Does This Make Sense?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Foghorn.
quote you.
"Its got fuck-all to do with 'winning' anything, its about having a chat with those who have differing philosophical opinions."

You apparently see the causal as external, while I see it as internal, what could be said about each individual, due to their particular perspective?

The denial of the absolute, thus the acceptance of the relative, amongst humans, is for the sake of the ego alone. It divides, thus chaos ensues, it is of selfishness, and breeds all ill will, It is so we can feel good in the face of our selfishness, as both camps agree, at least, that we are of one origin, as those of true wisdom then finally see the contradiction, indeed! Too Few!! As yet the selfishness moves on to embrace its inevitable self destruction, it does not wait, we, in our relative self appeasement, create it. The 'win' is in the understanding, of the absolute facts, just presented. And the 'win' is for all, as the spheres that bind, would finally be in balance!

Edit: Grammar/Spelling

[Bill Wiltrack]

.












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










.

[SpheresOfBalance]

.












...................................................................http://i.imgur.com/GVUwS.gif










.

Yet I see that Mr. Van Der Beek's expression is a bit too smug for such a topic. Extreme 'Humility' is the proper expression for this particular understanding.

[SpheresOfBalance]

.



You are right...Again.




.

Actually, I'll accept no accolade, as for me, it is only to be found in the balance as realized through the understanding of the masses.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Well played.


Actually I thought that you would feel that way so I went back and deleted that post.








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








.

[Arising_uk]

That's what I said, 'philosophy is everywhere.' ,,,

No, its not. Things to philosophise about are everywhere including the news but little philosophy is shown pretty much anywhere.

to Bill, that's not exactly what I said. So you're saying that you don't think he brings anything, enough or what? He brings you to his table quite a lot. Why have you made it your mission to ensure that he brings the amount that you feel is necessary? Whose expectations does Bill really have to live up to? Why not let him be comfortable in bringing as much as he brings when he brings it? Like I said, 'It would be nice if he brought more,' but I've accepted him for what he is, because largely he's not a mean person. He's got flaws like us all. The only time I'm aware of, that he was a bit nasty, was with BB, and her demise, but if I remember correctly, he regretted it, a good man. [/size]

So one can do nasty things but as long as one regrets it thats good? You have a strange view of "good".

What I am saying is that Bill by his own admission is here to play psychological games with others and views things by hit points rather than content(take a look at his internut history). He steadfastly refuses to engage in any discussion of his thoughts and upon a philosophy forum I find this irritating. Its not about comfort and I have no issue with him posting but this is a philosophy forum and as such I respond to his posts where he makes obvious contradictions and where there are obvious philosophical and logical errors.

Do you assume you know on which side of the argument Bill stands? If he's ever stated it clearly, I don't remember reading it. Are you saying that Bill has, in fact, contributed to the killing of Rhinos?

I've already apologised to him for forgetting that he stated that he completely understands that it makes perfect sense to kill the rhino for its horn. I guess that makes me a good man.

I think there is some major wisdom in what you just said, do you believe that you fully understand it? As I believe that if you had, you would still be one, or maybe not. Because I can see a lesson contained within, that would probably make our current conversation irrelevant.

Of course I fully understand it as I'd not have made the decision in the first place.

I'm just wondering why I'm sensing antagonism. I won't be mean about it, but I see it otherwise. What were you and I just talking about, as to communication, and it's inherent ambiguities as to ones intent, versus how it's received? Do you think it can be applied here, in any way? Where does the responsibility lie? They say it takes two to tango. When do the hands meet? Who leads, and how does leading actually appear? Can leading be seen, in the following?

Any antagonism you sense is within yourself. For myself its irritation at best.

You call me arrogant, and yet I see, that it does not wait, but instead, we create. You apparently see the causal as external, while I see it as internal, what could be said about each individual, due to their particular perspective? I have never given a date, as I know it's virtually impossible to do; could it be that you just project imminence, as to my meaning? imminent relative to what measure? Should one gorge their mouth with solid fat and pure sugar, just to the point of a massive coronary, before abstaining? And for the sake of what? Gorging? And 'might' anything else happen, instead, in addition? But I see that saving another species, is alleviating my, so called, fellow mans condition.

How is it alleviating your fellow mans condition? Why are they "so called"?

If you don't think theres any imminence then I fail to see what the issue is? As in the end all will die or go extinct.

[SpheresOfBalance]

That's what I said, 'philosophy is everywhere.' ,,,

No, its not. Things to philosophise about are everywhere including the news but little philosophy is shown pretty much anywhere.
That's what I said, "philosophy is everywhere." It is not a thing, it is the process of consideration, but first one must have something to consider, anywhere you find reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language there is philosophy, I never said it was necessarily good philosophy.

to Bill, that's not exactly what I said. So you're saying that you don't think he brings anything, enough or what? He brings you to his table quite a lot. Why have you made it your mission to ensure that he brings the amount that you feel is necessary? Whose expectations does Bill really have to live up to? Why not let him be comfortable in bringing as much as he brings when he brings it? Like I said, 'It would be nice if he brought more,' but I've accepted him for what he is, because largely he's not a mean person. He's got flaws like us all. The only time I'm aware of, that he was a bit nasty, was with BB, and her demise, but if I remember correctly, he regretted it, a good man. [/size]

So one can do nasty things but as long as one regrets it thats good? You have a strange view of "good".
That's what you just said, not I.

What I am saying is that Bill by his own admission is here to play psychological games with others and views things by hit points rather than content(take a look at his internut history). He steadfastly refuses to engage in any discussion of his thoughts and upon a philosophy forum I find this irritating. Its not about comfort and I have no issue with him posting but this is a philosophy forum and as such I respond to his posts where he makes obvious contradictions and where there are obvious philosophical and logical errors.
So says you, who are you to hold him to your expectations? He initiates threads for people to consider, I don't see an issue. Again, it would be nice to hear more from him, but that's his way, for now. To me it seems that you believe that philosophy is all about arguments, it's not. And when you can't get him to engage you, as you 'want,' you get frustrated and pick at him. Since you haven't been successful in getting Bill 'your' way, I believe that you search for his new threads, just so you can mess with him, your idea of fun. I think it's you that has a warped since of good.

Do you assume you know on which side of the argument Bill stands? If he's ever stated it clearly, I don't remember reading it. Are you saying that Bill has, in fact, contributed to the killing of Rhinos?

I've already apologised to him for forgetting that he stated that he completely understands that it makes perfect sense to kill the rhino for its horn. I guess that makes me a good man.
Where is this statement of 'perfect sense' of his? What page of this thread? I would like to see if I concur, with your appraisal. Were you good for apologizing for a wrong committed? Of course, but that hardly makes you a good man, across the board, you do realize I was speaking of that one act, right?

I think there is some major wisdom in what you just said, do you believe that you fully understand it? As I believe that if you had, you would still be one, or maybe not. Because I can see a lesson contained within, that would probably make our current conversation irrelevant.

Of course I fully understand it as I'd not have made the decision in the first place.
Well I'm pretty sure you don't.

I'm just wondering why I'm sensing antagonism. I won't be mean about it, but I see it otherwise. What were you and I just talking about, as to communication, and it's inherent ambiguities as to ones intent, versus how it's received? Do you think it can be applied here, in any way? Where does the responsibility lie? They say it takes two to tango. When do the hands meet? Who leads, and how does leading actually appear? Can leading be seen, in the following?

Any antagonism you sense is within yourself. For myself its irritation at best.
No you missed it, you are the antagonist, of course I guess you are an irritation as well. But that was not the most important part of the above. I guess the depth of your being as to fear, and truth lies with your choice of discourse.

You call me arrogant, and yet I see, that it does not wait, but instead, we create. You apparently see the causal as external, while I see it as internal, what could be said about each individual, due to their particular perspective? I have never given a date, as I know it's virtually impossible to do; could it be that you just project imminence, as to my meaning? imminent relative to what measure? Should one gorge their mouth with solid fat and pure sugar, just to the point of a massive coronary, before abstaining? And for the sake of what? Gorging? And 'might' anything else happen, instead, in addition? But I see that saving another species, is alleviating my, so called, fellow mans condition.

How is it alleviating your fellow mans condition? Why are they "so called"?
I've already explained, reread if you care too, I care not to reiterate that which was clear enough the first time. You can be extremely trying, on purpose, I believe.

If you don't think theres any imminence then I fail to see what the issue is? As in the end all will die or go extinct.
After your reading the above and not getting it, I can't see where further explanation will do any good. I think you pretend to ignore ones words, so as to ask that which has already been stated, so as to wear down your opponent with discourse of unrequired repetition. It's really not that important that you don't get it, as I'm confident others shall.

[Hjarloprillar]

Foghorn.
quote you.
"Its got fuck-all to do with 'winning' anything, its about having a chat with those who have differing philosophical opinions."

You apparently see the causal as external, while I see it as internal, what could be said about each individual, due to their particular perspective?

The denial of the absolute.

Only he Sith speak in absolutes.

It's not often that you meet someone who quotes themself.

You made the short list
Ps
Ones perspectve is not on internal but external. Ergo you admit objective.That objective resulted in your birth.
That pretty fucking objective dude, and causal. It HAd to happen objectively for you to say it was subjective. lol...

[Hjarloprillar]

Ps..

I was away.. Tonight im hunting dragons in Skyrym.
talk again soon.

Look forward to it.
p.s.
Get a BIG bow and wicked arrows.

In Skyrym..
+80 Glass bow with 30 shock brings dragon to ground at less than 33% health.. use shout Target.. then move in with glass waraxe and good shield.. its over in seconds.
At 3rd replay im at Lvl 40 an can defeat common or garden dragons in under a minute. One was even taken down by Lydia.. my house carl.. I armored her up to obsidian with major health buffs
to armor. But elder dragons can be a bitch.

Lord Vaako
Skyrym [yes stolen from Riddick]

[SpheresOfBalance]

Foghorn.
quote you.
"Its got fuck-all to do with 'winning' anything, its about having a chat with those who have differing philosophical opinions."

You apparently see the causal as external, while I see it as internal, what could be said about each individual, due to their particular perspective?

The denial of the absolute.

Only he Sith speak in absolutes.
Yes I too believed in fairy tales and fiction, once a looong time ago.


It's not often that you meet someone who quotes themself.
Only sometimes for the dense that miss it the first time, just being helpful.


You made the short list
Thank You! I feel much better now.

Ps
Ones perspectve is not on internal but external. Ergo you admit objective.That objective resulted in your birth.
That pretty fucking objective dude, and causal. It HAd to happen objectively for you to say it was subjective. lol...

It was over your head, but it was to be expected!

I would appreciate it if you did as you said you would, and not confront me, as I really don't want to contribute to your illness. I hate arguing with someone that is sick. I'm being serious. I actually forgot, at first, that you were, now I feel guilty.

[Hjarloprillar]

It was over your head, but it was to be expected!
I would appreciate it if you did as you said you would, and not confront me, as I really don't want to contribute to your illness. I hate arguing with someone that is sick. I'm being serious. I actually forgot, at first, that you were, now I feel guilty. [/quote]

I feel so much safer now knowing you are doing the heavy thinking. And i can think of faeries and unicorns and happy flights on wings of imagination.
One day. Perhaps on wrong side of river styx. We will meet.

I am i'll, yes in societies eyes i am.
Sick, [and tired].
So sick i cannot find any emotion for our current conversation. [being moderately aspie helps]
So. you go in bin with creationists and die hard pacifists.

Have a good life.

Prill

[SpheresOfBalance]

It was over your head, but it was to be expected!
I would appreciate it if you did as you said you would, and not confront me, as I really don't want to contribute to your illness. I hate arguing with someone that is sick. I'm being serious. I actually forgot, at first, that you were, now I feel guilty.

I feel so much safer now knowing you are doing the heavy thinking. And i can think of faeries and unicorns and happy flights on wings of imagination.
One day. Perhaps on wrong side of river styx. We will meet.

I am i'll, yes in societies eyes i am.
Sick, [and tired].
So sick i cannot find any emotion for our current conversation. [being moderately aspie helps]
So. you go in bin with creationists and die hard pacifists.

Have a good life.

Prill[/quote]
You have thought that I'm being disingenuous when I say that I feel different when remembering your C plight while talking to you. It would seem that you like a lot of people largely see dissension/sarcasm/lies when some people extend a hand as if they actually know you, are a close friend. I merely need take ones plight and imagine it's mine, to understand that I'd want compassion from others when faced with the belief that you have to face. I know that the mode in which I respond to you, in this case, to you, is probably all wrong, but understand, that when I tell you to eat nothing but fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, herbs and spices, it's because I KNOW that it shall extend your life, and possibly cure you, depending what variety you have and what stage you're in, especially if you do research as to which varieties of the above foods, are specifically, helpful, in your particular case. Make no mistake, there are a lot of things I don't know, but this isn't one of them. Also biofeedback in conjunction, can also aid in the likelihood of success. This is no cheap shot, I take life seriously.

Sorry, but when I go, I know that I shall just rot and decay, you may live on, and cross the river Styx, or pass through the pearly gates, but I shall forever sleep, the sleep of no dreaming. In addition, if we were to meet, under such conditions, things would be different for me, as I would soar the astral plane, not cognizant of any rivers or gates.

FYI, not that you necessarily care, but I have Morrowind and Oblivion, with Skyrim in the cue. It is indeed better to fight an imaginary foe, than a real one. As a biofeedback measure, I'd imagine that I was in fact, attacking the center of my C, as I played the game, and I'd play everyday. Between that, and the foods above, I know I'd be victorious, as I have done no great harm to anyone, on purpose, or even by accident. MIT, in the early eighties, spoke of psychosomatic C. In their findings, I see extreme guilt as a factor, hence what I told you last week, i.e., to know that you don't deserve it.

This isn't about right and wrong, it's about life and death. Let me know how you wish you and I to proceed, as your wish is my command, though no one shall ever, contain me.

[Hjarloprillar]

is that some sort of skewiff 'im sorry'?

I have said i do not hate.
I also do not hold a grudge.
life is too short for small games like that.

What say you. pumpkin?

Nikos of Sparta [My birth name is Nikos]
Hjarloprillar is from Nivens 'ringworld series.
Chosen because no-one else had it so no 'Hjarloprillar 124' Luweewu is another but now corrupted becauae i used it 5 years back.
Luweewu 27.
Funny that it is popular with fems.like Cellar door

[Arising_uk]

That's what I said, "philosophy is everywhere." It is not a thing, it is the process of consideration, but first one must have something to consider, anywhere you find reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language there is philosophy, I never said it was necessarily good philosophy.

Then I think your sentence should have been "There are subjects to philosophize about everywhere" or "Everything can be a subject of philosophy".

That's what you just said, not I.

... The only time I'm aware of, that he was a bit nasty, was with BB, and her demise, but if I remember correctly, he regretted it, a good man.

So says you, who are you to hold him to your expectations? He initiates threads for people to consider, I don't see an issue. Again, it would be nice to hear more from him, but that's his way, for now. To me it seems that you believe that philosophy is all about arguments, it's not. And when you can't get him to engage you, as you 'want,' you get frustrated and pick at him. Since you haven't been successful in getting Bill 'your' way, I believe that you search for his new threads, just so you can mess with him, your idea of fun. I think it's you that has a warped since of good.

Nope, if you check you'll see that I only engage with his threads where I see a contradiction or blatant bollocks.

I don't hold him to my expectations, I express my thoughts upon his posts. I've repeatedly said that he's free to post what he likes and I have no issue with it.

I do have a personal issue with those who post on a philosophy forum without having read any of those we call the philosophers and with those who express pride in being anti-intellectual and uneducated in this way but still think they can comment upon the subject from such a position but am realistic enough to understand that in this medium theres bugger-all I can do about it other than express my opinion.

Where is this statement of 'perfect sense' of his? What page of this thread? I would like to see if I concur, with your appraisal. Were you good for apologizing for a wrong committed? Of course, but that hardly makes you a good man, across the board, you do realize I was speaking of that one act, right?

Bottom of page one and the following three posts.

You sound confused now? As you said a good man is someone who apologises, nothing about it being a one time thing.

Well I'm pretty sure you don't.

Care to say why?

No you missed it, you are the antagonist, of course I guess you are an irritation as well. But that was not the most important part of the above. I guess the depth of your being as to fear, and truth lies with your choice of discourse.

And how your discourse often goes says what about you?

For someone who oft quotes Socrates(although I suspect this is all you've read about him) I'm surprised you think questions an issue as Socrates was apparently known as a gadfly to those who thought themselves philosophers and all he did was ask them questions as he knew he knew nothing and knew enough to know that from this position a question is what is required.

I've already explained, reread if you care too, I care not to reiterate that which was clear enough the first time. You can be extremely trying, on purpose, I believe.

And this is why I think many are not suited to philosophy as they wish others to agree without being clear about their own thoughts. So do you or do you not think the issue is an imminent one? If its not then how far in the the future does something have to be before it stops being an issue for the present? If you say never then although I'd think you naive at least I'd understand the despair I hear in many of your words.

After your reading the above and not getting it, I can't see where further explanation will do any good. I think you pretend to ignore ones words, so as to ask that which has already been stated, so as to wear down your opponent with discourse of unrequired repetition. It's really not that important that you don't get it, as I'm confident others shall.

Fair enough, as I think this about my words too. It's not pretence, its to do with this being a philosophy forum and clarity of thoughts. Like I've said, the meaning of ones words is the response they get, I'd also add that if asked to repeat an explanation then doing it differently might be better than just saying the same thing again and it shows that one understands what they are talking about.

[artisticsolution]

I've already explained, reread if you care too, I care not to reiterate that which was clear enough the first time. You can be extremely trying, on purpose, I believe.

And this is why I think many are not suited to philosophy as they wish others to agree without being clear about their own thoughts. So do you or do you not think the issue is an imminent one? If its not then how far in the the future does something have to be before it stops being an issue for the present? If you say never then although I'd think you naive at least I'd understand the despair I hear in many of your words.

After your reading the above and not getting it, I can't see where further explanation will do any good. I think you pretend to ignore ones words, so as to ask that which has already been stated, so as to wear down your opponent with discourse of unrequired repetition. It's really not that important that you don't get it, as I'm confident others shall.

Fair enough, as I think this about my words too. It's not pretence, its to do with this being a philosophy forum and clarity of thoughts. Like I've said, the meaning of ones words is the response they get, I'd also add that if asked to repeat an explanation then doing it differently might be better than just saying the same thing again and it shows that one understands what they are talking about.

I have to admit..that when I first came to this forum I think I read you wrong arising. I don't know what it was...I heard hostility in your voice instead of "i'm just saying is all".

I could not pin point it...I mean there were small things...things like "yanks" and such...but nothing to get riled about as I put down Americans too sometimes.

But then something changed...and I decided that how I read you may be my problem. That maybe I was afraid to have my ideas challenged. It was kinda embarrassing. To be wrong was not something I enjoyed...it made me cringe a little. I don't know why....it just seemed very personal...unlike making a math mistake in a test....it was more like the humiliation of making a math mistake at the chalkboard in front of the entire class.

Anyway, that was just at first, then I learned that is what philosophy is all about. It is about embarrassing yourself in front of others...lol. Ya kinda get used to it...actually I kinda like it now...only because I get bored thinking the same thing...and if someone comes along to give you something else to think about...well...that's awesome! SO now I read you as someone who is well read and shares ideas in order that someone may possibly come back with a good argument to think about....not to have others agree all the time.

I think the problem is that everyone wants to be an authority and I don't think philosophy isn't geared that way. Even the best philosophers have their work questioned. From what I have seen, philosophers tell how they got from a to b in great detail.