David Quinn wrote:As an aside, the second show has poor audio quality and it was only after much debate that we decided to release it. The fact that it is still listenable, and that the quality of discussion is good, eventually over-rode all other considerations.
In regard to the first show, I don't see why Victor thinks that developing unique definitions for certain terms can some how undermine the Truths that they point to. Aside from that, all defintions were at some point unique to the individual or to the particular culture they were derived from. The fact that he thinks any defintion that strays from scientific or social norms makes any conclusion reached by them null and void, is a perfect example of how people stuck in the academic/scientific mind set are just as unconscious as people stuck in the religious mind set, or even the materialistic mindset.
In regards to the second show, I don't see why Nat think's his fear about people taking the ideals of this forum and running with them in a delusional or destructive way is any reason to not make the distintion between conscious and unconscious people. In all actuality if someone wants to act in a delusional and destructive way they will find a way to do it.
It's not all that hard to twist the words and meanings to suit one's own delusional interests. People do this all the time with religion, science, philosophy, spirituality and just about any other institution you can imagine. My point is, we shouldn't water down the truth, because not only will that result in hindering the progress of people with great potential for higher consciousness, but also regardless of these efforts, if it is evil one seeks, they will find a means to this end one way or another.
As for the quality of everyone's voices it was more than adequate for the purpose of the show. Everyone's words were expressed quite clearly.
Unidian wrote:it sounds to me as if someone was repeatedly scoffing quietly at certain points in both shows, and the mic caught this. If this is the case, I think it should be minimized as it undermines the appearance of professionalism.
Yeah, but that's not what he thinks. He just thinks that the conclusions QRS push as "ultimate truths" consist of symbol-manipulations perfomed by QRS on terms they create themselves. In other words, he's saying they are performing a sort of vebal shell game where saying "floopters + arglesnipes = dribblemickets." In his view as I understand it, that is all well and fine when we're dealing with dribblemickets, but meaningless anywhere else. He's saying that such conclusions are only meaningful within the framework implicitly created by those defining the terms. In addition, he's arguing that QRS pronounce synthetic truths as analytic ones but then proceed to undermine this by framing their discussions of the ideas in question in implicitly synthetic terms. The "begging the question" point he makes is also important.
IMO, David and Dan could have countered some of this more effectively by focusing more specifically on A=A, and how the logical idea expressed by it holds true regardless of what terms and definitions we plug into it. They touched on it, but they didn't get to the core of it. It wouldn't have refuted all of Victor's objections, but it would have cut to the core of what was an otherwise rather peripheral and academic portion of the discussion, where an impasse seemed to have been reached. I think that at minimum, a greater focus on A=A would have steered that portion of the conversation back to productive ground, and I think Dan and David largely missed the opportunity to do this.
Nick Treklis wrote:In regard to the first show, I don't see why Victor thinks that developing unique definitions for certain terms can some how undermine the Truths that they point to.
Unidian wrote:I don't disagree. In fact, I feel I was trying to make that point or a similar one during several portions of the show, but I regrettably ended up adopting the terminology Kevin was using regarding "consciousness" when I should have diverged and made my own position clearer. It's an area in which I feel I could have done better.
I donâ€™t understand how the concept 'cake' represents non-duality, and 'pieces of cake' represent duality?
Can any one of you explain how we arrive at non-dual?
Haven't heard the show yet but I'd say that any grasping, arriving or experiencing (or state) is another form of slicing the cake. Any believe in having stopped the slicing is yet another form of slicing.
But that doesn't mean that there's no big cake :)
It's indeed an immense challenge to find a way to link the more mystical or religious concepts of the infinite, totality and god to the world of formal logic and science. It might be those two worlds never really will meet or perhaps it's something for future science to explore its own metaphysical origin and method a bit deeper. And its build-in limitations, which are also part of the question: 'prove it'.
Sapius wrote:Well, what I am asking is how does one arrive at the concept of One Big cake in the first place, and hold that to be the true nature of reality? That reality has some true nature other than what can be grasped, arrived at, experienced and so onâ€¦ . And yet one is claiming in and of duality, (in other words consciousness, or conscious thinking) that some sort of non-duality lies beyond duality, which essentially means that it lies beyond consciousness
Kevin says that they are not really two different things, and dual and non-dual exist at the same time.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest