Teach Your Children Well

[Walker]

Just imagine if knowing was nothing more than correcting a ration of false assertions.

Hmmm. That could not be. Why?

Because knowing requires correcting the outlook that generates all those false assertions, and that outlook can generate those assertions forever and ever more, as has been proven time after time, no matter which avenue one strolls down to avoid contamination by this disease.

This is likely because the objective created by all the not-knowing is not to know, but rather, is something else. I think that in your case Age, we can agree on that much. That much is the basis.

Just so you become and are fully aware, I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what you are saying, meaning, nor referring to here, at all.

I think that if you come back to it now and then the mists will clear and if questions appear the answers to be found will not be bound by time and place.

[Age]

Just imagine if knowing was nothing more than correcting a ration of false assertions.

Hmmm. That could not be. Why?

Because knowing requires correcting the outlook that generates all those false assertions, and that outlook can generate those assertions forever and ever more, as has been proven time after time, no matter which avenue one strolls down to avoid contamination by this disease.

This is likely because the objective created by all the not-knowing is not to know, but rather, is something else. I think that in your case Age, we can agree on that much. That much is the basis.

Just so you become and are fully aware, I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what you are saying, meaning, nor referring to here, at all.

I think that if you come back to it now and then the mists will clear and if questions appear the answers to be found will not be bound by time and place.

Maybe so.

[Walker]

Maybe so.

In that case, perhaps this shan't be merely howling into the wind ...

- For a Socratic dialogue based on questions and reasoning to happen, an opening proposition must be accepted as the basis for philosophical discussion.
- Changing or rejecting the opening proposition in any way creates a different proposition.
- Attempting with questions to determine why this opening proposition has appeared also creates a different proposition.

- For example, we can propose that the mind sense with the capacity to deduce the existence and significance of a black hole also can erase the big distances between here and there faster than light. However, discussion of this proposition hinges on entertaining that proposition, and does not hinge on some another proposition such as why this should be discussed. This is because Why is on third and how he got there is determined by Who's on first and What's on second.

- The perpetual reliance upon changing a proposition, or upon questioning the why of a particular proposition’s existence, does not make a philosophical dialogue about the former original proposition, although asking why about a proposition would be the basis for a new original proposition, one about philosophical folks.

[Impenitent]

no, Why is in left field... I don't know is on third

-Imp

[Walker]

no, Why is in left field... I don't know is on third

-Imp

Thus the difference between comedy and philosophy.

[Impenitent]

no, Why is in left field... I don't know is on third

-Imp

Thus the difference between comedy and philosophy.

I think; therefore I laugh...

-Imp

[bahman]

no, Why is in left field... I don't know is on third

-Imp

Thus the difference between comedy and philosophy.

I think; therefore I laugh...

-Imp

I think, therefore I lough and cry!

[Walker]

I eat, therefore I am more.

[Age]

Maybe so.

In that case, perhaps this shan't be merely howling into the wind ...

- For a Socratic dialogue based on questions and reasoning to happen, an opening proposition must be accepted as the basis for philosophical discussion.

Will you present an opening proposition that can and will be accepted for a philosophical discussion?

If yes, then great, 'we' can then proceed.

Also, what even is a 'philosophical discussion', to you, exactly?

Just maybe this can be and will be the 'opening proposition', which can be and will be accepted as the basis for a philosophical discussion?

'We' shall just have to wait, to see.

- Changing or rejecting the opening proposition in any way creates a different proposition.

Okay, if you say so.

But, why are you 'presuming' that changing or rejecting an already 'accepted' opening proposition would even take place, in the first place?

- Attempting with questions to determine why this opening proposition has appeared also creates a different proposition.

Again, why are you again 'presuming' some thing, which may never ever even take place?

All of these pre-assumptions are just taking the leading of an 'opening proposition', longer.

- For example, we can propose that the mind sense with the capacity to deduce the existence and significance of a black hole also can erase the big distances between here and there faster than light. However, discussion of this proposition hinges on entertaining that proposition, and does not hinge on some another proposition such as why this should be discussed.

Okay. But, if 'that' has been already accepted, then why, again, did you even begin to presume that may never ever even come-to-light?

This is because Why is on third and how he got there is determined by Who's on first and What's on second.

Okay, if you say so.

And, does this mean that Where is on fourth, and, How is on fifth? Or, is it the other way around here?

- The perpetual reliance upon changing a proposition, or upon questioning the why of a particular proposition’s existence, does not make a philosophical dialogue about the former original proposition, although asking why about a proposition would be the basis for a new original proposition, one about philosophical folks.

Okay. And again, if you say so.

Now, do you have an 'opening proposition'?

If no, then okay, but why not?

[Walker]

Now, do you have an 'opening proposition'?

... the answers to be found will not be bound by time and place.

Opening propositions are mostly everywhere, like birds. One just flew by.

Here's one for you to entertain with how this could be so, since according to the rules that have engaged you, you now must assume that it is so, in order to philosophize on the topic.

For example, we can propose that the mind sense with the capacity to deduce the existence and significance of a black hole also can erase the big distances between here and there faster than light.

I already did my part with an opening proposition.

Now's your chance to man up and do your part, and explain how this opening proposition can logically be true, rather than obsess with all the obvious ways that it could not be true.

I have no need to explain further, since I did my part in providing a topic.

And I want to say, Age, thank you for time and consideration upon these urgent matters. Don't rush it with the obvious.

[Age]

Now, do you have an 'opening proposition'?

... the answers to be found will not be bound by time and place.

Opening propositions are mostly everywhere, like birds. One just flew by.

Here's one for you to entertain with how this could be so, since according to the rules that have engaged you, you now must assume that it is so, in order to philosophize on the topic.

But, you have just 'changed' the 'rules' here.

Before you stated:
'an opening proposition must be accepted as the basis for philosophical discussion.'

But now you state:
' you now must assume that it is so, in order to philosophize on the topic'.

If you cannot even keep 'the rules' 'the same', without 'changing' them in some way, let alone changing or rejecting the opening proposition in any way, then you are not going to get far at all, here.

For example, we can propose that the mind sense with the capacity to deduce the existence and significance of a black hole also can erase the big distances between here and there faster than light.

I already did my part with an opening proposition.

Now's your chance to man up and do your part, and explain how this opening proposition can logically be true, rather than obsess with all the obvious ways that it could not be true.

LOL Even under 'your own rules' one 'must' accept 'the proposition', as 'the basis' for a philosophical discussion. So, have I 'accepted' your own personal proposition here?

And, to make this even more funny, you said and claimed that, 'For a Socratic dialogue based on questions and reasoning to happen, ...'.

So, if one cannot even just 'question' the 'opening proposition' for its Truthfulness, but 'must' accept it, then what follows could well fail, from the outset.

Also, I would have accepted your opening proposition here, completely. That is; if I had understood it, completely.

See, I do not even know what the words and term 'mind sense' even means, nor refers to, exactly. So, I, obviously, am not just going to 'accept' this proposition, especially based on the Fact that I am not completely sure of what you are meaning, exactly.

Also, 'we' can propose anything else, as well, right?

And, do you, really, believe that expressing to another, 'Now is your chance to so-call 'man up', is going to help you in any way whatsoever here?

Oh, and by the way, the way the Mind works can be absolutely faster than just the speed of light, obviously. So, there is, obviously, nothing to dispute nor disagree with here anyway.

I have no need to explain further, since I did my part in providing a topic.

And I want to say, Age, thank you for time and consideration upon these urgent matters. Don't rush it with the obvious.