A Philosophy of Mind

[SpheresOfBalance]

... No one will hire me! I'm a veteran of 16 years that sacrificed his body to chemicals and other such traumas, but the free world can rest easy! ...

So to hear about your pains but whats this stuff about the "free world"? You were in the US Army I presume, if so then your pains are so that the US can remain free to not employ its vets. You fought or were employed for your country's national interest, not in the interests of this 'free world', its like the 'International Community', mythical.

Yea, I'd say you presume 99.99% of the time, and your success rate is pretty slim.

[Barbara Brooks]

busbondi,

Some people and their small mindedness get on my nerves too. The every day chocks us all. To have to listen to what people have to say about going around in a circle of trouble. The multitude entertains many ideas about philosophy, which are tossing about in some region of opinion is not knowledge.



The point of view of knowledge is not reflection into self not a kind of Idealism or mere self-certainty. Rather, knowledge is absorbed (as activity) in the content for this activity is pure self-identity looks on and watches how specific determinateness with life, just where it believes it is working out its own self-preservation is doing what brings about its own dissolution.

Knowledge gets degraded into something lifeless and inert, not known as an immanent living principle of this being nor is there any comprehension of how this entity its intrinsic and peculiar way of expressing and producing itself takes effect.

The very kernel of the anything always takes a survey of the whole, assumes a position above mere being about which does not see it at all.

True knowledge, demands abandonment to the very life claims to have before it; that inner necessity of controlling the object only.

The determination of self being is concrete or actual, but all the same gets degraded into something lifeless and inert, since it is merely predicated and not known as an immanent living principle of being; nor is there any comprehension of how in this entity its intrinsic and peculiar way of expressing and producing itself takes effect.

The very kernel of what is the simplicity of being, the determinate characteristic of one is the process emerges out of the wealth of being, which seemed to be lost as in magnetism.

Knowledge is eternal not the varying from generation and corruption, no secret corners of illiberality, nothing can be more antagonistic than meanness to that which is ever lurking after the whole of things both divine and human.

Love,

BB

[SpheresOfBalance]

What I find amusing is watching people say, that which contradicts the very thing they say, which is in fact indicative of their not knowing what it is they're saying. And while I may be pointing this commentary at specific targets, it applies to every human being alive, including myself. The problem for most people is seeing themselves from a third person point of view, so that they can see this interaction of thought processes. This then, is one of the elements of distortion that I've talked with Lance about, in the "why can't we see the truth" thread. The mind is incapable of making sense of (correlating) all the billions of bits of data it has collected over the many years, to make any real sense of a total picture, at least consciously. The only humans that are even close to being capable are those extremely few, that are said to have a photographic memory, which I've recently learned is actually a misnomer. This is why humility reigns supreme in terms of self image, because it's the only thing that can reduce your being incorrect down to a manageable size. History has proven without a doubt that any knowing in the now is merely tomorrows superstition and belief. The older I get the more I can plainly see that peoples, so called knowing, is simply a perspective of opinion which is hollow and meaningless from the scope of a universal perspective, which yields humility, if you care to pay attention.

[Arising_uk]

Yea, I'd say you presume 99.99% of the time, and your success rate is pretty slim.

So not in the US military then?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yea, I'd say you presume 99.99% of the time, and your success rate is pretty slim.

So not in the US military then?

At the time there was a cold war, between the Soviets and the Americans. The Soviets were considered the number ONE nuclear force in the WORLD! The Americans were considered number TWO!
Now what were you saying about:

not in the interests of this 'free world'

I take it that you're saying that the interests of the UK were parallel to that of the Soviets, yeah Right! Yet another case of your presumption gone awry.

I think you'd have a completely different opinion if you were around and could remember "The Blitz" and that was merely conventional, look to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see what the Soviets could have done to your little Island during the cold war had it heated up. needless to say their would have been a good chance that you and I wouldn't be talking right now, and while you may find that comforting...

And as to your question, you just want to place me in yet another of your boxes of presumption.

[lancek4]

Yea, I'd say you presume 99.99% of the time, and your success rate is pretty slim.

This reminds me (though you may be refering her to some other contextualization). Of a famous guy who said something to the effect :


Our Life is 2% what happens to us and 98% our attitude upon it.

[lancek4]

busbondi,

Some people and their small mindedness get on my nerves too. The every day chocks us all. To have to listen to what people have to say about going around in a circle of trouble. The multitude entertains many ideas about philosophy, which are tossing about in some region of opinion is not knowledge.



The point of view of knowledge is not reflection into self not a kind of Idealism or mere self-certainty. Rather, knowledge is absorbed (as activity) in the content for this activity is pure self-identity looks on and watches how specific determinateness with life, just where it believes it is working out its own self-preservation is doing what brings about its own dissolution.

Knowledge gets degraded into something lifeless and inert, not known as an immanent living principle of this being nor is there any comprehension of how this entity its intrinsic and peculiar way of expressing and producing itself takes effect.

The very kernel of the anything always takes a survey of the whole, assumes a position above mere being about which does not see it at all.

True knowledge, demands abandonment to the very life claims to have before it; that inner necessity of controlling the object only.

The determination of self being is concrete or actual, but all the same gets degraded into something lifeless and inert, since it is merely predicated and not known as an immanent living principle of being; nor is there any comprehension of how in this entity its intrinsic and peculiar way of expressing and producing itself takes effect.

The very kernel of what is the simplicity of being, the determinate characteristic of one is the process emerges out of the wealth of being, which seemed to be lost as in magnetism.

Knowledge is eternal not the varying from generation and corruption, no secret corners of illiberality, nothing can be more antagonistic than meanness to that which is ever lurking after the whole of things both divine and human.

Love,

BB

Is is is is is ... Is there a question in there somewhere? Are you attempting to Learn, or do you know everything?

When you hang out with your freinds, are they actually desciples?

How is it if you know all this 'is' 'true' stuff that others have issue with it?

I would think that one who knows everything would include All experience, that is, include the other in her considerations and not dismiss them into generalizations.

Why is it I don't understand you?
Are you not discounting this fact of my not agreeing with you when you proclaim your truth?

This in itself should show the Believer, thinker, considerer of all things, that what she knows is, at least, half wrong.

Are not you worried that what you know may be merely a dellusion of devoted faith?

Have you no questions?

[Arising_uk]

At the time there was a cold war, between the Soviets and the Americans. The Soviets were considered the number ONE nuclear force in the WORLD! The Americans were considered number TWO!

And as we've subsequently found out your CIA info was pretty much bollocks. Much like your case against Iraq and Afghanistan - how do you think thats going to go now you've left? You also forget that you had all the nukes pointing at the Soviets long before they had any!

Now what were you saying about:

not in the interests of this 'free world'

I take it that you're saying that the interests of the UK were parallel to that of the Soviets, yeah Right! Yet another case of your presumption gone awry.

And yet when the Nazis were at our door where was the Yank? At home I think and if Jap had not attacked you'd have still been there.

I think you'd have a completely different opinion if you were around and could remember "The Blitz" and that was merely conventional, look to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see what the Soviets could have done to your little Island during the cold war had it heated up. needless to say their would have been a good chance that you and I wouldn't be talking right now, and while you may find that comforting...

Who do you think actually saved us from the Nazis? 20,000,000 dead Soviets can't be wrong.

Ya think we'd have had all those nukes pointing at us if we'd not been your missile base?

My parents and grandparents remembered the Blitz and yet they still disliked the Yank.

And as to your question, you just want to place me in yet another of your boxes of presumption.[/color]

You still haven't said if you actually served or not? Saw combat?

[attofishpi]

look to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see what the Soviets could have done to your little Island during the cold war had it heated up.

Only a gun-ho country like the US with a self presumption of superiority and righteousness would do an act like that...

I do this thing with words...take the 's' out of stars and stripes and see what the US actually stands for.

[lancek4]

look to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see what the Soviets could have done to your little Island during the cold war had it heated up.

Only a gun-ho country like the US with a self presumption of superiority and righteousness would do an act like that...

I do this thing with words...take the 's' out of stars and stripes and see what the US actually stands for.

The US stassnds for 'us', which is really code for 'me me me me me all together'. More luxury and toys! Expansion into your lives. Now dammit, or well invade your country anyways and make more patriot acts ! Now shut up and buy things so I can be rich. Now now now!

[Barbara Brooks]

Hey lance4 is this how you talk to your friends?

I have used 'realize' as meaning: to make real. When one 'realizes' as Truth, it is that which has been 'supplied' that the individual may may have reality.

For example: Chaz's 'atheism'. He says it has 'no content' in that as a poisition it is simply a negation of that which has "content', namely, theism.
Yet one cannot exist without the other, together they supply a 'true' reality: the condition of knowledge.

Thus I have said that to say 'truth is' is to indicate a particular condition of knowledge that is our moment. Only through the preceding posts (in this case) can more than one of us 'agree' what it means

It is otherwise, and upon subsequent analysis, a platitude, an empty statement, because it only gains it meaning thru the discourse surrounding. If I posit that it indicates a 'universal' or 'static' condition which applies at all times, like it is an 'actual' condition, it is because we ourselves are denying our ability to come upon a 'true' reality, a 'true' meaning in 'actual' terms between us, and likewise are asserting the reality of the platitude as if such thing actually is not a truism or merely a saying that expresses fultilty of our endeavor.

What the hell is this?

[lancek4]

Hey lance4 is this how you talk to your friends?

I have used 'realize' as meaning: to make real. When one 'realizes' as Truth, it is that which has been 'supplied' that the individual may may have reality.

For example: Chaz's 'atheism'. He says it has 'no content' in that as a poisition it is simply a negation of that which has "content', namely, theism.
Yet one cannot exist without the other, together they supply a 'true' reality: the condition of knowledge.

