uncreativesoul wrote:
Prior to one satisfactorily offering an "equal measure" of what another offers, the other's offering must be mentally grasped.
Only if it can be offered with sagacity.
uncreativesoul wrote:This is false.
Dear boy, your laconic denouncements are not sufficient, but they are useful to you.
To a man who would tell you "The earth is round" you would answer with a self-satisfied smile "False."
uncreativesoul wrote:Prima facie evidence that the effects/affects of apperception are real, even if the internalization results from a breach between thought/belief and reality.
Who said they were not real, boy?
A painter paints a mouse.
Both the mouse painted and the painting of the mouse representing it are real, boy.
Are you shadow-boxing.
I came here to be lynched by a man defending the masses.
Are you not he?
Are you not their hero?
uncreativesoul wrote: No. I mean what I say and say what I mean.
No, you say what you think you mean...intentions are sometimes hidden from the self who lacks self-consciousness or the courage to accept his own nature.
I will red between the stringy lines, and you keep handing me those strings.
Will not my rope suffice, as recompense?
uncreativesoul wrote: If there is any doubt in your mind as to what that is, just ask.
Would I ask an ape why he flings his feces?
uncreativesoul wrote: There is insufficient evidence to warrant any significant degree of certainty(since you've invoked the term) regarding the kind of person that you are. There are not enough facts in evidence.
Therefore your promised hanging will not take place, as you are now realizing that you intended to avenge yourself upon your own misunderstanding and erroneous evaluation.
Were you not supposed to "put me in my place" and tech this "bully" a lesson?
But, no, this is more subtle, no?
You fancy yourself sophisticated...and your earlier more vulgar approach has given way to a more polite form.
I enjoy politeness and that air of aloofness, particularly when I know it is fake, as it most often is.
uncreativesoul wrote: I've judged the quality of your writing(in between the increasingly excessive ad homs) according to coherency and known correspondence(fact). Thus far it is hit and miss and bordering on completely incoherent as a whole.
Then you should pass by and turn away.
But here you are, boy.
I'm sorry I did not meet your high standards, but if I were interested in selling the the rabble, I would write to satisfy their needs: something uplifting and positive and happy.
Like a fairy-tale.
uncreativesoul wrote: You, as a person, seem to mistake your mental imaginings(thought/belief) for reality.
Then you should teach me a lesson I shall not soon forget.
If this is the case, boy, and your own judgment is not clouded by emotion, then I should be an easy affair for you. An afternoon walk.
Have at it.
You asked what belief is, I answered...proceed.
But before that...quid pro quo....if you shall embarrass me I intent to gain more than the knowledge that I inflated you pride.
Quid pro Quo...why so scared? You ask, I answer...I ask you answer.
Not rally interested in your philosophical views, I'm afraid, so I'll ask what about what I am interested in.
uncreativesoul wrote: IFF you believe that which you write, then you presuppose much with a glaringly obvious overconfidence in your own judgment capability. That is about the extent to which I've judged you so far, since I've been asked.
You mean to say there has been a writer, outside the satirist or the fantasy paddler, who does not believe what he writes?
I shall take you to your word, dear boy, and consider your writings, brilliant as they are, as being NOT what you actually believe.
I will then consider your critique of me and my writing to be false.
If you are accusing me of confidence, old boy, then you should consider why you lack it.
A man offers an opinion BECAUSE he has confidence that it is superior to another opinion, old boy.
Do you not have confidence, such as it is, that I will be hanged?
Did I not show the appropriate level of Christian humility? Was I supposed to be more groveling before idiots and retards, so as to be acceptable to them or so as as to have them read me and take me seriously?
Were you intending to correct my English or my engrish?
uncreativesoul wrote: Some need not be hanged by another, suffice it to say that they will hang themselves if left alone. Far be it for me to get in your way, especially when your doing such a great job.
Yes, and sometimes the eye sees what it wishes were true, particularly when it is shared with a majority.
Look up mass hysteria and delusion. Psychology is one of my interests...particularly mass psychology.
