Arousing_Princess wrote:Do larger fonts make words more true?
Yes, in which case both his and mine are more true.
Little girl, you are falling into emotional turmoil. I know you want attention, as all girls do, but you must be patient as I am confronted with multiple members of your herd, and I have only two eyes and only so much time at my disposal.
I will offer your delusional womanly gossip the attention they deserve.
Arousing_Princess wrote: Now if I had to guess between satyr and creativesoul as to which was the 'emotional female' who would I choose?
I would think that to a cow another cow is pretty.
Arousing_Princess wrote:Is this a reflection upon Greek women?
Yes.
Like these ones
Greek Women.
Once more you've managed to find my soft spot and in so doing you've shown your level.
Do not be jealous, little girl, you might be fat and ugly and hairy, but you are still a woman to me.
Arousing_Princess wrote: Is that, no, spirituality need not necessarily involve 'gods'?
That's right.
Your obsession with absolutes, is indicative of your feminine attraction to the alpha male.
You can hope.
Arousing_Princess wrote:If you take yours out of your boyfriends arse you'll see no balance then.
Shall I insert it in yours, then, because you've been running around begging for it ever since I first met you?
Arousing_Princess wrote: I truly wish you were here to say that to my face.
Me too.
But your bravado aside, it's too bad you have to resort to threats when your mind's strength fails you.
I bet you imagine me easy in that area, as well. Imagination clouded by emotion, has a way of satisfying one's needs.
It can get a stupid girl hurt.
Arousing_Princess wrote:LMFAO! So not only are you an arsewipe but despite your hyperbole your thoughts are not even yours!
I offer the mindless another mind, because mine is too preoccupied with things that matter.
I also know how girls rely on authorities, and get wet at the sight of fame and fortune, so I offer some examples of fame, if not fortune.
Keep laughing. The nervousness might be an indication that now you are only interested in vengeance.
Which is understandable, as I invited it.
Arousing_Princess wrote:And one of those traditions was the belief in their 'gods' numbnuts.
Yes, amongst other things.
Like spirits, you pathetic woman.
Arousing_Princess wrote:And that has what to do with it?
We asked them and they say they have no record of the Hebrew being enslaved.
Ah, so they are the only people in history to have managed to escape that terrible fate.
We'll have to ascribe their "chosen" status to this good fortune, or perhaps their more omnipotent God had a hand in it.
Therefore, their slavishness must be explained in another manner. Perhaps purely genetic.
More quotes from fame and fortune, because I can't be overly bothered with you:
de Benoist, Alain wrote:• Instead of pushing man to exceed himself, the monotheism of the Bible consumes his vitality. He must ‘impoverish and annihilate himself to give consistency to God. The deity becomes a kind of haemorrhaging of human nature. And God manipulates the transfusion of all man’s creative energies.
• Judeo-Christian monotheism developed a negative anthropology because it is a negative religion. An anti-religion.
• In regard, however, the debate between polytheism and monotheism there is not the “old opposition between the intellectual and the tangible,” contrary to what Michel Le Bris writes. It is not a question of choosing the tangible overt the intellectual, no more than it is of choosing nature over history or culture. Nor is it a question of invoking any kind of “feminine” security or womb of the earth-mother against the father of the “celestial” worlds beyond. The paganism I am speaking of is situated in an entirely different problematic. It is not the choice opposite to Judeo-Christian choice. It rejects this choice. In such a way that it brings to light the opposition between a system that posits in principle the inseparability – which does not mean the identity– the Judeo-Christian system – which posits their severability in principle (considered by Le Bris as a “major catastrophe of thought”) to build itself upon a duality.
