Does This Make Sense?

[Arising_uk]

I call your attention to the following definitions as found in the Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd.

Pay particular attention to def's 5 & 6:

philosophy (fɪˈlɒsəfɪ) — n , pl -phies
1. the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)
2. the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school: the philosophy of Descartes
3. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a discipline: the philosophy of law
4. archaic , literary or the investigation of natural phenomena, esp alchemy, astrology, an astronomy
5. any system of belief, values, or tenets
6. a personal outlook or viewpoint
7. serenity of temper

When reading the news, cannot one sense exactly that, which is presented in definitions 5 & 6 above? And for one to bring it here, (PNF), isn't it obvious, that they see that what was presented, as a sound philosophy, should be questioned, isn't that a given?

I take your point but point out that over here the news, in general, attempts not to be based upon 5 not definitely not 6, may be different over there. However I accept that where the broadcast medium is privately owned then one can see both in action. On the whole I think news is facts not philosophy and that it is a subject than one can philosophise about and in particular to apply definition 1 which is what I think Bill does exactly not do.

Aren't you then an elitist, prejudice, saying who can and cannot join into your exclusive club, as though your particular education gives license above others of lessor means? Even the dumbest of dumb, have philosophies, albeit, possibly flawed, but that is not necessarily the case, and I can see it being reversed as well, but more importantly who are you to say who can and cannot play the game? One does not have to read any philosopher in order to have a philosophy. You, it would seem, just try and find 'value' in your time spent with education, as you cast down others of meager means, as you have not been capable of finding it elsewhere. If you can't humiliate others, of more meager means, with the time you've spent learning of some 'others' philosophy, then what good has it been? You use your education as a weapon, not to enlighten, as evidenced in your attitude as you wield it. Your tit for tat arguments with Bob over which country is better, is evidence of this, as well as how you've explained to me your meaning in the term Yank. Your 'use' of emoticons is another example. Bigot comes to mind, one that can't see past their own nose. This is not the mode of a true philosopher. Socrates was the best example of a true philosopher, IMHO. Ego should remain in the background as much as possible.

If you think Socrates had no ego then you've not read Plato and are a good example of what I'm talking about. So no, I'm not being elitist(which bye-the-bye is hysterical given your supposed love of Socrates) nor am I saying who can or who cannot 'join the club'. What I am pointing out is that whilst it is true that many have their philosophies if you read philosophy you'll find that whilst the thoughts are original in the sense that you've just thought them, in the main, they've already been said by the philosophers. I could if I wished be very 'elitist' in my responses to many and just state the category and name of the argument or position that the other is postulating and tell them to go away and read the many critiques that challenge their thoughts. I don't because I remember what is was like to wish to philosophise and appreciate anyone interested in the subject and will engage with them. What I do find annoying is that many can't be bothered to make the effort to read any philosophy before they spout off.

Playing the 'meagre means' card is ridiculous as most of the major philosophers works can be found online for free, as can university papers, courses and discussions(to the credit of some American universities) and libraries offer access to all the philosophers works. All I say is that those who come to a philosophy forum attempt to at least read some philosophy. Would you go to a historians forum with no knowledge of history, a psychologists, a sociologists, a physicists, etc, etc? Why is it that people think Philosophy is not a subject as well?

Or one could see that I said that in this instance, of regretting a rash decision, he was a good man. Note that I said, "The only time I'm aware of" If one acknowledges the inability to necessarily know of all instances in which criterion believed to yield a particular blanket assertion is true, how then could they make such an assertion. With my acknowledgement, I can only be talking of that particular instance. You saw what you needed to see for your argument.

Firstly, I remember no regret from Bill, in fact he crowed about his actions and then repeated them with respect to chaz wyman. Secondly, all you said was that if one apologises for an act that makes them a good man with respect to that act. I pointed out that I've done this so by your criteria I am too.

One can easily see the conflict of interests involved in being a mod of 'such' a forum, as I've already referenced earlier in this thread, as to Rick. If one truly understands the why of that conflict, I see that they would tread differently than you have, some of this reasoning is contained throughout this particular response.

I apologise as I see you did understand why I dropped being a mod as I wished to interact with others without the influence. I do not agree that there are any issues with the 'real' persona but think if there were it'd be with the mod persona.

That, depending upon my mood, I allow the frustration of dealing with some particular differences between peoples method of interaction, that I find a waste of time, to rub me the wrong way, or to the extent, that I loose control of calm response. While I see the need to be calm in the face of adversity, as it's really no ones fault, except for the true trolls, I have off days where I allow other frustrations in my life to manifest intolerance, which in fact is contrary to my understanding of things. I'm an extremely emotional person, due to my experiences, some of which, I've made known to you, largely so you can understand the why of it. If only there were micro switches one could flip.

