X is the last refuge of Y

For a person who dislikes the idea that we "make up truth", you sure do a whole lot of it.

The RWG is all about protecting & preserving the survival of self - not likely to be solved in a conversation; especially with someone else. The RWG is a subset of a whole bunch of stuff that we do to protect the survival of self. Assumptions prevent direct experience of the truth about ourselves and others. They are sometimes very subtle. You often express or may have given up the idea that a person can have a direct experience of the truth about oneself or others. You probably have been assuming that it is impossible or perhaps is out there in airy-fairy land, etc.  Those are things that can be explored. I don't think that there are last refuges. Perhaps there are only people who construct them to protect their self from going any further or being scared of what may lie beyond a particular pursuit.

Think about it. I have a dental to go to.

My favorite so far is "Freedom is the last refuge of a failed anarchy!"

How about "Communism is the last refuge of a failed government"?
and "Totalitarianism is the last refuge of a failed communism".

Well grouping these sentences together helps us understand what the copula means ... what "is the last refuge of" means.  It does not imply, either one way or the other, that any of the sentences are more or less true.  I don't think any of the sentences are true in any factual testable manner.   Any truth in any of them is in that made up truth kind of way.

And 16310 is all about trying to tease out the meaning of last refuge of ... in particular the one sentence in the body of it which ends with a "?".

Shit Mark, just please deescalate all the hostility and insults ... this is not about you ... this is not about me.

Well, in my world there is none.  Faith is a peculiar kind of belief in things not seen (with no evidence) like most religion. Most of our beliefs, however, are built from thinner substance.

Sure a question can be a lie ... if it contains an assumption that is known to be untrue.   Asking the question "When did you stop beating your grandmother?" is telling the lie that "You beat your grandmother". 

Yep ... we could even simplify that ... "A lack of faith is the last refuge of pride" ... just about as much as "Faith is the last refuge of pride".   Which of course begs the question:  What is the relationship between faith and pride.

Deceit can be just as much what you don't tell, as what you do tell ... cherry picking and misdirecting attention can be used to deceive.  I don't think we need to argue over that.


I read some of chapter 19 of BofNK and did not find anything different in there about assumptions that i did not already believe.   There is no doubt that our assumptions run deep and dominate what we think, feel, and do.  Was there  something there that you wanted to highlight in regards to our mutual understanding of assumptions?

Differing assumptions held by both sides of a conversation pose a real problem for communication. My current concern here are the assumptions that you and I have when we talk here and on social media.   Apparently our differing assumptions  mean that we are continually forced into RWG, whereas i doubt that either of us intends that to happen.  The whole point of Paradox and Otherness is to drill down to know what the assumptions are which divide a conversation.  It is not something that can be done by a single person ... it is between persons ... and, imho, is best  resolved by honest communication.  You and I need to be able to honestly admit to each other why we are accusing the other of wrongness instead of seeing and accepting what they are saying.

But, on topic here ... the "?" on the end of my question ..... How about Bozo Faust's: "Faith is the last refuge of pride" ? .... was just to indicate that was the one i wanted to discuss here.   Do people resort to faith to protect their pride?   Maybe, maybe not ... i just thought that would be an interesting thing to delve into.

Answer:  Your point of view of the contents of this 16310. 
     Yep, maybe on the guru thingy, but more on the being, self, rwg stuff which I have been studying in some form for the last 20 years.  Peter writes clearly without dogma. But, instead of refining your argument, examining mine with a microscope or something else try (test) my theory about the RWG being just a defense of your self & drop that point of view completely & watch what happens inside you - particularly about your ordinary self & tell me here what happens.  Of course, you could dislike what you call my guru pose & go eat a turkey sandwich.
     One of the most interesting parts of the BofNK (21:30-31) I was reading while waiting at the dentist this morning and that relates to the possibility to have a direct experience of something; maybe check that out.
  

Well i don't equate defense and construction of self with RWG ... even as a subset.  I don't do RWG  with Denise, and i don't do it in the same way with Jason, nor with Nathan ... nor with others on facebook.  I think the particular RWG that goes on between you and I here is created by some peculiar assumptions that we have towards each other that is quite different than any attempt on either of our parts to defend our self and our world view ... at least from my side.  It is unique (special) to us and our relationship as opposed to some general behavior that all humans must necessarily do to each other  ... not that many other pairs don't also do it.

I claim that it can be "solved" in a conversation where we honestly drill down to why you and i perpetually do RWG.  Of course to do that we would first need to form a common purpose.  We haven't been able to do that for a long time.  Thing is you are getting old.  I am getting old.  Who know, we may even be getting senile.  We have relatively little time left on the Earth ... it would be so very fun if we could actually have a meeting of minds before one of our lives clot on the Earth.

Incidentally be specific about what this refers to ... I can guess it to be about 12 things.

I agree that "Assumptions prevent experience of the truth about ourselves and others" - direct or otherwise.  I believe (assume without proof) that my life is exactly what i make of it ... and that also goes also for what (or who) I am.  I'm going to be honest with you.  I have not had any Satoris in that regard ... nothing that i can sustain from day to day or could be written down or described in language.  Not only that, but i strongly suspect that, were you to have had any Satoris in regard to yourself, what you would experienced, would be quite different than what I would experience.  I think the assumption from Buddha is that it would be the same.  I don't happen to believe it would be the same. Which gets me back to how i started this paragraph ... i make it up ... i define what I am ... my life and myself is what i make it.  Why in hell would i expect that you would also make up the same thing?

So then that may well appear to you as one of those assumptions, which you describe as constructed "to protect my self from going any further or being scared of what may lie beyond a particular pursuit".  

I'm saying that it is not just the binary relation permuted that yields the particularity between us.  It is a substantive thing.  It is not something that is shared by all other pairs.  Though i am sure other pairs have very similar relationships.

On the sibling rivalry thingy: