Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 10:28 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:24 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 7:18 am Each person will defend what is most precious.
What is it that each person will defend?
What is the most precious to everyone?

Go ahead... explain and answer for yourself, in relation to this topic.

You have to walk through the door yourself.

It's your door. I'm not interested.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 4:00 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 5:18 pm...

Atto, can you clarify what your comment (identified below) meant?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 3:00 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:37 pm Atto wrote: Don't bother getting a room. Just inter_face. in response to and in observation of the friendly back & forth between seeds and yourself. I found it funny cuz friendliness is even more rare than civility here, and this is a virtual forum, so inter-face is a double entendre.

Do you get it? Probably not.

Considering Atto's tendency toward sexual insults, I guessed that his comment was directly in response to me saying this at the end of my post: This has been the most enjoyable discussion I've had in awhile! And I break the rules all the time... in regard to thread topics and all sorts of other things. That's where the juicy good stuff is.

Atto's comment appeared to be more than just an observation of "the friendly back & forth" between seeds and I, as you casually put it. It appeared to suggest a sexual act... which you produced your thumb for.

Did I misunderstand?

Dear LW. Sure, the blue bit in Henry's comments pretty much sums it up - since this is an online forum, and you and seeds were getting along rather well, I made the comment that you could inter_face (playing on the digital side of things) - it WAS a sexually construed comment, and I apologise (again) - the one I later made which included something to the affect of blowing leaves around a garden was FAR worse - and Henry acknowledged his displeasure as it, quite rightly. I have been warned by the super powers, he interfaced to me and told me I would be banned if it happened again.

So please stop picking on Henry - unless you plan on interfacing to him - you know, like hacking his computer.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 2:14 am So please stop picking on Henry

Poor Henry

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 3:17 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 2:14 am So please stop picking on Henry

Poor Henry

The fact that Henry sleeps under a bus shelter and then heads to the nearest library to use the internet should really be none of our concern. (only Henry's - poor ol' fella)

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 10:32 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 10:28 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 2:24 pm
Go ahead... explain and answer for yourself, in relation to this topic.

You have to walk through the door yourself.

It's your door. I'm not interested.

Disinterest has made it your door, therefore:

There’s no need to explain away one’s own low capacity for inquiry, although philosophers are characterized by a high inquiry capacity. Thus, even a smidgen of self-awareness reveals that incuriosity is inappropriate within a philosophical venue, even for a complacent thread steward.

Thus, by examining characteristics of any particular tendency, quality, or aspect of humanness, one can be on the trail of determining whether or not that particular tendency is universal to all humans, that is, either inherent or universally conditioned.

A demonstrated Incurious Tendency, a.k.a., apathy in motion, is not uncommon but neither is it universal, simply because Sherlocks do exist. Neither is curiosity universal, because as we all know, some cats live long lives relative to their peers, thus disproving the wives’ tale by means of observation.

This indicates that the most precious is not a particular thing. If not a particular thing, then contemplative inquiry leads to the unsupressed question, what could it be?

Well, perhaps it’s an aspect of consciousness accessible by and common to all humans, and like gravity identifiable indirectly only as a motion generator. A motive force. The motive force. Since incurious humans have been known to move, then this as-yet unnamed quality is distinct from what moves a curious cat, which scientists say is instinct.

This indicates that human inherency and universal conditioning are both or either independent of the instinct assigned to kitty, thus is not a quality of animalism, which is not to rule out animism from an impartial inquiry although so far particulars have proven infertile ground.

Say wot?

The trial of the century is over: acquittal.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 11:30 am The trial of the century is over: acquittal.

There was no trial. There was an attempt to understand. Atto has acknowledged that his comment was sexual. Henry gave a thumbs-up whether he perceived Atto's comment in the same way or not. And all of that was in response to a post I made to someone else which neither of you had any other thoughtful comment or question about. Yet Henry needed a big apology for his own density... and Atto can't be trusted from one moment to the next. Now we've got Walker adding his twisted self-serving spew to the mix. As if ANY of you guys know ANYTHING beyond continually catering to your egos!

There was no trial.

You're right. It was just you attemptin' to inflate a dime balloon into the Goodyear blimp.


There was an attempt to understand.

Was there? I explained, Atto explained, and you still don't seem to get it.


Atto has acknowledged that his comment was sexual.

What he said: it WAS a sexually construed comment.