For someone who says(I think) that they believe in free will you appear not to.

I've never said questions are at issue, rather your assumption. At issue is your condescension, via emoticons and things like "(although I suspect this is all you've read about him)," (unnecessary, only for singular purpose, to demean, as you could not possibly know this to be true); twisting the 'rhino tie' to mean something less, than what it was, without knowing, just to be nasty; to speak of ones character, without the slightest possibility of knowing what it truly is. etc. You mix lies as to ones character into your argument, as lies are untruths, as if just because you know that they can exist, that they necessarily exist, in every instance, a very shallow and misinformed position, not one of a true philosopher. You and your arguments would be better served if you would not accuse one of such before you ask, or make point of the possibility, as you have found it to be sometimes true. In this respect it's easy to see that you do not know what Socrates means when he says 'I only know, that I know nothing.' As I've said, regardless of the most brilliant philosophers work, if they do not understand these words, as evidenced in their delivery, then they've missed something very fundamental to philosophy, and this then is why I'm forever referencing that quote, when I see it's need.

LMAO! And your attributions of gender and all the other allegations you often cast upon me and others says what about you as a philosopher? At times an emoticon is the only thing that truly expresses what one feels and if you note I say 'I suspect' not that I know something is true, if my suspicion is incorrect then I expect the other to correct me and I'll accept that. They reason why I say such things is that the words of the other tend to belie the knowledge I have of the subject under discussion.

The reason I find your question to be invalid: Quantify imminent? Which I've already asserted, and you ignored, to once again ask. and you wonder why I say you're not worth answering, as you waste time on ground already covered. The answer to this, I already provided in:

Should one gorge their mouth with solid fat and pure sugar, just to the point of a massive coronary, before abstaining? And for the sake of what? Gorging?

How could one possibly interpret this? I see only one way, please provide another.

Then you are talking about one lifetime, so I ask do you think this applies in the environmental situation you envisage. Me I think imminent would be within the currently youngest generations lifetime but would accept maybe their kids. So, do you think its that imminent?

I understand everything I'm talking about, to the point that my words reflect. Who are you, to question my logic in knowing, with irreverence, as if some sort of authority? There may be a difference in the way a receiver understands them, but it is egotistical and arrogant to always make statements about the transmitters meaning, as though the receiver knows that it is incorrect, and assert the misconception in such a way, as to make the false reception the fault of the transmitter, rather than simply ask for clarity, otherwise the receiver runs the risk of needlessly insulting the transmitter.

Which you pretty much never do and I do fairly consistently. Who I am is the person receiving the words and as such your meaning has not much say, other than in the shared use of a language, in how I make a meaning of them. You appear to think that words have an inherent meaning that we objectively understand, they don't, language and meaning is a process. You keep looking for me implying "fault", I don't, what I say is that its a misunderstanding to think language and meaning works in the way you appear to think they do. What fault I do find is in the idea the the receiver is the only side that has to make the attempt to clarify meaning. When you say this, "... it is egotistical and arrogant to always make statements about the transmitters meaning, as though the receiver knows that it is incorrect, and assert the misconception in such a way, as to make the false reception the fault of the transmitter...", I think you miss that such a reply is when the receiver has made a meaning of the transmitters words and what the transmitter is hearing is that meaning. As such, if the transmitter thinks the reply is a misunderstanding of their meaning then if they actually wish to make themselves understood they need to take this onboard and think about what they said, hence the saying "The meaning of ones words is the response they get". The other situation is where the receiver cannot make a meaning and in this case a question is the best reply, although my experience is this appears to give many insult as well.

Incorrect, as your flawed idea places the blame on the transmitter, and is therefore a lie, it is false. It's selfish, egotistical, arrogant, misinformed, etc. ...

You really need to reread what you said above to me about insult and condescension. Anyhoo, no I don't place 'blame' or accuse them of lies and all your other pet peeves. All I say is that language and meaning is a process between intersubjectivitys and not an objective entity that subjects can view.

I could, if hard pressed, as it's hard for me to be anything other than honest, formulate one just as incorrect, in favor of the transmitter, against the receiver. The truth is that it's exactly equal In the following graphic representation:
Transmitter -----> | -----> Receiver

Where:
Black represents the people of different mind.
Blue represents conveyance/language of different dialect.
Red represents exactly where misconception lies.[/color]

I think this too simplistic a model and reinforces the idea that meaning is 'out there' rather than in one side or the other during the meaning creation process and shows none of the feedback loops that are in communicating meaning via language.

