>I would first like to note that this post was, on the whole, civil. I
>appreciate that.
And I as well. David is charming when he wishes to be.
>Such a state [nirvana]may exist. I have not experienced it, but to
limit ones
>conception to what one currently imagines possible is not effective.
You
>are disabling your ability to perceive.
I can agree with both of these assertions.
<SNIP>
>Also clear. I disagree. Buddhism uses the same words but does not come
to
>the same conclusions. Buddhists, especially in Zen, are very insistent
on
>coming to grips with "reality" and in knowing the "facts" of existence.
>Centuries of philosophy have brought them to an extremely complicated
and
>subtle understanding of the way in which things have their own identity,
>what the nature of this identity is, etc.
I have read a little in Zen, and I have barely begun to understand.
>This is a single philosophy. You assert that Objectivism is basic. I
>disagree. Richard asserts that Level 3 is basic. I disagree with this
>also. The thing is, Richard can see things from my perspective. He
laughs
>at himself. He thinks, "ha, ha...I think I know what is going
on...that's
>an obvious delusion..." Richard can disagree with himself.
I am not sure that "basic" is a useful concept. Can you define this word?
>You cannot disagree with yourself. You cannot look from outside your
own
>ideology at yourself. As a result you are taking this all WAY TOO
>SERIOUSLY. I'm not speaking from any position of superiority, and
Richard
>(in his moments of lucidity) isn't either. We are all susceptible to
>ideological certainty.
Reed, you appear to accept paradox and contradiction. I appreciate your
honesty,
and agree with the definition of another toxic meme: ideological
certainty, defined
(perhaps) as confident possession of ultimate truth in any area.
>You are arguing that Objectivism is only way to build "right-thinking"
and
>that memetics is a useful tool. Richard is (kind of) arguing that
3-Level
>is "right-thinking" and than objectivism and memetics are both useful
>tools. Is this an argument over primacy? "In the beginning there was
>Objectivism"...
I'm glad you put the [(kind of)] in there;
>In the beginning there was nothingness. All consciousness is
constructed
>from that basis. This is what I believe. But from your perspective I
am
>already "wrong-thinking" for disagreeing with you.
The Void is not empty, it is filled with potential, and permeates all. Is
that close?
We should not turn CoV into a Zen Buddhist sect, however; there are
enough of
those already.
>Can't you see me out here?
Who is it that sees? Can you show him to me? <VBG!>
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------