A Philosophy of Mind

[John]

It seems as if I unintentionally made you feel uncomfortable and you do not want that feeling so you are defending an obvious position that really doesn't hold water.

Why does me pointing out that you've posted a link to an article that you clearly don't understand make you think I'm uncomfortable?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







...............................................









It just appears that way.


Here is an excerpt from the article that I used,

One study at UCLA indicated that up to 93 percent of communication effectiveness is determined by nonverbal cues. Another study indicated that the impact of a performance was determined 7 percent by the words used, 38 percent by voice quality, and 55 percent by the nonverbal communication.


In my country, America, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is kind of credible as a public research university. I believe at least Fourteen Nobel Prize laureates have been affiliated with the university as faculty, researchers, or alumni.



Perhaps I did misunderstand the phrase, One study at UCLA indicated that up to 93 percent of communication effectiveness is determined by nonverbal cues.


I don't know...Perhaps you're right. So?




The bottom line is that I am successfully using non-verbal elements to expand and increase our understanding of philosophy. Period.




You questioned my sincerity. I spun you around spanked you and sent you back home.

So...instead of following that up you move onto another question.


This type of communication is not fruitful or philosophical.





I think we're just about done here...


.

[John]

It just appears that way.

Here is an excerpt from the article that I used,

One study at UCLA indicated that up to 93 percent of communication effectiveness is determined by nonverbal cues. Another study indicated that the impact of a performance was determined 7 percent by the words used, 38 percent by voice quality, and 55 percent by the nonverbal communication.

In my country, America, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is kind of credible as a public research university. I believe at least Fourteen Nobel Prize laureates have been affiliated with the university as faculty, researchers, or alumni.

Perhaps I did misunderstand the phrase, One study at UCLA indicated that up to 93 percent of communication effectiveness is determined by nonverbal cues.

I don't dispute that the UCLA is a credible university. What I'm saying is that they're referring to non-verbal clues given off by the person communicating and that's not the same as displaying a picture. They're not referring to the ability of images to convey information they're referring to the non-verbal information the body gives off and those are different things.

The bottom line is that I am successfully using non-verbal elements to expand and increase our understanding of philosophy. Period.

You're entitled to your opinion. I won't lie and say I respect it though.

You questioned my sincerity. I spun you around spanked you and sent you back home.

So...instead of following that up you move onto another question.

I didn't want a protracted debate about it with you and your posts were self-evidently insincere so what was there to follow up?

[Arising_uk]

...
Perhaps I did misunderstand the phrase, One study at UCLA indicated that up to 93 percent of communication effectiveness is determined by nonverbal cues.

I don't know...Perhaps you're right. So?

So all the babble you said about your images and non-verbal communication is wrong.

As John points out the article is concerned with actual face-to-face communication and how watching is just as or even more important than just hearing the words. Although what NLP says is that you should be checking that the words are congruent with the non-verbal communications.

In your case its just as interesting, as BB pointed-out your images upon her page show the confusion in your head when related to your posts upon mans inhumanity to the other animals.

The bottom line is that I am successfully using non-verbal elements to expand and increase our understanding of philosophy. Period.

The bottom line is that you are delusional if you think this.

Especially since you've not read any philosophy so have no idea what you are talking about other than your own pet-theory about what philosophy should be about, which as far as I can tell appears to actually be about a certain type of metaphysics. Still, it explains why you like the metaphysics of our more nihilistic and misanthropic posters.

You questioned my sincerity. ...

Which given your words is obviously insincere no matter how much you write "I respect ...".

Personally I think BB was just looking for a chance to flounce-off theatrically and you provided the straw or maybe she was truly an animal lover and found your images disturbing. Whatever, that you delude yourself that others were trying to get rid of her rather than just engage with her and that you came back to piss upon here thread shows the level of your thoughts. Not that I don't agree that BB could do with updating her approach as she never did get to a thesis nor a antithesis let alone a synthesis.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




A Philosophy of Mind is by far the largest thread upon this entire forum. It is the RMS Titanic of all threads. Barbara Brooks was it's captain.


The thread and Barbara Brooks appeared to be unstoppable.



No one could phase her, until me.



I found the chink in her armor. The chink that no one else was able to discover.


I hit her, with one shot.

I knew my post would be powerful but I never thought it would have the in the incredibly huge impact that it evidently did.



