SpheresOfBalance wrote:I also think you did a good job in creating 5 categories.
It would seem that I'm right in the middle, as I believe that one can't possibly 'know' either way. I see that there are things that (here comes improper phrase usage) "beg the questions" as to both ways of thinking.
Are you talking to me now?
Then:
chaz wyman wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Case by case, as I see you master control, and I would expect no less.
I have, and always will talk to you exactly as I want.
If you ain't listening then that is your loss.
Said the megalomaniac as he patted himself on the back.
Tell me Chaz since you believe you are special and can talk to anyone the way you want. Tell me, if we were face to face, and after you talked to me any way you wanted, though I doubt you would after seeing me, could I do with you what ever I wanted? Because just like we are here and you can get away with saying what ever you want, and there is nothing I can do to stop you, except ignore you. In the ring, between you and I, I could do what ever it was, that I wanted, to you, and there would be nothing you could do to stop it.
So tell me Chaz how much do we owe each other to not harm one another either emotionally or physically? Because for me they are one in the same thing. Intending to harm someone is intending to harm someone. PERIOD! And you seem naturally prone to attempting to harm people, the megalomaniac that you are. Tell me how much you believe we owe each other? Should people really dispense with the pleasantries, thus reverting all the way back to that of prehistoric man, or somewhere in between? Where is that line, and who draws it? What happens if two people can't give each other the respect that they expect and every man deserves? Should we chuck civility out the window and just have a massive free for all? What do you think civility is, anyway?
Tell me Chaz since you believe you are special and can talk to anyone the way you want.
Of course and you can behave like a small minded person and not listen. But that is your right too.
Tell me, if we were face to face, and after you talked to me any way you wanted, though I doubt you would after seeing me, could I do with you what ever I wanted? Because just like we are here and you can get away with saying what ever you want, and there is nothing I can do to stop you, except ignore you. In the ring, between you and I, I could do what ever it was, that I wanted, to you, and there would be nothing you could do to stop it.
Do you have a point?
So tell me Chaz how much do we owe each other to not harm one another either emotionally or physically?
You tell me! You are the one calling the other a megalomanic, whilst behaving like one yourself
Because for me they are one in the same thing. Intending to harm someone is intending to harm someone. PERIOD! And you seem naturally prone to attempting to harm people, the megalomaniac that you are.
There you go again. Shame on you.
Tell me how much you believe we owe each other? Should people really dispense with the pleasantries, thus reverting all the way back to that of prehistoric man, or somewhere in between? Where is that line, and who draws it? What happens if two people can't give each other the respect that they expect and every man deserves? Should we chuck civility out the window and just have a massive free for all? What do you think civility is, anyway?
I'm, still waiting for a point that is not hypocritical.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Tell me Chaz since you believe you are special and can talk to anyone the way you want.
Of course and you can behave like a small minded person and not listen. But that is your right too.
As evidenced; your megalomaniacal behavior actualized.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Tell me, if we were face to face, and after you talked to me any way you wanted, though I doubt you would after seeing me, could I do with you what ever I wanted? Because just like we are here and you can get away with saying what ever you want, and there is nothing I can do to stop you, except ignore you. In the ring, between you and I, I could do what ever it was, that I wanted, to you, and there would be nothing you could do to stop it.
Do you have a point?
It would seem, your abilities of comprehension negate your understanding.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:So tell me Chaz how much do we owe each other to not harm one another either emotionally or physically?
You tell me! You are the one calling the other a megalomanic, whilst behaving like one yourself
I'm playing catch-up, you shouldn't have started it.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Because for me they are one in the same thing. Intending to harm someone is intending to harm someone. PERIOD! And you seem naturally prone to attempting to harm people, the megalomaniac that you are.
There you go again. Shame on you.
I admit, it's hard to turn the other cheek.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Tell me how much you believe we owe each other? Should people really dispense with the pleasantries, thus reverting all the way back to that of prehistoric man, or somewhere in between? Where is that line, and who draws it? What happens if two people can't give each other the respect that they expect and every man deserves? Should we chuck civility out the window and just have a massive free for all? What do you think civility is, anyway?
I'm, still waiting for a point that is not hypocritical.
OK, I'll finally call it even, lets start anew and see who's the weakest, who'll crack first; who'll take the first shot at the others persona. Lets see which can keep it about the argument.
Do you even know what a 'quote' is? No, I know, it's just another case of 'you' doing what ever it is that 'you' want. What's more small minded Chaz, going there in the first place, or playing the mirror, so that one can see themselves from an enlightening perspective?
I liked the Forum much better when you were ignoring me. Have you stopped for a second to 'honestly' ask yourself why this is? I know you seem to have some facts committed to memory, from those books of others work, that you've read, that you reiterate here, but can you actually 'honestly' do the math yourself, and come up with solution to this question; again, honestly?
So what do I have to do to get you to ignore me again? Oh, so now I think I finally understand, your outbursts, or so it would seem, are meant to repel those that get too close to the mark? Could it be that you're too small to give, such that you have to always take? I'm really trying to understand you here Chaz.