Both parties are 'exactly' equal as to meaning and misconception. Thus both should tread lightly as to placing blame. While both parties are exactly equal as to the meaning being accurately conveyed, it is incumbent on the receiver to ensure they understand prior to holding the transmitter responsible for an incorrect assumption of meaning, especially if their response is to be charged with venom. In all instances the only given, for the most part, is that of black, but is only known by the respective owner, while the blue should be known by it's respective owner, people err, The red is not necessarily known by either party, as it is born of these differences between us, as neither party could necessarily know of the multitudes of particulars which manifest these ever varying, blue and black, differences of the other party.

I think we probably agree in some sense but it escapes me. So please see above for my thoughts upon such things.
p.s.
I don't argue with bob in the way you say, whereas bob appears to take any opportunity to disparage his mythical 'Europe' and extol America. Although I'll give him credit that lately he's been attacking America as well.

[Arising_uk]

.


LOVE to hear yours. That is actually why I created this thread.


Did we go over this before?



.

They'd be roughly the same as with the rhino, legalise the Ivory trade, allow govts to release their ivory stocks, either privatise or co-operatise the farming of the elephant but in either case give more of the profits to the locals who live with the elephant or at least allow them to return to the nature reserves and have a vested interest in the survival of the elephant. According to your posts all the other approaches are failing dismally.

Whats your opinion?

[Arising_uk]

...
We trusted them at Galipoli. And they threw us to dogs.

And they say Ockers don't whinge.

No-one disagrees that the generals were incompetent but then we knew that as they had a long history of killing the British Army foolishly.

What i love is Aussies at Tobruk. We did what pommies could not.. and Rommel recognized this.
A pat on head from a german like Rommel is worth 100 victoria crosses.

Then you should have fought for the nazi.

As military historian. Its like Roaks drift.. the WELSH fought and won. Not the potatoes.
When has a pur english unit ever done anything of note..
Maybe parras at Arnhem and Goose green. thats it.

Well, ignoring the Napoleonic Wars, Shropshire, Cumberland and Westmorland did pretty well in Burma.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I call your attention to the following definitions as found in the Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd.

Pay particular attention to def's 5 & 6:

philosophy (fɪˈlɒsəfɪ) — n , pl -phies
1. the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)
2. the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school: the philosophy of Descartes
3. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a discipline: the philosophy of law
4. archaic , literary or the investigation of natural phenomena, esp alchemy, astrology, an astronomy
5. any system of belief, values, or tenets
6. a personal outlook or viewpoint
7. serenity of temper

When reading the news, cannot one sense exactly that, which is presented in definitions 5 & 6 above? And for one to bring it here, (PNF), isn't it obvious, that they see that what was presented, as a sound philosophy, should be questioned, isn't that a given?

I take your point but point out that over here the news, in general, attempts not to be based upon 5 not definitely not 6, may be different over there. However I accept that where the broadcast medium is privately owned then one can see both in action. On the whole I think news is facts not philosophy and that it is a subject than one can philosophise about and in particular to apply definition 1 which is what I think Bill does exactly not do.
As far as over there is concerned, I see that bias is at issue. The way you and Bob and others argue for your respective countries, and then there's your nym, come on, Arising_uk, that's all just coincidence, huh? Riiiight! The News is not always facts, as inflections can be understood as propaganda, philosophical leanings, opinions, etc. No news caster speaks like a monotone robot, with no facial expressions, let alone, no leading comments. Of course def #1 is #1 for a reason, and I agree, but that does not mean that we must remain so rigid as to not consider def's 5 & 6, as they apply to everyday communication, more readily, like that which is contained in the news, or any topic where a point of view, a philosophy, a method in which a society proceeds to handle something, as a given or fundamental understanding, can be seen as an important consideration for all those, subject to it's impact.

Aren't you then an elitist, prejudice, saying who can and cannot join into your exclusive club, as though your particular education gives license above others of lessor means? Even the dumbest of dumb, have philosophies, albeit, possibly flawed, but that is not necessarily the case, and I can see it being reversed as well, but more importantly who are you to say who can and cannot play the game? One does not have to read any philosopher in order to have a philosophy. You, it would seem, just try and find 'value' in your time spent with education, as you cast down others of meager means, as you have not been capable of finding it elsewhere. If you can't humiliate others, of more meager means, with the time you've spent learning of some 'others' philosophy, then what good has it been? You use your education as a weapon, not to enlighten, as evidenced in your attitude as you wield it. Your tit for tat arguments with Bob over which country is better, is evidence of this, as well as how you've explained to me your meaning in the term Yank. Your 'use' of emoticons is another example. Bigot comes to mind, one that can't see past their own nose. This is not the mode of a true philosopher. Socrates was the best example of a true philosopher, IMHO. Ego should remain in the background as much as possible.

