Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
For a different take on things: “The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek.” Joseph Campbell
We are already in the cave. The willingness to experience rather than denying and perpetuating cave life holds the treasure.
Perhaps you’ve read my book? The Spelunkers Guide to Reality. Privately printed limited edition, not available on Amazon, just send me $500 for a personal autographed copy. It’s companion, The Book of the Book (written by another person who shall remain unmentioned here), probably is available there.
I bought an unsigned copy at a garage sale for $1.50. I can see why they sold it for whatever they could get.
Probably the abridged version. Nevertheless, their willingness to sell for such a paltry sum indicates that they got IT: after you ascend money is no issue.
Burt, they sold me the book because of your “Exercise One” which you asserted was the key to ascension. You wrote that it takes about six months to acquire the strength and correct posture to allow for ascension but if one practices three hours a day they will ascend.
Exercise One consists of sitting upright in a chair with correct posture and your arms at your side. While in this position grasp the bottom of the chair and pull up. Of course your body will initially resist and push down. After a while your body will cease pushing down and the more you pull up with your arms, the higher you will ascend.
They devoted three hours a day with Exercise One for a whole year and could not control their bodies insistence on pushing down. You wrote if this happens it is only from a lack of faith. After a while they lost their faith in you and gave up on the book. They thought about their situation and decided to enter politics.
Afraid to tell you, but you’ve been swindled out of $1.50. That is a forgery passed off under my name, written by a well know charlatan. There are many such imitations out there, it’s as if everybody is trying to write their own Bible or Koran or Torah. I’ll pass on a tidbit to whet your appetite: my own recommendation for beginners at ascension involves a large helium filled balloon. It could go a bit faster with hydrogen, but lots of beginners start the trip by smoking something so helium is safer.
Oh it is authentic. It has a raised seal and was certified by an official salaried PhD associated with the Dept. of Standards as a genuine interpretation. It even has a picture of this scholarly government official with his nose up in the air.
Who can argue with such experts? Their degrees entitle them to a Condescending attitude towards those with the audacity to doubt their intellect. Their intellectual superiority justifies their interprettions of reality.
Nope, definitely a fake. My book is on rather tattered parchment to put off those who go by appearances, a technique I learned when I was ghost writing for Gurdjieff.
For a different take on things: “The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek.” Joseph Campbell
We are already in the cave. The willingness to experience rather than denying and perpetuating cave life holds the treasure.
Perhaps you’ve read my book? The Spelunkers Guide to Reality. Privately printed limited edition, not available on Amazon, just send me $500 for a personal autographed copy. It’s companion, The Book of the Book (written by another person who shall remain unmentioned here), probably is available there.
I bought an unsigned copy at a garage sale for $1.50. I can see why they sold it for whatever they could get.
Probably the abridged version. Nevertheless, their willingness to sell for such a paltry sum indicates that they got IT: after you ascend money is no issue.
Burt, they sold me the book because of your “Exercise One” which you asserted was the key to ascension. You wrote that it takes about six months to acquire the strength and correct posture to allow for ascension but if one practices three hours a day they will ascend.
Exercise One consists of sitting upright in a chair with correct posture and your arms at your side. While in this position grasp the bottom of the chair and pull up. Of course your body will initially resist and push down. After a while your body will cease pushing down and the more you pull up with your arms, the higher you will ascend.
They devoted three hours a day with Exercise One for a whole year and could not control their bodies insistence on pushing down. You wrote if this happens it is only from a lack of faith. After a while they lost their faith in you and gave up on the book. They thought about their situation and decided to enter politics.
Afraid to tell you, but you’ve been swindled out of $1.50. That is a forgery passed off under my name, written by a well know charlatan. There are many such imitations out there, it’s as if everybody is trying to write their own Bible or Koran or Torah. I’ll pass on a tidbit to whet your appetite: my own recommendation for beginners at ascension involves a large helium filled balloon. It could go a bit faster with hydrogen, but lots of beginners start the trip by smoking something so helium is safer.
Oh it is authentic. It has a raised seal and was certified by an official salaried PhD associated with the Dept. of Standards as a genuine interpretation. It even has a picture of this scholarly government official with his nose up in the air.
Who can argue with such experts? Their degrees entitle them to a Condescending attitude towards those with the audacity to doubt their intellect. Their intellectual superiority justifies their interprettions of reality.
Nope, definitely a fake. My book is on rather tattered parchment to put off those who go by appearances, a technique I learned when I was ghost writing for Gurdjieff.
