The Call for Debate Thread

[Kelly Jones]

I think Tamina's post should be moved to the Genius Forum. She isn't debating the topic, but looking for more information.

[Kelly Jones]

Call for debate:

Alex Jacobs and myself debate the topic "Genius and mental illness are inseparable". Are you willing to take up the positive, Alex?

(Definition for genius: a virtually perfect understanding of the nature of Ultimate Reality).

If yes, what debate rules would you suggest?

[Alex Jacob]

It is not black and white enough, Kelly, to make a positive assertion about it. I think I referred to Nietzsche and Weininger recently as giving evidence of a very troubled context (National Socialism and deep upsets in the fabric of German society), but it is not my assertion that mental illness appears in all geniuses. I appreciate that Kevin and Dave and Dan seek to place a great emphasis on 'genius', and to explain it, set it apart, identify it with masculinity. I can and will say that there are aspects to this emphasis that I value, and have incorporated.

I do however think that a peculiar trend in Western intellectualism can lead to a sort of over-heating of the mind. Carl Jung seemed to be aware of this when he was working through some intense, psychic and intellectual periods, and to get through it he availed himself of certain 'Eastern breathing techniques'. I distinctly felt, in Nietzsche's case, that he pushed himself over the line, but that he also suffered from a sort of internal fracturing due to unsolvable emotional issues.

I do not believe that you or anyone here has a 'virtually perfect understanding of the nature of ultimate reality' (why did you include the word virtually?) You seem to have a very limited grasp of life, and have impoverished mental lives.

I think that this sort of idea [enlightenment] is Eastern exclusively, yogic, and represents a 'mood of the mind' more than anything substantial. I believe that in you (plural)---semi-educated rustics with limited literacy---this notion functions like a dangerous narcotic, it intoxicates you, it poisons you, you get very filled up with yourself, but it also deforms you. The conclusion I am beginning to form is that, at least in some ways, you are intellectual casualties who are externalizing a pathology having to do with core disunity of personality.

To concoct a diagnosis should also mean that one could recommend a cure, yet it seems to me that the nature of the neurosis is such that it itself resists any possible cure. The resisting of cure is part of the pathology? There was once a patient with deep-seated mental issues. Yet, she kept seeing her psychologist though she was not open to his council. One day she described a dream she had of a 'fantastic flying machine' that was huge, vast, intricate and yet exciting, complex, meaningful. Her psychologist lightly suggested that, perhaps, this 'flying machine' was emblematic of her neurosis, to which she immediately asserted 'No!' with tremendous adamancy. He was never able to help her to break through her machine-like neurosis...(It was a female patient, I am not just doing this because you are female).

At this point, after one year, I think of you-all in this way, I am sorry to say. Neurotics with elaborate defenses, elaborate machines that must be defended.

[Kelly Jones]

That's a definite positive. To paraphrase yourself: those who talk about a virtually perfect understanding of the nature of Ultimate Reality are intellectually deformed. I'll put the topic slightly differently: "Wisdom of the Infinite is inseparable from neurosis." Title: "Wisdom inseparable from neurosis" for short. For the purposes of this discussion, the Wisdom of the Infinite means "having a virtually perfect understanding of the nature of Ultimate Reality".

If you're happy with that, I suggest these rules for the debate:

We each make an opening post of 500 words, with Alex Jacobs starting with the positive case; followed by two sets of responses, each 250 words in length; then one set of closing remarks, of 250 words each. That makes 8 posts in total for this debate, four each.

No quotations, argumentum ad hominem, or references to external authorities, will be permitted. There is no time limit on responses; the debate is open until the last closing remarks are submitted. A second thread for discussing this topic is read-only for us two, until the debate is complete. By necessity, we will both be referring to our own understanding of wisdom of the Infinite, and of neurosis, to argue our cases, as there is no other way, but this is not a breach of argumentum ad hominem.

If this is fine with you, then we can begin.


KJ

[David Quinn]

It is not black and white enough, Kelly, to make a positive assertion about it. I think I referred to Nietzsche and Weininger recently as giving evidence of a very troubled context (National Socialism and deep upsets in the fabric of German society), but it is not my assertion that mental illness appears in all geniuses. I appreciate that Kevin and Dave and Dan seek to place a great emphasis on 'genius', and to explain it, set it apart, identify it with masculinity. I can and will say that there are aspects to this emphasis that I value, and have incorporated.

