| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Ducky M |
|||
|
Posts: 144 (04/23/08 07:15 PM) Self-Certified Genius |
Seems that Richard Carrier cannot win.
If he doesn't talk, he's guilty of not sharing his insights. If he talks, he's guilty of basking in the self-reflected glory of intellectual gift. 
|
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 126 (04/24/08 03:13 AM) |
Sher, I can't prove it to you, only to myself. The personal proof is that the very ability to compose the question "Do I exist?" in the first
place necessitates an existing conscious agent, and the answer can be nothing other than "Of course I do". The fact that I can't prove it to you
doesn't negate the fact that it's an absolute truth, it just means that it's one that only I - as opposed to you - can be certain of as such. Then
again, only you can be certain of as an absolute truth the fact that you exist and are conscious (assuming, from my perspective, that it's true that you
exist and is not a ruse being played on me).
Robby, you did nothing to disabuse me of the notion that I was presenting absolute truths to you. If you are going to rely on the words of other people (Nagarjuna or Zhuangzi) then at least have the courtesy to share with me the specific arguments that they made. Kindly share with me how you can doubt the fact of existence, the fact of your own consciousness, and the fact that you are having experiences. From my perspective these are indubitable. |
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 125 (04/24/08 08:45 AM) |
They are indeed indubitable (love that word- must remember it for scrabble). The question is what can we build from
that foundation? The investigation of that perfectly reasonable question may, possibly, lead us to simply accept the indubitable as the only answer there is. The brute fact of perception seems brutish, but therein lies its brutal beauty.
No wonder I can never get a B in scrabble - I wear the fuckers out.... |
||
|
vinny the hack |
|||
|
Posts: 1716 (04/24/08 11:14 AM) Administrunktorbot |
Dan Rowden wrote: Achieving a "B"? Wearing out your opponents? Yes, I see how that can happen. (Just bustin' yer balls, Danny boy.) I played this girl about five or six games and I won them all handily. She invited me to a message board where there were some six or seven people including
her that played "Scrabulous" (Scrabble). I joined. The competition was tough, but there were one or two players who were making amazing scores,
making a bingo or two per game and using some pretty obscure words. One player in particular made me suspicious. She made three "bingo"'s in one
game, including one that had to be shoe-horned into place using letters from several existing words on the board. Furthermore, almost half the words she used I
had never heard of. I thought to myself "If she's cheating, she's making no effort to conceal the fact". I had no idea how she might be
cheating, but I decided to investigate.
It took all of about 20 seconds to discover that there are, indeed, sites that will give you not only the best scrabble word to play, but also a list of
words that you can play in descending points order.
I made it to the next round (semi-finals) and by now, I'm starting to suspect others may also be cheating. I got paired with the original suspect for
the semis. She was to create the game (it was played via e-mail) and make the first move. Well, I was e-mailed that the game had been created and immediately
cancelled. Hmmm. She then created another game and her first move turned out to be a "bingo". I could only assume that she didn't like the
letters she was dealt the first time and opted to start a new game. I had had enough and quit the tourney on principle.
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on. --Dean Martin
|
||
|
Dan Rowden |
|||
|
Posts: 130 (04/24/08 07:58 PM) |
If you like losing consistently, try playing the robot in Scrabulous in solitaire mode. And yes, I suspect some people playing Scrabulous at places like
Facebook indeed use those word finder sites. I admit I occasionally throw more or less random letters down on the board just to see if the game allows them.
Since the game has a word checker I'm not sure if that is or isn't in the spirit. But hell, when you're behind 150 points, ya get desperate.
|
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3355 (04/25/08 12:34 AM) sui generis |
Laird Shaw wrote: Laird, if one of those truths by admission denies any objective verification then can it be meaningfully called absolute truth? Have you even bothered to
define what is 'absolute truth'? How are those statements not relative truths? And of what conceivable value are they, a question you've chosen
to ignore. It is not my burden to dispute claims not adequately founded in the first place. If you make a claim support the thing; learn how to argue,
please.
The references to Nagarjuna and Zhuangzi were for general education; in the long run they won't interest you and I won't bother looking for specific
cites from them anyway until you get off the stick and found a 'prima facie' claim in the first place, including that there can be such a thing as
absolute truth. Merely labeling something 'absolute truth' does not make it absolutely true. We've discussed this privately and it's time
your public arguments reflected an understanding of what is reasonably required in argument, including establishing a prima facie argument, what constitutes
adequate answer, including whether or not a countertheory is necessarily required, etc.
|
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3356 (04/25/08 12:39 AM) sui generis |
Ducky M wrote: We apparently got different things out of it. I find nothing profound about claiming to have had profound insights. Give me the insight and I'll
decide for myself whether I think it's profound. Where did Carrier share the substance of any helpful insight?
|
||
|
Ducky M |
|||
|
Posts: 145 (04/25/08 12:01 PM) Self-Certified Genius |
Perhaps at least we can agree that there are limits as to what we can do to communicate unusual insights which we deem to be valuable.
|
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3360 (04/25/08 02:24 PM) sui generis |
Absolutely*, Mr. DuckyM.
