~~~ Prostitutes for God ~~~

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





Philosophically, we just look at things differently.


For example, you seem to like to take fellow members' own words, directly quote them, and then attack those words.

That's just not productive.

It's easy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. But it's NOT philosophy.

It's NOT productive.


It's not even interesting.


Try accepting others statements and ingrain yourself to what you see. BUILD upon thoughts that are honestly articulated here upon the Philosophy Now Forums.


I'm not saying what you do is wrong. It actually is necessary in a way. But YOU have like 8,000 posts here and right now 0 credibility. You don't do philosophy anymore.


It was embarrassing to see you and another member call each other names. Repeatedly.







I said, I hope you feel better because you sound sick.


You are not the same person that you were when you started here.




You started out as a philosopher. Somehow, whatever you are doing has changed you. Not in a good way.



All the best to you.



I hope you, and all of us, get better.






.

[bobevenson]

Let's see, I think it's a marriage made in heaven....or maybe Hell, I'm not sure.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



OK. That was perfect.


Thanks for breaking the mood...




.

[Arising_uk]

Philosophically, we just look at things differently. ...

Since I don't think you've read much philosophy I'm not surprised.

For example, you seem to like to take fellow members' own words, directly quote them, and then attack those words. ...

No, I quote the words of the fellow members in order to question or talk about them. That you think questions are "attacks" shows your unsuited fragility for the subject called Philosophy.

That's just not productive. ...

Yes it is or at least it would be if the other understood how to philosophize. The other options are that they don't like talking about their words because they don't actually know what they mean or they have an agenda.

It's easy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. But it's NOT philosophy. ...

Yes it is, its the clarification of whats being meant that allows for a constructive and maybe productive conversation. The productive part depends upon what outcomes the participants want.

It's NOT productive. ...

Yes it is.

It's not even interesting.

Says you.

Try accepting others statements and ingrain yourself to what you see. BUILD upon thoughts that are honestly articulated here upon the Philosophy Now Forums. ...

Is this why you got stuck at Ouspensky?

A large part of studying Philosophy is the trying on of others parts but just accepting and ingraining is faith not philosophy.

I'm not saying what you do is wrong. It actually is necessary in a way. But YOU have like 8,000 posts here and right now 0 credibility. You don't do philosophy anymore.

Who are you to judge? And why do you keep insisting that I have your need for 'credibility'?

Since you don't understand what I think Philosophy is I think your judgement in error as you can check any of my posts and note that I give what I get and what I generally give is an attempt at understanding by question, if that happens then I have a conversation.

It was embarrassing to see you and another member call each other names. Repeatedly.

You are easily affected by your emotions.

I said, I hope you feel better because you sound sick.

Save your platitudes for yourself, you need them.

You are not the same person that you were when you started here.

Who is? But you'll generally find that I'm consistent in my approach as I live my philosophy.

You started out as a philosopher. Somehow, whatever you are doing has changed you. Not in a good way.

Save your head-fucks for your shrinks.

All the best to you. ...

I hope you, and all of us, get better.

You are talking for yourself.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


I am an experiential philosopher.


We just look at things differently.



If there could be one thing that I could drive into you head...



................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................................it would be this.





.

[Arising_uk]

.


I am an experiential philosopher.

Once again you don't read the wiki links you give.

So this, "The learner must possess and use analytical skills to conceptualize the experience;", is philosophy and you appear to be unable to do this.

Oh! And 'learning from experience' as philosophy - C17th John Locke and many of the British Empiricists.

We just look at things differently.

No, we look the same at things, we just interpret them differently, if you interpret at all that is.

If there could be one thing that I could drive into you head...

... it would be this.

Keep your faux dominance and latent homosexuality for yourself.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







..................................................................









As I stated before to another poster...initially you may feel like the guy that taps-out in the above GIF.


But I set you free.



Free to speak about other things.

Free to explore & develop another philosophy.



Initially I had to tie you up tight.


But that's over now.



We respectfully shake hands and move on.






.

[bobevenson]

You keep reposting the same inane comments and pictures. Have you no shame???

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



If the post is effective it can be used upon many appropriate posters that are similar...



So far, the post has been effective.





.

[bobevenson]

Based on what???

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Well, based on you.



You now understand that all active members here know & understand that you do not believe in the philosophy that you have been expounding.

YOU have done NOTHING to actively promote the political philosophy that you have been , up until now, constantly been pushing on us.




Ya know, the more I think about it, I'm calling YOU out even more now.


I'm challenging you to run for a political office of your choice.


Regardless of any associated institutions that you have mentioned - YOU take command.


YOU run for an office - upon the political philosophies that you have developed.



YOU.



If you choose to run for something I will help you.


I'm sure other members here would do what they can to help you also.




If you don't choose to run for something you will FOREVER have zero credibility here.




You have no credibility now. None at all.


That's why you are unable to carry-on productive philosophical conversations with other members.


Your choice...





.

[bobevenson]

That's like telling Jesus Christ to run for mayor.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



So...you had your chance.



You are a complete phoney.






.........................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................Zero Credibility







.

[bobevenson]

Only a phony would mock somebody for taking a drink of water.

[Arising_uk]

Bill,
Are you ever going to address the questions and points I made about your 'thesis' statement in the OP? Or will you now admit that the statements were nonsense.

Or is this just another example of you emoting upon your weeb searches with no intent of thinking about them and using whatever site you can find to salve what ails you.

Oh! And can you not understand the irony of you accusing the boob of not standing upon his political 'platform' when you do not do the same?