I do however think that a peculiar trend in Western intellectualism can lead to a sort of over-heating of the mind. Carl Jung seemed to be aware of this when he was working through some intense, psychic and intellectual periods, and to get through it he availed himself of certain 'Eastern breathing techniques'. I distinctly felt, in Nietzsche's case, that he pushed himself over the line, but that he also suffered from a sort of internal fracturing due to unsolvable emotional issues.

I do not believe that you or anyone here has a 'virtually perfect understanding of the nature of ultimate reality' (why did you include the word virtually?) You seem to have a very limited grasp of life, and have impoverished mental lives.

I think that this sort of idea [enlightenment] is Eastern exclusively, yogic, and represents a 'mood of the mind' more than anything substantial. I believe that in you (plural)---semi-educated rustics with limited literacy---this notion functions like a dangerous narcotic, it intoxicates you, it poisons you, you get very filled up with yourself, but it also deforms you. The conclusion I am beginning to form is that, at least in some ways, you are intellectual casualties who are externalizing a pathology having to do with core disunity of personality.

To concoct a diagnosis should also mean that one could recommend a cure, yet it seems to me that the nature of the neurosis is such that it itself resists any possible cure. The resisting of cure is part of the pathology? There was once a patient with deep-seated mental issues. Yet, she kept seeing her psychologist though she was not open to his council. One day she described a dream she had of a 'fantastic flying machine' that was huge, vast, intricate and yet exciting, complex, meaningful. Her psychologist lightly suggested that, perhaps, this 'flying machine' was emblematic of her neurosis, to which she immediately asserted 'No!' with tremendous adamancy. He was never able to help her to break through her machine-like neurosis...(It was a female patient, I am not just doing this because you are female).

At this point, after one year, I think of you-all in this way, I am sorry to say. Neurotics with elaborate defenses, elaborate machines that must be defended.

The trouble is, Alex, you keep repeating these claims so often that they are beginning to sound like a mantra. Who are you trying to convince - us or yourself?

-

[David Quinn]

That's a definite positive. To paraphrase yourself: those who talk about a virtually perfect understanding of the nature of Ultimate Reality are intellectually deformed. I'll put the topic slightly differently: "Wisdom of the Infinite is inseparable from neurosis." Title: "Wisdom inseparable from neurosis" for short. For the purposes of this discussion, the Wisdom of the Infinite means "having a virtually perfect understanding of the nature of Ultimate Reality".

I don't understand why you have included the word "virtually" either.

Apart from that, it's a good topic. It is a modern myth that there is "a fine line between genius and madness", so it would be interesting to see if the debate can expose this.

-

[Kelly Jones]

For the scope of this debate, it's not important whether wisdom is defined as a perfect or virtually perfect understanding.

I included the word "virtually" it to indicate the gap between intellectual knowledge and willingness to apply. My view is that the wise individual does not wish there to be a gap, and is doing what he can to decrease it.

Apart from that, it's a good topic. It is a modern myth that there is "a fine line between genius and madness", so it would be interesting to see if the debate can expose this.

That's the one I'm interested in. To me it hinges on the two schizo typologies (individual vs herdly-minded). I think that would be the clearest approach.

So, now it's up to Alex. How will it be, Alex?

[Alex Jacob]

I'm flattered that you'd want to 'debate' with me, Kelly. I don't think it requires such a formal arrangement to discuss the few points that might be brought out. I think we just have to accept a sort of irreconcilability of viewpoints. Is it that you hope that in that structure of argument you will do better? or I will do worse?

If this conversation interests you, stay with it right here.

The problem is, in respect to "To paraphrase yourself: those who talk about a virtually perfect understanding of the nature of Ultimate Reality are intellectually deformed", is that I am referring to my sense of you and you-plural, those who rally round that flag, the usual suspects here, and not to a philosopher or philosophers who may conjecture about 'ultimate reality'. I am not making any statement about anyone but you.

Since there is no way for you to demonstrate, in any concrete way, what is 'ultimate reality' or even that there is an 'ultimate reality', the conversation is skewed from the start. I don't accept the terms of discourse, except in pointing out why the term seems flawed. And that is basically what I am saying: that you suppose you have access to some special knowledge about 'ultimate reality' indicates to me---largely because of all you negate in the process of your assertion---that you have not one, not two, but a number of screws loose. Still, this does not mean that one cannot speculate about 'ultimate reality', or engage in philosophy about it, or even make known one's religious sentiments. In the sense that Trevor indicated, perhaps---at least vis-a-vis you-plural---I am explaining a more pragmatic position, but I try to do this only through common sense, nothing fancy. I am winging it but flying very close to the ground.