*So to speak. |
||
|
Ducky M |
|||
|
Posts: 146 (04/25/08 04:04 PM) Self-Certified Genius |
What can be said about the Tao?
Should the Tao instead be called the Dao? By either name, the _ao about which anything can be said is not the _ao. And besides, the issue was was long ago settled by Mao. Power flows out of the barrel of a gun. Go with the flow! End of discussion. |
||
|
Ducky M |
|||
|
Posts: 147 (04/26/08 12:17 AM) Self-Certified Genius |
( Version # 2 )
Sorry, Mr. Lao. Your Tao/Dao has been overridden by Mr. Mao. Power flows out of the barrel of a gun. Go with the flow! End of discussion. |
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 127 (04/26/08 06:01 PM) |
Robby,
Laird, if one of those truths by admission denies any objective verification then can it be meaningfully called absolute truth? Yes, it sure can. An absolute statement is true or false independent of verification. Verification only allows us to assess the truth value of the statement - it doesn't create that truth value. Can there even be such a thing as "objective" verification ultimately anyway? It all comes down to personal discrimination in the end, doesn't it? Have you even bothered to define what is 'absolute truth'? No, because we were both using the term meaningfully and I saw no need to define it. This is the first time that you've "bothered" to indicate that you're interested in my definition. Fine, so let me attempt one: an absolute truth is a truth that is independent of opinion and subjective standards and that makes an objective claim about reality. So, for example, "Band XYZ are poor performers" could not be an absolute truth because it's based on opinion and subjective standards, whereas "The nucleus of a hydrogen atom contains one proton" could be an absolute truth because it is objective and free of opinion. What I've just described could equally be termed an "objective" truth - the main difference that I see between the two is that absolute truths are typically concerned with "matters of consequence" - in other words, whether the truth about the number of protons in a hydrogen atom is actually absolute or not is debatable in my mind. A more firm example would be one of the three absolute truths that I wrote of in an earlier post. The weakest part, in my opinion, of the conception of absolute truth - as contrasted with that of relative truth - is that ultimately truth relies upon the understanding of words and concepts, so that one might say that all truths - even absolute truths - are at least relative to personal understanding. I don't, however, see this as a serious impediment to the notion of absolute truth - it's a pretty weak form of relativity. How are those statements not relative truths? They make objective claims about reality that do not depend on personal opinion, and hence are absolute. I'll turn the question back on you though: how are those statements relative truths? What exactly are they relative to? And of what conceivable value are they, a question you've chosen to ignore. That's the second time in this post that you've implicitly accused me of neglecting a responsibility, and the second time that I bore no responsibility in that regard until you burdened me with it. If I "chose to ignore" the question, it's because you hadn't let me know that you wanted me to address it. Please in future let me know what you want me to address before accusing me of failing to address it. The value of these truths to me is that they are pretty much the only things that I can think of of which I can be certain. There's something very pleasing about being able to identify such truths. Furthermore, I find the notions that reality exists, that I exist and am conscious, and that I am experiencing reality, to be about the most mindblowing notions that I can imagine. Think about it. It implies the fundamental question of existence: how did this incredible situation come to be??? If the wonder and awe of that question doesn't affect you profoundly then you and I are very different creatures. It is not my burden to dispute claims not adequately founded in the first place. It's not your burden to dispute anything - however, you have chosen to do so, and I suggest that if you don't find the claim adequately founded, then you make an effort to learn exactly what the claimant believes to be its foundation before disputing it. If you make a claim support the thing; learn how to argue, please. Frankly, I find that both patronising and unfair. I have been supporting my "claim" as much as I need to. It's you who's challenging me - I didn't bring this debate on and I wasn't making any particular explicit claim in the first place until you questioned me about absolute truth. If you are interested in disputing what I believe, then it's up to you to first discover what I believe. I'm perfectly willing to share most of my beliefs with you, but I don't know which of them interest you until you first ask. The references to Nagarjuna and Zhuangzi were for general education; in the long run they won't interest you and I won't bother looking for specific cites from them anyway If you won't bother to find a specific cite then what's the point of even mentioning them as a rebuttal? You were using them as evidence against the notion of specific absolute truths that I mentioned, yet you won't actually provide the evidence. And I'm the one who doesn't know how to argue? until you get off the stick and found a 'prima facie' claim in the first place, including that there can be such a thing as absolute truth. No mate, you're the one making an issue out of this - I simply mentioned absolute truth in passing. It's not my burden to "get off the stick" until you tell me exactly what you want out of this discussion. I take it that you want to turn it into a debate something along the lines of "That absolute truth exists" with me on the affirmative and you on the negative. Is that the case? If so, then I accept, but until now it's been an informal discussion and I had no particular responsibility to do anything except to respond to the points and questions that you put to me. Merely labeling something 'absolute truth' does not make it absolutely true. Merely questioning whether absolute truth can really exist does not prove that it does not. We've discussed this privately and it's time your public arguments reflected an understanding of what is reasonably required in argument, including establishing a prima facie argument, what constitutes adequate answer, including whether or not a countertheory is necessarily required, etc. This wasn't a formal exchange of arguments until now. |
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3362 (04/26/08 07:50 PM) sui generis |
If you advance an argument you are required to support it so that it can stand on its face, hence prima facie. You
can sit there and lie about that to your heart's content, but a lie it is nonetheless. See for example Shifting the Burden of Proof. Make a contention and
the obligation is yours and you knew that.