• The biblical approach goes from the universal to the particular; it deduces what we can know of the particular from what we should know of the absolute. In Greek thought, on the contrary, although the universal also plays an important role, the approach is the opposite. The conceptualization of the universal is based on the abstraction and successive generalization of a plurality of concrete particulars. In the Bible what is first provided are totalities, categories, and classes, for which individual things or people are only manifestations…Biblical thought is an all-encompassing, totalizing thought that proceeds from the general to the particular based on deduction from the revealed absolute and not by induction based on lived experience. In this system, the particular is not at all the basis from which the general concept is inferred; it is the projection of the idea of generality. Individuals and things are then themselves only projections, “realizations” of universal essence and ideas. Whereas in the discourse of paganism the particular can attain the universal by virtue of its very particularity – Goethe is universal by first being German; Cervantes is universal by being primarily Spanish – in the discourse of the Bible, it is the universal that provides statutory basis for every particular. In the first case, the general defines itself through the particular; in the second, it is the particular that is defined by the general.
• The sickly types aspire to form a herd. Quantity compensates them – at least they think it does – for what they lack in quality. If several suffer together they believe their suffering is reduced. Those who boast Judeo-Christian values sometimes attribute to the “powerful” the feelings they would have or be tempted to have if they were there in their place. They do not see the true power is an end in itself and does not aim, on condition it is tranquil, at any utility – that the “will to will denies any end in itself and only tolerates an objective as a means in order to best itself deliberately in the game and organize a space for this game.” In paganism happiness is never the antagonist of power, But nor is it an antagonist of equity. By condemning the exaltation of weakness, paganism is not in any way aiming at justifying the crushing of the weak by the strong, nor forming the “ideological alibi” of any sort of established disorder. To the contrary, it claims to contribute to the formation of the spiritual framework that allows every individual, whatever his rank, assuming only that he has the will, to cultivate what inside strengthens and does not undo him. Paganism does not reproach Christianity for defending the weak who are unjustly oppressed. It reproaches it for exalting them in their weakness and viewing it as the sign of their election and their title to glory; it reproaches Christianity for not helping them to become strong. So it is not a question of opposing the strong versus the weak – today, in any event, it is paganism that is weak and Judeo-Christian monotheism that is strong – but purely and simply of opposing a system of remaining weak with a system of becoming strong. It is also a question of making a world that is not a vale of tears, not a theater of shadows, nor a stage where a man with erratic happiness acts out his salvation, but that natural field of self-expansion for a man capable of asserting his autonomy and establishing himself as his own project.
Keep the last in mind when reading
uncreative's assaults using quantifiable evidences.
Evola, Julius wrote:• We should not try to dissimulate the antithesis existing between, on the one hand, the pure Christian morality of love, submission, humility, mystical humanism, and, on the other hand, ethical-political values such as justice, honour, difference, and a spirituality that is not the opposite of power, but of which power is a normal attribute. The Christian precept of returning good for evil is opposed by the principle of striking the unjust, of forgiving and generosity, but only to a vanquished foe, and not to an enemy who still stands strong in his injustice. In a virile institution, as contemplated in the ideal of the true State, there is little or no room for love (conceived as the need to communicate, to embrace others, to lower oneself and to take care of those who may not even ask for it or be worthy of it) Again, in such an institution there can be relationships among equals, but without a communitarian - social and brotherly tint, established on the basis of loyalty, mutual acknowledgment and respect, as everyone retains his own dignity and a healthy love for distance. I will not discuss here what consequences would ensue on the political plane if we were to take literally the evangelical parables concerning the lilies of the field and the birds of the air, as well as all the other nihilist teachings that are built on the overthrow of earthly values and on the idea of the imminent advent of the Regnuum.
Freud wrote:• We must not forget that all the peoples who now excel in the practice of anti-Semitism became Christians only in relatively recent times, sometimes forced to by bloody compulsion. One might say they all are ‘badly christened’; under the thin veneer of Christianity they have remained what their ancestors were, barbarically polytheistic. They have not yet overcome their grudge against the new religion which was forced on them, and they have projected it on to the source from which Christianity came to them. The facts that the Gospels tell a story which is enacted among Jews, and in truth treats only of Jews, has facilitated such a projection. The hatred for Judaism is at bottom hatred for Christianity, and it is not surprising that in the German National Socialist revolution this close connection of the two monotheistic religions finds such clear expression in hostile treatment of both.
