The so called wise men are fools...

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,634
4,592
126
In my life I often what? 'experience that feedback that suggests others seem me as an oddity as a thinker', that my point of view isn't exactly normal, and I think that may be the result of the odd habit I seem to have of questioning, at least, some things. And for whatever reason or degree this might actually be true, if not that is some ego trick of self flattery, it has been reinforced over the years by various sources from which I have drawn inspiration, one being, a book of the title, Wisdom of the Idiots, implying that real wisdom does indeed sound foolish to most people, and also this comment from similar sources, 'the so called wise men are fools' implying that what actually does pass off as wisdom in fact is what is really foolish.

Now since I am rather convinced my much evidence that my brain capacity is extremely limited and thus that I can have no coherent notion of exactly just how much of a fool I may actually be, I find it, like most people I see, quite convinced that the way I see thing is in fact the proper way to see, but, unfortunately for me, I just can't be that very sure. In fact, owing to these unusual challenges to my own capacity to think properly, coming from the odd places I have been with my readings, I can have no real assurance I know wisdom from fact at all. Naturally, however, like any other fool, I won't let that stop me here:

So it happened while perusing the internet as I do, seeking the entertainment of ideas, I came across this:

And I found what I heard there disturbing. Again I am forced to question who are the wise men and who are the fools. This is from a Stanford professor, always a bad sign, home to many a conservative thinker, or as I would normally call them professionals at rationalization. But because I just can't seem to close the door on the notion that I know everything, and having nothing better to do decided to listen. And what I heard challenged everything I had come to regard as the best advise of how the handle the Covid Pandemic. How distressing that some possible conservative may have suggested that the experts I thought knew something might actually be the fools. I thought I would share and let you decide if you have the time and any interest.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
31,794
19,859
136
It is true that "real wisdom does indeed sound foolish to most people' but so does foolishness.

Don't have time to watch the whole video right now but 2 minutes in he is questioning the premise that coronavirus would kill millions without shelter in place and quarantines. It HAS killed millions.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,134
4,430
126
Every group has "Wise" Persons. This statement, made in the Thread title, is just another way to dismiss the Other. It is often a form of Gaslighting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burpo and hal2kilo

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
31,794
19,859
136
6 minutes in and they are criticizing early information. Zippety-doo.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,604
9,369
126
In my life I often what? 'experience that feedback that suggests others seem me as an oddity as a thinker', that my point of view isn't exactly normal, and I think that may be the result of the odd habit I seem to have of questioning, at least, some things. And for whatever reason or degree this might actually be true, if not that is some ego trick of self flattery, it has been reinforced over the years by various sources from which I have drawn inspiration, one being, a book of the title, Wisdom of the Idiots, implying that real wisdom does indeed sound foolish to most people, and also this comment from similar sources, 'the so called wise men are fools' implying that what actually does pass off as wisdom in fact is what is really foolish.

Now since I am rather convinced my much evidence that my brain capacity is extremely limited and thus that I can have no coherent notion of exactly just how much of a fool I may actually be, I find it, like most people I see, quite convinced that the way I see thing is in fact the proper way to see, but, unfortunately for me, I just can't be that very sure. In fact, owing to these unusual challenges to my own capacity to think properly, coming from the odd places I have been with my readings, I can have no real assurance I know wisdom from fact at all. Naturally, however, like any other fool, I won't let that stop me here:

So it happened while perusing the internet as I do, seeking the entertainment of ideas, I came across this:

And I found what I heard there disturbing. Again I am forced to question who are the wise men and who are the fools. This is from a Stanford professor, always a bad sign, home to many a conservative thinker, or as I would normally call them professionals at rationalization. But because I just can't seem to close the door on the notion that I know everything, and having nothing better to do decided to listen. And what I heard challenged everything I had come to regard as the best advise of how the handle the Covid Pandemic. How distressing that some possible conservative may have suggested that the experts I thought knew something might actually be the fools. I thought I would share and let you decide if you have the time and any interest.
Jay here is problematic. Highly so.

First, his testimony in an anti-mask court case was so bad, the judge dismissed it



Much of the state's argument relied on the testimony of Dr. Jay Battacharya, a Stanford-trained medical doctor with a doctorate in economics, who has for the last 20 years been a professor at the university's medical school.