How about this.
Take your sphere of balance and fuck yourself with it! That was funny! Are you envious of my pseudonym? All it is, is a result of a conversation I had with a fellow classmate of philosophy. We had been talking about something of the universe, I've forgotten exactly what it was, but he offered 'yin & yang' as that of what he had supposed I would have answered. Later upon considering his supposition, I had an epiphany, that I thought was enlightening and Spheres of Balance was born. No big deal, just a relative parallel on three fronts. The funny thing is that Ron de Weijze had said something in Bills truth thread that caused me to catch a glimpse of a further depth of meaning. Unfortunately, I was in the middle of dealing with you so I neglected to entertain it such to refine it so as to make it a part of it's meaning. That probably shall make you happy, assuming that winning at your own private war, is all you really care about. Of course I could be wrong about you.
Do you even know what a 'quote' is? No, I know, it's just another case of 'you' doing what ever it is that 'you' want. What's more small minded Chaz, going there in the first place, or playing the mirror, so that one can see themselves from an enlightening perspective?
I liked the Forum much better when you were ignoring me. Have you stopped for a second to 'honestly' ask yourself why this is? I know you seem to have some facts committed to memory, from those books of others work, that you've read, that you reiterate here, but can you actually 'honestly' do the math yourself, and come up with solution to this question; again, honestly?
So what do I have to do to get you to ignore me again? Oh, so now I think I finally understand, your outbursts, or so it would seem, are meant to repel those that get too close to the mark? Could it be that you're too small to give, such that you have to always take? I'm really trying to understand you here Chaz.
How about this.
Take your sphere of balance and fuck yourself with it! That was funny! Are you envious of my pseudonym? All it is, is a result of a conversation I had with a fellow classmate of philosophy. We had been talking about something of the universe, I've forgotten exactly what it was, but he offered 'yin & yang' as that of what he had supposed I would have answered. Later upon considering his supposition, I had an epiphany, that I thought was enlightening and Spheres of Balance was born. No big deal, just a relative parallel on three fronts. The funny thing is that Ron de Weijze had said something in Bills truth thread that caused me to catch a glimpse of a further depth of meaning. Unfortunately, I was in the middle of dealing with you so I neglected to entertain it such to refine it so as to make it a part of it's meaning. That probably shall make you happy, assuming that winning at your own private war, is all you really care about. Of course I could be wrong about you.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
It's all a matter of perspective now, isn't it?
Exactly
Man's relativity has absolutely nothing to do with the universal absolute truth, just for the record!
Something you would do well to heed.
The true value of a man is not determined by his possession, supposed or real, of truth, but rather by his sincere exertion to get to the truth.
It is not possession of truth but the pursuit of truth by which he extends his powers and in which his ever growing perfectibility is to be found.
Possession makes one passive, indolent and proud.
If god were to hold all truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left only the steady and diligent drive for truth with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process and to offer me the choice, I would , with all humility, take the left hand.
Gotthold Lessing (1778)
Man's relativity has absolutely nothing to do with the universal absolute truth, just for the record!
Something you would do well to heed.
The true value of a man is not determined by his possession, supposed or real, of truth, but rather by his sincere exertion to get to the truth.
It is not possession of truth but the pursuit of truth by which he extends his powers and in which his ever growing perfectibility is to be found.
Possession makes one passive, indolent and proud.
If god were to hold all truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left only the steady and diligent drive for truth with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process and to offer me the choice, I would , with all humility, take the left hand.
Gotthold Lessing (1778)
Great, but what you and Lance have failed to understand is that I have never claimed that I know anything other than all is knowable, eventually! To say that I know there is absolute truth, and to say that I know of all absolute truth, are two very distinctly different things. All I've said is that I know it exists.
So there is nothing in this quote of Gotthold Lessing's that I do not already know and understand. I shall be in the pursuit until the day I die. I know, that Rome wasn't built in a day, it's Lance that seems to want it all now, and believes it can be done. I know that's improbable, history is the evidence!
And by the way Gotthold Lessing's incorrect, at least in my case, as I'm indolent alright, yet it's more a factor of giving up, feeling whipped, and not that I feel I possess any real level of some grand truth. Other than as I get older my belief/trust in my fellow man, wains, directly proportional to my understanding of all the multitudes of ways of how selfish he actually is.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Man's relativity has absolutely nothing to do with the universal absolute truth, just for the record!
Something you would do well to heed.
The true value of a man is not determined by his possession, supposed or real, of truth, but rather by his sincere exertion to get to the truth.
It is not possession of truth but the pursuit of truth by which he extends his powers and in which his ever growing perfectibility is to be found.
Possession makes one passive, indolent and proud.
If god were to hold all truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left only the steady and diligent drive for truth with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process and to offer me the choice, I would , with all humility, take the left hand.
Gotthold Lessing (1778)
Great, but what you and Lance have failed to understand is that I have never claimed that I know anything other than all is knowable, eventually! To say that I know there is absolute truth, and to say that I know of all absolute truth, are two very distinctly different things. All I've said is that I know it exists.