I do not doubt, old boy, that you think you can wipe the floor with me intellectually, and this is shown in your earlier bravado,...which is now turning softer more contemplative...more clever.
Now, you intend to fall back, suppressing the need to run or find an excuse to dislodge yourself from a situation you thought would be easy.
So you fall back on plan-b...which is simply the art of twisting your perspective to the point where everything said and done constitutes a minor victory, while you say nothing at all.
The slightest spelling error on my part will become a glorious victory on the intellectual battlefield.
See, little boy, like the little girl Arousing_Princess you are not really interested in the ideas expressed, but you are now here to humble me, returning me to your fold, so to speak.
This is about emotion, now...not reason....and that's where I wanted you to go. Because often that pompous posturing hides an emotional mind...which I love to expose. The most coldly presented positions are rooted in animal instincts, pretending to be other than what they truly are.
Being interested in reality, as it pertains to the human condition, I intend to use any method to uncover it beneath the civilized garments it uses to cover itself with.
I can sense in your reluctance to speak about your opinions a vulnerability which unleashes its hatred upon the one that dares do what you cannot, without exposing the simplicity of a mind, hiding beneath civilized banter and social etiquette. English "stiff upper lip" has often been mistaken for the coldness of objectivity. You use it well, sir boy.
Old fart, were you not going to teach me about belief?
I am waiting for your insights. Perhaps using your own words - dare I to dream.
uncreativesoul wrote:Since you asked...
11th post from the top of page 8.
Ah, of all the posts on the subject you chose the one where I reveled in my impending hanging...and what of it, boy?
You are indulging in the usual ploy of pointing without precision, hoping I will be affected by suggestibility, little boy.
Nice try.
You remind me of an old woman who sees a ghost and when asked "Where?" she points to the shadows and whispers in fear: "There"
Your delusions and linguistic inadequacies, should not be used against me, boy.
Now, let us proceed...where in that post do I infer that reality in NOT fluid? A quote from it please, which according to your genius, this insinuation is most evident.
uncreativesoul wrote:Now, I do not - at this time at least - expect a coherent/relevant response regarding this, nor do I expect for you to "get it"(the problem of entailment in the above assertion).
Ah, so the problem is in your inability to comprehend.
Excellent!
I think it is clear and obvious, but you wish to drown me in details, no?
Here it is again, dumbed-down, significantly for your convenience...more "rope" for ya:
Because reality is fluid, any evaluation of it is obsolete once it is made, and so a man can only find an approach to certainty and this certainty must be judged in comparison to another man's and how the opinions offered reference a shared experience with reality.
In still other words, an opinion is an assessment of what is most probable and it then must be continuously updated given that reality is dynamic, and/or tested with application - pragmatism.
Reality being the sum total of all interactions and that which is independent from all interpretations of it.
Given that the mind observing is a part of what is being observed it can never know the totality, for this would also require absolute energies or a vantage point outside reality itself, which is a ludicrous proposition yet one often employed.
The evolution of consciousness and then intelligence was meant to overcome this problem....The mind gathers sensual information, finds patterns in them and then projects them as possibilities and probabilities, in this way compensating for the lag between the fluidity of reality and its brain's ability to process all the information at its disposal.
This lag, is what makes imagination all the more useful.
With these projected abstractions, mental models, it tries to predict the future based on what the past has taught it. In essence it is a looking back projected forward.
It is a preemption...and its advantage is that of efficiency, as the organism can then focus energies more precisely.
One might very well ask: What is flowing? and this is a question only a mind which depends on static points would ask, since it presupposes what is absent.
All we can say is that there is constant activity, partially perceived, or, more accurately, there is constant interactivity. This can be metaphorically represented, suing words, with the term "flow" or "flux" if you wish to imply multidimensional interactivity or decreasing entropy.
The prejudices inherit in language are best exemplified by the famous "I think, therefore I am"...here the "I" is represented as a static, to which thinking is applied, after the fact. in other words the thinker is other than the thought or the one is static while the other is the active element...which is a mistake produced by language and the mental methods the human brain utilizes.
