Philosophy Now Forum

.




Language is binary and so it is simplistic as it is simplifying.
It's like trying to paint a sunset with only white and black.
~ Satyr ~


...I like that.



.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:Language is binary and so it is simplistic as it is simplifying.
It's like trying to paint a sunset with only white and black.
~ Satyr ~
...I like that.

Skipping the problem that Satyr appears to use much language, quite well admittedly.

Do you know why you like it Bill? Its because you can carry on safe in your ignorance of it.

Yeah... language is binary. That's the ticket. Binary. It's all true. Wait, I mean nothing is true, because truth does not exist except in humans. Truth is belief. Other animals with common language do not think, because everything is true, I mean... nothing is true... I mean.... you're a sheeple and I'm a sheeple hoarder... I mean wait. That can't be true. You must then be a fishie, cause reality is water... wait, that can't be true either... I mean we must never take a stand anywhere cause consiousness... Yeah! that it. Consciousness is always updated with the water by the fish... cause I'm great and you're not. See... it's binary cause nothing is true and everything changes. Wait that can't be true either... I am not the same group of cells that I was 10 years ago, therefore I am not me. Shit, now I'm all confused... oh yeah. Reality is fluid and cause my words are always changing it matches up... except it cannot. See? No? You're a retard, then. I have more colors than you, therefore my picture is better.

Satyr wrote: I often go to the supermarket, and unless I do not have a biochemist or an expert in produce to tell me what looks like an orange and which one is ripe.
Yesterday morning I saw a bright sphere in the horizon, I rushed to the computer and googled an astrophysicist who told me it was the sun.

maybe its better that we dont know what we are consuming? why didnt you google at least nietzsches visions about that vision of yours? or psychological explanations?

? wrote: do you believe so?

Of course not.
Still stuck on the word "believe" huh little girl?

like an "absent absolutist"?

What if?

imagine!..what if not?

Did you believe it?
Here's another story: Have you heard that science has reached down to the miniscule and up to the grand, so far that it now resorts to poetics to describe what does not fit into its previous models?
Unless your religion produces a particle, dear, an indivisible one...you know the end to the universe, I'll consider it a metaphor. A useful one, no doubt, and one which is superior to a God, but still... a word, a symbol, representing a generalized simplification.

nice story. church and poetry has lost their place in emperors court to science, and that old joker? new useful ones, and all superior in their own fields?

sounds like presumptions? or a coherent self-fulfilling prophecies?
the more i hear, the more i have questions?

That's odd, because the more i see and hear the more I have answers.
You should consider the "self-fulfilling" aspect in regards to yourself.

like modern science?

As far as I know, solipsism is about living inside your skull, which constant sensual interpretations prevent; Nietzsche was a man...a brilliant and sensitive man; and my only ism, my ideal, is realism....and....the rest is none of your concern.

still stuck on those nietzsche, realism and skulls outside huh?

What a little girl should think about is that all interpretations must refer to phenomena outside the skull otherwise they turn self-referential...like modern cultures do.
This leads to narcissism and schizophrenia///or some variation of the two.
These phenomena and their interactions are called reality....and this constant referencing of them is a constant updating of the mental models in your skull.

self-referential realism with a hint or two some psychology today and phenomenology last year? tasty?

And one last thing, little princess...all minds have ideals...as was implied in my essay and in everything I've ever posted...because all awareness is based no projecting.

talking about self-referential?

Whether these projections, these ideals, are sophisticated or not, is what is the question and towards what kind of individual they produce is the better question.

The nuance of the projected absent absolute determines the individual projecting it, and the man striving towards an ideal is defined by the ideal itself, without having to attain it.

For instance a christian striving towards God, his particular brand of God,is defined and shaped by this striving and the particular characteristics this God, this ideal, is given with this projection.
So a man strives towards the ideal so as to deal with the real, which confronts him.

