Pagan morality

[attofishpi]

OK, carry on (I thought this was Maia's thread, but it turns out its a narcissists)

Fair enough. I'll drop it, though it was Iambiguous's opening post and thread, not Maia's.

Er, I'm not calling you the narcissist.

[Atla]

Again, I told you what triggers my interest in Maia above. I'm only acknowledging that were it not for my own existential "situation" "here and now" I'd have no problem at all in contacting her "for real" to see if a romantic relationship was even possible. But that's still la la land so I focus instead on the things we can pursue.

Aren't you a self-obsessed, psychologically blind weirdo, like twice her age? Maybe leave the pretty blind woman alone.

[iambiguous]

The category Stooge?! No, here, a Stooge is only a projection of my own personal opinions/prejudices regarding the posts I read here. Nothing more.

You have defined it time and again, this label of a category of people, based on their behavior. It's your category.

How preposterous. You know, if I do say so myself.

I don't define words like identity and morality here. Instead, I ask those who do, to bring their definitions down out of the philosophical clouds and to illustrate what they think words like identity and morality mean socially, politically and economically.

So, I pointed to a post where Prom was doing that. As I said I actually didn't expect you to respond, but I was surprised to find you responded the way you did. It's obvious what his behavior is. What his intentions are is another fact.

Right, just as with me, you've got Prom all figured out.

Huh? You just make stuff up. Where did I say that? I have no idea what he motives were for what you call Stooge behavior in relation to Maia.

Well, if it's one thing that seems applicable here, it's that we all read between the lines, uh, subjectively?

On the other hand, any folks online for any length of time know full well just how precarious it can be thinking you're on to someone in a place like this.

Ah, good. It's felt precarious to you that you think I am out to reveal to others your true nature and that when we have problems with your behavior it's really about how your posts have challenged the beliefs we have. I didn't know you felt precarious about that. That changes how I react to it, since it never seems precarious and you repeat it so often.

Whatever that means? Besides, as I note time and again, I suspect no one here could possibly be more fractured and fragmented in regard to identity and morality than "I" am.

Then this part:

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest." John Fowles from The Magus

Further, it never stops you from speculating on the motivations and intentions of people who you do call Stooges. But I wasn't asking for that speculation.

Again, it's always going to be a judgment call embedded in, say, particular moods and dispositions?

No, it wasn't necessary at all. Stooges, according to you, do certain things. He was doing those things. Unless you can show how his posts about Maia were really about Pagan Morality. Me and all the reasonable men and women are interested.

Simply unbelievable. Well, from my own, say, rooted existentially in dasein vantage point?

Again, as though the manner in which he construes what I mean by a Stooge is clearly inferior to what he himself construes regarding what I construe about it.

And, in fact, even in regard to our own exchanges, we can go post after post in which I react only to your argument. The Stooge bit doesn't come up. Then out of the blue [from my end] it's like you "lose it" and configure into what I do construe a Stooge to be.

I believe this is how you experience it. I don't know, but it's so hard to imagine being conscious of all this evasion.

I have no idea what this means pertaining to what I posted above.

I mean, look. You did take a clear stand, a few posts ago. Prom isn't a Stooge to you.

But, in my view, this still doesn't change the fact that, in regard to personal opinions of this sort, much of what I believe is derived existentially from dasein. And then the part where I acknowledsge further that, given new experiences, new relationships and access to ne information and knowledge, I might change my mind.

But: it's when I note things like this to the objectivists, suggesting that, perhaps, it could happen to them as well, that some become particularly unnerved by it. They feel it is nexcessary not only to reject my arguments but to expose me as a fool for believing them.

We can drop it. I doubt you'll ever explain why suddenly only certain motivations for that behavior make one a Stooge, which was never in your description of what made a Stooge before - but you are sticking to your position, won't explain why now it must include specific motivations, won't explain why you would justify not confronting him because he is a serious wit, and so on.