Then the conclusion, "...therefore I am" implies an existence "am" which is an attribute of the static "I"...as if existing is other than that which exists.
The only way to surmount these linguistic prejudices is to use artistry, by first recognizing that words, like any other tool, is a medium.
uncreativesoul wrote:No need. You're doing a fine job of confusing your own mental misgivings with reality, and that is sufficient.
Are you implying that you are not?
If so, then please prove it.
You've allowed your emotions to take over, boy...and now you are thrashing about, casting aspersions and monosyllabic assaults with questionable effectiveness.
Perhaps your misgivings are taking hold of you.
But I am here to play with you, boy, so I will accept your judgment as fact and urge you to take advantage of it.
uncreativesoul wrote:Bullshit. Your words are below...
No... there is no truth, but only perspectives, interpretations of reality.
Now it is quite clear that you denied the existence of truth. "There is no truth" is unambiguous. The irony here is thick, as it is now the case that you're once again engaged in truth. This time regarding what it was that you've already claimed. Now, as I've already stated in no uncertain terms...
Dear boy, you are now entering the bog that takes the sentence "Truth is there is no truth" or "There is absolutely no absolute" as your starting point, because you fail to realize how language is what creates this paradox...like all others.
A simple boy, like you, would fail to realize what was being said...so here it is again, again dumbed-down:
A language is a symbolic expression of thoughts. Thoughts are amalgamations of abstractions of reality, constructed using
a priori methods - evolved through time suing natural selection - and using the continuous input of sensual data, which are simplified and generalized down to absolutes.
It is this assimilation of sensual input which separates the delusional moron from the more lucid one.
Ergo, dear boy, language reflects this simplification, generalization, and its "logic", including that of the language of math, presupposes the
absolute, which is absent, as a necessary aspect of how the mind makes sense of a
fluid reality. In other words language reflects the simplistic methods of binary logic, which posits the dichotomies in between which man fabricates interpretations of the world.
Binary logic offers direction...signposts....between which man places himself.
For example, with the simplistic generalized, notions of
here and
there, man gives himself a direction, even if the here and the there are only mental fabrications, and they can be infinitely divided.
There is no "here" in a fluid forever active, dynamic reality. There are metaphors that can be used to apply to any position from any vantage point.
The mind is not interested in "truth", per se, but in a model which is most advantageous to it; one that best represents a
fluid reality.
Language and the mind being dependent on static models, which are nowhere to be found outside the human mind, and its endeavors, becomes problematic.
A more sophisticated mind compensates by admitting that it has no capacity to perceive reality directly or completely and so it utilizes artistry to deal with the matter.
It does not speak of absolute truth, but of superior and inferior perspectives. The only ones speaking about ruth, in the absolute sense, are the dogmatic Judeo-Christian psychologies, who even in their secular form are addicted to certainty and the peace it offers them.
Language is an artistic form, if its constructs are not taken literally as depicting absolutes. We might have a word for a singularity, and call it ONE, but this is only a mental model with no reference to anything outside of it.
When the mind points to its own abstractions to prove to itself that its own constructs are facts, it is falling into solipsism or worse delusion.
Now, back to the sentences, constructed using words, attempting to describe reality.
Let us take one of them:
"Truth is there is no truth".
Now, what does it negate? It is in numerical terms for the {0}.
It negates or contradicts the sentence: "There is truth" - this is the equivalent to the numerical value of {1}.
Already we have the makings of binary logic, leading to dichotomies such as good/bad, God/Devil, Here/There....But this sentence is nonsensical and should not have been uttered at all. the only place this sentence makes sense is in the human mind which is reliant upon artificially produced absolutes.
Unfortunately in order to negate it one must use the very linguistic premises which presuppose it. Language is built on these abstractions...such as "thing"...creating the dichotomy something/nothing or 1/0.
The only way around this mental limitation, exacerbated by fools who have no linguistic artistry, is to awaken to the essence of language, which is art.
When you say "tree" you are not claiming that the word or the image in your tiny brain, which the word symbolizes, is the tree itself...you are saying that the simplified, generalized, abstractions you create in your brain to represent the tree has been reduced down to an abstraction by eliminating many dimensions, one of which is time.
