Philosophy Now Forum

marjoramblues wrote:SOB, thanks for the reply; and I appreciate the purple and patience shown.

I agree that context is important for understanding but some statements can stand alone; and beliefs if sincerely held would be remembered. Also easily explained, if clear in themselves.
The entire first part (pre-semicolon) is great, and I reiterated all those. After the semicolon, however, obviously you slight me, or why else, say as such? To assume that I am just as capable as you 'claim' to be, is a falsehood. I could do the same to you and say that most people would simply not be lazy and expect something handed to them on a silver platter, and instead, do the work necessary in tracking down, that of their interest, and that if not, they must not be very interested, in which case, it's a good thing I didn't waste my valuable time, going to all the trouble, that they themselves refuse to do, as they obviously don't really care anyway. I don't think you are as capable as you claim, I wrote some of this months ago.
By the way, my example above, of how I could slight you, only applies if you cannot honestly tell me another reason why you would say as you did, after that semicolon.


The formation of the human psyche is well beyond my expertise. However, there seems to be a lot of conditions attached to your theory: ' if one believes...' . Also, it is highly prescriptive ' the adult must ensure that...'.
Some 'prescriptions' have unwanted side-effects - hi stress patterns in adults creating a hi negative charge environment.
The unwanted side effects are what I'm trying to negate, and honestly believe my solution would achieve that.


As to adult 'selfishness' - how would this not be a factor ? They want what they think is best for the child because...it is in their interests so to do. There are no certainties in any of this; especially that of producing 'freest mind of purity that shall be more capable to weather the storms of adulthood, as their foundation, in their dealings, shall be free and calm, with singular resolve'.
No, a proper adult parent , not a child themselves, wants for their child what's best for the child, in their interactions with that child. They should never provide input to the child's psyche that displays their selfish need above the child's need. As to the certainties, you seem merely to not understand it yet.

What kind of 'negativity',and How can 'negativity' from a baby's perspective be understood; far less explained ('made to understand' ) as a duty to the child ? Assuming that such understanding could be reached ?
You really threw me with this one, because I see it as an elementary understanding that goes without specification. (<--is this a slight and unnecessary? See what I mean?) So seriously, It's because the parent understands and the baby doesn't that it's the parents responsibility to ensure no negativity is transferred to an impressionable mind.

It takes a talented person to communicate meaning effectively; so many ways to be misunderstood arising in frustration all round. A complex example such as the subconscious is a swirling mass of confusion born of internal conflict in response to negative, conflicting external stimuli, that thwarts the freedom of will that would have been a pure self supporting system, otherwise. can't be readily understood by referring to it as the 'opposite' of something else.
Yes, you are correct, this is a prime example of me not understanding that, that which I know through my exposure, and obviously, take for granted, I should take the time to put forth as concepts that are more discernible, for those that have not been exposed to that, which I have.

I'm tired now and now can't see the point of taking this further. As you intimated, I don't 'really' want more, especially check-backs. Sometimes less is more.
What ever you feel like contributing, that's fine!

Best -
MB
Peace my friend!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:To Kim, You must be taking this seriously, or you wouldn't be posting. ...

Would it make a difference as to the value you place on your argument, with your constant condescension, via among other things, your emoticon usage, if visually I looked much like Stephen Hawking, in a wheel chair, connected to a computer via a little stick that I control with my mouth, such that it takes me all day to answer one of our long winded posts, and that I've suffered from multiple vascular problems including DVT which is actually what those lumps in my scrotum are, that these blood clots have migrated throughout my body and as a result, yesterday after reading your nastiness about me and my father, the mental anguish caused me a physical setback in my brain, which is nothing new, as I have suffered many mini strokes to date. ...

I mean you are victorious, as you have managed to physically do harm to me. Does your victory taste very sweet? ...

You say that I am no philosopher, ...

yet I say that the odds are that you've failed to grasp the essence of the point I've just made, and shall continue to "fight" people as you do, not seeing what is really important. ...

So called human knowledge is merely an illusion afforded by ones current perspective such that it only exists in ones own mind as a product of what they currently do not know, which actually only gives way to what the think they know. ...

