My Jesus Challenge

[the iconoclast]

The escape from discontentment and suffering ultimately involves wisdom which dispels ignorance. Creation/activity (kamma) is a symptom of discontentment, and nibbana - the absence of discontentment and suffering - logically involves no kammic activity or creation.

Hey hey thank you for your replies

Usually i like ppl to explain themselves, however you do not wanna get caught.

I would love a yes or no answer at this stage.

So to escape the wheel one must stop suffering, suffering is action and action is in conflict with nirvana?

Yes or no?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

In contemporary society, where humanitarian values are no longer exclusively tied to religion, but to predominantly secular ideals like human rights.

Hey hey jane

Human rights. Who is the authority on human rights?

Cheers you

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Hey hey jane

Human rights. Who is the authority on human rights?

Cheers you

Certainly not some deity imagined by ancient middle-easterners, that much is for sure. The Abrahamic deity has a horrible track record, in spite of all stories revolving around Him having been written to paint Him in the most positive light (to the original audience). Mass murder, slavery, staged executions to make people comply, murdering people for base motives such as jealousy or self-aggrandisement...

But more to the point: I don't think morality is a question of authority (in the sense of some person, office, institution, or other entity holding unassailable power to tell others what's what). Like languages, moralities are simultaneously intersubjective cultural products and "lenses/patterns" that are connected to observable reality. A morality that was too disconnected from the necessities of human society would be too dysfunctional to survive even a single generation, but there is a lot of space to disagree with each other beyond that threshold.
For example, treating women as property, foreigners as mortal enemies, or LGBT* people as abominations to be executed or jailed doesn't lead to societal collapse, even after millennia.
And yet, I'd argue that as a species, we've come to learn from the mistakes of the past and gradually improved the way we interact with each other - adapting and growing as we go along.
There is a reason why slavery is illegal in every state around the globe (even if criminals still keep slaves), why the death penalty has been abolished in virtually every modern state (even if religious backwaters still hold on to socially accepted revenge), and why monarchies and aristocracies have been disappearing at an ever-increasing rate.

 

[the iconoclast]

Certainly not some deity imagined by ancient middle-easterners, that much is for sure. The Abrahamic deity has a horrible track record, in spite of all stories revolving around Him having been written to paint Him in the most positive light (to the original audience). Mass murder, slavery, staged executions to make people comply, murdering people for base motives such as jealousy or self-aggrandisemen

Hey hey the dreaded enemy of the conservatives yah round 2. I knew you could not resist, dude if you met me you would absolutely love me

I diagree with this misrepresentation. What you are doing is giving a false or misleading account of the nature of God to make it easier to attack.

(in the sense of some person, office, institution, or other entity holding unassailable power to tell others what's what).

Why do you follow the laws of your land?

So you are in no position to tell me what is and what is not?

Like languages, moralities are simultaneously intersubjective cultural products and "lenses/patterns" that are connected to observable reality.

Morality and languages are not linked. Morality is what is right or wrong. Language is a vehicle for communication.

It is debatable whether morality as a whole is a cultural product considering all cultures share some moral similarities ie do not murder. Wanna debate it?

A morality that was too disconnected from the necessities of human society would be too dysfunctional to survive even a single generation, but there is a lot of space to disagree with each other beyond that threshold.

So morality must be connected to the necessities of human society. How so?

For example, treating women as property, foreigners as mortal enemies, or LGBT* people as abominations to be executed or jailed doesn't lead to societal collapse, even after millennia.

And your point is?

And yet, I'd argue that as a species, we've come to learn from the mistakes of the past and gradually improved the way we interact with each other - adapting and growing as we go along.

I disagree.

There is a reason why slavery is illegal in every state around the globe (even if criminals still keep slaves),

I disagree.

There Are More Slaves Today Than at Any Time in Human History

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...gQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw1uafQm5bZCA1qH_et1t92s&cf=1

Dont get on your high horse. All we have done is outsourced our slavery to the third world. All that had changed is you dont see it.

why the death penalty has been abolished in virtually every modern state (even if religious backwaters still hold on to socially accepted revenge),

58 countries retain the death penalty in active use, 102 countries have abolished capital punishment altogether,

You need to pick up your game.

and why monarchies and aristocracies have been disappearing at an ever-increasing rate.