In court documents, Battacharya states mask mandates do more harm than good in light of democratic ethics, children's vulnerability to contracting COVID-19 and their social and developmental needs.

In court testimony in the case, Battacharya confirmed he does not believe current medical knowledge shows strong evidence masking is an effective mitigation for kids in school settings.

Crenshaw called Bhattacharya's testimony "troubling and problematic for several reasons".


The doctor oversimplified conclusions of at least one study he cited, Crenshaw wrote, “suggesting he may have been apt to do so with other studies upon which he relied."

"He offered opinions regarding the pediatric effects of masks on children, a discipline on which he admitted he was not qualified to speak," Crenshaw said. "His demeanor and tone while testifying suggest that he is advancing a personal agenda. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is simply unwilling to trust Dr. Bhattacharya."

Second, he is the author of the ridiculous pseudoscience fraud called "Great Barrington Declaration" filled with signatures of fake made up doctors and scientists.







He is the last person you want to be getting your information from. He's a certifiable quack.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
31,794
19,859
136
Need to stop for now but my first impressions of the interviewer make me think he's a "wise and beautiful woman" or whatever the fuck that gets autocorrected to.
 

MichaelMay

Senior member
Jun 6, 2021
453
463
96
Jay here is problematic. Highly so.

First, his testimony in an anti-mask court case was so bad, the judge dismissed it



Much of the state's argument relied on the testimony of Dr. Jay Battacharya, a Stanford-trained medical doctor with a doctorate in economics, who has for the last 20 years been a professor at the university's medical school.

In court documents, Battacharya states mask mandates do more harm than good in light of democratic ethics, children's vulnerability to contracting COVID-19 and their social and developmental needs.

In court testimony in the case, Battacharya confirmed he does not believe current medical knowledge shows strong evidence masking is an effective mitigation for kids in school settings.

Crenshaw called Bhattacharya's testimony "troubling and problematic for several reasons".


The doctor oversimplified conclusions of at least one study he cited, Crenshaw wrote, “suggesting he may have been apt to do so with other studies upon which he relied."

"He offered opinions regarding the pediatric effects of masks on children, a discipline on which he admitted he was not qualified to speak," Crenshaw said. "His demeanor and tone while testifying suggest that he is advancing a personal agenda. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is simply unwilling to trust Dr. Bhattacharya."

Second, he is the author of the ridiculous pseudoscience fraud called "Great Barrington Declaration" filled with signatures of fake made up doctors and scientists.







He is the last person you want to be getting your information from. He's a certifiable quack.
Thank you, you're on fire my good man.
 

MichaelMay

Senior member
Jun 6, 2021
453
463
96
It's unsurprising that the director of Stanford's Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging doesn't want lockdowns but I did not know what Amused posted up above, it makes quite a bit of sense since the goal is set and he has to deny both reality and evidence to the contrary to reach it.

That isn't how science works, that is how religion works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,634
4,592
126
Jay here is problematic. Highly so.
I understand you will be supporting this contention as you proceed but at this point I only see an opinion and won't yet make any assumption as to its validity
First, his testimony in an anti-mask court case was so bad, the judge dismissed it
That means nothing as of yet because I have no idea how qualified the judge really is to know either if he can properly judge the testimony or if the report it was dismissed or dismissed for that reason is factual. All I know is that is what you say.

Some redirects from the link backing up the points made in the one you directly linked to are behind a pay wall and I can't check what they say.


Much of the state's argument relied on the testimony of Dr. Jay Battacharya, a Stanford-trained medical doctor with a doctorate in economics, who has for the last 20 years been a professor at the university's medical school.
Did you carefully watch the video. That criticism is addressed. He is fully credited as an epidemiologist. I don't know what is what here but I do know the point you make here does not convince me of anything.

In court documents, Battacharya states mask mandates do more harm than good in light of democratic ethics, children's vulnerability to contracting COVID-19 and their social and developmental needs.

