s: It's as if I were to state, "2 + 2 is 4." And then you respond, "Well, you're a liberal, so you can't possibly know the right answer."
M: Not exactly like that. There is no reason a liberal might not know something. There is a reason a person who is unconscious won't.
The issue really is whether you are unconscious or you're not, no? And it's not that you cannot know but that if you ARE unconscious you won't know as a fact of knowledge.[/quote]
-----------
s: No. That isn't the issue at all. I don't know why you think it is. Look at the thread title: "Conservatives ask FBI to investigate hotel porn." Why do you keep insisting that discussing my state of consciousness has something to do with your claim that porn is bad?
To see how silly and irrelevant it is for you to keep focusing on my mental state, let's imagine for just the question I'm about to ask that I'm completely conscious, capable of feeling, not in pain, etc. I'm the Buddha. Now, the Buddha asks you: Explain how porn damages its consumers.
. . . . [crickets]
M: I keep on mentioning it because of it's central relevance to the matter. Just as it can't be explained to you the Buddha would already know and wouldn't need to have it explained to him. How you see porn is a consequence of your state of consciousness. It all depends on whether you can see the harm. It's a matter of whether you are a jeweler.
===============
s: It's one one big ad hominem attack. I'm unconscious. I'm in pain. I'm a fearful child. I'm the moth around your flame. I'm the fish on your hook. What you're so blind to is that you completely misinterpret my response: You think that I'm upset with you because of the labels. No, I'm upset because the labels are irrelevant to the discussion; they are a giant NON-response.
M: Look at it from a different point of view. Suppose for a moment that you ARE unconscious and in pain and fearful and all the rest.
How does it become a put down to be informed of that fact unless you already assume that you are guilty of something? How can what is if it is be a put down? It is just descriptive fact to which we react with emotions that have their origins perhaps in places we do not understand.
---------------
s: I tell you that I'm upset with you because your labels are a non-response. You interpret THAT response as a statement that I feel put down. Huh???? Is there some language problem here?
M: You said, "It's one one big ad hominem attack. ", referring to my words. That tells me you view them as put downs, attacks against you as a person? I don't think it's me that's having a problem with the language.
s: Nothing you've said is or has "become" a put-down. I'll say it a third time: I object to your labels because they're a non-response. I would object to ANY digression that was wildly off topic because that would be a non-response.
M: My judgment has been that you are not receptive to my response and are even becoming inimical to my point of view in the course of arguing. I sometimes recall I have obligations higher than to rationally argue, as for instance making judgments on who I am talking to and what they will take in. I want to promote truth and not make it enemies if I can. At any rate, you have gotten plenty of response, in my opinion, if not of the kind you wish.
s: If you want to discuss the mental state of consumers of porn, explain how porn feeds into their pain/unconsciouness/self-hate/etc., and what problems that leads to, go right ahead. That would certainly be a valid response. But MY mental state irrelevant.
M: Seems to me I have done quite a lot of that. And your mental state is certainly relevant because all the things you ask for are known by knowing yourself as I have said again and again. If you do not know them you do not know them and there's no helping it. But I will give this some thought when I'm not tired perhaps later on tomorrow if more alert faculties can think of something useful to say.
s: Sigh. Here we are, are in the midst of yet another exchange, and it doesn't seem as though we've made much progress.
M: My take on progress is as strange as everything else about me.
Down is up and it's always darkest before the dawn and other stuff like that..............
=========================
M: And how did I become arrogant just because I may be able to see something you do not see? I have tired to tell you that what I know about you is what I know about myself. So if I am putting you down I am certainly putting down myself.
s: okay. Want to play? We're no longer engaging in a discussion about porn. We are now engaging in a philosophical discussion about . . . er . . . okay, you tell me.
M: About issues that make understanding the nature of porn difficult, that understanding is related to your conscious state.
s: Anyway: You didn't become arrogant because you may be able to see things others cannot. You become arrogant because you think you're able to see things others cannot. Arrogance isn't about what your abilities are. It's about what you think your abilities are.
M: I would suggest that in a room full of blind and sighted people the sighted know who is blind and who is not and it doesn't make them arrogant. But if it really is arrogance that prefers the kind of innocent love that develops between young lovers over the emotions expressed in porn I think I will be arrogant. I will say categorically and without any doubt whatsoever that I am absolutely right.
----------
s: And you haven't been putting me down. I can be put down only if I deep down agree with what you say about me.
