Bill Wiltrack wrote:.I never thought I would say this when I first started posting on these boards but I would like to state now, I really appreciate, EVERYONE who participated upon the development of this thread; Arising_uk, creativesoul, Mark Question, John, Chaz Wyman, duszek, Typist, Wootah, Pluto, spike, HexHammer, tbieter, Dunce, and Kayla.
It has been a wild and interesting ride!
At times the road was bumpy but in the end I think we are all closer together and this thread brought out the best in all of us.
This thread was active for almost two-and-a-half months!
One of the most powerful forces that emerged for me in this thread was the discovery of Satyr.
Tremendous ability to write.
Exceptional breadth of philosophy.
He has a style, a mode of operation that initially seems harsh.
Is that the tool that he used on us to bring out more from within us?
Earlier I stated that I thought that this particular thread brought out the best in us.
Could we have ever achieved that if we were to sit around patting ourselves on the back?
Did the member satyr use a style to ruffle our feathers and consequently dust-up some associations that we as a whole would have never been able to achieve on our own?
Did he show to us that perhaps What is stopping us from seeing the truth? is our own, normally comfortable attitude toward each other and ourselves?
Among other things, I think satyr is a tremendous actor...perhaps we will never know the truth. His truth.
.
Indeed....
And you ain't seen nothing yet.
I think that when a
douche-bag settles for a childish
"the cup is on the table" to end his intellectual musings, it is like the christian who says
"God created everything" or the imbecile who simply states unequivocally
"I exist, because I exist" or when a weakling uses his height or childish schoolyard attacks on Greek women and their beauty to compensate for his emasculated mind.
By using the exaggeration of a few male characteristics without even realizing that to be masculine is an attitude, a way of engaging the world, she exposes herself.
In the process of trying to prove herself a man she does the opposite, as I expected she would and had already many many months ago.
Gossip, sexual innuendos, like the ones women use to cut down a man who has hurt them, and the usual banter about physicality and preschool taunts.
You see, for this princess, the only way to understand what I am is to put me in a caricature. I am a nationalist, a racist skin-head, a loser bitter because she can't get laid. Everything is reduced down to a level she can relate to, exposing herself with such brilliance.
What did I say about a mind simplifying, generalizing, the other? But no two simplifications/generalizations are created equal, now are they?
The value of her diploma is exemplified in the abstractions she uses to make sense of me.
To evaluate a mind you need not read it, like the douche-bag claims to avoid being exposed via his "thinking", you must simply evaluate the sophistication of his abstractions; you must study actions.
Is not the quality of the princess's mind not reflected in her tactics of using nationalism and sexual innuendo and attacks against my personal life, with that quaint girlish methodology of hers?
Do I need an institutional authority to tell me what she's all about?
With the level of
edumucation these days, they'll give those pieces of paper to chimps. It's a business. All they need is asses on the seats and feet on the employment/unemployment lines.
Of course engaging in any serious conversation with a child or a retard can be frustrating and I do not recommend it.
I do so, when and if I do, because I am a
Satyr with all that this means.
Once I used to call myself
Wanderer. It was back when I still considered the turds frequenting these forums as way above the average and thought that some meaningful stuff would come of all this socializing.
Boy was I wrong.
Once I realized that it was not the case I changed my persona.
These places are not about philosophy, besides some rudimentary recitation of another's views, most often a famous other, they are places the masses gather to reaffirm their common ideals, disagreeing only on the details while the main principles are held to be self-evident. Like Christian
biblical studies where the book is never questioned but the debate is over who interprets the
holy scripture the best.
I am a
Satyr, and if you combine it with the avatar I usually use, you just might get a hint about the caricature I play on-line, and why I play it.
What were satyr's in Greek mythology but, more importantly, what does the Thomas Harris character of Hannibal Lecter represent?
If there have been any lessons learned it is that philosophy is about exploring what this existence means, outside our simple conceptions and useful abstractions of it.
Philosophy uses the perceived to extrapolate the rest. It requires imagination and artistry.
Whomever is content with
"The cup is on the table" does not belong in anything titled "philosophy". He already knows
the truth and it is contained within the simplicities of his perspective.
He cares not about what "cup" means, or what the concept of "on" signifies. He is satisfied with the simplistic
"the cup is on the table" which even a child can see, no?
If so, then
"I think therefore I am" is overkill for such a douche-bag...and he is satisfied with the even simpler
"I am because I am".
Move on, old fart....play golf, get a hobby...give up your intellectual cravings. Age does not equal wisdom, no more than empathy equals sympathy.
Never-mind if the cup dissipates into a haze of quantum foam when you delve into its depths, where in fact one can wonder if there is a cup at all, or if it dissipates into a vibrating symphony of proverbial strings (talk about science using poetics); never-mind that the concept of "on" only makes sense within the contexts of a planet, rotating, and it denotes a relationship where no contact is ever made - call it a celibate relationship...where no touching is possible, because if there were a nuclear holocaust would ensue; finally never-mind that the particular relationship between the process the mind simplifies as a thing called "cup" interacting with the process simplified into the thing called "table" is one contained within the parameters of human experience, that it is contained within the temporal and spatial possibility an ephemeral human life with the weak sensual organs it is using, can make sense of; never-mind that the term "is" in this case implies a position that does not make sense outside the human mind, using its own fabrications of Cartesian coordinates to pretend that it is being precise.
I linked the princess a while back to an interesting BBC documentary about the length of a string...her response:
"The string is as long as I cut it"....this is the type of mind I am dealing with.
The
"cup is on the table", the
"string is as long as I cut it"...end of story....let us pray.
This, dear friends, is bullying. This is totalitarianism in a nutshell. This is the mindset the fanatics who crashed into those building suffered from.
