10030Non-pursuasive with counter-positions
- Mar 4, 2006--dantreble wrote:
> --"Mark" wrote:-M: Heroin is desired by some people too. In life we learn to
> > > -M: Lets make it: *Sustainable happiness is the result of
> > > affecting the spirit in a desired manner.* This aligns with
> > > *spirituality*. I think that most would agree with this.
> > > D: [...] What would be accurate would be that "SH is
> possibly *a* result,", not "is *the* result." For example,
> if someone smiles at you it can affect your spirit in a desired
> manner--but you will get over it soon.[...]
> > -M: If that doesn't lead to sustainable happiness, is it desired?
> D: Yes.
differentiate between the fleeting and the sustainable.
> > > > -M: What is the purpose of spirituality if it's notwhat the wisdom traditions (East and West) say.[flag]
> > > > sustainable happiness?[flag]
> > >
> > > > D: In what sense of the definition of "Spirituality" above
> > > > are you referring to?
> > >
> > > -M: (answered above) [flag]
> > > D: The purpose of "the quality or state of being `of, relating
> > > to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit'" is unclear.
> > -M: The purpose is to lead one to sustainable happiness. This is
> D: Quote a source to back that up, please. Where does it say-M: East: Vedanta. West: Gnosticism.
> that "the purpose of spirituality is sustainable happiness"?
> While you are at it, name a few "wisdom traditions" from the
> East and West so that I know what you are talking about.
*Sustainable happiness* is infered, but I don't recall their
language being so direct.
> > > > Compare your question to your other one:intersubjective methods to determine this? I say there are. Are
> > > > "If education isn't to serve this (spirituality), what is
> > > > it supposed to serve?[flag]"
> > >
> > > >D: Education serves the goal of *learning*, and the purpose of
> > > > spirituality (in whatever sense you mean) is (at least)that
> > > > of *sustainable happiness*.
> > > -M: You appear to agree that the goal of spirituality is
> sustainable happiness.
> > > D: No, I acknowledge that *a* goal of "engaging in spiritual
> > > activities" is sustainable happiness. I am replacing
> > > your "spirituality" with "spiritual activities" to make sense
> > > of there being a "purpose" to "spirituality" at all.
> > -M: To know whether it is *the* goal(SH) or not, are there
these methods invalid?[flag]
> D: What intersubjective methods did you have in mind?-M: Polling. The algorithmic means to process this data most
commonly is summation(vote counting), but we may get more
Polling can be used to determine who are the most credible people,
(as determined by the method employed). SD2 can be used to determine
who the most credible people consider to be the most credible people.
> > > >D: But one who is seeking to learn isn't necessarily seekingwhoever they consult be a spiritual authority in their eyes?
> > > spiritual guidance. One seeking sustainable happiness won't
> > > necessarily consult a spiritual authority.
> > > -M: If they were seeking sustainable happiness, wouldn't
> > > D: Not necessarily. They might consult someone that theymerely trust to be honest in responses.
> > -M: If their goal is susainable happiness, and this SH is-M: I just did, but just not in that exact format.
> > spiritual, and they feel that this other person will help,
> > doesn't this make the other person a spiritual authority by my
> > usage?(I am not asking you to agree with my usage, just agree
> > with my consistency.)
> D: Consistency? If you want me to agree with consistency, ask
> me a question of the form "Is it consistent to...?" Put your
> ideas down if you want them evaluated.
> > > >D: Your assumption that education serves spirituality is avalue statement, a statement of what you think that education
*should* serve. It is not a statement of fact, except in limited
contexts where your ideal may have been realized.
> > >-M: The issue is the taxonomy and how it relates to education. So
> > > -M: (Response below.)
> > >
> > > > >D:...Education serves the goal of learning.
> > > >
> > > > -M: Learning what? For what end? Using who's standards? And
> > > > what are these standards?[flag]
> > >
> > > > D: What is learned, to what end, and using who's standards
> > > > depends on one's goals and one's available options.
> > > -M: Still, available options (are) largely preestablished.
> > > Who sets these? Under what standards? To what end?[flag]
> > > D: In the case of higher education, the available options are
> > > set by those offering the instruction. The standards and ends
> > > differ according to the nature of the institution. [...]