There are 43 or 44 countries that have monarchs as the ceremonial or the real head of the state.

But more to the point: I don't think morality is a question of authority

Now to the subject at hand.

Why is morality not a question of authority?

Why should there be no standard to measure morality against?

If we do not have an authority on morality, who decides what is wrong and what is right?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey hey @Jane_the_Bane

Marx famously held the opinion that “democracy is the road to socialism”.

What you think?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Hey hey @Jane_the_Bane

Marx famously held the opinion that “democracy is the road to socialism”.

What you think?

Marx was a great thinker who accurately extrapolated how capitalism would turn out, just by looking at what was present in his own time: globalised markets, ever-larger corporations amassing immense power, a growing rift between a minuscule percentage of profiteers vs. a large number of have-nots, the erosion of the middle class, even environmental degradation and destruction.

That said, he was too much of a determinist, especially *because* he was so good at extrapolating data, and his political ideals are an invitation for the kind of warped, tyrannical systems that rose up under the name of "communism", even though not one of those nominally "communist" societies were ever non-hierarchical societies where the means of production were genuinely in the hands of the people.

But focusing on your particular quotation here: I would say that only democratic socialism (i.e. public schools, public health care, public fire fighters, public roads, retirement funds, etc.) can fulfill the promises of democracy as a society governed by the interests of ALL citizens, as opposed to the plutocratic quasi-feudalism of a system compromised by corporate lobbyism and private profit interests.

But perhaps you should first ask yourself what Marx meant when he wrote of "socialism", for the term has got many possible meanings: to Marx, socialism is not a society of regimented, automatized individuals, regardless of whether there is equality of income or not, and regardless of whether they are well fed and well clad. It is not a society in which the individual is subordinated to the state, to the machine, to the bureaucracy. Marx expressed the aim of socialism with great clarity at the end of the third volume of Capital: "In fact, the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and of external utility is required. In the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of material production in the strict meaning of the term. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied. The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it. But it always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only upon that realm of necessity as its basis."

Marx expresses here all essential elements of socialism. First, man produces in an associated, not competitive way; he produces rationally and in an unalienated way, which means that he brings production under his control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power. This clearly excludes a concept of socialism in which man is manipulated by a bureaucracy, even if this bureaucracy rules the whole state economy, rather than only a big corporation. It means that the individual participates actively in the planning and in the execution of the plans; it means, in short, the realization of political and industrial democracy. Marx expected that by this new form of an unalienated society man would become independent, stand on his own feet, and would no longer be crippled by the alienated mode of production and consumption; that he would truly be the master and the creator of his life, and hence that he could begin to make living his main business, rather than producing the means for living. Socialism, for Marx, was never as such the fulfillment of life, but the condition for such fulfillment. When man has built a rational, nonalienated form of society, he will have the chance to begin with what is the aim of life: the "development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom."

It's a lofty ideal, and sounds too good to be true, given the almost dystopian ravages of contemporary capitalism. But at this point, all but the most obstinate and willfully blind individuals should be able to see that our current economic model is a culture of extinction, consuming more non-regenerative resources than the planet can sustain, destroying whole ecosystems and ultimately propelling an extinction event that dwarfs the puny meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I diagree with this misrepresentation. What you are doing is giving a false or misleading account of the nature of God to make it easier to attack.

There is nothing false or misleading about the "wonders" visited upon the Egyptians as a demonstration of power, or the execution by stoning of the man who collected kindlewood on the wrong day of the week, or letting bears maul kids for mocking a prophet, or ordering the death of children of livestock in the name of "purity", or... well, the list is long.

Why do you follow the laws of your land?

For the most part, because they are in line with my own moral convictions - and I would break them even under threat of death if they violated these (for example if, say, a new Nazi regime declared it my legal obligation to deliver some minority to their death).
Likewise, I would not bother to wait at a red pedestrians traffic light on an otherwise deserted road, even if the law unequivocally declares that it is my legal obligation to do so.
Laws are only as good as the purpose they serve. They are not an end in themselves.

