Meaninglessness

[aliantha]

Only I don't see anyone advancing a form of Buddhism, paganism, etc that really IS an exception to the general arguments. Heck, maybe your version really IS - but you've sure kept quiet about it.

Well, I'm not recruiting. Altho I'm always happy to answer questions.

To answer yours: Am I a hedonist? Well, let's see. I've been divorced since 1997 and have been celibate by choice since then. I drink a little -- maybe once or twice a month -- but I haven't been what is known in the common parlance by the charming term "shitfaced" in, oh, 30 years or so. Haven't used controlled substances recreationally in about the same length of time. I do swear a lot, tho -- maybe that qualifies? Seriously, tho, while I'd be an idiot to deny that pleasure is good, pleasure-seeking -- i.e., doing whatever it takes to make myself happy -- is not what drives me. If it did, I never would have left Colorado. (My extended sojourn in DC sometimes seems like one long self-flagellation session, and believe me, I do *not* find that pleasurable....)

Am I Stoic? After a quick once-over of Wikipedia's (far from exhaustive) entry on Stoicism to make sure I have some idea of what you're talking about, I can say that I'm pretty sure I'm not one of them. For one thing, the Stoics believed that there was no afterlife; I believe there is. The Stoics also believed in making all decisions based on logic and reason; I know that's not so -- sometimes you have to go with your gut. And as far as the Stoics' belief in radiating calm -- well, we've already discussed my tendency to swear.

So I think I've successfully avoided both of your slippery slopes, rus, and I'm still Pagan. And I can tell you that the other three women in my Pagan book club are also neither hedonists nor Stoics. So that's at least four of us!

It sounds to me like you fell into a nest of vipers on the West Coast. I understand how that can color one's perceptions. But I'm sure you know that not everybody goes to the extreme that your friend and his acquaintances did. Lots of people who aren't Christian live their lives without ever descending to the very bottom of your slippery slope to ruin. Lots of atheists aren't swingers. Lots of Pagans get married, raise their children, and live moral lives. Lots of gays settle down with one person for the rest of their lives.

[Fist and Faith]

There is one aspect in which I do think you are right. It is that the primary form of objection - even GKC's objections - to, say, Buddhism, is that it is based on a general philosophical understanding based on the most commonly known teachings and versions. So if, for example, you introduce a form of Buddhism that teaches preservation of the individual, that Nirvana does not mean the effacement of the unique individuality of the person (something not widespread in Buddhism to the best of my knowledge), then a prime objection to THAT form of Buddhism must be withdrawn and it must be considered without that argument.

The fact that you and Chesterton do not like the idea of the effacement of the unique individuality of the person does not invalidate Buddhism. It is only an objection to what you don't like. Not liking something is not a good reason to reject it as untrue.

[rusmeister]

There is one aspect in which I do think you are right. It is that the primary form of objection - even GKC's objections - to, say, Buddhism, is that it is based on a general philosophical understanding based on the most commonly known teachings and versions. So if, for example, you introduce a form of Buddhism that teaches preservation of the individual, that Nirvana does not mean the effacement of the unique individuality of the person (something not widespread in Buddhism to the best of my knowledge), then a prime objection to THAT form of Buddhism must be withdrawn and it must be considered without that argument.

The fact that you and Chesterton do not like the idea of the effacement of the unique individuality of the person does not invalidate Buddhism. It is only an objection to what you don't like. Not liking something is not a good reason to reject it as untrue.

I pose the question of whether it IS true. You refuse to admit that question. And again, I deny that everything I believe I like, or that "liking" something is the basis on which I believe it. I don't like fasting Orthodox style. It involves real effort, and often I fail. It requires me to do something I really don't like - restrain my desires. It would be easier to look at a woman and admire her curves and let my fantasies go. I'd "like" that - and it wouldn't even seem that anybody was thereby being hurt (a favorite criterion around here). But that which I accept to be true teaches that it IS harmful, that it IS brokenness, a breaking of communion with God.