Heisman, Mitchel wrote:• When Jews acquired power after historic powerlessness, the original conditions of Judaism unraveled. To empower the powerless or marginalized is self-empowering while Jews themselves are powerless. But when the Jewish cause becomes victorious, this strategy backfires and Jewish principles deconstruct themselves, inverting the inverters. For the Zionist state to consistently empower the disempowered Palestinians at their own expense would be political suicide. Being Goliath is a problem when the moral of the story is that David ultimately wins. The internationalism of Christianity laid the common ground for a world that has a place for the nationalism of the Jews. Just as Roman conquerors penetrated the territorial-sociobiological boundaries of the ancient Jewish state, the Jewish-based God memes of Christianity penetrated the ancient Roman world. Christianity began a process of blunting and mollifying the deepest ethical-cultural gulfs between Jew and gentile. The penetration of Jewish genes into the modern gentile West is only a continuation of the anti-kin selective logic that began with Christianity. In other words, Jewish assimilation as individuals in the modernistic West is only a continuation of gentile assimilation to the sociobiological impact of Christianity. Both as individuals and as a Zionist state, Western assimilation of Jewish bodies was founded upon Western assimilation of a Jewish “spirit”.
• The tabla rasa of Judaism can be found in the story of the forty years of wandering in the desert after exodus from Egypt. After the Golden Calf incident, God told Moses, “the people that you brought up out of the land of Egypt have dealt corruptly” (Exodus 32:7). In an instance of divine eliminationist anti-Semitism, God exhibited a genocidal intention to destroy Israel and give Moses a more fit people to lead. Moses, however, tied his fate to his people. Golden Calf decadence betrayed a lack of self-control by a people still mentally mastered by Egyptian masters. A slavish, ghetto-like fear of the Canaanites who occupied the Promised Land betrayed a lack of self-mastery. God ultimately decided that they must wander forty years so that a new generation, born in freedom, would be fit for the Promised Land. In God’s relinquishment of genocide against the Hebrews, and his decree that they can and must wander in the desert for forty years, one can see the ancient kernel of the modern tabla rasa idea that nurture can overcome nature.
• The Jewish kinship paradox meant that this entire model was utterly improbable, if not impossible, for Jews. The Jewish kinship paradox meant that pure sociobiological naturalism was self-defeating. To survive, Jews could only rest their faith in the post-biological corrective of Mosaic Law. To survive, Jews could only look forward from the premise of the goodness of overcoming pure biological naturalism. There was no going back to nature, and this led the evolution of the Bible towards prophetic speculations about the full implications of overcoming biology in God. The modern Western political left evolved as a direct extension of this original Biblical revolt against biology.
• The egalitarian principle effectually emphasizes the similarities among people and deemphasizes differences among people. Biological differences among racial groups have been deemphasized through a liberalization of the concept of race: the race that matters is the human race. The underlying individualism of the humanistic proposition meant that all white men eventually became all men. All men became men and women. As a gross generalization, one could say that the left is egalitarian, and the right is inegalitarian. The left represents a female gender strategy, and the right represents a male gender strategy. The leftism of modern egalitarian revolutions reflects the long-term effects of emasculation among conquered peoples. A fundamental moral meaning of equality, pioneered by Jews, is the equality of masculine and feminine gender qualities. Although progress has not increased men’s ability to menstruate, it has increased men’s sensitivity to the nurturing norms of compassion over the virtues of the warrior. Leftwards progress leads to progressive gender feminization. Most men are created equal to the proposition that all men are created equal. Universalization of the principle of equality among all human males without discrimination on the basis of responsibility, morality, intelligence, etc., opens the comparison of some men to some women. Since all men are not equally masculine, power hungry, moral, or intelligent, it is precisely the inequality of men among themselves that makes the equality of some (beta) men and some (alpha) women plausible. While gay men are formally equal as men, homosexual (gay/lesbian/bisexual) rights logically succeed women’s rights and they could only be advanced coherently after the success of feminism. A basic reason for this is that feminism posits the equality of the sexes, and thus raises the question of why anyone should discriminate a potential sexual partner or mate on the basis of sex. If the sexes are truly equal, why limit the choice of one’s mate to only one half of the population? Going one step further, egalitarianism implicates not only feminism and homosexuality, but also social and legal acceptance of incest; sexual and marital relations between parents and children. Sexual and marital relations between siblings and other close relations are also implicated.