If you think Socrates had no ego then you've not read Plato and are a good example of what I'm talking about. So no, I'm not being elitist(which bye-the-bye is hysterical given your supposed love of Socrates) nor am I saying who can or who cannot 'join the club'. What I am pointing out is that whilst it is true that many have their philosophies if you read philosophy you'll find that whilst the thoughts are original in the sense that you've just thought them, in the main, they've already been said by the philosophers. I could if I wished be very 'elitist' in my responses to many and just state the category and name of the argument or position that the other is postulating and tell them to go away and read the many critiques that challenge their thoughts. I don't because I remember what is was like to wish to philosophise and appreciate anyone interested in the subject and will engage with them. What I do find annoying is that many can't be bothered to make the effort to read any philosophy before they spout off.
I mean that you're an elitist in that you enter another's thread and then proceed to 'tell' them how they 'should' proceed, as if 'you're' the 'authority' of everything philosophical, that they 'must' measure up to 'your' view of things, as if 'you' are the 'owner' of this site. I think it's OK to correct them if you see that their argument is weak. That their word usage is such that it seemingly lends to misconception. You can do this by asking for clarification. It is rude though to 'tell' them what they mean, again as if you're the authority. Why is it that you think everyone must measure up to your level of understanding? Why must you try and structure their threads to meet your standards? Are newbies not allowed? Who said? Does Rick want to increase or decrease circulation. Does he only want to increase circulation if they necessarily understand every article? Why should he really care to any great length, if they are seasoned professionals, or amateurs, novices? Is this not also a 'business' for him. Why should anyone not be welcome, because they don't measure up to your or someone elses standards? For instance I see Bill as a thread starter. Different in approach, but whats wrong with that. People that are interested in philosophy are not usually idiots, they I believe, are quite capable of taking their understanding of his meaning where ever they want as he usually has no preference, no direction he's necessarily looking for, while "The Voice of Time" can often be quite the opposite, wanting quite a structured direction. This is known as variety, diversity, any one of them may not be your cup of tea, but who are you to demand that they must be?

Water seeks it own level, and then why not the same be true of minds here at PNF. If a thread is below you, move along to one that is more to your liking. If you can't find any surely it's not the fault of those of meager means/knowledge. All that earnestly try should be accepted, in the interest of fair play.

I think that as to the nature of philosophy, the truest and wisest vision for this forum, is one of multitudes of differing peoples, from all walks of life, that find philosophy important to them, such that in some threads one can see teaching/learning in a positive light, while in others, one can see equally matched debate at all levels on any particular subject, whether you or anyone else believes it to be, 'ground already covered' or not, who cares, as long as it's in the interest of philosophical pursuit.

Playing the 'meagre means' card is ridiculous as most of the major philosophers works can be found online for free, as can university papers, courses and discussions(to the credit of some American universities) and libraries offer access to all the philosophers works. All I say is that those who come to a philosophy forum attempt to at least read some philosophy. Would you go to a historians forum with no knowledge of history, a psychologists, a sociologists, a physicists, etc, etc? Why is it that people think Philosophy is not a subject as well?
Again you judge people as if you are the great elite inquisitor of philosophy, that to which all others must be compared. Who are you to say who is and who isn't in Ricks best interests. I see that you are lost within yourself, and your knowledge, that you despise anyone that you decide is not a challenge. Maybe a means to boost your ego, as you have low self esteem? As I see that when one is truly wise they don't sweat such things. Wisdom/Humility allows one to see every individual for themselves alone, with no projected preconceived notions of what one should be, as if one can say with certainty what that is, necessarily. This is the reason I cling to that one particular quote of Socrates, as it is the ultimate expression of humility, and wisdom, the inverse is one that measures everything as if currently, there is really one human absolute in understanding, and they know it, that they are that measure. Sound like anyone you know? And I mean this with respect to any particular subject at hand, not necessarily across the board, (everything).

Or one could see that I said that in this instance, of regretting a rash decision, he was a good man. Note that I said, "The only time I'm aware of" If one acknowledges the inability to necessarily know of all instances in which criterion believed to yield a particular blanket assertion is true, how then could they make such an assertion. With my acknowledgement, I can only be talking of that particular instance. You saw what you needed to see for your argument.

