Musings, Critiques.

[Alex Jacob]

I got this Bible tract in the mail at a very special and critical moment and I just KNEW!

[Dennis Mahar]

bluerap,

It is clear that pure absolute logic doesn't serve much of an interest to you, and pure logic is the very basis of what this forum is all about. As long as you hold this stance, there will be a perpetual stalemate between you and those who stand by the ideas held here.

As an aside from the main event.
If that isn't understood then how can 'comprehension of the project' be claimed?
Surely, 'a failure of comprehension' is in order.

You mentioned emotionalism at some point.
There's a lot of emotion getting around about QM's double-split experiment.
The problem science has and fails to recognise is that it's meaning making depends on the instruments it uses.
The instruments usually do no more than provide a few squiggly lines on a photographic plate or piece of graph paper.
From that towers of theory arise.
Experience and reason show us that new instruments arrive soon enough and provide an altogether different picture.
What seems to happen is that last years Nobel Prize gets rendered worthless simply by the awarding of this years Nobel Prize.

The electron, for example, was firstly regarded as an independent particle of matter bearing negative electric charge.
A model was mocked up showing it orbiting about the atomic nucleus like a planet around the sun.
Then it was recognised as bearing attributes both of a particle and of a wave but particles and waves had always been regarded previously as mutually exclusive types of entities.
After Heisenberg the electron has been looked on as a mathematical abstraction by some and as a physical probability distribution by others.
The electron sure has survived a few costume changes.

I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.

The point is whether there's an independent objective reality as science asserts
or is reality dependent on the mind putting stuff around the place.

[Dan Rowden]

I got this Bible tract in the mail at a very special and critical moment and I just KNEW!

Why is it a difficult question to answer? Do you even know?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I've asked you I think 5 direct questions over the last few days but each one was sidestepped.

The reason I asked you this last question was that I think it's the core justification for you having this rather framed discussion at all. If this can somehow be discussed, perhaps even the emotional components which appear to be there, perhaps we can have finally a discussion not being based on false premise and prejudices based on what might be one specific life experience. As to remove the personal element from your story. This is the only road to an honest, open discussion.

In the mean time, back to the intellectual level, here are some publications you might find interesting on the topic of the link between Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Buddhist thought (and there's a larger list for Nietzsche vs Christianity). It's only the tip of the iceberg but you don't seem to realize how timely and accepted it is to mix what might appear as separate, complex or contradicting traditions on the surface of things. And how it would be only true to the nature of the works to keep this out of academic and over-rationalizing clutches (in that way I disagree with the given articles). The Genius Forum is trailblazing!

• The Predicament of Man in Zen - Buddhism and Kierkegaard
• Christianity and Buddhism: Thoughts on the Possibility of a Dialogue.
• Heidegger – the Taoists – Kierkegaard

fulltexts at sorenkierkegaard.nl

• Nietzsche and Early Buddhism, Reviews
• Nietzsche and Buddhism, Journal of the History of Ideas

[Alex Jacob]

Right. It was a leading question, a bullshitty question, leading into a truer version of 'intellectual pretentiousness': your post. For the time being, as I am a little swamped with other concerns, I will offer this for consideration:

The state of mind, the state of society is of a piece...A society holds together by the respect which man gives to man; it fails in fact, it falls apart into groups of fear and power, when it's concept of man is false. ---J. Bronowski

The critique I offer of Quinnism, and the power-tripping and game-playing of people like your fine self who furiously and uncritically advocate for an 'Edifice' of distorted thinking as is Quinnism and GFism, based in denials and negations of basic elements within the human structure, is to all appearances threatening to the Structure. It has to be violently fought against and so a game of team-up is played. Almost all of your efforts are directed to this end so I am not moved much by your, well, intellectual pretentiousness. Your sincerity appears to me a sham sincerity.

It is not 'Zen' in and of itself that is the basis of my critique, though the coercive fundamentals in classical Zen may be considered, but it is what is done with a group of distorted and abstracted ideas about man and about 'life' that is advocated here with which I take issue. It's a pretty simple statement, Diebert!