And that in the face of this truth you apparently think that statements like the following about Godfree are warranted, and I quote: ...

And for those that did not witness this, it can be found in the thread titled "Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion." I want to add that at no time did Godfree treat her with so much disdain, and contempt! ...

But I guess that was just the limitations of your free will that reared it's ugly head. Just go on hurting people, because obviously, all that matters is that you think you're right at all costs, I can only imagine what kind of mother you were.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Again you project your self upon me. I have carefully constructed nothing, it is you that carefully constructs your image, your persona. Like I have told you in the past "I AM AN IDIOT!. I do not even think. Absolutely all of this that you have ever read of me is not example of me thinking, it just comes out, as I read what it is that you have written. The things that I actually think about are boring day to day things, like what I'll make for dinner and such. I see myself as merely a recording device, that takes everything in and my subconscious organizes it, and makes sense of all the connections, and then when I read something, it just comes out pre-formatted and ready to go. Does this truth somehow qualify the essence of your faith in the strength of your argument? Do you feel as though your time and energy are justly rewarded? ...

If you, being of perfect body, won a race against a man with no legs below his knees, how would you quantify your victory, how would you express that to the world? How would all that differ if you perceived that you were equally matched instead, and what is actually held within this belief of equality?

But I am no philosopher.

Remember, Spheres of Balance absolutely, never had anything to do with me. It's just a nym. At no time did it occur to me, as you see it, until you mentioned it. I coined it in 1994, I believe, I can't remember, and it was to something totally unrelated to this forum, philosophy, yes, but me, never!

You enjoy watching a man destroyed, and now we come to the crux of your matter.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yes I believe it's true that you care for no one but yourself, as evidenced by how you treat people here. ...

Why do I find myself feeling sorry for your children? ...

Who has hurt you that bad, was it an ex husband, yes I seem to remember something as to that during your talks with Satyr. ...

Did a man hurt you so bad that you hold all men accountable on some level? ...

I'm sorry, for anything that I've said, to demean you, in my frustration in dealing with you, as I'm just now understanding the brunt of your ills, I apologize!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

marjoramblues wrote:SOB, thanks for the reply; and I appreciate the purple and patience shown.

I agree that context is important for understanding but some statements can stand alone; and beliefs if sincerely held would be remembered. Also easily explained, if clear in themselves.
The entire first part (pre-semicolon) is great, and I reiterated all those. After the semicolon, however, obviously you slight me, or why else, say as such?

Where is the slight ? I saw your initial post as a 'summary' of your thoughts - I was wrong. A summary and any questions arising from it, would have made clear all main points without any need to back-track. A statement such as 'all reasons are your choice' and talk of tweaking calibration of scales seems to me to be a strongly-held belief which is explainable.

To assume that I am just as capable as you 'claim' to be, is a falsehood.
Do I assume this ? and where do I 'claim' anything about my capabilities, what are they?
I could do the same to you
What do you mean by doing the same to you? What have I done - Falsely assume that I am just as capable as you 'claim' to be? Like I said, no such assumption exists whether true or false.

and say that most people would simply not be lazy and expect something handed to them on a silver platter, and instead, do the work necessary in tracking down, that of their interest, and that if not, they must not be very interested, in which case, it's a good thing I didn't waste my valuable time, going to all the trouble, that they themselves refuse to do, as they obviously don't really care anyway. I don't think you are as capable as you claim, I wrote some of this months ago.
By the way, my example above, of how I could slight you, only applies if you cannot honestly tell me another reason why you would say as you did, after that semicolon.

You can say what you like. I wasn't expecting anything - you offered up what I wrongly thought was a summary. Yes, too good to be true. You did use your valuable time to back-track - for all our interests. All I did was care enough to show further interest and explanation of your strongly held beliefs. My initial lack of inclination to go back through threads was in relation to 'All the rest is Kim and I arguing about our inabilities to effectively communicate with one another'

Again, re any example of 'slight' and application of it in response to one so perceived, that is your style. Unfortunately, this tends to set up an antagonistic framework which might work well for some, but can also be perceived as a wordy waste of time and effort.


