Bodhidharma's Tomb

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Laird Shaw		#141	[-]
Posts: 103 (04/15/08 08:30 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	It's lucky that I'm not a Buddhist then. The problem with the texts that you've presented, Robby, is that they don't refute my core argument: that there are real physical (chemical/phase) boundaries that separate things one from one another. Nor, I'll add, have you in any of your posts that I recall directly addressed this either. Also, I've never said that I believe that there is an "essence" for each of these things, although it's possible to me that such an essence exists - I really just don't know.
Robert Larkin		#142	[-]
Posts: 3273 (04/15/08 09:23 PM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Laird, It was written for those of us who do have the interest and since I had mentioned it earlier. You have been answered any number of times by Dan and by myself but since you think you have something meaningful - will you be publishing? - you're refusing to acknowledge the futility of continuing to argue when we have already considered that the disparity in worldviews precludes agreement - it precludes our seeing the matter in the same way. Yet you ignore that, going on and on and insisting that you have not been answered despite your argument amounting to nothing more than claiming objects are separate because you define them to be so, and never mind that "separate" necessarily implies "that from which the thing is being pretended to be separate". You think your argument is meaningful and I think your argument is simple-minded yet whatever are our personal opinions there will be no agreement because we do not see this problem in the same way. You then shall be like a voice crying in the wilderness and so I ask again, will you be publishing? Have you got the clincher? Didn't I ask that earlier? [edit 1, deled word; edit 2, misspelling.] Last Edited By: Robert Larkin 04/15/08 10:26 PM. Edited 2 times.
Robert Larkin		#143	[-]
Posts: 3276 (04/16/08 09:22 AM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	And so Laird won't go on about his 'special words' not having ever been answered: there are real physical (chemical/phase) boundaries that separate things one from one another The physics and chemistry of the universe imply the universe and so we are back where we started.
Robert Larkin		#144	[-]
Posts: 3277 (04/16/08 09:39 AM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	If these boundaries indicated "separation" wouldn't the physics and chemistry of the objects be separate and entirely localised yet how could they be? The boundaries of the physical and chemical conditions are no boundaries of the physics and the chemistry; the universe is not bounded in them; why, there are no real boundaries there at all! Oooh oooh oooh now I've got a brilliant argument except I shot myself in the foot and put up that damned Zhuangzi.
Laird Shaw		#145	[-]
Posts: 104 (04/16/08 12:28 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Try as I might I am unable to relate that first response to anything meaningful regarding whether things in the "implied" universe are separate or not. In my eyes it counts as a non-response, but perhaps you will clarify what you mean. As for your second response: you seem to be suggesting that true separation requires different laws of physics and chemistry within each separate thing. I'm not arguing for a separation that severe though, simply for a separation of matter. This is the most that you've actually engaged with my argument though, so I appreciate it. I didn't mean to imply that my words were "special", merely that they were unanswered. No, I don't intend on publishing on this issue. Do you? I view my argument as simple, but not simple-minded: it's a common-sense and natural one.
Robert Larkin		#146	[-]
Posts: 3279 (04/16/08 01:59 PM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Laird Shaw wrote: Try as I might I am unable to relate that first response to anything meaningful regarding whether things in the "implied" universe are separate or not. In my eyes it counts as a non-response, but perhaps you will clarify what you mean. Counts as a non-response? But I meant that the chemistry and physics of the universe ties all chemical and physical entities together. So it was a response; you just didn't get what I considered obvious. I'm not arguing for a separation that severe though, simply for a separation of matter. Not arguing for a separation that severe? Are you arguing before the Separation Severity Society? Will they give you a ruling soon you think? I've submitted my brief, and I'm hoping they rule favourably on the concept that chemical and physical continuity deny separation. No, I don't intend on publishing on this issue. Do you? Oh hell no. Until the Leading Bears at the Separation Severity Society rule whether the severity of your separation is too much, too little, or just right, publishing a defense would be premature. Let me ask for what is it the fourth time now, is your argument the clincher? I view my argument as simple, but not simple-minded: it's a common-sense and natural one. Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein While it might be common sensical to view the boundary of an object as a meaningful separation, in light of the interconnectedness of the universe the boundary becomes meaningless. For Laird to insist his view alone is the only meaningful view or even the most correct one is to argue for the acceptance of mere prejudice. There is the element of belief in this argument, that we should believe Laird's view is the outstanding one. Perhaps next week he will comprehend what others of us have already experienced, that we can be emotionally tied up in our arguments and personally value them far more than any real human value they might have. There is no real human value in accepting his view and while there might be no real human value in the specific arguments against his view, since the defense here is founded on the relativity of views, the defense in this thread is the stronger of the two positions since it does not require the adoption of any prejudice for acceptance.
