Zionism

[Atla]

Well, I ran that by her. Her response:

”Beautiful hallucinations will get you through times of insane reality better than insane reality will get through times of no beautiful hallucinations.”

Further, she commented with Iberian irony:

“La guia que me dieron al entrar en este triste mundo fue un librito un poco excéntrico, que da consejos perfectamente incongruentes, entonces ¡dilo que lo estoy siguiéndolo al pie de la letra!”

If you want fantasy to take you to another world, play a video game, watch a movie, read a book. Hallucinations are for the weak.

[Alexis Jacobi]

“La guia que me dieron al entrar en este triste mundo fue un librito un poco excéntrico, que da consejos perfectamente incongruentes, entonces ¡dilo que lo estoy siguiéndolo al pie de la letra!”

Conscience, that odd lil book, is often at loggerheads with the apparent state of affairs.

[Dubious]

Re Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy which proves, or at least credits, determinism as an automatic, autonomous and near autocratic process in not being forced to ponder on how we arrived at each stage in its final output. One could call such a process a Pavlovian movement of the psyche...among other things. That which forces an action without knowing its cause can only be defined and referred to as essentially deterministic in not being aware of how it was so ordered.

[BigMike]

Re Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy which proves, or at least credits, determinism as an automatic, autonomous and near autocratic process in not being forced to ponder on how we arrived at each stage in its final output. One could call such a process a Pavlovian movement of the psyche...among other things. That which forces an action without knowing its cause can only be defined and referred to as essentially deterministic in not being aware of how it was so ordered.

Dubious, that’s an impressive stack of words disguising the fact that you just completely missed the point.

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy isn’t some divine revelation or deterministic prophecy—it’s a framework for cognitive development. It describes how people ideally move from basic recall to critical thinking and creativity. It doesn’t prove determinism; it’s simply compatible with it. No one said it’s an automatic conveyor belt where everyone graduates to higher reasoning just by existing.

What it does show, however, is exactly where people stall—like Alexis, who’s stuck parroting ancient texts and thinking that qualifies as depth. That’s not cognitive ascent; that’s spiritual karaoke.

And your “Pavlovian movement of the psyche” line? Cute, but irrelevant. No one’s arguing people know the causes behind their behavior moment-to-moment. That’s precisely what makes the deterministic view accurate. We don’t need to be aware of the causes for them to exist. You’ve basically just reinforced the argument you’re trying to undercut.

So thanks, unintentionally. You’ve helped demonstrate the very thing you’re fumbling to dismiss.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Re Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy which proves, or at least credits, determinism as an automatic, autonomous and near autocratic process in not being forced to ponder on how we arrived at each stage in its final output. One could call such a process a Pavlovian movement of the psyche...among other things. That which forces an action without knowing its cause can only be defined and referred to as essentially deterministic in not being aware of how it was so ordered.

Thanks for bringing up Bloom! Oh I like where this is going now. Shakespeare, the invention of the human: now we have constructive material. We need an antidote, Dubious, to mindless mechanics driven by invented logical inevitabilities!

Seguiremos al pie de la letra, al pie de la letra!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Peace, peace! he is not dead, he doth not sleep…
He hath awakened from the dream of life…
'Tis we, who lost in stormy visions, keep
With phantoms an unprofitable strife,
And in mad trance, strike with our spirit's knife
Invulnerable nothings. — We decay
Like corpses in a charnel; fear and grief
Convulse us and consume us day by day,
And cold hopes swarm like worms within our living clay.

[Alexis Jacobi]

MAN with his burning soul
Has but an hour of breath
To build a ship of truth
In which his soul may sail—
Sail on the sea of death,
For death takes toll
Of beauty, courage, youth,
Of all but truth . . .

[BigMike]

MAN with his burning soul
Has but an hour of breath
To build a ship of truth
In which his soul may sail—
Sail on the sea of death,
For death takes toll
Of beauty, courage, youth,
Of all but truth . . .

Alexis, I say this with all due respect: if you feel the urge to post poetry—especially this kind of misty-eyed, abstract lamentation—maybe consider Facebook, a personal blog, or even a creative writing forum.

This is Philosophy Now. The rest of us are trying to have a discussion rooted in arguments, logic, and clarity—not navigate a sea of loosely tethered verse. Save the stanzas for places where they’re the point—not where they derail it.

[accelafine]

Philistine.

[BigMike]

Philistine.

Ah, the classic one-word deflection—“Philistine.”

When someone asks for clarity, relevance, or actual argument on a philosophy forum, and the response is name-calling? That’s not intellectual high ground—that’s just a lazy way to avoid the fact that poetry isn’t a substitute for reasoned thought.

But if expecting a philosophy thread to focus on philosophy makes me a Philistine, I’ll wear it proudly. At least I’m not mistaking cryptic verse for coherent contribution.