M: Absolutely
s: Yes, yes, I know. I'm AM being put down, but I'm so incapable of feeling, so desperate to avoid the pain of confirming I'm worthless, that I don't know it. Have I got that right?
M: Absolutely, but the working is all wrong. You aren't being put down. But anything that challenges your ego state HAS to feel that way. It's just that you won't know that's true because you don't know what you feel. I know you are like this because it is how I am. We are exactly the same. Probably in all honesty I should say that perhaps you are being put down because that's how we are when we hate ourselves. Our self hate leaks out on others.
============
M: So while you may be upset that the labels are from your point of view irrelevant to the discussion, they are profoundly relevant to me because I am the one claiming to have the extra vision, no? So while a blind man may feel somewhat left out in determining where the edge of a cliff is, the sighted are certainly not going to go with his opinion, right? What are we to do if he is upset? I can give you my reasoning but I can't force you to see what you don't see, no? All I can do is tell you why I think we differ in opinion. And we aren't going to blind the sighted, I hope, for the sake of equality.
I am a nobody and if I see something you do not it is purely an accident that it happened. If I see something that's not there then it's my problem.
s: If you're to be given a special pass just because you claim to have extra vision, then what's the point of having a discussion in the first place? Just make your pronouncements, announce that they're the product of your special vision, and the rest of us will accept the given wisdom and go about our business.
Somehow, I don't think you'd find that very satisfying.
M: I would probably love it. But my 'special vision' hehe, is not something I was born with but something I learned from other people. And it has powerful diagnostic properties that illuminate vast areas of life, in my opinion. With all of this wealth, you see, there's nothing for me to do but give it away if I can. The fine is better than the coarse and sometimes it looks as if the coarse is out to take over the world. It's what makes Shurlock want to put Moriarty in his place, perhaps.
s: Your blind-man/sighted analogy just feeds into the same pretension that you have special vision. Either I believe your claim or I don't (I don't), and if I don't, there's no point in claiming it. Unfortunately, I happen to be someone you have to convince with cogency.
M: Well from my perspective I've been more than cogent.
==========
s: I argue against your position that porn should be banned.
M: Well I don't think I said it SHOULD be banned by some sort of force.[/quote]
I don't think
I said that cannabilism as a school lunch strategy should be banned. That's the problem with NOT saying things: What one doesn't say doesn't tell us anything.
What DO you say? That porn should NOT be banned? That it should be banned, but just not by force?
M: Yes, you should ban it for yourself out of the understanding that it leads down and not up.
===========
M: I argued that law follows folks understanding of morality and that morality has its roots in our chimp nature, etc. and that modesty and the love of the good come built in to you genetic code.[/quote]
s: Actually, you didn't. I just searched this thread on "chimp" and "genetic", and there's not a monkey or a chomosome to be found in any of your posts. If I've missed something, I apologize in advance. But methinks you might be smoking something.
M: Hehe, Probably I used different words for the same idea, but I'm too tired right now to look. I am speaking of the source of ethics in the true self, the finding of real value by becoming real.
===========
s: In fact, it was I who brought up our evolutionary past and our genetic heritage. And I used that heritage to suggest that humans engage in sex for pretty much the same reasons all kinds of other creatures do.
M: Yes I agreed with you. We just differ in our view on what pretty much the same reason is. What you seem to want to vulgarize as animal I would call Divine.
========
M: I suggested that law does follow our inner wisdom and seeks to make it manifest and there are plenty of cultures revolted by porn and against the law. I suggested that the legislation of morality is commonplace,
s: You argument seems to be that the widespread existence of laws to enforce a particular view of morality proves that it's right and proper to enforce a particular view of morality. All I see your evidence proving is that ignorance, arrogance, and small-mindedness are universal.
M: That is not what I said. I am saying that you support all sorts of ancient cultural norms without much thought. You aren't crying because you can't go to the Hilton in the nude. You aren't complaining about fines for littering. And there are plenty of cultures that feel that way about porn. People ban things that cause harm according to their conscious understanding. What you call ignorance and arrogance and small-mindedness strikes my as a projection. Law actually reflects, in my opinion, much profound human wisdom.
M: I said that as for example the laws against murder, but you claim there is a difference. There is a difference, yes, but it is not a difference when it comes to damaging the soul. Naturally you don't like that word so I said it defiles the nature of man. You don't like that either but I maintain it's because you don't know your true nature, which you don't like either. Well if porn is not good for kids why is it good for adults?
s: For once (in this thread) we agree: The difference between laws against murder and rape and bank robbery on the one hand and laws banning pornography and same-sex marriage and recreational drug use on the other is the difference between corpses, physically-abused women, and a chaotic financial system on the one hand and people free to live their private lives the way they see fit on the other. The difference is between preventing tangible harm to unwilling victims on the one hand and on the other hand preventing imagined harm to willing participants (and restricting freedom in the process).