Some added considerations:
The more detached this projected ideal is from the real, the more delusional or solipsistic the mind becomes.
The more attached this ideal is, the more reference points it has to reality, the more realistic it is.
The further ahead, the more ambitious the projected ideal is, the more riskier it is and so all the more importable it is.

old basic stuff with new artistic words and sentences?
so, you are stuck on realism, hanging in it like kierkegaard in teism? what are these countless isms, what is ism? how to choose one, how to measure the best one to me? do i get stuck inside if i just try one, like in alcoholism?

Another word for absent absolute is "ideal", retard.
Another word for belief, is conviction, opinion, retard.
Another word for actual is real, you imbecile.
Another word for absolute is perfect, one, God, free, now, here, self, particle, singularity, universe, etc. all human symbols representing the projected absent absolute. Tools, like all language is.
Truth, is a term given to a particular belief, opinion, conviction. It is a judgment concerning the belief itself.
So, if belief is a judgment, then truth is a judgment of the judgment. It has no meaning outside your tiny empty skull.
Another word for dependent is unfree, dimwit.

has captain haddock more artistically views?

Language is binary and so it is simplistic as it is simplifying.
It's like trying to paint a sunset with only white and black.
You must use artistry. It requires the same artistry as when using static models and symbols to explain and to express and to define a fluid reality.
Much of language implies the same concept with different symbols and words. Each with a slight variation in mixture, between the binary balances of 1/0, positive/negative, good/bad etc., but still with the same underlying concept in mind.

what if not, maybe more like outlinear? draw, sketch, graph, picture,..?

If I say one and I say God I am refereeing to the same shit, an absence...only in one the anthropomorphic element offers it an image, which makes one feel more intimate with the notion. One is more abstract and so more open to further interpretations - it is more useful. God is too restrictive, too dogmatic, even if just as ambiguous and just as absent.
The differences in the terms is owed to the particular contexts they are used in, to denote the same concept, and the particular hues they invoke.
For example, you stupid fuck, when I say something and when I say nothing, I am using the same concept of thing, only adding a positive or a negative flavor or coming to it from a different direction.
The common term "thing" is another word for absolute.
The flavor a word acquires is not only based on the codified definition but also on the conventional current emotional baggage it sometimes acquires historically or what emotional connections have been made with the term.
I can say race, and immediately the mind of most are flooded with particular sensations and imagery and reactions.
I can say Hitler or Nazi or Stalin or Communist and the same happens. This is domestication at work.
humans are trained with repetition and with reward punishment methods to display a particular behavior at the mere mention of a word or the mere sight of a symbol or an image. This is conditioning. If it persists for generations and breeding is based on it, then we have social engineering, human husbandry, domestication, institutionalization.
Try this, you imbecile...when trying to describe how refined taste leads to a particular demeanor or attitudes towards food and drink or when wanting to describe how a sensitive palate might lead to a more refined sense of taste, use the term discriminate. See how many morons jump up and down and holler like chimps or salivate like when Pavlov rang his bell.
Or instead of saying "I despise you" say "I hate you".

same old same? like my friend from spain, is superior priest and head of local inquisition. he wont take no retards heretical sentences that old testaments virile god has died, without burning someone. ask him whats the best ism or book for you. and wear some asbestos. in discos or tea partys hes a real girl magnet. and pumas. with those cattle burning eyes and never ending flaming monologues from hell. and what a rhetoric! he has explains for everything. absolutely everything. if you wear your asbestos and ask him why teism is losing the powerpolitical world war to science and even psychology...he warms you telling that its in gods menu. only a starters in the apocalypse now-party! enjoy the taste!

This is textbook.

I'm impressed yet again Mark.

Funny. Is your English really broken? Honestly?

creativesoul wrote: Funny.

i endeavor to give satisfaction.

Is your English really broken? Honestly?

it's an interesting theory. would you care to expatiate upon it?
you can't go around London asking people to pretend to be Gussie Fink-Nottle...well, you can, I suppose. but what a hell of a life.
honestly? whats stopping us from telling the truth? you see? i just google and copy paste english words and sentences here. when far from internet cafe, i use common movie slogans. you talkin to me? make my day and play it again sam. i am gone with the wind to Check-ch-check-check-check-ch-check it out
What-wha-what-what-what's it all about
Work-wa-work-work-work-wa-work it out. ill be back! if I am not back in five minutes, just wait longer....been away but now i am back. its good to be back. aristotle was not belgian. the central message of buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' and the london underground is not a political movement. those are all mistakes, otto. i looked 'em up.