This is stupidity real time, no quantification necessary, real time proof. It is this same mindset that can burn women because they are witches or who can hang a man because he doubts their simplistic bullshit.
THIS is what stupidity looks like.
Where is this point in space/time this douche-bag uses to signify a
here or a
there? Is it infinitely divisible, and if so then which here is the here he means?
Are these simplifications practical?
Of course, otherwise they would not have evolved. They are successful and so they have managed to be good enough to be used to survive. They've been naturally selected as superior methods of conceptualizing space/time, but they are not the end of the road.
Has evolution stopped? Are the constructs man uses to build buildings and bridges creating structures that last forever, or do they require upkeep and constant adjustments, because math is a simplification like any other language is?
What arrogance to even consider the possibility that man, in his present state, is the end of the road, the pinnacle of evolution...that man knows anything for certain.
What a totalitarian mindset to even propose an absolute truth. This same "humble" douche-bag would have us believe he is open minded, when he already knows the TRUTH!!!
Then he uses
"radical skepticism" to evoke the fascist dilemma...if you deny our certainty you must be about anarchy!
But is the utility of these abstractions enough, is their advantage enough, or does philosophy desire to know more?
Otherwise, who cares if the earth rotates around the sun, when the sun heating the planet suffices and it can be used?
The douche-bag thinks it is enough to simply stay on the "the cup is on the table"...and when his stupidity is put to the test and it begins unraveling he scrambles with idiocies about
THE Truth versus
Truth. Then adopting some of what he was made aware of he begins talking about
"state of affairs", making the absurd statement that he both agrees and disagrees with me....in other words he is all things to all people, if his stupidity is never made public.
Never quantifying a thing...despite being the stringent thinker that he is, demanding only quantifiable concepts to deal with, he now expects to be taken seriously?
He goes so far as to request a synopsis to the essay I linked him to. He can't be bothered, you see, he already knows that "the cup is on the table". He can pick it up, sit on the chair, drink from it...and this is it.
Why ask for more?
Does he ask Kant for quantification of
thing-in-itself? Does he ask him for a
Nietzsche for Nitwitsbooklet?
I gave him pages of justifications, and the grounding of my perspective, but he refuses to consider them...he needs a run-down...he demands quantification: ounces, pounds, centimeters, kilos...human standards.
But this is about his penis, you see. He cannot consider them because his withering dick gets in the way. he came to engage me so that he could chop my balls off.
He could care less if the cup is a dynamic process, participating in a reality which is nothing but dynamic and active. It looks solid, he can touch it, whatever touching means, and he can use the cup...end of story.
This is a thinker? What is this douche-bag doing here?
This from a "mature" man?
I waved my dick and look what came out to play.
The douche-bag is a hypocrite of the worse kind...he actually believes in his own lies.
THAT is what a douche-bag is. Shall I quantify "douche-bag"? Only if he defines the standard...let us begin with the number one.
I, for one, respect him too much and I take him at his words, so I will not respond to anything he says directly unless he lives up to his own standard and quantifies everything he posts.
I'll have to make do with raping the
British princess every chance I get. I find her present distress an invigorating change from her earlier flippancy. Albeit she agrees with me she comes heeding the swinging of my dick, along with the douche-bag.
Imagine that.
Maybe her protruding
arse is an invitation. Did she not come because she saw my dick waving? She says so, so I take her word on it.
The rest of the emasculated freaks ran for the woods when their comfortable "self-evident" ideals were suddenly challenged.
"Did you say 'wilderness'?...that's is, I'm out of here"
"What was that? Natural selection?...well I'm done...you aren't worth my response."
See, that kind of cowardice I can respect.
They refuse to even consider the possibility that race and sex might not be superficial designations, despite the fact that "the cup is on the table". When it comes to penises and pussies and race, then it is never what it appears to be...it is all superficial or much too mysterious and mystical to even explore.
They would rather munch on the grass the herd is used to regurgitating and when they are done chewing on it they produce mountains of fertilizer to grow the next generation of sheeple.
It suffices that there are no races and sex is only physically relevant...enough said. The
cup is on the table...why ask for more?
"Look, damn it!! Can you not see it? It is there!!!"
Evidently aggression is evil, how not typical. I wonder what natural selection is about?
What is selected and how?
Do the animals gather to vote on who deserves to reproduce this time?
Funny how the greatest technological leaps occurred during times of war. Funny how necessity is the mother of invention and comfort the mother of stagnation.
Funny that a pussy would consider challenge not productive...like when muscle builds it is, presumably, because it is at rest, comfortable, and not when it is stressed.
Funny how masculine aggression underlies everything from civilization to philosophy, as challenging nature herself is what the sciences are about.
Funny that an old fart and a douche-bag, raising emasculated sons to be douche-bags like he is, would be such a "nice guy"...yet he contradicts himself by coming to "put me in my place" and THAT is what the
Satyr is all about.
Despite the feigned civility, aloofness, fake politeness, the air of cold reasoning... lies a typical, average, animal that can be known and manipulated to expose its nature, while it is busy wearing its masks.
How do you make someone show his real self, outside the insinuation of his clothes and his etiquette and his diplomas?
You get him angry. You take him out of his comfort zone. You stress his feeble mind with ideas that scare him.
Cooperation, indeed, there is nothing more comforting than having another by your side...like cows and sheep often do. There is some power in numbers, but when the wolf enters and the herd scatters, by exploiting a weak spot, the individuals become easy pickings.
And yes even wolves are social animals...degrees, imbeciles, discrimination...there lies the difference. No absolutes....degrees. strength is a degree of weakness....independence is a degree of dependence...
You turds should have put me on ignore, like your mates did. Then the cup would have been forever comfortably on the table, and all you would have required to be content was that you can fill it and then empty it's contents.