Laird Shaw		#147	[-]
Posts: 105 (04/16/08 06:58 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Robby, Not arguing for a separation that severe? Are you arguing before the Separation Severity Society? Will they give you a ruling soon you think? I've submitted my brief, and I'm hoping they rule favourably on the concept that chemical and physical continuity deny separation. If precedent and common usage are anything to go by, then the ruling will be in my favour. When we say that "a distance separates us" we mean simply that there is space between us, not that everything about us is completely different. Just as when I say that "a boundary separates two things" it simply means that there is a boundary between different forms of matter, not that the rules of physics and chemistry need be completely different within each form of matter. Let me ask for what is it the fourth time now, is your argument the clincher? Apparently not - it hasn't clinched it for you. Anyhow I'm rarely so attached to my views that I can't be swayed by strong counter-arguments. You just haven't produced any as yet. While it might be common sensical to view the boundary of an object as a meaningful separation, in light of the interconnectedness of the universe the boundary becomes meaningless. That's a bald assertion not backed by any reasoning. Why should interconnectedness render a boundary "meaningless"? Does it somehow nullify the boundary? Well then how did we recognise the boundary in the first place if it is in fact null? I've already made it clear that I believe that things interact and communicate with one another, so I don't deny some level of interconnectedness, but interconnectedness certainly doesn't wipe out boundaries of the form that I have described. For Laird to insist his view alone is the only meaningful view or even the most correct one is to argue for the acceptance of mere prejudice. "Mere prejudice". That's an uncharitable characterisation: I have at all times backed my views with reasoning. There is the element of belief in this argument, that we should believe Laird's view is the outstanding one. You believe it if the evidence and reasoning resonates with you, not blindly. Perhaps next week he will comprehend what others of us have already experienced, that we can be emotionally tied up in our arguments and personally value them far more than any real human value they might have. If I value my arguments too much then show me where they lack value. So far the bulk of your objection seems to be "belief is unnecessary and misguided and the result of your arguments is a belief". If, however, belief is to be shunned, then you yourself can (should) have no beliefs about whether things are separate or not separate, and you can (should) take no sides in this debate, and should therefore refrain from comment rather than trying to prove me wrong. There is no real human value in accepting his view and while there might be no real human value in the specific arguments against his view, since the defense here is founded on the relativity of views, the defense in this thread is the stronger of the two positions since it does not require the adoption of any prejudice for acceptance. See above. If all views are relative, then all views are equally right and all views are equally wrong, and you have no business taking sides in this debate. I personally don't hold that all views are relative anyhow. I think that some views are more or less objectively true.
Robert Larkin		#148	[-]
Posts: 3288 (04/16/08 07:08 PM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	See above. If all views are relative, then all views are equally right and all views are equally wrong, and you have no business taking sides in this debate. I personally don't hold that all views are relative anyhow. I think that some views are more or less objectively true. To assume that all views being relative makes them therefore equally useless or equally dismissible is trash reasoning. All views are relative rather than absolute, but some views are useful while some others are not. There should be no debate here since I have discussed at length the impossibility of any accord, a fact which you continue to ignore while crying to high heaven that you have not been answered when you have in fact been answered again and again. Laird, the only debate here is your imagination that there is still a debate. I tried to move on to sunyata. I don't personally give a fuck about your argument and I've been indicating for several days that it's time to move on. If someone else would care to have you announce to them that they have not answered you, then let them step up and 'debate you'. Last Edited By: Robert Larkin 04/16/08 07:29 PM. Edited 2 times.
Dan Rowden		#149	[-]
Posts: 93 (04/16/08 07:53 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Laird is confusing separation with differentiation. Chemical/phase boundaries are example of the latter and do not, anymore than anything else does, indicate separation. And whilst he feels as though his point(s) have gone unanswered, he himself has yet to demonstrate where any thing ends and another thing begins beyond mere inference (i.e. where consciousness perceives boundaries/differentiation). The waves in a sea have different spatial location, but they are not separate. Are we separated from the waves? How? Because we have a different spatial location? It would be like the blue threads in one corner of a complex tapestry declaring their separation from the red threads in the other.
Laird Shaw		#150	[-]
Posts: 106 (04/16/08 08:30 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Robby, if you thought that the debate was over then why did you introduce your McFarlane quotes with reference to "Laird's error"? If you are to accuse me of being in error, then it's likely that I will defend myself, isn't I? Let me ask you this then: how did you expect me to respond to that post, or did you expect me to remain silent? Dan, the boundaries that I have referenced are more than "mere inference", as I've repeated enough times already. The only quibble that I can see with the type of boundaries that I've described is that at the atomic level it's difficult to pinpoint an exact spatial location for the boundary. All this means is that the boundary is a little imprecise. The waves in a sea are all comprised of liquid sea water, so they don't fit the criteria of chemical/phase differentiation that I've described - they indeed are not separate from one another. Yes, we are separated from the waves because our skin is completely different to sea water and very little mixing of the two occurs (yes, there is some degree of porousness to the skin, but fundamentally the two are distinct). Yes, the blue threads in the complex tapestry are separate from the red threads in the other, but you could also consider the tapestry as a whole if you wanted to - it's all made of thread in the end. I'm not arguing that there are absolutely no humanly defined boundaries (as in the case of considering individual threads vs the tapestry as a whole), just that some boundaries are so natural as for us to be able to consider them as innate.