When you say "tree" you are creating a static symbol or a simplified image representing a phenomenon which is dynamic.
The tree you refer to is changing, as you look at it, as you speak its name - yet your name for it is static and can be applied to any tree or any phenomenon resembling this phenomenon you call tree.
Let's take the other sentence:
"There are absolutely no absolutes"...but, from the get-go, the very idea of an absolute is nonsense.
It is like the notion of God. When you contradict the notion of God to a christian imbecile what does he do? He accuses you of believing, of having faith in the non-existence of the absurdity. He equates his absolute with your absolute denial...just as you retarded old-fart are doing here.
The idea has no reference outside the human brain which creates it out of necessity, projecting it to give itself direction.
Again, unfortunately, but to contradict it, one must use the very instruments which lead to this fallacy.
Just as one can only negate the (1) by positing a (0) where both are representations of an absolute static state which is nowhere in evidence.
In fact both the #1 and the 0 are part of a binary code which point to nihilism. Whether you imagine the world ending with a void or with a thing, makes no difference. Once the absolute is attained, existence is made obsolete.There is no reason to be active when one is perfect, unless you baptize activity as a characteristic of perfection, in which case you would have to provide evidence, without resorting to the one and only hypothetical exception to the rule, of a action not based no a necessity...or need when applied to life.
If we accept man as being a manifestation of existence, then name one, one will do, action which is not governed by a need. Need being a conscious interpretation of a lack...and what is lacking? The absolute, the perfect, the complete, God, call it whatever metaphor you want.
Boy, language is a tool, just as the brain is. Use it, or lose it.
When a tool chips away at a rock to create a marble horse, it does not claim that this horse is the real organic one. It says this is a representation of a phenomenon, which it constructs to analyze its form or to enjoy its beauty or to satisfy some need.
So, when I deny the existence of truth, boy, I am simply denying the absolute form of it.
I am saying that truth is subjective interpretations, which can be judged as being superior or inferior but should never be considered absolute. That I must use a form of communication which is founded upon binary logic, which postulates absolutes as part of its method, is why idiots, like you, get confused.
The only way to contradict my assessment is not to indulge in semantic games, like a woman, but to show me one absolute truth.
Boy, just as a christian must prove a positive, in his case the existence of God, before I have tyo justify my denial of his assertion, so too you, must prove the positive, in your case truth, before I have to justify my denial of it.
Tell us about this absolute truth.
uncreativesoul wrote:Truth is central to everything thought/believed and spoken. Attempts to deny this, presuppose their own truth... necessarily so, and therefore remove the ground upon which they, themselves depend.
See above, boy.
Truth is a perspective, not an absolute. We all have "truths", and we change our opinions through a lifetime if we are smart of honest, because that's how we are forced to think, but only the few morons, indulging in their arrogance while playing the humility card, would say that all perspectives, call them truths in the usual conventional manner, are equally valid.
Who is the "bully" here, you old fart?
I offer no totalitarian truth, only a superior one, in relation to yours, even though you offer nothing but critique. You allude to this absolute truth, and so you are the fascist, Judeo-Christian imbecile that must be put in his place and hanged like the mangy dirty old boy that he is.
That they are not equal proves that there is no singular truth, as reality is fluid and truth, whatever this abstraction might mean, is never given nor can ever be entirely be known.
In fact truth is an allusion to a static state of reality, which is contradicted by reality itself.
We all propose a truth, a superior perspective,
uncreativesoul wrote:Get over yourself, will ya? You're the one who invoked the term "limit" when referring to what your "awareness is contained in". It was a failed attempt to say something meaningful. It is, as I've suggested, an example of one who has not and/or cannot come to meaningful and coherent terms with what it is that they think/believe.
I enjoy your psychoanalysis.
I am sure you can offer an alternative showing how you have come to terms with it...and I am sure that this alternative will be absolute.
Limits, boy, are always in reference to the human being.
uncreativesoul wrote: Here... I'll remind you of exactly what you said.
