Philosophy Now Forum

reasonvemotion wrote:Great! Now we have all had our say and got it off our chests, so to speak.

Nous a laissés commencer encore

PS To CW, please accept my apologies for any rudeness I have shown towards you.

artisticsolution wrote:Hi Sob,

SOB:But this is no reason to then say that someone is less than you simply because they do things differently. You speak of my abilities as if they are measured by your yardstick.

AS:I never said that someone is "less than me" I was merely pointing out that they "do things differently" and sometimes I don't understand why.
SOB: not true at all:

artisticsolution wrote:Just look a sob coming unglued

is how you characterized me, take a look back to page 9 April 23 2012 @ 10:38AM as to my initial about N's TA-C, I never became unglued, just simply stated my case, what idiots here, write, causes me to become unglued, as you say, well at least due to those of nastiness.

artisticsolution wrote:SOB has clearly fallin into the trap...yet he can't even see it.

SOB: As you can see you continually demean me as being lower than you, and the absolute truth is that you cannot speak for me as if you know me, you only know what you think you see as a function of your assumption, do you even understand what inference is?

AS: Also, about measuring you to my "yardstick." Isn't that what you are doing to N?
SOB: Not at all, I was critiquing his exact words, verbatim as to their exact meaning. As to my dealings with N, it is between him and I, that's none of your business, never, did I directly characterize your relationship with him, as being less than reasonable. I was not judging as to the why, between your and my take of his meaning, which is what you are doing to me, as in for instance, I could say that you are a whack job that automatically believes in your superiority in believing in him, simply because he implies as much, but I have not, this then is what you do to me, as if you could possibly speak for him.

AS: Isn't that what we all do? How could I possibly understand things with someone elses "yardstick"? I am not them and I have no idea what they think until the try to explain it to me.
SOB: You are the one saying that you understand him and I don't, as N is the only one that can actually attest to such things. You do this so as to position yourself above me, in his shadow, as you see it's delineation.

AS: And that last sentence brings us to N and trying to understand his "foreign' way of thinking. You say:

I assure you that I am fully capable of sensing the truth when I come upon it, and I see the section that I outlined (T A-C 2), taken at face value, as evil, pure and simple, as I see that it negates N's very existence, as he was weak. What else is contained in a word other than it's meaning?

AS: But you have ignored N's request completely.
SOB: And so it is true, but only as to your 'belief.'

AS: N specifically says in order to read him right one must:

" be honest in intellectual matters to the point of hardness to so much as endure my seriousness, my passion."[4] The reader should be above politics and nationalism. Also, the usefulness or harmfulness of truth should not be a concern. Characteristics such as "Strength which prefers questions for which no one today is sufficiently daring; courage for the forbidden"[4] are also needed. He disdained all other readers." Wikipedia
SOB: And within this, see my point above, as to your take on your superiority, by virtue of your compliance, of your assimilation.

AS: So you are measuring him by your yardstick
SOB: As are you!
AS: instead of at least trying to understand where he is coming from. I believe it is a mistake to read one sentence and then come to the conclusion that N is evil.
SOB: NOT one sentence, one entire section, specifically, (TA-C 2). Take it on, impart your take, I'm listening.
AS: It is not in keeping with philosophical inquiry. It is short sighted.
SOB: Thus is your understanding, pure and simple, and nothing more.

AS: Just as you feel misunderstood, N too is misunderstood.
SOB: As I have gathered, is your assumption.
AS: Just as you don't like to have your words misconstrued...neither did N. Same same.
SOB: Again you speak for him, as if that's actually possible.

AS: I believe N deliberately sets out with a very harsh and controversial statement, so that he can then go on to explain what he means throughout the rest of the book.
SOB:Now you got it, you 'believe.'

AS: I do this myself sometimes...and it always cracks me up the amount of people who will shun me and never allow me to explain what I mean after that. You can see a barrier go up and they will never allow it to go down where you are concerned...even if you have a good explanation for why you said it...an explanation that if they could allow themselves to listen to, they would most likely agree. But, for whatever reason....after you have made a statement they despise with all their heart...they would not even agree with you one anything...even if you said the sky was blue. As if believing what you said...even if it was truth...would make them become evil too...or something.
SOB: And this confirms your belief, that you actually understand him?

AS: I just have never understood this line of thinking.
SOB: but the real question is, will you ever?

AS: Here is what I also find fascinating....is why we always seem to like another when they say something kind...even though that kind thought might be short sighted. And how we hate those who say unkind things to us...even though they may be the truth. Is it that hard for us to hear the truth about ourselves?
SOB: Me too, "...and who knows which is which, and who is who."

AS:Reasonemotion agreed with me that I do not have the ability to word complicated ideas. Even though it was an insult...I did not disagree with her/him. She was just iterating what I knew myself. No biggie as she/he is right. And even though I don't like that about myself...and struggle to change...I can hardly fault her accurate reading of me.
SOB: I like you! I try not to judge one, as to capability, but rather as to niceties, everyone is equally capable, given the correct stimulus.

AS:This is the same way I think we need to read N. We don't have to like what he is saying...we can separate ourselves from our opinions just for a moment in order to understand him...or at least understand him in the way he requests...just to be fair to him as we would want others to be fair to us. Then, after we have listened to him in an open and honest way...then we can jump on him like wild dogs and rip his argument to shreds if we like....lol.
SOB: I see that we all find within it, that which we take into it, despite what it is, that we believe, that he believes, is contained within it, as much time has transpired since he wrote it. For his day, I see that it was probably awe inspiring. But I also believe that I see as he intended and beyond. As it is not to say that any particular constituent of a greater whole is necessarily suspect, due to it being a constituent born of that greater whole. Many constituents are contained within Christianity, which is not to say that any particular one is necessarily bad, even if you do not like Christianity as a whole.


AS:Anyway, that's just the way I see it anyhow.
SOB: Cool, and thanks for sharing. I really appreciate it. What I really, really appreciate is the time that you allotted for me, as if to say that I'm important enough for you to do so, the most important gift is a portion of ones life, Thank You!


S:P.S. And thanks for valuing my input, I value yours as well. Actually I missed you, because the last thing you said to me was that you were shocked as to my meaning, as though I had insulted you.

AS: I do value your input and enjoying discussing with you...but that doesn't mean I am always going to agree. This is a philosophy forum after all.
SOB: Oh, I'm well aware, but thanks for keeping me honest.
Also about the 'shocked' thing....Sorry...I don't remember saying that....can you show me where? Maybe I will be able to recall what I meant.
I'll look for it, have a good one!

reasonvemotion wrote:

What I am talking about is very complicated And I don't really have the ability to word it in the way it needs to be worded

No AS you dont have the ability.

SoB was systematically targeted and then a brutal attempt to destroy and humiliate him took place.

He has much to contribute to this forum and in an interesting and unique way. I do hope he returns.

lancek4 wrote:quote="lancek4"]

reasonvemotion wrote:

What I am talking about is very complicated And I don't really have the ability to word it in the way it needs to be worded

No AS you dont have the ability.

SoB was systematically targeted and then a brutal attempt to destroy and humiliate him took place.

He has much to contribute to this forum and in an interesting and unique way. I do hope he returns.

Yes he does. And it sounds like a conspiracy. And reasonemo : that's redic-elikliklioulous. Grow some skin. Sob is a big boy and can hold his own and yes sometimes people get stupid and brazen it seems.

Systematically targeted. Omg.

Obviously I was just ribbing you, man! I just hope she doesn't get PO'd because I used the word Lovin'.

I imagine when such circumstances recur you are likely to behave similarly.

reasonvemotion wrote:

I imagine when such circumstances recur you are likely to behave similarly.

That is true. In fact, my words were mostly in relatiation.

chaz wyman wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:

I imagine when such circumstances recur you are likely to behave similarly.

That is true. In fact, my words were mostly in relatiation.

Or retaliation !!

I'm sure you felt that way at the time. I think you went overboard. That's why an apology is a useless thing.

You behaved as you did. You are a grown up, not a child and your apology is not an indication of your wish to change or do better, but an empty gesture that sets the table straight only to await being upset again.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:
That is true. In fact, my words were mostly in relatiation.

Or retaliation !!

I'm sure you felt that way at the time. I think you went overboard. That's why an apology is a useless thing.

You behaved as you did. You are a grown up, not a child and your apology is not an indication of your wish to change or do better, but an empty gesture that sets the table straight only to await being upset again.

A 'belief' purely to satisfy and thus perpetuate ones egomania!

reasonvemotion wrote:
That is true. In fact, my words were mostly in relatiation.

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Or retaliation !!

I'm sure you felt that way at the time. I think you went overboard. That's why an apology is a useless thing.

You behaved as you did. You are a grown up, not a child and your apology is not an indication of your wish to change or do better, but an empty gesture that sets the table straight only to await being upset again.

A 'belief' purely to satisfy and thus perpetuate ones egomania!

No one is asking you.
You wouldn't know how to apologise for your arrogance in any event.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: No one is asking you.
You wouldn't know how to apologise for your arrogance in any event.

Your confused as usual, I'm Telling, you; the relatively skeptical egomaniac!

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: No one is asking you.
You wouldn't know how to apologise for your arrogance in any event.

Your confused as usual, I'm Telling, you; the relatively skeptical egomaniac!

You really need some grammar lessons.