Burt nothing guaranteed by the government can be fake. Government consists of men skilled in critical thinking and as such, totaly above corruption. Critical thinking has proven corruption to be self defeating so imossible for these dedicated officials that comprise government.
Socrates was said to be a man of widom only because he said “I know nothing.” This will go over like a lead balloon for the intelligentsia but it must be only because he was willing to say I don’t know and to ponder on that basis. Could an atheist ever be a person of wisdom according to Socrates’ experience?
I don’t know. I do know that the glorification of expressions of negative emotion and the ultimate blowjob cannot lead to wisdom.
I think you’ll find few here unwilling to admit when they honestly do not know something.
I think you take the reverse stance, and when you do not know something, but wish for it to be true (based on the oft quoted heroes you bring here) you position that wish-to-be true as knowledge and a ‘higher state of concsiousness’.
You often use Plato’s cave analogy to illustrate this ‘superior position of enlightenment’ but I wonder if you ever consider that the position you so arduously defend here, might not simply be another layer of shadows within the cave?
Nick_A - 13 June 2012 05:01 AM
This is the classic A-hole defence. Since you’ve come to believe I am an A-hole, you believe you are justified in becoming a bigger A-hole. It is the wy of the world. Road rage is justified in the same way. Other people are always responsible for turning a well balanced intellectual critical thinker into a raving A-hole.
The idea that the OP is emotionally challenging so provokes emotional denial never enters your head since it doesn’t offer self justification.
Observations of gaps in your logic, or bias feedback loops is not tantamount to calling you an A-hole - unless, of course, you’re of the opinion that your position is infallable regarding logic and bias feedback. Don’t be shocked, but when folks here decide to call you an A-hole, they’ll just call you an A-hole. If they point out that you’ve used a logical fallacy, or appear to be demonstrating a heavily biased position, that is an observation, not an attack.
You’re so Zen, Jefe. What Nick should do is burn his books and become your student, he should try to emulate you and comprehend you in every way. Only then might he find true enlightenment.
I just don’t have the patience. Where are these people coming from? I’m talking about the TwistedSisters, the OusermanOs, the Nicks, Tonys, and others, the Muslims ... It’s like talking to children, or they are infected with the same virus or something. Nick doesn’t even get and knows not the wisdom of Socrates’ “I don’t know” (according to his experience), nor the eastern philosophies’ ‘to know and not to know’, nor, apparently, Harris’, et al studies on knowledge and belief, nor multitudes of anything else that could enlighten him, but because he ‘doesn’t know’ and can’t see the difference, no one else can know ... especially Atheists.
Get a life and grow up, Nick. Believe me, if I’ve received the ultimate blow job and you haven’t, I’m a much wiser man than you for it ... but who cares? Likewise, why don’t you come back when you know something instead of confessing here that you’re simply confused. We all have our pondering to do, but don’t expect company from here, yours strikes me as rather elementary, big name references and all. You’re not even aware, though it’s right in front of your nose, that you’ll find some of the best right answers right here from many of the contributors, but it would have to be according to your experience, not Socrates, he’s dead.
For a different take on things: “The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek.” Joseph Campbell
We are already in the cave. The willingness to experience rather than denying and perpetuating cave life holds the treasure.
Perhaps you’ve read my book? The Spelunkers Guide to Reality. Privately printed limited edition, not available on Amazon, just send me $500 for a personal autographed copy. It’s companion, The Book of the Book (written by another person who shall remain unmentioned here), probably is available there.
I bought an unsigned copy at a garage sale for $1.50. I can see why they sold it for whatever they could get.
Probably the abridged version. Nevertheless, their willingness to sell for such a paltry sum indicates that they got IT: after you ascend money is no issue.
Burt, they sold me the book because of your “Exercise One” which you asserted was the key to ascension. You wrote that it takes about six months to acquire the strength and correct posture to allow for ascension but if one practices three hours a day they will ascend.
Exercise One consists of sitting upright in a chair with correct posture and your arms at your side. While in this position grasp the bottom of the chair and pull up. Of course your body will initially resist and push down. After a while your body will cease pushing down and the more you pull up with your arms, the higher you will ascend.
They devoted three hours a day with Exercise One for a whole year and could not control their bodies insistence on pushing down. You wrote if this happens it is only from a lack of faith. After a while they lost their faith in you and gave up on the book. They thought about their situation and decided to enter politics.
