|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 19:09:05 GMT -5
Post by mamza on Nov 19, 2011 19:09:05 GMT -5
Sorry, which Egyptian(s) are you referring to? Mamza isn't referring to you. Unlike Mamza I've finally given up trying to translate the heiroglyphics. No matter what gets posted here the Egyptian will find something to quibble with and do so in a way that is virtually unintelligible. I'd rather have another swig from that bottle of wine than add unnecessary strain to the brain. LOL Most of the time I don't bother anymore either, but once in a while I'll stop in to see how folks are doing and come across stuff that's total gibberish. It may be time to join in the drinking, but all I've got is vodka. |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 19:54:55 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Nov 19, 2011 19:54:55 GMT -5
Mamza isn't referring to you. Unlike Mamza I've finally given up trying to translate the heiroglyphics. No matter what gets posted here the Egyptian will find something to quibble with and do so in a way that is virtually unintelligible. I'd rather have another swig from that bottle of wine than add unnecessary strain to the brain. LOL Most of the time I don't bother anymore either, but once in a while I'll stop in to see how folks are doing and come across stuff that's total gibberish. It may be time to join in the drinking, but all I've got is vodka. Stay away from that Vodka stuff; it'll make you completely lose touch with reality. LOL. I've found something much better and very cheap. It's called "Crane lake, Pinot Noir." It can be bought for about $4.75/bottle and it enhances one's sense of reality in a most pleasurable way. Ha ha. I only drink two glasses a night, which helps keep the blood flowing and is a more enjoyable way to get reservatrol (sp?) into one's system than taking a pill. As for the Egyptian, I really think he gets the big picture, but everytime he writes something, I start having second thoughts. Aversion? Attraction? Hell's bells, life is pretty simple. I do whatever I have to do and don't second-guess a thing. I don't chop wood or carry water, but I do things that are the equivalent of that. Today, I thought I was going to climb Brady Mountain and get some heavy exercise, but then a serious spiritual seeker wrote and asked me a question. I had to spend an hour responding to his email. Then, I decided to write a long letter full of advice and interesting information to President Obama and send copies to all of my representatives. I worked on that for about two hours till I burned out (most of my advice can be found in "The Price of Civilization," by Jeffrey Sachs) and decided to mull it over before sending it. I decided to do this because Obama said something recently in a public appearance that was almost word-for-word something I wrote to him several months ago (sometimes it is worth writing politicians!). I then took the morning paper to my ninety-six year old mother and talked to her for a while. Then, it was back to the office, a quick lunch, some more writing, and an afternoon nap. At 3PM I went to a dance studio in our office park and practiced dancing with Carol for a while. Afterwards, I picked up a cup of coffee at McD, went to a home under construction, dug dirt off of a rock bluff for an hour, made notes for things to do on Monday, and then hiked up and down a steep hill for thirty minutes to keep bad cholesterol at bay. I then came back to the computer, and wrote a future newspaper article about non-duality. Later tonight I'll take Carol dancing at a Mexican restaurant and we'll stay as long as the dancefloor remains open. During the day I didn't check on the mind to see what it was doing, but the mind came and went as it was needed. The whole thing was a big non-reflective flow. I didn't spend any time trying to be conscious; I just went about my usual activities. Life is a big blooming wonderful mystery, and I have no idea what will happen next. Now.......where is that second glass of Pinot Noir? |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 22:02:25 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on Nov 19, 2011 22:02:25 GMT -5
What I mean is that the 'aversion' is a thought, just like 'attraction' is a thought... And that for all intents and purposes those positive or negative thoughts are 'about' reality and not reality itself. I'm not talking about adding another layer of judgmental thought onto the original thought. I'm also not talking about a biological aversion to reality which is the straw-man argument your using. Someone who is totally conscious, is not influenced by biological aversion, or attraction for that matter, But See's it arise as everything else is seen to arise, as a 'thought'. We live in a world in which 'thought' arises and is experienced, but it is not the world of Reality. Time to move on and head back to the Egyptian Dimension... My understanding of the straw man argument is the creation of a false argument for the opponent, which can then be successfully argued against, as a way of avoiding the actual point being made. I might miss your point, either because it wasn't clear, or because I misunderstand, but I'm not making up false arguments in order to avoid your point. I do the best I can to understand your points. As I've said, I don't think it's possible to draw a line between thought and what we might call pre-thought or unconscious thought or whatever. Is an unconscious or 'programmed' reaction a reaction to a thought? Is the startle response or instinct a reaction to thought? Does the actual muscular process of walking consist of thoughts? Is the attraction to beauty or aversion to ugliness a thought? I dunno. Some of that, like the startle response and some of the reactions to attraction and aversion you're talking about, tend to change or go away as we become more conscious, but it doesn't help me to draw the lines and make any absolute statements about it. BTW, the perception of a thought as a thought, is itself a