> > -M: OK, but there are still ends, standards, and other people.
> > Don't they all have differing ideas of what will lead to
> > sustainable happiness?
> > Even a secular education will give tools that one can use toward
> > sustainable happiness.
> D: Being able to sort through differing ideas is what you have a
> brain for. If you don't like what is being offered, the ends,
> or the other people, you can go elsewhere.
the idea here is to arrive at a concensous, and not fragment
ourselves into autonomous agents.
> > > >D: One can be an autodidact if one chooses, and avoiddifferent goals.
> > > formal instruction entirely.
> > >
> > > -M: To what end?[flag]
> > >
> > > D: That is up to the autodidact. Different people have
> > >taxonomy
> > > > > > -M: You and I are communicating. This is a Dan/Mark
> > > > context.
> > > > > >D: And this context signifies what?
> > > >
> > > > -M: Meaning that it is a different context than the taxonomy
> > > > would be in with an educational system.
> > > >
> > > > > D: *What* is a different context? The Dan/Mark context?
> > > >
> > > > > Let's see: The Dan/Mark context is a different context than
> > > > the taxonomy would be in with an educational system. Huh?
> > > >
> > >
> > > -M: I am just saying that an educational context of the
> > > probably wouldn't be a D/M context.the
> > >
> > > D: You just said "`you and I are communicating' is a D/M
> > > context." Now you are saying that an educational context of
> > taxonomy probably wouldn't be a D/M context.would be adopted by educational institutions, which would be an
> > >
> > > I seem to have stated what you said correctly, but I don't
> > > understand what it is that you are saying. Please develop
> > > the idea.
> > >
> > > From an earlier Post, you said:
> > >
> > > "-M: Yes, because it could be interpreted differently and
> > > could take a different course of evolution. It is IMPOSSIBLE
> > > for me to argue for or against anything outside of my
> > > intersubjective context because my arguement itself is in
> > > my own intersubjective context. "
> > >
> > > D: The above does not clear up the matter. You said that it
> > > is IMPOSSIBLE for you to argue anything outside of your own
> > > intersubjective context, and I assume by that you mean the D/M
> > > context. Your taxonomy, however, to be adopted by the West
> > > educational context and outside of the D/M context.you arguing for the taxonomy to be adopted by? Me, personally?
> > > Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to argue for the adoption
> > > of your taxonomy by educational institutions. Who then, are
> > > The group?-M: I'd say 'argueing for the adoption for the taxonomy by
> > -M: This intersubjective context right now is only the group,
> > but it can expand. And once adopted by an educational
> > institution, would probably be no longer part of my
> > intersubjective context.
> D: So your reason for being here is to expand the context,
> not to argue for the adoption of your taxonomy by educational
> institutions. Correct?
educational institutions to expand the context'. I also enjoy
> > > > > > -M: If you were communicating in Russian, I wouldn't bewith continuing/ending discourse only. Only what is understood can
> > > > able to understand you. This would terminate the discourse,
> > > > even if you had a flawless and articulate arguement. This is
> > > > an example of how engagement is controlling.
> > > >
> > > > > > D: No it isn't. It is an example of how understanding is
> > > > controlling in a conversation.[...]
> > > >
> > > > > -M: Understanding is enabled through compatable engagement.
> > > >
> > > > > D: Yes, but you only said that engagement is controlling.
> > > > Had you said that "compatable engagement is controlling" I
> > > > would not have disagreed.
> > > >
> > > > -M: Even non-compatable engagement is controlling because
> > > > people will make decisions based on this non-compatability,
> > > > such as terminating discourse as with my example.
> > >
> > > > D: The "control" of a non-compatible engagement has to do
> > >-M: Irrelevant control is still control. Since it is irrelevant, it
> > > -M: Agreed. And this control yields an outcome.
> > >
> > > D: An outcome that isn't relevant to whatever was to be
> > -M: Agreed, but it was still controlling.
> D: And that irrelevant control matters to you because you
> want the context to expand, not shrink. Correct?
> > > >M: ...The pursuasion is internal, not external. Pursuasionis: "Persuasion isn't even dependent although it usually is." I'll
> > > > isn't even dependent on external variables, although it
> > > > usually is, especially with healthy people. As for the
> > > > mission, I will try being pursuasive, and I did flag core
> > > > questions above.
