colin leslie dean

Monooq introduced me to ladyjane and ladyjane introduced me to colin leslie dean.

Unfortunately, I really don’t have the time to read all 127 pages of his:

CASE STUDY IN THE MADHYAMIKA DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS: CONTENTLESS THOUGHT

And you know me: I am only interested in philosophy that can be situated out in the world we live and interact in.

So, ladyjane or anyone, how would one go about situating his philosophy “out in the world”?

In other words, as a pragmatist myself, I would be curious to know what for all practical purposes is the point of reading him?

I think my point was that his approach is very similar to yours. Very leveling. He’s a “tearer downer”, so to speak. He thinks metaphysical anything is bunk, and a bunk approach. Everything is equally reasonable (–or, for CLJ, unreasonable).

I thought you and him were like kindred spirits.

This is short (22 pages).
gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … MORAL2.pdf

I assume the practical application would be not to read his book in the first place or give even a second thought to it, as it is meaningless by his own argument.

I don’t know that I even want to read twenty two pages of that guy. I could re-read The Communist Manifesto, In The Penal Colony, Micromegas twice over or a couple paragraphs of Proust (hyperbole) to name only a few more constructive uses of my reading time.

No, CLJ thinks everything is meaningless or puts forth that argument for shock value. I don’t speak for Iambiguous, but I do think you are misrepresenting him.

Further, you seem to like Nietzsche but not to understand him. I believe one of his books was titled “Götzen-Dämmerung [Twilight of the Idols] or How To Philosophize with a Hammer.” Quite leveling, indeed. A superb “tearer-downer” if I do say so myself.

If all is meaningless. then it must be have “less” meaning then something… so my question is what is it that is meaningful… inorder to say something is meaningless you have to point out that such is relevent in the first place and then involves pointing to how there is some basis of defining meaning, for that to be the cases there has to be something meaningful… but if all is meaningless then that is not the case.

This last post makes me want to say something so crazy that not only do I get banned from this forum, but God manifests himself and throws me in hell immediately.

Say it somewhere else and then quote it… I want to know what you were going to say…

Hi to All,

I am one of only a tiny number of posters who think that LadyJane has profound insights into our Public Knowledge of how things work or, from his point of view, why they fail.

Don’t get me wrong, it is nearly impossible to communicate with him; and his attacks are repetitive and limited to only a few topics. But his attacks on Mathematics and Physics can be extremely thought provoking and generally, in my opinion, carry a significant amount of merit.

Ed

Well, if there is actually something so crazy that could be said that I get banned from the forum AND God manifests himself and sends me to hell, I don’t know what it is. I don’t know what would be said to cause those conditions to occur, perhaps thats impossible, but nonetheless, its what should be said if it were true, at this point, by my self, in this thread.

Every Nihilist and their mothers have thought of the same thing when they were a kid. Look at my handle. It is a reference to the fact that mathematics are merely an abstract conceptual representation of physical objects; a circle does not exist in the real world (even drawing a “circle” is simply a cylindrical groove and/or build up of something on something). Wow, I should have thought of that back in the materialism thread before siding with materialism…

You learn that shit in elementary school. At least I did.

Math is entirely based on axioms; declared assumptions.
Regardless of whther something is “true” or not a thing can be handy…so you use it…

one can take a stupid position and then argue that if it were true… then… then…then… and thus such and such… therefore it is not reasonable to do such and such anyways…
there is no nead for a mode of thought to be true for it to be useful… if something can be known to be true or false in the first place…

Sounds like me. Or, rather, I’m surprised monooq hasn’t noted this already.

My interest in philosophy revolves repetitively around two things:

1] identity: how we come to acquire one as dasein: who am “I”?
2] value judgments: how they are rooted in dasein: how ought “I” to live"?

Also, the manner in which the answer to these questions is rooted metaphysically [or “mindfully”] in the profound mystery of existence itself. Which surely must reside in the gap between what we think we know about everything and all that can be known about anything.

I can’t help but wonder how Dean might react to this.

Those are not your interests. Your interest is only to repeat incessantly that they can’t be answered, to anyone who tries to answer them, (down in the world or not).