"I included the word "virtually" it to indicate the gap between intellectual knowledge and willingness to apply [that knowledge]. My view is that the wise individual does not wish there to be a gap, and is doing what he can to decrease it."

Well, it is in that filling of a gap one does not wish to be there that problems seem to arise. I wonder if a word might be 'discomfort with uncertainty' and therefor a forced 'filling in the gap'. I can't consider it ultimate knowledge, though in a sense it is ultimate for me, but in certain states I have experienced I feel I have caught a glimpse 'ultimate things' (the way things are, ultimately). If I have those intimations, and you also have those intimations, and your ideas lead you to conclude things radically different from myself, however could that be resolved?

[Kelly Jones]

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like the debate to proceed more formally. The only reason why is because it will give everyone a very clear and definitive exposition of your views on sanity and genius / wisdom.

This way, your argument would turn on what you define the problem to be. Your points would rest on a definition of what the Genius Forum is about, and why it's teaching something insane. It wouldn't turn on argumentum ad hominem, which is what is currently happening.

Has this helped to explain the reason I called for debate?


KJ

[Kelly Jones]

Alex, I think it'd be good for us both to take a few days off, to prepare for our respective sides of the debate.

I'll head off and have a few games of squash --- er, conduct some deep, inner-being-reflecting prayers and fasting.

Cheerio.

[Alex Jacob]

David,

Only through repetition can the pupil make the material his own. I repeat, I suppose, because one day---perhaps before the Apocalypse---some eetsie-bitsy part of this will make it through your thick skull. One day, in the future, these seeds I have planted are going to germinate and grow in you. Then, a glorious and deeply beautiful flower will appear out of your nostril, and lo! it shall be a sort of carnivorous Venus fly-trap, and it will see you and smile, wink once or twice, and then devour you right then and there!

Kelly,

If you really wish to go through this dreary rehearsal, then you should begin with a 500 word assertion explaining just what you are representing---your idea about the path of wisdom---what it entails and what it must negate, what you do, the way you live, what you think you must avoid, etc. If it turns out that I am in opposition to that, perhaps we can find something to 'debate'.

You wrote previously:

"Alex Jacobs and myself debate the topic "Genius and mental illness are inseparable". Are you willing to take up the positive, Alex?"

This is not now and never has been my assertion, what you have written is completely absurd, and it is not something I can debate with you.

Again you wrote:

"That's a definite positive. To paraphrase yourself: those who talk about a virtually perfect understanding of the nature of Ultimate Reality are intellectually deformed. I'll put the topic slightly differently: "Wisdom of the Infinite is inseparable from neurosis."

I have written, time and time again, in different ways, both seriously and with [exquisite] irony, that y'alls ideas about 'genius' 'wisdom' and 'enlightenment' seem to me very much off the mark. Your ideas about these things seem pretty screwed up. However, this does not mean that someone, somewhere, could not discuss these things and meet my approval. Do you understand this separation, my darling little rabbit-brain?

Now, if you wish to set up a sort of (excuse the pun) kangaroo-court of debate in which you extract some skewed conclusion you make of what I write and think, then I suggest you elect someone among you for my role, and you-all can then collaborate on what my assertions and responses might be, and the debate would be a perfect idiocy for a forum of Australian geniuses!

[Kelly Jones]

Since there is no way for you to demonstrate, in any concrete way, what is 'ultimate reality' or even that there is an 'ultimate reality', the conversation is skewed from the start.

Can no one at all define ultimate reality in a rational, truthful way? If yes, then you need to make the case in this debate.

And that is basically what I am saying: that you suppose you have access to some special knowledge about 'ultimate reality' indicates to me---largely because of all you negate in the process of your assertion---that you have not one, not two, but a number of screws loose.

Is it true for anyone that their thinking is false on the matter, if they suppose they do know for certain, and not speculatively the nature of Ultimate Reality? If yes, then you need to make the case in the debate, and not here.

in certain states I have experienced I feel I have caught a glimpse 'ultimate things' (the way things are, ultimately). If I have those intimations, and you also have those intimations, and your ideas lead you to conclude things radically different from myself, however could that be resolved?

All that is needed is a logical definition for 'the way things are ultimately'. Where the definition is illogical, then there is no need for resolution of anything. I think you should place your definition of the way things are ultimately, in this debate.


KJ

[Kelly Jones]

Alex,

Have you decided you would not like to debate this topic?