Afraid to tell you, but you’ve been swindled out of $1.50. That is a forgery passed off under my name, written by a well know charlatan. There are many such imitations out there, it’s as if everybody is trying to write their own Bible or Koran or Torah. I’ll pass on a tidbit to whet your appetite: my own recommendation for beginners at ascension involves a large helium filled balloon. It could go a bit faster with hydrogen, but lots of beginners start the trip by smoking something so helium is safer.
Oh it is authentic. It has a raised seal and was certified by an official salaried PhD associated with the Dept. of Standards as a genuine interpretation. It even has a picture of this scholarly government official with his nose up in the air.
Who can argue with such experts? Their degrees entitle them to a Condescending attitude towards those with the audacity to doubt their intellect. Their intellectual superiority justifies their interprettions of reality.
Nope, definitely a fake. My book is on rather tattered parchment to put off those who go by appearances, a technique I learned when I was ghost writing for Gurdjieff.
Burt nothing guaranteed by the government can be fake. Government consists of men skilled in critical thinking and as such, totaly above corruption. Critical thinking has proven corruption to be self defeating so imossible for these dedicated officials that comprise government.
Wow, you really do need a copy of my authentic book! You’re obviously way in the depths down there with the stalactites and stalagmites. Probably a couple of levels above where they’re sitting around sipping tea and plotting to drown the government in the bathtub, though.
Socrates was said to be a man of widom only because he said “I know nothing.” This will go over like a lead balloon for the intelligentsia but it must be only because he was willing to say I don’t know and to ponder on that basis. Could an atheist ever be a person of wisdom according to Socrates’ experience?
I don’t know. I do know that the glorification of expressions of negative emotion and the ultimate blowjob cannot lead to wisdom.
I think you’ll find few here unwilling to admit when they honestly do not know something.
I think you take the reverse stance, and when you do not know something, but wish for it to be true (based on the oft quoted heroes you bring here) you position that wish-to-be true as knowledge and a ‘higher state of concsiousness’.
You often use Plato’s cave analogy to illustrate this ‘superior position of enlightenment’ but I wonder if you ever consider that the position you so arduously defend here, might not simply be another layer of shadows within the cave?
Nick_A - 13 June 2012 05:01 AM
This is the classic A-hole defence. Since you’ve come to believe I am an A-hole, you believe you are justified in becoming a bigger A-hole. It is the wy of the world. Road rage is justified in the same way. Other people are always responsible for turning a well balanced intellectual critical thinker into a raving A-hole.
The idea that the OP is emotionally challenging so provokes emotional denial never enters your head since it doesn’t offer self justification.
Observations of gaps in your logic, or bias feedback loops is not tantamount to calling you an A-hole - unless, of course, you’re of the opinion that your position is infallable regarding logic and bias feedback. Don’t be shocked, but when folks here decide to call you an A-hole, they’ll just call you an A-hole. If they point out that you’ve used a logical fallacy, or appear to be demonstrating a heavily biased position, that is an observation, not an attack.
You’re so Zen, Jefe. What Nick should do is burn his books and become your student, he should try to emulate you and comprehend you in every way. Only then might he find true enlightenment.
I just don’t have the patience. Where are these people coming from? I’m talking about the TwistedSisters, the OusermanOs, the Nicks, Tonys, and others, the Muslims ... It’s like talking to children, or they are infected with the same virus or something. Nick doesn’t even get and knows not the wisdom of Socrates’ “I don’t know” (according to his experience), nor the eastern philosophies’ ‘to know and not to know’, nor, apparently, Harris’, et al studies on knowledge and belief, nor multitudes of anything else that could enlighten him, but because he ‘doesn’t know’ and can’t see the difference, no one else can know ... especially Atheists.
Get a life and grow up, Nick. Believe me, if I’ve received the ultimate blow job and you haven’t, I’m a much wiser man than you for it ... but who cares? Likewise, why don’t you come back when you know something instead of confessing here that you’re simply confused. We all have our pondering to do, but don’t expect company from here, yours strikes me as rather elementary, big name references and all. You’re not even aware, though it’s right in front of your nose, that you’ll find some of the best right answers right here from many of the contributors, but it would have to be according to your experience, not Socrates, he’s dead.
The ultimate blow job? An interesting question. What kind of experiential self knowledge would Mr. Flashlight require to determine the ultimate blow job and not just become just an ordinry victim of self deception?
John Cunningham Lilly (January 6, 1915 – September 30, 2001) was an American physician, neuroscientist, psychoanalyst, psychonaut, philosopher and writer.
He was a researcher of the nature of consciousness using mainly isolation tanks,[1] dolphin communication, and psychedelic drugs, sometimes in combination.
