Examining the fundamentals of QSR's philosophy

[keenobserver]

Who cares if Ks philosophy works for him? All that matters is if it works for you, and for you, and you, E.
So the details of his life are unimportant, as concerns the purpose of this forum.
In fact they may be counter-productive, and almost certainly would be.
Explaining why so few are offered.
Sort of a Do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do parental thing to some extent.
Furthermore, there is no point in thwarting the drive and interest of student egos, no reasonable teacher who stands 1,000 meters above a student is going to clue-in the mini-ego about this. No point in knocking the wind out of her sails.
Nothing to be gained from that.

(did we lose the Quote button, before actual login, which led to Login? Did we lose Next/previous post?)

[keenobserver]

This Jason dude cant really be that dense, and persistent, can he.
Are you make-believe?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

For all you know, all other people could be frauds. So just assume that all other people are frauds,

This is false. Not all other people are frauds, so a seeker of truth should not default to something she knows is a false assumption.

This is finally some true wisdom from you Kevin: timely, fluid, bright, for the exact moment; for the exact person; for the right reasons. It's the difference between teaching and teachings. The world's awash in the latter, and impoverished of the former.

I gave extra consideration to Kevin's suggestion because you are often insightful Pye, but false is false. Perhaps you could expound on why you found the suggestion that I knowingly assume falseness to be an example of wisdom? I even gave credit for the likelihood that Kevin would know that I would balk at falseness, and explored multiple paths of what he could have meant other than a literal translation. I find none satisfactory. What do you see Pye?

[Dan Rowden]

1. How does the content of Kevin's life reflect on the content of his ideas (given that a personal inability to manifest concepts doesn't necessarily speak against them)?

2. What difference does any conflict between the above make to your personal development?

3. On what grounds would you trust anything Kevin claims about his life anyway?

[Ataraxia]

David Quinn;

I've only recently begun reading your book,it's very promising.However I'm loathe to progress to the 2nd chapter without logically proofing the 1st chapter to my own satisfaction first.

I have a problem with something contained in the The Furtherest Galaxy section which appears to me a logical leap.

In truth, we are constantly having a say over the behaviour of the furtherest galaxy, even at this very moment. For example, we are not, at this very moment, suddenly transforming ourselves into giant space-goats and dashing off faster than the speed of light in order to gobble the galaxy up. The very fact that we are not doing this allows the galaxy to continue existing. That is a pretty large influence in anyone’s book!

This proof appears spurious to me.It's saying 'because we are not ,but hypothetically we could,therefore we are'

I'm wondering if you could expand on this logic or direct me to a thread where this has been explained or elaborated on.

The 2 leaves on tree example further on doesn't really speak to this problem I'm having.I can conceive their connectedness.They don't require the above hypothetical.

[Pye]

Elizabeth writes:

I gave extra consideration to Kevin's suggestion because you are often insightful Pye, but false is false. Perhaps you could expound on why you found the suggestion that I knowingly assume falseness to be an example of wisdom? I even gave credit for the likelihood that Kevin would know that I would balk at falseness, and explored multiple paths of what he could have meant other than a literal translation. I find none satisfactory. What do you see Pye?

I return to my original point, Kevin's original point, and now Dan's questions above to reiterate the wisdom I see in directing yours or anyone's seeking toward their own word/deed alignment, and not the word/deed alignment of others. That's what my post was about. What sort of falseness are you in reference to above? The way Kevin lives his life vs. his philosophy? And he's just the beginning! You will have a lifetime of activity detecting the falseness in others, and thus a lifetime wasted not detecting it in yourself.

btw, regarding your little potshot moniker "minion," clearly, you take no note of the word "finally" in what I said of Kevin, and you demonstrate once again that you have not given my 400 some odd posts near the courtesy of reading as I have the first 3,500 of yours.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

1. How does the content of Kevin's life reflect on the content of his ideas (given that a personal inability to manifest concepts doesn't necessarily speak against them)?

2. What difference does any conflict between the above make to your personal development?

3. On what grounds would you trust anything Kevin claims about his life anyway?

Dan,

I was on to the next point, but I recognize that I did not clearly close out my complaints. My objection is still valid for some people, but I recognize how it is inconsequential to others.

answers:
1. Without experiential validation that his ideas work, that is all they are is ideas. There is nothing wrong with that if they are accurately represented as ideas based on research of literature and thinking. If someone looks to Kevin's behavior and attitudes and thinks to himself that he would like to be like Kevin, and it turns out that an essential element to having Kevin's demeanor is his intermittent relationships with women and occasional visits to music festivals, and whatever else he does for enjoyment - which one does not learn about without extensive digging - then we have people going down a potentially damaging path due to misperceptions. Kevin doesn't even recommend that people scorn all forms of enjoyment right out of the starting gate, but by giving the general impression that he does and that he did, it encourages damaging behavior - all the while he is actually participating in occasional activities merely for the pleasure of it.