And so on indeed. But from my end, our own renditions of that are no less the embodiment of dasein.

But, if you are not going to elaborate more, that's fine. If you come with more oddities, well, I may respond to those. If you think you've responded completely, then it's over.

That works for me. Over and out.

[iambiguous]

OK, carry on (I thought this was Maia's thread, but it turns out its a narcissists)

How about this...

Above, I have contributed a number of posts that pertain specifically to Pagan morality. Why don't you respond to them?

[iambiguous]

Again, I told you what triggers my interest in Maia above. I'm only acknowledging that were it not for my own existential "situation" "here and now" I'd have no problem at all in contacting her "for real" to see if a romantic relationship was even possible. But that's still la la land so I focus instead on the things we can pursue.

Aren't you a self-obsessed, psychologically blind weirdo, like twice her age? Maybe leave the pretty blind woman alone.

Look, even though iwannaplato and I have complaints about each other, his posts here are actually substantive and substantial. Again, I respect both his intelligence and his commitment to philosophy in the way that he understands it.

But what the hell are you doing here?!

This is the sort of crap you'll find over on Pedro's Corner. Want me to link you to it?

[attofishpi]

OK, carry on (I thought this was Maia's thread, but it turns out its a narcissists)

How about this...

Above, I have contributed a number of posts that pertain specifically to Pagan morality. Why don't you respond to them?

I have no idea about Pagan morality to provide any opinion and although that is the thread title, I was genuinely interested in hearing about Maia's story re life as someone that (within this lifespan) has never experienced light...as I think all of us still are.

I have a huge question for her but it is extremely personal and the concept freaks me out actually, pertaining to what her answer would be. So alas, that will remain locked in atto vault.

Seriously though, why "men" seem to always have some other thing ('relationship potential') in their minds while discussing with any lady on this forum that has proven her beauty is rather repugnant in my opinion. Why can't you just learn from her in a genuine honest way?

[Iwannaplato]

The category Stooge?! No, here, a Stooge is only a projection of my own personal opinions/prejudices regarding the posts I read here. Nothing more.

You have defined it time and again, this label of a category of people, based on their behavior. It's your category.

How preposterous. You know, if I do say so myself.

I don't define words like identity and morality here

Oh, my God. You defined Stooge. What you meant when you called people Stooge.

Perhaps this is all side effects of posting so much in more forums then I realize you post in. Stooge. Stooge. That's what I was talking about and we have been talking about for a number of posts and it's in the quotes there.

Anyway. I'm dropping it. I can't even expect a kind of minimal understanding of what we are talking about. It's right there in your own post that I responded to and that you quoted.

Carry on.

[iambiguous]

The category Stooge?! No, here, a Stooge is only a projection of my own personal opinions/prejudices regarding the posts I read here. Nothing more.

You have defined it time and again, this label of a category of people, based on their behavior. It's your category.

How preposterous. You know, if I do say so myself.

I don't define words like identity and morality here

Oh, my God. You defined Stooge. What you meant when you called people Stooge.

If that's what you call a definition, so be it. But that still doesn't change the fact that in regard to my own understanding of Stooge, I am no less fractured and fragmented. I mean, it's not like others respond to my posts and I whip out my trusty Stooge calculator in order to determine with precision if they are, in fact, one.

Perhaps this is all side effects of posting so much in more forums then I realize you post in. Stooge. Stooge. That's what I was talking about and we have been talking about for a number of posts and it's in the quotes there.

I have no idea what you are going on about here. I sense, however, that you are this close to "losing it" again with me.

Whatever that means, of course.

Anyway. I'm dropping it. I can't even expect a kind of minimal understanding of what we are talking about. It's right there in your own post that I responded to and that you quoted.

Carry on.

No problem. I'll carry on as long as the good Lord sees fit to keep me around.