The formation of the human psyche is well beyond my expertise. However, there seems to be a lot of conditions attached to your theory: ' if one believes...' . Also, it is highly prescriptive ' the adult must ensure that...'.
Some 'prescriptions' have unwanted side-effects - hi stress patterns in adults creating a hi negative charge environment.

The unwanted side effects are what I'm trying to negate, and honestly believe my solution would achieve that.
Good luck with that.


As to adult 'selfishness' - how would this not be a factor ? They want what they think is best for the child because...it is in their interests so to do. There are no certainties in any of this; especially that of producing 'freest mind of purity that shall be more capable to weather the storms of adulthood, as their foundation, in their dealings, shall be free and calm, with singular resolve'.
No, a proper adult parent , not a child themselves, wants for their child what's best for the child, in their interactions with that child. They should never provide input to the child's psyche that displays their selfish need above the child's need. As to the certainties, you seem merely to not understand it yet.

Most parents, I would imagine, want what is best for their child - but not all. Also, this could be interpreted as a basic 'selfish need' - as can having a child in the first place. You may prescribe what parents should and should not do and believe that positive/negative consequences, and certainties, will follow. I don't see this, what is it that I am not understanding here ?

What kind of 'negativity',and How can 'negativity' from a baby's perspective be understood; far less explained ('made to understand' ) as a duty to the child ? Assuming that such understanding could be reached ?
You really threw me with this one, because I see it as an elementary understanding that goes without specification. (<--is this a slight and unnecessary? See what I mean?)

If you think that saying I should know what you are talking about without further examples is a slight, then I don't perceive it as such. I would say that 'negativity' is non-specific and needs further clarification.

So seriously, It's because the parent understands and the baby doesn't that it's the parents responsibility to ensure no negativity is transferred to an impressionable mind.

What understanding does the parent necessarily have ? No 'negativity' being what ? And how can a lack of negativity be ensured ? By being positive - positively what ? And why would this necessarily result in a certain direction ?

It takes a talented person to communicate meaning effectively; so many ways to be misunderstood arising in frustration all round. A complex example such as the subconscious is a swirling mass of confusion born of internal conflict in response to negative, conflicting external stimuli, that thwarts the freedom of will that would have been a pure self supporting system, otherwise. can't be readily understood by referring to it as the 'opposite' of something else.


Yes, you are correct, this is a prime example of me not understanding that, that which I know through my exposure, and obviously, take for granted, I should take the time to put forth as concepts that are more discernible, for those that have not been exposed to that, which I have.

So, what did you mean by it ?


I'm tired now and now can't see the point of taking this further. As you intimated, I don't 'really' want more, especially check-backs. Sometimes less is more.
What ever you feel like contributing, that's fine!

Whatever ? I'm not sure that any contributions of mine are particularly relevant to a given topic; however, I enjoy trying to understand and translate thoughts into words. Up to a point.

Best -
MB
Peace my friend!

reasonvemotion wrote:This is very upsetting, to read the damage that is being thrown back and forth in these posts.
Yes I agree. Sorry it took me so long to acknowledge you.

Arising always ready to pierce a heart or mind

and Spheres always ready to wear his heart on his sleeve
Yes, I agree!


Realise this both of you and tread carefully.
In the heat of the moment it was hard to see your post, If I had noticed this post sooner it may have helped, it would seem I was blinded by my frustration. I thank you for being a voice of reason.

Sincerely,

SOB

reasonvemotion wrote:

In the other extreme the subconscious is a swirling mass of confusion born of internal conflict in response to negative, conflicting external stimuli, that thwarts the freedom of will that would have been a pure self supporting system, otherwise.

Yes, I understand. The freewill is caged, somewhere way back in the annals of your mind. If it were free as it should be, you would be a whole person, but as long as you remain in this state you remain in fetters. SoB you break my heart.

Well, I love you too! You seem to be such a sweetheart, thanks for your oasis!

This is true, that often, unfortunately, babies and children, that eventually become adults with these conflicts buried deep within, as a result of trauma as external stimuli, can severely complicate their free will, but when it really gets bad, is when it's from one that is supposed to love you, these are the viscous circles of internal conflict that can destroy lives, thus perpetuating the tainted legacy of a particular family.

marjoramblues wrote:My response in bolds, because the colour thing is a palaver.

marjoramblues wrote:MB: SOB, thanks for the reply; and I appreciate the purple and patience shown.

