“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
Early Divisions (4th - 1st centuries BCE): Following the Buddha's death, the Buddhist community began to diverge into different groups. The two primary early schools were the Mahāsāṃghika and the Sthaviravāda.
Nikaya Buddhism: This term refers to the early schools that emerged from the Sthaviravāda, including Theravada, Sarvāstivāda, and others. Theravada, which is the only surviving Nikaya school today, is considered to have originated around the 3rd century BCE, according to the Province of Manitoba.
Mahayana Development (around 1st century CE): The Mahayana branch of Buddhism emerged within Indian Buddhism, with its own distinct scriptures and philosophies.
Vajrayana Development (around 5th century CE): Vajrayana, also known as the Diamond Vehicle, developed as an offshoot of Mahayana, particularly in Tibet.
Specific Schools: Within these broader branches, various schools developed with their own unique practices and interpretations. For example, within Mahayana, Zen Buddhism (Chan in China) and Pure Land Buddhism emerged.
Spread and Adaptation: Buddhism continued to spread throughout Asia, adapting to different cultures and contexts, which led to further diversification and the development of unique traditions in various regions.
Which is why we need a truly centrist democratic party. The right has went full blown fascist and the progressive left, while much closer to truth, still has reified its dogma and from there the battle lines are drawn.
In this scenario the only result will be America loses.
most people in cults deny that they're in them. Cults are merely Majoritarian cults, or Minoritarian ones. The Democratic Party is in transition from the former, to the latter.
Prayers are pointless. But much like the purloined letter, always arrives at its' destination. Like Kafka's letters to his (dead or never sent) father.
The middle ground fallacy, also known as the argument to moderation or false compromise, is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that the truth or validity of a position lies in the middle between two opposing views, without proper evaluation of the evidence supporting each side. Essentially, it's the flawed idea that a compromise between two positions is automatically the best or most correct solution.
Essentially, it's the flawed idea that a compromise between two positions is automatically the best or most correct solution. Here's a breakdown of why it's a fallacy: Ignores evidence and validity: The middle ground fallacy disregards the strength of arguments and evidence supporting each position. Just because two views are opposing doesn't mean the solution lies halfway between them. Can lead to ineffective solutions: A compromise position might be weaker or less effective than either of the original extremes. May not be a true middle ground: The "middle" might not be equally distant from both extremes, especially if one side has stronger arguments or evidence. Example: If one doctor recommends 6 days of antibiotics and another says none are needed, choosing 3 days as a compromise is an example of the middle ground fallacy. It disregards the evidence and reasoning behind each doctor's recommendation. Why it's problematic: Prevents finding the best solution: By automatically choosing the middle ground, people might overlook a superior solution that aligns with the evidence and logic. Leads to false neutrality: It can create a false sense of balance or fairness when one position is clearly stronger. Hinders progress: It can discourage bold, evidence-based solutions by favoring compromises that may not be effective.
Basically it means -- that so-called Progressives-Democrats -- became biggest boulder, stopping any movement on the Road into Progress, Happy Ever After, Future... you call it.
And to the extent, that even Conservatives became disgusted and started revolting.
Yes, they bought into big government as a "good trust" instead of insisting upon the anti-fragility of smaller opposed trusts. They thereby succumbed to the allure of authoritarian "efficiency".
Tools From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "False conversion" redirects here. For the Islamic doctrine, see Taqiya. In propositional logic, affirming the consequent (also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency) is a formal fallacy (or an invalid form of argument) that is committed when, in the context of an indicative conditional statement, it is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the antecedent is true. It takes on the following form:
If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P. which may also be phrased as
P → Q {\displaystyle P\rightarrow Q} (P implies Q) ∴ Q → P {\displaystyle \therefore Q\rightarrow P} (therefore, Q implies P) For example, it may be true that a broken lamp would cause a room to become dark. It is not true, however, that a dark room implies the presence of a broken lamp. There may be no lamp (or any light source). The lamp may also be off. In other words, the consequent (a dark room) can have other antecedents (no lamp, off-lamp), and so can still be true even if the stated antecedent is not.[1]
Converse errors are common in everyday thinking and communication and can result from, among other causes, communication issues, misconceptions about logic, and failure to consider other causes.[2]
Loving that science is confirming today much that flowed from the eastern disciplines of the ancients. Modern Western arrogance is just too much.