The commentary thread is for others to discuss the debate. You really should refrain from posting there, unless you have definitely decided that there are no grounds for debate (though there obviously are).

If you turn down the debate, I will invite you to a one-on-one discussion in the Crucible. It will be titled "Debate: Is wisdom inseparable from neurosis?"


KJ

[Alex Jacob]

"All that is needed is a logical definition for 'the way things are ultimately'."

Logic is useful in science, for example in a description of the physical universe (what we can know about it), the laws that govern it, etc. In that arena, to discuss 'ultimate reality', one needs to be a scientist or to have a strong interest in science. That would be, or could be, a factual conversation, a logical conversation.

But when you use the term 'ultimate reality', I do not have a sense of what you are talking about. There is no way, except by guessing or inferring from patching together what you have written, that I could assemble a definition of your 'ultimate reality'.

When David, as he has in recent posts, talks about enlightenment as a step far above exalted emotion, he is referring to something abstract, to an idea of enlightenment, or to what someone could glean from the writings of the 'enlightened'. He refrains from talking about enlightenment in the first person, yet if he did, one would know it is himself talking about his own experience. It would be, of course, evidence derived from experience.

Similarly, when you use this word, I wish that you would speak about it not as something abstract, and not as something defined, but as something personal that you know about, and that you offer a definition of.

What, Kelly, is 'ultimate reality'? What is the 'ultimate reality'? How do you know it? How has it become logically known to you?

"Is it true for anyone that their thinking is false on the matter, if they suppose they do know for certain, and not speculatively the nature of Ultimate Reality? If yes, then you need to make the case in the debate, and not here."

Again, it is in science that laws are defined, theories are formed, that are amenable to logical analysis. There are concrete ways that these questions can be proved (and disproved). If I assert that the 'ultimate reality' is, say, a cosmic strawberry attached to Shiva's belly-button, I don't think you could either prove it or disprove it. If I said we should debate it, and that I could present it to you 'logically', you might think I too had a screw loose.

Some yogis and some mystics make assertions, usually based on their experiences (of a spiritual, revelatory or mystical nature) about 'ultimate reality'. I know for certain that Paramahansa Yogananda had those experiences, and put his experiences into words. Are you talking about something like this? Can you provide an example of anyone---any sage, any philosopher, and mystic, or even any scientist---who offers a description of 'ultimate reality'? If you helped to clarify what you are talking about there might be a possibility of discussing it, which might provide an opportunity to debate some aspect of it.

In answer to the above question. Mystics (et al) offer mystical views of 'reality' that appear to me useful to an incarnated being living on the Earth planet, but only insofar as the idea, the model, or the symbol, offers an ethic by which to live. True, the more transcendental philosophies often have a transcendental end in mind, whereas a pragmatic philosophy keeps its nose to the ground as it were. It is in looking at, considering, the ethic offered that one can analyse the philosophy and cosmology that produced it. Do these kinds of visions of 'ultimate reality' have a last word? do they literally describe reality? Personally, I don't think they do. I think they may allude to truths though. That is my understanding anyway.

"Can no one at all define ultimate reality in a rational, truthful way?"

Anyone can define anything they wish to define. One can, in science, on the basis of scanty evidence, jump to any conclusion on want to, but of course it might all be disproved by someone who is handling the information more thoroughly, or who takes the issue seriously enough. In science, is anyone yet offering an ultimate understanding of reality? I don't think that they are, but there is a great deal of speculation.

Who do you wish to present as offering a model, a description, of 'ultimate reality'? What is the model you propose? This seems to me axial.

[Kelly Jones]

Finally! The above post constitutes definitional remarks by Alex, rather than ad hominem arguments.

Alex clearly prefers a free-flowing discussion to a structured debate, but this discussion really oughtn't continue in the "Call for Debate" thread. I'm fine with Alex's wish to continue the discussion, as well as with his free-flowing format, so....

Can a board administrator please decide: should his last post become the opening post in the debate thread? It would be a debate using the free-flowing format that Alex prefers.

I personally would prefer this discussion be one-on-one. Alex is happily engaging in parallel discussions on the same topic in various other threads, but I would like to narrow the field down to Alex's views discussed with himself. This would help to retain focus on the topic.


KJ

[Alex Jacob]

It actually constitutes a request for definition of your terms, by you.

Ad hominem is used on this forum by almost everyone, when they feel it is convenient and necessary to do so.

Since Kelly---charmingly---likes the appearance of directing the show, will the management of this loco-bin please make the post in question the first post of a new thread, and entitle it:

"Alex Condescends to Discuss 'Ultimate Reality' with an Inmate in a Cyber-Nuthouse".

