Re: Tang & Jigme (was Re: Brick wall)

On May 9, 9:00 pm, RaaN <raan2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 9, 7:51 pm, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 7:42 pm, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 9, 8:13 am, "Amigo of Ego" <amig...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > "Evelyn Ruut" wrote (to Dharmatroll):
>
> > > > > ...Tom, I recognized your style almost instantly, and I can't
imag=
ine
> > > > > anyone confusing Jigme with you.   I have always enjoyed your
post=
s
> > > > > immensely, and you definitely liven things up around here!   It
wa=
s great
> > > > > fun to tune into your many excellent conversations with Hayes
and =
others.
> > > > > I often wonder how you are and what you are doing.
>
> > > >
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
>
> > > > Evelyn!  How soon you forget your good deeds ;-)   Last year you
imp=
lored
> > > > DharmaTroll: "By all means, don't hassle the buddhists, DT.   We
are=
 the
> > > > least of the problems the world is facing.  Please my dear.....
aim =
your
> > > > considerable mental artillery away from the buddhists, and aim it
at=
 the
> > > > real ignorance out there!" and you suggested: "If you really want
to=
 attack
> > > > massive ignorance, head on over to the born again groups or the
morm=
ons or
> > > > something like that.   You will have a field day, I promise.....
[ed=
it]
> > > > ..Imagine.... they are re-writing geological science to suit
creatio=
nist
> > > > ideas!"
>
> > > > It wasn't long after that that DharmaTroll completely disappeared
fr=
om this
> > > > forum...  It was quite obvious that he took your most excellent
> > > > recommendations to heart and went elsewhere,
>
> > > If it isn't my literalist pal, the Dork of Delusion. No, actually
you
> > > have invoked the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, (claiming that
> > > because B happened after A, that B caused A), but don't worry,
> > > conflating correlation with causation is quite common among bible-
> > > thumping or canon-thumping literalists).
>
> > > > no doubt to apply his
> > > > substantial fire-breathing skills to incinerating evil in other
aren=
as for
> > > > the betterment of the world, as you suggested. *That's* clearly
what=
 he has
> > > > been doing. :-)
>
> > > Actually, I've been taking art and yoga classes.  Well, almost the
> > > same thing.
>
> > > Ok, I also joined Facebook, and that sucked up all my internet
time...=

>
> > > > So I am a bit concerned now, I must admit, that he's back here
spend=
ing some
> > > > of his valuable time in this relatively docile place when there is
s=
till so
> > > > much evil elsewhere in the cyberworld that he could be
obliterating =
instead.
> > > > After all, there is only so much one DharmaTroll can do in his
day!
>
> > > > - The Amigo of Ego / Dork of Delusion
> > > > ------------------
> > > > My Credentials (approved by DharmaTroll):
> > > >   1. "I'll be the first to admit I'm in delusion."
> > > >   2. "I'll be the first to admit I'm an egomaniac."
> > > >   (still pending approval by DT)
>
> > > You get my approval, but only probational approval, as it could be
too=

> > > sarcastic and only be a mock-self-awareness hiding a denial of even
> > > greater egomania and delusion. Heh.
>
> > > --DharmaTroll
>
> > Oops! Typo!  In the post where I mentioned a post hoc ergo propter hoc
> > fallacy, I meant to say that it claims that because B happened after
> > A, that A caused B.  To claim as I mistakenly typed that B
> > retroactively caused be backwards in time -- well, I don't know what
> > that would be called, maybe the tachyon fallacy? (Tachyons are make-
> > believe hypothetical particles that travel faster than the speed of
> > light, and therefore travel backwards in time. The only one around
> > here that would make such a claim might be Keynes. heeheehee)
>
> > --DharmaTroll
>
> Teleological fallacy.
> --
> RaaN

Cool! You're right, Raan. Hadn't heard of that one.  (Though I like
tachyon fallacy better!)

Googling the term, there's even a reference to Buddhism in some
obscure article online:

"Faure points out that the teleological fallacy he discusses is the
=93propensity to read the past in terms of the present, to read early
Chan as having its finality in modern Japanese Zen. Faure is referring
to historicist scholars' tendency to forget that the present from
which they look back into the past constructs an unquestioned end from
which none can escape. This means that scholars view is too narrow,
becoming 'objectivists' and imagining an 'original text' from which
all Zen comes from. In reality, there is no such text because every
text is regulated by hermeneutical tradition, therefore proving
Faure=92s teleological fallacy."

--DharmaTroll