In court testimony in the case, Battacharya confirmed he does not believe current medical knowledge shows strong evidence masking is an effective mitigation for kids in school settings.
And? What am I supposed to take from this string of words?, that he is making claims that must be wrong because others don't agree? If you watch the video he provides reasons for the opinions he offers and I see no challenge to them any better than his.

Crenshaw called Bhattacharya's testimony "troubling and problematic for several reasons".
Who gives a shit? I found his interview to be intellectually challenging. I am now in doubt as to what I used to think I knew, that all againsts masks were nut cases. And what exactly does 'ineffective' mean does it mean that masks won't stop the virus even if everybody wears them or that you should mask up to protect yourself but it won't end the pandemic? I need to know the exact nature of the point that is being contested. Laws against drugs have cost us billions but you tell some people that the laws are useless and counterproductive and some will lose their shit.[/QUOTE]

The doctor oversimplified conclusions of at least one study he cited, Crenshaw wrote, “suggesting he may have been apt to do so with other studies upon which he relied."
Words.... What was the oversimplification? Was it an oversimplification? Why would one imply more? Just words

[/QUOTE]"He offered opinions regarding the pediatric effects of masks on children, a discipline on which he admitted he was not qualified to speak," Crenshaw said. "His demeanor and tone while testifying suggest that he is advancing a personal agenda. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is simply unwilling to trust Dr. Bhattacharya."[/QUOTE] What I saw in the video I linked was him offering evidence from scientific studies on a subject somebody else says he addmitted he was unqualified to speak but which, as far as I saw, he said he was perfectly qualified to speak. The 'he's an economist argument' does not impress me as having much value at this point as already mentioned.

[/QUOTE]Second, he is the author of the ridiculous pseudoscience fraud called "Great Barrington Declaration" filled with signatures of fake made up doctors and scientists.[/QUOTE] Ridiculous to whom? And what does whomever that is know?

Take this for example, a criticism of the Declaration:

"I like to start out with this rebuttal by The Real Truther to the claim that lockdowns are causing missed vaccine appointments, cancer screenings, surgeries, and deteriorating mental health when ALL are actually consequences of the pandemic:

-----------------------------
Not only did no government mandate restrict vaccine appointments, the because of the pandemic. pic.twitter.com/0nmXwbqR8L
— The Real Truther (@thereal_truther) October 9, 2020
While the US and UK issued guidance to urge parents not to miss appointments for vaccines:


Pediatricians were so concerned parents were cancelling appointments OUT OF FEAR OF THE VIRUS that they started house calls to boost vaccination rates.https://t.co/uT1MCnvRVw
— The Real Truther (@thereal_truther) October 9, 2020"
------------------

Note that in the criticism by The Real Truther these words are used: "the CDC actually issued guidance in March to ensure parents don’t skip vaccine visits." But the credit for this was: Pediatricians were so concerned parents were cancelling appointments OUT OF FEAR OF THE VIRUS that they started house calls to boost vaccination rates.https://t.co/uT1MCnvRVw

Just exactly what about calling parents to not to cancel appointments ensures those appointments were not canceled? They ensured parents wouldn't cancel my ass.

I am tired now of this. There is just so much more in what you posted that rings the same chime with me, junk that claims to refute the junk I posted all of it impressively convincing on both sides or not. You have done what I cannot, taken a side. I am no longer certain of what I thought was true and because I had never heard anything but one side. I was happier before I watched the link I gave. Not as happy now. One thing I learned long ago when I also lost faith in everything I thought I knew and knew also that as a result I would never be happy again was that when I gave up on happiness it started looking for me and there I was. Thank you for your detailed post. I am perhaps hard to be convinced of anything because I don't need it. I seem to only to have manage to hold on to what I had after a shipwreak, some driftwood and sand and ever the fresh wave.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,779
2,450
136
The first part of the video involves him saying that the WHO was cagey about what they meant in reporting case fatality rates, which he noticed was a problem by looking into H1N1. Immediately he is discredited by anyone with knowledge of epidemiology.

Note: I used the words "case fatality rate" because that's what was reported, not "mortality rate".

What's the definition of case fatality rate? deaths / diagnosed cases

Anyone who studies epidemiology knows what that means and that is much different than mortality rate, and no one would expect that at that point of the pandemic anyone could possibly come up with a reasonable estimate of mortality rate.

The Hoover Institution. Fun.

@Moonbeam I wish there were more people like you. I say that with anticipation that this wish might pain you as you have spent ample time wishing you were not like you. But, nonetheless, my wish does not change. Maybe I'm selfish.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
31,794
19,859
136
...

Anyone who studies epidemiology knows what that means and that is much different than mortality rate, and no one would expect that at that point of the pandemic anyone could possibly come up with a reasonable estimate of mortality rate.

...
So, as I was suspecting just from the first 10-12 minutes of this video, these two are deliberately misleading people. I don't think I'm going to waste any more time on it.
 

MichaelMay

Senior member
Jun 6, 2021
453
463
96
The first part of the video involves him saying that the WHO was cagey about what they meant in reporting case fatality rates, which he noticed was a problem by looking into H1N1. Immediately he is discredited by anyone with knowledge of epidemiology.

Note: I used the words "case fatality rate" because that's what was reported, not "mortality rate".

What's the definition of case fatality rate? deaths / diagnosed cases

Anyone who studies epidemiology knows what that means and that is much different than mortality rate, and no one would expect that at that point of the pandemic anyone could possibly come up with a reasonable estimate of mortality rate.

The Hoover Institution. Fun.

@Moonbeam I wish there were more people like you. I say that with anticipation that this wish might pain you as you have spent ample time wishing you were not like you. But, nonetheless, my wish does not change. Maybe I'm selfish.
This is a good post.
 

MichaelMay

Senior member
Jun 6, 2021
453
463
96
So, as I was suspecting just from the first 10-12 minutes of this video, these two are deliberately misleading people. I don't think I'm going to waste any more time on it.
When people look for what they have already decided they would like to believe videos like these acts as confirmation of that.

I know who that guy is and 10-12 minutes is more than enough to assess what a completely ignorant charlatan this moron is. Reminds me of Deepak Chopra who in his own right is an exceptionally good conman, moron and bullshitter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and pmv

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,604
9,369
126
I understand you will be supporting this contention as you proceed but at this point I only see an opinion and won't yet make any assumption as to its validity


That means nothing as of yet because I have no idea how qualified the judge really is to know either if he can properly judge the testimony or if the report it was dismissed or dismissed for that reason is factual. All I know is that is what you say.



Some redirects from the link backing up the points made in the one you directly linked to are behind a pay wall and I can't check what they say.




Did you carefully watch the video. That criticism is addressed. He is fully credited as an epidemiologist. I don't know what is what here but I do know the point you make here does not convince me of anything.



And? What am I supposed to take from this string of words?, that he is making claims that must be wrong because others don't agree? If you watch the video he provides reasons for the opinions he offers and I see no challenge to them any better than his.



Who gives a shit? I found his interview to be intellectually challenging. I am now in doubt as to what I used to think I knew, that all againsts masks were nut cases. And what exactly does 'ineffective' mean does it mean that masks won't stop the virus even if everybody wears them or that you should mask up to protect yourself but it won't end the pandemic? I need to know the exact nature of the point that is being contested. Laws against drugs have cost us billions but you tell some people that the laws are useless and counterproductive and some will lose their shit.


Words.... What was the oversimplification? Was it an oversimplification? Why would one imply more? Just words

[/QUOTE]"He offered opinions regarding the pediatric effects of masks on children, a discipline on which he admitted he was not qualified to speak," Crenshaw said. "His demeanor and tone while testifying suggest that he is advancing a personal agenda. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is simply unwilling to trust Dr. Bhattacharya."[/QUOTE] What I saw in the video I linked was him offering evidence from scientific studies on a subject somebody else says he addmitted he was unqualified to speak but which, as far as I saw, he said he was perfectly qualified to speak. The 'he's an economist argument' does not impress me as having much value at this point as already mentioned.

[/QUOTE]Second, he is the author of the ridiculous pseudoscience fraud called "Great Barrington Declaration" filled with signatures of fake made up doctors and scientists.[/QUOTE] Ridiculous to whom? And what does whomever that is know?

