Nice....Hypocrite wrote:Correct! It includes the possibility for error - or the degree of possibility - if you prefer.
Backtracking, little boy.Hypocrite wrote:Regarding your ambiguous phrasing "degrees of awareness": It is a meaningless combination of marks, an incoherent string of symbols.
True, but I include it anyway, to give you a more complete picture. If you truly do not care, then you should not mind...imbecile.Hypocrite wrote:What you think about my person is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We'll call this Issue #1.
I cannot lie to you, imbecile, nor will I hide my true evaluations of you.
Oh but you do, moron, even if you are not aware of it. Equality, the uniforming notion of a #1, is your secular God.Hypocrite wrote:Issue#1. Besides that, it is also a non sequitur(it does not follow from what I wrote)... In order for this to be true, I must think that all rates of change are equal, which I do not.
Imbecile....you not even being able to understand why, despite the fact that reality is fluid, life is possible and civilization emerges, within the infinitesimally tiny timescales in relation to the continuity we are talking about, is why you are a simpleton.
Imbecile...this kind of "counter-argument" has been dealt by me a hundred times before, and that you, YOU, thought it constituted a significant counterpoint, makes you all the more deplorable in my eyes.
Imbecile...another metaphor to aid your tiny mind: An ant colony emerges, grows, flourishes and then diminishes in a few decades, let's say....in that time span is reality enclosed or is it a tiny fragment of reality within which phenomena emerge and then perish, seeking their own completion in the meantime?
Imbecile...in the timescales we are dealing with...well unless you are a simpleton like you....we are talking about billions upon billions of years, as man understands time...we are not dealing with the awareness of a gnat, or a chimp or a human retard like you.
One more time, because your ego is not allowing you to read clearly: Imbecile, did I claim to be able to read your mind, tiny as it might be?Hypocrite wrote:Thus, this attempt at a reasonable objection is grounded upon the false presupposition that you are somehow privy to the mental activities in my mind. We'll call that Issue #2.
Imbecile...do you even realize that what you are implying just about erases all sciences dealing with biology, psychology or all those which depend on empirical, sensually gathered, data, extrapolating rules and types and categories...in effect the entirety of science?
One more time, with the same example: Imbecile....do I need to read a dog's mind to deduce its behavior or its motives using my observation of its activities?
Imbecile....when telling a girl you love her, words, and then treating her like shit, actions, which do you hold to be a superior indication of intent and honest attitude?
Imbecile...I know this scares the shit out of you, but can it be possible to know a dog more than it knows itself, given what self-consciousness is in relation to consciousness?
Imbecile...what did I say about belief?Hypocrite wrote:Issue#1. Issue#2. The rest of the above and my earlier objection are not mutually exclusive, nor incompatible. Neither, did I state that the fluidity renders all assessment useless, nor would I argue such a thing. You did. That is what I'm objecting to, and you're offering compelling reasons for my own position while contradicting your own claims. It is for this reason that the above constitutes a strawman fallacy, among other things. My objection did not deny the above. Rather it points out the unreasonability inherent in holding the belief that because reality is in a constant state of change, that all assessments of it are immediately obsolete. Unless we hold that an assessment can be both obsolete and useful, which is quite clearly a contradiction in terms, and to do so would render the term obsolete meaningless. Seeing how your premiss is grounded upon what constitutes being "meaningless", well...
I can believe I can fly...I have this belief...for me this belief is TRUE....what is the deciding factor?
What, you stupid fuck, does my personal certainty and conviction have to do with reality and the world, other than that it posits a test to it deciding my fate within it?
Imbecile, we are not talking about your personal limitations and needs.Hypocrite wrote:#1. #2. #3. None of this changes the fact that the cup is on the table, and will remain so until it is acted on by an external force, even if those forces constitute strong and weak nuclear forces, and the resulting molecular change is virtually imperceptible to human observation.
Imbecile, if you are a retard who thinks ghosts exist, then for you they exist...they are your belief...but this does not make them so.