The question is not one of liking it, but what the implications really mean - is it philosophically tenable? Is it fundamentally illogical? I see the general Buddhist teaching of the ultimate elimination of the self as indistinguishable from atheistic oblivion, from a complete end that raises the problem of meaninglessness. If the philosophy is ultimately illogical then one need not dislike it to reject it as untrue.

[rusmeister]

Only I don't see anyone advancing a form of Buddhism, paganism, etc that really IS an exception to the general arguments. Heck, maybe your version really IS - but you've sure kept quiet about it.

Well, I'm not recruiting. Altho I'm always happy to answer questions.

To answer yours: Am I a hedonist? Well, let's see. I've been divorced since 1997 and have been celibate by choice since then. I drink a little -- maybe once or twice a month -- but I haven't been what is known in the common parlance by the charming term "shitfaced" in, oh, 30 years or so. Haven't used controlled substances recreationally in about the same length of time. I do swear a lot, tho -- maybe that qualifies? Seriously, tho, while I'd be an idiot to deny that pleasure is good, pleasure-seeking -- i.e., doing whatever it takes to make myself happy -- is not what drives me. If it did, I never would have left Colorado. (My extended sojourn in DC sometimes seems like one long self-flagellation session, and believe me, I do *not* find that pleasurable....)

Am I Stoic? After a quick once-over of Wikipedia's (far from exhaustive) entry on Stoicism to make sure I have some idea of what you're talking about, I can say that I'm pretty sure I'm not one of them. For one thing, the Stoics believed that there was no afterlife; I believe there is. The Stoics also believed in making all decisions based on logic and reason; I know that's not so -- sometimes you have to go with your gut. And as far as the Stoics' belief in radiating calm -- well, we've already discussed my tendency to swear.

So I think I've successfully avoided both of your slippery slopes, rus, and I'm still Pagan. And I can tell you that the other three women in my Pagan book club are also neither hedonists nor Stoics. So that's at least four of us!

It sounds to me like you fell into a nest of vipers on the West Coast. I understand how that can color one's perceptions. But I'm sure you know that not everybody goes to the extreme that your friend and his acquaintances did. Lots of people who aren't Christian live their lives without ever descending to the very bottom of your slippery slope to ruin. Lots of atheists aren't swingers. Lots of Pagans get married, raise their children, and live moral lives. Lots of gays settle down with one person for the rest of their lives.

I do agree that my personal experience can be 'colored'. For this reason, it probably was unnecessary and distracting to refer to what I think about trends that I did see. The trouble in this discussion that I see is that Chesterton was speaking about a tradition that stretched over a thousand years (Greco-Roman paganism, and we can include Celtic, etc - and everything that was good about it - and there was a lot of good). Over that time there were certainly individuals that were admirable, even highly so. Yet there was an end run that no individual virtue could overcome. Chesterton put it as the basic division of hedonistic and stoic philosophies - you can probably find mixes, but these things were really basic to ancient paganism. And yet it is a fact that these philosophies came to a dead end. They ended in the Colosseum, just as the religions came to a dead end and ended in declaring the Caesar "Divus" - a sure sign of lack of belief. As GKC put it in TEM, it was this end of the ancient religions and philosophies that dominated culture when the Christians came on the scene.
The modern pagans are going down the same routes, or as near as they can reconstruct them, and there are a great many good and honorable people among them I am sure. I know that even in the SF crowd I found kindness and charity. I do not question their individual integrity. I do say that history has already shown what happened to the ancient pagans, who surely had many admirable people in their numbers, and it is not hard to see that rebuilding the same models and philosophies will likely lead to the same results. As GKC put it, :

Neo-pagans have sometimes forgotten, when they set out to do everything that the old pagans did, that the final thing the old pagans did was to get christened.

(ILN, “The Return of the Pagan Gods,” 3-20-26)

I'm sure that quote won't cheer you, but it does seem to me to be true.

[aliantha]

As always, rus, you are entitled to your opinion.

I personally think that (as GKC pointed out) just as the extremes of ancient paganism made that new upstart religion, Christianity, seem so appealing, today we're seeing the extremes that (Western) Christianity has devolved into, and it's sending seekers of truth to find a replacement that's not so corrupted. Neopaganism is one of the candidates. So is Islam, I suppose, and Buddhism. Clearly you would position Orthodoxy to be another.