I do not see anything wrong with doing some things merely for the pleasure of it so long as there is no harm to it. In fact I believe that taking some pleasure in life is a beneficial thing so long as it is done ethically, but a major component of the philosophy here is that experiencing positive emotions leads to experiencing negative emotions - and the only way to rid one's self of all negative emotions was to rid one's self of all emotions. I didn't believe that but most of my faith is, and was, in objective evaluation, so back in October I gave it a try for evaluative purposes. I tried to set aside all of my emotions even though most of them were positive to see if that would be helpful in extinguishing the negative emotions. I was sure that I could contain it as a brief experiment, but I spiraled into a hell that I am only now escaping from. Had I seen then that the QRS, even in their "advanced" stages, still participate in pleasure-inducing activities, or even had the members of the board seen that sufficiently to not give me the reaction they did about how awful happiness is, the experiment that sent me into months of hell would not have been necessary. At the very least, I intend to clearly label the gates of hell for what they are so that perhaps some others won't fall into them.

2. My personal development includes the guidance of others - much like it seems to me that you, Kevin, and David view yourselves as, in part, guides to others. I am a spiritual warrior, fighting for Truth. I recognize that you view yourselves as doing the same, so although we appear opposed on this issue, I hope that through sufficient effort we can slaughter the falseness together.

3. When put right to it, Kevin does not seem to directly lie. That is why I bother with him at all. I point out the falseness one piece at a time - like I pointed out the falseness quoted above that he had sandwiched in confectionery-like advice, and like I had asked him many months ago to update his personal profile to include a more accurate reflection of his emotional life than saying his last girlfriend was when he was about 12 years old. I'm not sure if I am just projecting my hopes onto Kevin when I think that he means to be more truthful than he comes across as, but that is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is that I encourage truthfulness from Kevin. The obvious question is "Why focus on Kevin?" - Kevin is only one focus point because he claims to be trying to guide people to the Truth. If you want to stop a flood, you plug the leaks in any segments of the dams before you grab a bucket.

Pye,

Eegads, I didn't expect you to take the "minion" comment that personally - and I did note the "finally" word. As I said, you are often insightful - which is not something I would say to a parrot.

I was wondering if I am trying Kevin's patience with the Christianity-based allegory, and kind of suspect from Dan's responses that Dan may still have some leftover hang-ups from his Catholic upbringing that are preventing him from appreciating the literary device, but I thought you were removed enough that you could handle one little minion jab. It seems that David appreciated the humor, but a number of others seem to find hellacious humor too hot to handle.

Now back on topic, yes, I am looking at myself as well, and I recognize my imperfections and am working on them. The point you seem to be forgetting is that if only the perfect may help others, then no one may receive the benefit of help from others. I believe that we can all benefit more if we all try to help others as well as ourselves than if we all merely minded our own personal business. To the extent that we are all One, minding someone else's business is minding our own business.

[Pye]

Elizabeth writes:

I was wondering if I am trying Kevin's patience with the Christianity-based allegory, and kind of suspect from Dan's responses that Dan may still have some leftover hang-ups from his Catholic upbringing that are preventing him from appreciating the literary device, but I thought you were removed enough that you could handle one little minion jab. It seems that David appreciated the humor, but a number of others seem to find hellacious humor too hot to handle.

It would be true, Elizabeth, that I don't possess full understanding of when you are being humorous and when you not not. It is true that sometimes I don't really know if, or if not, with you. Some others, I have learned the clear turn in their language and the smile in their voice when they are being humorous. This I don't seem to be able to see as clearly with you.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

That's understandable. Even in person, a lot of times my humor is so dry that people do not understand when I am joking until they see the half-grin a moment later - then they burst out laughing. Emoticons just wouldn't convey my exact meaning well under most circumstances, though.

Actually, even in person after they laugh, sometimes they miss it. I recognized that after one of my classmates did her entire presentation pronouncing a particular form of therapy as "Fraudian" after listening to me make one of my jokes. Oops. It was kind of funny watching the professor though, as he was trying to figure out if he was hearing her correctly.