Double entendre, made at the expense of Seeds and yourself. Perhaps not kind but certainly not the degradin' insult you wanna paint it as. His later comment did step over the line and -- you'll note -- is gone.


Henry gave a thumbs-up whether he perceived Atto's comment in the same way or not.

I did and still do for reasons I laid out up-thread.


And all of that was in response to a post I made to someone else which neither of you had any other thoughtful comment or question about.

No. As I explained, as Atto explained: his comment was directed at the conviviality between Seeds and yourself. It was not directed at you, for any single post of yours.


Yet Henry needed a big apology for his own density...

No. I wanted an apology for this...

It can be disheartening that the drunks, half-wits, and bloated egos who use this forum to continually self-glorify their density, aren't really here to question and explore ideas. They are masturbating all over themselves and each other, and yet they accuse a woman of performing sexual acts (as Atto did to me, and Henry appeared to agree by showing the thumb he likes to sit on) simply because she is considering more ideas and demonstrating her freedom of thinking. It's as if they can't fathom such things... so they condemn it with their archaic male behavior and shriveled-up little brains. When the fuck are they going to evolve? It's not that hard to do!

...all of which is wrong and wrong-headed.


As if ANY of you guys know ANYTHING beyond continually catering to your egos!

Lace, this entire thread is a self-raised tribute to your ego. You have no interest in the religious mindset beyond takin' a crap on it.

And: truly, what offended you is that Atto's comment wasn't about you and you alone. That's why you tried, are still tryin', to, as I say, inflate a ten cent balloon into a blimp.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:07 pmWhy would the world of the past, and its words and understandings assembled and re-translated/assembled in various books, be the most significant guide adopted by some people living today?

Please excuse the fact that I have not read through this entire thread, but you might consider the following...

One of the main reasons that religion persists is that it [regardless of the actual truth] provides a moral beacon for mankind. Left to his own devices, man will rationalize all kinds of bizarre behavior based on his never ending desires, so having a code to follow provides a straight and narrow path for him once the Devil on his left shoulder starts winning the debate with the angel perched on the right side [npi].

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 5:18 pm No. I wanted an apology for this...

It can be disheartening that the drunks, half-wits, and bloated egos who use this forum to continually self-glorify their density, aren't really here to question and explore ideas. They are masturbating all over themselves and each other, and yet they accuse a woman of performing sexual acts (as Atto did to me, and Henry appeared to agree by showing the thumb he likes to sit on) simply because she is considering more ideas and demonstrating her freedom of thinking. It's as if they can't fathom such things... so they condemn it with their archaic male behavior and shriveled-up little brains. When the fuck are they going to evolve? It's not that hard to do!

Well, I gave you an apology.

Do you have any awareness of how much you've insulted me and made characterizations about me that aren't true?

Here's an example:

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 5:18 pm Lace, this entire thread is a self-raised tribute to your ego. You have no interest in the religious mindset beyond takin' a crap on it.

Not true: I've asked completely reasonable questions and I'm genuinely interested in mindful (unhypnotized) answers. What's wrong with doing that?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 5:18 pmAnd: truly, what offended you is that Atto's comment wasn't about you and you alone.

You say "truly"... and that isn't true at all. You seem to think that your pea-brain thoughts are the final word on every fucking thing you talk about. That's what I meant about "evolving" beyond such know-it-all crap... when there is OBVIOUSLY so much that is not seen or known from any one perspective. I don't know how you guys can believe yourselves!

...further down-thread is the intended post.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 11:48 pm

Lacewing wrote:Well, I gave you an apology.

Half-hearted and without remorse.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 11:48 pm

Lacewing wrote:Do you have any awareness of how much you've insulted me and made characterizations about me that aren't true?

Prior to the truce: I was a nightmare, yep.

Since the truce: not so much.

I agree. Maybe a half-nightmare... which is why I gave you a half-apology.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 11:48 pm This...

Lace, this entire thread is a self-raised tribute to your ego. You have no interest in the religious mindset beyond takin' a crap on it.

...is not an insult or mischaracterization, as I'm about to illustrate.

Are you aware of the consta

(Did your message get cut off?) I'm interested in your attempt at an illustration that will likely disregard what I know of myself and my perspective that you don't.

Well, I gave you an apology.

Half-hearted and without remorse.