In any case, the Wheel is turning -- or, if you prefer, the pendulum is swinging back. I suppose we should *both* be grateful that Western Christianity is going down the tubes, huh?

[rusmeister]

As always, rus, you are entitled to your opinion.

I personally think that (as GKC pointed out) just as the extremes of ancient paganism made that new upstart religion, Christianity, seem so appealing, today we're seeing the extremes that (Western) Christianity has devolved into, and it's sending seekers of truth to find a replacement that's not so corrupted. Neopaganism is one of the candidates. So is Islam, I suppose, and Buddhism. Clearly you would position Orthodoxy to be another.

In any case, the Wheel is turning -- or, if you prefer, the pendulum is swinging back. I suppose we should *both* be grateful that Western Christianity is going down the tubes, huh?

Actually, I would be grateful, but seeing as I think it still closer to the truth than paganism, I can't be. Even in its decay, even gone wrong (and this is something that does not mean that the Eastern Church is full of purity and cleanliness, either!), western Christianity is still something drawn from ancient Christianity, which, confused though it is today, still acknowledges some central truths that we hold in common - ones that both correctly grasp the true nature of our humanity in our dealings in this world, and makes salvation in the next possible.

But, yes, I do agree, in that when Christianity abandons Christianity, when the Gospel message is forgotten in desperate efforts to "be relevant" and "fill pews", it does become irrelevant and people do really begin to look elsewhere.

[Fist and Faith]

There is one aspect in which I do think you are right. It is that the primary form of objection - even GKC's objections - to, say, Buddhism, is that it is based on a general philosophical understanding based on the most commonly known teachings and versions. So if, for example, you introduce a form of Buddhism that teaches preservation of the individual, that Nirvana does not mean the effacement of the unique individuality of the person (something not widespread in Buddhism to the best of my knowledge), then a prime objection to THAT form of Buddhism must be withdrawn and it must be considered without that argument.

The fact that you and Chesterton do not like the idea of the effacement of the unique individuality of the person does not invalidate Buddhism. It is only an objection to what you don't like. Not liking something is not a good reason to reject it as untrue.

I pose the question of whether it IS true. You refuse to admit that question.

Why do you say I refuse to admit the question??? I answer the question. Yes, it IS true. At least there's no reason to believe otherwise.

And again, I deny that everything I believe I like, or that "liking" something is the basis on which I believe it. I don't like fasting Orthodox style. It involves real effort, and often I fail. It requires me to do something I really don't like - restrain my desires.

I prefer being healthy and strong to sick and weak. It feels better. So, even though it would be really neat to eat ice cream and cake all day long, I control that desire. It's sometimes better to NOT give in to a desire of the moment, in order to achieve what is considered a more important desire. Our worldviews agree on this.

It would be easier to look at a woman and admire her curves and let my fantasies go. I'd "like" that - and it wouldn't even seem that anybody was thereby being hurt (a favorite criterion around here). But that which I accept to be true teaches that it IS harmful, that it IS brokenness, a breaking of communion with God.

But you've said it's not a sin. You've said it's a sin when you act upon it.

The question is not one of liking it, but what the implications really mean - is it philosophically tenable? Is it fundamentally illogical? I see the general Buddhist teaching of the ultimate elimination of the self as indistinguishable from atheistic oblivion, from a complete end that raises the problem of meaninglessness. If the philosophy is ultimately illogical then one need not dislike it to reject it as untrue.

But if the philosophy is only ultimately illogical to your worldview, but not to other worldviews, then those of us within those other worldviews have no reason to reject it. "It's illogical within his worldview, therefore, I must reject it" is not a logical statement. Yes, it is philosophically tenable. No, it is not fundamentally illogical.

See? We can go back and forth all we want. My worldview (and, in this case, Buddhism's as well) vs yours. No big deal. But when you go claiming to have objective objections, you need to give your objective evidence. Things that all people agree upon, and none deny. The existence, and various properties, of gravity. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (just to make Av happy. ). Your logic is not an objective thing. The logic of "when we die, there is nothing" is as clear to me, and millions of other people (Buddhists and otherwise. And some Watchers.), as yours is to you. Yours is based on certain starting points, and so is mine.

