Logical Errors

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Jonathan Bricklin wrote:

>> >The author of over 600 books on
>> >one basic theme, tat tvam asi, all of them spoken spontaneously in front
>of
>> >huge audiences, and many of them available on video where the perfect
>> >equanimity of the man is there on view for anyone who does not have the
>> >screen blocked with the New York Times, Rajneesh is, albeit, a
>cautionary
>>
>> As I said spontaneous etc is no hallmark of GYAna. Hitler was vary
>> spontaneous. So are many fake gurus.

>Logical error number one:  Select a word out of a sentence that is put
>there to support the main point ("the perfect equanimity") and then, having
>isolated it from its context, apply a ludicrous comparison.  Will someone
>please
>send this man an Osho video, otherwise we
>going to be hearing about poor old Adolph forever.

Utter naivete error number one:

When I went to Badrinath and Kedarnath, I happened to see some so-called
sAdhu-s taking pot. After that they had more equanimity than anyone I
have seen. If a guy has the adulation of thousands of idiots, drugs and
women at his disposal, 90 odd Rolls Royces given by some prize fools,
etc, etc, there is no reason why he shouldn't possess "equanimity". In
fact I would expect him to have _LOTS_ of it.

So I gather you believe everything you see in videos. So did you believe
that Arnie actually shot people in Terminator 2? If you haven't seen it
please see it and tell me. You probably will believe it, it's very
realistic. The rest of don't (most of us, I don't know about the zealots
of "open mind"). But don't worry, you are in good company. My six year
old cousin sincerely believes Arnie got rid of the evil robot who can
metamorphose into whatever form he wishes.

>> Ehm, there's no point to see. This kind of reason is totally fallacious.
>> Why? The reason is that the number of desires one can have is infinite.
>> If there were only a finite number of desires that may be possible.
>
>Logical error number two:  Conflate empirical experience with logical
>reasoning.  It is a simple fact of experience that some indulgences can
>lead to being "fed up".  Try eating lobster every night for a month.  Let a
>three year old have every cookie in the box.
>And, need it be said?, monasteries and ashrams are filled with examples of
>such fed up former indulgers.

Utter naivete error number 2:

Not everything can be bought like Lobsters.

>And, need it be said?, monasteries and ashrams are filled with examples of
>such fed up former indulgers.

Stuff and nonsense, I say. I have never been to a proper Ashram where it
is "filled" with people like this. I don't care for your experiences
with so-called indulgers in any case. If you think you can give your
so-called experience as proof you are sadly mistaken. It counts for
nothing.

>> 1. It cannot be satisfied by indulging because no one can get all the
>> women he wants.
>
>Empirical whopper number one:  Marriage would be a far more exciting
>proposition if that were true.

Utter naivete number 3:

Example 1. There are people (I have met a few) who think that the
ultimate beauty is Linda Evangelista and she is the one they want to be
with. Unfortunately they can't even get to meet her. What are they
supposed to do?

Example 2: What about people who are obssessed with Marilyn Monroe? Oh,
I get it. You guys are the guys who "create" their reality right?
Thanks, that explains it all!!

>Logical error number four:  having made a false observation, come up with
>mathematical language to camouflage your oversight.

Since there was no error in the first place, this objection does not
stand.

>Logical error number five:  affirming the consequent.   If p then q tells
>us nothing about q without p.  (Although not q entails not p) In the above
>quote Osho says if repression (p) then more desire (q).  It would be nice
>for you if he started with q but he doesn't.  You do.  His comments about
>indulgence tiring you sooner or later do not have the logical force of his
>proposition if repression then an increase in desire.  There are many
>indulgences that will not stand the empirical test that, say, sexual
>indulgence does, of making the person fed up--alcohol, perhaps, being the
>most obvious. (E-mail posting, perhaps another.)  As to your example of a
>murderer:  a murderer who represses the desire to murder may well turn into
>a mass murderer down the road.  Well, too bad for him.  There are other
>considerations than an experiment with repression to stop someone from
>murdering the first time around.  Many of the women at Osho's Ashram might
>have brought up other considerations as well to his experiments with sexual
>indulgence.  Like I said, he's a cautionary tale.

Sorry. The mass murderer _says_ he had the urge to kill, he repressed it
for a lot of time and it blew up! Even about a year back there was a
case in Texas like this. So my point still remains. I know very well
that p=>q does not mean q=>p. So according to Osho the remedy for
repressing murderous thoughts is to go and murder. My point still
remains. Don't think you can throw me off track by using p, q etc.

>I believe you think you have.  But your language betrays you.

Don't give this cute stuff. If you can argue properly please do. If you
could you wouldn't be making pot-shots trying to throw me off track.

>Whatever joy I feel is tempered by how little of him you have understood.

?!! Again, please argue properly if you can. Merely asserting I haven't
understood something doesn't mean anything.

Ramakrishnan.