AUT: sorry... Re: Re: Re: response to tahir Re: Re: Re: Star WarsandArchetypes

["commie00" <commie00@xxxxxxxxx>]

sorry everyone... but i have to defend myself here...

> merriam webster's college dictionary (10th edition, 1993):
>
> conservation: 1: a carful preservation and protectiojn of something, esp.
> planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation,
> destruction or neglect; 2: the preservation of a physical quantity during
> transformations or reactions
>
> now, how the hell does the dispersal of physical energy at death have
> anything to do with "conservation"?
>
> Tahir: Energy is neither created nor destroyed, as you said, despite its
dispersal. Therefore it conforms to the second definition you provided
above.

another logic leap...

in order to conform to the second definition, this energy would have to
somehow be "preserved"... which is logically impossible by virtue of being
dispersed. OR there would have to be some effort put into preserving it
prior to dispersal... and nothing i have said opens up this possibility.

some taoists or buddhists might be into "energy conservation", but that has
nothing to do with the arugment i was making viz. death.

> then clearly they can not be projections... for me to be projecting would
> have to mean that i am placing something there that is not there already.
do
> you even own a dictionary?
>
> Tahir: I'm saying that you have not been consistent. You have tried to
defend Buddhism by focussing on one of its strands as if that is the only
authentic one and all the others are "perversions" (your word). That is a
projection in my opinion in that it projects your purist fantasies onto the
real concrete history of a tradition, denying the reality of all the bits
that don't fit your schema.

actually, this is where that word was used:

"b) most buddhists (esp. zen, japanese tantric and theradavan buddhists)
consider tibetan buddhism (and japanese amida buddhism) to be a "religious
perversion" of buddhist philosophy, for exactly those reasons."

(this is from my email dated 2/14)

note that i state that certain buddhists consider other buddhisms to be a
"religious perversion". this is not my opinion, i'm just reporting.

in fact i went on to say in the same email:

"c) however, most tibetan buddhists argue that the book of the dead, the
whole pantenon of gods, etc. that they have, etc. are not supposed to be
taken literally, but understood as symbolic, yadda yadda."

as an interesting aspect to this: i was discussing this argument with a
buddhist friend of mine the other day, and she pointed out that in a recent
book the dali lama (in discussing the relationship between tibetan buddhism
and christianity) says point blank that he doesn't believe in a god or an
afterlife.

> Tahir: And the point I made, which you lost, probably deliberately, was
that such contradictions (and on the same issues) are found in various other
traditions too. But you were too busy defending your own particular brand of
happy clappy smiley to even notice.

interesting that you're obsessed with this idea that i'm a buddhist. i'm
not. i'm not. i'm not. in fact, in the email i referenced above i said i
wasn't. can you not read?

> Tahir: Oh rubbish! I repeatedly tried to inject soem historical
understanding into this while you were annointing with the words
"dialectical" and "materialist" one strand out of all the religious
traditions of the people of the world. That is so reactionary (seeing as
you've decided to introduce the R-word into this), just like all the rest of
the fundamentalists in this world who feel the need to exalt one tradition
at the expense of all the others.
> Tahir: Which you never even came close to. FOR EXAMPLE: Why would it be
that one particular group of people in one corner of the world in ancient
times suddenly developed a "dialectical" and "materialist" worldview unlike
everybody else everywhere who remained steeped in superstition and darkness
until you came along to point them back to that one pinpoint of light back
there in ancient history.

this is another logical leap i don't understand... what, precisely, did i
say that would make you think that i think that i was "annointing with the
words "dialectical" and "materialist" one strand out of all the religious
traditions of the people of the world"???

i don't recall making such a statement... in fact, i don't recall ever
thinking such a thing. i did say that philosophical taoism and zen buddhism
are "dialectical" and "materialist", but clearly (since i'm a fucking
marxist) i don't think they are the only philosophies that are "materialist"
and "dialectical"... not even religious philosophies. i think i've mentioned
catholic "process theology" on this list before, which itself makes claims
to being "materialist". and then there's "liberation theology" which claims
to be dialectical. etc. etc. etc.

and lets not forget that i'm well aware that spinoza (a materialist
philosopher) and hegal (a dialectical philosopher) both considered their
philosophies to be religious ones.

so what are you accusing me of?

> damn, son.
>
> Tahir: Fuck you, you're the college boy nerd not me.

and i didn't go to college until i was nearly 25 (i am 26 now), and have
only completed something like 20 hrs. mostly in bone head classes.

i've done this work on my own... during lunch breaks, trying to stay awake
on midnights, in the bathroom avoiding work, when i've been lucky enough to
not have to work for a little while, etc. etc. etc.

> Tahir: It's interesting that you choose to be abusive rather than to back
up this supposedly logical claim. Confirms what I always suspected, people
who are 'into' Buddhism usually reveal themselves to be utter arseholes
before very long.

okay... you claimed:

that "any school of thought is more or less as good as another" logically
follows from the statement "this kind of thinking is possible anywhere
[etc.]"

the problem is this:

an overarching statement such as "this kind of thinking is possible
anywhere", can not act as a leveler of philosophies, since it merely points
out a single, common, minor characteristic in said philosophies. so the
basic flaw in your logic is assuming that the characteristic identified is
the key, defining characteristic of all said philosophies... and thus would
enable them to be leveled once this similarity was identified.

since being able to be criticized is not the defining feature of any
philosophy that i'm aware of, my statement can not possible me understood to
mean that "any school of thought is more or less as good as another"

and just so you know, i'd like to point out that you started the flame war
which statements such as:

"Well I'm also into like understanding what's going on, you know, kind of
like yeah."

and

"Now I suggest you go and do a little transcendental meditation; you are
getting cross and you know that's not good for the people around you."

which were clearly meant as insults.

> Tahir: For my part, I always thought you were a nerd, ever since the time
you claimed that the ruling classes of all countries were somehow equal and
when I challenged you to show how the ruling classes of Rwanda, Mocambique,
etc. were equal to that of the US you just discontinued the thread.

oh, well: for my part i just thought you were ignoring the response i sent
to you off of the list viz. that discussion since you made no argument
against it. oops.

but to restate my basic point in that argument:

if the international organizations are taken as levelers of power (even if
only in potential), and if the military might of the u.s. is understood as
the military might of the global ruling class (and thus does not represent
the military might of the u.s. ruling class only), then the ruling classes
of rwanda, mosambique, etc. are obtensively as powerful as the u.s. ruling
class.

the "in potential" part is important because, due to international politics,
not acting as tho these ruling classes are equal now (in some sense) risks
rupturing the leveling potential of the international organizations. and
that, in fact, is leveling is the goal, then the ruling classes of rwanda,
mosambique, etc. could even be said to be, in some instances, more powerful
because they can make or break the international organizations... as long as
the play the game within the international organizations, and do not become
"rogue"... OR, if they do leave, leave en masse.

anyway... that was the argument i made at the time. not sure how i feel
about it now...

i'm done.

sorry everyone for all of this. this really is my last post. if tahir
responds again, i will limit my responses to off the list.


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---