Firstly, I remember no regret from Bill, in fact he crowed about his actions and then repeated them with respect to chaz wyman. Secondly, all you said was that if one apologises for an act that makes them a good man with respect to that act. I pointed out that I've done this so by your criteria I am too.

Well just like your assertion about Bill, I've never noticed you doing so. But he did, not CW, that I'm aware of, but BB, yes!. It's just one of those messages you missed, as if anyone here has read every message on this board, Riiight! I also see a big difference between one giving kudos to another as opposed to oneself. Yes, I meant that, that act, was of a good man.

One can easily see the conflict of interests involved in being a mod of 'such' a forum, as I've already referenced earlier in this thread, as to Rick. If one truly understands the why of that conflict, I see that they would tread differently than you have, some of this reasoning is contained throughout this particular response.

I apologise as I see you did understand why I dropped being a mod as I wished to interact with others without the influence. I do not agree that there are any issues with the 'real' persona but think if there were it'd be with the mod persona.
No reason to apologize in this case, that I can see, but thanks anyway. I however can see a problem with someone that does not want to be a mod because it requires them to be diplomatic, at all costs, or so, I see it should be a requirement, instead opting for the ability to be roguish.

That, depending upon my mood, I allow the frustration of dealing with some particular differences between peoples method of interaction, that I find a waste of time, to rub me the wrong way, or to the extent, that I loose control of calm response. While I see the need to be calm in the face of adversity, as it's really no ones fault, except for the true trolls, I have off days where I allow other frustrations in my life to manifest intolerance, which in fact is contrary to my understanding of things. I'm an extremely emotional person, due to my experiences, some of which, I've made known to you, largely so you can understand the why of it. If only there were micro switches one could flip.

For someone who says(I think) that they believe in free will you appear not to.
Or are our definitions of free will just different?

I've never said questions are at issue, rather your assumption. At issue is your condescension, via emoticons and things like "(although I suspect this is all you've read about him)," (unnecessary, only for singular purpose, to demean, as you could not possibly know this to be true); twisting the 'rhino tie' to mean something less, than what it was, without knowing, just to be nasty; to speak of ones character, without the slightest possibility of knowing what it truly is. etc. You mix lies as to ones character into your argument, as lies are untruths, as if just because you know that they can exist, that they necessarily exist, in every instance, a very shallow and misinformed position, not one of a true philosopher. You and your arguments would be better served if you would not accuse one of such before you ask, or make point of the possibility, as you have found it to be sometimes true. In this respect it's easy to see that you do not know what Socrates means when he says 'I only know, that I know nothing.' As I've said, regardless of the most brilliant philosophers work, if they do not understand these words, as evidenced in their delivery, then they've missed something very fundamental to philosophy, and this then is why I'm forever referencing that quote, when I see it's need.

LMAO! And your attributions of gender and all the other allegations you often cast upon me and others says what about you as a philosopher?
The funny thing about this gender issue, that you're so hungabout, is that, I honestly believed you to be female for many reasons. Initially, it was innocent of any negative connotations, on my part, it just slipped out, as a pronoun so as to reference you, pure and simple. Yet your initial response was to label me a misogynist. Now here's the way I see it, either you are a female, that wants to hide the fact, because you believe you won't be taken seriously otherwise, or you are a male that took offense, when I believed you to be female. One of these then, more readily necessitates you labeling me a misogynist. Can you guess which one it is? If you referenced me as a female, face to face, I'd say something like, "what did you just say?" Then you'd have to watch your words very carefully, or I'd escalate. Here, if I thought you a male, I'd probably say "fuck you, asshole, I'm not a female, what would make you say that?" From my position as a male, I would assume you were being a pr|ck, because I know I'm a male; that you were making comment that I was feminine, and it would piss me off. This is a typical male response. Yours was typically, a female response, especially, of one that was portraying a man to ensure being taken seriously, as that would be one of the main underlying reasons for you to do so. Additionally, if in fact you are a male, then either my reaction, expressed above, or yours, to being referenced a female, could equally be seen as misogynistic, as one could argue, that to concern oneself with such trivialities, as men and women are equals, right? Indicates that one is offended, and why would that be, in such a case, where those concerned truly believed in that equality, they would merely chuckle to themselves, and just move along with the topic at hand. But the alarmist female, undercover, well that's a different story, as her alarm is poised, a hair trigger, fed by the object of her deception, as she sits on the edge, fearing being discovered, as she prematurely screams, misogynist!