[iambiguous]

What is the foundation of Pagan ethics?
by Yvonne Aburrow at Patheos

If you believe that the physical universe is an embodiment of the Divine, and life is something to be celebrated, then your mythology, and your ethics, will flow from that.

And, with any luck, comforting and consoling you all the way to the grave. It's just that Pagans seem [to me] to be all over the board here. There seem to be as many different renditions of what happens to us after we die as there are Pagans themselves.

Then back to the part where what you believe about these things "in your head" you are able to demonstrate as in fact applicable to all of us.

Each Pagan story, myth, and legend will reinforce the view that everything is sacred, but the stories are not necessarily the source of that insight.

Everything is sacred? Including all of this...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Rather the insight rests in our emotional response to the world around us, a sense of being in right relationship with it when we treat it as a Thou and not an It.

Or, as some will tell you, it all comes down to this [to me] mystical Intrinsic Self that allows each Pagan to convince him or herself that in regard to the really, really important stuff, they "just know" what is good and bad, right and wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

If that's what you call a definition, so be it. But that still doesn't change the fact that in regard to my own understanding of Stooge, I am no less fractured and fragmented. I mean, it's not like others respond to my posts and I whip out my trusty Stooge calculator in order to determine with precision if they are, in fact, one.

Well, if you are fractured and fragmented about the Stooge, you must be must be hiding one side of it. You always say the same thing. It always seems to you the same thing: we are afraid of what you are saying and our criticisms are actually must a defensive pattern. I can see your fractured and fragments about say, abortion. Where you have expressed the torn between two ways of viewing it. But around your Stooge assessment, never. You may throw out a disclaimer at the end, but that's just a recognition of potential fallibility.

And then you interpret it as my 'losing' it. No fractured and fragmented. Same old, same old. You have your dominant narrative connected to what you see as Stooge behavior. Unless you're hiding some other narrative. But I have only what you write to go on. If you are actually fractured and fragmented when you call me or Phyllo a Stooge, what is your thinking about yourself and what is really going on when you don't think we are being Stooges. When, in fact, you think we might well be noting real patterns in you and we are not motivated by our fears, etc?

In any case, Prom was making Maia the issue and not the topic of the thread.
You disagree or at least don't see this was what he was doing.

I noted this a number of posts back and thought then that there's not much more to say on the core issue of his posited Stooginess.

[iambiguous]

If that's what you call a definition, so be it. But that still doesn't change the fact that in regard to my own understanding of Stooge, I am no less fractured and fragmented. I mean, it's not like others respond to my posts and I whip out my trusty Stooge calculator in order to determine with precision if they are, in fact, one.

Well, if you are fractured and fragmented about the Stooge, you must be must be hiding one side of it. You always say the same thing.

No, in my view, you always seem intent on hearing the same thing. And that appears to revolve around whatever it takes to reinforce all the more your prejudices, your accusations, your "my way or the highway" assessment of me.

It always seems to you the same thing: we are afraid of what you are saying and our criticisms are actually must a defensive pattern.

Look, it's not like I have just begun to pursue philosophical exchanges online. On the contrary, I've been doing it now going on 25 years. And from all of those accumulated experiences, I have come to certain conclusions regarding particular posters. It's called extrapolation.

Sure, I might have been wrong about some. And I suspect any number of them were wrong about me. But right and wrong in regard to such things as Pagan morality are, in my view, rooted existentially in dasein. And even Maia recognizes that. It's just that she has acquired this Intrinsic Self that allows her to "just know" intuitively, spiritually, naturally that some things are right and some things are wrong.

I can see your fractured and fragments about say, abortion. Where you have expressed the torn between two ways of viewing it. But around your Stooge assessment, never. You may throw out a disclaimer at the end, but that's just a recognition of potential fallibility.

How about this: "you're right from your side and I'm right from mine"? We merely start out with different assumptions regarding what it means to be a Stooge.

And then you interpret it as my 'losing' it. No fractured and fragmented. Same old, same old. You have your dominant narrative connected to what you see as Stooge behavior. Unless you're hiding some other narrative.

On the other hand, perhaps you are, uh, overthinking this? I can only fall back on the assumption that a Stooge is someone who reacts to my truly grim philosophy of life...

1] that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein.
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die

...by insisting I'm the problem here for foolishly thinking like this.

Some, in my view, "here and now" set out to clear it up so that others -- like Maia? -- don't tumble down into the hole with me.

Click, of course.

But I have only what you write to go on. If you are actually fractured and fragmented when you call me or Phyllo a Stooge, what is your thinking about yourself and what is really going on when you don't think we are being Stooges.

Again, it is as though you expect me to pin down precisely what goes through my head when I react to others here. As though there is, what, a mathematical equation one can use to determine when others are or are not, in fact, objectively being Stooges?

[Iwannaplato]

If that's what you call a definition, so be it. But that still doesn't change the fact that in regard to my own understanding of Stooge, I am no less fractured and fragmented. I mean, it's not like others respond to my posts and I whip out my trusty Stooge calculator in order to determine with precision if they are, in fact, one.

Well, if you are fractured and fragmented about the Stooge, you must be must be hiding one side of it. You always say the same thing. [/quote]

No, in my view, you always seem intent on hearing the same thing. And that appears to revolve around whatever it takes to reinforce all the more your prejudices, your accusations, your "my way or the highway" assessment of me.

oh, so you have expressed the opposing view that we are on to something when we criticize you behavior, then. Fractured and fragmented about an issue, for example, abortion, means that one really can see both sides, or so you have seemed to say. You can hear the antiabortion argument/logic/objective moral position and the pro choice arguments and find no real way to resolve which is correct. You have made this clear, many times, hence the being fractured and fragmented. No position seems clearly correct and you have no way to resolve it. And, note, you don't tell people what the more likely correct position his.

Now you've asserted that you feel fractured and fragmented when it comes to the judgments about Stooginess. But I see none of that. Yes, you admit that you might be wrong, but you take a stand. You are confident enough to label people Stooges.

But perhaps I have missed where you also express the other side, where you can see the Stooge's point of view and you can take the opposite stand, one where it seems they are correct or more likely to be.

It always seems to you the same thing: we are afraid of what you are saying and our criticisms are actually must a defensive pattern.

Look, it's not like I have just begun to pursue philosophical exchanges online. On the contrary, I've been doing it now going on 25 years. And from all of those accumulated experiences, I have come to certain conclusions regarding particular posters. It's called extrapolation.

Exactly, you are fairly confident in your Stooge assessment. This is exactly my point. You are not fractured and fragmented about this. You do state that you might be wrong. You are not claimed complete certainty. But you are hardly fractured and fragmented, which you recently said you were on this issue.

How about this: "you're right from your side and I'm right from mine"? We merely start out with different assumptions regarding what it means to be a Stooge.

I accepted your sense of what a Stooge was. And by your explanation of what a Stooge is, one you have made many, many times, I fit that explanation. I have definitely focused on you, made you the issue. I don't think this has been negative on my part, but I definitely fit your criteria. No question. My point was that Prom fit them, in the first post that led to our exchange I pointed to one that met the criteria, and in relation to Maia - someone I haven't thought fit those criteria.

And then you interpret it as my 'losing' it. No fractured and fragmented. Same old, same old. You have your dominant narrative connected to what you see as Stooge behavior. Unless you're hiding some other narrative.

On the other hand, perhaps you are, uh, overthinking this? I can only fall back on the assumption that a Stooge is someone who reacts to my truly grim philosophy of life...

1] that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein.
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die

...by insisting I'm the problem here for foolishly thinking like this.

But I've never asserted that you were wrong about those things. My focus has been as you have said earlier in making your behavior the issue, rather than the topic of the thread. Often I focus on boht the thread topic and your behavior (or what I consider strange interpretations of other people's posts or articles).