And that is exactly why we have both challenged your thinking.
You cannot know a thing exists, and have no knowledge of that thing.
The fact is that you pretend to 'know', what you cannot.
So there is nothing in this quote of Gotthold Lessing's that I do not already know and understand. I shall be in the pursuit until the day I die. I know, that Rome wasn't built in a day, it's Lance that seems to want it all now, and believes it can be done. I know that's improbable, history is the evidence!
That is contrary to the evidence of your posts.
And by the way Gotthold Lessing's incorrect, at least in my case, as I'm indolent alright, yet it's more a factor of giving up, feeling whipped, and not that I feel I possess any real level of some grand truth.
Try to have some humility. Lessing was not talking about you. You might think you are godlike, but that does not mean you are god. Where Lessing is bang on about people like you is the pride.
Other than as I get older my belief/trust in my fellow man, wains, directly proportional to my understanding of all the multitudes of ways of how selfish he actually is.
You still have failed to account for your claim that absolute truth exist. Where does it exist?
chaz wyman wrote:
Something you would do well to heed.
The true value of a man is not determined by his possession, supposed or real, of truth, but rather by his sincere exertion to get to the truth.
It is not possession of truth but the pursuit of truth by which he extends his powers and in which his ever growing perfectibility is to be found.
Possession makes one passive, indolent and proud.
If god were to hold all truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left only the steady and diligent drive for truth with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process and to offer me the choice, I would , with all humility, take the left hand.
Gotthold Lessing (1778)
Great, but what you and Lance have failed to understand is that I have never claimed that I know anything other than all is knowable, eventually! To say that I know there is absolute truth, and to say that I know of all absolute truth, are two very distinctly different things. All I've said is that I know it exists.
And that is exactly why we have both challenged your thinking.
You cannot know a thing exists, and have no knowledge of that thing.
The fact is that you pretend to 'know', what you cannot. I don't see the absolute truth as one distinct thing. The absolute truth can be found in one singular thing and quite possibly in a Googolplex and beyond to infinity of other things and all together they equate to the absolute universal truth. And the reason I know there is an absolute universal truth is because we are of the universe and we know some of the absolute truths that are closest to our humanity.
So there is nothing in this quote of Gotthold Lessing's that I do not already know and understand. I shall be in the pursuit until the day I die. I know, that Rome wasn't built in a day, it's Lance that seems to want it all now, and believes it can be done. I know that's improbable, history is the evidence!
That is contrary to the evidence of your posts. Then I submit that since the beginning, as Lance was smart enough to deduce, it is that there exists a communication gap that is both a product of our slightly different dialects, i.e., English and American, and the limited textual format of our discussions, seeing as how neither of us nor any others for that matter, has composed and posted his/her dissertation. not that I'd necessarily want to wade through one.
And by the way Gotthold Lessing's incorrect, at least in my case, as I'm indolent alright, yet it's more a factor of giving up, feeling whipped, and not that I feel I possess any real level of some grand truth.
Try to have some humility. Lessing was not talking about you. You might think you are godlike, but that does not mean you are god. Where Lessing is bang on about people like you is the pride. You see, this attitude of yours is uncalled for, such that now I believe a payback is required, so "he's speaking to an audience that doesn't have a comprehension deficit such as yourself." Did you like that? Try giveing people the benefit of the doubt for a change. It would seem that your biggest problem is that you jump to conclusions about another to quickly, before their meaning is fully understood, who deserves that crap! Because I see that he's generalizing about us humans and thus is talking about everyone, or rather that he sees that this particualar epiphany of his applies to all men. And since you proposed that I needed to consider it, I stated that I'm well aware and that it does not apply, in it's totality, the thing as to pride could be said about you as well, and I would say that it could be said about anyone that takes knowledge seriously.
Other than as I get older my belief/trust in my fellow man, wains, directly proportional to my understanding of all the multitudes of ways of how selfish he actually is.
You still have failed to account for your claim that absolute truth exist. Where does it exist? Like I said in the beginning, It's everywhere, man only has to unveil it.
Look in the mirror Chaz, we both seem to be hard headed, but that doesn't mean that we should take pot shots at each other as I means of releasing frustration. And who started it doesn't really have to be explored, as we both know all about it.
Are you envious of my pseudonym? All it is, is a result of a conversation I had with a fellow classmate of philosophy. We had been talking about something of the universe, I've forgotten exactly what it was, but he offered 'yin & yang' as that of what he had supposed I would have answered. Later upon considering his supposition, I had an epiphany, that I thought was enlightening and Spheres of Balance was born. No big deal, just a relative parallel on three fronts. The funny thing is that Ron de Weijze had said something in Bills truth thread that caused me to catch a glimpse of a further depth of meaning. Unfortunately, I was in the middle of dealing with you so I neglected to entertain it such to refine it so as to make it a part of it's meaning. That probably shall make you happy, assuming that winning at your own private war, is all you really care about. Of course I could be wrong about you.