Thus I have said that to say 'truth is' is to indicate a particular condition of knowledge that is our moment. Only through the preceding posts (in this case) can more than one of us 'agree' what it means

It is otherwise, and upon subsequent analysis, a platitude, an empty statement, because it only gains it meaning thru the discourse surrounding. If I posit that it indicates a 'universal' or 'static' condition which applies at all times, like it is an 'actual' condition, it is because we ourselves are denying our ability to come upon a 'true' reality, a 'true' meaning in 'actual' terms between us, and likewise are asserting the reality of the platitude as if such thing actually is not a truism or merely a saying that expresses fultilty of our endeavor.

What the hell is this?

It is a response in an ongoing discussion. A discussion is where one person proposes an idea, and then someone else questions it either directly or by another proposal. It is a process of reciprocation where each assertion is expected to gain dissent as well as approval.

[lancek4]

... Oh, and all sorts of techniques are used in the effort to continue the discussion; such as leading statements, comedy, sarcasm, confrontation (including insult), playing dumb, and many others.

It is a human process of interaction and involvment with other human beings.

Oh and I only have padawan learners. No freinds

[Barbara Brooks]

What are you talking about I never communicated with so many people in my life , if I had to use my voice I would have a sore throat. Do you know how long this forum has been going on show some respect. Who do you think you are making personal claims about me?

Get rid of that stick up your ass and act right, all you want to hear is yourself, but I am talking about true knowledge that has been handed down through the ages, nothing more. Being here does not help my life any more then anyone here.

Must we suppose philosophy to walk on one leg Socrates asked ? There are generations of philosophers the same as there are generation of plants, and anything which there is generation and the proof would be easier to understand . Are not all things which have opposites generated out of their opposites? I mean such things as just and unjust, good and evil and the innumerable other opposites which are generated out of opposites.

The first philosophers were planted in Greece proper and that is where philosophy made its home. the Phoenician philosopher , Thales, the author of the Ionic sect was born according to the best calculation, in the first year of the 35th Olympiad 640 B.C. and the contemporary of Thales the philosopher Pythagoras.

If Thales was born in the 35th Olympiad and Pythagoras was in the 43rd then Pythagoras was only twenty-one years younger then Thales. One of Thales maxims was "It is not the many words that have most meaning."

No one knows whether he was in the habit of writing, there are not writings from Thales. All one knows of Thales is little. Plutarch says, his first principle; that water is everything that everything takes it origin from water and resolves it self into the same. This principle is the beginning of philosophy. The Greeks had already considered the sun, mountains, earth, sea, rivers as independent powers and revered them as gods.Thales called God the intelligence of the world and said that water is everything, but our mind forms all that which is out of water.

Thalassocracy means mastery of the sea. There is even a science called Thalassography, physical geography which treats the sea.
Generated out of opposites from the Island of Samos and hence belonged the Greeks of Asia Minor, the seat of philosophyand birth place of Pythagoras empereical thinking. Around the time of the Ionians, an important eastern division of classic Greek people, there arose in Greece a person of rare genius, Pythagoras, not only established a school but at the same time designed and carried out a project the like of which had never been before. He founded a society of philosophers

The life of Pythagoras and Christ's lives are written intermingling many marvelous and extravagant tales. His followers begin his career in Italy in and around 530 B.C. with a miracle, beginning when Pythagoras landed in the Bay of Tarentum, at Crotona. Pythagoras encountered fishermen on the way to the town who had caught nothing. He called upon them to draw their nets once more and foretold the number of fish they would catch. The fishermen, marveling at this prophecy, promised if it came true they would do whatever he desired. It came to pass as he said and Pythagoras then desired his new followers to throw the fish they caught back into the sea, for the Pythagorean ate no flesh. Apart from the many fables there remains as an historic fact the great work which he accomplished, and this he did chiefly by establishing a school and by the great influence of his order upon the principal part of the Greco-Italian states, or rather by means of the rule which was exercised in these states through his order. At the time Egypt was regarded as a highly cultured country. From Egypt Pythagoras thus, no doubt, brought the idea of his order, which was a regular community brought together for purposes of scientific and moral culture which endured during his whole life. He was the first instructor in Greece who introduced the teachings of science: There were generally speaking at the time no sciences, nor a science of philosophy, mathematics, jurisprudence or any sciences. Pythagoras had a very strict order for each day in which each hour had its work. The morning, directly after rising, was set aside for recalling to memory the history of the previous day, because what is to be done in the day depends chiefly on the previous day. Similarly, in order to find whether the deeds in the day were done and if they were right or wrong. Their principal food was honey and bread, and liquid was water. He died in 69th Olympiad (504,B.C) . Some historians say about his lengthy life he was 80 and some 104 year old.

That's what I am writing about so that this information I have studied does not sink into oblivion. But, you seem to want to help philosophy fall into this abyss. This is very bad.

[Arising_uk]

Only a gun-ho country like the US with a self presumption of superiority and righteousness would do an act like that...

No, only a country who counted the cost of taking the pacific islands would do this, although the second one was a cynical act.

I do this thing with words...take the 's' out of stars and stripes and see what the US actually stands for.

Thats because you are bonkers.