[rusmeister]

The fact that you and Chesterton do not like the idea of the effacement of the unique individuality of the person does not invalidate Buddhism. It is only an objection to what you don't like. Not liking something is not a good reason to reject it as untrue.

I pose the question of whether it IS true. You refuse to admit that question.

Why do you say I refuse to admit the question??? I answer the question. Yes, it IS true. At least there's no reason to believe otherwise.

And again, I deny that everything I believe I like, or that "liking" something is the basis on which I believe it. I don't like fasting Orthodox style. It involves real effort, and often I fail. It requires me to do something I really don't like - restrain my desires.

I prefer being healthy and strong to sick and weak. It feels better. So, even though it would be really neat to eat ice cream and cake all day long, I control that desire. It's sometimes better to NOT give in to a desire of the moment, in order to achieve what is considered a more important desire. Our worldviews agree on this.

It would be easier to look at a woman and admire her curves and let my fantasies go. I'd "like" that - and it wouldn't even seem that anybody was thereby being hurt (a favorite criterion around here). But that which I accept to be true teaches that it IS harmful, that it IS brokenness, a breaking of communion with God.

But you've said it's not a sin. You've said it's a sin when you act upon it.

The question is not one of liking it, but what the implications really mean - is it philosophically tenable? Is it fundamentally illogical? I see the general Buddhist teaching of the ultimate elimination of the self as indistinguishable from atheistic oblivion, from a complete end that raises the problem of meaninglessness. If the philosophy is ultimately illogical then one need not dislike it to reject it as untrue.

But if the philosophy is only ultimately illogical to your worldview, but not to other worldviews, then those of us within those other worldviews have no reason to reject it. "It's illogical within his worldview, therefore, I must reject it" is not a logical statement. Yes, it is philosophically tenable. No, it is not fundamentally illogical.

See? We can go back and forth all we want. My worldview (and, in this case, Buddhism's as well) vs yours. No big deal. But when you go claiming to have objective objections, you need to give your objective evidence. Things that all people agree upon, and none deny. The existence, and various properties, of gravity. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (just to make Av happy. ). Your logic is not an objective thing. The logic of "when we die, there is nothing" is as clear to me, and millions of other people (Buddhists and otherwise. And some Watchers.), as yours is to you. Yours is based on certain starting points, and so is mine.

Meaninglessness is an appropriate name for this thread, Fist - only it's not a thread that determines whether one can hold a meaning that is only temporal and claim that it actual "has" meaning. It is simply meaningless to go back and forth. The one thing that I think ought to be responded to is this:

But you've said it's not a sin. You've said it's a sin when you act upon it.

I would have hoped by now that someone of your caliber would already understand the concept of "If you have looked upon a woman to lust after her, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart." In short, the sin begins when you accept and encourage the tempting thought that tries to break in on you. It's not merely action. Neither is it simply experiencing temptation. It is allowing and encouraging the temptation that is our brokenness.

[Cambo]

Our university's Buddhologist likes to say that everything you can say Buddhism is, he can show you an example where it is not. Complicating the matter is that Buddhism often deals in paradoxes- Nirvana is both ultimate emptiness AND complete fullness, etc.

As to the erasure of the individual, overcoming the ego in some manner is certainly a prerequisite of attaining Enlightenment. Some sects say you must eliminate the ego, others only that you must master it. And nothing is really clear on just what the nature of Nirvana is. It's generally agreed to be ineffable, and perhaps inconceivable, until you get there. Buddhist text deals mainly with what it's not, the most important not- being not-suffering. Life is suffering, Karma is a never-ending cycle of suffering, Nirvana is the absence of suffering. Suffering is said to come from egoic attachment, so it's easy to see how the individual being absolutely erased could happen in Nirvana. And yet, Buddhists pray to the Buddha as if he can really hear them, and is able to bestow his blessings. Buddhas are doing all sorts of things in Nirvana- sitting, smiling, holding Lotus flowers- that they really have no business doing if they have no individual existence.

