rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:00 am**

http://twentytwowords.com/2011/03/15/a- ... iscussion/

A flowchart to help you determine if you’re having a rational discussion

Caveat: This chart is about debate and conversations that are supposed to be debate-like. It does not apply to every conversation you have. Therefore, the principles of this flow chart are not meant to be used in fights you have with your spouse.

Should you choose to disregard that little bit of common sense, under no circumstances shall you imply that you learned your tactless conversational tactics via this post.

You’ve now been warned. Thus, any misapplication of information contained herein that leads to marital strife is not the responsibility of this blogger and only represents your personal jackwagonry.

* * * * *

OK, then. Now that things are clear…

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:07 am**

A_D, that made me laugh out loud, because in all my years on the net, that is actually the first time I have seen ever a visual map / flowchart for having a rational discussion.

Which when I think about it, given the importance of the subject (and the number of fruitless arguments I have taken part in), makes my jaw drop.

A diamond find - thank you.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:23 am**

Is this OP going to be pinned to the top? :hug1:

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:24 am**

Searcher08 wrote:A_D, that made me laugh out loud, because in all my years on the net, that is actually the first time I have seen ever a visual map / flowchart for having a rational discussion.

Which when I think about it, given the importance of the subject (and the number of fruitless arguments I have taken part in), makes my jaw drop.

A diamond find - thank you.

Same, tho it is slightly biased toward rationality. I sometimes find that irritating and limiting.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:43 am**

Joe Hillshoist wrote:
Searcher08 wrote:A_D, that made me laugh out loud, because in all my years on the net, that is actually the first time I have seen ever a visual map / flowchart for having a rational discussion.

Which when I think about it, given the importance of the subject (and the number of fruitless arguments I have taken part in), makes my jaw drop.

A diamond find - thank you.

Same, tho it is slightly biased toward rationality. I sometimes find that irritating and limiting.

Posted: **Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:16 am**

Brilliant.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:19 pm**

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

(Philip K Dick)

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:21 pm**

American Dream wrote:
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

(Philip K Dick)

So is beauty a thing of reality or not?

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:25 pm**

.

Do you think Phillip K. Dick was the kind of person who didn't appreciate the importance of subjective experience?

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:28 pm**

do you understand how to answer direct questions?

here's an example:

Q. Do you think Phillip K. Dick was the kind of person who didn't appreciate the importance of subjective experience?
A. I do not know PKD personally, and have no basis upon which to answer that question.

EDIT: I'd add that you violated one of the terms in your flow chart there by asking me the question in response to a question in the first place.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:41 pm**

C_w, I thought your question was problematic on multiple levels.

That said, I'm not interested in engaging with you further on this as I don't see very good odds of it being a fruitful exchange.

So, without intending personal offense, I'm going to stop participating in this with you now.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:41 pm**

Canadian_watcher wrote:So is beauty a thing of reality or not?

"I just believe in me, Yoko & me. And that's reality."

John & Yoko are beautiful. John & Yoko are reality.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:42 pm**

American Dream wrote:C_w, I thought your question was problematic on multiple levels.

That said, I'm not interested in engaging with you further on this as I don't see very good odds of it being a fruitful exchange.

So, without intending personal offense, I'm going to stop participating in this with you now.

I'm bowled over by your courage, your thoughtfulness, your intellect and your charm.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:55 pm**

IanEye wrote:
Canadian_watcher wrote:So is beauty a thing of reality or not?

"I just believe in me, Yoko & me. And that's reality."

John & Yoko are beautiful. John & Yoko are reality.

on a personal level I agree.

The reason I'm posting what I'm about to post is to explore the OP a little bit, so bear with me.

---

Let's say that I don't believe that John and Yoko are beautiful. In response to your post I might have in that case written something like:

Well John's dead, for one, so he can't be beautiful. Maybe he was beautiful, but I don't see it, and I don't believe it. You might think he was or even still is but you are incorrect.

I'm interested to know how the idea of 'rational discussion' can apply to this sort of scenario.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:01 pm**

American Dream wrote:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

(Philip K Dick)

I would add something like
"Reality is that which when avoided, always comes back"

The Tibetan Buddhists have an interesting ideas that challenge the above

http://www.dharmafellowship.org/library ... -part3.htm

Vasubandhu resorts to an analogy. He says, let us consider a situation in which a magician, using certain spells (mantras) or tricks, was to cause, before a crowd of spectators, a log of wood to appear as an elephant. The fact that no elephant is there, but nevertheless is seen to be there by the audience, may be defined as the elephant's parikalpita-nature. In that sense the spectators imagine or project something that factually is not present.

The elephant is no more than a magician's illusion and yet the elephant is indeed seen. The hallucination (akrti), the illusion that is seen, of the elephant by the crowd may be defined as the situation's paratantra-nature. This means that the appearance of the illusion itself must be contingent on something else.

Finally, if we consider what the elephant really is in its self (i.e., a suggested image that isn't really there) then it's actual non-existence is its ultimately true or actual (parinishpanna) nature.

Vasubandhu then explains his analogy as follows: the All-ground Consciousness (alaya-vijnana) is the magic spell, with which cosmic ideation (visva-vikalpa), the Magician, magically produces the illusion of a Universe, and in which duality (dvaya) of subject and object becomes the result. The elephant is the Universe that appears to us as real. The original log of wood which has been misapprehended as the illusory elephant is the Tathata, the Absolute, that ever remains unchanged and pure from the beginning.

rigorousintuition.ca

Are we having rational discussions?

Are we having rational discussions?

Re: Are we having rational discussions?

Re: Are we having rational discussions?

Re: Are we having rational discussions?

Re: Are we having rational discussions?

Re: Are we having rational discussions?

Re: Are we having rational discussions?

Re: Are we having rational discussions?

Re: Are we having rational discussions?

Re: Are we having rational discussions?

Re: Are we having rational discussions?

the dream is over...

Re: Are we having rational discussions?

Re: the dream is over...

Re: Are we having rational discussions?