Philosophy Now Forum

"True action can only be caused by the spiritual, hermaphroditic Angel. But such beings are given so little notice, so little value, that even the English language structure has no pronouns for them. His and her, me and you, but no acknoledgement of en's even existence. Why is this?"

Because they don't exist?

"Great men of science, they live and breathe not for science, but for a spot on Oprah TV."

I'd have thought they'd crave a Nobel prize more?

"Was the Buddha perhaps primitive, ignorant even, so ignorant as to not obtain this Nirvana, freeing himself from the suffering that is life itself?"

Who said he didn't? Has Buddha been reborn then?

"Thus the cycle will renew, and Nirvana abandoned, ..." Then one hasn't reached Nirvana? As I thought Nirvana was when one is not reborn to suffer.

"But, what then, are the Buddha's truths? His truths are that life is suffering."

Not quite, he offers four truths and only one is that life is dukkha and 'suffering' is just one translation.

Systematic wrote:You're going off on a tangent with this Einstein thing. If her theories are nonsense and drivel, why don't you prove or demonstrate how. Or maybe even give an alternative explanation where you don't just imply that we should not listen to her since she is crazy.

Of course not. The ability to disprove General Relatively is a fundamental piece of her credibility. She claims to be able to do what no scientist in the past 100 years has done. And insofar as her project claims to be able to do (again) what no one else has ever been able to do, starting with the "minor" point of disproving general Relatively is an excellent test of her competence in these matters.

As for demonstrating how her theories, this is hardly the case. I am under no obligation to disprove the theory that pink elephants carry Oxygen molecules to the left hemisphere of our brain so that we might cry more readily at scenes of Dumbo's mistreatment at the hands of the circus master (because we already have quite good theories as to how oxygen gets to our brain and why we cry when watching Dumbo). Rather, the person making such a claim is under every obligation. And insofar as Trixie has done nothing of the sort, I feel quite comfortable dismissing her theories as nonsense.

(I'm also older these days, and increasingly likely to call out bullshit when I see it, rather than step in it.)

EDIT: But I tell you what, should Trixie succeed in disproving General Relativity and then go on to upgrade us all with an OS found in a video game, I'll be the first in line to admit I was wrong to take her "theories" so cavalierly.

Arising_uk wrote:It's a fun read I'll give you that GWT.

"I must prostrate myself before my Female master, with her boobs.",

How can this be? That is how can there be a 'Female master' given what you've said about the female up to the above?

Have to admit tho' that your description must be a specially cultural one as I've not met any mothers, sisters or females brought-up in the way you describe but then I do live in a, currently, 'godless' culture.

I said "female" as in female-bodied-persons. My teachings adhere to the truths of Yin and Yang, which are spiritual genders, not physical ones. Same with the hermaphroditic angel, you read things far too physically, and not spiritually, as with most modern human interpretations of spiritual things.

As for Buddhists, they believe he is reborn over and over throughout the ages...thus he has never escaped suffering. Modern buddhism is a silly religion, full of devotion and obedience to silly traditions and false values.
Their believe in the afterlife is as silly as Richard Dawkins, neither made an attempts to actually prove their beliefs on what happens after bodily death.
As for the other things, I would have expected you to condense your thoughts into one post, not several. As for Oprah TV, sillyness. Either you are making a pedantic joke or you don't get the core message itself. Pedanticism truly irritates me, it's one of the banes of rational and creative flow and discourse. Time is spent correcting typos and trivialities rather than seeing the picture and concept right in front of you.

ReliStuPhD wrote: As for demonstrating how her theories, this is hardly the case. I am under no obligation to disprove the theory that pink elephants carry Oxygen molecules to the left hemisphere of our brain so that we might cry more readily at scenes of Dumbo's mistreatment at the hands of the circus master (because we already have quite good theories as to how oxygen gets to our brain and why we cry when watching Dumbo). Rather, the person making such a claim is under every obligation. And insofar as Trixie has done nothing of the sort, I feel quite comfortable dismissing her theories as nonsense.

(I'm also older these days, and increasingly likely to call out bullshit when I see it, rather than step in it.)

EDIT: But I tell you what, should Trixie succeed in disproving General Relativity and then go on to upgrade us all with an OS found in a video game, I'll be the first in line to admit I was wrong to take her "theories" so cavalierly.

