Quad: 3rd Party Commentary

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Gustav, Nov 30, 2011.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    That there is my source of disillusionment. I don't want to transcend the self. The self is me. The flaws are what make it interesting
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,379
    I suppose this is where I think your criticisms are quite apt with respect to Buddhism in India--in India, there's no want for Buddhist theorists. I've always been partial to the Madhyamaka schools of thought.

    But with respect to Buddhism in China, particularly Ch'an Buddhism, this has long been a point of contention for many: there are virtually NO Ch'an theorists. When queried on this, the "experts" always contested that the Indians had done all the theorizing that was necessary, so why bother with any further pontificating? Rather, they opted to focus almost exclusively on praxis.

    Likewise, I would suggest that allegations of nihilism, or even mere quietism, carry more weight with regards to Buddhism in India. Although IMHO careful reading of the Prajnaparamita sutras would not likely lead one to this conclusion; of course, the logic of such has no parallels with Western logic(s) (except perhaps some of the more playful excursions of someone like Charles Dodgson), so it would be rather a challenge to "argue" this.

    I always come back to the gatha of the illiterate wood-cutter, Huineng, who was to become the Sixth Patriarch--transcribed by a literate fellow, of course:

    Bodhi is fundamentally without any tree;
    The bright mirror is also not a stand.
    Fundamentally there is not a single thing —
    Where could any dust be attracted?

    This was in response to Shenshiu's verse--who was intended to become the next Patriarch:

    The body is a Bodhi tree,
    The mind a standing mirror bright.
    At all times polish it diligently,
    And let no dust alight.

    That all of this was most likely fabricated by a third party is not especially relevant here, as it became a part of the tradition nonetheless.

    On initial reading I can see how one might conclude that Huineng's verse suggests self-transcendence, or even self nihilation, but keep in mind that Huineng (according to legend) was an illiterate wood-cutter: what is proposed is pure immanence, immediacy, and connectedness to what is.

    Rather, what is advanced is a fairly sophisticated critique of language and our tendencies toward reification. In the West, I don't feel that there is anything comparable to this--in the academic or literary world--until some of Wittgenstein's post-Tractatus writings (a possible exception being some writings of Augustine on time). The oft-quoted "I think with my hands" come immediately to mind.

    Sure, in practice, parallels abound--East, West, North, South, wherever--but in literature, particularly theorizing, success in breaching the divide between theory and practice is rare.

    But that's just my take, and I'll add that the Japanese, in turn, took up the theorizing and much of what we (not fluent in Southeast Asian languages) have been exposed to of Chinese Buddhism is grossly distorted through the optics of the Japanese. Until fairly recently, I would say.

    Incidentally, have you read much Gary Snyder? Either his poetry or his essays, that is. I strongly recommend The Practice of the Wild.


    Edit: I'm kinda tired, and perhaps a little unclear--it's 3 a.m. Anyhow, I'll try to clarify a bit tomorrow--but first: don't get hung up on that "Fundamentally there is not a single thing" line. That hearkens back to Madhyamaka dialectics which, contrary to what one might glean from a cursory reading, are refreshingly grounded.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2011
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    lets eyeball that again
    one of the sentiments expressed by quad is that it is a bad habit of sam to "speak" for her nation. india to be exact.

    the semantics make that an easy inference



    he however appears to give her permission to "speak" for mumbai. he rejects her as a "spokesperson" for the religion of islam,the continent of asia, skips over the nation of india and aims for the city she resides in. that she can "speak" for

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    quad, please provide examples by way of links. it will be a real hoot to see sam posturing as some authority of note.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Some books for you to check out:

    Work as a Spiritual Practice: A Practical Buddhist Approach to Inner Growth and Satisfaction on the Job

    Awake at Work: 35 Practical Buddhist Principles for Discovering Clarity and Balance in the Midst of Work's Chaos

    Work, Sex, Money: Real Life on the Path of Mindfulness
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    ... for now.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    comprehension is a prerequisite for any commentary
    the rain in spain...
    commentary requires comprehension
    bada bing bada boom


    you assert...

    i assert.... "doubt, whether in specific aspects or in "totality", of a news report, is precisely what allows us to be".

    it is quite clear where feeble resides
    man up and admit your error
    the truth will set you free

    ----------------------------

    from "too white"

    i sense a troll. if quad is "displeased" with the "weigh", a harangue will surely ensue..."arrogate!, project!, speak for!". i urge caution. do not introduce the anti-reservationist stance as there are no proponents of that pov here in sci to speak for themselves
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    See? Not so hard after all, was it?

    I'm interested to know what you do besides assert, Gus.

    Hehe. Planks and specks, Gus. Back under your bridge.
     
  12. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    i'd like to know why you feel the need to state the obvious....

    .....and attempt to muddle with some disconnected and irrational verbiage
    dont bother tho
    i know
     
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I'm sure you would.
     
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
  15. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    More spiritualistic guru wannabes here than one could shake a stick at, I see.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    /laughs real hard
     
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Myuu forgives you.
     
