Lozen

[Lozen]

NAME -- Lozen

 

QUEST -- To be a whole woman.

 

PROBLEM UNDERLYING THE PRESENT STRESS -- Has a fear that she may be prevented from achieving the things she wants. This leads her to employ great personal charm in her dealings with others, hoping that this will make it easier for her to reach her objectives.

 

DESIRED OBJECTIVE -- Wants to make a favorable impression and be regarded as a special personality. Is therefore constantly on the watch to see whether she is succeeding in this and others are reacting to her -- this makes her feel that she is in control. Uses tactics cleverly in order to obtain influence and special recognition. Susceptible to esthetic or original.

 

CURRENT INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR -- Wants to broaden her fields of activity and insists that her hopes and ideas are realistic. Distressed by the fear that she may be prevented from doing what she wants, needs both peaceful conditions and quiet reassurance to restore her confidence.

 

ANALYSIS STOLEN FROM: http://www.viewzone.com/luscher/colortest.html

[sean]

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeEight.asp

 

[Lozen]

All right, who else wants to psychoanalyze my internet persona? Bring it on!

[thelerner]

OOOoo psychoanalyzing the Lozen creature, be careful what you wish for .

 

You're a bit of an exhibitionist. More thern most, you write honestly, openly, and diaretically (I'm not confined to normal english). Open, allowing people into your life, trying new things. Yet closed, no significant others, actively and purposely celibate.

 

Just as we rebell and conform to our parents, we do the same to our stereotypes. As a modern liberal Jew (who hates to be labeled) you seem to be in the seeker mode. Looking .. searching.. as if you were a piece of puzzle looking for the spot you fit.

 

I think you're in a good spot. You've studied the questions, you know the answers. You are where you are, because that is where you have put yourself.

 

As a modern feminist you are fiercely independent but yearning to connect. Too often seeing your ideal man in the ones you can't have.

 

You have talent and drive. You can feel the earth beneath your feet.

 

yawn, its late 1:17, this is the kind of post, written as preconscious drivel that I'd ususually write and then delete. I'll let this one stay.

 

Peace and peas

 

Michael

[sean]

Hmmm... I can't decide, Sexual variant or Social variant .. what do you think?

 

Oops, I already had a turn.

 

Sean.

[Lozen]

I think the enneagram is full of shit.

 

Hmmm... I can't decide, Sexual variant or Social variant .. what do you think?

 

7251[/snapback]

[sean]

I think the enneagram is full of shit.

Most eights I meet do too.

 

There is a lot of evidence though that the modern Enneagram is a statistically valid form of personality analysis. IME it's at least as valid as MBTI which has a ton of empirical data behind it. But I imagine this won't sway your horse stance since you also think science (the classification of observations) is bullshit. So continue using your gut feelings as your primary form of research and we can merrily agree to disagree.

 

Sean.

[Lozen]

I was just saying that to piss you off. Worked, didn't it?

 

In any case, I doubt that empirical data means very much. Since you are putting people in categories based on how you perceive them to act, if your "empirical data" is that they continue to act in the same way which had you placing them in that category, it seems like it's sort of circular reasoning.

 

As for gut feelings, they are not my primary form of research, they just lead me in the right direction. And I've got tons of empirical data behind that.

[sean]

I was just saying that to piss you off. Worked, didn't it?

Actually no, but that's interesting that was your intention. How often is it your intention when interacting with people to piss them off? And how often do you get that gloating feeling you appear to be basking in above when you succeed?

 

It does seem very 8ish I have to say.

 

In any case, I doubt that empirical data means very much. Since you are putting people in categories based on how you perceive them to act, if your "empirical data" is that they continue to act in the same way which had you placing them in that category, it seems like it's sort of circular reasoning.

Huh? I think your reasoning behind how you think the research would be conducted and why it would be circular is circular. Heh. Anyway, if you are actually interested and not just just still trying to piss me off, here is a link to one study I read fairly recently: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles...elease_full.asp

 

As for gut feelings, they are not my primary form of research, they just lead me in the right direction. And I've got tons of empirical data behind that.

