|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:11:04 GMT -5
We already agreed to disagree about this the other day, remember? What I meant by "straw-Reefs" was my description of my understanding of Reefs' position on the question of a belief in objective reality. As do this, why do you often shift the focus of the dialog from the substance of it to your opinions as to the clarity of other folks expressions? Objective reality is Gopal's term. I don't actually use it. Here's a definition: Is that what you are all referring to? Sure, why not. Kemosabe.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:13:01 GMT -5
It certainly seems to me that it can be, yes, but I don't see Gopal as having bought into that, even though it's easy to bust his balls about it sometimes. The 'ruler' thing doesn't sound anything like a god-complex to you? Yes, it does, and that's what I mean about how it's easy to break his balls about it. But on one hand, he sees the humor of it, while on the other, he has a serious philosophical problem that he's drawn specific conclusions about that he can't get anyone here (or on the gab) to agree with him on. So, in the balance, I don't think what Reefs described, describes Gopal.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:15:08 GMT -5
This idea of co-creation was one of the ones I last seriously considered during the time I described here, when I was still trying to make some sort of conceptual sense of the experience of a sustained absence of the "I-thought", in terms of "all is consciousness". Like Gopal, I agree that,philosophically, this reifies the SVP. I have doubts that Gopal ever said that. Got a clear quote? The SVP is already a reification, so speaking of a 'collective' is a useful step to seeing that there is no-one creating. And besides, 'collective' creation is far less of a god complex than 'I am creating the moon'. This is a potentially illuminating line of dialog, but at this point, I'm far too skeptical of the possibility of genuine interest on your part as to what I'd have to write about it, so you'll just have to continue to chime-in on my dialogs with Reefs and Gopal, but don't be surprised or draw any conclusions if I don't reply.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 11:18:22 GMT -5
The 'ruler' thing doesn't sound anything like a god-complex to you? Yes, it does, and that's what I mean about how it's easy to break his balls about it. But on one hand, he sees the humor of it, while on the other, he has a serious philosophical problem that he's drawn specific conclusions about that he can't get anyone here to agree with him on. So, in the balance, I don't think what Reefs described, describes Gopal. I don't think god-complexes necessarily make a person bad natured or anything like that. I find Gopal generally good natured, but I do see some level of god-complex there.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 11:20:17 GMT -5
I have doubts that Gopal ever said that. Got a clear quote? The SVP is already a reification, so speaking of a 'collective' is a useful step to seeing that there is no-one creating. And besides, 'collective' creation is far less of a god complex than 'I am creating the moon'. This is a potentially illuminating line of dialog, but at this point, I'm far too skeptical of the possibility of genuine interest on your part as to what I'd have to write about it, so you'll just have to continue to chime-in on my dialogs with Reefs and Gopal, but don't be surprised or draw any conclusions if I don't reply. That's fine, but if you see a quote from Gopal that would show me that he connects collective creation with reification, I would like to see it if you care to post it. I don't recall him ever using the word 'reify' for a start.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:20:59 GMT -5
No, that's simply incorrect. I stated your position here neutrally, without contradicting it. I described a point that we agreed to disagree on, without re-opening my disagreement with you about it, and, indeed, without re-stating that disagreement. You re-raised the particular point of disagreement here, by re-asserting it, and re-asserting it, in particular, during your direct dialog with me. It began here.... ''Are you sure that Reefs has a belief in an objective outer reality, or, rather, is that a conclusion you've drawn? Notice, in particular, the difference between andy and Reefs in this place'' So, I pointed out that there is no difference, and therefore I assume you understood me wrong the other day. Hence discussion. Which I'm guessing you unconsciously knew would happen when you brought me into it. No, I was quite conscious that you'd have an interest in it. But nothing you've written there contradicts anything I've written in what it was response to: I stated the point of disagreement, neutrally, without re-asserting my position, either indirectly, or much less, directly to you, as you did to me, here.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 11:22:29 GMT -5
It began here.... ''Are you sure that Reefs has a belief in an objective outer reality, or, rather, is that a conclusion you've drawn? Notice, in particular, the difference between andy and Reefs in this place'' So, I pointed out that there is no difference, and therefore I assume you understood me wrong the other day. Hence discussion. Which I'm guessing you unconsciously knew would happen when you brought me into it. No, I was quite conscious that you'd have an interest in it. But nothing you've written there contradicts anything I've written in what it was response to: I stated the point of disagreement, neutrally, without re-asserting my position, either indirectly, or much less, directly to you, as you did to me, here. Yes, but by the time you stated that disagreement, I was already under the impression that you had misunderstood me the other day (based on you bringing me into the conversation at that point). So for me, the discussion began at that first moment.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:22:53 GMT -5
