reasonvemotion wrote:SOB, I know which post you are referring to. Yep, you are right. Gender intuition spot on!
Not another one! If I remember right you posted a picture of your supposed self and as such it just goes to prove that amongst males and females this 'gender intution' thing and 'intution' per se is bollocks in this medium and more a product of self-conceit and culture.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Tue May 29, 2012 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
I have a copy of your actual conversation where you mention your name and the body text is also revealing as to your sex, dipshit! What an imbecile you are.
Mind pasting it? I am interested to see how revealing it is
So would I. Lets see it. But if its that one you posted earlier don't bother as you can't read sarcasm and irony when its write large with emoticons.
If I remember right you posted a picture of your supposed self
"Supposed self"! I had the same conversation with the Ouzo guy. Male or Female and I obliged him with a picture, although he refused to publish one of himself. I have no issue in declaring I am a woman.
"Supposed self"! I had the same conversation with the Ouzo guy. Male or Female and I obliged him with a picture, although he refused to publish one of himself. I give him credit though for not supplying a phoney one.
It was not a "supposed self". It was the "real self". That is not right to accuse people of fraud. Words just fall out of your mouth so carelessly. ...
Unlike you and your 'gender intuition', no, they don't. As in this medium what guarantee or proof can one have that your picture is you, other than trust. As such I tend to trust but given your support for this magical 'intution' that you share with SOB I thought I'd make a point and be philosophically precise.
BTW the same picture is on my facebook. ...
Which means what? Nonces live upon Facebook as well. Its why I've always taught my kids from a young age the equivalent of the dirty-old man with sweeties rules, in that whilst I will allow them the freedom and licence of the Internet they should keep the image of a fat, smelly, middle-aged man in a vest when chatting to their new bestest 'friends' who wish to meet them.
I think we should call it quits and move on to the next discussion.
Fine by me. Lets hope it doesn't start with another inane observation about me by you.
I think this is my first post to you one on one and as usual I am retaliating to an unfounded opinion of myself. So chill out for five minutes, take a breath and say nothing for one minute. Can you do that?
lancek4 wrote:I'm glad that we have developed a good discussion here but some of the posts are so insanely long, it prohibits me from catching up, being that I dispise reading at length through a computer screen.
Nevertheless, from what I have gleaned -
N reduces existence to an 'unwilled' basis that stems from and reaches 'beyond good and evil ' , beyond morality. Unwilled is that of stars, planets and asteroids, Man has a computer called a brain and thus it is IMPOSSIBLE for anything he considers to be unwilled, in the considering their is will.
Thus truth, being founded only upon an ethical scheme, Good and Evil and an ethical scheme are one in the same thing.
his readers should have the fortitude to have made this 'unwilled' move to reàlly understand him. Incorrect, because it's impossible for any human to do this, everyone brings preconceived ideas to the table, or their will, if you will. he he he!
Thus N is speaking from an unjustified or totally justified position that can only be truely known by one who is not looking for or from the morally informed position that argues the transcending object of truth. Incorrect, he himself said: "A new conscience for truths that have kept silent until now." as to what his "Anti-Christ" brings to the table.
Such a reader has no 'idols', no illusion of objective truth to be gained, for this possibility has been removed in the unwilled move itself. I have absolutely no idols either yet I find T A-C 2 to be evil, bad, incorrect, ethically wrong, etc. No such thing as an unwilled move, the move itself would be willed, as would every consideration from that willed perspective. Every perspective is willed. "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
The reason N position is no longer ( if it ever was ) solute is because the object has achieved dominion. The relative equalizing movement of capitalism has eliminated the need for the subject, thus the true object is realized in the common goal of human equality.
This is the same dialectic that K uses to discuss Abraham in 'fear and trembling'. The point is that there Is a teleological suspension, but the move of the transcending true object denies this suspension. So K asks of faith, and asserts that no one had the faith of Abraham; indeed they all have the faith of Issac.
As I have said else where a few times: sob, you and I are like two sides of a coin. The above postings. ( yours and mine) are evidence of this - and are perfect examples of N proposition (ironically). The evidence is consistent with the fact that you do not see this. Anyone can deny anything by simply issuing a blanket statement, saying that it's not true, so what? It's meaningless! Everything I said above in red is true! If truly not, you'd be capable of addressing each individual statement above any telling me why it's not true, the reason you don't is because you can't.
When you pick up his book that's will, as you train your eyes that's will, as you move your eyes from left to right, top to bottom that's will, when you see any connection at all contained withing the combination of words, that's willed, as you had to first learn each and every word, which was a product of will, with human beings 'everything they do is willed. You cannot detach yourself from will. You simply willed that he is good and that you'd believe, because he is a philosopher, he is considered a part of the curriculum. And I did too, initially, until I saw section 2, I like you had willed that I would read him and that I would certainly learn from him, that I would like him, as he was a great thinker of philosophy, until he said that the 'weak should perish and that we should help them do so.' In other words until he said to kill the weak, the weak being christians, There are absolutely no circumstance where I'd will killing, intellectually speaking, which is what this book is supposed to stimulate, the intellect! Emotionally distraught I may will such things, but intellectually, never. Section 2 is short and nothing contained within it alludes to his meaning as anything other than the exact meaning of the words. If you can find a passage in the book that alludes to any other particular meaning, point it out. I am "WILLING" to reconsider.
"Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action." --Wikipedia--
You are object oriented, positioned in a world of true objects. Every statement you make reveals this. And the fact that you deny this, the fact that you see the infinite universe reflected or manifest in our potential for knowing, defacto relegated you to the universal in the kierkegaardian sense.