At times an emoticon is the only thing that truly expresses what one feels and if you note I say 'I suspect' not that I know something is true, if my suspicion is incorrect then I expect the other to correct me and I'll accept that. They reason why I say such things is that the words of the other tend to belie the knowledge I have of the subject under discussion.
Emoticons can be used in either a friendly or a nasty, sarcastic, condescending way. As a rule, I only ever try and use them in a friendly way, the nasty way, is the exception, and I use them seldom. I will say that you sometimes word things in such a way, that I ever increasingly try and do, that attempts to convey uncertainty, so as to give the benefit of doubt, where the truth is not so easily seen, so as to be as truthful and honest as possible. I see that this is important to ensure friendly conversation. But to be honest your constant usage of emoticons, lends to the possibility of your being female. As I have found that most men do not use them so often, if at all. Most would agree that while men seem to be more logical, women seem to be more emotional, hence their greater usage of emoticons. Just saying what I've found to be true, for the most part, no condescension intended. I see that both emotions and logic are equally important, but they serve two separate purposes, much like the anatomy of the male and female, their roles are different, but equally serve the animal.

The reason I find your question to be invalid: Quantify imminent? Which I've already asserted, and you ignored, to once again ask. and you wonder why I say you're not worth answering, as you waste time on ground already covered. The answer to this, I already provided in:

Should one gorge their mouth with solid fat and pure sugar, just to the point of a massive coronary, before abstaining? And for the sake of what? Gorging?

How could one possibly interpret this? I see only one way, please provide another.

Then you are talking about one lifetime, so I ask do you think this applies in the environmental situation you envisage. Me I think imminent would be within the currently youngest generations lifetime but would accept maybe their kids. So, do you think its that imminent?
It's a metaphor, and a good one in this case, as it's a fact that a human lives longer if their metabolism burns lean, that they die sooner, if they burn rich. Why do anything, 'at all,' in excess, especially if the excess lends to the catastrophic. Does it really matter how imminent the catastrophic, when the excess is only for the sake of excess? Please hand me a feather, and point me in the direction of the vomitorium.

I understand everything I'm talking about, to the point that my words reflect. Who are you, to question my logic in knowing, with irreverence, as if some sort of authority? There may be a difference in the way a receiver understands them, but it is egotistical and arrogant to always make statements about the transmitters meaning, as though the receiver knows that it is incorrect, and assert the misconception in such a way, as to make the false reception the fault of the transmitter, rather than simply ask for clarity, otherwise the receiver runs the risk of needlessly insulting the transmitter.

Which you pretty much never do and I do fairly consistently. Who I am is the person receiving the words and as such your meaning has not much say, other than in the shared use of a language, in how I make a meaning of them. You appear to think that words have an inherent meaning that we objectively understand, they don't, language and meaning is a process. You keep looking for me implying "fault", I don't, what I say is that its a misunderstanding to think language and meaning works in the way you appear to think they do. What fault I do find is in the idea the the receiver is the only side that has to make the attempt to clarify meaning. When you say this, "... it is egotistical and arrogant to always make statements about the transmitters meaning, as though the receiver knows that it is incorrect, and assert the misconception in such a way, as to make the false reception the fault of the transmitter...", I think you miss that such a reply is when the receiver has made a meaning of the transmitters words and what the transmitter is hearing is that meaning. As such, if the transmitter thinks the reply is a misunderstanding of their meaning then if they actually wish to make themselves understood they need to take this onboard and think about what they said, hence the saying "The meaning of ones words is the response they get". The other situation is where the receiver cannot make a meaning and in this case a question is the best reply, although my experience is this appears to give many insult as well.
Well articulated, but 'overall' I disagree. I agree that it can be a process, but see that it cuts both ways, equally. The receiver can query meaning, without taking pot shots at the transmitter, during the process, due to those preconceived ideas, that they 'believe' they see, contained in the transmitters words. If the transmitter is taking the exchange seriously, and the receiver purposefully interjects false meaning/sarcasm so as to demean the transmitters intent, it does nothing constructive if the conversation is worth pursuing. As to argument, this is a ploy of deception, to unnerve the opponent, it is dishonest, and indicates one is more interested in winning at all costs, than they are truth, and sharing a meaningful exchange.