• Christian love is a radical passive-aggression of the spirit. Whereas genetic insemination requires penetration of biological borders, memetic insemination requires penetration of mental or spiritual borders. Because Jesus’ mind-spirit was the penetration of the mental-spiritual borders that separated Jew and Roman, his spiritual ideas could penetrate and inseminate hitherto “natural” borders. Whereas sexual love leads toward genetic insemination, Christian love leads to memetic insemination. Love is an evolutionary expression of a desire for reproduction and, in this case, the reproduction of the selfish memes of Christian altruism. Jesus overcame the natural determination of being a natural rapist by becoming a supernatural rapist. Christian love is Jesus’ gargantuan spiritual penis raping the boundaries of class and race, Jew and gentile, insider and outsider, and master and slave. Jesus’ penis of the spirit penetrated deep inside until the spiritually violated Roman-ruled world had been loved to death.
• The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity”, Hitler declared. “Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.” Auschwitz would revenge the blow of Christianity. But what was it about Christianity that Hitler believed was so criminal? Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure. Christian values contradicted a Darwinian revaluation of life. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the artificial end of evolution by natural selection. If Christianity led to the “systematic cultivation of human failure”, then Nazism would aim for the systematic cultivation of eugenic success. As Richard Weikart explained in From Darwin to Hitler: “Hitler derided any morality inimical to the increased vitality of the “Aryan” race, especially traditional values of humility, pity, and sympathy. He considered these unnatural, contrary to reason, and thus detrimental and destructive for the healthy progress of the human species. He spurned the idea of human rights, calling it a product of weaklings It was “those, stupid, false, and unhealthy ideals of humanity”, as Göring called them, that stood in the way of racial-biological progress. The systematic desecration of humanistic values was identical with a wholesale rejection of the modern system of human rights. This rejection would be inexplicable without the realization that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection implied that there are no “natural rights” to defend the survival of the weak; only natural selection to defend the natural destruction of the weak. Yet if the foundational modern human right is the right to live, then the full progressive implementation of the system of modern rights would mean the artificial end of evolution by natural selection. This is how secularized Christian values could engender the “systematic cultivation of human failure”.
• The most basic “laws of physics” may be a product of such a process of radical evolution. The appearance of “law” would only be the product of radical evolutionary success in self-replication. This would explain why there appears to “law” from a Newtonian level of perspective while more recent attempts to divide subatomic particles into ever smaller elements leads to a relative chaos: the existence of any physical “laws” at all were simply a product a particular evolutionary success and thus would not necessarily translate into every “level” of physical observation. - If so, the physical “laws” of our “universe” are the descendants of the most successful self-reproductive mechanisms. This is why they seem like absolute laws: they dominate our provincial world. All observable matter from electrons to galaxies might be the product of mutations or variations of more basic or more primitive self-replication processes. - If so, two separate observations that appear to verify the existence of a common physical “law” would be more like verifying the accuracy of an industrial mass production process, since there would be no reason to think that two samples are absolutely identical in every possible respect (and one might attempt to seek out possible mutations). Most mutations of physical self-replication “laws” would not produce biology, but biology might have evolved from one of a multitude of mutations of physical “law”. Note that my use of the word “law”, here, encompasses regularities of variable success in self-replication and also, for example, variations of decreasing fidelity to an original order of local physical ecology. - If there is no absolute distinction between the general and the particular then there can be no absolute distinction between physics and biology. “Particulars” would thus be physical organizations with no special capacity for or actualization of self-replication while “generals” would be physical organizations that have demonstrated their capacity for self-replication by reproducing their way into “general laws”. Also, the entire free will/determinism distinction falls apart because strict determinism rests on faith in generalizing “universal” general laws as distinguished from particular non-laws that are assumed to be the realm of freedom (and not simply a lack of self-replication).
• The secularizational link between modern physical law and modern political law is the idea that no man is above it. The assumption of the universality of God lent credence to the assumption of universal law; a single God of a single physical reality underwriting a single law which no human is superior to. At first glance, this perspective would seem to corroborate the conventional notion of God as “absolute” and the notion of an “absolute” God would appear to contrast most strikingly with the notion of evolution. - Conceiving humans as of absolute value in the image of God, or with inalienable right to life, translates, in Darwinian terms, into treating biology as a constant that does not change. Biological evolution by natural selection works on precisely the opposite premise: inequality in the form of genetic variation between individuals is what makes evolution possible when some variations die or reproduce less than others. However, if biology is treated as a constant or a factor that can be minimized or ignored simultaneous with a modern Newtonian emphasis on the larger physical reality and its economic-technological development, then biological evolution is minimized while economic-technological evolution is maximized. While the pagan values that the Nazi revived maximized biological evolution, Judeo-Christian values are effectively closing the door to biological evolution by valuing every life (in theory) and thus civilizing natural selection to a halt.
• Human rights are literally supernatural in the sense that rights, in conjunction with its corollary in the notion of modern “progress”, work in diametrical opposition to natural selection. Technology, moreover, represents the epitome of natural injustice when technology is used to artificially preserve humans that would otherwise be eliminated through natural selection. Glasses, for example, allow persons with genetically inferior eyesight to function in equality with persons with naturally superior eyesight. Technological advances in medicine similarly help preserve the sick that would other perish in rational accordance with the natural law of natural selection. In these ways, technology thwarts biological evolution by allowing persons with otherwise maladaptive genes to pass them on to the next generation.
• This is simply a continuation of the logic of feminism through individuation. Just as a feminism liberated women from the slavery like institution of marriage represented by the tradition patriarchal male head of the family, liberation from the tyranny of the child is the next to follow. Just as liberation from patriarchy required the ability to see through romanticizations of the oppressions of the traditional family, liberation from romanticization of self-sacrifice to an utterly egoistic infant and child follows logically. The child is final tyrant to be overthrown before individuals can truly be free as individuals. -If Westerners lived up to the claims of civilization and tamed their instincts and emotions enough to act upon a rational, consistent individualism, and not discriminate on the basis of kinship relations, nepotism, or sentimentalism, then what does the child become? The child becomes an “individual”; simply another individual. - Childbearing and raising children by either sex is a barbaric legacy of the old patriarchal order in the sense that instinct and emotion remains fundamentally uncivilized in that reason has not been fully applied to life. For what rational reason would one have children? The means of childbearing and child raising have been civilized, but what of this end? The instinctive desire to have children is the logic of the selfish gene, not the logic of the selfish individual or rational individual self-preservation.-If an individual is truly free to choose his or her way of life, why would one volunteer for a life of servitude to a child-tyrant? If all individuals are equal, then why opt for this manifest inequality? For those who opt for full freedom and equality, the option to have kids is neither superior nor inferior to options like surfing or mountain climbing. - Who is to say that childbearing is more important than expanding your shoe collection? Feel something missing? Get a dog or a cat. Infertility may bring new life, at least, to the pet industry. If the liberal egalitarian project succeeded in producing a truly individualistic rationalism, no one would have children. The progress of universal individualism would ultimately lead to the end of the biological human race. In this way, the death spiral logic of individualism nicely parallels the death spiral logic of egalitarianism.