What you say is mumbo jumbo, you believe in fairy tales, your words are those of the superstitious, you see pink elephants in the sky. All of Science sees the true object as that's all there is, in that all there is are objects, and when you die and no longer exist as at true object that you in fact are, the truth will become apparent, albeit a bit too late!
You fail to understand the issue because you have no problem with the true object. It is your faith; the faith of Issac. No yours is the faith if Issac, as you believe in invisible things, I, like the men of science believe in the true object, what is real. Einstein, Sagan, Da Vinci, Galileo and Hawking, to name a few, believe in the true object, I'm in good company!
I'll prove it, if objects are not true, in and of them selves, and are merely subjective as to ones mind. Make my car fly! Come on, in your ridiculously small mind, of invisible subjectivity, make my car fly, you can't because the object is true, in and of itself! No matter what any pea brain can subjectively say about that car, it still functions EXACTLY as the true object, that in fact it is, no faith is required. PERIOD!!!!!
reasonvemotion wrote:I think this is my first post to you one on one and as usual I am retaliating to an unfounded opinion of myself. So chill out for five minutes, take a breath and say nothing for one minute. Can you do that?
Why? I'm not stressed. Given that it was your unfounded opinion of me that started the post I'd look for the mote in ones own eye.
By the way, although I understand the reasons, what is there to be proud about when you've had no hand in the matter. Now transsexuals probably have a reason to be proud otherwise its more of this nonsense 'battle of the sexes'.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:...No yours is the faith if Issac, as you believe in invisible things, I, like the men of science believe in the true object, what is real. Einstein, Sagan, Da Vinci, Galileo and Hawking, to name a few, believe in the true object, I'm in good company!
Hysterical! Given that Physics long-ago abandoned the concept of Truth for the Probably True and openly admit that they believe in invisible things.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:... Because it's stupid enough to attribute it's reasons, for things I've said, when in fact all that I've said to it, was aimed at it, and no one else, just it! But instead would rather use my aim at it, as a ploy of support from others, what a pathetic little looser it is. You can twist and turn and squirm, but it was you and only you, in my frying pan bitch! Call for help, call for help, quick, quick, I can't do this on my own, arising screams! I prefer mob rule as alone I'm nothing, let me appeal to all groups for support. I'm surprised it doesn't try and elicit support from blacks, Serbs, Russians, police, god! Cry out if you will, but your all on your own, it's just you and I.
LMFAO! And I've only ever replied to you!
It wasn't me who used others to judge me, you did. It wasn't me who appealed to the forum to judge me a liar, you did. It wasn't me who talked about how I treat others, you did. It wasn't me who brought my conversations with others into the frame, you did. But now you are saying what you say is not what you think!? All-in-all you are a big emotional girls blouse.
Apparently it was above your head as usual, you only see what your limited mind can and it's only that which you've already decided, your's is a cookie cutter approach, If you see an atom that is similar between a steel auto that I have referenced and a plastic rattle that you have lying around in your vault of preconception, you tell me and everyone else that I spoke of rattles, You're a fool lost in your own make believe world of Kim.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Apparently it was above your head as usual, you only see what your limited mind can and it's only that which you've already decided, your's is a cookie cutter approach, If you see an atom that is similar between a steel auto that I have referenced and a plastic rattle that you have lying around in your vault of preconception, you tell me and everyone else that I spoke of rattles, You're a fool lost in your own make believe world of Kim.
LMFAO! The bulk of your words were invective aimed at me with some psycho-babble aim in mind. What I mainly do is ask you to clarify what you say as I'm not a mind-reader. That you continually fail to do so and often go off on some paranoid emotional rant leads me to believe you basically don't know what you talk about, something you clearly stated in another post is the the case.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Tue May 29, 2012 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:...No yours is the faith if Issac, as you believe in invisible things, I, like the men of science believe in the true object, what is real. Einstein, Sagan, Da Vinci, Galileo and Hawking, to name a few, believe in the true object, I'm in good company!
Hysterical! Given that Physics long-ago abandoned the concept of Truth for the Probably True and openly admit that they believe in invisible things.
You're an idiot, as you do not understand the significance of time.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Apparently it was above your head as usual, you only see what your limited mind can and it's only that which you've already decided, your's is a cookie cutter approach, If you see an atom that is similar between a steel auto that I have referenced and a plastic rattle that you have lying around in your vault of preconception, you tell me and everyone else that I spoke of rattles, You're a fool lost in your own make believe world of Kim.
LMFAO! The bulk of your words were invective aimed at me with some psycho-babble aim in mind. What I mainly do is ask you to clarify what you say as I'm not a mind-reader. That you continually fail to do so and often go off on some paranoid emotional rant leads me to believe you basically don't know what you talk about, something you clearly stated in another post is the the case.
Again you've gotten instances confused, you don't know what you're talking about of which I refer. As usual you argue with yourself!
SpheresOfBalance wrote:You're an idiot, as you do not understand the significance of time.
Please explain then and while you're at it explain 'Time'.
Now the dumb ploy, you couldn't be real if your life depended on it. You think you're so damned intelligent, yet as to my meaning I see you continually spinning around in circles chasing your tail.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Again you've gotten instances confused, you don't know what you're talking about of which I refer. As usual you argue with yourself!
Then learn to use the quote function correctly or make yourself clearly understood, as I can only reply to what I see. I can't second-guess what post you thought you were referring too, only the one that you quote.
Not another one! 
If I remember right you posted a picture of your supposed self and as such it just goes to prove that amongst males and females this 'gender intution' thing and 'intution' per se is bollocks in this medium and more a product of self-conceit and culture.