Ummm, the taste of need, satisfies me.

I once thought that questioning was a sign of honest exploration, I know better now.
Now I can see how it can be a way of remaining intellectually detached.

"Your mother was a whore?"
"What did you say?"
"I didn't, I was only asking?"

The presumption from the negative.
"I am not a fireman."
"Then what am I?"

"It does not matter, as long as I know that I definitely am not a fireman."
I "know" but not knowing.

Take the Douche-Bag and his existential dilemma.
He does not understand, yet he knows that what is implied is that he should not be absolutely confident about anything.

Then what is left to this coward and simpleton?
Now that God is dead, what now?

Take the British Princess....she knows that she finished a course or two. She is not certain that she knows what she is talking about, simply because she can refer back to authorities, mention a few famous names and repeat an idea or two.
Same with a Christian imbecile. He "knows" because he can repeat a Biblical passages; he can refer to some infamous authority figure; he can regurgitate text.
He is thinking simply by not....like a compute....it just regurgitates information without having to comprehend it.

Now back to the Douche-Bag raising little douche-bags to his heart's content.
What's the point of thinking anything, it ruminates, if what is though is uncertain?

This is the old argument from the Judeo-Christian: What's the point of life with no God?

I would answer but there is no point to it.
The real audience sees it, and little Billy is waking up to it with his conflict with the British Princess and her error concerning the Pan and/or Satyr character in the painting.
Even the painter calls him satyr yet the princes insists on calling him Pan...because there is more at play here than wenches pulling a mythical character towards the water.
But what is it?
The British Queen cannot tell you, unless she's been told or she finds it in some book.
The Douche-Bag cannot say, unless its declarative and certain like: "I ma Conan! Meed good, milk bad!!"

Imagine, for a moment, floating down a river or a barge with the idiot Douche-Bag by your side.
"Where are we?", you ask..."We are here," the Douche-Bag, responds.
Simple, straight, certain.
"But we are on a barge floating down a river", you respond...and he looks at you confused and dull-eyed like a fucking cow.
His brow shrivels and his shoulders haunch: "We are here, damn it!!!" he repeats pointing to the surface of the raft as it floats down the river, on a planet rotating around a star which is circling a galactic core, which is hurtling through the void...."We are HERE!!!" the idiot repeats, thinking it is making a point. "Me hungry...me eat...me phi....phi....philosopher'"it finalizes its poem just it was taught it by its retarded mommy and daddy ten six decades ago.
No doubt the morons it has birthed will repeat the same poem, as if it were wisdom.

The Douche-Bag tells itself that it is seeking wisdom, that it is indulging in philosophy, when all it needs is a simple declaration: "I am here".
Its "philosophy" consists in justifying its own stupidity, its own simplicity, its own certainty: "I am here!!!!"...or "the cup is on the table"...or "truth is out there".

Back to the British Queen, all six foot sever of her.
Cunts can grow big in these times of testosterone austerity.
Having had her ploys made inconsequential and her little gossipy-gossip rendered immaterial, she now settles for insinuations which point to a hidden power which she is unable to present, despite her formidable credentials and her popularity amongst the cows.
Imitation is all that is left to her. Casting the defensive aspersions she is confronted with as assaults, hoping something will hurt, will land, will do some damage -enough to make silence reign, returning the herd to its usual munching over Kant and Plato and Wittgenstein.

Remind me of that scene from Goodwill Hunting Bar Scene....he's the moron with the pony-tail and the diploma.
Only difference being that this queen of education will be in the unemployment lines wondering why she spent so much time and money getting an education which makes her another princess waiting in line to be fucked.
I imagine all six foot ten inches, three hundred and twenty pounds of her just as pathetic and stupid and uncomfortable as this movie caricature.

A bitch like that can only hope to get her ass kicked by a"simple" blue-collar someone in a pub, or in a fast-food joint waiting for his fries with the burger she ordered.

