Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 7:12 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 6:56 am
Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 6:24 am
You be a very bitter person, especially knowing people who have achieved what you find impossible. You never mention or given any evidence at all of what you have contributed to the world. You are just another sad and stupid person.
Your mouth does not make things happen.
II
You waste your life and you have no one to blame but yourself. I have been thanked by people around the world because they probably could not afford to boy the things I post. \
You spend too much time in your own self-pity party.
LOL "phil8659".
What is your life goal, EXACTLY?
I see your problem. Lack of reading comprehension, actually commensurate with your I.Q.
What is 'my' actual 'intelligence quotient', EXACTLY?
And, by the way, what is 'your' actual 'intelligence quotient', EXACTLY?
Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 7:12 am
Try rereading the original post, and if you have absolutely nothing to add to this thread, as you have not so far, get to fuck off of it.
I have re-read your original post, in this thread, here.
you CLAIM that most people that you know of, have NEVER had any particular goal in life.
Which may well just speak of, and hint to, 'the company' you keep, and/or live with.
you have had a goal 'in view', which is obviously different from having a goal, 'in life', which you CLAIM most of the people that you know of have NEVER EVER had.
you also CLAIM that you have had A goal, 'in view', since your first epiphany in diapers, which some obviously consider this to be either just another sign of one who has completely deceived and fooled "their" 'self', or just another case of another 'one overestimating their abilities'. Which was just a very common occurrence among the adult folk, back in the days when this was being written.
you also CLAIM that at the time you had this, alleged and supposed 'epiphany', in 'your diapers', you also could not yet speak, 'in words'. you also CLAIMED, however, that you could think, 'in them', which I, first thought you meant, in 'words', but then I remembered that 'without words' you could NOT 'think', correct?
If yes, then you are CLAIMING, here, that you were thinking, in 'your diapers', right?
If yes, then either;
you were thinking, in words, which you could not yet speak, for some, yet, unknown reason.
you were thinking, in something else, which I would be curious to learn and know what that was, EXACTLY.
you were just mute, and/or dumb, and so could 'think' 'in words' but just could not 'speak', 'in words'.
you were thinking and just did not want to express 'words'.
you started thinking much younger than other human beings, which you clearly would love to CLAIM, express, and share, here, if your condescending remarks and your very clear and obvious 'superiority complex' are any things to go on, and off, here. Or,
you were, and maybe still are, 'in diapers', for varying reasons, and so maybe you are, still, thinking', in 'your diapers', here.
At any rate, you CLAIM that there was an event which led you to realize,
'There is a right way to do ANY thing', correct?
Now, some time after your CLAIMED 'epiphany', in 'your diapers', which you have NOT YET even made clear what 'it' was, exactly, but anyway which was BEFORE some event, which you have also never made clear, which then, supposedly, 'led you' to realization that, 'There is a right way to do ANY thing', which you later applied 'that realization', to 'your life', 'as mind'.
Which, when I first saw your use of those words, here, I just let it go, but now that you suggested I try rereading your original post, in this thread, and had to read these truly clumsily written words, again, I will now ask you to clarify what the sentence and claim, 'I applied it to my life as mind', actually could mean and refer to, EXACTLY?
you then wrote the sentence, and asked, 'How do we know if we are correctly thinking.'. Without putting a question mark at the end of it.
you then went on with more 'trying to' brag about "yourself" by saying and claiming that you 'had read a great deal and in science', which, obviously, in and of itself means absolutely nothing at all.
you then, for some unknown reason, which I had absolutely no interest in at all on my first reading of your opening post, here, in this thread, about, 'one day they are all swearing by the rings of Jupiter, that what they know is absolutely true, and after a weekend party, they change their mind.', which if it was meant to make sense, then I am not sure of what nor how, exactly.
you then CLAIMED, 'It was so, and so it was not.', which is just more absurdity, to me.
Then, somehow, you CLAIMED, 'That is a great waste of life.', to which I still, okay.
you then made another sentence, and asked the question, again, without a question mark, 'How do we know if we are wasting our life because we really cannot think our way out of a paper bag.' To wit on first reading I was going to ask you, 'Why can you really not think your way out of a paper bag? But then thought otherwise, and thus chose NOT to. However, I will propose this question, to you, 'this time', to see what your actual answer and/or response is, exactly.
you then CLAIMED that you were actually pushed to proceed with my epiphany. But, which you have never made clear what the epiphany was, exactly, which you allegedly had, in 'your diapers'.
But, 'me' NOT 'comprehending' what your actual epiphany was, in 'your diapers', is because of my 'lack of reading comprehension' and absolutely nothing at all to do with the way you speak, write, and express, here, correct?
