On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:04:24 -0700, Hollywood Lee
gmail.com>
wrote:
>Keynes wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:08:03 -0700, Hollywood Lee
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> Keynes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:37:10 -0700, Hollywood Lee
gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:11:56 -0700, Hollywood Lee
gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:46:12 -0700, Hollywood Lee
gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:12:41 -0700, Hollywood Lee
gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keynes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:30:20 -0700, Hollywood Lee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, you must be the guy who knows *De Troof* !
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. That strange, promised land is inhabited by those non-mundane
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spiritual types.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm getting tired of your dishonest snipping.
>>>>>>>>>>> Wow. Are you really upset that I trimmed the following bit of your post?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is your pattern of behavior, Lee.
>>>>>>>>>> You do it every time. It's amusing.
>>>>>>>>>> You make yourself a hero in your own
>>>>>>>>>> estimation by careful topiary action.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Brevity may be the soul of wit.
>>>>>>>>>> But your method ain't really it.
>>>>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "There is no god but Ford. With balls on." (Sounds vaguely familiar.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Like everybody says it.)
>>>>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think it makes you look like a cool winner you have to believe
>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody has read the material you delete.
>>>>>>>>>>> Since the material snipped made no sense to me, I had no real response
>>>>>>>>>>> to it, so it was snipped. I do find it fascinating that you imagine all
>>>>>>>>>>> sorts of nefarious intent, though.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does this make sense to you?
>>>>>>>>>> "Your point of view (as posted) is entirely conventional
>>>>>>>>>> and not astonishing. It is called 'delusion' by the Buddha."
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it makes sense in that it is a properly formed sentence that
>>>>>>>>> conveys meaning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So now you plead dislexia?
>>>>>>> I assume you mean dyslexia. If so, no. If I had dyslexia, then I would
>>>>>>> think I would have said that the sensible statement above doesn't make
>>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not plead insanity?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Aren't you some sort of law-iar?)
>>>>>>>>>> Now you'll say you don't mean what you say
>>>>>>>>>> and don't think what you think.
>>>>>>>>> Why would I say that??
>>>>>>>> You've said it before many times.
>>>>>>> Really? Please show me the quote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it's really no use to say so.
>>>>>>>> Who could believe you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Really, you are off on some weird tangent.
>>>>>>>> You are always telling me that.
>>>>>>>> You keep trying to explain trucks to me.
>>>>>>>> Apparently the world is made for (and all about)
>>>>>>>> speeding trucks, inevitable doom, and the shadows
>>>>>>>> of despair. So you say.
>>>>>>> Perhaps that is what you have heard, not what I have said. But I could
>>>>>>> be wrong. Please show me where I have said that the world is all about
>>>>>>> "inevitable doom, and the shadows of despair." I don't believe I have,
>>>>>>> so it becomes and interesting question of communication and
>>>>>>> interpretation. Subject to correction, of course, I think you hear me
>>>>>>> say all sorts of doom and despair things because of the heavy filters
>>>>>>> you impose on what others say. I filter many things as well. But let's
>>>>>>> see where the problem is in this case, eh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No problems. You have followed my posts for years
>>>>>> with disclaimers that I only speak for myself and can
>>>>>> say nothing about the human condition or any variations
>>>>>> of experience. And your recurring proof of that premise
>>>>>> is that there are speeding trucks.
>>>>> As I thought - this stuff about doom and shadows of despair is of your
>>>>> own making. And here, being unable to provide the asked for quote, you
>>>> I searched for Lee's "I am an ass" post. But couldn't find it.
>>>> Maybe Lee is right. No signed confession exists.
>>>> Now or ever. No witnesses either. He denies everything.
>>>> He must be technically innocent or something.
>>>
>>> I was beginning to worry that Robert was pulling ahead in the number of
>>> insults you could hurl our way. Thanks. I think I have the lead again.
>>>
>>
>> Are you insulted?
>
>
>No. If you don't know the difference between the giving and receiving
>of insults, I would be happy to provide you with a sutta on the same.
>
>
>> What a pity.
>> Fortunately your sweet and kindly words given
>> freely for the benefit of all sentient beings stink not.
>> How could they?
>>
>>>>> sidestep with another assertion that I have not made (that I have said
>>>>> you "can say nothing about the human condition or any variations of
>>>>> experience", though I have suggested you drop the royal "we" you tend to
>>>>> use simply as a matter of humility and perspective),
>>>> I shall learn humility from Lee. And also learn trucks.
>>>
>>> No need to learn trucks from me or nayone, as it appears to be a
>>> hard-wired survival mechanism that erupts without training.
>>
>> Unfortunately deer and squirrels don't have it.
>> Lots of geese here at the lake, resident and visitors.
>> They don't know about trucks either.
>>
>>> And I would
>>> bet, as a psychological fact, that no amount of idealistic musings on
>>> your part will override the jump-aside response. Now, I suppose you
>>> could argue that the preceding is, once again, evidence of my
>>> physicalist approach,
>>
>> I wouldn't call 'hard wiring' physical.
>> That wouldn't make any sense, would it?
>>
>>> but it is you who would be jumping aside, eh? So,
>>> if you want to slap labels around, aren't you the physicalist?
>>>
>>
>> Only if you label one thing physical and another thing mental.
>> Your insistence on a true reality apart from human mentality
>> is ridiculous.
>
>You are 0-2 in making claims about what I've said then backing up the
>claim. Try swinging again and show me where I have ever claimed a "true
>reality apart from human mentality."
