The Truth (As I see it)

Smuel, I respect your intellect and education, but that is simply ignorant.

Jnana yoga is mental discipline, literally. The ancient indians were inventing maths and science before the greeks had even invented gayness.

They entertained a lot of speculation, and yes, charlatans too, but they all spoke with a lot more intellectual rigour than anyone here.

 

That's what she said.

 

I don't dispute that the ancient indians discovered those things. But you're being vague with words, conflating meanings of "wisdom" and "truth" and "happiness", and mixing up science and religion. They are all different things. You don't make scientific breakthroughs or discover the secrets of the universe by sitting around meditating, though you might discover a few secrets of the human mind, if you're lucky.

 

What if I am not arguing, but merely stating what I believe based on my understanding which I had assumed was intelligent? When you come up with an idea that someone else didn't teach you, you think you're smart. Then you find out that not only is your idea old, smarter people have taken the same logic several times several steps past that. When you think about it, the knowledge we learn before we graduate high school is over one hundred years old. And that's in Advanced Placement classes! The basic knowledge required for merely graduating is even older.

As for the arguments that I have "ignored", I am still digesting them. Give me a few months. Hypothetically, it takes six months to a year for a person to change.

Let's see, ... crazy, idiot, fool, and hypocrite ... am I missing any?

So I am a crazy, idiotic, hypocritical fool? It is possible, but it is also possible that wayne-scales is ESFP personality type which are known for their dislike for theory which would explain why he can't wrap his mind around the abstractions such as the concepts of Paradox or Duality or Multiple Viewpoints. But hey, who cares what the person who is always wrong thinks?

This "prediction" was based on the premise that man only lives until age 120. As I have learned in another thread that man can live past 120, the world has that much longer. According to my hypotheses at any rate.

 

1. Make an idiot out of yourself in an on-line discussion.
2. Say that you lost because your opponent has a wrong personality type.
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!








NOOOOOOT

 

Then not only are you wrong, but nobody cares about the ramblings of some crazy crackpot.

Not exactly relevant to anything we're talking about, and possibly even bullshit.

I'm not even surprised, at this stage, that it supposedly takes you a few months to digest an argument that someone came up with on the spot. Appealing to experience, though, I'm sure it's perhaps unnecessary to point out that, generally, an argument 'changes' a person by providing a different point of view that becomes apparent immediately, like with an optical illusion or something, and I can testify that any experience of the kind that any of my (perhaps even everyone else's) arguments are attempting to produce would be of this sort (I've had this kind of experience myself; quite recently, even), and I think that your problem is one of lack of comprehension of/and/or wilful ignorance; so I'm unsure what kind of process you're intending to go through that will take months to accomplish. Also, I'm sure a learned man such as yourself would be eager to find out that this is not how one uses the word 'hypothetically', if you're intending it to be in any way relevant to the context; though I apologize if you are, in fact, using it correctly, since it does seem to be your wont to throw in meaningless nonsense every once in a while.

You could amalgamate all those adjectives, and more: 'religious'.

I'm unsure what in my behaviour made you think that I can't 'wrap my mind' around these concepts, as I flatter myself (and others do too, I hope) that I can hold a discussion on these topics as well as anyone else; and though I've only taken an online personality test, I think it's absolutely hilarious that instead of ESFP, I got either INTJ, which means you were wrong on absolutely every single account, or INTP, which would be great for you, since it means you were only wrong on three out of four complete guesses. I'd also point to two other theoretically-minded threads which I've made; one with some stupid (theoretical) idea about determinism, and another with the (theoretical) hypothesis of particles that travel faster than light (which, like the situation you described earlier, was actually hypothesised by somebody else, which I didn't know at the time, since it wasn't that concept exactly which I was interested in, but one relating to the idea of negative mass), and I'm happy to post my own (trivial) (theoretical) equation for π, and my unsystematic complaints about Aristotelian logic(al theory) and consistency in (theoretical) Boolean algebra, as well as what I hope are even close to small developments or tweaks of such (theoretical) logical calculi, coupled with my own Venn-/Euler-like diagrams for (theoretical) syllogistic logic, along with any of my musical compositions (based on my study of musical theory and harmony), including a symphony that managed to get airtime on the radio and get me an immediate acceptance into the most prestigious university in the country, if you so wish, to help demonstrate my inclination towards, and modest ability for, theory.