This is the only road to an honest, open discussion

Almost all of your last 10 posts are so have been laden and dripping with your own emotional content, some of it pretty ugly and 'violent'. I would really appreciate it if you would see this even if you won't acknowledge it. I remind you: you do not frame this conversation and you do not guide it. That is a GF power-trip carry-over. Do you see that? I will happily participate in a conversation on these themes with you directly proportional to your sincerity. You may have to lay aside, momentarily at least, 'Diebert, the Bulldog of Quinnism'. ;-)

May I quote myself?

There IS a usefulness, or perhaps 'benefit' is the correct word, in doing the work required to sift through all the myriad subterfuges that are thrown up, all these weird mirrors and reversals and inversions---in short all the endless games. In the end---doesn't this appear to be the lesson?---we enmesh ourselves in our own traps. We crawl inside the traps that keep us bound up and the 'liberator' is labeled an enemy and resisted tooth and nail.

[Russell Parr]

Alex, why do you believe in God?

I'm curious to see an honest answer to this question. It is concise, and revealing if answered.

Alex, are you capable?

[Alex Jacob]

I would like to 'see' you undertake a response to my post to you and the comments you had made. If you move through those ideas, related as they are to the present conversation, I will very likely offer some of my own views on the subject of your inquiry. ;-) To say 'Are you capable' is a challenge based in childishness: the classic 'boyishness' I often refer to. Try to avoid coerciveness with me, and become 'honest' yourself, is what I would say to you (if I were asked!) Does my proposition sound fair to you?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It is not 'Zen' in and of itself that is the basis of my critique, though the coercive fundamentals in classical Zen may be considered, but it is what is done with a group of distorted and abstracted ideas about man and about 'life' that is advocated here with which I take issue.

Wouldn't it be way more interesting and fulfilling to target these "coercive fundamentals" of Zen-Buddhism or "central ideas in Hindu doctrines" which you see as "trap" and "distortion"? You are not even able to clarify the difference between ideas about "man and life" advocated by e.g. Quinn and similar ideas in works of for example Nietzsche and early Buddhist teachings. If you would be sincerely interested in criticizing abstract ideas then you should focus first on all the origins and influences.

And what kind of "conversation" is there when the conclusion is already drawn that all the major ideas being critiqued are distorted, abrasive and destructive? And you dare to quote Bronowski about "the respect which man gives to man"? Try first to reach for all the commonalities if actual constructive discourse is desired. But I maintain it's not the case with you (if you realize it or not).

What kind of conversation are you able of at this forum anyway? If anyone has been controlling and framing your one-sided offloading of this barrage of mis-mash you call informed criticism, it's yourself. And when you are then countered by people trying to get to the main bone of your effort you suddenly suffer from a persecution complex, like the all to familiar "they hate us because they're jealous", "because we are better", "they're uncivilized", "they maintain bad ideologies" - or just because you are behaving like a real ass trying to get away with murder?

[Alex Jacob]

What kind of conversation are you able of at this forum anyway?

This kind:

We are turning and moving around the very 'cores' within the system I am calling 'Quinnism'. This might turn out to illuminate those 'cores'. My personal sense is that you, Diebert, have not recognized nor do you seem to be able to see the core fundamentalism operating in Quinnism.

I really don't need, at least not yet, to refer to Zen's antecedents to be able to share my observations about Quinn and his thinking system. I have concluded that you simply do not and perhaps will not grasp the basic facts about this fundamentalism, and so what you 'defend' is more on the order of your own vision of what Buddhism is or can be as well as its relationship to Occidentalism, etc. Good stuff, often. (BTW these articles, at least a few of them, were ones I had seen and read previously). But let us dwell on this Fundamentalism a second, might we? If I am not mistaken---please correct me if I am wrong---the core idea that David expresses runs like this:

• This Kosmos is determined down to the ultimate detail and there is no such thing as 'free will' as it is commonly understood. But a man can, if he is so 'determined' and if he be 'caused' to do so, experience a unique and special Vision of the 'Totality' that, shall we say, 'aligns' him with Truth---'Absolute Truth' as it is called. This 'alignment' is synonymous with 'enlightenment' and, as Cathy will often say, when you gain it all your actions in this world are 'perfect', all your understandings and words become 'perfect'. At that point, it is 'you' operating but also 'not you'. Then, because you have internalized this vision or realization, your utterances become similarly 'perfect' and also non-contestable. You become the same as Jesus and some other figures out of religious history since they were all preaching, essentially, this core message [sic]. It is important to state that everyone---and for example charming and debonair Alex Jacob---also 'respond' to the Totality as does David Quinn and others among the 'aligned'. But alas, Alex's discourse can be nothing more than the gurglings of the maya-infused. Because he is thusly maya-infused his utterances are all misaligned. Indeed, Kelly often refers to 'samsara' as a term for (I am ad libbing here) those who have not achieved appropriate alignment. When David speaks (indeed his prose is structured in this way: as pronouncements) all he need do is declare the Dharma---almost a recitation of it---and he can see and feel and believe himself to function as the Mouthpiece of truth in this world.

This sounds like a bad joke or like a parody, but I suggest to you that this very much is the core of Quinnism! It is this style of thinking (believing) that functions all through it! From top to bottom. And it is akin not to good, strong intellectual reasoning, but to nothing else but religious fundamentalism! I need go no further (backward or forward) but to describe this. Those who read, and who see, will themselves distinguish what is being referred to. Naturally, it follows that all conversations with David and those who act like him, are doomed to failure from the start! You cannot argue with the formulations of religious fundamentalism! Any argument is knocked down right from the start. 'If you understod what I was saying, you would not be experiencing the disagreement'. It is the stuff of cults, Diebert, and it is you who needs to do some critical thinking in this area, as do all of 'you'.

But you do not, and you will not. You turn yourself into the most vehement defender of a system of thought that is very hard to defend. You throw up subterfuge after subterfuge and, following David's lead, get quite nasty at times. I can only point this out to you. It follows that I assume that you have a greater investiture in this style of thinking than you let on. But you would not assume that from your appearance, and your 'intellectualism', or the scholarly articles you toss out. One gathers this impression as one goes deeply into the defenses you concoct and as you fulfill your assigned or chosen role as Bulldog of Quinnism.

Similarly, the rest of the intellectual children who write here need to see and understand their relationship to this Fundamentalism. And this is the subject of my posts and my critiques. The 'hatred' of what I do---through my 'fracas'*---is in what I say and what I point out. It is not about length of posts or style of writing.

Indeed, as you say, I am 'taking something apart' but not with hatred nor with cruelty.
____________________________________________________________________

*Fracas: French, from Italian fracasso, from fracassare, 'to make an uproar'. (Thanks again, Cory!)

[Pye]

Hi Alex. Not sure if we have a scrum, a ruck, or a maul going on, but may I pile on?

Look, a battle against fundamentalist thinking qua fundamentalist thinking is a noble endeavor. Such a battle that conducts itself on this principle alone is, ironically, burning forth on the same fuel. It is supporting that no one or ones can have any clearer a view of reality than any one else, and this is disingenuous at every level, chiefly because there's an "of."

It is a "duh" realization that we can only experience reality within our own minds, hence that each mind has its own validity of perspective, materially and concretely speaking. But it is disingenuous to suggest there is nothing there to look at to begin with (the "is," i.e. the truth, the what-is) which in turn makes it disingenuous to suggest that no one could possibly have a clearer view of reality than anyone else, which is what the pathology of postmodernist thinking defends. As a result, there's no content to take seriously, but only the form, the delivery system, the medium is the message. What do you think of the truth (the what-is) of some of the things put forth by David, et al? I don't think you take any content seriously; you are more interested in the form, the delivery system - in short, you are more focused upon David himself - as personality, as 'archetype,' as a guy who seems to have had persuasive power, intellectually and spiritually speaking.

I think David matters to you. I think he matters such that even his 'negative' attentions are sufficient, but I think perhaps moreso (and this is just my saturday afternoon opinion) you see that he has something, that you - by definition a fundamentalist-fighter - cannot look at as possibly . . . fundamental. It can only be fundamentalism, to the postmodernist stuck in the giddy swirl of solipsism. This person, too, is being disingenuous to suggest that their consciousness operates in a vacuum and that their relativistic swirl is all there is. All consciousness is consciousness-of. There's an "of," and David has a well-formed sense of it. By the very rules of postmodernist "validity," you would have to accept that. But there's a part of you - in this state of relativistic starvation - that would like to know the food that David feeds upon, that makes this one particular person so sure, so confident, so at peace and such with his understanding of existence, and further, even able to converse about it with a few others. But you can't accept there's food there, fundamentals there, because you're signed on to no-such thing. You're stuck looking at the outside, in thick description of the dynamics, fetching after cult paradigms and circus-y metaphors and even your serious-worry-about-us-all moods, struggling to dismantle it all without a willingness to know what it's made of . . . because there can't be any "of" . . . or that would mean there are fundamentals, and that would have to mean fundamentalism, round and round and round.