This is the kind of conversation I would like to have with you, Rus. I can understand your position of rejecting religions based on fundamental precepts you disagree with. I know only a little about Orthodoxy, yet I could never believe in any religion that teaches of sin. Much as I have a passion for Buddhism, I ultimately reject it because I don't believe in karma. I do not believe either sin or karma are true. I do the believe the erasure of the individual after death is true, and I'd like to hear why you believe that to be a logical fallacy.

[Fist and Faith]

The one thing that I think ought to be responded to is this:

But you've said it's not a sin. You've said it's a sin when you act upon it.

I would have hoped by now that someone of your caliber would already understand the concept of "If you have looked upon a woman to lust after her, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart." In short, the sin begins when you accept and encourage the tempting thought that tries to break in on you. It's not merely action. Neither is it simply experiencing temptation. It is allowing and encouraging the temptation that is our brokenness.

Doh! I just got back home, and was going to tell you I was just giving you a hard time about that. Yeah, I understand why you don't want to do that.


This, though:

Meaninglessness is an appropriate name for this thread, Fist - only it's not a thread that determines whether one can hold a meaning that is only temporal and claim that it actual "has" meaning.

True. This thread can't determine that. I can, though. And I do. Along with the millions of others in the world. That your mindset cannot understand that is irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact. The actual problem is with you telling me I don't know what I know, think what I think, and feel what I feel. That pesky arrogance again. Although I know better, I should just endlessly repeat that you haven't accepted Jesus into your heart. How would you know?

[rusmeister]

The one thing that I think ought to be responded to is this:

But you've said it's not a sin. You've said it's a sin when you act upon it.

I would have hoped by now that someone of your caliber would already understand the concept of "If you have looked upon a woman to lust after her, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart." In short, the sin begins when you accept and encourage the tempting thought that tries to break in on you. It's not merely action. Neither is it simply experiencing temptation. It is allowing and encouraging the temptation that is our brokenness.

Doh! I just got back home, and was going to tell you I was just giving you a hard time about that. Yeah, I understand why you don't want to do that.


This, though:

Meaninglessness is an appropriate name for this thread, Fist - only it's not a thread that determines whether one can hold a meaning that is only temporal and claim that it actual "has" meaning.

True. This thread can't determine that. I can, though. And I do. Along with the millions of others in the world. That your mindset cannot understand that is irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact. The actual problem is with you telling me I don't know what I know, think what I think, and feel what I feel. That pesky arrogance again. Although I know better, I should just endlessly repeat that you haven't accepted Jesus into your heart. How would you know?

On the first, thanks! (Better late than never, I suppose. But we've all thought of things unsaid at later points, I imagine.)

On the second, I DO claim to understand the mindset, and that the mindset is wrong. I don't pretend to insert thoughts into your mind as you keep on saying. I don't say, "You think this, and therefore you also think this and this". I say "You think this (whatever you said) and that leaves out thus-and-so." I specifically say that I have thought something out that you cannot see, and not that I can tell everyone what Fist is thinking. So your idea that I am arrogant seems to me to be based entirely on the fact that I make assertions about the nature of truth that contradict your most basic paradigms - and those of others here, and so they chime in on saying "arrogance".

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Rus is not arrogant -- his worldview is.

dw

[TheFallen]

Rus is not arrogant -- his worldview is.

dw

Excellent and perfectly concise summary - that gets to the absolute nub of it.

As I've said before, Rus's world view puts him in an invidious position. It's impossible to present it without looking overweeningly arrogant, because the central crux of it is "What has been revealed to me makes me the carrier of a message that is absolutely and unquestionably right and ergo you're all absolutely and unquestionably wrong."

This makes it extremely difficult for the less absolutist among us not to take potshots at the messenger - presumably hence Rus's oft-repeated complaint of ad hominem.

