Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you?

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

. . . I won't be your target.

Then why do you address me at all? It's pretty pathetic to say that you won't engage in an activity, in the expectation that you can get the last word and be done with it.

0 Replies

Let's clear some of this up here. You made a comment here, and i responded to it, in a civil manner, to more or less say that i agree. Later in the thread, Matt said that he understands why Frank says i'm a meanie. I thought he was referring to Frank Apisa, but he then told me he had meant you. Now, as i largely ignore you these days, i was unaware that you had said i am a meanie. But if you are going around posting things like that, and i am not following you around posting negative things about you, what business do you have to complain about being "attacked? What's all this **** about not being a target and not participating if you are going to post sh*t like that about me?

Ah, the fetid stench of hypocrisy.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Let me be clear...especially since I feel I may be aparty to some confusion.
To the best of my knowledge, IRFrank has never called you a "meanie" or made any equivalent statement.
"Meanie" was a term I introduced into the conversation in an attempt to mediate. If you feel that was unjustified you should take issue with me over it, rather than with IRFrank.
Personally I have been very impressed with your level of decorum toward me recently. I know we got off on the wrong foot when I joined A2K. I thought your play on the words "gall" and "Gaul" on the lugbolt thread was hilarious and extremely clever (due to the Germanic connection).
That is the kind of wit and insight which I would be missing I we had continued to argue over which of us is the bigger asshole. I think that the score is pretty much tied (between you and me).
I would rather not even keep score.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

So, you threw a sh*t bomb into the thread? You started trouble and have been sitting back for pages? My most recent responses to Frank have been based solely on his behavior in this thread. He's like a kid on a playground who picks a fight and the goes running to the teacher when he gets popped in the nose for it. If he does not intend "to be a target," if he doesn't intend to "participate," then he should do just that, he should just pass it by in silence.

As for you, i have shown you a lot of forbearance lately. What a mistake that has been.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I did not intend to throw a **** bomb.
I reacted as soon as I saw things going south.
IRFrank entered this thread at my request. I practically begged him to. I wanted a Buddhist perspective and in my experience IRFrank has been civil and intellectually honest. I pains me to see how much of a bloodbath this thread has degenerated into.
IRFrank is not responsible for your short temper or my lack of skill in attempting to return this thread to it's intended topic.
You might feel as though your forbearance is misplaced, I however have no intention of writing you off.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: fresco (Post 5279292)
Thank you Fresco.
This post is addressed to those of us a little lower on Wittgenstein's ladder.
I do agree that the popular perception of "religion" does not include the more esoteric wisdom traditions. I do hope in this thread to draw some attention to the limits of the "religion" label in terms of it's ability to predict and control (on the societal level).
I won't delve too deeply into the the nature of self on this thread, at least not past group identity (different level).

When Fresco wrote:

Quote:

You ask "how well does the label serve you ?", but this begs the question of a consistent "self" with respect to that label. Observation usually reveals to those capable of it, that such a "self" is an illusion.

...

...he was pretty much doing the equivalent of a theist telling people that "observation usually reveals to those capable of it that there is a GOD that controls our lives and sets moral standards we are required to meet."

In other words, he was guessing...and suggesting the reason others do not guess the way he does has to do with their mental capabilities.

1 Reply

By the way, listening to Setanta “explain” why he posts in the belligerent, demeaning, insulting way he does in the vast majority of his posts…is like listening to Dick Cheney “explain” why he was the kind of vice-president and human being he was.

Ya gotta get a huge laugh out of it…

...even though with both guys, you sit there wondering if he actually buys into the nonsense himself.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

No Frank, its not the same at all. Next time you catch yourself debating with yourself you might stop barking your drivel and be moved to contemplate the transient nature of"self".

2 Replies

@fresco,

Since the topic seems sufficiently diverted by pettiness, I see no need to dodge a discussion of self.
Fresco in your understanding, is will codependent upon an ability to predict and control?

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

No Frank, its not the same at all.

Yeah, it really is. My guess is you do not KNOW if the world is dualistic or non-dualistic...but you are asserting a non-dualistic reality...and pretending there is sufficient logical evidence to support that blind guess.