That's sort of how I see this repetitive dynamic between you and many of the posters here. You're working the surface because that's all there is, so others are stripping your surfacing back. But you are drawn to the confidence and strength of David, but you're only "allowed" to dissect it in terms of those things themselves, and not what David bases them upon.

You need something from David; David matters to you. If you can't get a single admission of a single one of your points from him, as sometimes happens and you sometimes complain, you will take a castigation, a tearing down, a drawn-upon-the-carpeting, a sally, attention of any kind. The strength of David's personality, the forthrightness with which he assumes his knowledge is, I think, rather alluring, powerful, towering to you, and it is to this as persona that you address your need to register a power of effect.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Alex,

First of all I'd suggest you drop the term "Quinnism". It contains already highly doubtful notions that this is more about David Quinn, the Aussie bloke, than the ideas or consequences themselves. Also it already includes a mockery towards what you are suggesting are cultist and fundamental tendencies. But inside a conversation - and lets assume for now you actually want one this time - one needs better terms and better mutual agreed on definitions to be able to start. The term Quinnism is not one of them.

Do I understand the charge of fundamentalism? I do believe I know very well, not only personally, what the rest of the world understands as fundamentalism and how it's used in high level discourse. Your definition is harder to follow.

Lets start with your summary of David Quinn's core ideas. Because if we already differ there, how would any further discussion be possible? And I see many big flaws in it, as if reading Quinn's material through thick, scratched glass. But lets see if I am wearing those glasses or you are.

‣"This Kosmos is determined down to the ultimate detail and there is no such thing as 'free will' as it is commonly understood."
That's called hard determinism and is just a well known and quite common philosophical position. It doesn't change response-abilities of the individual. And nobody "understands" free will at the moment. Neurologists often doubt it.

‣ "But a man can experience a unique and special Vision of the 'Totality' "
It would be impossible to have any view on any actual totality as a whole. It remains a concept, perhaps the biggest concept ever but still not the real thing.

‣"when you gain [enlightenment] all your actions in this world are 'perfect',"
If enlightenment would entail seeing everything as perfect as it is, in a larger non-personal sense - there might be something to it of course. Practically one cannot be error-free as omniscience is impossible and one needs to assume with best effort based on carefully selected principles derived from the most perfect source one is able to discover in life.

‣"your utterances become similarly 'perfect' and also non-contestable."
Non-contestable only for those few concepts which are proven to be impossible to contest: causality, existence exists, etc. But everyone is welcome to try at any time!

‣ "You become the same as Jesus and some other figures out of religious history"
Assuming one is talking about the same things and assuming they actually existed, then there's a lot of commonality. Wisdom "speaks" with one tongue but that tongue lives in the receiver.

---

Now here the conversation stops again. How to progress if we're reading different things? Were I and a host of others misinterpreting Quinn or are just you doing it? You start about cults but I know a few things about them while you seem to apply the term haphazardly without concern what this actually looks like in the normal world. Or are you introducing a new form of on-line, forum-bound cultism? Perhaps you could tone it down to some "cult of personality" or "hero worship". That would bring it all down in a more realistic setting and we could analyze further.

And I'm not sure why you imply that "religious fundamentalism" would be something bad or despicable in and of itself. It seems to me it depends on the religion being seen as truthful and if the foundation is found solid by the ones evaluating it. I just don't see an inherent bad thing in this unless one can demonstrate the actual presence of a cult, militant behavior or violence.

Now back to my question: can we go over your own cult experiences and see how they might relate to what looks like an over the top oversensitivity to the matter?

(Hello Pye, welcome to the pile!)

[Alex Jacob]

Hello Pye.

You may indeed! But with your post, the content of it, we'll have a good wallow: a wallow in the basic GF 'argument' which now, oddly, is brought forward by you: if you have a problem with our doctrines, you are that problem. Still, I have no reason to fear you will have an offending Dworkinian object in your pocket, unlike a local Weiningerian with externalizable fantasies!