ReplyDeletePsychology isn't a science. And Deleuze's sources are all Western.
Deletebtw - Do Buddhists do schizoanalysis?
DeleteWhy? Are you looking for a shrink?
DeleteNo, because I can think of no Eastern systems of thought that resemble it.
DeleteI know it's all western. My point.
ReplyDeleteThe science of the mind. Must go deep to access.
The west is still playing catch up.
...and the East has given up on trying.
DeleteNo, that is your illusion to keep feeding the western arrogance.
ReplyDeleteWhen did Buddhism originate...
DeleteThe Buddha, whose given name was Siddhartha Gautama, was born in Lumbini, in present-day Nepal, around 563 BCE
Wow, even my Platonisms are more modern.
Even Christianity is more modern!
DeleteEarly Divisions (4th - 1st centuries BCE):
DeleteFollowing the Buddha's death, the Buddhist community began to diverge into different groups. The two primary early schools were the Mahāsāṃghika and the Sthaviravāda.
Nikaya Buddhism:
This term refers to the early schools that emerged from the Sthaviravāda, including Theravada, Sarvāstivāda, and others. Theravada, which is the only surviving Nikaya school today, is considered to have originated around the 3rd century BCE, according to the Province of Manitoba.
Mahayana Development (around 1st century CE):
The Mahayana branch of Buddhism emerged within Indian Buddhism, with its own distinct scriptures and philosophies.
Vajrayana Development (around 5th century CE):
Vajrayana, also known as the Diamond Vehicle, developed as an offshoot of Mahayana, particularly in Tibet.
Specific Schools:
Within these broader branches, various schools developed with their own unique practices and interpretations. For example, within Mahayana, Zen Buddhism (Chan in China) and Pure Land Buddhism emerged.
Spread and Adaptation:
Buddhism continued to spread throughout Asia, adapting to different cultures and contexts, which led to further diversification and the development of unique traditions in various regions.
Western arrogance and cultural appropriation squeezed the East for all its' lemons centuries ago.
DeleteIs that so...
ReplyDeleteWhere do you think we got the "zero" from? al gebra? Arabic numerals?
DeleteWho stall it from induses. Who took it from ellinism spread by Alexander.
DeleteThe West are the kings of cultural appropriation.
DeleteKings of bragadoccio... yawn.
DeleteOh. Guess you miss the point.
ReplyDeleteAnd you not? :-)))
DeleteAre you sadhu already? ;-p
DeleteJust call me Oblio...
DeleteWelcome to the pointless forest!
DeleteI am that I am.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Popeye...
DeleteFU
ReplyDeleteNirvana to you too.))))
DeleteI don't speak French.
DeleteNeither do I.
ReplyDeleteMost people do group speak.
Especially from the fringe and the cults.
Which is why we need a truly centrist democratic party. The right has went full blown fascist and the progressive left, while much closer to truth, still has reified its dogma and from there the battle lines are drawn.
In this scenario the only result will be America loses.
Indeed.
Especially from the fringe and the cults.
Deletemost people in cults deny that they're in them. Cults are merely Majoritarian cults, or Minoritarian ones. The Democratic Party is in transition from the former, to the latter.
//Which is why we need a truly centrist democratic party.
DeleteMiddle ground fallacy.
Go enlight itself, dimwit. ;-p
But you will not.
Because your cult teachers gold you that you already enlighted. ))))
//The Democratic Party is in transition from the former, to the latter.
DeleteJuly 8, 2025 at 11:10 AM
Naah, FJ. Demnism is already fullfledged religion. That starting to split into heresies.))))
Yes... each split a minoritarian heretical version of what was once majoritarian.. Catholics into Protestant and Calvinist sects...
DeleteYeah...
DeleteDown to inventing for each own god. ;-p
Delete...even non-theological secular ones... like "technology". ;)
DeleteBS.
DeleteYawn.
Or... You can start praying to electricity outlet. To prove your point.
What? You will not?
Why not?;-)
I already have a G_d! lol!
DeleteI got it. But is it perceivable, up to haptic response... as electricity outlet are?
DeleteNo, my G_d doesnt interact with mankind... He's too smart. Like Solaris, but w/o a need to respond.
DeleteThat's it!
DeleteYou gotcha.
Core need for a deity -- to be elusively transcendent.
Totally opposite to tech ology.