M: Of course, but you have to remember that what is tangible and imaginary is a matter of conscious development. They depend on the depth of your knowledge. The man who beats his wife is in denial as to the harm.
s: Your question about why children shouldn't consume porn is disingnenous. You've turned the claim that the freedom to choose (or not to choose) to consume porn is good into the claim that porn is good. That's intellectually dishonest and beneath you. Shame.
M: Not at all. I am not saying that. I am saying that if you would not let children choose to consume porn why would you allow it for yourself. You know, do you not, that except as yee be like a little child you will not enter the kingdom of heaven? You should listen to Jesus if you don't want to listen to me.
This is really what I am saying. Don't do what will make you coarse and unfit for heaven. Heaven is fine.
s: But I'll pretend that what you actually asked is why an activity that is permissible for adults should be impermissible for children. I'll provide a simple analogy and let you work out the details: How about driving a car?
M: How about it? I learned to drive a car at the age of five.
I did get some help with the pedals. Perhaps it's the hour, but I actually can't work out the details. It doesn't matter though if you don't want to spell them out to me because I was going somewhere else with the child thing anyway as I explained a few lines above.
s: You think that I'm upset with you because of the labels. No, I'm upset because the labels are irrelevant to the discussion; they are a giant NON-response. I argue against your position that porn should be banned. I ask, "Tell me why porn is bad?" You respond, "You're in pain." Get it?
M: Hehe, you aren't in pain? I think I said life has a deep and a light side and that one cannot have consciousness of both at the same time. You only know your pain when you consciously go into it, say in therapy, and it's really hard to do, because, well, it hurts, you see.[/quote]
s: I guess you don't get it.
M: None of us wants to.
==========
s: As I think about it right now, I realize you almost never engage in substantive discussion.
M: You mean substantive according to what you call substantive. I would say it's me who deals with the real issues. But I completely understand what you mean and why you think so.
s: For me, "substantive" means I ask about a horse and get an answer about a horse.
For you, "real issues" means I ask about a horse and you tell me I'm unconscious.
M: But you don't ask me about a horse. You are supporting something that runs down hill because you don't see that it does.
=============
s: You're all images, and quips, and philosophical side-tracks. I enjoy the philosophy and the quips (I really do), but for goodness sake, can't you change gears? Is it so difficult for you to just have a straight-on discussion? TRY.
M: You try too please.
s: Oh, I do, I do. I haven't given up on you yet. I really think you're making progress. Now, if you'll just let me send you these extremely interesting videos . . . .
M: Because of you I will never be able to enjoy porn again.
I warned you that opposing something could work against you. I should have paid more attention.
=============
s: What has any of this got to do with a discussion of porn?
M: What it has to do with the discussion of porn is that to know what is wrong about porn you have to have some sense of who you really are, a being with a heart. I have told you that porn has no heart. That it is a business that used coarseness to make a buck. It plays your weakness and you for a sucker. It appeals to what is sick in people, their insecurity and doubt about their worthiness, in this case in bed, their prurient interest in the lives of others, their insecurity, etc, their feelings of inadequacy and their desire to achieve some athletic nonsense about what it means to be good in bed. It's for wimps. The chimp is a natural born f@cking machine. The last thing in the world it needs is porn.
s: I continue to read these claims of yours that pornography appeals to this or that weakness, but I just don't see it.
M: Well then, just trust me. You have noting to loose but porn.
s: Suppose I'm some lonely guy without a partner Better, I'm some really homely, really lonely, really unimaginative guy without a partner.
M: That's what I've been imagining right along.
Just kidding.
s: I download some photos or videos of some enticing, sensual, beckoning woman; get turned on; and have 10 minutes of pleasure. What sickness, insecurity, inadequacy, or pseudo-athleticism is being played on in this episode? Is it all things that stimulate the libido that are bad, or are inflatable dolls okay?
M: The harm is intangible. The harm consist in the fact that time for this man's awakening is being wasted in ways that are emotionally empty compared to what could be. The man you describe is God asleep. He has a love hidden in him that could transform the world and bring hope and joy to millions. He is the Lover and the Beloved.