[Dan Rowden]

1. Without experiential validation that his ideas work, that is all they are is ideas.

Ok, but this experiential validation can only come from you (and others for themselves) and not from Kevin. This is the essence of the problem I see, plus that you're not taking into account significant aspects of what Kevin has said about matters. Let's look at Kevin as a template for those issues: He would no doubt agree that it's good to set the best example that one can, according to one's karma. However, that is a key issue: one's karma sets the stage for the example one can offer. Kevin does not claim to be perfect, although much of his presented philosophy expresses the ideal of perfection - as it must to be coherent. He has stated that he is sometimes at 70% and other times 10%. Since he has said this, it doesn't mean much that aspects of his life at times more closely reflect those percentages than they do the ideal. Indeed, it shows the authenticity of his words and philosophy that this is so. Close scrutiny of the detail of his life would really only make sense if he claimed to be perfect, and even then, it wouldn't falsify his ideas, per se, but only any claim he made to be perfect. His perceived personal failure to exemplify a dimension of his philosophical perspective does not invalidate it; it doesn't even cast serious doubt over it. It may, however, suggest the difficulty of it, but that is a fact already attested to.

This kind of scrutiny is really more useful and applicable to those who have not yet reached a point where they can readily discern - for themselves - subtle forms of dissonance. I suspect, but may be wrong, that to some extent he perceives such scrutiny as a case of people trying to tell him stuff he already knows. i.e. for him it's pretty redundant.

Having said all of that, I'll add two things by way of a measure of concession: 1) Kevin does need to update the content of his profile; as it stands it does not accurately reflect his life (indeed all our profiles might need some updating); 2) Looking at aspects of his - or my or David's - life might be somewhat illuminating in terms of pointing out problems that can creep into a person's mind and behaviour. If that's the motive behind such scrutiny then I can see some value in it. Of course, there's the added dimension that addressing what we perceive as "problems" in our behaviour and mental state only has such value if there's already agreement upon and an understanding of the fact of said problems.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I'll take concession #1, and although I agree with concession #2, I do not think it is necessary. What I think it actually would be is magnanimous. Yet, what concession #2 tells me, if anything, is that you still don't seem to see what I was pointing at.

All I was saying - well let me put it in a parable.

A young girl walked up to an old woman and said "My, what a lovely dress."

The old woman responded "Thank you; I made it myself."

"You did?" the young girl gasped with her eyes wide open "How did you do that?"

"Why" the old woman chuckled "I took the wool off the sheep, I spun it, weaved it, and fashioned it into this dress. You could do that too, if you wanted to."

"Oh, I do!" cried the girl.

"That's wonderful" the old woman crooned "but you run along and play now, because I have to mind the kettle."

The little girls ran along as she was told, and thought about the old woman's instructions. It sounded easy enough, so she went to find a sheep. A lone ewe was grazing in the meadow, and the girl ever so gently approached it. She petted the ewe as she inspected it, looking for where the wool was supposed to come off. The ewe started getting a bit nervous as the girl proceeded with her inspection, and began bleating, and hopping around a bit. The girl grabbed onto the wool as the sheep started to bound away. The girl stumbled a bit, then gained her footing - all the while still holding the wool. The sheep twisted it's neck around and bit the girl's wrist, severing her hand.

Do you understand what I'm getting at now Dan?

[Dan Rowden]

Probably not, but then parables are not my strong point, which is likely why I failed as a Xian. You seem to be suggesting Kevin could be more forthcoming with information about his own path so as to provide information to others wishing to follow how best to avoid trouble and pitfalls. Is that close?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Not only are you not even in the ballpark, you might be in the bowling alley. I'm saying that giving partial information while giving the impression of giving full information can lead to disastrous consequences in those who believe that following the directions will lead to an end result just like the picture on the package.

By Q and S presenting themselves as enlightened sages, the implication was that they knew how to get there because that's how they got there, so if you follow their prescription, you too can be an enlightened sage. David has been forthcoming about his parameters, which is very respectable. The best we got out of Kevin was when Nat pressed him enough to get 10%-70% enlightened as a quote from Kevin. I grant you that is an improvement over "enlightened sage" as a general, self-ordained title.

All I was asking for is what you have already given as concession #1. At this point I am just trying to make sure you understand why I wanted that concession.

[Sapius]

Jason to David,

You didn't answer one of my questions from the last post, and I'd really like you to, I think it could prove to be pivotal for this discussion,

Jason, some fine arguments there. I think most of your coherently articulated points deserve responses.
I will look forward to whenever that happens. May be David is busy with other things.

[David Quinn]

Ataraxia,

David Quinn;

I've only recently begun reading your book,it's very promising.However I'm loathe to progress to the 2nd chapter without logically proofing the 1st chapter to my own satisfaction first.

I have a problem with something contained in the The Furtherest Galaxy section which appears to me a logical leap.

In truth, we are constantly having a say over the behaviour of the furtherest galaxy, even at this very moment. For example, we are not, at this very moment, suddenly transforming ourselves into giant space-goats and dashing off faster than the speed of light in order to gobble the galaxy up. The very fact that we are not doing this allows the galaxy to continue existing. That is a pretty large influence in anyone’s book!

This proof appears spurious to me.It's saying 'because we are not ,but hypothetically we could,therefore we are'

I'm wondering if you could expand on this logic or direct me to a thread where this has been explained or elaborated on.

Given that my existence, form and behaviour is entirely dictated by causes, it automatically becomes true that the causes which shape myself have implications for everything else in the Universe. For if my underlying causes were to change, my form would change and the effects of my actions would change. And if the changes in my form were significant enough, then yes, even the furtherest galaxy could be affected.

Although this point seems hypothetical on the surface, it actually points to the truth that all of us are fluid entities that are constantly changing, that none of us are aware of all the causes which form us, and that everything is indeed interconnected through causation.

We can see examples of this dynamic in human history. For example, it would have been inconceivable to people hundreds of years ago that a few words uttered by a single man could cause, in a matter of hours, the destruction of an entire city on the other side of the world. Such a prospect would have been thought hypothetical and magical. And yet that is precisely what happened when the US president ordered the atomic bombing of Japanese cities during WW2.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

none of us are aware of all the causes which form us

I agree that we can not know literally all of our causes, but I wish to submit that the more of our causes we are aware of, the more conscious we are - and a highly conscious person would know figuratively all of their own causes.

[David Quinn]

Jason,

DQ: I can mentally split up any object at will. Can't you?

Jason: Depends, for one thing I'm still not convinced that it can be proven beyond doubt that splitting of objects is done by the mind. Let me give you some examples why. Imagine a situation in which you hear a voice, but you can't locate the source of it, there appears to be no person or loudspeaker etc anywhere, but yet you continue to hear this voice. Now, could you say for certain that the voice was not simply a product of your imagination? That shows the difficulty in correctly differentiating between what originates in the mind and what doesn't.

I'm not sure that I see your point. I have no trouble mentally splitting the voice into its parts, regardless of its origin.

Or another example: try to alter or remove a particular boundary that exists in your visual field, say the border that exists between the text and the background on your computer screen. Can you do it? Probably not. What does that say about boundaries? If you think that the ability for some boundaries to change, apparently by the power of mind, is proof that all boundaries are mind created, then what about counter-examples like this?

You seem to be equating the appearance of physical contrasts in the moment (such as black text on a white background) with boundaries, which is creating some confusion here.

A thing can appear to have sharp boundaries, in the sense of being sharply contrasted with what is not it, and yet the mind can determine that its boundaries lay elsewhere. I gave an example of this in my book. The Australian government determines that the boundaries of Australia lay in the sea, 15 miles off the coast, and not at the actual coast itself.

So the determination of where a things begins and ends is a mental activity, which is a separate issue to that of physical contrasts. However, having said that, even physical contrasts cannot really be located. For example, if we were to zoom up into the black text on the computer screen, the sharp lines of the text would quickly give way to fuzzy pixels and then to photons and electrons, etc, making it impossible for us to locate where the text physically begins and ends.

Another problem I see, and one which you seem to think you addressed, but I don't think you did, is the time aspect. Assuming for arguments sake that I did agree that the mind was responsible for creating bounaries. All I could really say for certain is: I have memories, which are inherently uncertain(alien implanted, drugs, memory lapse whatever), of mentally splitting up objects, and I could use that uncertain memory as a basis to make still more uncertain speculations that my mind could split objects up at some future date.

The fact still remains that I can mentally split up any object in the present moment at will. The issue of time needn't come into it.

J: But if that is the type of proof you think is relevant I've got a humdinger for you:

"It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical Jason being faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. The key point is that Jason has the capacity to be Superman at any time."

DQ:He does have that capacity, if the conditions are ripe.

J: Alright, what about this one(which is a very slightly modified version of what you originally wrote):

"It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical observer not mentally breaking the thing into parts. The key point is that a thing does not have the capacity to be mentally split into parts at any time."

I mean if you reckon hypotheticals are enough proof, then this would seem just as viable as the alternative you offer.