I do not agree with nor accept the obvious thrust of your post. So, I will not dwell on it. However, we will certainly hear much more about it when Dennis, Diebert and possibly some others get hold of it. Thanks, Pye!

Pye wrote: Look, a battle against fundamentalist thinking qua fundamentalist thinking is a noble endeavor. Such a battle that conducts itself on this principle alone is, ironically, burning forth on the same fuel. It is supporting that no one or ones can have any clearer a view of reality than any one else, and this is disingenuous at every level, chiefly because there's an "of."

The operative word, of course, is 'alone'. But I am glad that you recognize the effort as 'noble'. I also connect it with the stated goals of the forum:

"Genius is a discussion forum that is passionately dedicated to the nature of Genius, Wisdom and Ultimate Reality and to the total annihilation of false values. It is an unconventional discussion forum suitable only for the brave hearted. It is for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous."

My position is based on, if you'll permit me, the 'horizontal and the lateral'. I do not have arguments against Buddhist doctrines (those for example mentioned in Diebert's article 'Nietzsche and Buddhism') per se. At that level of consideration, with that care and thoughtfulness, conversation takes place. It also may INCLUDE everything within and about 'our own traditions' and will allow for a conversation that allows for all human concerns to appear. My principal and on-going argument against the doctrines of this forum, of Quinnism, has to do with all that it excludes. The exclusions, if you'll permit me, hurt. And I have also spoken directly about certain very characteristic formulations that verge on the totalitarian and, as I call them, fundamentalisms.

I don't need to go any further than to state that as my 'reason' for engaging here.

I will acknowledge though that it is quite possible for two fundamentalist schools to go to polemical war against each other. Say, Southern Baptism and Mormonism. But I am advocating for something on another order. And really I have written about that so often in my post that it is not fair if you desire me to repeat it again.

It is an unconventional discussion forum suitable only for the brave hearted. It is for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous.

Do you place your philosophical enquiry within such an acute framework? Are there ideas or problems that concern you greatly? Do you feel, perhaps, that you have been personally affected by the machinations of 'fundamentalism'? Is there any values you hold to for which you are willing to advocate strongly? I think it is more important, and will help more, if you were to speak of your own relationship to the issue. True, you can subvert the thrust of the issue I choose as subject and make it about something else. I note that you are repeating in amplified form the same critique you offered months back.

If it is that important to you I guess you'll just have to keep up with it.

What do you think of the truth (the what-is) of some of the things put forth by David, et al? I don't think you take any content seriously...

You are very wrong with that assumption. There is most definitely a way to talk about that and so many things, but I suggest that it is hardly possible within a framework that assumes, a priori, the possession of Absolute Truths and absolutely correct perspectives. I take it as my task to focus rather exclusively within that area, within that area of concern. I understand that you don't like it or accept it, but note the following: I try to confine my noxious presence to one thread out of respect to other conversations. In this instance I formed my own thread to talk about my own group of concerns. I described my endeavor very clearly right from the start so there is no confusion about it.

I am doing what I want and what I need to do.

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert, you always set it up this way: you modify Quinnism and filter it through your own method, which substantially modifies it, and force me to argue with you. A very small selection of phrases by the Master himself indicates a very different approach to dialectic (no approach at all).

• It is obvious to me that you are deeply afraid of God, deeply afraid of opening up yourself up to reality in a direct sense. It shines through in everything that you write.
  
  This in itself is not the issue I have with you, however, as it is entirely understandable for us humans to be afraid of God. But you take it a step further and seek to make a virtue out of this cowardice.
  
  If you were honest about your cowardice, if you were willing to acknowlege this dynamic within yourself, then I wouldn't have a problem with you. I would say, "Fair enough, mate. I completely understand".
  
  You are completely cut off from the deep truth that Jesus, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, etc, talked about, and your words reflect this. Instead of finding a way to connect yourself with this deep truth, you spend your time hiding away in the words of others who have also cut themselves off from it.
  
  I am pointing to the same truth that all the great sages in history have pointed to. So in rejecting this truth, you are not only rejecting me, but you are rejecting Jesus and the Buddha as well.

I refer to 'cult-like thinking' and stand by that term. Don't now rewrite me!

Do I understand the charge of fundamentalism?

The jury is still out on that. Or might I say, if you grasped what I was talking about there would be no argument?