I’ve learned that one must be wary of neuroscientists and psychoanalysts. Lord knows what they’ll come up with next. If you mx these qualities with LSD as Lily did, the results will be even more extraordinary.
This thread is a good example of what I mean. This question of the relationship between belief and denial doesn’t have to be nasty. In fact nastines destroys quality. This is what atheists here do not understand since they believe speculation concerning a conscious Source to existence is by definition void of quality. This is emotional denial since it has no logical basis. Yet there are those capable of rational discussion without the rants of emotional denial. Veritas is into neurology but doesn’t have to be nasty about it. I suggest that you are losing something through your support of emotional denial. Your committment to it IMO will not allow you to experience your loss.
I suggest that you are losing something through your support of emotional denial. Your committment to it IMO will not allow you to experience your loss.
Thank you for your suggestion.
We were experiencing our loss just fine until you came back.
I suggest that you are losing something through your support of emotional denial. Your committment to it IMO will not allow you to experience your loss.
Thank you for your suggestion.
We were experiencing our loss just fine until you came back.
Unbelievable! The guy hasn’t skipped a beat. There is obviously an obsessive-compulsive component to his nature that accompanies his delusional one.
I suggest that you are losing something through your support of emotional denial. Your committment to it IMO will not allow you to experience your loss.
Thank you for your suggestion.
We were experiencing our loss just fine until you came back.
Unbelievable! The guy hasn’t skipped a beat. There is obviously an obsessive-compulsive component to his nature that accompanies his delusional one.
Ans,
You got a decent eye for the psychological. Passion, obession, and delusion are distant cousins. When delusions are cognitively encode within the medial temporal lobe memory system, certain healthy and adaptive perseverations often graduate to comorbidity. What was once a passion becomes an obsession. But don’t be alarmed, though this seems adaptive(as are many symptoms of OCD), it generally demands a predisposition to psychosis or pervasive substance abuse which leads to persistant social dissconnection.
Nick: This thread is a good example of what I mean. This question of the relationship between belief and denial doesn’t have to be nasty. In fact nastines destroys quality. This is what atheists here do not understand since they believe speculation concerning a conscious Source to existence is by definition void of quality. This is emotional denial since it has no logical basis. Yet there are those capable of rational discussion without the rants of emotional denial. Veritas is into neurology but doesn’t have to be nasty about it. I suggest that you are losing something through your support of emotional denial. Your committment to it IMO will not allow you to experience your loss.
I found it interesting, but a bit dry. Veritas seems robotic, though intelligent and knowledgable. I guess there are all sorts of sites for all sorts of folks. I like people who make me laugh. Yeah…the people on PR piss me off, too, but, despite the brashness, there is an underlying friendliness. You argue one day and the next day you’re chitchatting. I haven’t visited other atheist sites, but ecurb told us that he enjoys posting on the Happy Atheists forum. Maybe they’d suit you better.
Anyway, I was sorry you left. Your one-note got a bit tedious, but I was looking forward to finding out what you had to say about other topics.
Nick: This thread is a good example of what I mean. This question of the relationship between belief and denial doesn’t have to be nasty. In fact nastines destroys quality. This is what atheists here do not understand since they believe speculation concerning a conscious Source to existence is by definition void of quality. This is emotional denial since it has no logical basis. Yet there are those capable of rational discussion without the rants of emotional denial. Veritas is into neurology but doesn’t have to be nasty about it. I suggest that you are losing something through your support of emotional denial. Your committment to it IMO will not allow you to experience your loss.
I found it interesting, but a bit dry. Veritas seems robotic, though intelligent and knowledgable. I guess there are all sorts of sites for all sorts of folks. I like people who make me laugh. Yeah…the people on PR piss me off, too, but, despite the brashness, there is an underlying friendliness. You argue one day and the next day you’re chitchatting. I haven’t visited other atheist sites, but ecurb told us that he enjoys posting on the Happy Atheists forum. Maybe they’d suit you better.
Anyway, I was sorry you left. Your one-note got a bit tedious, but I was looking forward to finding out what you had to say about other topics.
Nick: This thread is a good example of what I mean. This question of the relationship between belief and denial doesn’t have to be nasty. In fact nastines destroys quality. This is what atheists here do not understand since they believe speculation concerning a conscious Source to existence is by definition void of quality. This is emotional denial since it has no logical basis. Yet there are those capable of rational discussion without the rants of emotional denial. Veritas is into neurology but doesn’t have to be nasty about it. I suggest that you are losing something through your support of emotional denial. Your committment to it IMO will not allow you to experience your loss.