Do you have any awareness of how much you've insulted me and made characterizations about me that aren't true?

Prior to the truce: I was a nightmare, yep.

Since the truce: not so much.

This...

Lace, this entire thread is a self-raised tribute to your ego. You have no interest in the religious mindset beyond takin' a crap on it.

...is not an insult or mischaracterization, but an assessment based on how you present yourself in-forum.


I've asked completely reasonable questions and I'm genuinely interested in mindful (unhypnotized) answers.

Nope. You asked leading questions and aren't interested in anything but validation.

Your opening: nuthin' but your own prejudice.

You have no interest in the underpinnings of religious thought as it extends back, no interest in the possible wisdoms and truths early man codified. No, Your questions are nuthin' but how can anyone today be so dumb as to believe the rantings of primitives? Of what possible value could ancient thought be to moderns?

Your opening wasn't inspired by curiosity, but becuz --as a modern-- you believe yourself superior in thinkin' and understandin'.

Worse yet: you expect to be applauded for bein' so much better than those primitives.

Note your use of unhypnotized, as though you are, and perhaps anyone who disagrees with your assessments isn't.


That's what I meant about "evolving" beyond such know-it-all crap...

You first, lady. You're one of the biggest know it alls in-forum.

_______

Good grief...

Enough already!!!

_______

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:49 am This...

Lace, this entire thread is a self-raised tribute to your ego. You have no interest in the religious mindset beyond takin' a crap on it.

...is not an insult or mischaracterization, but an assessment based on how you present yourself in-forum.

Your assessment is not representative of the truth. There is more to consider. I am challenging the status quo... and unfounded claims... and egos galore... on a stage. I'm confronting drama with drama. I have interest in anything that has a reasonable explanation/argument. I have no investment in the outcome. I'm living in the moment. Show me a god... and I'll say, okay. But people who just repeat fanciful claims and demonstrate nothing except deception and cowardice while avoiding tough questions, are not believable. Surely you can appreciate that!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:49 am

Lacewing wrote:I've asked completely reasonable questions and I'm genuinely interested in mindful (unhypnotized) answers.

Nope. You asked leading questions and aren't interested in anything but validation.

They may have been leading... but so what? That doesn't stop someone from showing and answering what they can. No, I am not looking for validation. I want to understand the senselessness that is passed around. Let's hear something profound! Let's hear something convincing! Why would anyone accept something so ill-presented in any other area of life? It appeals to certain needs... it doesn't demonstrate truth. That doesn't mean there isn't any. I'm just urging someone to step beyond the old stories! Show us something real and reasonable right now.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:49 amYour opening: nuthin' but your own prejudice.

Your assessment sucks due to your limited thinking.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:49 amYou have no interest in the underpinnings of religious thought as it extends back, no interest in the possible wisdoms and truths early man codified.

I appreciate wisdom and truth from any source.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:49 amYour questions are nuthin' but how can anyone today be so dumb as to believe the rantings of primitives? Of what possible value could ancient thought be to moderns?

Well, yes, I do ask that. Why isn't it reasonable to ask why we are relying on AND FOLLOWING the past? Yes, it seems ridiculous to me. Aren't you able to see that in other areas of life where we expect that it's best to progress? Should we still be believing the Earth is flat? Why is it seen as sacrilegious to question religion? Isn't that rather convenient for maintaining unquestioning belief in controlling stories? Truth shouldn't need to avoid questioning.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:49 amYour opening wasn't inspired by curiosity, but becuz --as a modern-- you believe yourself superior in thinkin' and understandin'.

Nope... I AM curious to understand and it does seem more intelligent to be focused on the present than on the past. But I don't think I'm superior to anyone, because I think we're all connected as one... we're just acting out different potentials. What's wrong with us challenging each other on the potentials we are playing out? Don't you question/challenge people who you think are selling platforms that don't seem to make sense?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:49 amWorse yet: you expect to be applauded for bein' so much better than those primitives.

Can you separate your projections from reality, Henry?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:49 am

Lacewing wrote:That's what I meant about "evolving" beyond such know-it-all crap...

You first, lady.

I do want to evolve beyond all the know-it-all crap... and that's why I challenge what we think we know. Aren't you willing to do that? Or does your identity/ego depend on believing it "knows" so much more than it actually does? And is that why you can sympathize with the religious practice of making claims and insisting they're true just because you say so?