Perhaps you could tone it down to some "cult of personality" or "hero worship". That would bring it all down in a more realistic setting and we could analyze further.

Why should I tone anything down? You are such a control freak Diebert! Your engagement is to substantially rewrite Quinnist formulations, which are indeed at the core of the philosophy of the forum, and then to try to convince me to behave in regard to your rewrite as you do or wish that other would.

Now back to my question: can we go over your own cult experiences and see how they might relate to what looks like an over the top oversensitivity to the matter?

What 'we' can do is begin to take a harder look at the core of my argument before you drive it into the ground utterly. 'We' can look at things as they are and not rewrite them or repackage them. When 'we' have done that 'we' might have a platform where you understand what I mean by cult-like thinking. Keep at it, old chum!

[Dennis Mahar]

A proper Inquiry has to have a point of reference.

Aristotle's point of reference for Inquiry and what the Inquiry should be about is:
I exist
Existence exists

These declarations are self-evident because they can't be denied. Logically, it's untenable to say 'I don't exist and 'existence doesn't exist' because to say that requires existence to say that.

See how logic clears it up?
Logic is the tool.

Existence isn't self-defining.
The sensorial equipment doesn't explain.
The mental faculty is called in to explain.
The sensorial equipment provides the appearance.
The mental faculty attempts to peer behind the 'veil of appearance'.

Evidence must be gathered and submissions tendered.

I can save you a lot of time.
Nagarjuna 'nailed' it.
How it exists.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, you always set it up this way: you modify Quinnism and filter it through your own method, which substantially modifies it, and force me to argue with you.

You mean to say your way of reading and interpretation is god's word? So far you're just one individual in a large group of all kinds of people who commented on Quinn's articles here and elsewhere who keeps interpreting everything being said as one-dimensional and ridiculous as you are doing.

It is obvious to me that you are deeply afraid of God, deeply afraid of opening up yourself up to reality in a direct sense. It shines through in everything that you write. This in itself is not the issue I have with you, however, as it is entirely understandable for us humans to be afraid of God. But you take it a step further and seek to make a virtue out of this cowardice. If you were honest about your cowardice, if you were willing to acknowledge this dynamic within yourself, then I wouldn't have a problem with you. I would say, "Fair enough, mate. I completely understand". You are completely cut off from the deep truth that Jesus, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, etc, talked about, and your words reflect this. Instead of finding a way to connect yourself with this deep truth, you spend your time hiding away in the words of others who have also cut themselves off from it. I am pointing to the same truth that all the great sages in history have pointed to. So in rejecting this truth, you are not only rejecting me, but you are rejecting Jesus and the Buddha as well.

So what this should tell you is that he discovered for himself something looking like profound perennial philosophical truths which he thinks needed a lot of courage to face and digest. Apart from the question it it's "real" or an affliction of some kind, at least admit that logically the deduction that others will be afraid of these truths and that all the great religious and philosophical traditions speak essentially of the same is valid enough. It's not shocking, cultist or too surprising at all. Your problem seems to be that you reject out of hand without giving any reason the idea that a simple notion could be grasped while not being relayed to you in a way that you could pick up and investigate the way you desire. And yet most major religions suggest similar things about the core of their beliefs or experiences, depending on the denomination. Probably because life is all about grasping things that can hardly or not at all be explained in words. It would be surprising if we cannot agree on that at least.

I refer to 'cult-like thinking' and stand by that term. Don't now rewrite me!

But I don't think that term points to anything meaningful. The idea of "cults" has more to do with how a tightly knit group functions or behaves. But first you need to have a group. For example, I've had the most contact outside the forum with you, then in the past a little banter with Leyla, occasionaly Tomas, then David and some others. There are a few forums I visit apart from this one and the few blogs and news sites where I post comments at times. This is no "group" for me as such and as it stands this forum and its constellation is one of the many things influencing me and being influenced by me. Occasionally I value it pretty highly though, other periods I think it's becoming a waste of everybody's time. Is there any reason to think others have other type of relations with each other here?

[Tomas]

(Hello Pye, welcome to the pile!)

Same here, Dear.

[Dennis Mahar]

An Inquiry submission.

'God' has no physical presence.
Doesn't show up sensorially.
'God' must therefore exist behind the 'veil of appearances'.
Access to 'God' must be through the mental faculty.

