I suspected as much.

(May 19, 2016 at 4:00 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: A is not identifying as A in B's body. C is identifying as A, and I've already stated self-identity is a bit pointless.

Pointless? Do you consider your own identity pointless?
[/quote]
Self identity is a bit pointless but not entirely pointless, and no I do not consider my identity pointless as through this identity other can identify me.

Hehe. Good job you're not playing Mafia eh Magi? You keep ballsing up the quote tags! Hehe.

(May 19, 2016 at 4:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I appreciate, as I'm sure we all do, Quip..that you came here to enlighten we suffering denizens of AF......and "put a reasonable doubt into the atheist perspective"...whatever you think that is.  

However, I fear that such a goal is at cross purposes to your stated method, in that proposing a koan, you should be causing us to -doubt- the efficacy of reason, at which point the value of a reasonable doubt is significantly reduced.  Further, your inability, up to this point, to actually -present- comments or questions which might lead us to doubt reason, except insomuch as we might doubt that you possess any, makes me suspect that the time you spent learning whatever you think passes as buddhism might have been better spent doing something else, like sitting on your hands.  

Perhaps you're a poor communicator, in a hellish  kassandra scenario whereby you have things of great importance to convey, but for whatever reason, you cannot properly impress upon others what those things are, or convince them that they are important....but seeing as your stated aim is to reduce confidence in reason, it's difficult to see how you intend to convince anyone of anything.  If we accepted the inadequecy of reason, what will you use, then, to bring us round?  Will you be repeating your claims or your questions until you get a response that you find suitable for further prevarication...and then claim that all previous answers were thusly inadequate or incorrect?  

To what end, we might ask ourselves, would a person wish to create such a hole in cognition?  "Enlightenment", proclaims buddhism.  Convenient, I think,  that "enlightenment" seems to require irrationality, demands that we abandon reason which would rail against it's inanities.   Convenient, that "enlightenment" seems to be interchangeable with the dogma of the buddhist who sits before us claiming to have none.  Unfortunate, in that "enlightenment" doesn't seem to be very enlightening.

  You go from puerile to pedantic in the stretch of one mere post. (Though you've sill retained your condescending tone.)  

I'm simply here to offer up debate...simply because I fully enjoy the intellectual challenges and exchanges.  I profess no otherworldly knowledge but rather suggest the possibility that reason may hold some limits thus, may not account for all of reality.  Feel free to challenge this assertion at will...and, if possible and where applicable, I will simply continue to answer in kind. 

The ball's in your court.

(May 18, 2016 at 9:03 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: For me, it's very similar in nature to asking, "why is there something rather than nothing?"  Being human, I think we have all been tempted by this question at one time or another, but then we remind ourselves that rationality must always rule over the egocentric nature of human yearnings.

Now, I must apologize because philosophy is NOT my bag, and I'm not sure any of what I just typed is coherent, lol.

I remember giving myself an existential crisis over that. All those out of body experiences during that period was not fun.

(May 19, 2016 at 4:36 pm)quip Wrote:   You go from puerile to pedantic in the stretch of one mere post. (Though you've sill retained your condescending tone.)  

I'm simply here to offer up debate...simply because I fully enjoy the intellectual challenges and exchanges.  I profess no otherworldly knowledge but rather suggest the possibility that reason may hold some limits thus, may not account for all of reality.  Feel free to challenge this assertion at will...and, if possible, I will simply answer in kind. 

The ball's in your court.

Debate?  Well that's a 180 degree turn from what you claimed to be offering up a few pages ago.  Debate requires some standard measure...a common system of considering claims shared by those engaged.  Can't be reason, now can it, koan man?  

Suppose that reason doesn't account for all reality, I have no reason to argue against that claim.  How will you discuss those unreasonable things with me, or anyone?  How should we assess unreasonable claims, or claims in which reason cannot be agreed to be applicable?  Should we just roll off a list of claims at, around, and over each other? Is that debate? Is that challenging an assertion? What would be informative about that? Meh, in any case, OFC reason has limits..it self describes a great many. Is this yet another deepity offered as profundity?

What portions of reality, if you know of any, cannot be reasonably accounted for..and what steps in, where reason fails, to provide an account?

(May 19, 2016 at 4:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 4:36 pm)quip Wrote:   You go from puerile to pedantic in the stretch of one mere post. (Though you've sill retained your condescending tone.)  

I'm simply here to offer up debate...simply because I fully enjoy the intellectual challenges and exchanges.  I profess no otherworldly knowledge but rather suggest the possibility that reason may hold some limits thus, may not account for all of reality.  Feel free to challenge this assertion at will...and, if possible, I will simply answer in kind. 

The ball's in your court.

Debate?  Well that's a 180 degree turn from what you claimed to be offering up a few pages ago.  Debate requires some standard measure...a common system of considering claims shared by those engaged.  Can't be reason, now can it, koan man?  

Suppose that reason doesn't account for all reality, I have no reason to argue against that claim.  How will you discuss those unreasonable things with me, or anyone?  How should we assess unreasonable claims, or claims in which reason cannot be agreed to be applicable?  Should we just roll off a list of claims at, around, and over each other?  Is that debate?  Is that challenging an assertion?  What would be informative about that?  Meh, in any case, OFC reason has limits..it self describes a great many.  Is this yet another deepity offered as profundity?

What portions of reality, if you know of any, cannot be reasonably accounted for..and what steps in, where reason fails, to provide an account?

You tell me as that's precisely the goal of the koan. Give quiet contemplation a chance. 

Some answers cannot be given in some pre-packaged, OTC, easily digestible way...as we're wont to feel entitled to. 

Simply offering an alternative perspective....take it or leave it.

(May 19, 2016 at 4:51 pm)quip Wrote: You tell me as that's precisely the goal of the koan. Give quiet contemplation a chance. 

-and again, you make me doubt that you spent your time learning buddhism wisely...since you didn't learn it at all.  A koan is a prelude to magic.  The goal of a koan is not to provide a standard measure, a means by which claims can be considered when/if reason fails...it's meant to persuade the audience that reason is inadequate. No amount of quiet contemplation is going to lead me to anything which I didn;t already know. I need interaction, I need input, I need standards of consideration.

Quote:Some answers cannot be given in some pre-packaged, OTC, easily digestible way...as we're wont to feel entitled to. 

-and apparently, some answers cant be given at all, or at least some people possess none.........

Quote:Simply offering an alternative perspective....take it or leave it.

What alternative perspective?  You've been awfully cagey......I don;t know that anyone here has any clue as to what perspective you're offering.  You could clear that up...or you could respond, again, as you did here.

(May 19, 2016 at 4:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: [quote='quip' pid='1278512' dateline='1463691087']


You tell me as that's precisely the goal of the koan. Give quiet contemplation a chance. 

Quote:-and again, you make me doubt that you spent your time learning buddhism wisely...since you didn't learn it at all.  A koan is a prelude to magic.  The goal of a koan is not to provide a standard measure, a means by which claims can be considered when/if reason fails...it's meant to persuade the audience that reason is inadequate.  No amount of quiet contemplation is going to lead me to anything which I didn;t already know.  I need interaction, I need input, I need standards of consideration.  

Then it seems we're at an impasse. You cling to external answers, a blatant irrational desire to be spoon-fed the mysteries of life in one convenient dose. (Not far removed from the Christian desire of clinging to their all-encompassing Bible.)

I don't know what else to tell you other than to keep banging your head on every wall....eventually you'll yield to the wall instead of expecting the wall to yield to your desirous whims.

Epic. Princess Bride quote. Epic.