• Liberals are not at all fully nihilistic. In part, there is the practical belief in values vaguely corresponding to human rights. But more fundamentally, “secularists” implicitly believe in a religion of the common emotions. They generally believe that meaning is to be found in the material, biochemical processes that humans experience as emotions. They generally believe that it actually means something when these old biological mechanisms produce the familiar emotional routines. -While one may feel compassion, does this mean that one lacks the capacity to discipline one’s self from being mastered by that impulse. That people are mastered by such impulses is only another confirmation of Darwin’s insight that humans are animals. Most humans are driven overwhelmingly by instinct and emotion. The “secular” belief in emotions is the last degenerate remains of romanticism and religion. - The modernistic project did not destroy romanticism, it only reduced to a common level. Modernity and postmodernity retain romanticism by reducing the belief in emotion to the most common experiences, i.e. hunger, fear of death, and lust. The emotional joy of cynical laughter could be considered characteristic of the new romanticism.
Jung wrote:• In the past two thousand years Christianity has done its work and has erected barriers of repression, which protect us from the sight of our own “sinfulness”. The elementary notions of the libido have come to be known to us, for they are carried on in the unconscious; therefore, the belief which combats them has become hollow and empty. Let whoever does not believe that a mask covers our religion obtain an impression for himself from the appearance of our modern churches, from which style and art have long since fled.
• Christianity split the Germanic barbarian into an upper and a lower half, and enabled him, by repressing the dark side to domesticate the brighter half and fit it for civilization....But, the lower darker half still awaits redemption and a second spell of domestification. The Jew, on the other hand, is domesticated to a higher degree than we are, but he is badly at a loss for that quality in man which roots him to the earth and draws new strength from below.
Nietzsche wrote:• [Philosophers] all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic…whereas, in fact, a prejudiced proposition, idea or ‘suggestion’, which is generally their heart’s desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event…[thus] the hocus-pocus in mathematical form, by means of which Spinoza has as if it were clad his philosophy in mail and mask – in fact, the ‘love of his wisdom’, to translate the term fairly and squarely – in order thereby to strike terror at once into the heart of the assailant who should dare to cast a glance on the invincible maiden, the Pallas-Athene:- how much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this mask of a sickly recluse betray!
• ...Let us face facts: the people have triumphed -- or the slaves, the mob, the herd, whatever you wish to call them -- and if the Jews brought it about, then no nation ever had a more universal mission on earth. The lords are a thing of the past, and the ethics of the common man is completely triumphant. I don't deny that this triumph might be looked upon as a kind of blood poisoning, since it has resulted in a mingling of the races, but there can be no doubt that the intoxication has succeeded. The 'redemption' of the human race (from the lords, that is) is well under way; everything is rapidly becoming Judaized, or Christianized, or mob-ized -- the word makes no difference.... -[The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals]
Steiner, George wrote:• By killing the Jews, Western culture would eradicate those who had “invented” God, who had, however imperfectly, however restively, been the declarers of His unbearable Absence. The Holocaust is a reflex, the more complete for being long-inhibited, of natural sensory consciousness, of instinctual polytheistic and animist needs. It speaks for a world both older than Sinai and newer than Nietzsche. When, during the first years of Nazi rule, Freud sought to shift to an Egyptian responsibility for the “invention” of God, he was, though perhaps without fully knowing it, making a desperate propitiatory, sacrificial move. He was trying to wrench the lightning rod out of the hands of the Jewish people. It was too late. The leprosy of God’s choice — but who chose whom? — was too visible on them.
Wagner wrote:• Judaism is the evil conscience of our modern civilization.
• The Germans, of course, are by nature the flower of humankind: to fulfill their great destiny they have only to restore their sullied racial purity, or at all events to achieve a real rebirth of racial feeling.