Morality and languages are not linked. Morality is what is right or wrong. Language is a vehicle for communication.

Taking comparisons to mean one is the xerox copy of the other is not exactly a sign of intelligence.
Apart from the fact that languages can contain and embody whole value systems, the similarities between these two do not extend to them having exactly the same function.
Different languages do not agree on the way they conceptualize the world. They set different boundaries for what constitutes certain colours, for example, and you cannot freely translate everything from one language to the next - even if both are relating to the same perceptible reality we all experience with our senses.
Likewise, different moralities do not agree on what constitutes right or wrong - even if both draw upon the same social necessities and WILL have a certain "overlap". Virtually all societies have got a concept of unlawful killing, i.e. murder and manslaughter, but they differ greatly on what constitutes LEGAL killing. Does splitting the head of your enemy with an axe constitute an act of manly heroism, or does it make you a murderer? Does mowing down dozens of foreigners make you a criminal or a war hero? The answers to that are quite distinct from culture to culture.

So morality must be connected to the necessities of human society. How so?

I'm fairly certain that's exactly what I described in this last series of posts.

There Are More Slaves Today Than at Any Time in Human History

And none of them are *legally* slaves.
Yes, it's bad.
And yes, capitalism and the colonialist heritage have got much to do with the perpetuation of such evil.
But no, it's NOT the same as erecting a legal system that specifically declares people to be cattle.

58 countries retain the death penalty in active use, 102 countries have abolished capital punishment altogether,

As I said, modern societies, not countries governed by religious barbarism or totalitarian dictatorships. You WILL find the odd exception (Japan), but by and large, the death penalty has been on the way out since the early 1900s.

There are 43 or 44 countries that have monarchs as the ceremonial or the real head of the state.

As opposed to 100% absolutist monarchies in ca. 1750. I'd call that an enormous improvement, especially if we take into account that ceremonial monarchs are just symbols for the most part, and not in possession of political power.

 

[the iconoclast]

But focusing on your particular quotation here: I would say that only democratic socialism (i.e. public schools, public health care, public fire fighters, public roads, retirement funds, etc.) can fulfill the promises of democracy as a society governed by the interests of ALL citizens, as opposed to the plutocratic quasi-feudalism of a system compromised by corporate lobbyism and private profit interests.

Hey hey jane.

Thank you for that wonderfully worded and descriptive explanation. that must have taken you a while to type out

Your reply did not seem negative to marx. Interesting.

Public schools, public hospitals and etc are not the result of 'democratic socialism'.
In fact public schools were originated in 1635 ie boston latin school. Even the catholic church preceded that. Hospitals were the invention of Christians!

Romans built roads. Retirement funds are also known as surplus. Governing in the interest of the people was around longer than the 1830s. Democratic socialism is just better sounding than socialist.

It is still based on the same old and failed redistributionist tenets of marxism — the kind that give rise to devastating failure.

Anyway thank you for your reply. You are a democratic socialist atheist.

Please indulge me.

Do you believe?
1. That we should be able to do what ever we want to do and
2. Love is our authority.

There is nothing false or misleading about the "wonders" visited upon the Egyptians as a demonstration of power, or the execution by stoning of the man who collected kindlewood on the wrong day of the week, or letting bears maul kids for mocking a prophet, or ordering the death of children of livestock in the name of "purity", or... well, the list is long.

It is called the wrath of God. Dont want the wrath of God? Dont do things that result in it.

Our God is a God of love but He is someone to fear ie a mixed feeling of dread and reverence. I sometimes liken God to a nuclear reactor, dont muck around with Him.

Romans 1:18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”

Proverbs 11:4 “Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.”

Ephesians 5:6 “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”


Is this the best you got?

For the most part, because they are in line with my own moral convictions - and I would break them even under threat of death if they violated these (for example if, say, a new Nazi regime declared it my legal obligation to deliver some minority to their death).

Likewise, I would not bother to wait at a red pedestrians traffic light on an otherwise deserted road, even if the law unequivocally declares that it is my legal obligation to do so.

Laws are only as good as the purpose they serve. They are not an end in themselves.

Hook line and sinker.

Why do you accept wrath from the law of your land on law breakers? Why are you not allowed wrath?