[Gary Childress]

Philistine.

Ah, the classic one-word deflection—“Philistine.”

When someone asks for clarity, relevance, or actual argument on a philosophy forum, and the response is name-calling? That’s not intellectual high ground—that’s just a lazy way to avoid the fact that poetry isn’t a substitute for reasoned thought.

But if expecting a philosophy thread to focus on philosophy makes me a Philistine, I’ll wear it proudly. At least I’m not mistaking cryptic verse for coherent contribution.

She might have been referring to Alexis, maybe?

[FlashDangerpants]

Philistine.

Ah, the classic one-word deflection—“Philistine.”

When someone asks for clarity, relevance, or actual argument on a philosophy forum, and the response is name-calling? That’s not intellectual high ground—that’s just a lazy way to avoid the fact that poetry isn’t a substitute for reasoned thought.

But if expecting a philosophy thread to focus on philosophy makes me a Philistine, I’ll wear it proudly. At least I’m not mistaking cryptic verse for coherent contribution.

She might have been referring to Alexis, maybe?

Improbable, for once the vulgar nazi buffoon made a pretty good poetry selection. Mike apparently cannot tell the difference between a classic work and the flowery home-styled drivel that drips onto Facebook. Thus, he is exposed as a bit of a Philistine.

[BigMike]

Ah, the classic one-word deflection—“Philistine.”

When someone asks for clarity, relevance, or actual argument on a philosophy forum, and the response is name-calling? That’s not intellectual high ground—that’s just a lazy way to avoid the fact that poetry isn’t a substitute for reasoned thought.

But if expecting a philosophy thread to focus on philosophy makes me a Philistine, I’ll wear it proudly. At least I’m not mistaking cryptic verse for coherent contribution.

She might have been referring to Alexis, maybe?

Improbable, for once the vulgar nazi buffoon made a pretty good poetry selection. Mike apparently cannot tell the difference between a classic work and the flowery home-styled drivel that drips onto Facebook. Thus, he is exposed as a bit of a Philistine.

Well, Flash, I suppose I’ll have to accept my Philistine badge with a twist of irony—though I’m not sure I quite qualify.

I actually love music for all the right reasons. I play three instruments, and I’ve even tried my hand at composing—so if a sensitivity to art is your measure, I’m at least partially in the clear. My problem isn’t with beauty or expression; it’s with the misuse of aesthetic forms—especially on a philosophy forum—to smuggle in unexamined nonsense dressed as depth.

I’ll admit, I’m no fan of poetry, especially the kind soaked in overwrought language—the stuff that appeals directly to the right hemisphere of the brain to bypass the left, slipping sentiment and woo in through the back (right) door while reason’s out for lunch.

And by the way, I closed my Facebook account years ago, so I may be wrong about what still leaks onto the timeline these days. But if the recent thread is any indicator, I think I nailed the genre.

[Dubious]

Re Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy which proves, or at least credits, determinism as an automatic, autonomous and near autocratic process in not being forced to ponder on how we arrived at each stage in its final output. One could call such a process a Pavlovian movement of the psyche...among other things. That which forces an action without knowing its cause can only be defined and referred to as essentially deterministic in not being aware of how it was so ordered.

Thanks for bringing up Bloom! Oh I like where this is going now. Shakespeare, the invention of the human: now we have constructive material. We need an antidote, Dubious, to mindless mechanics driven by invented logical inevitabilities!

Seguiremos al pie de la letra, al pie de la letra!

...as for Bloom's testament of Shakespeare as the the invention of the human, my comment on that would be...

What it means to be human has yet to unfold
No god can declare, but by man must be told.

...as for fate itself...

Forever sealed its mysteries guide
As an inner will, the spirit inside.

Forever shrouded, it appears to be
A knowing Paraclete that knows not me.

In short, Shakespeare is not a finalization of what it means to be human. The danger resides in how deterministic that process may be based on his own seemingly pre-programmed responses as incubated by long periods of historical time. Could it be that high-tech itself is fated to be an instrument of MAD and that AI, if delivered in time as the final overseer, will emerge as its antidote!

Rhetorical, useless pondering questions only!

[accelafine]

Ah, the classic one-word deflection—“Philistine.”

When someone asks for clarity, relevance, or actual argument on a philosophy forum, and the response is name-calling? That’s not intellectual high ground—that’s just a lazy way to avoid the fact that poetry isn’t a substitute for reasoned thought.

But if expecting a philosophy thread to focus on philosophy makes me a Philistine, I’ll wear it proudly. At least I’m not mistaking cryptic verse for coherent contribution.

She might have been referring to Alexis, maybe?

Improbable, for once the vulgar nazi buffoon made a pretty good poetry selection. Mike apparently cannot tell the difference between a classic work and the flowery home-styled drivel that drips onto Facebook. Thus, he is exposed as a bit of a Philistine.