'God' depends on a thinker with a thought 'God'.

Because 'God' depends,
he/she is of the status hypothetical entity.
Has to be believed in.

That's the case isn't it?

Everybody says,
'You have to believe in 'God'.

Logically,
'God' is of the status,
hypothetical.

To say 'God' is the explanation behind the veil of appearances is to present a hypothetical to the Inquiry.

[Dan Rowden]

Alex's charge of cultism is horrific in its vacuity. Indeed, it's a charge for which my patience is very limited. Rather than that patience knowing no boundaries I feel oddly claustrophobic. Proceed with caution on that front, Alex, and not just caution, but substance. Such a charge without substance to back it up will be viewed by me as a gratuitous insult.

[Russell Parr]

Why should I tone anything down? You are such a control freak Diebert! Your engagement is to substantially rewrite Quinnist formulations, which are indeed at the core of the philosophy of the forum, and then to try to convince me to behave in regard to your rewrite as you do or wish that other would.

He's trying to tell you that you can cease referring to this imagined cult-ish culture you think is going on here. It is pretty obvious that Quinn is not equating himself to Jesus in the "fundamentalist worshiper" manner you think.

Now something like "hero worship," as Diebert suggested, could be seen as a potential problem. If your perspective of the philosophies explored here wasn't so distorted, then you might be able to provide meaningful discussion on that topic.

Also, I find Diebert's rebuttal of your critique of "Quinnist philosophy" quite spot on. Does this mean I'm just hopping on Diebert's back even though he "changed" Quinn's theory? Or does this mean that you still haven't, after all these years, gained an accurate understanding of what this forum is about and the Truth it alludes to?

[David Quinn]

Alex,

First of all I'd suggest you drop the term "Quinnism".

I second this. This kind of talk is very insulting to Diebert and others here. Diebert already had a strong insight into the truth before he arrived here, as had many others who are now here. So in his interactions with you, his primary purpose isn't to defend me and my ideas. His main concern, as far as I can see, is to defend the truth and the spiritual path, both of which he personally values.

So I back Diebert on this and suggest that you do indeed drop the "Quinnism" thing. In fact, the whole approach of yours to continuously denigrate this forum with accusations that it is a cult needs to be dropped. I don't see why we should have to put up with such baseless accusations.

Diebert, you always set it up this way: you modify Quinnism and filter it through your own method, which substantially modifies it, and force me to argue with you. A very small selection of phrases by the Master himself indicates a very different approach to dialectic (no approach at all).

It is obvious to me that you are deeply afraid of God, deeply afraid of opening up yourself up to reality in a direct sense. It shines through in everything that you write.

This in itself is not the issue I have with you, however, as it is entirely understandable for us humans to be afraid of God. But you take it a step further and seek to make a virtue out of this cowardice.

If you were honest about your cowardice, if you were willing to acknowlege this dynamic within yourself, then I wouldn't have a problem with you. I would say, "Fair enough, mate. I completely understand".

You are completely cut off from the deep truth that Jesus, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, etc, talked about, and your words reflect this. Instead of finding a way to connect yourself with this deep truth, you spend your time hiding away in the words of others who have also cut themselves off from it.

I am pointing to the same truth that all the great sages in history have pointed to. So in rejecting this truth, you are not only rejecting me, but you are rejecting Jesus and the Buddha as well.
I refer to 'cult-like thinking' and stand by that term. Don't now rewrite me!

A dialectical conversation can only take place if both parties value truth. If one of them steadfastly refuses to even believe in the possibility of understanding the truth, then dialectic becomes impossible. This goes to the heart of why there is no dialectic occuring on this thead.

In most of the other threads on this forum, meaningful dialectic is occuring because the people invoved have a strong interest in understanding the truth for themselves. But on this thread, there is nothing. You started this thread by basically accusing everyone of being part of a cult, and then when a number of people quite rightly objected to this characterization, you've had the nerve to paint these objections as even further evidence of cult-like behaviour. How is this distinguishable from trolling?

This forum is set up for those few in the world who value wisdom, truth, enlightenment, rationality, independent thought, etc. Individuals from all over the world can come together and discuss these issues with each other. It is not unlike how scientists come together to discuss the scientific issues that concern them. To constantly accuse such a gathering as being a cult is not only highly inaccurate, but extremely offensive for all concerned. How do you expect people to respond to this kind of behaviour?

