Laird

Hi everyone,

I'm going to do something that isn't recommended, and propose a formal debate in my first post to this forum. I have been reading at IIDB for a little while now, and I hope that my proposal will be acceptable. Let me first provide a little background to this formal debate proposal:

Earlier in this year, I was banned from Genius Forums (GF), an idiosyncratic message board to which I had been posting for about a year after hearing about it from my real-life neighbour, Kevin Solway, who is the founder of that board. Kevin runs the board in conjunction with two other administrators, David Quinn and Dan Rowden. It was David who banned me, ostensibly for "spiritual immaturity". Kevin seemed to support the banning, whereas Dan was opposed to it. These three administrators are collectively known on GF by an acronym formed by their surnames: QRS (sometimes QSR). They share an essential philosophy - one which at various times I have found cause to disagree with.

Dan and I still communicate, and it's his contention that my disagreements with QRS philosophy are due to a lack of understanding of said philosophy. I actually think that I understand the philosophy fairly well, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. In doing so, I invited him to submit himself to a formal quest for understanding of his philosophy - in other words, I would publicly ask him a series of questions and he would respond to them to the best of his ability. We of course could not hold this interview at GF, given that I have been banned from that venue, but when I came upon IIDB, in particular this formal debating forum, I figured that it might be just the place for us to hold the interview.

My primary doubts are twofold: firstly that neither Dan nor I have yet posted to this board (and, as far as I know, Dan has not yet even registered), which the moderators might feel disqualifies us from using the venue for this interview; secondly that an "interview" format is not one of those recognised in the guidelines for the forum. I'm hopeful that it can nevertheless be accomodated.

For anyone who wants to get a bit of an understanding of the nature of QRS philosophy prior to deciding whether this interview is a suitable enterprise to host at IIDB, you can get an idea about it in several places:

• through the Genius Forums message board,
• through the online publications and websites of its proponents:
  • Dan Rowden's MenoftheInfinite YouTube channel
  • Kevin Solway's website, The Absolute, in particular his online book Poison for the Heart,
  • David Quinn's website, in particular his works Wisdom of the Infinite and Woman: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind,
• through the recent podcast interviews, The Reasoning Show.

Here is a preliminary suggestion for the ten parameters of the debate:

1. The topic of the debate.

To explore QRS philosophy.

2. The opponents of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Neither of us will take an overall position to argue; instead Laird will ask questions to clarify his understanding of the QRS philosophy and Dan will answer those questions. Laird will do his best to - at least in the initial rounds - cover the broad spectrum of the QRS philosophy rather than to focus in on any particular aspect.

3. The scope of the debate.

Any and all aspects of QRS philosophy that have been publicly represented. This includes but is not limited to: the existence of absolute truth and the logical means of attaining said truth; what constitutes wisdom; enlightenment; masculinity and femininity; the non-inherency of existence; the nature of the self; the nature of reality.

4. The length of the debate, in number of rounds.

Provisionally: ten rounds; possibly reduced during the debate depending on how it progresses.

5. Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

In turns; Laird to go first.

6. The maximum length of each statement.

Special - see #10.

7. The time limit between statements.

One week; however, at either participant's request, the debate may be temporarily postponed over the Christmas period, due to holiday commitments, for a mutually agreed-upon and reasonable period of time (not expected to be longer than three weeks).

8. The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

Within reason. In particular, any public writings or oral recordings of QRS are valid sources to base questions upon.

9. The starting date of the debate.

Saturday, 27th of September.

10. Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

The rounds will proceed as follows:

In the first three rounds, Laird may introduce his questions with clarifying comments, but should try to refrain from arguing a case. In each of those rounds, the format is as follows:
a. Laird posts no more than 10 questions, of no more than a total of 1500 words cumulative.
b. Dan responds to each of the questions in no more than 5000 words cumulative.

In the fourth round, the format is as follows:
a. Laird posts his reaction to the first three rounds of questions and answers, and is permitted (but not required) to argue a case for Dan to respond to, in no more than 3000 words.
b. Dan responds to Laird's reaction, potentially rebutting any case that Laird presents, in no more than 3000 words.

The fifth through seventh rounds are the same as the first three rounds.

The eighth round is the same as the fourth round (with the reaction being based on the prior three rounds).

In the ninth round, Laird posts no more than 5 questions, and is permitted (but not required) to argue a case during the presentation of those questions, of no more than 3000 words cumulative; Dan responds to each of the questions (and potentially the case) put to him in no more than 5000 words.

In the final round, both parties summarise the proceedings in no more than 3000 words each.

Jo

Moved from FDP to ~E~ due to not fitting the criteria for FDP.

Locked.

Alcyonian
FDP Moderator