Why, the fuck, did my ex wife divorce me?
I never got an answer.

Oo! Lookee! Lookee! U bin lurkee lurkee? Bak to stir the potty-wotty?
Me wove u loong time misster! U likee fukee fukee or suckee suckke, no me no you likee bumee bumee, u bin a true bubble n all that, not likee those nasty devolved turkee greekies. U likee me tell u wot a biggy purey greeky you be to little princessy.

the faun wrote:...Take the British Princess....she knows that she finished a course or two. She is not certain that she knows what she is talking about, simply because she can refer back to authorities, mention a few famous names and repeat an idea or two.

Oh please! Its a course or three, member of the Diana Ross band me! Like I've said, jack of all academic trades and master of one. But like I've told you, you'd be hard pressed to find me quoting authorites, I'll leave that to you.

the faun wrote:The real audience sees it, and little Billy is waking up to it with his conflict with the British Princess and her error concerning the Pan and/or Satyr character in the painting. Even the painter calls him satyr yet the princes insists on calling him Pan...because there is more at play here than wenches pulling a mythical character towards the water.

But you like your mythical creatures do you not? I was just pointing out that they don't, in the original, have the goats legs nor its tail. Thats their pal of a 'god' .

But what is it? The British Queen cannot tell you, unless she's been told or she finds it in some book.

But I used his 'god' to find this?

I'm not surprised to find you castigating academia and books, as little billy willy might well leave your herd if he read the books you base your 'original' ideas upon and we can't be having that could we.

I told litle billy willy that you secretly missed me and thats why you keep popping me into your thoughts.

the faun wrote:Back to the British Queen, all six foot sever of her.
Cunts can grow big in these times of testosterone austerity. Having had her ploys made inconsequential and her little gossipy-gossip rendered immaterial, she now settles for insinuations which point to a hidden power which she is unable to present, despite her formidable credentials and her popularity amongst the cows. Imitation is all that is left to her. Casting the defensive aspersions she is confronted with as assaults, hoping something will hurt, will land, will do some damage -enough to make silence reign, returning the herd to its usual munching over Kant and Plato and Wittgenstein.

Projection and transference remember?

Still, nice to hear the "formidable" But appears to contradict the tone, "... finished a course or two"?

Although guilty with the occasional Wittgenstein quote. Now who can I think of whose whole 'book' imitates Wittgenstein's style?

the faun wrote:Remind me of that scene from Goodwill Hunting Bar Scene....he's the moron with the pony-tail and the diploma.

Films now. What next? Pictures.

the faun wrote:Only difference being that this queen of education will be in the unemployment lines wondering why she spent so much time and money getting an education which makes her another princess waiting in line to be fucked.
I imagine all six foot ten inches, three hundred and twenty pounds of her just as pathetic and stupid and uncomfortable as this movie caricature. A bitch like that can only hope to get her ass kicked by a"simple" blue-collar someone in a pub, or in a fast-food joint waiting for his fries with the burger she ordered.

Bang! Ya got me pardner! Oh! The shame!
I blame it upon living in a fluxy-fluidy reality in which society is bereft of the way, a capitalist-war-machine that prefers the mimic, loves the child and despises the intellectual... nah! Its just coz I'm a lazy useless slob. Maybe I should move to the frozen north? Where frogs are frogs and even bubbles can immigrate. All together now! "We're forever blowin' bubbles! Pretty bubbles in the air, they fly so high, they reach the sky, an' like my dreams they fade an' die! FORTunes always hidin', I've looked everywhere, we're forever blowin' bubbles, pretty bubbles in the air, The ..." Ah! I've missed that, fanks for the memories.

Look little billy, it thinks you're a simple working-class someone and that working in a fast food joint is something to be ashamed of. Ya think it because its never had to work for a living itself but relied on daddy's largess?

Oo! On that matter Mary, will you be joining your newest herd member in his way? Going to blend in? Or will you be setting him straight? As for the first time I left the pub and had a stroll around, AND LO' AND BEHOLD' The LIGHT of THE WAY is ALL OVER THE PLACE. Give him some advice from me willya, "Lay off the religious and converted and post in the bankers, capitalists and right-wing blogs if you want converts."

the faun wrote:Why, the fuck, did my ex wife divorce me?
I never got an answer.

Oh come on! If you're like me it'll be on your divorce papers. Look under her deposition, it'll be the bit that starts, "So one morning I woke up sober..."

Toodles!

philosophically interesting to think more?:

Satyr wrote: He does not understand, yet he knows that what is implied is that he should not be absolutely confident about anything.

is he made of straw? have you asked him? what if he say nothing at all? is he yes-man then? sounds like your man is not a true follower of implied logics, models or semantics? i would like to hear more from him! say hello from me! and give a big hug to him, and lots of kisses of course. high fives or more, rubbing the noses and others wives, burning euros like bonfires and what ever you locals do in there. cheers!

What's the point of thinking anything, it ruminates, if what is though is uncertain?

This is the old argument from the Judeo-Christian: What's the point of life with no God?

I would answer but there is no point to it.

whats the point? no point? why, old why!?
to think or not to think, that is the question?
What's the point of thinking anything, it ruminates, if what is though is certain?
i would get up in the morning and at least start to think about it but there is no point to it?

.


The truth and amoebas







Your body isn’t your own,
exposed for all it really is:
permeable, full of holes,
part of the world.
A floating thing tossed and spit
on tumbling water not always clear,
you become home to others,
little animals here
at play in the world.
You could be a tree, or grass, under
tiny feet that make no sound of their own,
their steps heard in quickened heartbeats
and restless groans
that shake the world.
You’re full of holes that leave
you open, a window lost of glass,
panes rattling, short of breath,
waiting, waiting, hoping to pass
this sense of a world
stumbling moments from death,
moments from life.


I've taken this from a blogger; John.


Looking back upon this thread it becomes evident to me that in our relationship to the truth we are better at perceiving than in expressing.




................................


No matter how hard we try we end up looking like this guy.


Still, as modern philosophers, we cannot deny our inherited urge to still seek the truth; to seek wisdom.

To all of us, in our separate journeys, may we become better vehicles to seek the truth in our own way.





................................














......................



In prayer it is better to have a heart without words than words without a heart.
~ Gandhi ~







First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
~ Gandhi ~
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ( 2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948)



.

Wow when I saw the bit about how "Truth just is" I was floored. I said the very same thing sometime in the latter 1990's or maybe it was the early 2000's. Anyway I was quite surprised to see it here. I wonder who originally coined it, or eluded to it? Of course it was born of my own mind, but you know how that goes. Just as well as no one heard me say it then, I've never heard anyone else say it till now. However considering our mass at, what is it now, 6.8 billion with no end in sight, for any particular quantity, that I'm aware of, it could have been thought and/or said at the very instant I said it by 100 people, and I'd never have known. Just as well, someone could have said it back in 2000 BC, but no scribe was available to record it; Homer was busy!

There is one truth for everyone. It's the universal truth, which is made up of billions of other truths. The problem of our inability to see the universal truth lies in the billions of years since it was first coined. There was no scribe there to record it, Homer wasn't born yet, as well as any other human, that we're aware of. So we're trying to reverse engineer it, which will probably take more time than has transpired since it was coined. But that's no reason to stop, quite the contrary!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Wow when I saw the bit about how "Truth just is" I was floored. I said the very same thing sometime in the latter 1990's or maybe it was the early 2000's. Anyway I was quite surprised to see it here. I wonder who originally coined it, or eluded to it? Of course it was born of my own mind, but you know how that goes. Just as well as no one heard me say it then, I've never heard anyone else say it till now. However considering our mass at, what is it now, 6.8 billion with no end in sight, for any particular quantity, that I'm aware of, it could have been thought and/or said at the very instant I said it by 100 people, and I'd never have known. Just as well, someone could have said it back in 2000 BC, but no scribe was available to record it; Homer was busy!

There is one truth for everyone. It's the universal truth, which is made up of billions of other truths. The problem of our inability to see the universal truth lies in the billions of years since it was first coined. There was no scribe there to record it, Homer wasn't born yet, as well as any other human, that we're aware of. So we're trying to reverse engineer it, which will probably take more time than has transpired since it was coined. But that's no reason to stop, quite the contrary!

There is no 'the truth'. If there were no people then there would be no truth, just a cold and unconcerned universe.
The truth is 'out there' is false.
All truth is within, a one person's truth is another's untruth.
The 'Truth just is' does not floor, it is flawed.
This falsehood is of recent coin.

The Truth is, apart from what happened in the past, which can be of crucial importance, especially in the "light" of falsehood, compassion of people for one another. I do not mean of the groupsism- or cronyism motivated kind, for that is just hidden powerplay. And even passion would be it, for justice for example, defending oneself or another while still keeping an open mind for convincing arguments from the opposition. And of recent is the demise of postmodern God-, Truth-, Self- and Reality deconstruction into nihilism, non-existence and nothingness, for a Hippie paradise on earth, now lost itself.

Ron de Weijze wrote:The Truth is, apart from what happened in the past, which can be of crucial importance, especially in the "light" of falsehood, compassion of people for one another. I do not mean of the groupsism- or cronyism motivated kind, for that is just hidden powerplay. And even passion would be it, for justice for example, defending oneself or another while still keeping an open mind for convincing arguments from the opposition. And of recent is the demise of postmodern God-, Truth-, Self- and Reality deconstruction into nihilism, non-existence and nothingness, for a Hippie paradise on earth, now lost itself.

You have a lot to say about 'hippies", but you are completely missing the point about what constitutes a 'hippie'.
You seem to be applying your own negative, personal and biased view - so much for truth!

chaz wyman wrote:There is no 'the truth'. If there were no people then there would be no truth, just a cold and unconcerned universe.
The truth is 'out there' is false.
All truth is within, a one person's truth is another's untruth.
The 'Truth just is' does not floor, it is flawed.
This falsehood is of recent coin.

You're incorrect, the truth exists, especially, without us, as humans distort the truth for their own selfish reasons. You're confusing the human perception of truth with truth itself. This yields "beliefs." which have nothing to do with "truths."

"If there were no people..." Then the "truth" would be that there were no people. There are people, so the "truth" is that there are people.

"A cold and unconcerned universe" is part of the "Truth." That is, if your assumption, that in fact, it is cold and unconcerned, is in fact, the "truth." I would argue that cold is ambiguous as it's relative and that the thought of the possibility of universal concern, is still being considered, with no conclusion in sight.

I never said "The truth is 'out there'" Your confusing my words with your favorite TV series. The Truth is EVERYWHERE!

I never said there was a "the Truth" but their is the "truth."

The truth is without, belief is within.

"The 'Truth just is' does not floor..." Here, i assume that you just misunderstood my meaning. It was the fact that I saw it here that floored me not the statement itself. Take a little more time in your reading. Is English your second language?

Recency does not necessarily insure accuracy and often, it's quite the opposite.

Those that deny the existence of truth are megalomaniacs, the worst kind of selfish human, because they have no clue. Their Id's and Egos are uncontrolled, such that this belief of no truth appears to give them the freedom to run amuck. This line of thinking "seems" to be self perpetuating despite the "Truth" of a "finite" existence. But be sure sir/ma'am, the "truth" is that, you shall die, as shall we all. And no distortion of the "Truth" can change it. Get back to me, once you're a worm cathedral, pushing up daisies, with your version, of that particular truth...

Hold on, after all that, in the interest of being civil, which is something more than I can say for some, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. We could simply be disagreeing on the essence of truth, such that I find it necessary to enlighten you as to the definition of truth, as I see it. Truth is ALL that "exists," without human interpretation, that humans are constantly, trying to interpret. And of course there has been some headway.

So, by my definition "truth" is all that is without us. Belief is what we sometimes achieve in the quest in understanding the "Truth." However sometimes we're lucky enough to actually understand the truth, especially in our own sphere of influence (microcosm).

"A sphere, by any other name, is still just as three dimensional and round"