Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbled wrote:There is much poison in your words, but you are thankfully an ineffective old wind-bag. You sit in your self-impose loneliness, dreaming up schemes. Poisonous you may be, but like a lone nettle in the middle of a field people just pass by and you go unnoticed, except when you occasionally brush and arm of the innocent. You wait, and wait to infect those around with your poison, but soon enough you will wither and die, and then you will be trampled into the earth having achieved nothing. No one will know you were there.

Yet might I not brush the arm of the complicit?

People of the radical liberal tribe are under the thrall of ideas that 'possess' them in a sense, that determine perception. My interest is in 'metaphysics', the force of description to orient, circumscribe, and determine view. This sounds pretty simplistic when described like this. What is more obvious, on one hand, and what is more easy to expose, on the other. Not so! In fact, very much the opposite is so: it is immensely difficult to turn round sufficiently to be able to examine and analyse the structure that informs our perception. I came to this through Shakespeare studies. To understand some of the strange and complex ideas expressed in Shakespeare's poetry required better understanding of the (late) medieval metaphysic.

I began that aspect of my examination some years ago now, and how surprising it is that the process of 'turning round' to see oneself takes as long as it does. The obvious correspondence is, of course, the metaphor of the Platonic cave. In any case, turning round to see one's own 'projection equipment' function in the sense I mean is not quite as lofty as seeing one's own status as an incarnated being (the cave metaphor as being borrowed from Eastern concepts, most likely), but it has led to interesting results. You and the other freakshows-on-wheels who populate this exciting forum of vibrant exchange of ideas, have a very difficult time understanding what is meant by the concept 'metaphysic', nor do you seem much to understand the degree to which you are driven along - determined - by idea-sets that rise up in you, mechanically. One 'hot' word and you become spasmodic in apoplectic fits. I would sincerely have hoped for more mental reaction and less psycho-physical reaction, yet both or either are useful to my purposes. Only to expose. Only to suggest.

Curiously, you-all operate from a sentimentalist stance. That is, at the core you are not working in ideas, you are responding to sentiments, and responding sentimentally. It is the essence of feminine reaction, and femininity is strong in the way your minds work. There is nothing at all wrong with females or the feminine - heaven forbid such an idea! - but in my view it is critical that men reclaim Idea, and also discourse, and make efforts to separate away that peculiar, noticeable, ever-recurring, feminine reactiveness: an inculcated trait which our surrounding society privileges. You are a first-class example, Hobbled, of a man infected by the feminine. You cannot see this but it renders you completely manipulatable. You become controlled by your reactions. It is basically a waste of time to dialogue with you. Its like talking to a mental deficient or an afflicted child. Look to it.

Now, on to your poetry! But as 'antidote' I offer you this:

... I have been still led like a child
My heedless wayward path and wild
Thro' this rough world by feebler clues,
So they were bright, than rainbow-dews
Spun by the insect gossamer
To climb with thro' the ropy air ...

First things first. Though you cannot understand what you do, what you do is very ancient, very 'primitive', and grounded in old means and methods: You bring forth an insult-curse:

• Thou clay-brained guts, thou knotty-pated fool, thou whoreson obscene greasy tallow-catch!
• Thou art the veriest varlet that ever chewed with a tooth.
• A fool go with thy soul, whither it goes!
• Thine sole name blisters our tongues.
• O teach me how I should forget to think.

But since this name-calling is really rather funny, and you attempt a good deal more, let's turn to the Curse aspect. A curse is really a sentiment-construct designed to produce discord between one's self and his 'platform'. It is based in old ideas that words have power and when focused in malignant force that effects will take shape in the cursed one. I bring this up here because I have noticed that ALL OF YOU who I have engaged with so far resort to the Curse (Skip avoids this).

Now why, I ask, would atheists rely so much on this strange metaphysical formula? And why do philosophers engage so fully at emotive levels? My theory is, as I have said, that you are invested and ensconced within a new metaphysic, a determining metaphysic, which is not really free of 'the old, dark stuff'. You have no means to conceive the 'intellectual' or angelical wold, and none to comprehend the dense, underworld stuff, and you have rejected the structure of metaphysic that most immediately underpins our perception (the medieval metaphysic), yet you are still very much in it! You bring curses against those who oppose the Structure of View in which you are holed-up. Magical formulations designed (if you had any power) to do harm essentially. Radical liberalism is a strange off-shoot of late Christianity. Look to it, man.

My main point is this: We need to turn round to examine ourselves more. To examine the Ideas (sentiments, half-formed thoughts, vague and dark semi-thoughts fused with emotional violences) that are used to keep perception locked toward a specific horizon. You are silly, bantering children. You are game-players. You are not carrying on in philosophy nor philosophically. Look to it!

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Now why, I ask, would atheists rely so much on this strange metaphysical formula?

Atheists on this forum rely on the formula of witless humour followed up by brown nosing with each other, sniffing each others irrational butts in a frenzy of disinformation.

You make a lot of sense Gustav..

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Windbag

You make a lot of sense Gustav..

Religions are fairy tales for adults. Should we encourage them to grow up?

But then they would be out of place with everyone else.

Oh, now I get it, all you people want a grown up to lead you around.

Gustav, you speak inexplicably surely of what you think -- even when you frequently pronounce your critical assessments of OTHER people whom you cannot know by anything more than a very superficial and limited degree. Do you perhaps find it intoxicating to proclaim your thoughts (and judgments) as if they are absolute truth that applies to all? Do you think that what you think is of such clarity and accuracy, that it is any more valid than what anyone else thinks?

1) Perhaps you will choose to deal with the ideas, Lacewing?

2) When you describe your understanding, or a potential understanding, do you do it with surety, or hesitatingly? Do you think that any speech can be deliberate and sure speech, or must it all be tentative and uncertain? I prefer to think that I speak explicably surely of what I sense, understand, or believe. You?

3) Critical assessment ... is a part of philosophical discourse. We make assessment, in this format, on the basis of a) written words on the screen b) attitudes we pick up, and c) the context of comments within surrounding context. We may get it right in certain moments, and we also know for a fact that we get it wrong. Too, the medium is a ripe on for projection.

4) Very strong, very clear, and quite definite 'critical assessments' have been made of me. In a sense this is philosophical politics, no? Why should I get bothered about that? Why should you? For example, to suggest that I get 'intoxicated' by 'proclaiming' my ideas (you might have used the word I prefer: suggesting, but 'proclaiming' has its own impact and sense, naturally), is a laden statement with various layers of commentary in it.

5) Absolute truths are ... temptations in a significant way. I prefer to understand that we can 'allude to truth' or 'tend toward truths'.

6) What I have said about Hobbled is I think 'accurate assessment'. I also believe that I have a good take, or at least the whiff of one, in my 'proclamation' about 'radical liberalism'.

7) Is a return to No 1: Why don't you engage with the ideas? Either in pro or in contra? Why so much silly preamble?

Thank you for your affirmation, attofish.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:

Your wordiness tries to hide your lack of content.

More accurate to say you don't like the content.

It is likely - possible in any case - that you are unfamiliar with the reasoning behind the ideas, and so will refer to 'going with' a sentimental, easy-to-sell and very popular idea about female compassion, sold by a fraud. It is a truism, in many ways, but it can't replace clear, decisive thinking. I suggest far more rigorous and hard thinking about all those things that we absorb from mindless culture. I will also mention to you that Tibetan religious culture is virulently opposed to homosexuality. That by the way ...

This is an example of a mindless statement:

I do agree with this statement of yours. Men have a ways to climb before being at their level.

The 'level' that women have is the level they gain when they integrate with the products and possibilities of male culture. When they remain at the feminine level, they remain in grass huts. That is pretty much what Paglia means. Women are amazing as women, and totally important as women. But they are not men, nor should they seek to be men. Men are men, and men define a world ...

You are a queer, obviously, and you have absorbed and you express feminised doctrines. I have no problem with that, but I do take issue with idea constructs that lead to unproductive ends. Ideas have consequences ...

The Heraclitus idea (easily misunderstood) is for more relevant and interesting. It trumps feminised 'philosophy':

"War is the father of all and king of all, who manifested some as gods and some as men, who made some slaves and some freemen."

Homophobia is so ugly. You might want to have that fixed.

But as to women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5Gw4mM6xA

Regards
DL

Necromancer wrote:No, it's about the sensing of the supernatural, the spirit that's also highly moral:

The Bible, John 4:24 wrote:God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

And this spirit is believed in by following science:
Van Lommel studies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-deat ... el_studies
Phantom feelings just like Descartes' describes them in "Meditations" - http://www.em-consulte.com/en/article/126149
Finally, the ongoing experiments (Ganzfeld room standard) of Telepathy with Zener cards involved - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy, rather bad, no university studies cited. But what about "somatic experiencing" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_Experiencing.

It's funny that religious people are so blamed when in fact Religious Ireland has voted in favour for equality of marriage for the LGBT community.
Also, isn't it religious people in large who has worded the texts of law and order that allows for current FREEDOM in the World (except Atheist North Korea).

BTW, fairy tales are patently false, but this hunt for spirit is yet questioned.

Religions are the force that has discriminated against women and gays forever and just because some have finally found the right morals, you think that religions are championing equality. That would be quite droll if not so pathetic.

I happen to believe that telepathy is real. I base that on two experiences.

The first with my wife and the second with what I describe as a cosmic consciousness so I do not class telepathy as supernatural.

To believe in invisible supernatural entities that never show themselves is foolish if not insane.

Regards
DL

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Your wordiness tries to hide your lack of content.

DL

I've noticed that about him too. I just resigned my self to calling him a wind-bag.

I do not mind wordiness that adds to a discussion but his did not.

Regards
DL

thedoc wrote:Religions are fairy tales for adults. Should we encourage them to grow up?

But then they would be out of place with everyone else.

Oh, now I get it, all you people want a grown up to lead you around.

??

Don't you?

Regards
DL

GIA wrote:Homophobia is so ugly. You might want to have that fixed.

If we are going to be 'fixing' minds and spirits, and perceptual structures, I suggest it may go both ways, friend.

I notice - again - that people who have been brought up in 'radical liberalism', when they hear a statement that seems to them to operate against their politically-correct idea (a total metaphysic with an established ethics), cannot really hear what one is saying. It is the strangest thing, really. So, let's break it down, again. It may take ten re-phrasings or a hundred. It is also possible that the content can never be heard. Yet, inevitably, someone, somewhere hears.

Homosexuality is a part of human culture, has been and will always be. The so-called 'closeted variety' must be accepted, in my view.

The creation of a homosexual culture, or the 'selling' of homosexuality, or training people up in homosexuality, or introducing it to children, or the inculcation (by visual image, through public relations techniques, and other means) of homosexual practice and behaviour; the introduction of homosexuality as a 'normal social attitude', or as a desired social attitude or practice, is a significant, an unprecedented event in culture.

The 'homosexualisation of culture', according to me, and based on a designed, a practical, a coherent and a thought-out strategy, is not desirable, not good, and should be actively discouraged. (I have not mentioned the governmental support or valuation of homosexuality, yet it should also be brought out as discussable. I suggest that it might be considered a wee bit strange - unsettling? - that the US White House was lit up in 'pride' colours recently).

I further suggest that homosexuality, at the most basic level, is metaphysically corrupt, yet I doubt that this will be understood (without much explanation. But in radical liberalism many many strange things are not seen as strange at all! They are seen as 'normal' and 'necessary', indeed they flow out of metaphysical predicates, predicates that can be named and explained).

In the 1980s and 90s, there was a concerted and rational effort made within the entertainment industry, the psychological industry, in collusion with the PR industry, and also within business sectors, to mainstream homosexuality. Now, 30 years or so on, we are seeing the 'fruit' of these efforts. To understand better what I am saying, you'd need to do some research, to understand the strategy that was implemented. You might say: I support that. You might say Hmmm. Seems a bit odd. Or: I don't agree with that at all.

You could start with "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's" It is a 300+ page manifesto, by Harvard-trained psychologist and a PR man, outlining a strategy of manipulation of public attitude. We generally refer to this as 'propaganda', yet we are so inured to it that we call it Public Relations and advertising, forgetting that it is mind-control.

The gist of the book appeared first as an essay in a gay publication (The Overhauling of Straight America) and can be found here in PDF.

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Your wordiness tries to hide your lack of content.

DL

I've noticed that about him too. I just resigned my self to calling him a wind-bag.

I do not mind wordiness that adds to a discussion but his did not.

Regards
DL

There are words with meaning, and there are words for effect. His are used for effect, but the effect is to make people's eyes glaze over. Reading one of his longer posts reminds me of Basil Faulty pressing his hand into a large blancmange, looking to the duck a l'orange. There is no duck!
His passages are like blancmange, with no substance.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:1) Perhaps you will choose to deal with the ideas, Lacewing?

Which ideas are those? Your ideas? The connections you see? The points you think are valid?

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: 2) When you describe your understanding, or a potential understanding, do you do it with surety, or hesitatingly? Do you think that any speech can be deliberate and sure speech, or must it all be tentative and uncertain?

What I notice is the EXTENT of all that you sound sure about. It's not just sounding sure of something about or for yourself -- it's also that you declare such assuredness about other people's motives, thoughts, intelligence, validity, reality, etc. You seem to extend and superimpose your view way beyond normal cooperative discussion and perspectives.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: 3) Critical assessment ... is a part of philosophical discourse. We make assessment, in this format, on the basis of a) written words on the screen b) attitudes we pick up, and c) the context of comments within surrounding context. We may get it right in certain moments, and we also know for a fact that we get it wrong. Too, the medium is a ripe on for projection.

Yes... to all of that. You, however, do not seem to recognize when you're projecting, and that you may be getting it wrong... you just charge forth, making your "assessments" to build some sort of case for a "truth" that you want to proclaim. It appears to be thick with yourself, and I think this PREVENTS the kind of clarity that makes any kind of discourse with you "true". Doesn't truth need to incorporate multiple perspectives? And NOT only by your rules?

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: 4) ...For example, to suggest that I get 'intoxicated' by 'proclaiming' my ideas (you might have used the word I prefer: suggesting, but 'proclaiming' has its own impact and sense, naturally), is a laden statement with various layers of commentary in it.

That's how it appears from my perspective: "intoxication" and "proclamations". It does not sound like you are "suggesting" things... and, based on the responses of other people, it appears I'm not the only one with such a perspective. There could be more truth in these other perspectives than you "prefer". Or at least it lets you know how it comes across.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: 5) Absolute truths are ... temptations in a significant way. I prefer to understand that we can 'allude to truth' or 'tend toward truths'.

But are any of us in a position INDIVIDUALLY and UNIQUELY to do anything more than guess? And if we feel it necessary to control a conversation and critically assess/judge those who participate with different views or methods, what is that really about?

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: 6) What I have said about Hobbled is I think 'accurate assessment'. I also believe that I have a good take, or at least the whiff of one, in my 'proclamation' about 'radical liberalism'.

Your assessments/judgments seem, to me, geared toward discrediting, disarming, dismissing, and down-casting those whom you have discourse with, if they think differently than you do. Then your own view appears to be proclaimed/established (by you) as higher and more valid. It is an egotistical and very transparent male energy of domination and warfare -- which does not play fair, does not see clearly or broadly, and seeks only to see oneself as the WINNER! Truth is bent to THAT.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: 7) Is a return to No 1: Why don't you engage with the ideas? Either in pro or in contra? Why so much silly preamble?

And here you go again -- classifying my perspective/comments as: "silly preamble." Fuck you. (And no, I'm not emotional and upset. I'm smiling and quite peaceful with my response.) The universe does not revolve around you and your ideas and what you think is worth discussing, Gustav. You might discover the value of additional perspectives if you'd sober up from your self-intoxication.