Core Dysfunction and what it does

[Leyla Shen]

Hello, Pye. Long time no see. :)

I'm with you now on this, and was with you when I wrote that remark, which is why I ignore Alex.

[Dennis Mahar]

Doesn't matter about the situation seeker. Don't worry about the type of situation.
Just the fact of situation.

what does unencumbered look like.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

what does unencumbered look like.

I've gotten used to your general vagueness, and most of what you say gets through well, yet still can't really tell what you mean by 'looks like'.
Am I meant to describe the features or characteristics of the experience of what it is to be 'free of burden'?

[Dennis Mahar]

see how you're already encumbered.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

-.- You have a funny way of asking questions without "?" or elaborating on the question.

Should I just ignore those.

[Dennis Mahar]

Is it incumbent upon you to seek out survival options.

[Dan Rowden]

The Trickster act is grounded in subtlety.

Back to the drawing board lad.

The act of posting on GF itself is attachment, one act of subtlety would be to avoid acknowledging this.

This would be true if referring to those posting due to attachment, but to say that the act in itself demonstrates attachment is factually wrong.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Genius Forum 'dead'? Ogoodgod, it's long past that. What's happening now, in my estimation, is the subsequent rotting - rotting that's busily exposing the layers of its own pathology

Nice! But all undone by posting further:

how much I have appreciated the appearance of Dennis here. It was his blend of existential-zen openings and always-ever embedded-in's that drew me back to these written dialogues. Dennis, who created new openings with his terse verse that seemed to drive most others to violent distraction. M...r adorning the dialogue with some of the best, most truthful zen-existentialism.

Is the forum rotting or not? Dennis is #1 poster here these days in frequency. Threads are filled with his existential-zen openings and fillers. And I've seen more of Dan and Leyla than in a long time, not to mention occasionally Russell, Trevor and Cory. But if you like Dennis his posts: this forum has entered the Age of Dennis, jeesh, even Alex complained about it!

[Alex Jacob]

Esteemed Dan. I will with great relish and some gusto provide an outline of criticism of the 'core doctrines' that animate Kevin and David and you too. And I will describe where the 'destructiveness' that I note in the formulations of GF is located. I will make an effort to point it up and also to contrast it with other, more 'healthy' alternatives. Perhaps I will toss it together a little later today though I have been mulling over various ways of presenting it.

I'm with you now on this, and was with you when I wrote that remark, which is why I ignore Alex.

This is both a truth and a 'lie'. Or a wee bit of self-deception. Just before the fated closure of our Beloved Forum this strange chick was following me around attempting to get me to 'engage' with her. I thank the Lord above that I am now in the 'ignore' category and, if God exists, hope that he will keep the devilish woman at bay!

I function best when I am a 'voice of commentary' about the ideas put forth here. What I write (what I think and see) does not require commentary necessarily. As I said earlier it is 'interesting' to observe the wide ranging contortions that are reaction to my thoughts. But a couple of comments in keeping with my 'voice of commentary' modus.

Note that Diebert pulled out the dusty skeleton the ole Weiningerian analysis, channeled through David, dressed it in a sheet, and used it as it is almost always used: a means to channel a group of pre-established notions about masculinity and femininity, to call it forth, and to rally a group to use it (again as it is most often used) as an attack banner against ideas that are not liked or accepted. Is it or is it not the 'ultimate' ad hominem fallacy? Just a question, folks!

In my view, this is a point where a clear 'group think' is evident here, and it can be traced back to the Founders and their 'love' of Weininger. I have also read Weininger---in a somewhat glossary manner but I have read him---and will say that some part of his analysis is considerable. But this is often true with Idea Sets: it is almost never that we can reject completely any Idea Formulation Sets. It is usually that we have to sift through them and attempt to thresh out those parts that represent error or deviation.

It is not that notions of the differences between masculinity and femininity cannot be or are not relevant in discourse, but the utility and even 'salubrity' of the use depends on the general orientation of the person using them. Needless to say the general use of Weiningerian doctrines, within the GF formulations, have severe problematical aspects. In my case, it has not been easy to winnow through them, partly because I found that I am in agreement with a certain definition of sexism (in a neutral sense, if that is possible), and I did not have at hand other, I think more conservative but nonetheless well thought-out and defined presentations of woman as possibility (as for example with Gertrude von le Fort, within the Christian/Catholic camp). So, it has taken some months of reading to get more clarity about the depth of the issue of the definition of woman, but as an independent project, not overlorded by Marxian feminism nor driven by religious conventionalism. (Or any other pole).