I agree that context is important for understanding but some statements can stand alone; and beliefs if sincerely held would be remembered. Also easily explained, if clear in themselves.
SOB: The entire first part (pre-semicolon) is great, and I reiterated all those. After the semicolon, however, obviously you slight me, or why else, say as such?

MB: Where is the slight ? I saw your initial post as a 'summary' of your thoughts - I was wrong. A summary and any questions arising from it, would have made clear all main points without any need to back-track. A statement such as 'all reasons are your choice' and talk of tweaking calibration of scales seems to me to be a strongly-held belief which is explainable.
SOB: No, they were just quotes of previous entries in two threads dealing with free will. The slight comes from saying things that have no other meaning than to reduce someone as being less, I'm guilty of it too, and will always try and reduce the occurrences, I believe that your point could have been stated differently to reduce this. I shall try and do this in the future. I see that probably all of human knowledge is merely a strongly-held belief, so I wonder what you mean.


SOB: To assume that I am just as capable as you 'claim' to be, is a falsehood.
MB: Do I assume this ? and where do I 'claim' anything about my capabilities, what are they?
SOB: Revisit and understand the above slight, in order to understand this.

SOB: I could do the same to you
MB: What do you mean by doing the same to you? What have I done - Falsely assume that I am just as capable as you 'claim' to be? Like I said, no such assumption exists whether true or false.
SOB: Yes I agree, even though we all speak English, we all speak a different language, this can be a problem that I understand more and more each day here. This was also about the slight. Sorry if this was a misjudgment, but I can find no other meaning in your words.

SOB: and say that most people would simply not be lazy and expect something handed to them on a silver platter, and instead, do the work necessary in tracking down, that of their interest, and that if not, they must not be very interested, in which case, it's a good thing I didn't waste my valuable time, going to all the trouble, that they themselves refuse to do, as they obviously don't really care anyway. I don't think you are as capable as you claim, I wrote some of this months ago.
By the way, my example above, of how I could slight you, only applies if you cannot honestly tell me another reason why you would say as you did, after that semicolon.

MB: You can say what you like. I wasn't expecting anything - you offered up what I wrongly thought was a summary. Yes, too good to be true. You did use your valuable time to back-track - for all our interests. All I did was care enough to show further interest and explanation of your strongly held beliefs. My initial lack of inclination to go back through threads was in relation to 'All the rest is Kim and I arguing about our inabilities to effectively communicate with one another'
I meant with respect for what I had to say, how can I possibly speak for someone else?

MB: Again, re any example of 'slight' and application of it in response to one so perceived, that is your style. Unfortunately, this tends to set up an antagonistic framework which might work well for some, but can also be perceived as a wordy waste of time and effort.[/color]
OK, everything above pertains to the slight. I shall break it down, you had said:

marjoramblues wrote:I agree that context is important for understanding but some statements can stand alone; and beliefs if sincerely held would be remembered. Also easily explained, if clear in themselves.

Before the semicolon I agree, in your understanding that what I posted was only my responses to others, that would require context for clarities sake, while others sentences stand in and of themselves, cool. But after the semicolon, your words hold me responsible in a condescending way and as stated, are a falsehood. Lets take the first part. "...beliefs if sincerely held would be remembered." Since I don't offer them up on that silver platter I mentioned, you state that my beliefs are in fact not sincerely held. That's a false statement as many things can be attributed to my not remembering exactly how they pertained contextually. Time is one factor, it had been over two months since I had written some of it and when I copied them here for you I did not read the entire thread so as to provide explanation, I feel that's your job, as historically, the proper way to proceed here, in a forum, is to read the entire thread, some sysops have historically not cared for people duplicating material due to server space, and rightfully so. Or maybe I have a failing memory, so should I be, beat up about it? To cover all the bases I think it "more" proper to state it as such: "beliefs if sincerely held are usually remembered" this would have given me an out, for those things that you couldn't account for, as to my not supplying you with "what you wanted," on that silver platter of your not having to go back and read for yourself, like that of an normal, unprivileged, forum visitor. The second part: "Also easily explained, if clear in themselves." Is directly connected to the first part and is another way in insulting me simply because I failed to do all you 'expected' me to 'do for you' that is not the 'normal' way of proceeding, and was actually that of my being "extremely' nice and treating you 'special.' So your statements "...; and beliefs if sincerely held would be remembered. Also easily explained, if clear in themselves," in light of the context in which they were delivered, can only be seen as a way to slight me for not providing you with what you wanted, and were unproductive and uncalled for with respect to the conversation at hand. If I misunderstood please explain the 'brunt' of their meaning. Otherwise I'd really rather not hear anything more about it.