As a man of logic, (I assume you are male, unless you are a lesbian) I fail to see the logic of your stance. I fail to see how disproving a theory, actually constitutes a theory of my own. Furthermore, I fail to see how if one does not disprove a theory that one has doubts about, that means that one's other, unrelated theories are false. In your old age, it seems to me that you've become a Penn and Teller crusade, to eat popcorn and make a joke of it all, focusing only on the physical, tangible, and ignoring the spiritual values.
When you stop and think about it, it's the mentality of the modern devout. The devout says to himself "Science can't prove my god false? Well then, by god, then the rest of their theories must be false too! I'm going to hide my head in the sand and ignore the rest of their teachings!"

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:I said "female" as in female-bodied-persons. ...

My apologies, although I think you should have used the term then;

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:I must prostrate myself before my Female master, with her boobs."

"How can this be? That is how can there be a 'female-bodied master' given what you've said about the female-bodied-person up to the above?"

"Have to admit tho' that your description must be a specially cultural one as I've not met any female-bodied-mothers, female-bodied-sisters or female-bodied-persons brought-up in the way you describe but then I do live in a, currently, 'godless' culture."

My teachings adhere to the truths of Yin and Yang, which are spiritual genders, not physical ones. ...

I disagree, Yin and Yang are concepts to aid practical behaviour when dealing with changing circumstance and are better understood as soft and hard or flexible and inflexible or yielding and unyielding, not gender.

Same with the hermaphroditic angel, you read things far too physically, and not spiritually, as with most modern human interpretations of spiritual things. ...

So what is a 'spiritual hermaphroditic angel'?

You could use the pronoun 'it' tho'.

As for Buddhists, they believe he is reborn over and over throughout the ages...thus he has never escaped suffering. ...

Thank for that, I didn't know that. Who was the last one?

Modern buddhism is a silly religion, full of devotion and obedience to silly traditions and false values. ...

And yet your writings appear to be predicted upon its central tenet?

Their believe in the afterlife is as silly as Richard Dawkins, neither made an attempts to actually prove their beliefs on what happens after bodily death. ...

How could Dawkins prove what he believes is a negative?

As for the other things, I would have expected you to condense your thoughts into one post, not several. ...

Your expectations are of little concern to me.

As for Oprah TV, sillyness. Either you are making a pedantic joke or you don't get the core message itself.

It's this core message I was questioning.

Pedanticism truly irritates me, it's one of the banes of rational and creative flow and discourse.

As with your expectation so for your irritation.

I think it depends upon what is being pedantically discussed.

Your Time is spent correcting typos and trivialities rather than seeing the picture and concept right in front of you.

It's the thought I was questioning, as I find it hard to believe that the 'great men of science' are more concerned about being on Oprah and think it more probable that they only have a vague idea who she is, if they know of her at all and are more interested in winning the Nobel Prize or an equivalent and gaining the respect of their peers.

As a man of logic, (I assume you are male, unless you are a lesbian) I fail to see the logic of your stance. I fail to see how disproving a theory, actually constitutes a theory of my own. ...

Okay, I'd just settle with you disproving the theories you mentioned then.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:I fail to see the logic of your stance. I fail to see how disproving a theory, actually constitutes a theory of my own.

This is not what I said, though I can certainly see how it could come across that way. Your next sentence is what I meant.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:I fail to see how if one does not disprove a theory that one has doubts about, that means that one's other, unrelated theories are false.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I said they were false, only that I felt comfortable dismissing them. Insofar as disproving the speed of light would fit into your larger project, I think it is more than reasonable to look to your competence with respect to this "minor" part before seriously considering the larger parts. Call it the teacher in me. "What's that? You've discovered a way to get to Mars using only bananas, and you can also show that the Pythagorean Theorem is fundamentally flawed? Interesting! Let's start with Pythagoras. After that, the bananas."

As for the rest...

Arising_uk wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:I said "female" as in female-bodied-persons. ...

My apologies, although I think you should have used the term then;

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:I must prostrate myself before my Female master, with her boobs."

"How can this be? That is how can there be a 'female-bodied master' given what you've said about the female-bodied-person up to the above?"

"Have to admit tho' that your description must be a specially cultural one as I've not met any female-bodied-mothers, female-bodied-sisters or female-bodied-persons brought-up in the way you describe but then I do live in a, currently, 'godless' culture."

My teachings adhere to the truths of Yin and Yang, which are spiritual genders, not physical ones. ...