  17. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Hmmm...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


     
  18. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Nice stick, Chimpi. I like it a lot, looks real good for shaking at stuff.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    I haven't said that. Those complaints were about speaking for really big groups that really can't be meaningfully spoken for at all, by anyone. If I placed the mention of India too close to that and confused you, well, consider the correction made.

    Not that people can't err and fail as valid spokesmen for smaller, more tractable groups as well, but it's at least possible in principle. S.A.M. sometimes so errs in speaking for India, and sometimes not. Generally, the narrower and closer a group is to one's immediate surroundings, the less of a problem that is. Likewise, the less someone is looking for a cheap way to browbeat someone, the less of a problem it is.

    Incorrect inferences are frequently the easiest ones.

    Speaking of speaking for others without standing, how about you stop telling me what I think, especially if you're going to be wrong about it so frequently? Next time you find yourself "inferring," consider just asking me for clarification. Or better yet, go find some other strawmen to play with.

    I haven't given (nor denied) anyone "permission" to speak for anything. I am hardly in a position to prevent such speech when I disapprove of it, so "permission" doesn't figure in.

    Frankly I don't see what's so oppressive about me noticing when people are talking out of their asses and pretending to authoritativeness, and telling them as much. And I notice the fixation on S.A.M. - you may recall that this all began with me noting that adoucette was talking out of his ass on the subject of South Africa. And, indeed, I have seen no complaints about that particular interaction, nor the general issue of noting when people are pretending to false authority and telling them as much. Just this sphincter-clenching hysteria at the implication that S.A.M. is also in the habit of talking out of her ass.

    Indeed. Moreover, I reject the premise that any individual can credibly speak for such large, variegated groups. Groups of such size and variance are not of one mind on much of anything to speak of.

    You're looking at the wrong axis - it's not a question of scale, primarily (below the point where the project is even credible on its face, that is), but of honor and intellectual humility. A dishonorable, arrogant person can perfectly well scotch his default standing to speak for a compact, well-defined group, simply by abusing such to misrepresent said group. Likewise, it's conceivable to speak for fairly large groups, provided you're really humble and careful about doing so, and so suitably circumscribe and qualify your claims. Of course, such would be of no use as a club for beating strangers over the head on the internet, so we rarely encounter it.

    As always, serial offenders can be relied upon to produce new examples in short order.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2011
  20. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    There's no trolling involved in expecting people to behave with honor when daring to speak for large groups (without said group's permission), nor in expressing displeasure when such honor is not forthcoming. There is a lot of trolling involved in stalking someone from thread to thread - and starting entire smear threads about them in SFOG - over their basic expecation that people interact with some modicum of respect and honor.

    I reject the accusation that such was any sort of trap. On the contrary, it was an effort on my part to avoid arrogating the standing to speak for India. I am no expert on caste-remediation policies in India, and so when asked for examples of such programs and analysis of their effectiveness, I naturally turned to the Indian participating in the thread to ask for her input. This was also a genuine effort to provide S.A.M. with an opportunity to be seen doing the right thing. It's disappointing that you insist on using it as so much cheap fodder.

    But, yes, caution is indicated, at least amongst those serial offenders who'd prefer not to be called on such.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2011
  21. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    it would really improve the credibility of your complaint if i had something to work with. why are you so reluctant to present some quotes that validate your perception? don't you know how shit works around here?


    you were quite specific in your "afterthought" ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ...."and of course, indians."

    what on earth is she claiming on behalf of her nation? i am sure it cannot be anything as mundane as..."indians love cricket" so it has to be something controversial. what?

    i mean that entire snippet just reeks of disdain and contempt so it has to be something really egregious since the usage of the term..."habit" is easily indicative of a negative sentiment.

    the latter portion is also similarly mystifying
    don't you understand there can be factions within any given group? different constituencies in single political party? are you insisting that i an forced to endorse disparate views simply because these views fall under the banner of some larger org?

    bullshit
    clear the addle out first, then go back and read

    ahh yes
    since you did not explicitly lay it out in that precise form, you never did such a thing.

    "you cannot do this and this but you can do that"

    so kind and megalomaniacally so


    sure and this is why you have to share, sam's presumptions. at the very least, it might provide a diversion

    the crux of the matter.....sam has no honor or intellectual humility. she is dishonorable and arrogant. she is abusive and she beats you with a club.

    what mattered was what came before that. your expressed sentiments. you delineating the forms of her expression then going on to solicit opinions. you have no idea how that looks? the display of condescension and arrogance. the megalomania?

    "giving her a chance to do the right thing"

    blowhard much?

    a problem that is entirely one of your making. you are so hysterical that you even drag trippy and bells into this


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    yeah
    there can only be one narrative. yours.

    yeah
    while foreigners are being bombed to death by his armies, quad insists they mind their p's and q's. for instance a hypothetical iraqi member's anger can only stem from a "persecution complex"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page