MB: The formation of the human psyche is well beyond my expertise. However, there seems to be a lot of conditions attached to your theory: ' if one believes...' . Also, it is highly prescriptive ' the adult must ensure that...'.
Some 'prescriptions' have unwanted side-effects - hi stress patterns in adults creating a hi negative charge environment.

SOB: The unwanted side effects are what I'm trying to negate, and honestly believe my solution would achieve that.
MB: Good luck with that.
I see this type of response as being indicative of the problem.

MB: As to adult 'selfishness' - how would this not be a factor ? They want what they think is best for the child because...it is in their interests so to do. There are no certainties in any of this; especially that of producing 'freest mind of purity that shall be more capable to weather the storms of adulthood, as their foundation, in their dealings, shall be free and calm, with singular resolve'.
SOB: No, a proper adult parent , not a child themselves, wants for their child what's best for the child, in their interactions with that child. They should never provide input to the child's psyche that displays their selfish need above the child's need. As to the certainties, you seem merely to not understand it yet.

MB: Most parents, I would imagine, want what is best for their child - but not all. Also, this could be interpreted as a basic 'selfish need' - as can having a child in the first place. You may prescribe what parents should and should not do and believe that positive/negative consequences, and certainties, will follow. I don't see this, what is it that I am not understanding here ?
Well Obviously I'm speaking of what's best for the organism in question, and there is belief as to what this is, with respect to psychology. I agree with you that people that don't love and want what's best for their children, have no right in having them. And of course I'm not suggesting that it should be forced on someone, it could never be enforced as a law, that is not the point. My words are for those that do love their child, and want them for the right reasons, wanting what's best for them. One's primary job as parent is that of teacher, and what one teaches starts on day one, and a good parent should be concerned with the truth in their teachings where truth is whats best for the child, what they would have wanted if they would examine their childhood in it's totality and could repair those things that caused them problems. In this way with each generation we are becoming a better human and cutting out the negative inputs that yield negative output.

MB: What kind of 'negativity',and How can 'negativity' from a baby's perspective be understood; far less explained ('made to understand' ) as a duty to the child ? Assuming that such understanding could be reached ?
SOB: You really threw me with this one, because I see it as an elementary understanding that goes without specification. (<--is this a slight and unnecessary? See what I mean?)

MB: If you think that saying I should know what you are talking about without further examples is a slight, then I don't perceive it as such. I would say that 'negativity' is non-specific and needs further clarification.
Because in that statement, I reduced you to below an elementary level, I say that you 'should' know, who the hell am I to say what you 'should' know or be capable of knowing? There are a plethora of reasons why you may not know of which I speak, so it is extremely nasty to assume you should and hold you accountable for this assumption, and slight your abilities, because I'm incapable of understanding all the possibilities that you may rightfully be excused, in your not being able to understand this. It's extra data that does not need to be said to get an idea across, other than to hurt someone, as how could that possibly be anything else than a means to humiliate someone into remembering what its attached to. At it's heart is an evil intent.

SOB: So seriously, It's because the parent understands and the baby doesn't that it's the parents responsibility to ensure no negativity is transferred to an impressionable mind.

MB: What understanding does the parent necessarily have ? No 'negativity' being what ? And how can a lack of negativity be ensured ? By being positive - positively what ? And why would this necessarily result in a certain direction ?
"Understanding' is extremely wide, so, to what are you specifically referring?
OK, I'll give you one: The baby cries (we're talking of one that is incapable of crawling, that's currently in a bassinet)
What do you do? What is positive and what is negative in this case?