Meaning is no where else but the transmitters head, first and foremost, lets get this straight. They then, to the best of their ability, convey it using a language made up of words, that they choose depending upon a definition that most closely matches their intent. So the meaning of ones words is not 'necessarily' contained in anything the receiver understands, but rather they are contained in the transmitters head, as they try and choose those words that accurately convey their intent. The receiver hears the words, and if their definitions agree with the transmitters, they should have a pretty close approximation of the intended conveyance. It is true that this is not always the case, which is why it's important for both to agree upon the meanings of the words used, hence the use of dictionaries, as a ready reference to ensure congruence of meaning. Make no mistake, that the meaning of the transmitters words are necessarily contained in the words of the receiver, this is never necessarily true, rather the meaning of the transmitters words, are always, first and foremost, contained in their mind, and can also be in the mind of the receiver if and only if both parties agree as to the meaning of the words used to convey the meaning. Some slight variance is to be expected, though usually not of any real significance.

Incorrect, as your flawed idea places the blame on the transmitter, and is therefore a lie, it is false. It's selfish, egotistical, arrogant, misinformed, etc. ...

You really need to reread what you said above to me about insult and condescension. Anyhoo, no I don't place 'blame' or accuse them of lies and all your other pet peeves. All I say is that language and meaning is a process between intersubjectivitys and not an objective entity that subjects can view.
Of course I'm speaking of the words as they were used, remember that it's you that thinks that the meaning of your words is contained in the response that I give you, not I!

I could, if hard pressed, as it's hard for me to be anything other than honest, formulate one just as incorrect, in favor of the transmitter, against the receiver. The truth is that it's exactly equal In the following graphic representation:
Transmitter -----> | -----> Receiver

Where:
Black represents the people of different mind.
Blue represents conveyance/language of different dialect.
Red represents exactly where misconception lies.[/color]

I think this too simplistic a model and reinforces the idea that meaning is 'out there' rather than in one side or the other during the meaning creation process and shows none of the feedback loops that are in communicating meaning via language.
No the meaning is in the transmitters head, what I have suspended 'out there' is "MISCONCEPTION" not "MEANING."

Both parties are 'exactly' equal as to meaning and misconception. Thus both should tread lightly as to placing blame. While both parties are exactly equal as to the meaning being accurately conveyed, it is incumbent on the receiver to ensure they understand prior to holding the transmitter responsible for an incorrect assumption of meaning, especially if their response is to be charged with venom. In all instances the only given, for the most part, is that of black, but is only known by the respective owner, while the blue should be known by it's respective owner, people err, The red is not necessarily known by either party, as it is born of these differences between us, as neither party could necessarily know of the multitudes of particulars which manifest these ever varying, blue and black, differences of the other party.

I think we probably agree in some sense but it escapes me. So please see above for my thoughts upon such things.
Yes, we may, and it may just boil down to the way in which we convey, that keeps us at odds.

p.s.
I don't argue with bob in the way you say, whereas bob appears to take any opportunity to disparage his mythical 'Europe' and extol America. Although I'll give him credit that lately he's been attacking America as well.
Well I see that you do, as you entertain his notions of such childishness, in-kind, as if where he dwells, you dwell, or else pay the child no mind, as the truth is, we are humans. Philosophers should be people of the world, not any particular faction.

[reasonvemotion]

Spheres,

Actually, I'll accept no accolade, as for me, it is only to be found in the balance as realized through the understanding of the masses.

What do you mean?......found in the balance realized through the understanding of the masses?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres,

Actually, I'll accept no accolade, as for me, it is only to be found in the balance as realized through the understanding of the masses.

What do you mean?......found in the balance realized through the understanding of the masses?

Are you mad at me, you know I love you right! Really, I love all women for what they represent, as a mother, a nurturer, that they have to deal with so much crap in a man dominated world. Seriously! But it doesn't mean we won't disagree, on occasion.

You'll have to steer me to the thread page in question, as I'll have to see it in context, before I can tell you with certainty. Sorry not trying to be a pain.

[reasonvemotion]

Bill Wiltrack wrote:

You are right...Again.


Actually, I'll accept no accolade, as for me,

it is only to be found in the balance as realized through the understanding of the masses.

Spheres, this post goes way back to May 3.

It was your response that interested me. It needs some explanation, for me, at least.

No, I am not mad at you, LOL

[SpheresOfBalance]

Bill Wiltrack wrote:

You are right...Again.


Actually, I'll accept no accolade, as for me,

it is only to be found in the balance as realized through the understanding of the masses.

Spheres, this post goes way back to May 3.

It was your response that interested me. It needs some explanation, for me, at least.

No, I am not mad at you, LOL

Yes I found it, and contextually am certain of what I meant, and can reiterate, if you care to tell me why you are concerned/inquisitive. I hope that you do not ask because some have cast doubt as to my levelheadedness. I assure you I'm benevolent and quite sane, (well as much as anyone else, anyway)! Though a bit rough around the edges.