Taking comparisons to mean one is the xerox copy of the other is not exactly a sign of intelligence.

Hahaha nice!!!

Well i hope you feel better insulting my intelligence. Yet here you still are

Lets continue shall we?

Apart from the fact that languages can contain and embody whole value systems, the similarities between these two do not extend to them having exactly the same function.

Im glad you agree.

Different languages do not agree on the way they conceptualize the world. They set different boundaries for what constitutes certain colours, for example, and you cannot freely translate everything from one language to the next - even if both are relating to the same perceptible reality we all experience with our senses.

And this has to do with what?

Likewise, different moralities do not agree on what constitutes right or wrong - even if both draw upon the same social necessities and WILL have a certain "overlap". Virtually all societies have got a concept of unlawful killing, i.e. murder and manslaughter, but they differ greatly on what constitutes LEGAL killing.

Please provide me with examples based on countries that differ greatly. Cheers

Does splitting the head of your enemy with an axe constitute an act of manly heroism, or does it make you a murderer?

Well lets explore this one.

Has the man surrendered, is he trying to kill me, did i sneak up on him in time of war, is he armed, is he playing the piano, is he trying to harm an individual, does he like pina coladas and getting caught in the rain?

What u think?

Does mowing down dozens of foreigners make you a criminal or a war hero?

Please see previous reply.

The answers to that are quite distinct from culture to culture.

Dont be shy. Give me an example?

I'm fairly certain that's exactly what I described in this last series of posts.

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt!

So morality must be connected to the necessities of human society. What is an example of a necessity of human society that is connected to morality, just in case i didnt understand you the first time - remember what you said about my intelligence, i may need a little help

And none of them are *legally* slaves.

Yes, it's bad.

And yes, capitalism and the colonialist heritage have got much to do with the perpetuation of such evil.

But no, it's NOT the same as erecting a legal system that specifically declares people to be cattle.

That is not the point. There are more slaves in this time and place then throughout human history. I thoughtyou said we were going forward?

Ps
God does not endorse slavery, he regulated it in the OT. Anways Christianity was the ones to eliminate it.

Christians are taught to be strong people with strong discpline. The type to suffer persecution and do good to those who persecute them. Obey the laws of the land, do your best under all circumstances, help your neighbour, look after the poor and weak and be a bastion for was is good in the eyes of God.

We will outlive you, your atheist position and when the chips are down give you clothing, shelter and warmth.

I love you.

As I said, modern societies, not countries governed by religious barbarism or totalitarian dictatorships. You WILL find the odd exception (Japan), but by and large, the death penalty has been on the way out since the early 1900s.

So why is japan the exception to your rule?

As opposed to 100% absolutist monarchies in ca. 1750. I'd call that an enormous improvement, especially if we take into account that ceremonial monarchs are just symbols for the most part, and not in possession of political power.

You miss the point. 44 out of 150 countries is hardly "disappearing at an ever-increasing rate." You exaggerate!


You dont play fair. I answer all your questions, now you answer all mine including these ones you missed or i might assume you can not back yourself up and merely like to make statements?

Why is morality not a question of authority?

Why should there be no standard to measure morality against?

If we do not have an authority on morality, who decides what is wrong and what is right?

Cheers

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

*raspberry*
Most of your replies are... well, not literally monosyllabic, but WAY less elaborate than anything I type out, and often amount to little more than "nuh-uh". In light of this, I find your insistence that I owe everything that you ask some kind of special consideration and am in some way compelled to answer to be almost hilarious, if a little insulting.

And I really do think there's not that much room to discuss when your position boils down to:
"Our god is a god of love; he just gets angry at times and it's not his fault."
You do realize what that sounds like, don't you?
"Earl is not like that, he's a really nice guy. It's my fault for provoking him. He didn't WANT to break three of my ribs and give me a concussion."

Look, the best you can do to defend the literary character you believe to be real is by arguing that a deity is so far beyond our understanding and so different from ourselves that to judge Them by our standards is as nonsensical as morally condemning human beings for killing billions of germs.
That's okay, that's an argument you can make. But then don't turn around and judge Him in positive terms, either. "God of love" becomes a ridiculous epithet once the wrathful butchery starts. Like "Good Father Stalin".