Yawn.
...and not reliant upon it. :)
DeleteOh, god... please do this, please do that. Oh, and thank you for what you already did. And what you only WILL do.
DeleteYeah. That called "not reliant". Oh, yes. :-)
Prayers are pointless. But much like the purloined letter, always arrives at its' destination. Like Kafka's letters to his (dead or never sent) father.
DeleteThe only dimwits apparently align with MAGA and its bigotry and other BS.
ReplyDeleteYeah. That is what demn catechism teaching to say.))))))
DeleteThe middle ground fallacy, also known as the argument to moderation or false compromise, is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that the truth or validity of a position lies in the middle between two opposing views, without proper evaluation of the evidence supporting each side. Essentially, it's the flawed idea that a compromise between two positions is automatically the best or most correct solution.
DeleteThe RINO go-along-to-get-along fallacy. ;)
DeleteLoving your comical BS!
DeleteYeah. Demn conditioning works perfectly! )))))
DeleteEssentially, it's the flawed idea that a compromise between two positions is automatically the best or most correct solution.
ReplyDeleteHere's a breakdown of why it's a fallacy:
Ignores evidence and validity:
The middle ground fallacy disregards the strength of arguments and evidence supporting each position. Just because two views are opposing doesn't mean the solution lies halfway between them.
Can lead to ineffective solutions:
A compromise position might be weaker or less effective than either of the original extremes.
May not be a true middle ground:
The "middle" might not be equally distant from both extremes, especially if one side has stronger arguments or evidence.
Example:
If one doctor recommends 6 days of antibiotics and another says none are needed, choosing 3 days as a compromise is an example of the middle ground fallacy. It disregards the evidence and reasoning behind each doctor's recommendation.
Why it's problematic:
Prevents finding the best solution:
By automatically choosing the middle ground, people might overlook a superior solution that aligns with the evidence and logic.
Leads to false neutrality:
It can create a false sense of balance or fairness when one position is clearly stronger.
Hinders progress:
It can discourage bold, evidence-based solutions by favoring compromises that may not be effective.
Basically it means -- that so-called Progressives-Democrats -- became biggest boulder, stopping any movement on the Road into Progress, Happy Ever After, Future... you call it.
ReplyDeleteAnd to the extent, that even Conservatives became disgusted and started revolting.
Against such nowhere progressing "progrss".
Yes, they bought into big government as a "good trust" instead of insisting upon the anti-fragility of smaller opposed trusts. They thereby succumbed to the allure of authoritarian "efficiency".
Delete...making the Republican Party "Progressive" again.
Delete//They thereby succumbed to the allure of authoritarian "efficiency".
DeleteBS.
There's no such thing. It comes in mask of "safeness".
That same thing you proclaim loving so much. Lindy... and etc.
Anti-fragility is a much more dangerous "safeness".
DeleteWhatever.
DeleteThere's no end of "much more dangerous" imaginary entities.;-p
And there even whole TV series about em -- Supernaturals.
DeleteGone in 10 seasons... until everybody gone bored of it.
True. But I still don't want to reach chemical equilibrium.
DeleteYep.
DeleteBecause that is not imaginary. But very real. Euphemism for death, you even fear to call by commonly known name -- death. Grim Reaper.
And I was cautiously to not start talking about such things here too.
ReplyDeleteAs that is gravely hard topic...
Affirming the consequent
ReplyDeleteArticle
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"False conversion" redirects here. For the Islamic doctrine, see Taqiya.
In propositional logic, affirming the consequent (also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency) is a formal fallacy (or an invalid form of argument) that is committed when, in the context of an indicative conditional statement, it is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the antecedent is true. It takes on the following form:
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
which may also be phrased as
P
→
Q
{\displaystyle P\rightarrow Q} (P implies Q)
∴
Q
→
P
{\displaystyle \therefore Q\rightarrow P} (therefore, Q implies P)
For example, it may be true that a broken lamp would cause a room to become dark. It is not true, however, that a dark room implies the presence of a broken lamp. There may be no lamp (or any light source). The lamp may also be off. In other words, the consequent (a dark room) can have other antecedents (no lamp, off-lamp), and so can still be true even if the stated antecedent is not.[1]
Converse errors are common in everyday thinking and communication and can result from, among other causes, communication issues, misconceptions about logic, and failure to consider other causes.[2]