I disagree, Yin and Yang are concepts to aid practical behaviour when dealing with changing circumstance and are better understood as soft and hard or flexible and inflexible or yielding and unyielding, not gender.

Same with the hermaphroditic angel, you read things far too physically, and not spiritually, as with most modern human interpretations of spiritual things. ...

So what is a 'spiritual hermaphroditic angel'?

You could use the pronoun 'it' tho'.

As for Buddhists, they believe he is reborn over and over throughout the ages...thus he has never escaped suffering. ...

Thank for that, I didn't know that. Who was the last one?

Modern buddhism is a silly religion, full of devotion and obedience to silly traditions and false values. ...

And yet your writings appear to be predicted upon its central tenet?

Their believe in the afterlife is as silly as Richard Dawkins, neither made an attempts to actually prove their beliefs on what happens after bodily death. ...

How could Dawkins prove what he believes is a negative?

As for the other things, I would have expected you to condense your thoughts into one post, not several. ...

Your expectations are of little concern to me.

As for Oprah TV, sillyness. Either you are making a pedantic joke or you don't get the core message itself.

It's this core message I was questioning.

Pedanticism truly irritates me, it's one of the banes of rational and creative flow and discourse.

As with your expectation so for your irritation.

I think it depends upon what is being pedantically discussed.

Your Time is spent correcting typos and trivialities rather than seeing the picture and concept right in front of you.

It's the thought I was questioning, as I find it hard to believe that the 'great men of science' are more concerned about being on Oprah and think it more probable that they only have a vague idea who she is, if they know of her at all and are more interested in winning the Nobel Prize or an equivalent and gaining the respect of their peers.

As a man of logic, (I assume you are male, unless you are a lesbian) I fail to see the logic of your stance. I fail to see how disproving a theory, actually constitutes a theory of my own. ...

Okay, I'd just settle with you disproving the theories you mentioned then.

(-_-) (My face when reading all of this. I have some spare time, so I might as well answer your questions.)

No need, because it still seems to cause confusion the way you see it. I don't know how many ways I can regurgitate the same idea. Female=female bodied persons=and therefore, not always spiritually the representation of Woman, Yin, and passivity, and therefore fully capable of being a master.
I also stated several times, that Females often change their spirit gender on a daily basis. Perhaps I mentioned that to someone else, but if I remember correctly, I stated this to you before.

I disagree, Yin and yang was taught to me as karma. But the karma of vengeance, and cosmic retribution. I have since come to understand it better, and YinYang is rooted in gender, specifically the play estrogen and testosterone.

Use "it" pronouns for angels? Hmm, I'd rather not incur the wrath of Lucifer, Michael, and the angel of Death, all in one sitting, thankyou.

Who is the latest Buddha? Pinkie Pie, of course. Did you honestly think a mere human could live up to the grandiose expectations?

A negative? Please use clearer terminology, no need for such haze. Do you mean negative as "no" or negative as "negative energy"? If Richard is about the metaphysical, then he should use the talents he has besides only educating silly people stuck in their beliefs. I get that he wants to cure the world of ignorance, but what's keeping him from doing actual experiments and research on the afterlife, other than getting his toes wet with it every now and then?

Again, this is what I meant by pedanticsm. Your words indicate a failure to see what Oprah represents. There will always be an Oprah. Long after she has passed, there will be a new "Oprah". Your "noble prize" is the "Oprah".

ReliStuPhD wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:I fail to see the logic of your stance. I fail to see how disproving a theory, actually constitutes a theory of my own.

This is not what I said, though I can certainly see how it could come across that way. Your next sentence is what I meant.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:I fail to see how if one does not disprove a theory that one has doubts about, that means that one's other, unrelated theories are false.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I said they were false, only that I felt comfortable dismissing them. Insofar as disproving the speed of light would fit into your larger project, I think it is more than reasonable to look to your competence with respect to this "minor" part before seriously considering the larger parts. Call it the teacher in me. "What's that? You've discovered a way to get to Mars using only bananas, and you can also show that the Pythagorean Theorem is fundamentally flawed? Interesting! Let's start with Pythagoras. After that, the bananas."

As for the rest...

It's not my plans to complete the machines myself, it's the human race, and the scientists as they call themselves.
It is a century long undertaking, and not the job of any one human. So yes, it has everything to do with the understanding of nature of the machines, the choice to support the concepts and reason for their existence, and very little to do whether or not you believe I can disprove Einstein or colonize Mars with bananas for your own satiation.

On a logical level, I never stated I knew how to colonize Mars with bananas. The machines, or as you refer to them, "the martian bananas" is a century long undertaking for humanity to build themselves. If I had the tech specs I would have already provided them. If the boss gives you an idea about a new flavor of lolipop, it's not the boss's job to provide the ingredients, its the job of the lolipop makers. Alls you need to do is examine the underlying benefits the flavors and concepts, understand their merits, and begin your work.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:On a logical level, I never stated I knew how to colonize Mars with bananas. The machines, or as you refer to them, "the martian bananas" is a century long undertaking for humanity to build themselves. If I had the tech specs I would have already provided them. If the boss gives you an idea about a new flavor of lolipop, it's not the boss's job to provide the ingredients, its the job of the lolipop makers. Alls you need to do is examine the underlying benefits the flavors and concepts, understand their merits, and begin your work.

The bananas were an analogy (note you also didn't say anything about Pythagoras). As for being the boss, typically one demonstrates some sort of competence to justify taking such a position (though I know this is sadly not always the case in the corporate world). In that case, let's just say I consider you disproving General Relativity to be demonstration of such competence. If you can do so, I might consider treating your ideas as if they came from a boss. I'll look for your paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Otherwise, it's off to the peanut gallery you go.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:... and very little to do whether or not you believe I can disprove Einstein ...

No, no, it's to do with you believing it.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:... Theories involving relativity, speed of light, are also wrong. Theories involving gravity are incomplete. I do know why gravity does what it does, and I may reveal at a later time.

We're all ears?

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:(-_-) (My face when reading all of this. I have some spare time, so I might as well answer your questions.)

That's big of you and I have little interest in your face.

No need, because it still seems to cause confusion the way you see it. I don't know how many ways I can regurgitate the same idea. Female=female bodied persons=and therefore, not always spiritually the representation of Woman, Yin, and passivity, and therefore fully capable of being a master.

So what was the point of all the 'In the beginning'? You were just describing yourself?

I also stated several times, that Females often change their spirit gender on a daily basis. Perhaps I mentioned that to someone else, but if I remember correctly, I stated this to you before.

Not me, as I'd have asked what this 'spirit gender' was? As for myself I think 'gender' largely a social construct.

I disagree, Yin and yang was taught to me as karma. But the karma of vengeance, and cosmic retribution. I have since come to understand it better, and YinYang is rooted in gender, specifically the play estrogen and testosterone.

Then I think it confusing to use the Hindu term and given you appear to believe in reincarnation not very Dao. I also think your latter part an example of what you said was Western 'nonsense' applied to Eastern culture.

Use "it" pronouns for angels? Hmm, I'd rather not incur the wrath of Lucifer, Michael, and the angel of Death, all in one sitting, thank you.

Who?

Who is the latest Buddha? Pinkie Pie, of course. Did you honestly think a mere human could live up to the grandiose expectations?

That pink horse?

A negative? Please use clearer terminology, no need for such haze. Do you mean negative as "no" or negative as "negative energy"? If Richard is about the metaphysical, then he should use the talents he has besides only educating silly people stuck in their beliefs. I get that he wants to cure the world of ignorance, but what's keeping him from doing actual experiments and research on the afterlife, other than getting his toes wet with it every now and then?

Well I doubt he wants to waste his time on something that doesn't occur.

Again, this is what I meant by pedanticsm. Your words indicate a failure to see what Oprah represents. There will always be an Oprah. Long after she has passed, there will be a new "Oprah". Your "noble prize" is the "Oprah".

Yeah! 'Oprah' for the intelligent, thats why I think they'll have no interest in being on Oprah, which was your claim.

It's not my plans to complete the machines myself, it's the human race, and the scientists as they call themselves.
It is a century long undertaking, and not the job of any one human.

Given your opinion of the apes what makes you think they'll be wasting their time doing your bidding?

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: I also stated several times, that Females often change their spirit gender on a daily basis. Perhaps I mentioned that to someone else, but if I remember correctly, I stated this to you before.
.

It's probably just your hormones flip flopping, my wife still gets hot flashes, but I rather like it when she throws all the covers off at night.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:On a logical level, I never stated I knew how to colonize Mars with bananas. The machines, or as you refer to them, "the martian bananas" is a century long undertaking for humanity to build themselves. If I had the tech specs I would have already provided them. If the boss gives you an idea about a new flavor of lolipop, it's not the boss's job to provide the ingredients, its the job of the lolipop makers. Alls you need to do is examine the underlying benefits the flavors and concepts, understand their merits, and begin your work.

The bananas were an analogy (note you also didn't say anything about Pythagoras). As for being the boss, typically one demonstrates some sort of competence to justify taking such a position (though I know this is sadly not always the case in the corporate world). In that case, let's just say I consider you disproving General Relativity to be demonstration of such competence. If you can do so, I might consider treating your ideas as if they came from a boss. I'll look for your paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Otherwise, it's off to the peanut gallery you go.

I already knew it was an analogy, that's why I used quotes. And your failure arises from two things.
Firstly, your failure arises from an egocentric worldview. You consider everyone as separate from yourself, therefore, you do cannot view ideas without adding your own personal bias. Instead of evaluating the ideas on their own merit, you concern yourself with evaluating the person behind the ideas, and only following ideas your peers deem acceptable for you to believe, rather than using your own discernment on the idea itself.

Secondly, and this isn't a quote unquote "failure", thank goodness you aren't the final judge, and thank goodness there isn't a real peanut gallery other than the sunday funnies or the recesses of your mind.

Arising_uk wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:(-_-) (My face when reading all of this. I have some spare time, so I might as well answer your questions.)

That's big of you and I have little interest in your face.

No need, because it still seems to cause confusion the way you see it. I don't know how many ways I can regurgitate the same idea. Female=female bodied persons=and therefore, not always spiritually the representation of Woman, Yin, and passivity, and therefore fully capable of being a master.

So what was the point of all the 'In the beginning'? You were just describing yourself?

I also stated several times, that Females often change their spirit gender on a daily basis. Perhaps I mentioned that to someone else, but if I remember correctly, I stated this to you before.

Not me, as I'd have asked what this 'spirit gender' was? As for myself I think 'gender' largely a social construct.

I disagree, Yin and yang was taught to me as karma. But the karma of vengeance, and cosmic retribution. I have since come to understand it better, and YinYang is rooted in gender, specifically the play estrogen and testosterone.

Then I think it confusing to use the Hindu term and given you appear to believe in reincarnation not very Dao. I also think your latter part an example of what you said was Western 'nonsense' applied to Eastern culture.

Use "it" pronouns for angels? Hmm, I'd rather not incur the wrath of Lucifer, Michael, and the angel of Death, all in one sitting, thank you.

Who?

Who is the latest Buddha? Pinkie Pie, of course. Did you honestly think a mere human could live up to the grandiose expectations?

That pink horse?

A negative? Please use clearer terminology, no need for such haze. Do you mean negative as "no" or negative as "negative energy"? If Richard is about the metaphysical, then he should use the talents he has besides only educating silly people stuck in their beliefs. I get that he wants to cure the world of ignorance, but what's keeping him from doing actual experiments and research on the afterlife, other than getting his toes wet with it every now and then?

Well I doubt he wants to waste his time on something that doesn't occur.

Again, this is what I meant by pedanticsm. Your words indicate a failure to see what Oprah represents. There will always be an Oprah. Long after she has passed, there will be a new "Oprah". Your "noble prize" is the "Oprah".

Yeah! 'Oprah' for the intelligent, thats why I think they'll have no interest in being on Oprah, which was your claim.

It's not my plans to complete the machines myself, it's the human race, and the scientists as they call themselves.
It is a century long undertaking, and not the job of any one human.

Given your opinion of the apes what makes you think they'll be wasting their time doing your bidding?

It's an emoticon. Since my reaction is fairly the same as last time, I'll post it again. (-_-)

I will regurgitate these same ideas one more time for you, in a slightly new and different manner.

No not just myself, it applies to everyone.

Spirit gender, gender of mind and spirit, internal attitude and perception, etc.

As for Dao or not, I don't concern myself for fitting into cultures. If some monk in Tibet it is doesn't want to acknowledge that estrogen is a female hormone and include it in part of Yin, that's not my problem. And if he does, well good for him then.

Afterlife doesn't occur as in, you believe nothing occurs after death, I presume? Don't know why you would believe such a thing, but in the interest of science I invite that you perform more research on the matter, which is part of the Holy Experiments as I intended.

Again I say, "Oprah" is a metaphor. Replace it with whatever you want. Or just keep saying the same thing over and over again, it's alright.