And you are genuinely dishonest when you list 44 monarchies (almost forty of them CONSTITUTIONAL) as "proof" that statecraft hasn't fundamentally changed over the course of the last 200 years. That is just cringeworthy, man.
In 1780, virtually every state out there gave nearly unlimited power to kings and their aristocrat vassals.
Today, universal suffrage is virtually ubiquitous, with the exeption of seven states (five of them Muslim, four of these on the Arabian peninsula) - if we count the Vatican, which holds very little real power in spite of the Pope's status as an absolute monarch.

 

[the iconoclast]

*raspberry*
Most of your replies are... well, not literally monosyllabic, but WAY less elaborate than anything I type out, and often amount to little more than "nuh-uh". In light of this, I find your insistence that I owe everything that you ask some kind of special consideration and am in some way compelled to answer to be almost hilarious, if a little insulting.

And I really do think there's not that much room to discuss when your position boils down to:
"Our god is a god of love; he just gets angry at times and it's not his fault."
You do realize what that sounds like, don't you?
"Earl is not like that, he's a really nice guy. It's my fault for provoking him. He didn't WANT to break three of my ribs and give me a concussion."

Look, the best you can do to defend the literary character you believe to be real is by arguing that a deity is so far beyond our understanding and so different from ourselves that to judge Them by our standards is as nonsensical as morally condemning human beings for killing billions of germs.
That's okay, that's an argument you can make. But then don't turn around and judge Him in positive terms, either. "God of love" becomes a ridiculous epithet once the wrathful butchery starts. Like "Good Father Stalin".

And you are genuinely dishonest when you list 44 monarchies (almost forty of them CONSTITUTIONAL) as "proof" that statecraft hasn't fundamentally changed over the course of the last 200 years. That is just cringeworthy, man.
In 1780, virtually every state out there gave nearly unlimited power to kings and their aristocrat vassals.
Today, universal suffrage is virtually ubiquitous, with the exeption of seven states (five of them Muslim, four of these on the Arabian peninsula) - if we count the Vatican, which holds very little real power in spite of the Pope's status as an absolute monarch.

Hey hey jane.

So i guess this is you giving up. You cannot reply to my post, you just like to make statements. Your position is weak and this rant of yours a desperate attempt.

You have some unanswered questions you need to address before we can continue.

Cheers

 

[dlamberth]

So to escape the wheel one must stop suffering, suffering is action and action is in conflict with nirvana?

Cheers

Buddhism is more about the state of the inner mind than it is about outer actions.

I slightly reword your question to be more inline with the Buddhist trajectory, at least in how I understand it. I adding a couple of words and changed the word "action" to "thought. It now looks like this:

"So to escape the wheel one must stop experiencing things as suffering, suffering is thought and thought is in conflict with nirvana?"

That's turned into a pretty good Koan!
Thanks for your help.

 

[the iconoclast]

Buddhism is more about the state of the inner mind than it is about outer actions.

I slightly reword your question to be more inline with the Buddhist trajectory, at least in how I understand it. I adding a couple of words and changed the word "action" to "thought. It now looks like this:

"So to escape the wheel one must stop experiencing things as suffering, suffering is thought and thought is in conflict with nirvana?"

That's turned into a pretty good Koan!
Thanks for your help.

Hello and thank you for your reply

I would prefer to wait for @ananda to respond, anyways our previous conversation has not finished.

Would you like to reset and we start fresh?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Hey hey jane.

So i guess this is you giving up. You cannot reply to my post, you just like to make statements. Your position is weak and this rant of yours a desperate attempt.

You have some unanswered questions you need to address before we can continue.

Cheers

If you answered just ONE post of mine with as meticulous a reply as I do yours (especially as far as YOUR OWN positions are concerned), I might actually be interested in discussing further with you. But for the most part, your "nuh-uh, here's my next question that you MUST answer right now!"-approach is just laughable.
If that makes you feel as if you've "won", be my guest. I have little interest in continuing this conversation, and it's ultimately not up to you or me to decide who had the better argued and more consistent position - that is for other readers of this thread to decide, individually.