7294[/snapback]

Ok, I'm up for the challenge Lozen. I challenge you to produce "tons" of empirical data to support just the following two little claims you've made:

 

Buddhism is bullshit (except for Zen sort of)

Science is bullshit

 

BTW - You are kind of especially screwed with that second one considering that empiricism is at the heart of the scientific method.

 

Sean.

[Lozen]

I would say that the majority of my interactions are not with the intent to piss people off.

 

Since my empirical data is derived from my own personal observations, I would simply have to list "tons" of observations on how following my gut (which is what I listed as an example) leads to better research and into the right direction that somehow allows things to unfold just the way I need them to. I believe I've been "providing empirical data" to back this up for a long long time through sharing stories.

 

I did not claim that all of my beliefs are based on my gut feelings, some of them are based on head stuff too, and of course I can and have been wrong. I don't really want to waste any more of my time debating on a message board. I'm moving on.

 

My latest gut feeling and personal observation leads me to believe that a large majority of Taoists are completely off their rocker, or are heading that way. Sending prayers.

 

Love,

Lozen

[MatthewQi]

Ok, I'm up for the challenge Lozen. I challenge you to produce "tons" of empirical data to support just the following two little claims you've made:

 

Buddhism is bullshit (except for Zen sort of)

Science is bullshit

 

BTW - You are kind of especially screwed with that second one considering that empiricism is at the heart of the scientific method. 

 

Sean.

7295[/snapback]

 

Sean,

 

With all due respect and noting the fact that I didn't read all of this thread...

 

Buddhism is very similar to christianity in it's rituals and stepped down spirituality and heirarchy. Of course this is not to say that all schools of Buddism are that way, but many are. They often reserve the highest teachings for select few - humanly selected (which is my problem with it). So, I would echo Lozen's statement from my perspective. With that said, there are Buddists who have found the truth but many, many, many, more have not, just like with Christianity and indeed many HT practitioners as well, and others traditions.

 

It is beyond ones chosen "denomination". We are talking about something that IS beyond any logical explanation or empirical study. It is not found that way.

 

Science is indeed Bullshit in this sense and it is the study of this physical realm versus the tracing back to the root that each of us must do to find the Truth / Enlightenment.

 

Regards,

 

Matt

[sean]

Matt,

 

Your points are well taken, thanks for your input. Briefly (super busy this week) there are very significant differences between Buddhism and Christianity IMO. The original core texts of Buddhism (ie: Nikaya), before the religious structure and hierarchies that you refer to were constructed around these texts, are actually a very legitimate, and in many ways, scientifically sound philosophy and method of inquiry into the nature of reality. Christianity on the other hand, being built upon dense mythology, requiring a priori faith, and having been dredged through and contaminated by centuries of political agendas has, in my view, made it almost not worth wading through outside of a tiny handful of fringe mystics.

 

Also, science is not merely the study of the physical world. Besides being an accumulated body of knowledge, it's also a method of rational inquiry that is capable of being directed at, and analyzing/deconstructing even itself. In this way it's more of an open system than nearly every major religion. At heart science is really about weeding out the bullshit by honoring the empirical truths derived from accurate experimentation, observation, and study. Further, it's pretty much unavoidable. For example in your post you used a subset of science to present your arguments about Buddhism and Christianity, namely the science of logic, or more specifically propositional logic which is in the branch of science called philosophy.

 

So, in my view, "the tracing back to the root that each of us must do to find the Truth / Enlightenment", as you say, is actually the most important of scientific inquiries and there is no need whatsoever to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

Gotta run,

Sean.

[MatthewQi]

Good points Sean! thanks for really listening to what I was getting at

 

Matt

[Lozen]

[sean]

[Lozen]

My biggest problem with the scientific method is that it IS often used as a way to discredit anything that doesn't "pass" clinical tests. For example, I know of many herbal remedies that could save people's lives that hardcore scientists would say are "unscientific" or "placebo" or "not proven" and on and on and on. I disagree that you can usually reason with people who have pretenses of being scientific. I could have five zillion case studies where these treatments work, and many of these types of folks will stomp their feet and insist that it couldn't possibly be that way unless we do double blind studies in laboratories.