===============
s: Now, expand on your earlier statment that porn "coarsens." What does that mean? What does that lead to? Does porn cause rape? Does porn cause child abuse? Does porn cause rough sex? Does porn cause one to become kinky? How? Can one be a "recreational" porn user with no ill consequences, or is even a little bit bad?
M: I just did. Porn appeals to our uncertainty and insecurity, needlessly. It sends us in the wrong direction. The real sexual performer is the LOVER, not the phony who is all technique and bluster. The soul yearns for surrender in the arms of the lover while the fool thinks of notches in his bed. Porn is totally unnatural to the healthy mind. It's like trying to get the satisfaction of taking a crap by smelling somebody else's sh!t.
s: Even if what you say is true (and I disagree that it is), there is almost no one in the type of love relationship you describe. Real people get bored after five, ten, fifteen years of doing the same thing with the same person. Porn provides a little spice, a little excitement. The most effective porn is not "technique and bluster." Rather, it's the suspension of disbelief, convincing the viewer that some person he or she finds incredibly attractive is inviting the viewer into a wonderful sexual encounter.
M: There is almost nobody in the kind of relationship I described because we are all infected with the coarseness of the world and have been made to hate who we really are. That there are any at all as I describe is the miracle. I told you already also, that the suspension of disbelief require you to forget that the people making porn are doing it for money and are performing acts calculated to titillate all that is base and coarse in our nature for the pleasure of earning money. You have to compartmentalize your mind to overlook the horrible fact of what porn really is and does to those who are making it and what happened in their lives that lead them to it. It is strange to me you do not see how ugly all that is.
s: Sure, people can get hooked on porn, but the problem there is the addiction, not the porn itself.
M: Only one of many other minor issues.
s: What does "anathema to the true self" mean? That sounds impressive, but I'm not sure that it means anything. Claiming "That's the facts" without presenting any evidence is a non-argument. It would be ruled inadmissible in a court of law, and I'm throwing it out of this discussion. If you ain't got the actual facts, or at least if you haven't got cogent arguments, why are you wasting my time?
M: You will have all the facts when you find your heart.
===========
M: I just gave some more examples of anathema, but as I said, who knows what anathema is? I said it's the jeweler who knows the real gem. What more is there to say if you can't see? In order to appreciate facts you have to have the training required to understand the difference between fact and fiction, no?[/quote]
s: You can claim that porn appeals to sickness, insecurity, and feelings of inadequacy all you want, but until you demonstrate the connection, you're not convincing anyone.
M: I know the connection and have convinced myself. There is no possibility I could ever convince you. Only you can do that.
s: Say some young, single, unattached man sees a video of a woman performing fellatio, and he imagines her performing it on him. He gets turned on. He gets pleasure. Sure, he'd rather be actually receiving fellatio, but you don't always get what you want. Where's the sickness in that? Where's the appeal to insecurity? The appeal to feelings of inadequecy?
M: Sure it would be better..........and it would be minus those things.
============
M: "In the sea there are riches beyond compare, but if you seek safety it is on the shore." A saying.
s: Yes, a Sufism. But I don't know why you're quoting it here. Have I been arguing for safety?
M: I don't know why that saying came to me when it did or why I put it there. I have faith there may be some reason I did.
So now that you know for sure that nobody can take from you your right to harm yourself, why do you want to?
S: I don't know anything of the kind, and I disagree with every meaning, false-implication, nuance, word, letter, and punctuation mark in that utterly dishonest sentence of yours. If you were half as aware as you make yourself out to be (which I'm beginning to conclude is about twice as aware as you actually are) you might be capable of comprehending just how slimey and intellectually bankrupt a person has be to fashion a sentence that false.
M: Hehe, it has been my experience in observing life that people leave their big sore toes out in the aisle where they will inadvertently be stepped on. We call this pulling arrows out of the air to stab ourselves in the heart. We are all dying, it seems, to re-experience our pain so long as it's not done consciously but can be lain at another's feet. I must say you sound as if you've suddenly gone insane. I won't bother to try to figure out what you could possibly mean or how what I said could have touched off such indignation because it was a straightforward and simple question. Perhaps I should assume that that your arguments are more than just intellectual and defend an important part of your life. If so I don't condemn you or porn. That's not the point at all. It is just that I would wish you and everybody else something better.
M: Tell me of this wonderful thing called porn. It is my considered opinion that porn makes the world much worse and not better. With what about that do you disagree?
s: No, no, we're done here. That previous sentence of yours has convinced me that a continued dialog is pointless.
M: Please provide me with concrete evidence to back up that conviction. I don't what to hear it's something you feel.
Facebook
Twitter