You're either very thick, or you're trolling.

[Tomas]

Alex,

You're either very thick, or you're trolling.

Word for the wise, Alex

[Cory Duchesne]

I have a very transparent online presence, available both on facebook and G+, and my parents seem to have no problem with the fact that I seek to dissolve the biological family unit. They didn't like it 10 years ago (before I even knew about GF), but they have come to find it rather funny, considering that I still treat them well and we have our own language from 10 years of philosophical drama (which is now mostly comedy).

In fact, I probably get along with my parents better now than I would have if I never got involved with J. Krishnamurti, William Burroughts, Epictetus, David Bohm, Alan Watts, Diogenes, Socrates, Giordano Bruno, Terence Mckenna and the dozens of other thinkers I admired prior to finding this forum.

The Australians just offered a new way of looking at something that I was already interested in.

It was the difference between having spiritual inspiration from dead people I could never talk to in person, and inspiration from people who are actually alive and apparently walking the walk.

Alex.... time to get on with it and do something with your life. You're like a moth that keeps bouncing off the light.

[Alex Jacob]

To constantly accuse such a gathering as being a cult is not only highly inaccurate, but extremely offensive for all concerned. How do you expect people to respond to this kind of behaviour?

The term is 'cult-like thinking' in respect to the terms by which you, David, define spirituality, the spiritual path, and Truth, and how you act within it vis-a-vis others who see things differently from you.

Your philosophy, which is a distinct and personal philosophy formulated by David Quinn, can be fairly designated as Quinnism, just as can Nietzscheanism or any other -ism. QRSism is a possibility but since Kevin doesn't post here it doesn't seem quite right. Still, it is designed as ironical, let there be no mistake about it.

But let's cut to the chase: if you feel you want to engineer my exit from this forum for whatever reason, just do it. (But please just tell me that you want this to happen because if you deactivate me I won't be able to retrieve my posts!) All my terms of discourse are fair, similar to other's usage, no more 'outrageous' than your own (in relation to me and others), and are ones I stand by. I won't allow my terms of discourse, which are not really at all unreasonable, to be modified by coercive, if veiled, threats. The recent pack-behavior is typical of this environment, in my view. A strong, more 'masculine' choice is to deal with it, or to accept it. So, what I recommend of people is that they accept the terms you yourself have established:

It is an unconventional discussion forum suitable only for the brave hearted. It is for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous. That is to say, it is a forum intended solely for men...

(Sorry to keep repeating this...)

Finally, Cory, I am quite involved in my life and your recommendation is meaningless to me.

[David Quinn]

The term is 'cult-like thinking' in respect to the terms by which you, David, define spirituality, the spiritual path, and Truth. Your philosophy, which is a distinct and personal philosophy formulated by David Quinn, can be fairly designated as Quinnism, just as can Nietzscheanism or any other -ism.

Yes, it is my own individual philosophy and that is precisely how you should treat it. It has nothing to do with anyone else. If you object to my ideas, then address them directly and specifically with proper argument. Enough of the group accusations and the tarring of everyone with generic insults.

But let's cut to the chase: if you feel you want to engineer my exit from this forum for whatever reason, just do it. All my terms of discourse are fair, similar to other's usage, and ones I stand by. I will not allow my 'terms of discourse', which are not at all unreasonable, to be modified by coercive, if veiled, threats. The recent pack-behavior is typical of this environment, in my view. A strong, more 'masculine' choice is to deal with it, or to accept it.

I don't want to kick you off, as you provide a useful contrast to the kind of deep thinking that usually occurs here. But I do expect you to drop the whole cult thing. As I say, I consider that to be trolling.

The choice is yours, Alex. Cut out the lazy generic insults towards the group as a whole, treat each individual here with the respect that they deserve, address their own specific ideas with cogent argument, and you are more than welcome to stay here.

That's not an unreasonable request, is it?

[Alex Jacob]

But I already made the choice. My choice is not to accept any kind of limits to my speech. The term is not cult-thing but 'cult-like thinking' thing. There IS a difference.

Yes, it is my own individual philosophy and that is precisely how you should treat it. It has nothing to do with anyone else. If you object to my ideas, then address them directly and specifically with proper argument.

I have been doing just this, post after post, page after page.