Take this for example, a criticism of the Declaration:

"I like to start out with this rebuttal by The Real Truther to the claim that lockdowns are causing missed vaccine appointments, cancer screenings, surgeries, and deteriorating mental health when ALL are actually consequences of the pandemic:

-----------------------------


While the US and UK issued guidance to urge parents not to miss appointments for vaccines:







Note that in the criticism by The Real Truther these words are used: "the CDC actually issued guidance in March to ensure parents don’t skip vaccine visits." But the credit for this was: Pediatricians were so concerned parents were cancelling appointments OUT OF FEAR OF THE VIRUS that they started house calls to boost vaccination rates.https://t.co/uT1MCnvRVw

Just exactly what about calling parents to not to cancel appointments ensures those appointments were not canceled? They ensured parents wouldn't cancel my ass.

I am tired now of this. There is just so much more in what you posted that rings the same chime with me, junk that claims to refute the junk I posted all of it impressively convincing on both sides or not. You have done what I cannot, taken a side. I am no longer certain of what I thought was true and because I had never heard anything but one side. I was happier before I watched the link I gave. Not as happy now. One thing I learned long ago when I also lost faith in everything I thought I knew and knew also that as a result I would never be happy again was that when I gave up on happiness it started looking for me and there I was. Thank you for your detailed post. I am perhaps hard to be convinced of anything because I don't need it. I seem to only to have manage to hold on to what I had after a shipwreak, some driftwood and sand and ever the fresh wave.
[/QUOTE]

Are you playing devil's advocate? He's a fraud and is using the exact same misleading tactics used by anti-vaxxers, AIDS denialists and other science denialists.

As for that, Jay has shown his true colors by who is has chosen to associate with, most notably the most notorious anti-vaxxers in the US.

Please read this article to understand the tactics he is using and what he claims is science is really pseudoscience propaganda.

 
  • Like
Reactions: dlerious

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,634
4,592
126
The first part of the video involves him saying that the WHO was cagey about what they meant in reporting case fatality rates, which he noticed was a problem by looking into H1N1. Immediately he is discredited by anyone with knowledge of epidemiology.

Note: I used the words "case fatality rate" because that's what was reported, not "mortality rate".

What's the definition of case fatality rate? deaths / diagnosed cases

Anyone who studies epidemiology knows what that means and that is much different than mortality rate, and no one would expect that at that point of the pandemic anyone could possibly come up with a reasonable estimate of mortality rate.

The Hoover Institution. Fun.
I will have to try to digest this and see if I can see it as you say you have in the actual video. I will try to see if he tries to slip one piece of data in for another. I anticipate resistance to doing so as well as the sense it will make me tired because I think my brain will find it hard. At any rate, other than assuring me that 'anybody who studies epidemiology knows this' which I can't personally experience, not myself being one, I think if I can actually see where he does as you say he does that should be verification enough. In shout, what you offer me here is a methodology I may be able to use to see the flaw you say is in his thinking.

@Moonbeam I wish there were more people like you. I say that with anticipation that this wish might pain you as you have spent ample time wishing you were not like you. But, nonetheless, my wish does not change. Maybe I'm selfish.
I am a nobody who forgets. I wish I were a nobody who didn't forget. Right now I am trying to see my keyboard around my beautiful kitty's tail. She jumped up on my desk to meow and rub on my face. She loves me and I love her. It is such a beautiful world, so full of gifts. And luckily for nobodies, they are free to those who see them. Even a canary in a cage can sing.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,168
4,908
136
One of my school teachers was called Mr Bhattacharya.

Apparently it's a Brahmin name, meaning Vedic scholar.

Anyway, I agree with MichaelMay and Amused.


Need to stop for now but my first impressions of the interviewer make me think he's a "wise and beautiful woman" or whatever the fuck that gets autocorrected to.

It would be amusing if the forum-swearing-filter worked in both directions.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: dank69

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,634
4,592
126
Are you playing devil's advocate? He's a fraud and is using the exact same misleading tactics used by anti-vaxxers, AIDS denialists and other science denialists.

As for that, Jay has shown his true colors by who is has chosen to associate with, most notably the most notorious anti-vaxxers in the US.

Please read this article to understand the tactics he is using and what he claims is science is really pseudoscience propaganda.