> > > D: Another contradiction: "Persuasion isn't even dependent
> > > on external variables, although it usually is (dependent on
> > > external variables)..."
> > -M: Not a contradiction. A crazy person can pursuaded by a non-
> > existant person. This is an example of where external variables
> > aren't needed.
>D: That is an example of insanity. Your contradiction
simplify it further: "P isn't D, although it usually is D."
-M: Thats not a contradiction because they aren't equivalent, though
they usually overlap.
> > > > D: Persuasion is not internal. It is an art. One can both-M: Compared to what? A vacuum that you take pot-shots from?
> > > > qualify and quantify it. To persuade with written arguments
> > > > they have to (at least) be both valid and sound. Once
> > > > recognized as such, one can be persuaded to accept them
> > > > as true. Bad arguments are not persuasive.
> > >
> > > -M: Bad arguments can be pursuasive to people who are stupid
> > > and/or fucked-up. Happens all the time. Pursuasiveness is
> > > in the eye of the beholder.
> > > D: Persuasiveness is power, a power you don't possess.
> > -M: My positions are stronger than your counter-positions.
> D: Your positions are ridiculous.
> > >D: What stupid people will believe is irrelevant. If youthan the fact that they are DODGING WUSSIES.
> > were persuasive, and if you had a persuasive argument, you
> > would have persuaded *someone* here in the 5 months you have
> > been here that your argument should be adopted.
> > -M: I don't have the power to pursuade DODGING WUSSIES other
> D: You have the power to annoy, but not to persuade.-M: Are you pursuasive with your counter-positions?
> > >D: You have persuaded no one. You never will. (Mission:Impossible)
> > -M: I have pursuaded others that they are DODGING WUSSIES.-M: Cute.
> D: You have persuaded others (unintentionally) that you're nuts.
> > >M: You are not making a case for this alledged "Western"If not, we can drop it.
> > > D: No I'm not. Nor will I. I don't mind it remaining alleged
> > here.
> > -M: Are you going to use it as a counter-position or not?
> D: Consider it dropped.-M: Then you failed to be pursuasive. You are the *pot calling the
kettle black*. Like a wussy?
>D: Incidentally, what do you mean when you say that you are "100%Western?" How would that differ from one's being 100% Eastern? What
is the distinction you are making?
-M: I am not making any distiction because I am 100% Eastern, too,
however someone can be one and not the other if they have a system
that is non-compatable with the other.
Someone can be less than 50% of either if they fail to take
positions, like WUSSIES.
> > > > D: No, I'm not authorizing myself to recognize these-M: Consciousness gives power to the mind.
> > > conditions. "Authorize" implies the giving of power or
> > > right to act.
> > > -M: Yes, and *will* power is an example.
> > >
> > > D: Example of what?
> > -M: The authorization of action.
> D: Who gives the power to whom?
> > > -M: Are you taking an *authoritative* position in thisdoes.
> > matter? If you think so, then you are authorizing the position
> > yourself - I will then try to override that *authority* by
> > pointing out the performative contradiction that this authority
> > yields - you would be taking an authoritative position against
> > self authority.
> > > D: No, I am not taking an authoritative position in this
> > > matter, if you are referring to "authority always existing"
> > > being the matter. I am voicing my opinion.
> > -M: If so, then your opinion has no power, since you are not
> > standing behind it with any authority.
> D: My opinion has no power (with thinking people); my reasoning
-M: Reason only works with shared assumptions. Authority is needed
to go beyond this.
> > >D: I see no reason to believe your view that there is always-M: You can't say this with authority since you have optted out.
> > authority.
> > -M: To bad. I am now the only one with an authoritative position
> > since you seem to have OPTTED-out.
> D: You don't have an authoritative position.
Well? Are you still going to take an authoritative position against
>D: You need to be contrary in order to secure responses. All youhave is contrariness and "drama."
-M: Actually I need contrariness instead of the VACUUM that you have
been offering. You have attacked your own authority, and you have
accused me of being non-pursuasive while not being pursuasive of
>D:...As Charles put it, "there is nothing there."-M: Since he attacked NO POSITION of mine, there was 'nothing there'
with him! Are you defending his hypocrisy, like a WUSSY?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>