MB: It takes a talented person to communicate meaning effectively; so many ways to be misunderstood arising in frustration all round. A complex example such as the subconscious is a swirling mass of confusion born of internal conflict in response to negative, conflicting external stimuli, that thwarts the freedom of will that would have been a pure self supporting system, otherwise. can't be readily understood by referring to it as the 'opposite' of something else.

SOB: Yes, you are correct, this is a prime example of me not understanding that, that which I know through my exposure, and obviously, take for granted, I should take the time to put forth as concepts that are more discernible, for those that have not been exposed to that, which I have.
MB: So, what did you mean by it ?
I have no problem telling you, but like I've told others "I can't type for crap" so since I see that this shall be a very long explanation, and so that you are equally invested, such that I shall only answer that which you actually have problems understanding, read from left to right, top to bottom and ask me about each consecutive bit, that you see as a confusing way, that I've spoken, that you want me to clarify.

MB: I'm tired now and now can't see the point of taking this further. As you intimated, I don't 'really' want more, especially check-backs. Sometimes less is more.
SOB: What ever you feel like contributing, that's fine!

MB: Whatever ? I'm not sure that any contributions of mine are particularly relevant to a given topic; however, I enjoy trying to understand and translate thoughts into words. Up to a point.
Well, yet again, what ever you feel like contributing, that's fine!
Best -
MB
Peace my friend!

marjoramblues wrote:SOB: If I misunderstood please explain the 'brunt' of their meaning. Otherwise I'd really rather not hear anything more about it.

Thanks, SOB, for taking the time and effort to respond to my post. However, I think that I explained what I meant as far as I am able to.

Sometimes it is like walking on egg-shells to try and write anything at all. I agree that it probably best to call a halt right now.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

marjoramblues wrote:SOB: If I misunderstood please explain the 'brunt' of their meaning. Otherwise I'd really rather not hear anything more about it.

Thanks, SOB, for taking the time and effort to respond to my post. However, I think that I explained what I meant as far as I am able to.

Sometimes it is like walking on egg-shells to try and write anything at all. I agree that it probably best to call a halt right now.

Yes, you are correct, but I think that everyone, including myself, should always try and improve their language so as to "say what they mean and mean what they say," I'm just trying to point out where it could be said that you have failed just like you pointed out that I had. And I invite your corrections, as they can only serve to make me a stronger speaker, and listener. I would just hope that you and I can continue to be civil about it, so please let me know if I've been too strong, as I shall apologize and remedy, but of course I expect the same from you.

By the way, I love spices, I'm the cook of the house. I've just never been blue about any of them.

marjoramblues wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

marjoramblues wrote:SOB: If I misunderstood please explain the 'brunt' of their meaning. Otherwise I'd really rather not hear anything more about it.

Thanks, SOB, for taking the time and effort to respond to my post. However, I think that I explained what I meant as far as I am able to.

Sometimes it is like walking on egg-shells to try and write anything at all. I agree that it probably best to call a halt right now.

Yes, you are correct, but I think that everyone, including myself, should always try and improve their language so as to "say what they mean and mean what they say," I'm just trying to point out where it could be said that you have failed just like you pointed out that I had. And I invite your corrections, as they can only serve to make me a stronger speaker, and listener. I would just hope that you and I can continue to be civil about it, so please let me know if I've been too strong, as I shall apologize and remedy, but of course I expect the same from you.

By the way, I love spices, I'm the cook of the house. I've just never been blue about any of them.

SOB, thanks for the invitation to continue. However, when I said that it is probably best to call a halt right now, I really meant that I had had enough of this particular discussion.
Interpret that as you like - with or without a nice Chianti.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: It was no invitation, just a parting wisdom, something to take with you, that you may want to consider, maybe not. Unless you're leaving the forum, otherwise I'm sure we'll bump into each other again. But I have to wonder why you were compelled to respond, if in fact you meant as you say, as you owe me nothing! Or maybe you feel otherwise!