Am I playing devil's advocate? I don't know what that means. I did not see a fraud. I did not see misleading tactics. I have never seen an of your listed deniers that made any sense to me. Nothing in the video has anything to do with who you say he has chosen to associate with. What I notice about the link you quoted was that somebody was clearly agitated about Jay and spent an incredible amount of time energy and fiery rhetoric making him sound bad. I watched only the video I linked and found it made me question what I thought I knew. Anything you want to argue with me about would have to address what was in that video. I don't know whether the proposal suggested by him in the link would have been better or worse. It made me question whether I might have previously been naive. I still don't know and I still have the same question. The important thing to me isn't that I know or not. What I saw looked to me like sincerity and you claim fake and fraud with devious motivation etc. I do not see it. Galileo was full of shit too, right?

 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,168
4,908
136
Am I playing devil's advocate? I don't know what that means. I did not see a fraud. I did not see misleading tactics. I have never seen an of your listed deniers that made any sense to me. Nothing in the video has anything to do with who you say he has chosen to associate with. What I notice about the link you quoted was that somebody was clearly agitated about Jay and spent an incredible amount of time energy and fiery rhetoric making him sound bad. I watched only the video I linked and found it made me question what I thought I knew. Anything you want to argue with me about would have to address what was in that video. I don't know whether the proposal suggested by him in the link would have been better or worse. It made me question whether I might have previously been naive. I still don't know and I still have the same question. The important thing to me isn't that I know or not. What I saw looked to me like sincerity and you claim fake and fraud with devious motivation etc. I do not see it. Galileo was full of shit too, right?


Trouble is you have a (very common) tendency to be gullible about anything that sounds like secret or subversive knowledge that goes against 'the orthodoxy'. Sometimes things are counter-intuitive or surprising or make you 'question what you thought you knew' because they are simply wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gardener

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,634
4,592
126
Trouble is you have a (very common) tendency to be gullible about anything that sounds like secret or subversive knowledge that goes against 'the orthodoxy'. Sometimes things are counter-intuitive or surprising or make you 'question what you thought you knew' because they are simply wrong.
Actually I think I am so deeply skeptical that I don't believe anything which makes it easy for me to entertain anything, being indifferent, as it were, to whether I am tempted to believe or not. Not believing in anything makes it easier, in my opinion of course, to not worry too much if I fall for something false, having the tendency as I do, not to believe even what I believe.

One of the things I note about hating myself is this terrible fear of being wrong. The fear of being naive and stupid and gullible. In a competitive world full of children starving for attention and praise, there is this tendency to want to assert oneself as being more competent than others. To survive in a world like that one needs to practice at competent pretension or seek better mental health. That second path requires some recognition of where the problem lies, within oneself.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,779
2,450
136
Actually I think I am so deeply skeptical that I don't believe anything which makes it easy for me to entertain anything, being indifferent, as it were, to whether I am tempted to believe or not. Not believing in anything makes it easier, in my opinion of course, to not worry too much if I fall for something false, having the tendency as I do, not to believe even what I believe.

One of the things I note about hating myself is this terrible fear of being wrong. The fear of being naive and stupid and gullible. In a competitive world full of children starving for attention and praise, there is this tendency to want to assert oneself as being more competent than others. To survive in a world like that one needs to practice at competent pretension or seek better mental health. That second path requires some recognition of where the problem lies, within oneself.
What is it that sparks a person on the path of self discovery? I don't really know the answer to that.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
31,794
19,859
136
Am I playing devil's advocate? I don't know what that means. I did not see a fraud. I did not see misleading tactics. I have never seen an of your listed deniers that made any sense to me. Nothing in the video has anything to do with who you say he has chosen to associate with. What I notice about the link you quoted was that somebody was clearly agitated about Jay and spent an incredible amount of time energy and fiery rhetoric making him sound bad. I watched only the video I linked and found it made me question what I thought I knew. Anything you want to argue with me about would have to address what was in that video. I don't know whether the proposal suggested by him in the link would have been better or worse. It made me question whether I might have previously been naive. I still don't know and I still have the same question. The important thing to me isn't that I know or not. What I saw looked to me like sincerity and you claim fake and fraud with devious motivation etc. I do not see it. Galileo was full of shit too, right?