 

As far as the term "educated trust" I don't really see why it would be called that way, the scientific method has been wrong over and over and over again, that is part of the method is that it keeps getting misproven and always takes years to catch up to things that people already know... So I would say that my skepticism of science is "educated mistrust" as well as faith.

 

As far as Buddhism being scientific, I have heard a LOT of Buddhists refer to "the scriptures" just like Christians do. De Cartes, Buddhism, etc. I wouldn't exactly consider scientific in their approach, because so much IS based on assumptions. For example, Buddhists ASSUME that everything was always here, that there is no beginning or ending.

 

>Well, I don't know much about "hard core scientists" (and neither does this guy >apparently)

 

Why do you say thay?

 

> but I think that many scientists probably do just keep the scientific method in >the lab, in the same way that many people reserve their faith for Sunday. Which >is fine. Science and Faith are just tools in my view.

 

That would be called compartmentalization, and I can't see it as a good thing.

 

> What does matter to me is that I do not become so intellectually lazy that I buy >the first interpretation of the universe I bump into as the absolute truth and then s>pend the rest of my life fending off "bottomless pits" by pumping myself up with f>aith for it.

 

Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone that does this.

[sean]

My biggest problem with the scientific method is that it IS often used as a way to discredit anything that doesn't "pass" clinical tests. For example, I know of many herbal remedies that could save people's lives that hardcore scientists would say are "unscientific" or "placebo" or "not proven" and on and on and on. I disagree that you can usually reason with people who have pretenses of being scientific.

Yeah, well what do you expect it's corporate America. But It's important to separate an analysis of human corruption from an analysis of the merits of a a philosophy itself. See: ad hominem fallacy

 

I could have five zillion case studies where these treatments work, and many of these types of folks will stomp their feet and insist that it couldn't possibly be that way unless we do double blind studies in laboratories.

There is a whole spectrum from hard science to soft. It's true that case studies are not as objective (as far as proof is concerned) as double blinds are. But again there are often unfortunate financial/political agendas involved preventing real research being done, ie: in the areas you are mentioning specifically. Still doesn't have anything to do with science being bullshit though. In fact it just goes right back to my original argument that you put your feelings of things (in particular your anger) over the actual facts and you do so in a sweeping and confrontational way.

 

As far as the term "educated trust" I don't really see why it would be called that way, the scientific method has been wrong over and over and over again, that is part of the method is that it keeps getting misproven and always takes years to catch up to things that people already know... So I would say that my skepticism of science is "educated mistrust" as well as faith.

That science can be turned upon to analyze itself and show it's own inconsistencies is one of it's major strengths. It makes it fundamentally different than religious faith which is validated in a circular fashion, ie: Bible is right because God says so. Also it doesn't "always take years to catch up to things that people already know". Real folk wisdom is just generations of passed on observations. A lot of folk wisdom is absurd though. Also much of what we now take for granted as "common sense" is actually heavily influenced by the results of scientific validation. Anyway ... of course you have to trust yoursef and not be blindly led by authority, be that scientific or religious authority. If something is working for you keep doing it. But if you read a study that says it's working for other reasons, why close your mind? You can interpret phenomenon from dozens of different angles and you will never really know what is really going on ... is this herb working because it has bioflavanoids, because it clears and discharges Lung heat, or because it pacifies Kapha? If you care then do an interdisciplinary study. But in the meantime why argue over your head and call science bullshit, it's really silly.

 

As far as Buddhism being scientific, I have heard a LOT of Buddhists refer to "the scriptures" just like Christians do. De Cartes, Buddhism, etc.

Ad hominem

 

I wouldn't exactly consider scientific in their approach, because so much IS based on assumptions. For example, Buddhists ASSUME that everything was always here, that there is no beginning or ending.

That something is based on assumptions does not make it non-scientific. In fact an awareness of your assumptions as assumptions is very scientific.