Anyway, you were given an intelligence quotient test in about the sixth grade because the school was completely convinced I was retarded, correct?
How is 'my reading comprehension', here? Is it keeping up with 'my intelligence quotient'? Which, by the way, did you inform the readers, here, of what mine is, EXACTLY?
If no, then WHY NOT?
And, you CLAIMED that when doing 'your intelligence quotient' test', the "state intelligence quotient tester" almost pissed it pants, and informed everyone that I have a very high 'intelligence quotient', which means above genius. Which made me wonder, on the first and second readings of your opening post, here:
1. What was it, EXACTLY, that made that one so-call 'piss its pants'? Did that one have a continence issue, did they drink too much water on the day, or maybe even too much alcohol on the day, or maybe that one just needed to wear diapers on that, and every other day, as well?
2. When the "state intelligence quotient' tester" informed EVERY one, which by the way 'i' was NEVER informed, that you have a VERY HIGH "intelligence quotient'" was it 'that tester' that said, 'which means above genius', or which you have just relayed to 'us', readers, here, for 'our' help in comprehension, here?
3. If it was 'just you', and NOT 'the tester', who says, 'a very high intelligence quotient means above genius', then did 'you' EXPLAIN 'this', for 'us', because, to you, 'we' are all below 'your intelligence quotient', and therefore you reasoned and presumed that 'we' needed to be TOLD that a 'very high intelligence quotient means above genius'?
4. If yes, then okay.
5. Now, what even does, so-called, 'above genius' mean, anyway? What are self-professed 'above genius people' even called, EXACTLY?
6. And, what is 'your intelligence quotient', EXACTLY, which made 'the tester", piss its pants, and EXCLAIM, to EVERY one, "phil8659" has a very high intelligence quotient'?
you then went on to talk about and CLAIM that, 'all "that tester" claiming 'this' did to you is that you then knew that 'you' HAD TO BE 'self-taught'. Which I comprehended, on both readings, that 'you' were just 'too good' for ANY one ELSE, that 'you' were the ONLY one that could teach 'you' ANY thing, or ANY thing worth learning and knowing.
you then further confirmed 'this' when and by your CLAIM that 'No school could teach you'. Because you are just way above for ANY and ALL schools, right?
you then CLAIMED that 'much later you learned that another [student] in history [class] made the 'same decision', which you called 'it', but which I did NOT know on both readers what the 'it' word was in reference to, EXACTLY. But, anyway, you called the 'it', the Socratic understanding.
you then went on to CLAIM that, 'like Socrates, you had an unearthly guide', which could obviously be referring to absolutely ANY thing, but 'the earth', itself.
Then, you CLAIMED that 'the It', which you also CALLED 'the Socratic understanding', put you through lessons to learn by, and which you CLAIM you underwent even more testing. But, for reasons you NEVER made clear, nor even expressed, at all.
Also, are not ALL 'lessons', to 'learn by', anyway?
Is there not some part in the definition for the word 'lesson', which would include some thing about 'to learn by'?
you then CLAIMED that you were asked to "Express C.M." which puzzled me, completely, and which stated, 'may puzzle most', but it means, express the common measure, which some call judgment. Which, on both readings, I wondered, who, and how many, would call the, so-called, 'expressing the common measure', 'judgment'? And even, how are those two, here, related EXACTLY, and why some would call 'them', 'the same'?
you then talked about how you thought 'this, so-called, "teacher", which for some unknown reason you, supposedly, could NOT see was teaching you, and was expecting too much of you. But, you think that you may be smart, but may have a fear that, actually, you are not that smart.
And, in fact some 'demand', from some unseen so-called 'teacher' did put you into a state of cognitive dissonance for decades. you then CLAIMED that you started off not knowing a thing about how to do that, but again I have absolutely no idea what you are even referring to, exactly.
you also CLAIMED, here, that, over the years, you did learn, and CLAIMED that you ended up producing an encyclopedic work in Geometry, a pure logical system of grammar.
you may well have just written an encyclopedic size of words, in some sort of order, but if you produced 'a pure logical system of grammar', well just has to be waited to be seen. After all you will NOT produce NOR present ANY, here.
you also CLAIMED that, 'geometry places a one to one correspondence between the definition of a thing, as relative and its correlatives, with the motion of the hand It is binary recursion', which, to me, sounds like nothing at all really.
Do you have absolutely ANY thing, which backs up and supports this BELIEF of yours, here? Or, absolutely ANY one, who could and would back up and support your own BELIEF, here.
you CLAIM that it is, supposedly, 'now', well known that all information is processed in binary.