Make up your mind. I didn't expect otherwise, but that doesn't rule out the slight possibility of you responding. Which is precisely what makes the question mark disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 11:24:21 GMT -5
I didn't expect otherwise, but that doesn't rule out the slight possibility of you responding. Which is precisely what makes the question mark disingenuous. I'm not going to agree with that, because the question was offered on the basis of the slight chance. I consider that you are being disingenuous for suggesting that that is disingenuous
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:24:30 GMT -5
This is just the " Whaaaaaaat?? " game that verby, silver and a few others used to play. ... sorry to reflect back this sort of criticism like that .. but .. when in Rome. It could be the 'what' game, or it could be just that you sometimes talk in overly complex ways. Or, it could be you starting a foodfight by resorting to personal criticism unrelated to the substance of the dialog. We all have our opinions on which possibility is the most likely.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 11:26:28 GMT -5
It could be the 'what' game, or it could be just that you sometimes talk in overly complex ways. Or, it could be you starting a foodfight by resorting to personal criticism unrelated to the substance of the dialog. We all have our opinions on which possibility is the most likely. Of course! To my mind, you were wanting a food fight from the moment you mentioned me, and I'm also clear as to why you seek that fight.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:28:31 GMT -5
Yes, it does, and that's what I mean about how it's easy to break his balls about it. But on one hand, he sees the humor of it, while on the other, he has a serious philosophical problem that he's drawn specific conclusions about that he can't get anyone here to agree with him on. So, in the balance, I don't think what Reefs described, describes Gopal. I don't think god-complexes necessarily make a person bad natured or anything like that. I find Gopal generally good natured, but I do see some level of god-complex there. Right, personality is personality regardless of god-complex: there are all sorts of gods, some jealous, angry and vengeful, some benevolent and loving, etc.. but that wasn't my point, my point was that he sees the humor in how his philosophical conclusions lead him to declaring his rulership, and quite acutely so. So on one hand, he's got this logic that leads him to something he can't refute, on the other, he finds the conclusion to be comical.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:29:59 GMT -5
This is a potentially illuminating line of dialog, but at this point, I'm far too skeptical of the possibility of genuine interest on your part as to what I'd have to write about it, so you'll just have to continue to chime-in on my dialogs with Reefs and Gopal, but don't be surprised or draw any conclusions if I don't reply. That's fine, but if you see a quote from Gopal that would show me that he connects collective creation with reification, I would like to see it if you care to post it. I don't recall him ever using the word 'reify' for a start. don't be surprised or draw any conclusions if I don't reply.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 11:31:47 GMT -5
I don't think god-complexes necessarily make a person bad natured or anything like that. I find Gopal generally good natured, but I do see some level of god-complex there. Right, personality is personality regardless of god-complex: there are all sorts of gods, some jealous, angry and vengeful, some benevolent and loving, etc.. but that wasn't my point, my point was that he sees the humor in how his philosophical conclusions lead him to declaring his rulership, and quite acutely so. So on one hand, he's got this logic that leads him to something he can't refute, on the other, he finds the conclusion to be comical. I don't think it's just that his conclusions lead him to declaring rulership, I think he considers his experiences to demonstrate that too ('being moved away etc'). I think he takes the belief quite seriously.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:34:29 GMT -5
No, I was quite conscious that you'd have an interest in it. But nothing you've written there contradicts anything I've written in what it was response to: I stated the point of disagreement, neutrally, without re-asserting my position, either indirectly, or much less, directly to you, as you did to me, here. Yes, but by the time you stated that disagreement, I was already under the impression that you had misunderstood me the other day (based on you bringing me into the conversation at that point). So for me, the discussion began at that first moment. I haven't objected to your interjecting yourself into a dialog in which I mentioned you, I only pointed out that you'd re-raised a specific point that we'd agreed to disagree about by re-asserting it to me in direct dialog with me, and explained how that's not really maintaining the agreement to disagree.
|
|