Some, in my view, "here and now" set out to clear it up so that others -- like Maia? -- don't tumble down into the hole with me.

Ah, ok. I don't really think Maia needs rescuing. And I don't have the means, if she does need it. And actually it was Prom I pointed at and I don't think he was trying to get her to fall into that hole.

u call me or Phyllo a Stooge, what is your thinking about yourself and what is really going on when you don't think we are being Stooges.[/quote]

Again, it is as though you expect me to pin down precisely what goes through my head when I react to others here. As though there is, what, a mathematical equation one can use to determine when others are or are not, in fact, objectively being Stooges?

No, no need for precisiion, but if you are fractured adn fragmented about these judgments, you would at least have as much experience of the other side, that we may be onto something.

Something leads to you assert you are fractured adn fragmented when you call people Stooges and you are fractured adn fragmented about the judgment. YOu can manage to talk about the one side, where you see our behavior and then you are pretty sure about our motivations. It's not exact and precise but it's pretty clear. But you have said you are fractured and fragmented on this issue of calling people Stooges: how do you experience the other side. It seems like only one side gets described here, over and over.

I am still on the 'OK, we reached a final impasse on the Prom issue'. That's what set this going.

[iambiguous]

If that's what you call a definition, so be it. But that still doesn't change the fact that in regard to my own understanding of Stooge, I am no less fractured and fragmented. I mean, it's not like others respond to my posts and I whip out my trusty Stooge calculator in order to determine with precision if they are, in fact, one.

Well, if you are fractured and fragmented about the Stooge, you must be must be hiding one side of it. You always say the same thing.

No, in my view, you always seem intent on hearing the same thing. And that appears to revolve around whatever it takes to reinforce all the more your prejudices, your accusations, your "my way or the highway" assessment of me.

oh, so you have expressed the opposing view that we are on to something when we criticize you behavior, then. Fractured and fragmented about an issue, for example, abortion, means that one really can see both sides, or so you have seemed to say.

Yeah: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

Now, how is my assessment not applicable to you in regard to your own views on the morality of abortion?

Or go here: https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate

Sift through the arguments of those who disagree with you regarding abortion and note the counterarguments that you would make in order to settle it once and for all...in your favor.

Or, as you noted...

You can hear the antiabortion argument/logic/objective moral position and the pro choice arguments and find no real way to resolve which is correct. You have made this clear, many times, hence the being fractured and fragmented. No position seems clearly correct and you have no way to resolve it. And, note, you don't tell people what the more likely correct position his.

By and large, yeah.

On the other hand, I'm not here to argue that others are obligated to think as I do if they wish to be thought of as being rational or virtuous human beings. On the contrary, I'm here in part hoping that someone will read the OP and provide me with an argument that allows me to pull back from it myself! In the the interim, I embrace "modoeration, negotiation and compromise" as the best of all possible worlds here politically. Which, of course, is basically what Roe v Wade encompassed. Only now we've got the moral objectivists -- Praise the Lord! -- hell bent on making abortion a capital crime from coast to coast.

Now you've asserted that you feel fractured and fragmented when it comes to the judgments about Stooginess. But I see none of that. Yes, you admit that you might be wrong, but you take a stand. You are confident enough to label people Stooges.

Right, I'm taking a stand here. Call it that if you wish but it's not at all how I construe my own frame of mind. Click, of course.

It always seems to you the same thing: we are afraid of what you are saying and our criticisms are actually must a defensive pattern.

Look, it's not like I have just begun to pursue philosophical exchanges online. On the contrary, I've been doing it now going on 25 years. And from all of those accumulated experiences, I have come to certain conclusions regarding particular posters. It's called extrapolation.

Exactly, you are fairly confident in your Stooge assessment. This is exactly my point.