The fact that I can mentally split up an object at will is sufficient for me. The possibility that others might not have this ability isn't relevant.

My point about the "hypothetical observer" was to illustrate that an object can be mentally slit up at any time. Even if you are choosing not to do it in a particular moment, it still has that capacity nonetheless. It doesn't matter if this "hypothetical observer" actually exists or not.

J: If there is nothing but/beyond/behind direct appearances of the moment, then why use the words "project onto reality"? That gives the impression that there is something beyond that can be projected onto. It suggests that appearances and boundaries are less real, because they are projected over real reality.

DQ: It helps people break free of the idea that things inherently or objectively exist.

J: So this argument of yours about "projecting" boundaries onto reality is not actually truth, it's just a teaching method? A technique you use to mold peoples minds into the shape you want, despite the fact you know it is ultimately false? Isn't it kind of dishonest to try discuss truth on a philosophy forum knowingly using false ideas presented as truth?

DQ: The conflict you are seeing isn't really there.

J: Using something which is not fundamentally true to overcome delusion is like using a belief in the Easter Bunny to overcome belief in Santa Claus.

A delusion cannot be overcome unless the thing used to overcome it has more truth-content than the delusion in question.

So it's a matter of overcoming successive delusions until all you have left are thoughts that are 100% free of delusion.

DQ: There is no such thing as truth, other than the overturning of delusion.

If there is no such thing as truth, then what is delusion?

A delusion is a mistaken thought about Reality. Truth is a corrective to those mistaken thoughts. When all mistaken thoughts have vanished, one no longer has any need of truth.

When a fire burns all the wood and there is nothing left but ashes, the fire itself goes out.

DQ: For example, the truth that "boundaries are projected onto reality" gains its truth from the way it overturns the delusion that boundaries inherently exist within the fabric of a physical world imagined to be objectively existing.

J: You seem to be saying that truth is truth simply because it displaces current delusions, not because it accurately reflects reality.

I'm saying both. That which overcomes a current delusion reflects reality to a greater extent than the delusion.

DQ: This is how all teaching and all articulation of truth operates. The process of becoming enlightened is one of getting rid of successive delusions, each more subtle than the last, until there are none left. And when that finally happens, the concept of truth no longer has any meaning.

J: So why are you continually writing about truth on this forum if the concept of truth has no meaning?

Because I value what lies beyond the duality of truth and delusion. The only way to become aware of what lies beyond truth and delusion is by getting rid of delusion. Hence my valuing of truth.

It is similar to why I value the masculine, even though my focus is really on what lies beyond the masculine and the feminine.

You didn't answer one of my questions from the last post, and I'd really like you to, I think it could prove to be pivotal for this discussion, so here it is again:

Quote:
DQ: Maybe we are at cross-purposes here. I agree with you that in a particular moment the boundaries that we experience form the bedrock of reality. But this doesn't conflict with idea that boundaries are imaginary projections.

J: Again, projected onto or over what?

On what is imagined to be a physical world objectively existing.

-

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth,

DQ: none of us are aware of all the causes which form us

E: I agree that we can not know literally all of our causes, but I wish to submit that the more of our causes we are aware of, the more conscious we are - and a highly conscious person would know figuratively all of their own causes.

"Figuratively"?

It doesn't matter how conscious a person becomes, his knowledge and awareness of his own causes will always be miniscule compared to his ignorance of them. The infinite array of causes which led to his formation will always stretch infinitely beyond his horizons, no matter how large his mind becomes.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

David,

Yes, hence figuratively rather than literally. Figuratively all of one's causes would include a good understanding of the layers of causality that most immediately (on a historical timeline) caused the bulk of the general form of our manifestation. Figuratively all would include such things as the impact of our current thinking on our lives, and how that thinking developed (including key events as well as generalities), inclusive of the impact of experiences in this lifetime, which would also include manifestations of our genetic and biochemical make-up (which also includes such things as alterations through nutrition and poisons). Knowing exactly how each of our cells (etc.) developed would be part of knowing literally all of our causes, but outside the realm of figuratively all of our causes - as would knowing where and how each of those causes were caused, and their causes, and so forth throughout time, but having a general awareness of that process would be part of figuratively all. Also outside the realm would be the bulk of the causes outside the direct causes of any of our manifestations in this physical lifespan, and even causes that are inconsequential to our current state of being (inconsequential to the extent that there are multiple ways to arrive at a certain point, but how one got there is not always germane to the point. If you had a visitor in town who called you from a local store to clarify directions to your house, you would not need to know how they got to the store in order to tell them to take a left or a right when leaving the parking lot).