Imbecile, your cup is changing...and in relation to you, YOU, you stupid fuck, it is static or it seems so.
Imbecile, is the cup static, even if you do not act upon it?
Imbecile, those forces are they not how man explains fluidity?
Name one static...one immutable thing.
I know...Hypocrite wrote:Let's imagine...It is not the least bit compelling. More rhetoric.
Einstein, Albert wrote:Imagination is more important than knowledge.
In other words, nothing matters except how YOU, perceive it.Hypocrite wrote:Again #1. #2. #3. None of the above changes the fact that the cup is on the table. Nor does the fact that both are currently in a state of molecular decay change that fact. In fact, the cup being on the table grounds the rest.
Excellent, douche-bag.
Therefore, there is no death, given that YOU, cannot or will not perceive it personally. The earth is NOT rotating...the galaxy is not rotating, the universe is not expanding.
It is all still, because you say so.
Imbecile define "here", as you allude to it in the sentence "the cup is on the table". It implies a static place. Define it...quantify it, you stupid fuck.
Not using human standards, like longitude and latitude....a priori style...no?
Ah, so now you agree, but you cannot make sense of how object/subject is possible unless you employ double-standards...agreeing sometimes and disagreeing at others, being of one mind in some contexts and in the opposite side in others. You are never wrong, in this way...your belief is infallible...it is TRUE.Hypocrite wrote:I do understand what you're saying, because I understand what it would take for your claim to be true. It is not as you say. Your position is incoherent, and self-contradictory. Interpretation is all we have, and the argument for that is impeccable. However, if we, by definition, exclude all interpretation from reality, then by default alone we invoke the false dichotomy of subjective/objective when talking about reality.
Suddenly you've been saying the same things all along, but you can't explain the dualities unless you invoke your deity, the absolute.
This is where I play.
Remember, douche-bag, reality is absent of all absolutes, which the mind projects upon it out of necessity.
So a dichotomy is the mind/body division, the mind being the masculine the body being the feminine, using that metaphorical division.
The masculine is therefore seeking to create, like God, what is absent in reality. In fact it DOES create it in the form of ideals and ideas and abstractions, like here, now, self, one, there, particle, minute, etc.
So, imbecile, the masculine, true to its sexual role, is a rejection of what is, of authority, offering its own projections as the fulfillment of the feminine void. It is Creative and this is why a monist God is masculine. It connects back to Freud, from a more metaphysical direction.
The duo, the other, is the masculine spirit seeking to make of itself an alternative. In fact consciousness and its discrimination is a rejection, a negation, of the given...in this case the entropic decay, positing itself as the order which reality is missing.
The masculine is anti-nature, and this is why it produces philosophy and science as a way of understanding and then "correcting" the world. It is idealistic.
Consciousness is such a rejection or resistance...creating the necessary division of I and other.
But things get worse, douche-bag, as the feminine attitude is of total surrender. A giving in, tolerance, submission, to the entropic flow....leading to its own Ideal state: emptiness, void, nothingness.
So, for the male spirit the absolute is the some-thing...an ambiguous projection of an ideal state; for the female spirit it is a giving into what is...a conservative spirit which is often marketed as "progressive" - the opposite of what it is - whose absolute is the no-thing....both constituting a human duality between two polar opposite attitudes vying for the same end...an End.
The balance here, proposed in Hellenic asceticism and then in Nietzsche's overman, but also in eastern philosophy and its "way"...a balance between Yin/Yang....Dionysus/Apollo.....Feminine/Masculine with one having control....Imbalance occurs when the side meant to follow, to surrender, becomes dominant...resulting in decay and decadence....or when the masculine side takes too much control leading to totalitarianism, like God or fascism or your obsession with ONE.
In fact your obsession is a feminine attitude seeking an authority, a certainty, an ideal, a ONE. Whether you call it God or a number or a thing, amounts to a changing of the symbol and it means nothing else.