And the one time, seemingly unsinkable thread is about to be a memory.


The RMS A Philosophy of Mind is breaking-up and is a causality of the past and a facade that she held onto.


Perhaps symbolically, the thread will literally be sinking to the bottom of a real deep, deep blue.


If you are smart you will jump ship and watch as the old strictly linear format that she held onto is washed asunder and slowly disappears.


I'm done here.

There is nothing else to say.




I respect Barbara Brooks and all of her posts. She was amazing.

A Philosophy of Mind was amazing...Until me.





Good-Bye Barbara Brooks.


I'll see you in hell...





.

[Arising_uk]

Talk about proving our point!

[John]

A Philosophy of Mind is by far the largest thread upon this entire forum. It is the RMS Titanic of all threads. Barbara Brooks was it's captain.

The thread and Barbara Brooks appeared to be unstoppable.

No one could phase her, until me.

I found the chink in her armor. The chink that no one else was able to discover.

I hit her, with one shot.

I knew my post would be powerful but I never thought it would have the in the incredibly huge impact that it evidently did.

You're such a big man Bill well done. I'm sure you deservedly feel proud of yourself.

Or I could have said you're the type of bully that gives unions a bad name.

Which would you prefer?

At least Barbara read some philosophy. Some people here read philosophy and some people scour the internet for the next pic they can post it would seem.

[Arising_uk]

...
I hit her, with one shot.

I knew my post would be powerful but I never thought it would have the in the incredibly huge impact that it evidently did.

You posted the same image regularly idiot. That you are now making-up a story to suit yourself is just indicative of your whole approach. You are worse than the gunus, at least they have a message.

[artisticsolution]

Ya know....I have always liked the bible for it's philosophical sayings...I know I know...arising will say it's because I am a "god botherer"...lol...but really...if you take the God out of the bible and just read it as a way of understanding human nature...it's pretty accurate.

Anyway, I think the phrase, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" applies here. Barbara was an artist...and we all critics. Take anyone of us...who among us has not been in Barbara's place at one time or another? Who hasn't had a bunch of people chastise them until they cry uncle and give. It's just part of human nature to want other's to conform to our ideals. I have never met one person who did not have an predisposition to "punish" those who are different. Most are so embedded in the illusion they don't do this that they have very fine justifications why theirs is the "right way/punishment/lifestyle/dogma, etc..."

Whatever the reason...whoever the person...why are we preset to demand others do our bidding? He who is without sin cast the first stone...but who among us is all that great? Who here has not felt alone in his beliefs...in his art? If ever there was a time....when we felt alone....if there was ever a time when someone berated us for being who we are...even though we did no real harm by being an individual...did it not feel good to find solace in someones company who accepted us for our weirdness? Did it not feel good to come home to a place we could be ourselves without the judgement or scorn for simply painting a picture, be it words or images or actions, etc?

Why, if it feels good to us to find another who accepts us as we are, do we love to punish? What is it? Can someone explain it to me?

[Arising_uk]

Its a philosophy forum not an artists retreat. Critique is part and parcel of it, as is engaging with ones interlocutors.

[artisticsolution]

Its a philosophy forum not an artists retreat. Critique is part and parcel of it, as is engaging with ones interlocutors.

But the rules don't state that you can't do art here...or that you have to mingle with others. Are there philosophers in the past who did not engage with others as part of "doing" philosophy? I don't know the answer to that question...however, if there were none...doesn't mean a new category cannot be started. The art of philosophy perhaps?

[Arising_uk]

I was just pointing out that your biblical homily was not applicable as critique is not punishment in philosophy. Its an opportunity to refine or alter ones thoughts.

[artisticsolution]

hmmmm...you may be right....but when does "critiquing" stop being critiquing and starts being harassing? Seems to me that some of those "critiques" weren't really critiques but more verbal assaults, as they did not always point out errors in thinking or logic and sometimes were just said as a critique of aesthetic appeal, instead of philosophical content.

[Arising_uk]

I agree, many were just straight abuse, but many were just pointing out that interacting with others about ones thoughts is a norm in philosophy. Not that I don't think she replied in her own way in some replies, nor that in some she actually had a conversation, but upon the whole she just repeated her words, much like Bill in fact. Or she went straight to abuse.

[IAMTHE99%]

Fuck the straw. It was the Camel.