thought. Whoa, slow that perpeller down big guy, no one is accusing you of making up false arguments... But since you brought it up, I think theres a case to be made for variations on the straw man argument. For instance I might state that instead of a false argument, a non-contextual argument is made to not necessarily avoid, but to hijack the discussion that is being made. Thus instead of discussing falsity, I move the argument towards deceptiveness or disingenuousness as an off shoot from the original premise. Thus splitting the discussion in 2 different directions. I'm not saying this is what I see happening but rather I'm offering it as a possible explanation as to why the straw man agrument only seems to land almost entirely in response to your posts. Since I'm not the only one using the description of a straw man argument on this board, I can only conclude that it goes much deeper than a simple misunderstanding. So as usual I'm left in an enigmatic quandary... |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 22:21:19 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on Nov 19, 2011 22:21:19 GMT -5
Most of the time I don't bother anymore either, but once in a while I'll stop in to see how folks are doing and come across stuff that's total gibberish. It may be time to join in the drinking, but all I've got is vodka. Stay away from that Vodka stuff; it'll make you completely lose touch with reality. LOL. I've found something much better and very cheap. It's called "Crane lake, Pinot Noir." It can be bought for about $4.75/bottle and it enhances one's sense of reality in a most pleasurable way. Ha ha. I only drink two glasses a night, which helps keep the blood flowing and is a more enjoyable way to get reservatrol (sp?) into one's system than taking a pill. As for the Egyptian, I really think he gets the big picture, but everytime he writes something, I start having second thoughts. Aversion? Attraction? Hell's bells, life is pretty simple. I do whatever I have to do and don't second-guess a thing. I don't chop wood or carry water, but I do things that are the equivalent of that. Today, I thought I was going to climb Brady Mountain and get some heavy exercise, but then a serious spiritual seeker wrote and asked me a question. I had to spend an hour responding to his email. Then, I decided to write a long letter full of advice and interesting information to President Obama and send copies to all of my representatives. I worked on that for about two hours till I burned out (most of my advice can be found in "The Price of Civilization," by Jeffrey Sachs) and decided to mull it over before sending it. I decided to do this because Obama said something recently in a public appearance that was almost word-for-word something I wrote to him several months ago (sometimes it is worth writing politicians!). I then took the morning paper to my ninety-six year old mother and talked to her for a while. Then, it was back to the office, a quick lunch, some more writing, and an afternoon nap. At 3PM I went to a dance studio in our office park and practiced dancing with Carol for a while. Afterwards, I picked up a cup of coffee at McD, went to a home under construction, dug dirt off of a rock bluff for an hour, made notes for things to do on Monday, and then hiked up and down a steep hill for thirty minutes to keep bad cholesterol at bay. I then came back to the computer, and wrote a future newspaper article about non-duality. Later tonight I'll take Carol dancing at a Mexican restaurant and we'll stay as long as the dancefloor remains open. During the day I didn't check on the mind to see what it was doing, but the mind came and went as it was needed. The whole thing was a big non-reflective flow. I didn't spend any time trying to be conscious; I just went about my usual activities. Life is a big blooming wonderful mystery, and I have no idea what will happen next. Now.......where is that second glass of Pinot Noir? ZD your too generous if you think I get the big picture, me thinks it's the Pinot Noir talking... I am glad you had such a dreamy day though... Cheers |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 19, 2011 22:54:50 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 19, 2011 22:54:50 GMT -5
My understanding of the straw man argument is the creation of a false argument for the opponent, which can then be successfully argued against, as a way of avoiding the actual point being made. I might miss your point, either because it wasn't clear, or because I misunderstand, but I'm not making up false arguments in order to avoid your point. I do the best I can to understand your points. As I've said, I don't think it's possible to draw a line between thought and what we might call pre-thought or unconscious thought or whatever. Is an unconscious or 'programmed' reaction a reaction to a thought? Is the startle response or instinct a reaction to thought? Does the actual muscular process of walking consist of thoughts? Is the attraction to beauty or aversion to ugliness a thought? I dunno. Some of that, like the startle response and some of the reactions to attraction and aversion you're talking about, tend to change or go away as we become more conscious, but it doesn't help me to draw the lines and make any absolute statements about it. BTW, the perception of a thought as a thought, is itself a thought. Whoa, slow that perpeller down big guy, no one is accusing you of making up false arguments... But since you brought it up, I think theres a case to be made for variations on the straw man argument. For instance I might state that instead of a false argument, a non-contextual argument is made to not necessarily avoid, but to hijack the discussion that is being made. Thus instead of discussing falsity, I move the argument towards deceptiveness or disingenuousness as an off shoot from the original premise. Thus splitting the discussion in 2 different directions. I'm not saying this is what I see happening but rather I'm offering it as a possible explanation as to why the straw man agrument only seems to land almost entirely in response to your posts. Since I'm not the only one using the description of a straw man argument on this board, I can only conclude that it goes much deeper than a simple misunderstanding. So as usual I'm left in an enigmatic quandary... In general, that seems to be a normal evolution of discussions everywhere, though it's true I've never been much for religiously staying on topic. Most of the time, I don't even know what the thread title is. Hehe. The strawman argument is used to make the opponent wrong. The claim that one is using a strawman argument can be used for precisely the same reason. Don't let peeps do a Derren Brown on ya.  |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 20, 2011 3:11:42 GMT -5