Satyr claimed:
3. I can use the present state, as far as I can perceive it, to project a more probable future and a most probable past but my awareness is contained in what I cal "my perceptual event horizon" and so it has its limits.
Now, seeing how nothing can escape from an event horizon, and given the fact that you're clearly engaged in conversation, it is rather foolish to assume that your awareness cannot escape from this aforementioned hypothetical container. Your awareness is obviously being put to paper, as it were, so the analogy makes no sense. It is incomprehensible, not as a result of my inability to grasp what you've asserted, but conversely
because I do.
Dear boy, accepting the limitations of my senses and my mind, is your proof that I do not know what I am talking about?
My
perceptual event horizon represents the ambiguous point where my senses can no longer formulate input into models, interpreting the rest as blackness or void.
My awareness is limited, as is yours, boy. But not equally so.
uncreativesoul wrote:So, aside from that obvious misgiving, and since you've asked... the event horizon itself is a limit/border.
Yes, and the concept is a manmade one, trying to make sense of the world around it.
Like the idea of
SuperStrings or particles or here or now, or I or Being or One. How much more poetic can you get?
uncreativesoul wrote:Furthermore, may I suggest that you not use terms, which have very specific mathematical meaning, for metaphorical and/or rhetorical purposes when you do not understand what it is that you're drawing comparison between? I'm suddenly being reminded of Deepak Chopra. How odd.
You are obsessed with authorities, boy.
I can use language and imagery in whatever way passes on the meanings I wish to express. Your stringent dependence on that academic field and how they use concepts and words shows your personal limitations when it comes to language. You've simply replaced God with a new authority figure.
Shall I use Freud's
ego in exactly the same way he did; should I only dare to speak of
Will if I am adhering to how Schopenhauer or Nietzsche used it, should i be limited by Mutaran in my usage of the word "autopoesis"?
You stupid boy. You are institutionalized.
Dear boy, even your mathematical model is an artistic expression of what the human mind can make sense of in no other way.
uncreativesoul wrote:Everything that exists.
Wow...that is so precise I am amazed at the promiscuity of your mind, boy.
Define
exists.
Define
thing as you allude to it in "every-thing".
uncreativesoul wrote:Why do you insist upon changing the subject? Focus, will you? Explain what you mean by your awareness being "contained" in meaningful, coherent terms.
"Changing the subject"?
Oh dear, you are losing it.
I've explained it and I will one more time. After that you are on your own.
Consciousness, awareness, is contained within the limitations, biological, genetic, of the senses that feed it input, stimulating biochemical energy pulses to flow through constructed with experience and more so by inheritance synaptic clusters triggering thoughts and images.... and the limitations of brain in processing this input s these have been determined by the sum of its past...its inheritance, its genetics.
This is the ambiguous border of the
perceptual event horizon; the point where all falls into darkness. The mind compensates using projections/imagination...tasking the perceived, and finding patterns to extrapolate what it cannot perceive.
uncreativesoul wrote:Rope your giving me? What an odd thing to say.
I know.
uncreativesoul wrote: To answer your question, no I am not here to make an example out of you. I am here to do philosophy. Sorry if I poked you too hard. I figured you could take it, but perhaps I overestimated your tolerance to receive that which you readily give.
It did hurt...you are a formidable opponent when you say nothing but only interrogate.
You remind me of a dance critic, who can dish out the hilarious put-downs, but steps on his own feet when he dares to stand on the floor.
uncreativesoul wrote:Let me try this another way. It seems that the significance/relevance of my objection has been misunderstood. The objection does not conflict nor negate scientific methodology. How that has been arrived at is clearly based upon some false presupposition/misinterpretation unbeknownst to me.
Oh, do say sir...
uncreativesoul wrote:1. Application has nothing to do quantifiability.
2. Quantifiability has everything to do with precision.
3. Therefore, application - in and of itself - offers no proof of a theory's precision.
This is where you step on the floor...Name one quantity with precision.
Do I need to quantify the force of my striking your testicles to see its applicable effectiveness?
Do I need a chemical analysis of an apple to see that it is rotten?