Your apologetics leave much to be desired, and you STILL won't even concede that there's a difference between 100% absolutist monarchies and 0 democracies in 1780 vs. 3.59% absolutist monarchies vs. 58% democracies (some of which happen to keep a monarch as a symbolic head of state) in 2018. I might even add autocratic states that aren't monarchies to the mix, and it's STILL only 13% on your side of the tally.

"Nah, there's no difference at all. Nothing to see here. Now answer my next question or I declare myself the winner!!!!!11 (Also, my god is a god of love, he just gets angry at times. It's not his fault.)"

 

[the iconoclast]

If you answered just ONE post of mine with as meticulous a reply as I do yours (especially as far as YOUR OWN positions are concerned), I might actually be interested in discussing further with you.

Hey hey jane.

Please excuse me - if you believe i have not paid your posts more attention. I disagree however, it doesnt matter how many words you use, what matters is the substance and where to go.

But for the most part, your "nuh-uh, here's my next question that you MUST answer right now!"-approach is just laughable.

I disagree.

If that makes you feel as if you've "won", be my guest.

I have little interest in continuing this conversation, and it's ultimately not up to you or me to decide who had the better argued and more consistent position - that is for other readers of this thread to decide, individually.

How about we say there is no winner.

Your apologetics leave much to be desired, and you STILL won't even concede that there's a difference between 100% absolutist monarchies and 0 democracies in 1780 vs. 3.59% absolutist monarchies vs. 58% democracies (some of which happen to keep a monarch as a symbolic head of state) in 2018. I might even add autocratic states that aren't monarchies to the mix, and it's STILL only 13% on your side of the tally.

The original substance was

Jane - " There is a reason why slavery is illegal in every state around the globe (even if criminals still keep slaves), why the death penalty has been abolished in virtually every modern state (even if religious backwaters still hold on to socially accepted revenge),
and why monarchies and aristocracies have been disappearing at an ever-increasing rate."

There is a reason why slavery is illegal, why the death penaly has been abolished and why monarchies and aristocracies have been disappearing and at an ever increaing rate.

You have my full undivided attention. Why?

"Nah, there's no difference at all. Nothing to see here. Now answer my next question or I declare myself the winner!!!!!11

Please excuse me, do not recall saying such things. You are putting words into my mouth.

(Also, my god is a god of love, he just gets angry at times. It's not his fault.)"

Please excuse my attention to detail.

Icon - "Our God is a God of love but He is someone to fear ie a mixed feeling of dread and reverence. I sometimes liken God to a nuclear reactor, dont muck around with Him. "

Why is that a bad thing to have a feeling of dread and reverance for something?

Cheers

 

[dlamberth]

Hello and thank you for your reply

I would prefer to wait for @ananda to respond, anyways our previous conversation has not finished.

Would you like to reset and we start fresh?

My experience with you was the same as...

If you answered just ONE post of mine with as meticulous a reply as I do yours (especially as far as YOUR OWN positions are concerned), I might actually be interested in discussing further with you. But for the most part, your "nuh-uh, here's my next question that you MUST answer right now!"-approach is just laughable.

 

[the iconoclast]

My experience with you was the same as...

Hey hey my dear

Then why do you engage me?

 

[dlamberth]

Hey hey my dear

Then why do you engage me?

Actually I engaged your question and made a Koan out of it.

 

[the iconoclast]

Actually I engaged your question and made a Koan out of it.

Hey hey friend

So why did you feel you needed to do that?

 

[dlamberth]

Hey hey friend

So why did you feel you needed to do that?

I don't know. I just saw that if I reworded what you wrote to be more inline with Buddhist thinking that a Koan would pop up. And it did. What do you think of it?

 

[the iconoclast]

I don't know. I just saw that if I reworded what you wrote to be more inline with Buddhist thinking that a Koan would pop up. And it did. What do you think of it?

Hey hey my friend

Im not too sure what to think.

You supplied a paradoxical anecdote or riddle without a solution, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and provoke enlightenment.

You might actually be interested in discussing further with me. But for the most part... my approach is just laughable.

So what outcome do you hope to achieve by supplying a riddle with no solution and engaging me - considering you agree with jane and my approach is laughable?

Cheers