Scott and Nick's pit fight

Duke · Post by **Duke** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:27 pm

I'm probably out of bounds by doing this, and David will get around to locking this thread, but please, scott and nick take your fight here instead of on threads about things. I like to discuss things and your fighting has become a whole lot of extra scrolling I must do to see something other than a cat fight.

So for as long as this is open...

THUNDERDOME
2 men enter 1 man leaves....
as foretold by Tina Turner

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:50 pm

What about the fight is philosophically relevant?

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:44 pm

Duke,

I'm probably out of bounds by doing this, â€¦

I seems you areâ€¦ but donâ€™t worry much about it. We could turn this around and think over how and why do such things occur.

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:46 pm

Trevor,

What about the fight is philosophically relevant?

Yes, quite rightâ€¦ everything is philosophically relevant if one is able to read between the lines. In any case, any sentient â€œactionâ€ is necessarily based in and of the â€œphilosophyâ€ of that particular being; namely, his justification according to his own line of reasoning for any of his words or actions.

bert · Post by **bert** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:11 pm

as epictetus said:"wouldst thou be virtuous,then search out thine own evil."
and for every man this is the beginning of wisdom.

truth will ever be an evil spirit.don't let your question be true or not,but what is the means in this expression.
the functional direction of everything that seeks means of conative ability is our light for discovering the most adequate medium

man is the very fixed unit of quantity of all he is responsible to conceive,and all the forgotten things that are left when other parts are taken away of his experiences .all truths are dimensional and have direction,but what we often overlook is the elasticity of forms (as now),and that at any time and place anything may be true or not.there is no more truth in relativity than not - a thing is equal to his degree in direction.

Anti-christ · Post by **Anti-christ** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:44 pm

what the hell, is occuring dude???

I am a little baffled. I am very baffled???

What could possibly be occuring in this world right now???

We should change the topic to the past. Things perhaps like fedrick Hauns. He is a great writer. Solved a lot of misteries in his country. Forget about the past, perhaps we should change to the future. Life is solved by mysteries of ointment.

Bridging the two microscopic telepathy. What could possibly be occuring, right now??...

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:32 pm

Anti-christ wrote: What could possibly be occuring, right now??...

Nothing other than what is.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:25 am

Geo Bush wrote:what the hell, is occuring dude???

I am a little baffled. I am very baffled??? I am baffling beyong my bong belief, dude???

What could possibly be occuring in this world right now??? The walls are like frickin' Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds made with Almond Roca, dude???

We should charge for the tapioca, and no free grab ass. What are these thingies on my hands??? I'm a grape wringer. You watch a lot of miniseries in this country, you forget the casts. Tell you waht, we won't charge for the suture. Nore for this slick advice, Life is solved by mysteries of ointment.

Bridge Mix the two with miasmacosmic telepathy. What could possibly be occuring, right now??...

Must be some good shit, dude???

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:40 am

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:54 am

Carl G wrote:Must be some good shit, dude???

You just read my mind.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:58 am

Trevor,

What about the fight is philosophically relevant?

Very little. Both Nick and I view eachother as fools, and are trying to bring wisdom to eachother, foolishly.

Gretchen · Post by **Gretchen** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:39 am

sschaula wrote:Trevor,

What about the fight is philosophically relevant?
Very little. Both Nick and I view eachother as fools, and are trying to bring wisdom to eachother, foolishly.

And who is to say which is the wiser? All that can be proved is that the one who changed his perception of the facts didnâ€™t have as compelling of an argument. The one who wins could indeed be wise, and therefore the one who changed could indeed have gained wisdom, but they could also both be fools and become more foolish.

A guy in my class is attempting to engage me in something similar by categorizing me into a generalized set of beliefs that I do not agree in order to push my buttons rather than assist me in understanding his point of view, which he doesn't want to talk about. So why engage in discussion at all? Obviously, he wants to pick a fight or he is bored...or both.