No, if I was truly confident -- adamant? -- regarding my assessment of Stoogery why would I then note that, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, I could change my mind about it. Why would I note over and again, that own my understanding of it "here and now" is rooted existentially in dasein.

You are not fractured and fragmented about this. You do state that you might be wrong. You are not claimed complete certainty. But you are hardly fractured and fragmented, which you recently said you were on this issue.

Okay, you're convinced of this and I'm not. As for Prom, I don't think of him that way. And from time to time he has reacted to my groots in, uh, a mocking manner? But with him, I can never really be sure the extent to which it is tongue in cheek.

How about this: "you're right from your side and I'm right from mine"? We merely start out with different assumptions regarding what it means to be a Stooge.

I accepted your sense of what a Stooge was. And by your explanation of what a Stooge is, one you have made many, many times, I fit that explanation. I have definitely focused on you, made you the issue. I don't think this has been negative on my part, but I definitely fit your criteria. No question.

Okay, well, there you go.

And then you interpret it as my 'losing' it. No fractured and fragmented. Same old, same old. You have your dominant narrative connected to what you see as Stooge behavior. Unless you're hiding some other narrative.

On the other hand, perhaps you are, uh, overthinking this? I can only fall back on the assumption that a Stooge is someone who reacts to my truly grim philosophy of life...

1] that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein.
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die

...by insisting I'm the problem here for foolishly thinking like this.

But I've never asserted that you were wrong about those things. My focus has been as you have said earlier in making your behavior the issue, rather than the topic of the thread. Often I focus on boht the thread topic and your behavior (or what I consider strange interpretations of other people's posts or articles).

That's how it unfolds over and again here.

There's what someone thinks they mean in a particular post, then others respond to it, interpreting it in a different or conflicting way. Then back and forth they go getting more and more pissed off not just because others don't share their own convictions but because they are convinced in turn that others are completely missing the point of the post itself.

Some, in my view, "here and now" set out to clear it up so that others -- like Maia? -- don't tumble down into the hole with me.

Again, it is as though you expect me to pin down precisely what goes through my head when I react to others here. As though there is, what, a mathematical equation one can use to determine when others are or are not, in fact, objectively being Stooges?

Something leads to you assert you are fractured adn fragmented when you call people Stooges and you are fractured adn fragmented about the judgment. YOu can manage to talk about the one side, where you see our behavior and then you are pretty sure about our motivations. It's not exact and precise but it's pretty clear. But you have said you are fractured and fragmented on this issue of calling people Stooges: how do you experience the other side. It seems like only one side gets described here, over and over.

I am still on the 'OK, we reached a final impasse on the Prom issue'. That's what set this going.

The Prom issue is something that, in my view] is all tangled up in your head. It's not an issue for me. Any more than reacting to people as Stooges is something that I spend hours grappling with...philosophically?

[Iwannaplato]

If that's what you call a definition, so be it. But that still doesn't change the fact that in regard to my own understanding of Stooge, I am no less fractured and fragmented. I mean, it's not like others respond to my posts and I whip out my trusty Stooge calculator in order to determine with precision if they are, in fact, one.

Well, if you are fractured and fragmented about the Stooge, you must be must be hiding one side of it. You always say the same thing.

No, in my view, you always seem intent on hearing the same thing. And that appears to revolve around whatever it takes to reinforce all the more your prejudices, your accusations, your "my way or the highway" assessment of me.

oh, so you have expressed the opposing view that we are on to something when we criticize you behavior, then. Fractured and fragmented about an issue, for example, abortion, means that one really can see both sides, or so you have seemed to say.

Yeah: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

Now, how is my assessment not applicable to you in regard to your own views on the morality of abortion?

This thread is about Pagan Morality. In that thread I reacted to Prom's post where it seemed to me he fit your criteria of a Stooge.

My point was that you certainly make clear how you are fragmented and fractured on the abortion issue. I see no sign you are on the calling people Stooge issue, despite you're saying you are fractured adn fragmented about it.