The threads Bodhidharma's Tomb and now The Dao Is That From Which Nothing Can Depart have both been diverted to your own mediocre purposes and in this thread you have again written drunkenly at Olio. While I did not agree with David Quinn's reasoning in banning you from Genius Forum, some wisdom must have been in operation because he seems to have gotten the substance of it right. |
||
|
Laird Shaw |
|||
|
Posts: 128 (04/27/08 12:37 PM) |
Robby,
If you feel that this thread has deviated from the purpose that you intended for it then by all means feel free to restore it. I'm not overly attached to the direction that it's taken. If you don't want to debate about absolute truth after all, then that's fine with me. Go ahead and let's get back to talking about the Tao. That's about all that I want to say publicly. I'll have more to say privately in reply to your email. |
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3365 (04/28/08 01:56 AM) sui generis |
Laird Shaw wrote: Laird,
It is not likely I would have sought a discussion on 'absolute truth' by initiating one on Daoism; your comment is nearly moronic. Not every thread requires a moderator's participation and that is certainly true when he is ignorant of the subject matter. |
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3367 (04/28/08 05:58 PM) sui generis |
If we play with Watts' metaphor then fighting the current might create turbulence for others and we do live in a turbulent world. I do not think we are
born to be the victims of war and hate.
|
||
|
Ducky M |
|||
|
Posts: 148 (04/28/08 08:56 PM) Self-Certified Genius |
We are born to play with megawatts of current. That, of course, can dangerously increase planetary turbulence...
Today my neighbors significantly contributed to local warming through air conditioning. Only oddballs like Ducky have that perspective. Ignorance is bliss -- until all hell ( such as a national power blackout ) breaks loose, and then it will be too late to warn anyone.
Last Edited By: Ducky M
04/28/08 09:36 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3372 (04/28/08 09:47 PM) sui generis |
If they don't share 'that perspective', let them stand next to an air conditioner.
|
||
|
Robert Larkin |
|||
|
Posts: 3375 (04/29/08 12:24 PM) sui generis |
I have tried to stay with this thread, with being in the stream and with the matter of turbulence.
Turbulence has come into my own life and what was done to me in a recent incident is in fact criminal. Turbulence could have resulted in my death and it did result in damage. Turbulence is touching my thinking. Going to authority - here the US Justice Department - would create more turbulence and their actions would create more still. Someone dropped a pebble and it rippled; if the original intent was harm in some fashion at all, then an evil result should have been anticipated in it because our actions can always get out of hand. |
||
|
Eugene the Eagle |
Ladies And Gentlemen, A Poem, Mine, And Which Is A Living Art | ||
|
Posts: 105 (10/04/08 05:48 PM) The Lord of Orts. |
Tearing The Moment From Time
An awful vengeance lumbered down the runway Lifting slowly motors roaring into air; A thing of war and science lofted across the ocean. Since '31 in China '37 Nanching '39 in Poland '41 in Russia, Chinese dead Polish dead Jewish dead Russian dead, Pilots awed by duty knew the stakes and sacrifices. Thousands died as they flew onward; There were ripples on a pond In a Hiroshima park as they made their final turn and split the quiet; Time divided and divided and divided hWiteness Notes: Poetry properly understood is read aloud and it can communicate in a variety of ways, including in its rhythms and its sounds. 'hWhiteness' does not mean the colour 'white' but sonic relations which could suggest temporal, spatial, and even human concerns, and even in not meaning 'the colour "white"'. This is the art of The Equine School, and it was and is my second poem, coming late in my 56th year, as today in St. Louis we continue to celebrate and honour and mourn, and respect, in Ramadan. --Robert Larkin/Robbydharma |
||
