Neither [Parm & Ploti] rely on or espouse empirical or sensory knowledge but aim at an insight into a 'higher truth' through visionary or non-ordinary states. — Wayfarer

It is meaningless to say that anyone doesn’t rely on sensory knowledge because minds are built on it. No sensory input, no mind.

You've tried and found it impossible? — Janus

You have no attachment to anything or anyone, including yourself?

The common thread defining the state of consciousness referred to in the various traditions as enlightenment, seeing the truth, becoming the real self, becoming free, seeing the true nature of things, becoming authentic and so on, seems to be non-attachment to the ego, the opinions of others and the things of this world in general. — Janus

So a fantasy, in other words.

Enlightenment in the Buddist sense simply means the realization of what they call emptiness, and it has little if anything to do with the development of virtue.

As opposed to the scope of rationalism?

Suffice to note that in classical (i.e. pre-modern) philosophy, rationalism was concerned with arriving at, shall we say, a cosmic truth, without recourse to experience - classical examples being Parmenides and Plotinus. — Wayfarer

Parm & Ploti’s minds both had a grounding in what they experienced with their senses. Without such a grounding they would not have developed minds.

knowledge can only be grounded in what can be experienced by the senses — Wayfarer

Considering that it would be impossible to know anything without such a grounding it’s really not that unreasonable.

The Sand Dune Sermon

The dude's robe caught on some bushes as he climbed the dune, making him spill his drink a little. Once on the mound, surrounded by all that would hear his words of wisdom, he began speaking.

"Things have come to light, man."

"Life is strikes and gutters, ups and downs."

The crowd chants, "Yes, O' Lord"

"No, I’m the Dude, so that’s what you call me. That or, uh His Dudeness, or uh Duder, or El Duderino, if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.”

"Where was I? Oh yeah, this is a very complicated thing, man. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous."

The crowd abruptly chants, "Yes, O' Dudeness", startling the dude and making him spill his drink once again.

"Careful man, there's a beverage here!"

"Stop running around, immerse yourself in life and face whatever, man. Chasing pleasure leads to pain and chasing pain leads to pleasure. BALANCE, man. The dude abides in balance."

"Do you abide?"

The crowd chants, "We abide, O' Dudeness!"

Is Buddhism philosophically sound?
— praxis

A vacuous question unless you make it more specific. — Janus

Indeed.

It's amusing how up in arms the self-righteous become. — Janus

Oh no, can't resist...

Oompa loompa doompety doo
I’ve got a perfect puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you are wise you’ll listen to me

What do you get when you boast of your misogyny
Hating as much as an unrepentant clansman
What are you at, getting terribly bigoted
What do you think will come of that

I don’t like the look of it

Oompa loompa doompety da
If you’re not misogynistic, you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do

The notion that this forum has the power to reform bigotry isn’t shameful, just terribly naive.

And now with that post you think yourself better than a racist. — dimosthenis9

I think he thinks himself smarter than those who debate the banning of an unrepentant misogynist, to be precise.

Is Buddhism philosophically sound?

I am an unrepentant misogynist. — Michael Zwingli

If he’s as influenced by social dynamics as you’ve suggested, it’s likely that he would have been compelled to remain consistent with this statement.

up: — Janus

Thumbs up to the ‘one strike you’re out’ policy of unrepentant misogynists. Thanks for the exercise in futility.

I just don't favour the 'one strike you're out' way of dealing with bigotry. — Janus

Fair enough. I propose two strikes for the repentant misogynist and one for the unrepentant.

Admittedly banning is easier, but I think deletion of offensive posts would send an equally clear, and more compassionate, message. — Janus

Such posts would be seen and they would offend. Don’t you care about that? They would also promote bigotry, and by allowing them the forum could be perceived as supportive. Does anyone follow up on what posts are deleted? My own posts could be deleted and I wouldn’t know.

Banning them might just make them double down, which won't be the forum's problem, because they are gone from here, but it may become a greater problem for their partners, family or society. — Janus

So you want the mods to vigilantly moderate self-professed sexists, or whatever-ists, in good service to society? Banning is much easier, and it sends a very clear message.