It was said, concerning Bills accolade of this quote of mine below, for the most part:

The denial of the absolute, thus the acceptance of the relative, amongst humans, is for the sake of the ego alone. It divides, thus chaos ensues, it is of selfishness, and breeds all ill will, It is so we can feel good in the face of our selfishness, as both camps agree, at least, that we are of one origin, as those of true wisdom then finally see the contradiction, indeed! Too Few!! As yet the selfishness moves on to embrace its inevitable self destruction, it does not wait, we, in our relative self appeasement, create it. The 'win' is in the understanding, of the absolute facts, just presented. And the 'win' is for all, as the spheres that bind, would finally be in balance!

[SpheresOfBalance]

.


LOVE to hear yours. That is actually why I created this thread.


Did we go over this before?



.

They'd be roughly the same as with the rhino, legalise the Ivory trade, allow govts to release their ivory stocks, either privatise or co-operatise the farming of the elephant but in either case give more of the profits to the locals who live with the elephant or at least allow them to return to the nature reserves and have a vested interest in the survival of the elephant. According to your posts all the other approaches are failing dismally.

Whats your opinion?

See here, this is an example of your words coming back to haunt you, i.e., 'the meaning of ones words are in the response that they get.'

You fucking bloody murderer, that you believe that one should slaughter the mightiest pachyderm for its ivory, for shame you bloodthirsty fool.

Why is this true? Because like before, you are talking about farming the animal, and not their horns & tusks. Yet you jumped all over me earlier as to the rhino, when I reacted the same way. One farms not the means but rather the ends. When one speaks of that, that they farm, it is that which they harvest, not that which they sow.

One is not farming rhinos and elephants, rather they are farming horns and tusks.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





Looks like an innocent farmer just harvested some crops...





.

[SpheresOfBalance]

.





Looks like an innocent farmer just harvested some crops...





.

Well, you know Bill, It's a shame I'm not some all powerful alien, you know, some, so called, higher evolved species, because I can see that I might be persuaded to farm the brains, of some humans, as like shit, I believe they may make good fertilizer, as it would seem, they're good for nothing more.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Amen...



.

[Arising_uk]

Looks like an innocent farmer just harvested some crops...

Any solutions or just more emotive shite from you and lmfao that the two of you think nothing of talking about killing humans but weep crocodile tears over the elephant.

You look like you eat a lot of meat Bill? Dairy products?

[Arising_uk]

See here, this is an example of your words coming back to haunt you, i.e., 'the meaning of ones words are in the response that they get.'

You fucking bloody murderer, that you believe that one should slaughter the mightiest pachyderm for its ivory, for shame you bloodthirsty fool.

Why is this true? Because like before, you are talking about farming the animal, and not their horns & tusks. Yet you jumped all over me earlier as to the rhino, when I reacted the same way. One farms not the means but rather the ends. When one speaks of that, that they farm, it is that which they harvest, not that which they sow.

One is not farming rhinos and elephants, rather they are farming horns and tusks.

What are you twatting on about now!?

I'm talking about farming elephants for their ivory(Think of it as an intransitive verb ).

Now I think it'll have to be different as I don't think their tusks grow in the same way or have the same use as the rhino so I doubt we can crop them if we wish to have them roaming wild ranches. I also guess that any such farmer would like the most ivory he/she can get so the elephant would have to live a long time, that at the end the elephant dies means that the meat should also not go to waste. So yes, farming in the sense you appear to mean. Of course it might be that the farmer kills them before they get old as there might be a profitable return at a certain size tusk.

I'm talking about allowing countries to have an ivory trade and letting them release their current ivory stocks in an attempt to decrease the price. I'm talking, depending on the model thats implemented, about ensuring that the locals actually get a share of the profits as this way they'll have a vested interest in keeping the elephant alive. As so far the current methods appear to be failing and you two don't seem to be able to offer another solution so I think pretty soon the elephant will be going the way of the mastodon and for much the same reason, economics.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



You are very perceptive in one way and, I think, totally off in another.


Two heart attacks & I'm dancing with the third.





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



Waaaaaaaaay to much meat & dairy.


I've cut back 90% on the meat but I am TOTALLY ADDICTED to dairy still...



I give you credit for that guess.



On the other hand I think you are projecting a bit as far as to what I have said so far here in this thread.


I have tried to lay out a topic here and at the same time I did not want to project ANY of my thoughts or feelings so far.





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


Thank you for participating.


I want to thank both of you for adding GREAT content and, I think, opposing views.




.