This would please me much.

(That is, if you can pull yourselves away from Nirvana for a moment or two...)

[Kelly Jones]

We can discuss the place of ad hominem in the thread, if you wish.

How about this:

"Debate: Is a person who claims to understand 'Ultimate Reality', a total nutter?"

[edit: I had to shorten it to " 'Ultimate Reality' claims are totally nutty' " because of a word limit.]

[David Quinn]

When David, as he has in recent posts, talks about enlightenment as a step far above exalted emotion, he is referring to something abstract, to an idea of enlightenment, or to what someone could glean from the writings of the 'enlightened'.

The enlightenment that I talk about is the very opposite of the abstract. It is as concrete as concrete as can be.

He refrains from talking about enlightenment in the first person, yet if he did, one would know it is himself talking about his own experience. It would be, of course, evidence derived from experience.

Everything I write is in the first person, and very personal to me.

Only through repetition can the pupil make the material his own. I repeat, I suppose, because one day---perhaps before the Apocalypse---some eetsie-bitsy part of this will make it through your thick skull. One day, in the future, these seeds I have planted are going to germinate and grow in you. Then, a glorious and deeply beautiful flower will appear out of your nostril, and lo! it shall be a sort of carnivorous Venus fly-trap, and it will see you and smile, wink once or twice, and then devour you right then and there!

Your seeds are as sterile and lifeless as the textbooks you have extracted them from. So I wouldn't hold your hopes up, if I were you.

-

[Kelly Jones]

Alex,

I'm glad you have changed your mind about the title.

Your suggestion for the title of the debate/discussion: "Definitions of Absolute Reality are highly problematic" is fine with me. I've deleted the earlier one "DEBATE: 'Ultimate Reality' claims are totally nutty", which had the same opening post.

The spirit of a debate should be upheld, even if it is called a discussion.

I move that neither of us be permitted to make references to external authorities. Here is my reasoning for the motion:

The debater must offer his own views and definitions at all times, namely, what he has personally reasoned to be true. If he offers empirical evidence, it is of what he has personally observed, and not hearsay (such as evidence offered in writing by an external authority). Statements like "I know for certain that Paramahansa Yogananda did such-and-such", if it refers to empirical evidence, or statements, written about by someone else, is hearsay and therefore forbidden.

I also move that seeking resolution of any disagreement, or turning the debate into a pleasant conversation, is also forbidden. My reasoning for this motion is:

A debate, or a discussion such as this, is not a bonding exercise. Presenting logical definitions and dismantling the illogical ones is all that matters.



Kelly Jones

[Kelly Jones]

I'll respond to your opening remarks in a few days.

[Alex Jacob]

I rarely refer to authorities in what I write. I mentioned P Yogananda only as an example of someone with an ultimate understanding of reality. As far as I am concerned, you can talk about anything you want, in any way you want to.

Personally, I rarely 'forbid' anything, but as far as I know I don't think I exhibit qualities of smoothing over differences for the sake of nice relations.

"I'm glad you have changed your mind about the title."

;-)

I did not 'change my mind', I changed what was your mind insofar as you chose your own totally skewed phrase as a title that has nothing at all to do with anything I have ever said. I wanted to avoid having you frame the conversation according to your own misunderstanding.

The title you chose was a sort of 'railroading', and this is something that you wisdom-drenched 'truth' seekers often do, I might add.

"A debate, or a discussion such as this, is not a bonding exercise."

My mind, my eyes, have narrowed to sheer focus, the machinery of my intellect is running like a freshly sharpened and lubricated lawn mower. It cuts apart anything that it comes across and whirrs with a dangerous metallic sound.

You will see me in the field of fate on a high-spirited black war-horse with flashing eyes and foaming at the mouth. I shall be wearing over my armour a white vest with a red cross blazoned upon it. Seek me if you dare...

En guard!

[Carl G]

You will see me in the field of fate on a high-spirited black war-horse with flashing eyes and foaming at the mouth. I shall be wearing over my armour a white vest with a red cross blazoned upon it. Seek me if you dare...

I'll be following along in a garbage truck, to shovel up the bullshit.

[Jason]

Looks like it'll be horseshit on this occasion Carl.

[Alex Jacob]

[Yawn]

[Kelly Jones]

Here is an online word-count tool, for use by debaters.

My first response was over 700 words. I'll aim to stick to 200-300 words for further responses.