind of game or movie, or a story...those things all have meaning attributed to them. There's always a plot. Not so with reality. So the main character, myself, had no further purpose in striving for anything imaginary. I simply am.

I found that continuing on with this philosophical path would just be jumping through flaming hoops set up by other egotistical morons, who are just like myself. What a circus. I'd rather not put on a show for them anymore, now that I have it figured out. I'm not going to be some clown. If they challenge my wisdom, that is something absolutely laughable to me...because I've attained everything now.

I am not perfect logically, down to the core. I have never known of anyone who was. Perfection isn't an attainment. It's a dream. It's like eating one candy bar and then imagining the world could be made out of chocolate. Just stupid.

I've grown contempt for people who try to pull it off as if they're perfect, when they're probably more flawed than anyone else. It's very misleading. But that contempt is a flaw of mine. Instead, I should feel sorry for them, because they were treated so bad in their lives that all they have left to hold onto are their delusion of grandeur. The reason I feel contempt is that they fool people who are just fine into becoming just like them. It's entirely unnecessary.

I look at the world and see a bunch of stupid people, but I also don't see a bunch of fools. I see that everyone thinks rationally...they just do it imperfectly and don't care to do it perfectly. So what? That's no reason to condemn them as some "wise people" do, and try to change them. Before attempt to perfect others, make sure that you are perfect yourself.

That about sums up the realization I had.

It never ceases to distrub me how unconsciousness can cause someone to contradict themselve so many times and not even realize it.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:20 pm

Point out where you find a contradiction and I'll clear things up for you.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:21 pm

sschaula wrote:Nick said,

The biggest problem I have with Scott is how he claims to have reached "the end" even though he has barely moved an inch, philosphically speaking.
Based on what? Your frustration with me, or something actual?

This is a result of his terrible reasoning is, which is pretty evident through out all his arguments.
As a philosopher, wouldn't you be able to point out and clarify my terrible reasoning? Why have you never done so?

There are huge gaps in his logic, so huge I don't think it's possible to bridge what little logical ability he does posess together.
It's certainly not possible when the engineer doesn't know how to build a bridge.

In other words - you are guilty of the very accusations you lob my way.

Then when you try and point out the "faulty logic" in his arguments he uses the defense "that's just your point of view" which is entirely wothless where logic is concerned, or he misses the point all together.
If I'm able to say that, you weren't making a very good argument in the first place. That should be pretty obvious to anyone that can think.

Then like clockwork he starts throwing out all kind of unreasonable claims and insults, which he seems to have a bag full of due to experience I'm sure, proving further how illogical his thought process really is.
I think all the claims I've made regarding you are pretty reasonable. This very post of yours is quite David-Quinn-esque.

I could respond to to everything you just said here just by quoting your words alone, which I might do another time, but for now I think I'm done with you.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:27 pm

Do you see how it applies to you?

I'm glad you're finally giving up. But I hope you would at least continue until you can admit defeat.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:46 pm

sschaula wrote:This very post of yours is quite David-Quinn-esque.

BTW, I'll take this as a compliment, being that I consider him to be one of the wisest men I've ever known or read about.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:58 pm

Haha, fine by me.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:58 pm

Sher,

It doesn't seem that I'll be able to stay much longer, though. The misogyny is too blatant for my taste, and nobody seems to be open to changing their minds about it. It's understandable though, if you consider that it is the cornerstone of their whole philosophy.

It would be a loss to this forum you were to leave over this issue. I recommend you confront David or Kevin about it promptly. There is a multitude of reasons that David, for instance, constantly brings up the delusions surrounding women, and it could not hurt to reassess the value of his decision.

Other than the moderators, I know of nobody here who has given me sufficient reason to believe that he is justified in making comments about women, except as far as he is trying to clear up his own confusion.

Scott,

So the main character, myself, had no further purpose in striving for anything imaginary.

Is there nothing about the enlightenment ideal that is valuable or realistic?