But, i have yet to see you define 'the words', which you are actually using, here, and explain what you are actually meaning, here. For example, what does 'in binary' even mean. As far as I was aware 'all information' is processed 'in the brain'.
you then CLAIMED that 'with your own hand, you can draw any computer to make visual paradigms of all reasoning.' Which just baffles me.
Explain how you can, with a hand, draw not just A computer, but ANY computer, to make so-called 'visual paradigms of absolutely ALL reasoning'. Then, after you do this, if you can, actually draw what you CLAIM you can do. I, for one, would love to see 'it'.
you then CLAIM that 'geometry is independent of time, itself.'. Which is truly bizarre, well to me anyway, considering what the word 'time', itself, actually means and refers to, EXACTLY.
Where and when is the alleged 'output of a figure is concurrent with input', is, supposedly, faster than any mechanical computer can ever be, EXACTLY?
you say, 'another item, unlike a binary computer, Geometry always gives an exact answer. It is not arithmetic, it is geometric. So, if this were true, then what is the, exact, answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'
Are you actually able to present and provide 'this exact answer', here? Or, are you going to tell me to go find 'that answer' somewhere else, as well?
you went on to CLAIM that you 'learnt about Language and Grammar. and found there is absolutely a right way to think and it has been provided by nature, itself.'
So, what did you, supposedly, learn about language and grammar that others have not? And, what, EXACTLY, is the 'absolutely right way' 'to think', which you CLAIM has been provided by Nature, Itself?
you TOLD us that because you learned about grammar and language and you found an absolutely right way to think you work on producing a grammar book, which teaches out Grammar Matrix, Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry, and because you are so good and great and smart and intelligent you are producing some so-called 'grammar book' and doing so with all four at the same time. Which, to me, is you TELLING us just how great you BELIEVE you really are "phil8659".
you CLAIM that, 'historically, mankind teaches arithmetically, Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry, in a linear fashion, teaching that they all differ, and each has its own system of socially acceptable mythologies', BUT, your approach is Geometry, All four, together, all four, expressing the same about the same.
Although you do not get around to explain what 'it' is, EXACTLY, that you are alluding to, here.
you then CLAIMED that you have your own mind, and that your own mind has been tested, by not just by human beings by BOTH the adult males of human beings AND what some call 'gods'. However, whatever 'gods' even are, to you, EXACTLY, 'we' have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as of yet, except of course you BELIEVE, absolutely, that these so-called 'gods', who you CLAIM has already tested you, are a LOT MORE so-called advanced that you, and some others, are. Which is quite surprising, well to me anyway, considering how you BELIEVE that you, "yourself", are 'above genius'. Again, whatever 'above genius' even means.
you then CLAIMED that 'someday, you and some others will be able to join them [gods] in maintaining and promoting life, but this will not happen 'today'. Whenever 'today' is you, also, never made clear.
you then CLAIMED that you, and others, are SO stupid 'right now', that you cannot even have what they [these 'gods' things] would consider a conversation.
I, by the way, ALSO AGREE that you, and others, here, when this is being written, are NOT even having ACTUAL conversations, NOR discussions. For example, one only has to look at the way you speak and write, here, in A philosophy forum of all places, "phil8659"
you then CLAIMED that 'that' is what your life has ALWAYS been devoted to, since your conception, again without making ANY thing absolutely clear, here, and that there is a right way to do our own life. you then went on about how even though you live a life of never finding a single friend. For some unknown reason.
you then said some thing about some so-called 'the job' is 'the job', and that 'that' is all there is to it. Again, without you EVER making clear what 'the job' is, exactly, which you CLAIM is ALL there is, and ALL there is to some thing that you call 'it', here.
you then CLAIM that you and some others HAVE TO learn to do your own work, as a life support system, yet you CLAIMED that you have some unseen gods who ARE teaching you. But, you appeared to have completely MISS this contradiction, along with your other ones, here.
Then you went on to make up some EXCUSE about 'no longer' you have so-called 'correct glasses to wear', which on both occasions of reading left me wondering, 'WHY NOT?' But with no care to find out. you EXCUSE of, supposedly, 'no longer' have the so-called 'correct glasses', to wear, as WHY you would not bother to proof read, nor to even edit what you wrote above, here.
Yet, above here, you CLAIM that you are writing some encyclopedia length of words, which I find surprising one would keep doing without the so-called 'correct glasses'.
Anyway, you BELIEVE that I had NOT added ANY thing to this thread, here, although I can see where and when I have added to this thread, by pointing out and showing how you do not add any thing to your words and CLAIMS by NOT elaborating NOR clarifying ANY thing that you have said and CLAIMED above, here, in 'this thread'.
Oh, by the way, I did not find much more new on my second re-reading of your opening post, here, in this thread.