You didn't get the point. — dimosthenis9

Thankfully.

You definitely demonstrated that slippery slopes can be funny.

Rules as laws should be forced and read under their general spirit not by the book. — dimosthenis9

The forum generally lacks the misogynist spirit, fortunately.

Real men are secure. Baby men are misogynist.
— praxis

Thought crime! Stereotyping, ageist and offensive to cis-males who identify as anxious.

(There is no escaping, is there?) — apokrisis

I was using Zwingli’s own persuasion technique in an effort to counter what he was promoting.

Show me how you get that.
— tim wood
From my read, the bolded qualifier is an espousal in the form of an implicit normative:

"I am an unrepentant misogynist. For me, the concept that a woman should be considered the equal of a man, if he is any kind of man, is simply fucking ludicrous." — Michael Zwingli — 180 Proof

Real men are secure. Baby men are misogynist.

I think the basic difference is between supporting inequality and merely stating your dislikes.

Life is not on fire. Life is homeostatic.

As can be seen from the following analysis, Xtrix maintained a lead from beginning to end. I resigned when it looked like no hope remained. :fear:



Game can be reviewed here:
https://www.chess.com/game/daily/367297963

Thanks for the challenging game, @Xtrix !

Making shitty memes is the politics of the proletariat. — StreetlightX

Yes, meanwhile, Amazon pays an unlivable wage and Jeff sends Captain Kirk into orbit for shits and giggles. Great politicking!

Maybe instead of sticking up for bloodsucking politicians consider putting away your high-nosed class pretentions? — StreetlightX

I haven’t stood up for any politicians in this topic, with my nose or any other part of my anatomy.

I would hope that a civically educated citizen would know how to spend their time more productively. In any case, it takes very little education to manipulate anime video so childishly.

Civically educated people effectively spend their time producing and publishing threatening anime memes directed at politicians? Shouldn’t they know it’s a felony?

Easy to say, but like you point out, not so easy to do! The Buddha also realized the difficulty and came up with an eight fold path to help people obtain the right state of mind, but it isn’t easy and human nature, being what it is, is always looking for an easy solution. — Present awareness

I like the way you say this too, as though if there were an easy solution, a Buddhist would still do it the hard way. That suggests to me that it’s really not about a solution but rather all about the way.

If one may simply enjoy the moment as it comes, without attachment, there will be a willingness to let things go, once they are gone. — Present awareness

I like the way you say this, as though it were the simplest thing in the world to do, a piece of cake, or easy peasy lemon squeezy.

If they’re so weak-minded it should be easy for someone such as yourself to change them. — NOS4A2

You don't understand what influence is?

It’s nonsense — NOS4A2

It may be nonsense for people who can think for themselves, but Gosar has influence over weak and potentially violent minds.

The interesting thing is that I think it can be merely an attitude, and an attitude where, for example, you could see you own life as a game, or conversely, regard a game too seriously and it no longer be enjoyable.

This is self-contradictory, if people don’t benefit from cooperation then they don’t cooperate.
— praxis

I might be wrong, but I don't view the matter thusly, thinking that the motive behind all cooperative behavior is selfish. — Michael Zwingli

I don’t see how we’re in disagreement. Cooperation isn’t necessarily selfless or selfish, though as I mentioned, people realize that they may personally benefit from cooperation so they cooperate out of self-interest.

When people cooperate with others, they do so utterly for their own benefit, no mutuality necessary. — Michael Zwingli

This is self-contradictory, if people don’t benefit from cooperation then they don’t cooperate. Mutuality is necessary, and our natural capacity of reason allows it.

So not the queen’s gambit but some other nail biter of an opening that I’m not familiar with. :grimace:

I find that being in a relaxed state promotes a meditative state of mind and that's why breathing (slow, through the nose, and with the diaphragm) is so important. Sometimes before sitting I'll listen to a hypnosis tape for relaxation, and it definitely helps.

I go the other direction in meditation because it’s naturally relaxing, stimulates the somatic nervous system and that helps to suppress the DMN (default mode network or ‘monkey mind’), and go down to one or two breaths a minute.

Uh, my rocket science is a little rusty.