>
Isn't that the point of your speeding trucks?
Speeding trucks trump everything don't they?
>
>> If there were such a thing who could ever know it?
>> Without observers, no observations. Without opinions,
>> no controversy. The question is "what do we see?"
>> "What do we make of it?" Stuff like that.
>>
>> We can call a rope a snake, and an eggplant a pregnant frog.
>> We can think our head has disappeared if the mirror gets
>> turned around. We can look all over creation for the
>> jewel planted in our own forehead. We can be mistaken.
>> We are mistaken. I agree with the Buddha on that.
>>
>>> Try this. Pretend for a moment that I'm not a physicalist. Why would I
>>> then use this example to counter your idealism?
>>>
>>
>> Why would you even attempt to counter idealism?
>> The Buddha says that we make the world with our ideas.
>> But you don't believe that for a minute.
>
>
>You are right. I don't believe the Buddha said that.
Look it up in the dhammapada.
>I believe he said
>that the unawakened's clinging to ideas of "I" and "mine" gives rise to
>mental formations (dreams of wealth, power, possessions, lasting beauty,
>and on) that cause us mental suffering and that such mental suffering
>ceases when the clinging ceases. The beauty of this formulation is that
>it requires neither a physicalist nor idealist ontology - just attention
>to the way you think or don't think.
>
Half right. You propose an accomodation between
bondage and release. There is no such a thing.
Can't eat your cake and have it too.
Samsara is based on unshakable faith in physicalism,
the ravages of time leading to inevitable decline and defeat.
And speeding trucks of doom.
>
>> Isn't it because you know for a fact that idealism is wrong
>> and foolish?
>
>No. I do think it is beside the point and diversionary. Truth or
>falsity of the dogmatic claims of idealism and physicalism would best be
>set aside, or so it seems to me.
>
The dropping of opinions can't occur while
you still have strong opinions. Ideally there is
a dropping. But don't suppose that you are
already beyond reliance on true beliefs when
you clearly are still in thrall to them.
>
>> And that means that trucks are the truth and
>> one's mindset is completely irrelevant.
>
>I've never said such a silly thing.
Then why bring up speeding trucks at all?
Isn't that silliness?
>Rather, if you are going to be run
>over by the truck, I would think being mindful about it would be a
>skillful choice - second, perhaps, only to using your common sense
>mindset and stepping out of the way.
>
>
>> There is some reality
>> out there that we must beware of. It is inhumanly real and
>> pitiless. All human attitudes are powerless against the
>> inexorable grinding reality of the 'otherness out there'.
>> Samsara is the inescapable truth. Anyone who says
>> different is an idealistic speculator.
>>
>> We scratch when we itch, eat when hungry, sleep when tired,
>> and get out of the way of speeding trucks. This does not mean
>> that trucks are more real than hunger or tiredness.
>>
>> What are you trying to say with all the salty trucks?
>> That no one of whatever mentality can ignore the truth
>> of the physical? What is it you're attempting to say?
>
>Well, I was saying that you don't have the truth of your idealistic
>convictions.
Why don't you hit me with a brick instead?
Seriously, if you doubt what I say and consider me
a frivolous fraud (as you say above) is that why all
you can talk about is speeding trucks? Is that why
you follow me around with snide objections?
Are you the true prophet of physicalism and not me?
Then say something constructive if you can.
(Like where we can buy trucks cheap.)
>I've never claimed any physicalist truth beyond the merely
>pragmatic and mundane. It is you who wants to raise this up to an
>ontological debate between idealism and physicalism. My truck is just a
>way to get you to let go of both and get practical.
>
Not entirely convincing.
How practical do you want to be?
Do you want to make onions smell like petunias?
Good luck with that.
>
>
>>
>> I could be wrong, but it looks like you are championing
>> your own deluded opinion by denigrating others as
>> 'speculations', 'personal fantasies', 'hallucinations',
>> and suchlike hard headed diagnoses. But by what
>> right and proof can you take such a position? The
>> fact that you yourself worry about speeding trucks,
>> therefor everyone must?
>
>No. But if they want to argue that the world is purely mind made,
>making such dramatic ontological claims, then I do wonder why those
>speeding trucks scare them so. Again, where is the truth of their
>convictions? Wouldn't it be easier to just drop all the philosophical
>pretense and talk instead how we give rise to suffering with our
>cravings, egoistic conceits, and dogmatic views?
>
What? Stop worrying about holy speeding trucks?
Then what dogmatic views can we keep?
>
>> Buddhism has failed you, and you'd like to spread the
>> failure around liberally just so everybody else can fail
>> just like you.
>
>
>It's done me just fine. It seems it is you who thinks it has failed me.
> Can't help that, I suppose.
>
>
>
>> Then of course you'd be right about everything.
>> Doomed and damned, but correct in detail.
>>
>> If that's not what it's about, say plainly what you mean.
>
>
>It's not and see above. You seem angry in these exchanges. I hope that
>is a mistaken impression on my part and that you could calmly review
>what I have said above. Perhaps it is just the case that your idealism
>and my pragmatism will not overlap in significant degrees.
You have been reviewed.
I find you still dishonest.
You make assertions in one breath,
and in the next deny you've asserted anything.
(In the buddhist manner. But you're not entitled
yet to be a true zen weasel. No trucks allowed.)
All that's left is your insistence on speeding trucks.
If I talk nonsense you can ignore it.
But if you need to dispute, then you admit a
contrary opinion. And then you ought to have
something to say for yourself.
