So you were saying that my opinions were value laden, and therefore equally valid to everyone else's? — Wosret
Saying that on some meta-level analysis you think they're all valid, but we can't help but act otherwise doesn't actually change anything then, if we all act like they're true anyway, then there is no difference besides some kind of back-handed dismissal, or enlightened self-awareness that you can't in any sense actually enact. — Wosret
Who care's if they're servile, or inauthentic? You're just speaking from some alien position, it isn't as if it's true. It wouldn't matter if it was or it wasn't either, as that would require a value for the truth. — Wosret
Why are you even talking to me then, if we're both just irrational anyway? Why reason with me? What's the point of that? There couldn't be a reason I guess, just irrationally doing so, for no reason.
Also, is everyone irrational? That's a transpersonal claim... — Wosret
"Seriousness is the province of immortality; frivolity, the province of death. They that are serious do not die; they that are frivolous are always dead. Therefore would the wise be serious. The wise attain the supreme blessing, nirvana. He sees his glory increase who is energetic and can remember, who thinks honestly and acts deliberately, who is continent, who lives within the law, and who is serious. It is frivolity the fools and the weak-minded pursue; the wise treasure seriousness as a miser his gold. The monk who would be serious, who sees the danger of frivolity, shakes the evil law like the wind does the leaves; he tears asunder the bonds that bind him to the world; he is close to nirvana. Standing on the terrace of wisdom, released from all suffering, the serious man who has conquered frivolity looks out over the unhappy multitude, as, from the summit of a mountain, one might gaze upon the crowd in the plains below." - Buddha. — Wosret
We exert ourselves in the world through language by seducing otehrs to see the world in our own terms. Our sentences are viruses. Moreover we (including myself) like to spit out our favorite ideas. — n0 0ne
That's a Chinese God, and not Buddha. There are times to be serious, and things to be serious about. — Wosret
I don't want to argue about what God is or isn't, or whether or not it is or is, but just that there are things beyond you. If you go to learn a discipline, you subject yourself to their mastery. You listen intently, take them seriously, study what they tell you to, practice what they tell you to, and eventually things start falling together.
Now imagine two disciples, one doesn't pay attention, believes that the professor is an idiot, doesn't engage in the practices, doesn't study the material, and the other does the opposite. Which student do you figure will master the discipline, and which will not? Which will become an authority on the subject, and which will not?
No masters, or teachers are Gods or infallible, but you need to move through them, and beyond them in order to truly figure that one, it is far more difficult to reinvent the wheel, from scratch, thinking every other wheel maker a fool from the beginning, and a far better wheel than has ever been made before.
You of course do need to be on someone's level before you can understand them, and their are certain behaviors and attitudes which are not very conducive to getting there, and there are other behaviors and attitudes which are. — Wosret
"Probation" eh? You sound like a bad influence... What did you do? — Wosret
"Budai, Hotei or Pu-Tai[1][2] (Chinese and Japanese: 布袋; pinyin: Bùdài; rōmaji: Hotei[3]; Vietnamese: Bố Đại) is a Chinese folkloric deity. " — Wosret
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.