 

>Well, I don't know much about "hard core scientists" (and neither does this guy >apparently)

Why do you say thay?

Because based on the article it's my inference that this man could gain a lot from taking an "Introduction to the Philosophy of Science" course and I just don't picture him at science consortiums for some reason, no offense.

 

> but I think that many scientists probably do just keep the scientific method in >the lab, in the same way that many people reserve their faith for Sunday. Which >is fine. Science and Faith are just tools in my view.

That would be called compartmentalization, and I can't see it as a good thing.

Yeah, I'm not big on it either. But whatever makes people happy I guess.

 

> What does matter to me is that I do not become so intellectually lazy that I buy >the first interpretation of the universe I bump into as the absolute truth and then s>pend the rest of my life fending off "bottomless pits" by pumping myself up with f>aith for it.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone that does this.

You've obviously never been to the South.

 

Sean.

[sean]

You just summed up my article in one sentence. To answer your question: yes. I used to do that. There are plenty of others who do. They email me regularly with rebuttals to articles I have written which usually begin with "Do you have any evidence for that?" and also contain, "Have you performed a study? If not, I don't believe it."

I hear you, that is annoying. I guess I have always been my own best guinea pig and also not interested in making big claims within the mainstream American scientific community so I don't really care that much about "proof" which I think it basically impossible anyway.

My purpose for writing the article, which I am not sure belongs in this thread, was to point out that using the scientific method as a filter for all input into your brain is sub-optimal, and I choose not to do that. I prefer to believe what my experience tells me and what is consistent with what I know to be true.

Ahhh... that is a great way to word that, I like that. As a filter. Yes, no filters please. Just different tools that I am free to use on the raw data of my experience. Cool point.

 

Perhaps that is not the most clear article I have ever written. I guess my mind was wandering at the time.

Dude, you should see some of the shit I write.

 

Sean.

[Cameron]

Yeah, well what do you expect it's corporate America.  But It's important to separate an analysis of human corruption from an analysis of the merits of a a philosophy itself. See: ad hominem fallacy

There is a whole spectrum from hard science to soft. It's true that case studies are not as objective (as far as proof is concerned) as double blinds are. But again there are often unfortunate financial/political agendas involved preventing real research being done, ie: in the areas you are mentioning specifically. Still doesn't have anything to do with science being bullshit though. In fact it just goes right back to my original argument that you put your feelings of things (in particular your anger) over the actual facts and you do so in a sweeping and confrontational way.

That science can be turned upon to analyze itself and show it's own inconsistencies is one of it's major strengths. It makes it fundamentally different than religious faith which is validated in a circular fashion, ie: Bible is right because God says so. Also it doesn't "always take years to catch up to things that people already know". Real folk wisdom is just generations of passed on observations. A lot of folk wisdom is absurd though. Also much of what we now take for granted as "common sense" is actually heavily influenced by the results of scientific validation. Anyway ... of course you have to trust yoursef and not be blindly led by authority, be that scientific or religious authority. If something is working for you keep doing it. But if you read a study that says it's working for other reasons, why close your mind? You can interpret phenomenon from dozens of different angles and you will never really know what is really going on ... is this herb working because it has bioflavanoids, because it clears and discharges Lung heat, or because it pacifies Kapha? If you care then do an interdisciplinary study. But in the meantime why argue over your head and call science bullshit, it's really silly. 

Ad hominem

That something is based on assumptions does not make it non-scientific. In fact an awareness of your assumptions as assumptions is very scientific.

Because based on the article it's my inference that this man could gain a lot from taking an "Introduction to the Philosophy of Science" course and I just don't picture him at science consortiums for some reason, no offense.   

Yeah, I'm not big on it either. But whatever makes people happy I guess.

You've obviously never been to the South. 

 

Sean.

7451[/snapback]

 

 

Snap!