Robert Larkin		#151	[-]
Posts: 3289 (04/16/08 08:41 PM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Laird, from a Buddhist perspective you are in error and I had mentioned the matter earlier, some while before actually posting the quotations. You were not asked to argue and your response had nothing really to do with the material anyway. You simply took it as an excuse to begin again. I had clearly indicated the topic is exhausted or at least my interest is exhausted. I have explained I think adequately why there can be no agreement and I had before today made absolutely no claim on having won a thing. I expected the McFarlane quotes to have little interest for you although I am hopeful as with anyone that something somewhere will someday take root.
Robert Larkin		#152	[-]
Posts: 3290 (04/16/08 08:46 PM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Dan Rowden wrote: Laird is confusing separation with differentiation. Chemical/phase boundaries are example of the latter and do not, anymore than anything else does, indicate separation. And whilst he feels as though his point(s) have gone unanswered, he himself has yet to demonstrate where any thing ends and another thing begins beyond mere inference (i.e. where consciousness perceives boundaries/differentiation). The waves in a sea have different spatial location, but they are not separate. Are we separated from the waves? How? Because we have a different spatial location? It would be like the blue threads in one corner of a complex tapestry declaring their separation from the red threads in the other. I think that is a very pretty answer.
vinny the hack		#153	[-]
Posts: 1663 (04/16/08 09:16 PM) Administrunktorbot Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	For what it's worth, I was on Laird's side for most of this debate, easily understanding his view and the arguments supporting it. I had some difficulty with Robert's/Dan's side, but have recently grasped what they mean. My view is that Laird's position is the standard, lay person definition of separation, while the other is--well, I don't know exactly how to characterize it. Perhaps it is a more philosophical view. As such, I'm inclined to believe that both arguments have some, maybe even full validity, but I'm not sure how, if it's even possible, to compare the levels of "correctness". And for the record, I can also understand the tedium, frustration and absurdity each side is experiencing with the other. I have experienced it, albeit to a much lesser degree, from both sides of this same debate. You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on. --Dean Martin
Dan Rowden		#154	[-]
Posts: 94 (04/16/08 09:22 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Laird, My problem with your point is view is, basically, that I have no idea what you're talking about. I can't separate your idea of separation from my idea of differentiation, nor can I differentiate your idea of separation from my idea of differentiation. See what I mean? What is a boundary? Are they inherently existing things that run around the universe looking to make trouble and complicate matters? Are they inherent aspects of a thing? If so, how come we can't find them other than by way of the natural inference contained within differentiation? You'd think if they were real we could see them, but all we ever see is more and more differentiation.
Laird Shaw		#155	[-]
Posts: 107 (04/16/08 10:24 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Dan, Let me try to solve your problem with my point of view then by explaining that, to me, differentiation and separation are simply two sides of the same coin. Yes, we only find more and more differentiation - possibly without limit or possibly terminating in an absolute quantum - which simply corresponds to more and more separation at finer and finer levels. If there is an absolute quantum of reality, then the instances of that quantum would be absolutely separate, albeit that they might be able to influence other instances of that quantum.
Laird Shaw		#156	[-]
Posts: 108 (04/16/08 10:33 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Robby, I'm sorry that I piss you off. I'll stop trying to debate you, since you are clearly sick of the tune that I'm singing. Go ahead and sing your own tune, I'll sit in a comfy chair and try to appreciate the music.
Robert Larkin		#157	[-]
Posts: 3293 (04/16/08 10:49 PM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Laird Shaw wrote: Robby, I'm sorry that I piss you off. I'll stop trying to debate you, since you are clearly sick of the tune that I'm singing. Go ahead and sing your own tune, I'll sit in a comfy chair and try to appreciate the music. Yes, comfy chairs are nice if you don't obsess about them.
Dan Rowden		#158	[-]
Posts: 95 (04/16/08 10:54 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Laird, Leibniz says hello and thank you. He says you bring the gonad to the monad.
Laird Shaw		#159	[-]
Posts: 109 (04/16/08 11:16 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Dan, Please give my regards to the big fella and ask him whether he's yet discovered the termination of experimentation.
Dan Rowden		#160	[-]
Posts: 98 (04/16/08 11:18 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	It discovered him.

Yuku free message boards

Bodhidharma's Tomb

Quick Reply