I do not define “enlightened”, claim to be enlightened, claim that you are less “enlightened”, or say that you would be in any way better if you tried koans, or better if you wanted to try koans. I only said I had found them valuable.
That’s good. It’s just that the way you used the words in the context did make those claims.
I have a lot more respect for your perspective as presented here than for the logic of the replies that you made. Unfortunately, while there is certainly perspective to be gained in (some) usage of (some) koans, one thing that tends to be uniform is that they encourage sloppy reasoning.
For example, if you say “Woah, go easy there Cam! There are some potential benefits!” then I’ll probably acknowledge the point. However, if you feel the previous sentiment but actually reply with explicit claims like “only if...” then your words are no longer opinion or perspective. They are logical claims with very interesting implications. For example, you did make a couple of those claims regarding enlightenment although I can see that your actual beliefs are far less insane!
I have somewhat more respect for the substance of your views than for the intemperate and largely counterproductive ways in which you choose to express them.
I have no particular idea of what your views are but have good reason to believe you do not have an accurate perception of what the substance of my views are. ‘Productivity’ must be considered relative to my utility function, which by my evaluation was achieved quite adequately. Can you think of another word that more accurately expresses the judgement you are trying to make?
(Intemperate was good example. Significantly normative but including a descriptive component that sticks to the facts.)
‘Productivity’ must be considered relative to my utility function
Well, no. It could equally well be considered relative to mine. As it happens, I was guessing (perhaps wrongly) at an approximate community utility function. Based on previous evidence, this seemed to have a negative term for potentially inflammatory language that is unnecessary to making the commenter’s substantive point.
I said, “only if you believe that to be the case”. By “that”, I intended to refer to the belief that [thinking the post is worthless means that you are unenlightened].
This is thinking in rigid categories. “All people who do not value koans are unenlightened”. I do not really know what “enlightenment” is, but that false view is unenlightened.
That’s good. It’s just that the way you used the words in the context did make those claims.
I have a lot more respect for your perspective as presented here than for the logic of the replies that you made. Unfortunately, while there is certainly perspective to be gained in (some) usage of (some) koans, one thing that tends to be uniform is that they encourage sloppy reasoning.
For example, if you say “Woah, go easy there Cam! There are some potential benefits!” then I’ll probably acknowledge the point. However, if you feel the previous sentiment but actually reply with explicit claims like “only if...” then your words are no longer opinion or perspective. They are logical claims with very interesting implications. For example, you did make a couple of those claims regarding enlightenment although I can see that your actual beliefs are far less insane!
I have somewhat more respect for the substance of your views than for the intemperate and largely counterproductive ways in which you choose to express them.
I have no particular idea of what your views are but have good reason to believe you do not have an accurate perception of what the substance of my views are. ‘Productivity’ must be considered relative to my utility function, which by my evaluation was achieved quite adequately. Can you think of another word that more accurately expresses the judgement you are trying to make?
(Intemperate was good example. Significantly normative but including a descriptive component that sticks to the facts.)
Well, no. It could equally well be considered relative to mine. As it happens, I was guessing (perhaps wrongly) at an approximate community utility function. Based on previous evidence, this seemed to have a negative term for potentially inflammatory language that is unnecessary to making the commenter’s substantive point.
I said, “only if you believe that to be the case”. By “that”, I intended to refer to the belief that [thinking the post is worthless means that you are unenlightened].
This is thinking in rigid categories. “All people who do not value koans are unenlightened”. I do not really know what “enlightenment” is, but that false view is unenlightened.