• …there was nowhere to be found a Jew composer: it was impossible for an element entirely foreign to that living organism to take part in the formative stages of that life. Only when a body’s inner death is manifest, do outside elements win the power of lodgement in it—yet merely to destroy it. Then indeed that body’s flesh dissolves into a swarming colony of insect-life: but who, in looking on that body’s self would hold it still for living? The spirit, that is: the life, has fled from out that body, has sped to kindred other bodies; and this is all that makes out Life. In genuine Life alone can we, too, find again the ghost of Art, and not within its worm-befretted carcass.
Weininger, Otto wrote:• But first I want to define exactly what I mean by Jewishness. One is not dealing with a race or a people, and even less with legally acknowledged profession. One can only define it as a spiritual attitude, a psychic constitution, which offers an OPPORTUNITY for ALL men and which merely found its grandiose REALIZATION in historical Jewery. Nothing proves the veracity of this statement more than anti-Semitism. The truest, most Aryan or Aryans, certain of their Aryaness, are no anti-Semites; they cannot even fathom hostile anti-Semitism;…on the other hand, one can always detect certain Jewish traits in aggressive anti-Semites…It would be impossible for this to be any other way. As one LOVES only those traits in the other which one would wholeheartedly embrace oneself, yet can never fully attain, so one HATES in the other only that which one never wants to be, yet which one partially retains. One does not hate something with which one has nothing in common.
I'm sure you'll manage to flippantly dismiss them all, by ignoring them. Girls can be so cruel when to using comes to social tactics.
Arousing_Princess wrote:We asked them and they say they have no record of the Hebrew being enslaved.
Send my regards.
Arousing_Princess wrote:Nah! Just a vague location will do.
Good...the brain.
You call that evidence?
It is evident that you cannot figure out your interpretation of reality from reality itself. The particles are here then there, behave like particles only when observed, cannot be pinpointed but vaguely perceived as dots; they can have mass bot no location or location but no mass..and most importantly, dear woman, they can be infinitely divided...making them another step in the long trek towards nothing.
They represent a manifestation of the #1.
I wonder, dear woman, in a two dimensional world, let us say, would a ball look round on would the mind perceiving it find it flat?
How would scientists in that two-dimensional world make sense of it; how would their instruments represents it?
Arousing_Princess wrote:Most of my life, its why I studied philosophy.
Presumably knowing is understanding.
It explains why philosophy professors make such good philosophers, and how art teachers are such brilliant artists.
Your understanding has been proven by your gossipy interrogation and your womanly addictions.
I'm sure you've taken a few art classes as well. Probably aced them.
Arousing_Princess wrote:Why didn't they make spherical wheels then?
Dear, idiot, you asked me to offer you an idea from where a wheel came from, now you complain because that first wheel was not steel-belted?
Arousing_Princess wrote:But I'm not saying that we are not toolmakers, just that there are new inventions.
Retarded baboon, did anyone say there are no new inventions, or was the claim that they are never truly new, or unique, because they are combinations of what is already present and known?
Invention is the creative act of taking the known and applying it differently or combining it differently...you simpleton.
The wheel, little girl, didn't come out of the ether, or from some Platonic state of ideals, it came from observing the natural world and extrapolating characteristics, coming up with innovative ways of applying them.
The wheel was present, in a rock rolling down a hill, you simple woman, just as a computer is present in the very way the human brain works.
Arousing_Princess wrote:Post the links as my girly brain appears to have forgotten.
I'm not going to do the homework for ya, girl. I posted it - look for it or do not...who the fuck cares?
Arousing_Princess wrote:Blimey! You think this is shunning? Careful out there.
Only partially, the rest is all play.
Arousing_Princess wrote:Eh!? Not sure which senses you are talking about but lets just take sight. Where phenomenologically is there a 'blackness' in the perceptual field? There just appears to be a hazy boundary at its limits.
Yes, little princess, too bad I cannot offer you any certain points of absolute reference, to sooth that aching gap between your legs and fill its void with substance.
Do an experiment....look at a leaf....approach it....then magnify its simplified generalized edges....magnify more, and more and more....where is the boundary?
Always fading into the distance.
Fractals.
How long is a piece of string?