Based on..? Not the Bible, I hope, since not only is that an informal fallacy, you'd be basing your new information on only parts of the Bible, and excluding others which are equally legitimate (say, for example, wherever you got the idea that people suddenly drop dead at 120 years old).

 

Being religious doesn't mean you're a fool, it just means you have faith in something that might seem odd to an otherwise educated member of society. I consider myself more spiritual than religious, and while I don't like any one religion, I do admit that religion, on average, makes people happier in their lives. Is it really such a bad thing to give people peace in this crazy world going to shit?
I know some very nice people who follow Christianity, am friends with them, and really think the bible works for how they live.
I have nothing against Xyle, he's just educated in a different way as to the "way of the world." Asking him to change his world views is like asking you to change yours, Wayne. Both people believe they're right, and while to the rational observer it is reason that wins out, there are different levels of rationality that do not follow each other (i.e. are based on an entirely different set of "reasons"). If anything, I would simply ask you to be less involved in this argument, simply because now you're insulting someone based on his idea of the world. There's something called tact that would allow you to argue your point with Xyle and remain rather benign in your choice of words. I'll admit that Xyle's adamance of his worldview and inability to change so rapidly as yourself is confusing, but it may be the difference between arguing with someone who openly accepts change in their lives as an inevitability, and arguing with someone who is stubborn and will not budge in their opinions because they don't like what they're hearing, or, in this case, reading. Go easy on the guy, he's just not picking up what you lay down.

 

I'm not sure what view of the world I've exhibited that I have, other than wanting to make sense. Nobody needs to ask me to change whatever world-view I have, because I'll change it immediately once I realize that I was wrong or hadn't considered something, &c., and I'll be happy to do so, once someone shows me that this is the case. I don't think I've explicitly mentioned, anywhere, anything about my belief in what Xyle believes, though I have tried to point out to him that he is either basing his beliefs on mistakes, or things which he hasn't mentioned here; if I have somewhere said that there is no God, or that Xyle is undoubtedly incorrect about his beliefs (and not just wrong about the reasons why he does believe so), I apologetically take it back. I'm simply trying to point out to him that he's contradicting himself, and may want to check that out; and if he finds the manner in which I'm doing it offensive, I hope he realizes that his baffling display of incompetence is similarly offending me. I'm not directly attacking his beliefs; I'm directly attacking what he says; no opinion involved, and if I let any slip out, it was unintentional and is ignorable, as far as I'm concerned.


Everybody has a right to their liberty; but you have to act respectable to deserve respect. If he feels that I'm insulting him, he's right; because I don't believe for a second that there exists somebody who can't grasp the fact that he's glaringly contradicting himself (especially once it's pointed out to him); and I have no problem with him believing whatever he wants, as long as he doesn't present it as fact and use it in other arguments (which he has done), or insult me or anyone else by presenting some nonsensical bullshit, and expect us to accept it. I'm berating his intelligence either on the grounds that he's choosing to ignore the fact that he's doing this, that he thinks this is a legitimate way of arguing a point, or that he expects people to accept his contradictory nonsense. I don't think there's a chance that anyone with the intelligence to be offended could not be aware of the fact that they are guilty of at least one of these things, if they are; and one need only glance through some of Xyle's posts to see that contradictions and other fallacies are abundant in them. Allowing this sort of nonsense is nothing short of declaring the legitimate sense of the insane.


Phew, that was long and boring...

 

I know he's making contradictions, Wayne, but you're openly attacking him. Oh, never mind, this is The House of Lords.

 

I admit that, and I'd bicker all the terms and definitions and give examples, if I really cared.

My point stands, though, that the ancient pundits all showed a lot more logic, clarity, patience, diligence, skill and brilliance than this motley crew, including you, Smuel.

Do you deny that you're completely ignorant of the body of literature to which I refer? You must have at least read the Kaama Sutra?

Less exciting Sutras ("threads") include numerical analyses of nightingales' birdsong, theories of protons and electrons and, of course, theories of consciousness and mental health.

 

'More logic': Wow; that's just great. What's that mean, though?

Nonsense aside, I must admit that I'm very intrigued by your vehement opinion about these people and their practices. This sounds like something I might be interested in. I tried meditation some time ago, but fell out of it; then I tried again for about three fucking seconds not too long ago; but I haven't got the concentration: I can't even fucking read books, anymore! Saying that though, I did have some kind of weird experience the first time; and I'd actually be excited to get back into some of this stuff if I had capacity for concentration.

 

Ancient eastern literature is overflowing with knowledge that we've only just rediscovered within the past 200 years.
Wayne, I think you're letting your consciousness dictate your thought patterns. Tell it to shut up! Not so directly, but more like lose yourself in something. A painting or the sound of flowing water (try not to relieve yourself). You're very straightforward and logical, and also quite blunt. Those are assets, don't get me wrong, but there is more to life than tautology. And it is tautology; you're merely using different words to describe the same thing, over and over again. Do you exercise? That can clear your head. Also, freewriting or drawing. Once you've found your ideal method for silencing your thoughts, you'll be able to meditate in peace once more. Do you listen to Tool? Sometimes I find the melodies and lyrics allow for a deeper mode of introspection. But really, it's all up to personal taste. Find what works for you, but actively search for it and it may escape you. It's best to be like water, which benefits the ten thousand things and does not contend. Let things happen. Your life is a stream of events, and if something blocks your way, you flow around it or under it or even overwhelm it and flow above.
More logic? Well, that seems like a greater attention to detail, construction, and awareness of the argument desired. It's possible to have more logic than another person, inherent in being more logical. Wayne, you've got more logic than me, with your math and study of physics. However, there's logic present in the study of philosophy and metaphysics. In this way, people tend to aggregate towards things that make sense to them, much in the same way things you say make sense to you, and things I say, in my delusions of grandeur, that make sense to me. You've lost sight of the individual and have begun treating things as groups. Regain your individuality by allowing other individuals express their philosophies. Sometimes, asking someone to explain why they believe things is rather difficult for the askee. This is indeed an individual problem, as not everyone who believes the same thing as the askee is as poorly versed in the philosophy as one whom you've asked.

 

Stop dissing my God, there are scientist who believe in God you know!

 

Indeed. Some of the greatest scientific minds of our era have been religious fanatics, if you will. Louis Pasteur, father of Pasteurisation (he's in the damn name) was a christian. Albert Einstein, the genius behind General Relativity, was a jew, and insisted that "God does not play dice" when he met with proponents of quantum mechanics. Does that take credence away from what they've done for modern science? No, it just means they have faith. There are a lot of people with religion; they number in the billions.

 

Quietening your thoughts and experiencing pure awareness is well worth the effort.

Or is it anti-effort? By stopping your thoughts, you can hear that 'still, small voice' at the heart of the cosmos.

This possibly qualifies as a repeatable experiment.

 

Actually, that "small voice" is just a sign that you aren't doing it right.

There are many tricks, but I find physical activity helps quenching thought. I know how it sounds and I may be implying that beefy meatheads are idiots.

...

Anyway, Gross, how do you like the direction your thread took?

 

Not actually a still, small voice. Figuratively.

Also [insert ill-considered argument here] and [insert baseless assertion here]. Therefore, [insert gross generalisation here].

Furthermore, [insert personal insult here], [insert name here].

 

Which is better, blissful ignorance or awareness of a painful truth?

Indeed, just like you are an American. Nationality/ethnicity ≠ religiousness. Einstein rejected the belief of a personal god and claimed to be an agnostic, which is not typical for a Jew (=believer of Judaism).

If one locks himself in a dark sound-proof room and remains silent and motionless, he starts seeing/hearing/feeling things anyway, because his brain goes nuts from the lack of stimuli and makes up his own to fill in the void.

Experiencing some new sensation because of turning your brain off might very well have a similar cause.

 

Muro?

And congratulations, ytzk you've just provided a template for 50% of all the posts on HoL. But and because of [insert biased self-fulfilling opinion], I feel that [tentative and naive counter-argument]; as such [generic comparision between two or more overused stereotypes].

Seriously though, I'm amazed this thread is even still going. So far as I can see there hasn't been any useful contributions since, like, ever.

 

Speculation on an experience you've never had, and which cannot be reduced to mere words, might very well be completely futile.

I don't insist anyone else experience it or believe in it, but if you want to analyse it, at least go and practise for yourself first.

I might describe it as an happy holiday from the unscientific delusions of the ego, and a deep and abiding sense of being part of an integrated and infinite whole, which is in fact, closer to the facts of physical matter than the fashion and politics which dominates most of human thought, even among scientists.