I found it interesting, but a bit dry. Veritas seems robotic, though intelligent and knowledgable. I guess there are all sorts of sites for all sorts of folks. I like people who make me laugh. Yeah…the people on PR piss me off, too, but, despite the brashness, there is an underlying friendliness. You argue one day and the next day you’re chitchatting. I haven’t visited other atheist sites, but ecurb told us that he enjoys posting on the Happy Atheists forum. Maybe they’d suit you better.
Anyway, I was sorry you left. Your one-note got a bit tedious, but I was looking forward to finding out what you had to say about other topics.
Sara, Veritas is robotic because he is trying to be consistant with his denial of the value of emotions. But the good side is he is not like atheists here that have been conditioned to react to a God concept much like a bull reacts to a red flag.
It appears as one note to you because you are underestimating the scope of the note. Think of it in terms of Plato’s distinction between knowledge and opinions. I agree with that distinction. An atheist must glorify opinions since by definition conscious “knowledge” as the source of opinions is a quality of consciousness that must be rejected.
You can discuss the freedoms America was founded upon for example but they can only be sustained through a quality of energy that invites the experience of knowledge which furthers the human perspective necessary to sustain freedom. Obviously such discussion on Poject Reason is impossible. The red flag prevents it.
If a person thinks rationally about a God concept it must have the foundation of our slavery to “opinions.” But this is the red flag inviting the hostility that permeates project reason. Questioning the limitations of opinions as a whole is a no no. Not to be obsessed with “right” opinions and the eternal struggle between opinions in favor of the experience of knowledge initiating with a higher conscious more inclusive source is somehow inhuman to Project Reason.
This may be one note but it is a helluva note and the foundation for what is called a relative human perspective.
Nick: This thread is a good example of what I mean. This question of the relationship between belief and denial doesn’t have to be nasty. In fact nastines destroys quality. This is what atheists here do not understand since they believe speculation concerning a conscious Source to existence is by definition void of quality. This is emotional denial since it has no logical basis. Yet there are those capable of rational discussion without the rants of emotional denial. Veritas is into neurology but doesn’t have to be nasty about it. I suggest that you are losing something through your support of emotional denial. Your committment to it IMO will not allow you to experience your loss.
I found it interesting, but a bit dry. Veritas seems robotic, though intelligent and knowledgable. I guess there are all sorts of sites for all sorts of folks. I like people who make me laugh. Yeah…the people on PR piss me off, too, but, despite the brashness, there is an underlying friendliness. You argue one day and the next day you’re chitchatting. I haven’t visited other atheist sites, but ecurb told us that he enjoys posting on the Happy Atheists forum. Maybe they’d suit you better.
Anyway, I was sorry you left. Your one-note got a bit tedious, but I was looking forward to finding out what you had to say about other topics.
Sara, Veritas is robotic because he is trying to be consistant with his denial of the value of emotions. But the good side is he is not like atheists here that have been conditioned to react to a God concept much like a bull reacts to a red flag.
It appears as one note to you because you are underestimating the scope of the note. Think of it in terms of Plato’s distinction between knowledge and opinions. I agree with that distinction. An atheist must glorify opinions since by definition conscious “knowledge” as the source of opinions is a quality of consciousness that must be rejected.
You can discuss the freedoms America was founded upon for example but they can only be sustained through a quality of energy that invites the experience of knowledge which furthers the human perspective necessary to sustain freedom. Obviously such discussion on Poject Reason is impossible. The red flag prevents it.
If a person thinks rationally about a God concept it must have the foundation of our slavery to “opinions.” But this is the red flag inviting the hostility that permeates project reason. Questioning the limitations of opinions as a whole is a no no. Not to be obsessed with “right” opinions and the eternal struggle between opinions in favor of the experience of knowledge initiating with a higher conscious more inclusive source is somehow inhuman to Project Reason.
This may be one note but it is a helluva note and the foundation for what is called a relative human perspective.
My rejection was on a much more fundamental level; you’re not smart and your ideas are ignorant, manipulative, and dangerous for people who may be a bit susceptible to your glib, but otherwise deceptive and illusory POV’s. I might have attached the words “in my opinion” to the previous sentence, except for the fact that many others share my perception of you. Additionally, you seem well-aware of our rejection of your single idea. The question “why are you back” seems most pertinent. But knowing you means knowing that question is fruitless and leads to more conjecture. So “I” think it would be best if you simply left. Unless, of course, you re-dedicated yourself to several more days of rejection. In that case, enjoy the ride and your mom sucks dicks for food stamps.