My question is that if one thinks another a fool, why bother at all? It only becomes the one who looks like a fool for arguing with a fool. Unless he is afraid to admit the fact he is wrong and wants to save face, but then I would say he is not the wiser of the two.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:00 am

Scott,

Very little. Both Nick and I view eachother as fools, and are trying to bring wisdom to eachother, foolishly.

That sounds salvagable (from a philosophic standpoint). Just as knowing what's false can help a person know what's true, knowing what's foolish can help a person know what's wise.

So let's see if I know the main points:

So far, it seems a general consensus that you are a very aggressive poster, but have calmed down somewhat after a hiatus. Kelly Jones, in the "Best Modern Novels" thread (worldly matters) said of your views on enlightenment that you don't appear to have enough faith in reason. I have a hard time reading Nick's posts due to an aversion to swears that grew after Victor Danilchenko over-used insults atrociously in my presence, so I don't really know the specifics of his position against you. You'll have to fill me in.

Against Nick, you have claimed he is a poor-quality QRS imitator who is unable to think for himself. You have said he can't keep himself out of debates, getting emotional and focusing on himself rather than the topic. Am I right so far? Is there anything I'm missing?

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:47 am

Trevor,

That sounds salvagable (from a philosophic standpoint). Just as knowing what's false can help a person know what's true, knowing what's foolish can help a person know what's wise.

But can it help a person actually become wise? I don't think so.

So let's see if I know the main points:

So far, it seems a general consensus that you are a very aggressive poster, but have calmed down somewhat after a hiatus.

I don't see myself as having calmed down. I also don't see myself as aggressive. So be it, though.

Kelly Jones, in the "Best Modern Novels" thread (worldly matters) said of your views on enlightenment that you don't appear to have enough faith in reason.

I've never read anything actually intelligible from Kelly. Here is what she said in that thread...

Think of it as a scale. The Buddha's understanding is pure mindfulness of Reality, without any love of ego. It is at the "top" of the scale, which I'll call "perfect enlightenment". The mind may slip down a notch or two, when there is some small delight or attachment to something. Over time, as one learns to think and live truthfully, one slips and slides less. If one can maintain full immersion in the wise mind, then one is permanently enlightened.

As to Scott's argument, why should human capacity make any difference to the validity of Truth? One's faith in reason is rather weak, to ask for Reality to favour one in this way.

Human capacity makes no difference to the validity of truth. I never said that it did, nor did I ask reality to do anything for me. What a moron.

I don't see why it's so hard for others to understand the argument I made. You seemed to understand it, Trevor. People think I'm quitting thinking in an attempt to chase tail, or that I'm becoming discouraged just because I can't do it. That's not the case at all. I've simply found the end of the path.

About Kelly's idea of perfect enlightenment, I dare her to live that theory rather than preach it mindlessly.

I have a hard time reading Nick's posts due to an aversion to swears that grew after Victor Danilchenko over-used insults atrociously in my presence, so I don't really know the specifics of his position against you. You'll have to fill me in.

I view Nick's claims regarding me as entirely groundless, as he does mine. You'd have to ask him to get a good answer.

Against Nick, you have claimed he is a poor-quality QRS imitator who is unable to think for himself. You have said he can't keep himself out of debates, getting emotional and focusing on himself rather than the topic. Am I right so far? Is there anything I'm missing?

That's about it in a nutshell I guess.

Are you gonna be the ref now?

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:49 am

Passthrough,

So why engage in discussion at all? Obviously, he wants to pick a fight or he is bored...or both.

Why not?

My question is that if one thinks another a fool, why bother at all? It only becomes the one who looks like a fool for arguing with a fool.

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

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:10 am

Scott,

Are you gonna be the ref now?

If I must, and I can avoid seeming patronizing in the process.

I'd like to think that I have mild enough views that I can act as a bit of a sedative. Not to mention, I'm not very good at making distinctions, so trying to explain things with me in the middle will force you both to make sure that you're actually arguing about something, and not simply agreeing with one another in different words.

Anyway, I think it's now up to Nick to clarify what he thinks you're doing wrong.

Gretchen · Post by **Gretchen** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:33 am

Passthrough,
Quote:
So why engage in discussion at all? Obviously, he wants to pick a fight or he is bored...or both.

S: Why not?

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.

Quote:
My question is that if one thinks another a fool, why bother at all? It only becomes the one who looks like a fool for arguing with a fool.

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.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:47 am

Trevor,

If I must, and I can avoid seeming patronizing in the process.

I'd like to think that I have mild enough views that I can act as a bit of a sedative. Not to mention, I'm not very good at making distinctions, so trying to explain things with me in the middle will force you both to make sure that you're actually arguing about something, and not simply agreeing with one another in different words.

Anyway, I think it's now up to Nick to clarify what he thinks you're doing wrong.

I think your presence has sedated Nick so much that there's nothing left for him to type about. He may now see that his whole argument was a mindless retaliation.

But then, this comment of mine will probably get him fired up again.

Passthrough,

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.

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

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.

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

If you're far from wise, then don't hide behind a false sense of wisdom. What purpose would that serve, other than to keep your from ever gaining any insight into anything?

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:51 am

Duke,

Just so you know, I wanted to explain that when you open a thread that is not philosophical in nature, it's better to open it in the Wordly Matters Forum.

Trevor,

If I'm allowed to give my two cents, I think what Nick finds foolish about Scott is that the latter quit his path towards higher consciousness, basically because he can't do it, and now is preaching that it can't be done.

.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:00 am

I don't have any great problem with Nick and Scott's battle. It contains enough philosophical content to be interesting.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:17 am

Shah,

If I'm allowed to give my two cents, I think what Nick finds foolish about Scott is that the latter quit his path towards higher consciousness, basically because he can't do it, and now is preaching that it can't be done.

To make this very clear: I didn't quit. If I had, why would I be here discussing aspects of "the path"?

If you don't understand what I mean when I say it can't be done, then you need to try and become perfectly enlightened. No, I don't think most people here are trying at all. Try as hard as you can. Give your life to it instead of accepting being mediocre, or just part of the way there.

Then see what conclusions you come to regarding human nature and its relation to reality. There IS an end to the path, but it doesn't involve perfect enlightenment. It's a realization that all you've done is absolutely meaningless and foolish. It's not called enlightenment. There is no enlightenment, because only perfect enlightenment would be something meaningful, since any other kind is simply foolishness on hold.

Seriously, don't take my word for it. Stop focusing on this useless shit and try to reach the end of the path.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:38 am

Scott,

Don't take it out on me. I was only explaining what I understand of Nick's position to Trevor.

There IS an end to the path, but it doesn't involve perfect enlightenment. It's a realization that all you've done is absolutely meaningless and foolish.

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?

.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:47 am

Scott,

It's really funny hearing you, a 22-year-old man making pronouncements stating things in factual terms about "the path" and where it leads:

It's a realization that all you've done is absolutely meaningless and foolish. It's not called enlightenment. There is no enlightenment, because only perfect enlightenment would be something meaningful, since any other kind is simply foolishness on hold.

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."

Also wish you could hear how black and white (Right Wing Republican, for God's sake) you sound repeating like a mantra, "If it ain't perfect enlightenment, and everyone knows that's impossible, it ain't worth a shit.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:58 am

Shah,

Don't take it out on me. I was only explaining what I understand of Nick's position to Trevor.

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.

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?

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

Carl,

It's really funny hearing you, a 22-year-old man making pronouncements stating things in factual terms about "the path" and where it leads:

It's really funny hearing an old man who hasn't gotten it yet downplay someone who has just because of their age.

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."

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.

Funny how so many apparently "free thinkers" want to walk down the same path as eachother. How scared they are of stepping off.

Also wish you could hear how black and white (Right Wing Republican, for God's sake) you sound repeating like a mantra, "If it ain't perfect enlightenment, and everyone knows that's impossible, it ain't worth a shit.

So I should let people say and believe retarded things, when I have the chance to put an end to it? I should do it for the sake of not sounding too repetitive?

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:04 pm

Scott,

Don't waste my time.