Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 2:26 pmThe moderators could choose to be like that, perhaps as a life lesson for posters, or they could perhaps consider the forum a portion of reality where that happens less.

Sure, although I wouldn’t be so quick as to assume the moderator intends the hubris of transmitting a life lesson, as you suggest. Life lessons are most often a result of reception, not transmission.

My point is about the answers, topics, and perhaps even philosophy that can be found in contemplation of what is and the insights that follow, rather than focusing upon a preconception of what should be.

Rather than making it happen less, answering one question leads to hearing two, and then rather than clarifications, the always ageless Hydra of distractions begins to awaken. Answering questions with one word would be an alarm clock.

Then, what with more misunderstandings and questions, things can get going fast enough for philosophy to fly out the window, which happens less with auto air-conditioning unless the philosophy is hedonism because even if the hedonist is into the pleasure of saunas, it’s a long drive across the burning desert and too much of the same pleasure becomes other than pleasure. (In a free forum distractions are part of the landscape, which I think you’ll agree can be beautiful).

I watched that Feynman video again and noticed his references to earth, which caused a google about “firmament.” From its usage in The Holy Bible, which Feynman was obliquely referencing, it appears that firmament is the singular, undifferentiated, non-dual whole of the universe.
Firmament doesn’t mean the earth. The earth is a portion of the whole. Firmament means the universe known to man, and the universe of man is the earth and the water that man requires from the universe in order to exist. The natural division of earth from water is not necessarily a unique phenomenon in the universe.

The Holy Bible transmits the message that Godlike powers are required to chop the non-dual into the dual. Add to that, man “made-in-image-of,” and this leads to some questions that anyone can ask of themselves.

I deleted that thread, and also the other one that FlashDangerpants mentioned.

Both threads contained a lot of posts that I felt were unacceptable even by our forum's fairly relaxed standards. We're good with controversial opinions here, so long as they are argued philosophically and respectfully. However, posting pictures of actual human beings in order to hold them up the ridicule is not acceptable. That's why I have banned one of the posters from the gender thread. This is no way reflects on you, Jack - you're fine. But like my fellow mods I'm generally short of time so couldn't go through the already very long thread deciding which individual postings to delete and which to keep.

The other thread which FlashDangerpants mentioned had lots of posts by a certain forum member that were crudely Islamophobic. So adopting the same approach I banned him and deleted the entire thread. To do anything else would have involved me in a ton of work to save a few bits of a thread that mostly wasn't very philosophical anyway.

And the banned person was more right than wrong, thanks to the made-up gender ideology, we can now have more and more fake trans people in addition to the real ones. And some/many of the fake ones are just in it so they can predate on women (and that's just one of the issues with gender ideology). I guess we'll need a few more years until most people realize that promoting gender ideology is automatically hate speech.

RickLewis wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 4:49 pm I deleted that thread, and also the other one that FlashDangerpants mentioned.

Both threads contained a lot of posts that I felt were unacceptable even by our forum's fairly relaxed standards. We're good with controversial opinions here, so long as they are argued philosophically and respectfully. However, posting pictures of actual human beings in order to hold them up the ridicule is not acceptable. That's why I have banned one of the posters from the gender thread. This is no way reflects on you, Jack - you're fine. But like my fellow mods I'm generally short of time so couldn't go through the already very long thread deciding which individual postings to delete and which to keep.

The other thread which FlashDangerpants mentioned had lots of posts by a certain forum member that were crudely Islamophobic. So adopting the same approach I banned him and deleted the entire thread. To do anything else would have involved me in a ton of work to save a few bits of a thread that mostly wasn't very philosophical anyway.

Thank you for the explanation and in a way I am relieved that I don't have the worry of the gender thread any longer. It could have become a dumping ground for almost any kind of point of view. Of course, everyone is entitled to think what they like but there are acceptable standards, boundaries and the need for respect of all people.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 3:55 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 2:26 pmThe moderators could choose to be like that, perhaps as a life lesson for posters, or they could perhaps consider the forum a portion of reality where that happens less.

Sure, although I wouldn’t be so quick as to assume the moderator intends the hubris of transmitting a life lesson, as you suggest.

That was tongue in cheeck.

Life lessons are most often a result of reception, not transmission.

Agreed.

My point is about the answers, topics, and perhaps even philosophy that can be found in contemplation of what is and the insights that follow, rather than focusing upon a preconception of what should be.

Rather than making it happen less, answering one question leads to hearing two, and then rather than clarifications, the always ageless Hydra of distractions begins to awaken. Answering questions with one word would be an alarm clock.

I think Rick answering Jack's question above is a good thing. I suppose it might end up a slippery slope, but me personally, I'd be fine with Rick ignoring calls for clarification and discussion unless he found it interesting. Generally, I prefer if acts that are connected to power come with an explanation, at least.

It certainly doesn't eliminate all problems, but generally I think it's a good idea.

In a sense other people responding to the situation and the elimination of the thread are both reactions.

I reacted to the act and thought it would be good if there was an explanation.
You reacted to the reactions.

We reacted to reactions.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 4:06 am

Great questions sometimes prompt great answers.