As with so many things in life (as I said to Russell), and it is certainly true in the world of ideas, and philosophy and religion in our own culture, the surface reading is never sufficient. The surface impression is rarely sufficient. A snap-judgment will more often than not be a bad judgment. And so it requires willingness to sift through knotty problems. With that in mind I will say that in respect to something like 'Absolute Reality' we face the most knotty of knotty questions, as have men since the dawn of philosophy. I leave this observation as it is for the time being.

Now, I wanted to mention Jupi's contribution, the one he stacked of Diebert's or 'piggybacked' as it were (in the game of 'speaking in the third-person to a person sitting there in the room'). It is the 'anti-Jewish' position or more properly the 'anti-Judaism' position. Very very sticky. Very dark and psychological. Very present, if submerged. If I read correctly (although skimming I couldn't locate exactly Jupi's tract in Weininger's chapter on Judaism in Sex & Character), Jupi switched 'the Jew' for 'Alex' which, as all who have read here are aware, is always a card that is played on GF. Dan avoids it, for good reasons I think, and so does David, thank Heaven. But this strange 'card' is played here by others especially when the 'going gets rough' or the attack really comes out in the open. I am not complaining per se. Just 'noting'. I also noted this with dear Pye's comments about 'Judeo-Christianity 101'.

It is part of general rejection of much that can be sheltered under the titles 'Jew, Judaism, Judeo-Christianity' and is a very strong element within the GF formulations I have found. Possibly because GF is forced 'philosophically' (metaphysically and ontologically?) to absolutely reject all belief-elements that are at the foundation of 'the Bible' and to see them as manifestations and embodiments of 'ignorance'. There is a great deal that can and should be said about this, in my view. But again, as with the really knotty questions, to seriously investigate them requires time and effort and lots of reading and thinking. My impression, here, is that many make a quick leap into all manner of judgment without *really* understanding what the issues are. And a 'Zen' substitute (a catch-all phrase for aspects of Buddhist doctrines, however tendentious and modified they have become, here) is thrown up as a sort of 'defense'. A set of beliefs with almost talismanic powers.

Unfortunately, it allows for a 'breaking away from' a realm of knowledge and ideation that is so central to Western ideas that, I suggest, is not separable. It has to be confronted and responsibly dealt with, but most of the most vocal do not have any of the background required to do this. This is a culture-wide problem and in this specific sense as the 'mass man' comes into the arena he dominates the conversation with his shouts and gesticulations and drowns out a 'higher' and more sophisticated---indeed 'intelligent'---conversation. And yet these people become virulently aroused by that which they seem to 'hate'. I can really only suggest that there are alternatives, and necessary alternatives.

[Dennis Mahar]

Your central thesis is a genuine philosophical abstraction.
Idea sets, platforms as generative principles.
Conceptual structures as boxes human beings are locked up in which are encumbrances to 'aliveness'.
The way in which conceptual structures organise the mind to 'see' only what the conceptual structure can allow it to 'see'.

That then becomes your platform to unleash a torrent of unnecessary drama.


In the human speaking there's commentary and research.

Dan wants the research from you and not so much of the personal commentary.

Start afresh?

[Alex Jacob]

Avoid interposing yourself between 'what Dan wants' and what I do, think or say, or don't do, think or say. It is unbecoming. Stick to the presentation of your own ideas, or engage in conversation yourself. It is a better route for all concerned.

[Dennis Mahar]

All I can say about that is you've 'taken umbrage'.

that means gone into the shadow.

start afresh?

[Dan Rowden]

I function best when I am a 'voice of commentary' about the ideas put forth here. What I write (what I think and see) does not require commentary necessarily. As I said earlier it is 'interesting' to observe the wide ranging contortions that are reaction to my thoughts. But a couple of comments in keeping with my 'voice of commentary' modus.

Unfortunately for you, Alex, this is a discussion forum, not a place for you to indulge in a blog. Your modus of "commentary" is simply a means by which you can say whatever the fuck you like and not have to justify it to anyone's standard but your own - which is a standard that meets no reasonable intellectual criteria. It's not going to happen. If it's your intention to fully remain in that modus then you will not be able to continue. I await your post wherein you might step outside the arrogance of mere commentary.