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:11 pm

Trevor wrote:

Sher wrote: It doesn't seem that I'll be able to stay much longer, though. The misogyny is too blatant for my taste, and nobody seems to be open to changing their minds about it. It's understandable though, if you consider that it is the cornerstone of their whole philosophy.
It would be a loss to this forum you were to leave over this issue.

I would agree with you Trevor, that it would be â€œa lossâ€ if Sher were to leave because she couldnâ€™t face the truth about Woman. That is - if she truly understood Woman as a â€œcornerstoneâ€ of philosophy. If she understood that knowledge of Woman rested upon a deep understanding of the ego, which in turn rested upon a deep understanding of cause and effect. And that the attachment to Woman (to illusion) was a major barrier to becoming wise.

If she knew all this, but found that her bond to Woman remained strong â€“ too strong to break - preventing her from entering upon the philosophical path. Then, and only then would I regret the loss of Sher, or anyone else of the same ilk. But Sher's doesn't understand any of the above, for if she did, she wouldn't describe the truth of Woman as â€œmisogynyâ€.

--

But I am interested to know how Sher will take your 'sentiment':

It would be a loss to this forum you were to leave over this issue.

Because what you have written could be taken as you being disrespectful to Sher. For you appear to completely dismiss Sherâ€™s reasons for leaving, even though she obviously considers them important. Her position is that women are discussed in a misogynistic fashion on this forum, and also that no one here is â€œopen to changing their minds about itâ€. But in your above sentence you tell her that those concerns aren't valid enough to be acted on. And you say this after Sher has pointed out that she is aware of the significance Woman holds in regards to philosophy: describing it as a â€œcornerstoneâ€. This, you just push aside with a flurry of words, but don't really say anything.

If I were Sher, I'd confront you about your wishy-washy handling of her position. I'd ask you to make clear your position on whether or not you consider the issue of Woman, as discussed on this forum, â€˜misogynisticâ€™. Sher stated her position; you could do the same.

-
Sue

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:16 pm

Sue,

Trevor stated that he didn't feel qualified to comment to Sher:

Other than the moderators, I know of nobody here who has given me sufficient reason to believe that he is justified in making comments about women, except as far as he is trying to clear up his own confusion.

Sounds like you should address her directly.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:22 pm

Trevor,

Is there nothing about the enlightenment ideal that is valuable or realistic?

Enlightenment, no. Thinking clearly, yes.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:43 am

Sue,

And that the attachment to Woman (to illusion) was a major barrier to becoming wise.

I actually think that what holds me back the most in life is my attachment to the masculine. By masculine I mean, those features and behaviors which are caused by testosterone.

If I were Sher, I'd confront you about your wishy-washy handling of her position. I'd ask you to make clear your position on whether or not you consider the issue of Woman, as discussed on this forum, â€˜misogynisticâ€™.

The reason I don't feel compelled to confront Trevor is that I have never seen a shred of misogyny in him. As far as I can tell, his philosophy is sound and truthful.

But yeah, I recognize that I could be wrong about him.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:12 am

Shahrazad wrote:The reason I don't feel compelled to confront Trevor is that I have never seen a shred of misogyny in him. As far as I can tell, his philosophy is sound and truthful.

But yeah, I recognize that I could be wrong about him.

You're not wrong about Trevor; he's really a decent guy. As for what Sue was calling a wishy-washy position, he just didn't expound on his meaning to you the way he probably would have to Sue probably because he knew you would understand what he meant the way he typed it. Sue is just trying to prompt Trevor into a more philosophically soundly stated position.
.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:05 am

Sue,

For you appear to completely dismiss Sherâ€™s reasons for leaving, even though she obviously considers them important. Her position is that women are discussed in a misogynistic fashion on this forum, and also that no one here is â€œopen to changing their minds about itâ€. But in your above sentence you tell her that those concerns aren't valid enough to be acted on.