Post by andrew on Nov 20, 2011 3:11:42 GMT -5
Whoa, slow that perpeller down big guy, no one is accusing you of making up false arguments... But since you brought it up, I think theres a case to be made for variations on the straw man argument. For instance I might state that instead of a false argument, a non-contextual argument is made to not necessarily avoid, but to hijack the discussion that is being made. Thus instead of discussing falsity, I move the argument towards deceptiveness or disingenuousness as an off shoot from the original premise. Thus splitting the discussion in 2 different directions. I'm not saying this is what I see happening but rather I'm offering it as a possible explanation as to why the straw man agrument only seems to land almost entirely in response to your posts. Since I'm not the only one using the description of a straw man argument on this board, I can only conclude that it goes much deeper than a simple misunderstanding. So as usual I'm left in an enigmatic quandary... In general, that seems to be a normal evolution of discussions everywhere, though it's true I've never been much for religiously staying on topic. Most of the time, I don't even know what the thread title is. Hehe. The strawman argument is used to make the opponent wrong. The claim that one is using a strawman argument can be used for precisely the same reason. Don't let peeps do a Derren Brown on ya. Haha yes, there is not a lot more frustrating on a forum than someone asserting that a strawman has been used, and this assertion is actually a strawman in itself. It is possibly the ultimate in derailment. Next time Im losing an argument watch out for me asserting a strawman has been used hehe. |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 20, 2011 3:49:10 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 20, 2011 3:49:10 GMT -5
In general, that seems to be a normal evolution of discussions everywhere, though it's true I've never been much for religiously staying on topic. Most of the time, I don't even know what the thread title is. Hehe. The strawman argument is used to make the opponent wrong. The claim that one is using a strawman argument can be used for precisely the same reason. Don't let peeps do a Derren Brown on ya. Haha yes, there is not a lot more frustrating on a forum than someone asserting that a strawman has been used, and this assertion is actually a strawman in itself. It is possibly the ultimate in derailment. Next time Im losing an argument watch out for me asserting a strawman has been used hehe. Yeah, I figure hardly anybody is doing it on purpose. If they are, they've got a real manipulative debate strategy going, and probly aren't much fun to discuss with anyhoo. Most are just unconsciously following their own desire to make their own point and be right, without realizing they've missed the point. Some don't really care what the point is, and some don't understand the point and are responding to their misinterpretation. I'm likely guilty of that last one pretty often cause I sometimes really struggle to make sense of some of the posts. Some have a very vague way of relating, and I figure that's usually a self protective tactic. It allows room for 'plausible deniability' if something goes horribly wrong. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 20, 2011 4:22:44 GMT -5
Post by andrew on Nov 20, 2011 4:22:44 GMT -5
Haha yes, there is not a lot more frustrating on a forum than someone asserting that a strawman has been used, and this assertion is actually a strawman in itself. It is possibly the ultimate in derailment. Next time Im losing an argument watch out for me asserting a strawman has been used hehe. Yeah, I figure hardly anybody is doing it on purpose. If they are, they've got a real manipulative debate strategy going, and probly aren't much fun to discuss with anyhoo. Most are just unconsciously following their own desire to make their own point and be right, without realizing they've missed the point. Some don't really care what the point is, and some don't understand the point and are responding to their misinterpretation. I'm likely guilty of that last one pretty often cause I sometimes really struggle to make sense of some of the posts. Some have a very vague way of relating, and I figure that's usually a self protective tactic. It allows room for 'plausible deniability' if something goes horribly wrong. Hehe. Haha thats funny. I agree though and I doubt I have ever seen it used on purpose. |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 20, 2011 10:30:26 GMT -5
Post by question on Nov 20, 2011 10:30:26 GMT -5
I use 'reductio ad absurdum' a lot, which to the uninformed reader probably looks like a strawman. Either completely for fun, but usually in order to provoke a clarification.
These nonduality debates really suffer when people talk in very general and formulaic terms, this is usually when people use their own special vocabulary and don't bother to explain it and it turns out to be a guessing game, plausible deniability is also an important factor. I find that tiptoeing around is really a waste of time, better to just be agressive about it, if peeps get insulted then that's already a safe indicator which saves a lot of time.