[Dennis Mahar]

On the question 'What is Philosophy', the primary distinction concerns the conduct of Philosophy.
It's an Inquiry.
It separates itself away from 'shadow boxing' in its pure form.

The description in the Forums' intro as to a brutal conversation isn't to be construed as an opportunity for shadow boxing.
The brutal conversation refers to a conversation where interested parties are led to the threshold of being disabused of long-standing conceptions of how the world is that have been inherited from the culture.

The process requires 'ordinary/everyday world' as a source of reflection.
Upon that reflection philosophical abstractions are formed.

It doesn't directly concern itself with politics, aesthetics which are ordinary/everyday world.

It's concern is hammering out a point of view that integrates all points of view.

[Russell Parr]

With that in mind I will say that in respect to something like 'Absolute Reality' we face the most knotty of knotty questions, as have men since the dawn of philosophy. I leave this observation as it is for the time being.

He ain't capable, Dan. Not now anyway. Funny, and typical, how the only mention resembling of a 'response' to your request is smack dab in the middle of a bunch of boo hooing.

[jupiviv]

I'm with you now on this, and was with you when I wrote that remark, which is why I ignore Alex.

Why do women think that ignoring someone is the best way to hurt them? It doesn't make any difference to me whether I ignore Alex or not. In either case he is and will probably remain a useless, annoying tit.

As for banning him, I think doing so would itself spark a meaningless discussion about QRStian intolerance or whatever. Unless Dan is prepared to also ban the people who would start such a discussion("Pye" comes to mind), that's not a good idea.

[Dan Rowden]

If Alex behaves like little more than a verbose troll I'll certainly ban him and no correspondence will be entered into. Ignoring someone who floods your forum with posts that to the causal/new observer might seem prima facie credible is not an option to me.

[Leyla Shen]

Yes, well it helps to have administrative powers to hurt something with impenetrable idiot defences.

Outside of that, the wisdom in ignoring him comes from the fact that nothing short of a bullet in the arse is otherwise particularly productive. Thus, it has nothing to do with wanting to hurt him. Perhaps then Jupivi, as a woman, you could enlighten us as to why one might think it does.

[Leyla Shen]

What can be useful from observing Alex, though, is how he mirrors the ressentiment prevalent in what passes today for "socialism".

[Dan Rowden]

I can certainly understand why members of the forum would ignore him. If that was my position [simply a member with no admin responsibilities etc] I'd probably do precisely that.

[Jamesh]

Ban him so he has to create a new forum persona. I sort of liked Talking Ass....for a while anyway.

"Thank you-all for the opportunity of appearing here in all my majesty. But the time has come to bid you adieu and until the next time! I promise, though I can't say when, that I will start my final and definitive GF thread before moving on permanently. The one in which I isolate and describe the central and tragic flaw of the Quinnean doctrines! It will be worth your while! Until them my pasty, pale-faced friends!"

[jupiviv]

Outside of that, the wisdom in ignoring him comes from the fact that nothing short of a bullet in the arse is otherwise particularly productive.

There's no real difference in "productivity" between a discussion with Alex about QRS personality disorder and a discussion with any of the other twits on here about anything else.

Perhaps then Jupivi, as a woman, you could enlighten us as to why one might think it does.

Because indifference is contempt when it isn't merely ignorance.

[Leyla Shen]

There's no real difference in "productivity" between a discussion with Alex about QRS personality disorder and a discussion with any of the other twits on here about anything else.

I disagree. There are actually some people on this forum through which I have gained various insights. Alex has never been one of them.

Because indifference is contempt when it isn't merely ignorance.

Yeah, that and ressentiment are such a waste of everybody's time.

[Dennis Mahar]

The 4 noble truths are:

1) diagnose a disease,
2) identify its cause,
3) determine whether it is curable
4) outline a course of treatment to cure it

Dan's actions are exemplary in the matter in accordance with those truths.

That's what a doctor does.

Alex may well turn that around and say he has diagnosed QRS as a disease.
If that's the case then his bedside manner toward the patient is a hospital I don't want to go to :)

[jupiviv]

I disagree. There are actually some people on this forum through which I have gained various insights. Alex has never been one of them.

Only a very small percentage of the forum membership had/have anything worthwhile to say.

Yeah, that and ressentiment are such a waste of everybody's time.

What does that even mean?