Quote:

Next time you catch yourself debating with yourself you might stop barking your drivel and be moved to contemplate the transient nature of"self".

If you were being logical...you would suggest that I contemplate the fact that the REALITY of the situation is probably beyond the comprehension of humans at this stage of their development.

But of course, if you did that...my response would be: That is exactly what I am doing...while wondering why you are not doing so.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: fresco (Post 5279786)
Since the topic seems sufficiently diverted by pettiness, I see no need to dodge a discussion of self.
Fresco in your understanding, is will codependent upon an ability to predict and control?

These snide comments, creeping in more and more often, should be beneath the dignity you usually show.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

They are not snide comments.
You are being petty, Setanta was being petty, I have been petty.
The topic has been diverted by pettiness.
Not everything is about you Frank (or is it?).
Though you do seem to be the only one still trying to stir up a hornets nest.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Not all remarks about "snideness" refers back to me, Matt.

Your last sentence was another example of what I was talking about...which ARE snide comments

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Not snide.
Quite trying to stir up trouble!!!
Be constructive.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Actually...now that you edited..."your last two sentences."

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5279816)
Not snide.
Quite trying to stir up trouble!!!
Be constructive.

VERY SNIDE...and how about you let me decide what is or is not constructive?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Perhaps you operate under a different definition of snide than I do.
Here is the meaning I have been assuming:
1.Derogatory or mocking in an indirect way: "snide remarks".
2.(of a person) Devious and underhanded.

I am directly asking you to quit being so unhelpful to myself and to others.
You are not constructive to me, so no, you do not get to decide what is constructive to me.

I suspect you think you are being helpful, or shedding some light on what you think are peoples unexamined assumptions.
Even if you are right in your assumption, you do a piss poor job of getting your point across.

Take your fallibilistic-contrarian-evangelism elsewhere I'm all stocked up here. Thank you very much. <--- (SNIDE)

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I've been here in A2K a lot longer than you, Matt...and you can take your invitation for me to go elsewhere and store it where the sun will not bleach it. You also can take your request that I "not be so unhelpful" and store it in the same place.

I decide what I consider to be helpful...or to be a reasonable contribution...not you.

You are free to disregard anything I offer...and since apparently you are too high on the intellectual ladder for the like of me, you might consider taking that tack as a regular default.

No problem. That is your right. I respect it.

By the way...I consider some of your recent remarks to be "derogatory or mocking in an indirect way." So according to your definitions, "snide" was the proper designation. I did think that the snideness was beneath your usual dignity. Perhaps I was wrong there…and I will withdraw that part of my comment.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Fresco in your understanding, is will codependent upon an ability to predict and control?

Yes. We have discussed this before. A key issue for those interested in "consciousness" is whether there are "higher levels of self" from which to observe the ephemera and banality of everyday attachments and attempts to "control them"(aka will), or whether "self" dissipates and merges with a holistic consciousness. The first view is pluralistic and conceives of "self" in relationship to "an ideal" (perhaps personified by the religious as "God"). The second is non-dualistic and allows for "spirituality", but no "God" unless it is conceived pantheistically as another name for "holistic consciousness".

At the lowest level....those who would talk about "the will of God" ..are merely indulging in a simplistic anthropomorphic picture of a deity having "control concerns" similar to their ephemeral selves. That picture is one of the child having trust/faith in the parent to cover aspects of existence it cannot control.

And those who would deflate "will" as an illusion reducible to mechanistic "cause and effect" have not understood that they are entrenched in a lay view of that "superior control paradigm" which epitomizes what we call "science", despite the fact that "causation" has no overall function in contemporary scientific thinking.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I think that the "superior control paradigm" or hierarchic thinking of a lay view predispose popular religious structures to legalism.

[Societal level]
Would a non-legalistic understanding ever transcend a legalistic one, without first popularizing a non-causal understanding of relationships among a large portion of the population?
Which to address more; debunking dominance hierarchies or debunking a narrowly defined "self"-- if the goal were assumed to be lessened overt societal discord?

1 Reply

Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know