Well, if there's manipulative stuff going on, then you just have to pull a strawman on the strawman, which can be a lot of fun.
|
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 20, 2011 12:21:18 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on Nov 20, 2011 12:21:18 GMT -5
Enigma (My understanding of the straw man argument is the creation of a false argument for the opponent)
Enigma (The strawman argument is used to make the opponent wrong.)
Enigma (I might miss your point, either because it wasn't clear, or because I misunderstand)
Enigma (Most of the time, I don't even know what the thread title is)
Enigma (I'm not making up false arguments in order to avoid your point.)
Enigma (The claim that one is using a strawman argument can be used for precisely the same reason)
Enigma (I do the best I can to understand your points.)
Enigma (Don't let peeps do a Derren Brown on ya.)
|
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 20, 2011 14:41:48 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 20, 2011 14:41:48 GMT -5
Enigma (My understanding of the straw man argument is the creation of a false argument for the opponent) Enigma (The strawman argument is used to make the opponent wrong.) Enigma (I might miss your point, either because it wasn't clear, or because I misunderstand) Enigma (Most of the time, I don't even know what the thread title is) Enigma (I'm not making up false arguments in order to avoid your point.) Enigma (The claim that one is using a strawman argument can be used for precisely the same reason) Enigma (I do the best I can to understand your points.) Enigma (Don't let peeps do a Derren Brown on ya.) Okay, the one thing that is clear about that is that Enigma is being quoted. I was able to figure that out even without any quotation marks. This is where the guessing game starts. Was it posted because you want to highlight the wisdom contained therein for the sake of the betterment of humanity?........I think not. Are you attempting to point out something to me in my own words?......Yeah, that seems most likely. A contradiction perhaps?.......Hmmmmm...... :::::::Performing anti-viral scan for possible contradictions::::::: Scanning.........scanning........scanning........ No virus found Another thought occurs: Since half the quotes are admissions on my part that I may not understand what is being said (Gee, I wonder why) my woo woo intuitive sense tells me that it may be an attempt to show me that I create apparent straw man arguments out of my misunderstanding. The mind can't really make sense out of that idea because that was precisely the point of my comments, so why would he try to point that out to me. Maybe he didn't understand that was my point, and created a straw man argument out of that misconception?......Seems the most mathematically probable, and so this completes the deciphering analysis. End Program******* |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 20, 2011 15:03:55 GMT -5
Post by question on Nov 20, 2011 15:03:55 GMT -5
Looks like TRF is trying to say that you're reading into a post whatever you unconsciously want to read into it. If someone complains that you're missing the point and corrects you, then it looks to you like they're pulling a strawman on you (because you're pretty sure that your intitial interpretation of the post is correct), while they're pretty sure that you're pulling a strawman on them (because they're pretty sure that you're changing the topic). And when they point that out then you think that they're strawmaning you for the sake of strawmaning. So it's like you're in a perpetual monologue and... well, I think you get the idea.
Anyways, that's what my probability calculator came up with. I wouldn't give it more that 28.37% though, TRF is difficult to figure out.
|
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 20, 2011 16:04:07 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 20, 2011 16:04:07 GMT -5
Looks like TRF is trying to say that you're reading into a post whatever you unconsciously want to read into it. If someone complains that you're missing the point and corrects you, then it looks to you like they're pulling a strawman on you (because you're pretty sure that your intitial interpretation of the post is correct), while they're pretty sure that you're pulling a strawman on them (because they're pretty sure that you're changing the topic). And when they point that out then you think that they're strawmaning you for the sake of strawmaning. So it's like you're in a perpetual monologue and... well, I think you get the idea. Anyways, that's what my probability calculator came up with. I wouldn't give it more that 28.37% though, TRF is difficult to figure out. Yeah, probably. ;D I wouldn't say there's a lot of unconscious reading going on here, and I would say I rarely conclude that somebody is consciously creating a straw man argument, as I said. I just conclude that one of us probly missed the point, and I think it's easy to see how anybody can with some of these posts. As an aside, even though your posts often involve an intellectual depth, i find them to be more clearly written than most, and that's appreciated. |
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 20, 2011 16:12:20 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Nov 20, 2011 16:12:20 GMT -5
Akshully, TRF is mis-named. He should carry the "Enigma" monicker because he is the most enigmatic poster on the forum. He is either very clear or very confused, and it is impossible to tell which. LOL. Nevertheless, he seems very likable even though he appears to be slinging a lot of obfuscatory mud at everyone. Or, is he slinging something else? It's an enigma to me.
|
|
|
|
Smell
Nov 20, 2011 16:28:41 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 20, 2011 16:28:41 GMT -5
True, though 'the real fake' implies a kind of paradoxical self contradiction that could muddy the waters a bit.
Everybody here is pretty likable, and I appreciate y'all being whatever you are being.
|
|