Therefore my differences with Rus (allowing that he is, as he would see it, a mere messenger) revolve around his not being able to grant any potential of fallibility in his interpretation of The Message. In hindsight, given that he utterly believes what he believes, you can't take a pop at him personally for being extremist or a belief fascist or whatever. As Dukkha says, it's all down to the nature of The Message as Rus perceives it. Therefore, all that can be argued with Rus, given where he stands, is that he's got it wrong and NOT that anybody else has got it right... not that there is one single view beyond the personal that even can "get it right" in my book.

The fact that I am extremely uneasy about the uncompromising, absolutist and necessarily exclusionary nature of The Message that Rus in all honesty believes has been revealed to him is another unrelated matter altogether... as is the fact that I find Rus's Message itself riddled with the risks of leading to extremism and belief fascism.

As stated before, I find no rational or purely empirical basis for the credibility of Rus's Message - which is totally unsurprising, given that it is as all admit at least partially a matter of faith. However I also find it both emotionally and more importantly ethically distasteful and potentially dangerous in its absolutism. And so, given the choice of free will, combined with my own rationality and experientially gained knowledge, I also do not find any other sufficient basis to believe in a world view that is as harsh and as sectarian as the one I see Rus espousing - so I have no faith in that. BUT that's just my subjective view which makes the most sense to me against all that I and I alone know, have experienced, considered or learned.

[Fist and Faith]

No, I don't buy that it's rus' worldview, and not him. He thinks that he is able to understand my worldview better than I do. He refuses to admit for the possibility that a worldview has perspectives/understandings that cannot be seen from without. And about something that is not even particularly difficult to see. Who else here shares my worldview? Possibly Av. Anybody else? Do any of you see that transient meaning is, indeed, meaning? Do any of you think you know meaning is in my worldview better than I do?

rus, I'm the one thinking out what you cannot see. Without being in my worldview, you cannot see meaning and meaninglessness from the direction I can. You cannot see what it looks like from here. No, I never intended this thread to determine this or that about my worldview. It's was intended to tell anyone interested what my worldview is. To claim superior understanding of my worldview - to claim to be able to follow my worldview's paths from without better than I can from within - to claim to know that it cannot reveal from within anything that cannot be seen from without - is, yes, arrogant, and staggeringly so. You can say a million times that you're not arrogant, that it's just a certainty of your own worldview, but it's not. That only goes so far. Your worldview cannot give superior understanding of mine.

As I've said before, Rus's world view puts him in an invidious position. It's impossible to present it without looking overweeningly arrogant, because the central crux of it is "What has been revealed to me makes me the carrier of a message that is absolutely and unquestionably right and ergo you're all absolutely and unquestionably wrong."

This makes it extremely difficult for the less absolutist among us not to take potshots at the messenger - presumably hence Rus's oft-repeated complaint of ad hominem.

Therefore my differences with Rus (allowing that he is, as he would see it, a mere messenger) revolve around his not being able to grant any potential of fallibility in his interpretation of The Message.

I actually don't have a problem with this. That makes perfect sense to me. He can state what his worldview is, and that it's correct, and all others wrong, all day long. That's perfectly fine.

The arrogance is in believing he has such an extraordinary mind that he can see another worldview better than those within it can. Two people here (mainly me, but also Av) are telling him what this view is, and there's plenty of other people in the world saying the same (maybe some for different reasons). Telling him that things can go in a particular direction. But he claims it cannot. You will claim it's a poor analogy, rus, but it is perfect: It's like me claiming that, because I view Job as a story of God's cruelty to Job, and his family and animals, it cannot be viewed the way you do. Should I endlessly repeat that I can see about it what you cannot? That my view, or my intelligence, or whatever it is that allows you to see my worldview better than I do, is superior to yours, and that is why you only view Job in the childish way you were told to view it? That you stopped trying to understand it, and simply swallowed the Church line, not realizing that the story's true understanding goes in a different direction?

I, literally, cannot imagine saying such things. Of course someone with your beliefs can see a different side of it than I can. Job plays no role in my worldview. How could I possibly claim to understand it more deeply than someone within a worldview where Job does play a role?