We should always be questioning what we think we know. That is a good thing. This video and these people exploit that good thing. It's called gaslighting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grey_Beard

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,634
4,592
126
What is it that sparks a person on the path of self discovery? I don't really know the answer to that.
I don't know either. I do however believe there is a tremendous body of knowledge and particularly in the East on walking the path and from such sources I have read of two things. I don't know how to best express them but will do what as best I can. The first I guess is misery and suffering. This is exemplified by the story of the Princess and the Pea, about how a princess was identified by the fact that a pea under her 39th mattress made it impossible for her to fall asleep. Or it the Question that Haunts You, what is the Matrix, the sense that something is amiss or missing and one is driven by curiosity to find out what it is. For a very long time as a young man I was driven by a need to prove that life is good because there is a just God behind everything and I just could not do it. Everything I read to prove his existence just ultimately looks like bull shit. This led to the complete collapse of any future hope I would ever be happy again. The no exit of existentialism. So what I know I know because I was driven by pain, hopeless endless inescapable suffering. My answer came in the form of an awakening. I went into myself late at night on my bed asking why do i suffer, not this, not this, not this, not this, what what what?? A blast of wind it the house and suddenly I was just there on the bed, free. I have never suffered again. I understood everything. The need for meaning is as meaningless as everything else. The prison of the mind's making and isn't real. it is all about being ego attached to unexamined assumptions.

For my teacher it was about why his wife divorced him since they had a fantastic marriage. He had a patient with terrible self esteem who rejected her boyfriend and was set on his path by a remark she made deep in tears in a session with him where she said she did it because, 'he loves me the dope.' She couldn't stand to be with somebody who was such a fool as to love somebody as worthless as her. He made the connection, is this possible with my wife, and turned inward on himself and through his own psychoanalytic process with other doctors and alone in his car exploring his true feelings, he relived how he had been made to hate himself as a child by being put down. In his case he was with real data to work with, he was 99.999 percent sure he had pealed the onion back to a time when he could see the first lie he had believed that he was worthless. He was fucking amazing to me.

So in the case of suffering or deep curiosity I guess we could also say simply that folk go down the path because of need. Seek and you will find by increasing your need.

My teacher also said that we seek mental health, not to get well but to become better at being sick.

There is also in the East among Sufis I have read that God or religion is a bridge to reality. More cross believing in God than those who have to go down through the valley the bridge is supposed to span. Via religion, to be brief, a person can love God so much that the lover and the beloved become one and the same thing. So I would add that people who practice to be sincerely virtuous may be on the path, perhaps without even knowing it. They joke that virtue is its only reward, but I would say what a reward that is. People who do what is right may hate themselves but they will display in their lives all the evidence one could ask for that it couldn't possible be true. To act with virtue is to self generate self respect, the pride of being. I would say it is a virtue to be honest with oneself. You may hate what you see but you will like yourself for seeing it.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,604
9,369
126
Am I playing devil's advocate? I don't know what that means. I did not see a fraud. I did not see misleading tactics. I have never seen an of your listed deniers that made any sense to me. Nothing in the video has anything to do with who you say he has chosen to associate with. What I notice about the link you quoted was that somebody was clearly agitated about Jay and spent an incredible amount of time energy and fiery rhetoric making him sound bad. I watched only the video I linked and found it made me question what I thought I knew. Anything you want to argue with me about would have to address what was in that video. I don't know whether the proposal suggested by him in the link would have been better or worse. It made me question whether I might have previously been naive. I still don't know and I still have the same question. The important thing to me isn't that I know or not. What I saw looked to me like sincerity and you claim fake and fraud with devious motivation etc. I do not see it. Galileo was full of shit too, right?

Has he cherry picked evidence to support his position and ignored evidence that undermines it?

Yes. Obviously so. I posted multiple sources proving this. Even a judge pointed out his very obvious cherry picking of evidence and purposely misleading representation of evidence.

But, when in doubt, listen to the CONSENSUS of experts in the field.

And no. This is not like Galileo. Another pseudoscience trope.

Scientific evidence didn't dispute Galileo. The church did.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY