~~~ Could You Sell EVERY Possession You Own? ~~~

[Bill Wiltrack]

.










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









.

[Lakin]

Yes Bill ,the Chicken has been dusted off , again.
He is now in retreat and in a state of (natural for him ) depression.
He will be seeing the doctor again on Monday to increase his medication dosage.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Lakin,

Language was never my strong suit as I believe aesthetics gets in the way of meaning. Like with this thread titled: "Could You Sell EVERY Possession You Own"

L:Nothing about the money in that title.

AS: True the word 'money' is not in the title, however, the word 'Sell' implies that money will be involved. If not for the "money" then it would be some other form of payment which the word "barter" would be more correct than the word "sell". But Bill didn't write 'barter', instead he wrote 'Sell' which implies money. I think you are mistaken to think money is not a possession. It is a tangible thing, the same as any other possession. Just because it is in a bank it is still a possession of the owner of the bank account. To possess cash on your person or in a bank account is still a possession because of the prestige that comes along with the ownership. A person with nothing is vulnerable. A person with nothing but a bank account which holds lots of money is not as vulnerable as he at least has the prestige and possible admiration of those around him for the abstract monetary sum. It is just common sense to know who would be the least vulnerable in our society. That is if you still want to make the case that:

L: It is a capital mistake to speculate without data.

AS: ....Which you were doing by inferring money is not a possession.

AS: Then you might want to rethink your words as the title of this thread does not stipulate what possessions:
L:
Again you fail on logic. The case is not disposing of all things which are classified as objects.
The case is not coveting possessions which are not necessarily needed for survival.

AS: It appears that you are the one who is fallible. How did you mistake Bill's, "Could you sell EVERY possession you own", into meaning 'coveted possessions' except necessary for survival? I don't think Bills title specified any specific 'possession.' I think you are reading too much into simple titles. It might help to read a little slower...I found that has always helped me in the past when things get a bit too confusing.

L:You need to chip away at meaning without drawing instant conclusions.

AS: Back atcha.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Well played...



Very well played.





.

[Arising_uk]

What illiterate verbiage you talk .
The last DUSTING OFF you had shows how you
have put your (pseudo) intellectual eggs all in one basket. Cluck Cluck .
The jury's verdict is below.

Pay attention! I say, I say, pay attention thar boy! And you'll see that I put my 'pseudo-intellectual' eggs into three different kettles of fish.

I thought you studied English not Photography?

DPhill my arse.

[Arising_uk]

Yes it is complete nonsense.

Why?

No, your accusation is that he is cobbling western and eastern philosophy together, which
is what Arthur Schopenhauer did ,which proves that Sunday School college does not
provide one with a rounded understanding of Philosophy,

You should use a full stop here.

Nope, Bill adds no western philosophy to his thoughts. Oh! Tell a lie, he says he's read some Ouspensky but on the whole he's just punting late 50's early 60's hippy 'eastern' mysticism.

Pray tell how an English student would know about a rounded understanding of philosophy?

You won't find me disagreeing with much of what you say about Schopenhauer but the difference is he didn't belittle knowing or reasoning nor western philosophy.

Why can he not talk about it as an aspiration or a future goal ?

He can and does, often. In fact he says he's been at it since his teens in an attempt to recreate some experience he had. So why can't I say that he'd be better off looking at and describing techniques? Why can't I say to all gnus that if it's enlightenment they wish then the Buddha has shown the way? And it's not talking about it.

Marcus Aurelius said exactly the same thing .

And if you'd listened to him you'd not be able to say anything about Schopenhauer.

It's clear that these qualifications were aspirations but you did not complete the course.

The bits of paper say otherwise.

Fantasist!You do not talk like someone who is educated. You talk like someone who
aspires to be educated.

What's up? Jealous?

I'll just have to take your word for this as I'm sure you know about such things.

I didn't ask you what qualifications you had I said you had none.

Much of a much with respect to my reply.

You started to bandy around qualifications .

You said I had none so I told you the ones I have. What I haven't done is introduce myself with them.

[Arising_uk]

...

Is there a better way I could have worded the original post or design my query into a more philosophical directive?
...

Not used question marks when you weren't seeking answers.

You could have tied the question to an emotion or state, e.g. happiness, contentment, misery, wise, etc, i.e. "Could you sell every possession you own and would this give(make)you ...?".

Most of all you could have given your opinion.

[Lakin]

Even the village idiot has an opinion, but ,would one engage the babble of the Village Idiot ?
I think not .

[duszek]

So what if Arising has no degree from Oxford or Cambridge ?

Even if he is a self-made man he can still produce good arguments and participate in a useful intellectual discussion and thus serve humanity.

Many amateurs have achieved a lot. In England there was a whole group of men trying out unusual things and they were called "lunatics". Perhaps it was Darwin the father of Charles.
Paul Nurse mentioned him in a lecture of his.

Nobody can be a universal expert. We are amateurs in most areas.

[Lakin]

So what if Arising has no degree from Oxford or Cambridge ?

Even if he is a self-made man he can still produce good arguments and participate in a useful intellectual discussion and thus serve humanity.

Many amateurs have achieved a lot. In England there was a whole group of men trying out unusual things and they were called "lunatics". Perhaps it was Darwin the father of Charles.
Paul Nurse mentioned him in a lecture of his.

Nobody can be a universal expert. We are amateurs in most areas.

You have missed the obvious point of the argument.
Unlike you, the Chicken thinks he is Socrates and he is posing as someone with a
Hons degree, in Philosophy and many other imaginary diplomas.
Also his arguments are illogical and plainly silly .
Also he makes fundamental errors ,such as not understanding Eastern Philosophy and
yet forming an argument, in which an understanding of Eastern Philosophy is central.
He is harassing Bill Wiltrack and not engaging in a good debate.

His arguments are childish and facile and he is clearly not someone with an Hons
degree in Philosophy.
Now this characterization is entirely different from the auto didactic person you
refer to.
The point here is the Chicken is someone with no qualifications and low self esteem
and he is using this forum to bully and harass so that he can exert control over the forum.

Argument and insult has its place on a forum but methodical harassment
is something else.
Look at this fools arguments.
They are child-like.
I think you need to start to think a bit deeper before you confuse the Chicken
with natural talent.

[duszek]

No qualifications and no self-esteem ?

Now you exaggerate.

He has some qualifications (with or without credetials) and he has some self-esteem.

This forum is supposed to allow people to increase their qualifications and their self-esteem by training on the job.

This forum is a sandpit for amateur philosophers. (That´s the idea behind Rick´s Magazine too, if I am not mistaken).

This forum is not an arena for the priviledged few, to bully normal people.

I am surprised that you consider yourself to be infinetely stronger and you attack a weaker one.
Is this the code of honour in Oxford nowadays ?

[Lakin]

"duszek"

Now you exaggerate.

You would know about that.

He has some qualifications (with or without credetials)(sic)

How do you get qualifications without credentials ?

and he has some self-esteem.

He has arrogance and that is entirely different.

This forum is supposed to allow people to increase their qualifications and their self-esteem by training on the job.

What a silly remark.

This forum is a sandpit for amateur philosophers. (That´s the idea behind Rick´s Magazine too, if I am not mistaken).

I can just see Rick Lewis cringing at that comment.
Dont tar the magazine with the intellectual tar brush used in this forum

This forum is not an arena for the priviledged(sic) few, to bully normal people.

It is also not an arena for not normal English people to bully people from Ohio.

I am surprised that you consider yourself to be infinetely(sic) stronger and you attack a weaker one.

The Chicken is not weak, he is a ravenous bully , who needs a good slap and I am giving him
that .

Is this the code of honour(sic) in Oxford nowadays ?

When you give up your short pants ,for long pants, you will begin to see the way the world is. At such point you will have the thinking tools to formulate an argument.
Until then I suggest you shut your stupid mouth

[Bill Wiltrack]

.













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












.

[Lakin]

Narrative : The audience gets to its feet to again applaud a masterful performance by Lakin.
As they leave the theater excitable chatter breaks out :
" Darling, did you see how he slapped that fool back with such consummate ease?"
" Yes dear ,it was thrilling to watch ; that is the quality of those Oxford educated English chaps you know".
We must send our son to that fine college so he can acquire a first class education and SLAP the nonsense out of these idiots"

[Lakin]

The story continues............... 10 years later .