I gave Sher an opportunity to act on her concerns directly, rather than evasively. By telling her the names of the two people I consider most accountable for the spread of the alleged misogyny, she now has the chance to choose between leaving the forum or giving the idea a fair hearing (and possibly changing the idea at the source).

Kevin Solway, as I understand it, is chronologically speaking, the first person at this forum to have spoken up against femininity. David Quinn is the one who has consistently given the most reasons for talking about women, who has it the most firmly entrenched in his philosophy, and who I know would still not consider himself a misogynist in the least. Both these men believe that they speak the truth, and that they are not being spiteful.

I agree that I am wishy-washy in refusing to address the issue personally, but as Carl has pointed out, I did admit that I don't really believe that anyone else at this forum (myself included) can do this particular meme justice.

This is not the best place to discuss it, but since you mentioned it, my own opinion is that in its purest form, the idea is not misogynistic at all. However, the essence of the meme is the hardest part to capture, and many people who agree with it cover it with their own prejudices. It's like fishing for iron filings with a magnet. Until the magnet comes back the same way it went in, the delusion is still present.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:38 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I gave Sher an opportunity to act on her concerns directly, rather than evasively. By telling her the names of the two people I consider most accountable for the spread of the alleged misogyny

I don't think it's either David or Kevin who is the main culprit for Sher's change of heart. Dan just did one sucky job of presenting the Woman philosophy over in Science and Evolution, the thread on the difference between males and females - and some of the male posters have been looking more like they are looking at the issue with a biologically male preference biased view.
.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:21 am

As always, E nails things with incredible accuracy.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:50 am

In that case, you should still talk with David or Kevin. I do not read that particular sub-forum, but the helpful meme might be getting out of hand. It might be time for them to confront people who are misapplying it.

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:29 am

Because most people know nothing whatsoever about the ego they are incapable of making correct judgments about life. Therefore, they will mistakenly attack the innocent, whilst protecting the guilty.

Woman is an issue that needs particular care, because the discussion of it often incorrectly falls into petty squabbles about the battle between the sexes. But the philosophical discussion of Woman has nothing whatsoever to do with such petty mindedness. The discussion of Woman is all about the undermining of the ego - and nothing is more important than that.
.

Jamesh · Post by **Jamesh** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:02 pm

didn't do anything. It became clear that everything I had done towards the philosophical path had been moronic, and that there wasn't any actual path. That the entire path I had been on was simply the ego trying to bring meaning to life. That there isn't any actual meaning to life...it's just the way things are. It isn't some kind of game or movie, or a story...those things all have meaning attributed to them. There's always a plot. Not so with reality. So the main character, myself, had no further purpose in striving for anything imaginary. I simply am.

I found that continuing on with this philosophical path would just be jumping through flaming hoops set up by other egotistical morons, who are just like myself. What a circus. I'd rather not put on a show for them anymore, now that I have it figured out. I'm not going to be some clown. If they challenge my wisdom, that is something absolutely laughable to me...because I've attained everything now.

I am not perfect logically, down to the core. I have never known of anyone who was. Perfection isn't an attainment. It's a dream. It's like eating one candy bar and then imagining the world could be made out of chocolate. Just stupid.

I've grown contempt for people who try to pull it off as if they're perfect, when they're probably more flawed than anyone else. It's very misleading. But that contempt is a flaw of mine. Instead, I should feel sorry for them, because they were treated so bad in their lives that all they have left to hold onto are their delusion of grandeur. The reason I feel contempt is that they fool people who are just fine into becoming just like them. It's entirely unnecessary.

I look at the world and see a bunch of stupid people, but I also don't see a bunch of fools. I see that everyone thinks rationally...they just do it imperfectly and don't care to do it perfectly. So what? That's no reason to condemn them as some "wise people" do, and try to change them. Before attempt to perfect others, make sure that you are perfect yourself.

Finally, something worth reading in these two threads. Folks should note the the QRS wont go near these comments, because of the truth in them - it upsets their little dreamworld.