Or go here: https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate

Sift through the arguments of those who disagree with you regarding abortion and note the counterarguments that you would make in order to settle it once and for all...in your favor.

Or, as you noted...

All these years and you don't seem to realize I don't think there is an objectively correct position on that issue.

Now you've asserted that you feel fractured and fragmented when it comes to the judgments about Stooginess. But I see none of that. Yes, you admit that you might be wrong, but you take a stand. You are confident enough to label people Stooges.

Right, I'm taking a stand here. Call it that if you wish but it's not at all how I construe my own frame of mind. Click, of course.

Right, you say you are fractured and fragmented about the Stooge issue. I just haven't seen any sign of this, while I do with, for example, the abortion issue. There many of your many posts indicate things thatf it with fractured adn fragmented.

It always seems to you the same thing: we are afraid of what you are saying and our criticisms are actually must a defensive pattern.

Look, it's not like I have just begun to pursue philosophical exchanges online. On the contrary, I've been doing it now going on 25 years. And from all of those accumulated experiences, I have come to certain conclusions regarding particular posters. It's called extrapolation.

Exactly, you are fairly confident in your Stooge assessment. This is exactly my point.

No, if I was truly confident -- adamant? -- regarding my assessment of Stoogery why would I then note that, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, I could change my mind about it. Why would I note over and again, that own my understanding of it "here and now" is rooted existentially in dasein.

Again, there's a difference between realizing you could change your mind and being fractured and fragmented. It's certainly a very melodramatic way, in this specific context, to say you might change your mind some day about your assessments of other people being Stooges. You're really fractured and fragmented about that?

But if you meant that some day you might change your mind and think, hm, maybe they were on to something about my behavior. That you consider this possible adn this for you is fractured and fragmented, ok. Seems a melodramtic

But I've never asserted that you were wrong about those things. My focus has been as you have said earlier in making your behavior the issue, rather than the topic of the thread. Often I focus on boht the thread topic and your behavior (or what I consider strange interpretations of other people's posts or articles).

That's how it unfolds over and again here.

There's what someone thinks they mean in a particular post, then others respond to it, interpreting it in a different or conflicting way. Then back and forth they go getting more and more pissed off not just because others don't share their own convictions but because they are convinced in turn that others are completely missing the point of the post itself.

You just told me that my reason for focusing on you was because I wanted to show you were wrong about, for example, you position on objective morality. There was no basis for this. Instead of acknowledging that or providing some evidence that is why I focus on you, you just jump to something else.

Some, in my view, "here and now" set out to clear it up so that others -- like Maia? -- don't tumble down into the hole with me.

The Prom issue is something that, in my view] is all tangled up in your head. It's not an issue for me. Any more than reacting to people as Stooges is something that I spend hours grappling with...philosophically?

But you have in this exchange. I don't think the way you grappled with it made much sense, but it takes two to tango.

[Wizard22]

Sad to see that lamb's pestering and annoying reduced Maia to silence, AGAIN....

If anybody is remotely serious about 'Pagan Morality' then you'll be forced to argue the matter on knowhyself forum. You can't really engage that material here. Like most other Western philosophy forums, the undercurrent of Abrahamism and Zionism is too strong and overwhelming to give 'Paganism' a fair shake. And then there's the hocus-pocus sueprnatural Astrology that doesn't help things either.

Maia is a special girl; that much is obvious. It strikes me humorously how, despite her born-blindness, she still feels the overwhelming urge to publicly display herself visually (this is the power of the Female sex and gender), as a means to announce her sexual viability and desirability. If I were still single, then I myself would definitely give her another shot and another round of advancements.

I agree with one of the recent responses: it's Christmas, an intimate and dramatic time of the year.


I hope Maia returns, with more wisdom this time around.

If Maia weren't blind, I wonder if she would still have the same passion for Philosophy and Paganism as she has though...