[TheFallen]

No, I don't buy that it's rus' worldview, and not him. He thinks that he is able to understand my worldview better than I do. He refuses to admit for the possibility that a worldview has perspectives/understandings that cannot be seen from without...

rus, I'm the one thinking out what you cannot see. Without being in my worldview, you cannot see meaning and meaninglessness from the direction I can. You cannot see what it looks like from here... To claim superior understanding of my worldview - to claim to be able to follow my worldview's paths from without better than I can from within - to claim to know that it cannot reveal from within anything that cannot be seen from without - is, yes, arrogant, and staggeringly so. You can say a million times that you're not arrogant, that it's just a certainty of your own worldview, but it's not. That only goes so far. Your worldview cannot give superior understanding of mine.

Also very fairly put.

I think it'd be inordinately helpful if Rus could clarify once and for all whether:-

A) He's merely discounting and rejecting any other world view apart from his own (because he 100% knows that The Message he has had revealed unto him is 100% objectively true). If so, then Dukkha's right - Rus's world view in itself would seem to me to be overweeningly arrogant and assuming its intellectual plus moral superiority, but that in his terms would not be down to him.

or:-

B) He's claiming to have fully experienced, considered, understood and only then consequently rejected the world views as formulated (or adopted) and then expressed by others here. If so, then yes, I'd deem that as Rus himself being overweeningly arrogant and assuming his own intellectual plus moral superiority, and that in anyone's terms would be down to him.

I continue to believe that nobody can possibly judge something as metaphysical as my own world view against any appropriate yardstick. I'm sure mine has evolved out of my own learning, my own thinking and my own life experiences - and necessarily these birthing factors and the weight I assign to them are uniquely relevant to me and me alone.

[Fist and Faith]

Sorry. I was editing as you were posting, TF.

B) He's claiming to have fully experienced, considered, understood and only then consequently rejected the world views as expressed by others here. If so, then yes, I'd deem that as Rus himself being overweeningly arrogant and assuming his own intellectual plus moral superiority, and that in anyone's terms would be down to him.

This is most definitely what rus is saying. At least in regards to my worldview.

[Vraith]

Actually, he's saying both: he lived B formerly, but when exposed to it, the argument and truth of A's message/messengers defeated B in mortal combat.
The distillation of all his arguments is:
Every single non-absolute worldview is, by its very nature, wrong no matter how intelligent/knowledgeable the person[s] espousing it. Even further [and where I think his understanding falls short], all subjective views are forbidden, by structure, from even discussing truth...if you attempt to do so you either don't REALLY have a subjective view or you're being inconsistent or you just don't understand how subjective views work.
Only absolutist worldviews can even potentially be correct/express Truth. And only the one he follows entirely does so.
I'm not sure that that requires/implies arrogance...though it certainly requires absolute, unwavering commitment, which often poses the danger of becoming, or at least being perceived as, arrogance. Only Eternal can be Absolute, Only Absolute can be True, only True can be Meaningful...everything follows from that.
I'm not sure anything can be Eternal, I'm sure that some things are Absolute [though not all, and only temporarily], even un-Truth [or at least non-truth] can be Meaningful [in a positive sense...not only negatively, in opposition to Truth]. It's obvious to me that there is not a line between Ration/Irrational, True/False, Objective/Subjective, Faith/Knowledge. What there is is a space of a-rational, personal yet objective, True/False merely accents or shadings when relevant at all, Faith and Knowledge dance a perpetual tango, not battle over who's master, who's slave. This is where our identities are, and it is the place where meaning actually Means.

[Avatar]

Do any of you see that transient meaning is, indeed, meaning?

Hell, all meaning is transient in certain senses. That doesn't make it any less meaningful.

--A

[Cambo]

Do any of you see that transient meaning is, indeed, meaning?

Hell, all meaning is transient in certain senses. That doesn't make it any less meaningful.

--A

And this, too, shall pass away.

I believe most meaning is transient. Nearly all in fact. I only see the divine as being eternal. The love I feel for particular people is transient. Love itself is eternal. But I agree with Av, transience doesn't make it less meaningful. It's the most meaningful thing in my life.

[Avatar]

Not sharing anybelief in some divine being, I don't see anything as eternal. Even human stupidity will one day end.

But consider...transience may grant even greater meaning solely by virtue of its impermanence.

--A