[Lozen]

An ad hominem argument involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. One example of this would be directing someone to take a philosophy of science course, and another example would be making allegations of putting feelings over actual facts. Since you haven't PROVEN that sientific "facts" are actually "the truth" and in fact give examples to the contrary, this argument is pretty much moot. In addition, you seem to have beef with belief systems that are contradictory or are not based on a consistent system, leading one to believe that your goal is to come up with a CONSISTENT system without inherent contradictions. And yet you say it is okay to use faith on Sundays and science in the lab, only not really. Which is it? Then you wrote, "whatever makes you happy." Last I checked, happiness is an emotion. In addition, I am not sure how being "happy" with science in the lab and faith on Sundays is any different than religious faith (which you equate with childish foot-stomping). I wonder how much of this is based on your personal preferences of the types of interactions you prefer. In addition, I also wonder who decides whether folk wisdom is "real" or "absurd." The scientists? You?

[Lozen]

Anyway ... of course you have to trust yoursef and not be blindly led by authority, be that scientific or religious authority. If something is working for you keep doing it. But if you read a study that says it's working for other reasons, why close your mind? You can interpret phenomenon from dozens of different angles and you will never really know what is really going on ... is this herb working because it has bioflavanoids, because it clears and discharges Lung heat, or because it pacifies Kapha? If you care then do an interdisciplinary study. But in the meantime why argue over your head and call science bullshit, it's really silly. 

7451[/snapback]

 

I am always reading studies saying that things are working for different reasons, and sometimes they make sense (usu. because they are catching up to "folk wisdom" such as the article on the heart protector I posted a while ago) but of course I do not automatically believe every study I read just because it is in a lab, neither do I discredit every study just because it is in a lab. I am pretty open-minded and of course I always have to memorize the scientific studies that back up what I already know for the sake of my clients.

 

Oh, and by the way, I would posit that your problem with me calling science bullshit is based on your feelings.

[Cameron]

I pray to the great spirits of the 4 Winds that sean and lozen will find common ground and produce a wisdom teaching from there so called disagreements.

 

Or, if not, I implore them to come to my gym in Tempe, Az and settle the debate with a fight(no knives or other sharp objects please Lozen).

 

I will corner Sean since I know Lozen has the Lesbian Death Squad(LDS for short) that will have her back.

 

Or just continue the shannanigans in an educational and respectful manner.

 

Thank you and fight for your right to party.

[sean]

Lozen, it's been fun. In truth I don't actually have strong feelings about science. Like I've said repeatedly, it's just data and tools that I find useful. I also don't put any "faith" in science nor have I ever claimed that science has any power to determine what is true in any absolute sense. So I am under no burdens to prove anything and am not trying to. You, on the other hand, have made sweeping claims that science and Buddhism are bullshit. While most mature adults would just ignore your statements, seeing them as the obvious clamoring for attention they are, I, the idiot with too too much free time (apparently), decided, mostly out of sheer boredom, to call you out on your bullshit. And you've done an excellent job of showing that you can't produce any evidence (let alone the "tons" as you claimed) to support your over the top assertions. So I am only left with further validation of my original intuition that much of what you say and do is more in the spirit of shocking, irritating and "testing" people than it is about actually engaging in intelligent dialogue. Reap what you sow. I will bow out of this "debate" now.

 

Sean.

[Lozen]

Just want to point out that you didn't address ANY of my (logical) questions (in the spirit of intelligent dialogue) and are now just criticizing me as a person. Define ad hominem?

[Lozen]

LOL!!! It's the Lesbian AVENGERS, not death squad! LDS is Latter Day Saints, bro.

 

I wanted to ask you if you had copies of Gracie In Action 1 and 2, wanna watch?

 

I pray to the great spirits of the 4 Winds that sean and lozen will find common ground and produce a wisdom teaching from there so called disagreements.

 

Or, if not, I implore them to come to my gym in Tempe, Az and settle the debate with a fight(no knives or other sharp objects please Lozen).

 

  I will corner Sean since I know Lozen has the Lesbian Death Squad(LDS for short) that will have her back.

 

Or just continue the shannanigans in an educational and respectful manner. 

 

Thank you and fight for your right to party.

7460[/snapback]