Hence, the constant destructive modus operandi of CLD, that you share in common.

Sorry, I forgot that you know everything.

Lets say everyone became non spiritual, and rooted only in what they could touch or see, and non believing in anything else…would eventually after time people revert back to such spirituality for some reason…a a natural desire… be it for fantasy, or for “the spiritual”?

I’ve quoted the response that iambiguous makes to me, whenever I post something longer than a few lines. Does this not remind you of the spirit of lady jane? Here’s an example of what I’m talking about…

:arrow_right: Bachelor (my explanation): An unmarried male.

:arrow_right: An unmarried male (my explanation): A bachelor.

This is how words work. The important point is that you understand perfectly well the concepts of both, because each as been defined. There’s not a single word that, when you go about looking up particular words in its dictionary definition, will not lead you back to the word with which you initially started.

His objection does not even make sense, even though I’ve treated it as charitably as I possibly can. I’ve offered to define any word he needs me to. He never asks, because he uses the same words, with the same meanings! Hypocrisy, isn’t it?

On many occasions I have responded in depth to posts that exceeded more than a few lines. And you know this. And I make the claim above only when your analysis of value judgments is “rooted” up on the academic skyhooks. And you know that.

The irony being I was hoping ladyjane [or someone else] might be able to take CLD down to earth and situate his own arguments out in the world of actual conflicting human behaviors.

This is how words work when they are aimed at encompassing things that are true by definition.

But do they work the same way in attempts by philosophers to resolve actual conflicting value judgments?

To wit:

“Mary had an abortion”

All of these words can be “looked up” by anyone who understands the English language; and the dictionary will tell them what they mean. And they will mean the same thing for everyone.

In other words, once we know what the words mean we will know whether this particular Mary had an abortion or did not. It is either true or false. In my view, objectively.

“Mary’s abortion is immoral”

Here all of the words can be looked up as well. But the meaning given to the word “immoral” is more problematic. In one sense the dictionary will tell us how we use the word immoral to differentiate certain behaviors. That is true for everyone. But what it cannot tell us is if in fact abortion is immoral.

Nor can you. Unless, of course, you would care to try.

Here, again, you treat the definition of words you use in discussing these relationships analytically as though the manner in which you define them makes them applicable to actual human interactions that come into conflict regarding aesthetic and moral value judgments.

You do not dare take these words down off the skyhooks however because you will flounder like the proverbial fish out of water down here on the ground.

Indeed, I challenge you to choose a particular moral conflict we are all familiar with and defend an argument you believe will demonstrate what our moral duty and obligation must be as rational human beings.

i have come to the conclusion
that iambiguous and monooq
are mortal enemies.

Ahh, here it is—once again—down off the “skyhook”…

Look within yourself. Imagine a pleasant scenario. Examine that feeling we call “pleasant”. Does it seem good to you? Now,
Look within yourself. Imagine a painful scenario. Examine that feeling we call “painful”. Does it seem bad to you?

Well then, we’ve made a good start. I already know what your answers are. So, this is a technique that we can use when we’re trying to build a more complete understanding of the word “immoral”. It’s just one of many techniques we’ll have to use. For instance, when we’re thinking about whether something like abortion is immoral, one of the techniques we can use is to look at whether it causes pleasure, or pain. That won’t lead us to a definitive answer, but whatever our answer ends up being—that will be a big part of it. Now, you don’t expect me to solve the morality of abortions in just a few lines, do you? But this technique can be applied to ANY abortion, or ANY moral issue, and often with different results—but the same principle always (about morality). “Rootedness” can go fuck itself, because no human being alive thinks pain is good and pleasure bad. Even a masocist gets the balance of pleasure from what would cause another pain. This is just a technique that you can use, among others which I’ve talked about before, to settle issues “down in the world”. But being “down in the world” can go fuck itself. “Rootedness” can go fuck itself. We are human beings, and everything that matters to morality is in the nature that we all share—not the trinkets and circumstantial whims of cultures, etc.

I am a river to my people.

Why do you say, “I am a river to my people.” monooq?