Does a hawk make a thorough quantitative analysis of speed and air pressure and distance to kill a pigeon?
Are you addicted to graphs and statistics? I bet you are.
This is how they manipulate you, as you can fabricate any outcome by the way you posit a question and then how you analyze the results.
uncreativesoul wrote:We evidently hold two different notions of what constitutes being "a challenge". I'm conversing with a believer who does not hold that what they believe is true; moreover one who, as a logical consequence of their own criterion, cannot hold that and remain coherent. To the contrary, I am attempting to gain an understanding of what it would take for your claims to be true, and in doing so, it seems(assuming you believe what you write) that I have a better grasp on your belief than you do. It is interesting to me. Call it a case study.
But you do so in bad faith, dear boy.
Your attitude is indicative of the persona you wish to project, while your actions conflict with it. You are the worse, most vile, kind of hypocrite...the most disgusting and dangerous sort...the kind that is convinced that its pretenses and lies are really genuine.
uncreativesoul wrote: "Survival of the fittest all the way down" was your claim. You've offered numerous references to male dominance, aggression, taking from others, machismo, etc. in an attempt to justify your belief in the "natural" order of these things and discredit other kinds of survival mechanisms which you believe have replaced them. The undeniable existence coupled with the indisputable success of cooperation when compared to the successes of brute physical strength negates your justification of that claim.
Dear boy, you are engaged in self-flattery and masturbation.
I do not deny that an ant is a successful organism, even though you propose it as your ideal state.
Having realized how dependent you are on academics and institutional sources of authority I offer this on your cooperation:
Russell, Bertrand wrote:In these days under the influence of democracy, the virtue of co-operation has taken the place formerly held by obedience. The old-fashioned schoolmaster would say of a boy that he was disobedient; the modern schoolmistress says of an infant that he is non-co-operative. It means the same thing: the child, in either case, fails to do what the teacher wishes, but in the first case the teacher acts as the government and in the second as the representative of the People, i.e. of the other children. The result of the new language, as of the old, is to encourage docility, suggestibility, herd-instinct and conventionality, thereby necessarily discouraging originality, initiative and unusual intelligence. Adults who achieve anything of value have seldom been “co-operative” children. As a rule, they have liked solitude: they have tried to slink into a corner with a book and been happiest when they could escape the notice of their barbarian contemporaries. Almost all men who have been distinguished as artists, writers or men of science have in boyhood been objects of derision and contempt to their schoolfellows; and only too often the teachers have sided with the herd, because it annoyed them that the boy should be odd.
Boy, I am exposing the source of your divine cooperation: weakness, boy.
I know you worship love and altruism, as a good automaton should, but this is your selfishness presenting itself as selflessness.
Social creatures enter into these cooperative alliances because they are unable to cope with existence on their own. It is a compromise of self to survival, eventually leading to the miasma of Christianity: the surrender to the communal Ideal.
uncreativesoul wrote: You have no idea what you're talking about.
Do you believe so, or do you know so?
uncreativesoul wrote:This is false. You did and have once again. Haven't you figured out what's going on here?
I do, and I have...it is an old story.
I play along, because I know how the herd perceives and what my course shall be.
Undoubtedly belonging to a majority has its privileges...emotional support for one...a delusion shared is strengthened tenfold.
Enter a church and talk against God...see how the herd will laugh.
I suspect you have convinced yourselves that no matter how mediocre you might all be, that I am "embarrassing" myself before you. But this is a typical defensive mechanism and I am not particularly affected by the judgments coming from such dependent and weak minds.
Would I care if a blind man laughs with his blind friends at my clothes?
uncreativesoul wrote:Those questions are irrelevant, but clearly asked again, none-the-less.
Quid pro Quo..
Sex?
Age?
Location?
Why so scared?
If you do not reciprocate, I will be forced to take you even more lightly than I have already.
Granted it is a way for you to extricate yourself from a promise. But I am convinced that, in your mind, I am already hanging and your friends are sharing in the joy of it. [/size]
And your derivations of others thoughts are what?
And that has what to do with it?