• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My theoretical framework

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
...

In another thread, for example, I have argued that it is preferable to say that somebody is a psychopath, instead of "evil" for the same reasons.

...
Click to expand...

(somewhat off-topic, but...)

Can you name the thread? Or link the post?

My instinct is exactly the opposite, and I thought for a long time about this, and read the lit.

It's almost always better to say that someone acted in a manner we consider evil, and did so on many occasions.

Then we avoid the problem that the label "psychopath" really just means that, and that there is a substantial minority of people who do act like this.

The label would be more useful if it identified some cause or hidden feature of this evil behavior instead of being a loose term for anyone we don't trust or credit with humanity--as the somewhat jocular definition has it:

"A psychopath* is anyone you don't like"

*(or sociopath--Robert Hare observes a distinction but most users of the term don't)
 
Piggy said:
I think the difference may be that I spent 13 years in academia -- studying language, how it is used and misused, and how we process it... and reading more than anyone's fair share of academic bloviation, as well -- and I can smell verbal BS 3 counties away.
Click to expand...

Heh, that would depend on whose listening. The conceptual disagreement between you and Bohdi is mosty based on semantics I would say. More than half of the descriptive words BDZ likes to use mean something completely different in his mind that it does yours. On top of that, from what I could see of the OP, it seems what BDZ trying to describe is an aspect of the Tao -- a concept that probably no one but persons of a mystical or philosophical mindset could even begin to approach.

D'rok said:
Bodhi: "There is no spoon"
Keanu: "Whoooaaahhh"
Click to expand...

ROFL@!!!
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
I believe it is easier if you go to my profile and choose "threads started by BDZ"
Click to expand...

thnx

eta: I tried clicking on your name to see your profile, but I didn't see anything about "threads started by BDZ"...

clues?

eta2: oops. see it. never mind...
 
Last edited:
AkuManiMani said:
On top of that, from what I could see of the OP, it seems what BDZ trying to describe is an aspect of the Tao -- a concept that probably no one but persons of a mystical or philosophical mindset could even begin to approach.
Click to expand...

As far as a religion is concerned, Taoism is certainly charming. TAO means, basically, two things. It is "a path" to walk life with and "the unknown" that gives shape and sense to the world and the ego.

I wonder how different things would have been if Rome would have been closer to china, and instead of adopting the religion of a small tribe would have imported something as elegant as Taoism.
 
Tricky said:
Does this "theory" actually explain anything useful?
Click to expand...

The most useful thing about his theory is that it undermines itself as a valid theory.

1) There is no real reality, therefore this theory about reality is inherently unbased.

2) Per his theory things are "Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena" and his theory can predict no phenomena, nor describe noumena, hence "invalid". Hoist on it's own petard.
 
Faithkills said:
The most useful thing about his theory is that it undermines itself as a valid theory.

1) There is no real reality, therefore this theory about reality is inherently unbased.

2) Per his theory things are "Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena" and his theory can predict no phenomena, nor describe noumena, hence "invalid". Hoist on it's own petard.
Click to expand...


Another clown? :D

Where do I state "there is no real reality" (whatever that means BTW) and where did I said it was a theory?
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Let see. Objects are real things even when you are not watching them. If you close your eyes in your bathroom the mirror, your toothbrush, the soap, the jacuzzi, everything is right there, exactly the same as when you open your eyes.

Welcome to woo land! a fairy tale kingdom in which you can assume things without thinking. People like you would have never find out anything about atoms, nor would be pushed in to thinking if gravity was a force or a distortion of something else.

But don't feel that bad, this utterly naive POV of yours is shared by countless of millions. Now go play with the paste (as I guess thats the kind of thing you'll find interesting).
Click to expand...

I don't follow this at all - have you ever tried walking around your bathroom with your eyes closed? How long before you slip on the soap and impale yourself on a toothbrush?

Furthermore, if I'm following your argument, all the grief in the world, all that stuff that fills our news screens each night - the displaced families, the hungry children, the raped, abused and maimed - I can just close my eyes and *poof* they don't exists and nor does their suffering? Is this the ultimate state of selfish ignorance that is "Bodhi"?
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Another clown? :D

Where do I state "there is no real reality" (whatever that means BTW) and where did I said it was a theory?
Click to expand...

What is "it" then? The title says theoretical framework. You're honestly going to assert that's contextually different than a theory? If it is then I would not be able to replace "theory" with "theoretical framework" and make the same point.

Yet I can.

"Per his theoretical framework things are "Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena" and his theory can predict no phenomena, nor describe noumena, hence "invalid". Hoist on it's own petard."

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
"The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena, and every attempt to describe it will begin and finish in language. Different languages, different concepts and you might end with a different description. Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena, but not “truer” or “more accurate” or “better” outside its predictive capabilities. It is a map and the map is not and can’t be the territory."
Click to expand...

What does it predict then that we may assign validity or invalidity?

If nothing is "truer" or "more accurate" or "better outside" of it's predictive abilities what does that say about your assertions?
 
AkuManiMani said:
On top of that, from what I could see of the OP, it seems what BDZ trying to describe is an aspect of the Tao -- a concept that probably no one but persons of a mystical or philosophical mindset could even begin to approach.
Click to expand...

I have to tell you, BDZ's self-obsessed bloviations have nothing to do with Tao.

I was a Taoist for 10 years, from age 16 to 26 (when I converted to Buddhism) as I've described in other threads on this forum.

If BDZ is describing the Tao, then P.T. Barnum was describing natural history.

Despite the fact that words and phrases in BDZ's post may be translated into plain-English common-sense notions, I think it's apt to apply the remarks of the brilliant Hugh Kenner after a particularly tortuous post-modern thesis defense: "Well, that was a whole lotta nothing."
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Naturalism is, IMO, the best, followed by Physicalism. But I believe it is important to choose any of them instead of Materialism. Why?
Click to expand...
Why?

Materialism is an old term, it represents a very naive point of view, that things are things whether we see them or not. In this sense, and from this perspective, is mere woo, and so better terms should be the tool of choice for us skeptics.
Click to expand...
Physicalism is materialism. Naturalism is materialist behaviourism.

And things are things whether we see them or not. If I hit you over the head with a bat, your perceptions and conceptions of the bat don't matter. Only the bat matters.
 
EHLO said:
Furthermore, if I'm following your argument, all the grief in the world, all that stuff that fills our news screens each night - the displaced families, the hungry children, the raped, abused and maimed - I can just close my eyes and *poof* they don't exists and nor does their suffering? Is this the ultimate state of selfish ignorance that is "Bodhi"?
Click to expand...

Nope, you are NOT following. If anything I have changed the concepts from folk psychological ones to something less naive. Nothing else changes.

Sure, to a point, changing perspectives can make you see the world in a different matter, but thats irrelevant for the world.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom