E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

thedoc
Posts: 6465
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by thedoc »

Blaggard wrote:I've no doubt spheres isn't half as bad as I make out, but at the same time he does seem to have some weird idea that somehow he just knows more than everyone else.
You can't know a person by talking to them on line either for a week or a year, you have to know someone face to face to really understand the complexities of what makes someone them.
But you can come to know their online persona, and sometimes that is preferable to knowing the real person.
Blaggard
Posts: 2245
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by Blaggard »

If you say so Doc, each to their own.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5725
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Blaggard wrote:I've no doubt spheres isn't half as bad as I make out, but at the same time he does seem to have some weird idea that somehow he just knows more than everyone else.

I don't like arrogant people. I've said that before, if spheres is of course willing to come off his high horse and talk to me like I am a human being not a human target, he wont remain on ignore forever. I just don't think he is able to. Quid pro quo if he judges me with random bilge that makes no sense and has no relevance to me as a person, I'll do the same. He's been told this, he can either stop talking shit at me, and I will stop making up random shit about him that is clearly completely wrong, or he wont. I don't think he can, he is in a mind set where he believes he can sum up every person at the drop of a hat, because some test told him so. That's his problem not mine. But I am not at home to people who are just giving themselves heirs and graces, that some dip shit told them existed, even though it was clearly utter shit.

You can't know a person by talking to them on line either for a week or a year, you have to know someone face to face to really understand the complexities of what makes someone them. I don't think this prat will ever get that so rather than just talk shit back and forth, and play Devil's advocate it's better for both of our sakes that we just don't talk to each other. Because it is clear we just will never come to an agreement that some people have thoughts of their own that are not magically dictated by some jumped up pillock on the internet who imagines he has super powers no one actually possesses not even Sherlock Holmes because some test told him he did, and he had the misfortune to believe in the same way that he can magically just prescribe all thoughts and actions and ideas to a person as a test can magically just do the same. If ever SoB is willing and able to talk to me like a person not some social wank doll he can just pass of his feculent filth on, we can talk. I just don't think he's capable of it and so, I don't think there's any utility in talking to a person who sees everyone as someone they can cum over.
Yet the usual imaginary self-serving diatribe, to be expected. ;-)
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5725
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

thedoc wrote:
Blaggard wrote:I've no doubt spheres isn't half as bad as I make out, but at the same time he does seem to have some weird idea that somehow he just knows more than everyone else.
You can't know a person by talking to them on line either for a week or a year, you have to know someone face to face to really understand the complexities of what makes someone them.
But you can come to know their online persona, and sometimes that is preferable to knowing the real person.
This kind of rationalization only proves one a liar! ;-)
thedoc
Posts: 6465
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by thedoc »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
thedoc wrote:
Blaggard wrote:I've no doubt spheres isn't half as bad as I make out, but at the same time he does seem to have some weird idea that somehow he just knows more than everyone else.
You can't know a person by talking to them on line either for a week or a year, you have to know someone face to face to really understand the complexities of what makes someone them.
But you can come to know their online persona, and sometimes that is preferable to knowing the real person.
This kind of rationalization only proves one a liar! ;-)
I assume you are suggesting that I am lying, if so, what do you believe I am lying about. From what I have read, I am quite sure I would not want to meet you in person, it would be a very short encounter. I have other things to spend my time on, and not to waste it.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5725
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Blaggard wrote:I've no doubt spheres isn't half as bad as I make out, but at the same time he does seem to have some weird idea that somehow he just knows more than everyone else.
You can't know a person by talking to them on line either for a week or a year, you have to know someone face to face to really understand the complexities of what makes someone them.
thedoc wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
thedoc wrote:
But you can come to know their online persona, and sometimes that is preferable to knowing the real person.
This kind of rationalization only proves one a liar! ;-)
I assume you are suggesting that I am lying, if so, what do you believe I am lying about. From what I have read, I am quite sure I would not want to meet you in person, it would be a very short encounter. I have other things to spend my time on, and not to waste it.
Gawd some of you people are real tards:

To say that, someone online has a 'different persona,' than seeing them in person, as 'the real person,' lends to that person lying online.
Of course in reality, one wouldn't know which was the lie.
And since one can only actually speak of such things, about any 'particular' person, once they've experienced them in both settings, they are in fact only speaking of themselves.
I'm sure you're now capable of figuring out the rest, as now it's quite simple!

By the way, contextually, "rationalization" should have keyed you in.
Additionally yours was a blanket statement, as if it applies to 'everyone,' and so why tell on yourself! ;-)
thedoc
Posts: 6465
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by thedoc »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Blaggard wrote:I've no doubt spheres isn't half as bad as I make out,

No he's probably worse.
To say that, someone online has a 'different persona,' than seeing them in person, as 'the real person,' lends to that person lying online.

Or lying as a real person?

Of course in reality, one wouldn't know which was the lie.

true enough.

And since one can only actually speak of such things, about any 'particular' person, once they've experienced them in both settings, they are in fact only speaking of themselves.
I'm sure you're now capable of figuring out the rest, as now it's quite simple!

Thankyou, but I'll pass.

By the way, contextually, "rationalization" should have keyed you in.
Additionally yours was a blanket statement, as if it applies to 'everyone,' and so why tell on yourself! ;-)
[/quote]

Obviously, you don't know if what I post on line is what I really believe, so what, take my posts at face value, or not, I really don't care about your personal problems anymore.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5725
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

thedoc wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Blaggard wrote:I've no doubt spheres isn't half as bad as I make out,

No he's probably worse.
To say that, someone online has a 'different persona,' than seeing them in person, as 'the real person,' lends to that person lying online.

Or lying as a real person?

Of course in reality, one wouldn't know which was the lie.

true enough.

And since one can only actually speak of such things, about any 'particular' person, once they've experienced them in both settings, they are in fact only speaking of themselves.
I'm sure you're now capable of figuring out the rest, as now it's quite simple!

Thankyou, but I'll pass.
Here you interject your fear, not meeting me you moron!
Rather, that indeed it was "true" that I was saying that you were calling yourself a "LIAR!"

I'll never intentionally meet anybody in person, that I've meet on the net, as I'm the only one that I know for a fact, is sane. Despite all the ravings of you lunatics out there that shall obviously claim otherwise.



By the way, contextually, "rationalization" should have keyed you in.
Additionally yours was a blanket statement, as if it applies to 'everyone,' and so why tell on yourself! ;-)
Obviously, you don't know if what I post on line is what I really believe, so what, take my posts at face value, or not, I really don't care about your personal problems anymore. [/quote]So you admit you're a liar! Yet it's obvious.

The only thing good about you is that you take care of your grandchildren, yet now I find myself wondering if that can really be a good thing, as now I seem to feel sorry for them.

Seemingly I'm the only one here that sees a more advanced human on the horizon, one of selflessness, of true communal nature, thus no discernible inequalities, that properly manages the biosphere, the community, understanding the synergy of the symbiosis that is life on planet earth, that experiences true happiness everyday just to be alive, as they take in the supreme beauty that is creation; THE UNIVERSE! It would seem that most are far to immature to understand, my vision of a potential tomorrow, when mankind finally, truly becomes an advanced species.

As the Beatles sang:

"...Life is very short, and there's no time
For fussing and fighting, my friend.
I have always thought that it's a crime..."

As John sang:

"Imagine all the people living life in peace..."
"You may say that I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope someday you'll joint us,
and world will live as one."

Yes, having my way I'd prefer life, several thousands of years into the future, baring mans self annihilation. Or rather after the dust settles, with a suitable mate, though I'd 'truly' prefer to be amongst truly advanced fellow beings, not the selfish liars and posers of the day.
uwot
Posts: 6092
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by uwot »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Seemingly I'm the only one here that sees a more advanced human on the horizon...
As John sang:

"Imagine all the people living life in peace..."
One small step would be for people to think:
I am in the happy position of not having to give a fuck what you think of me. So I don't.
You should try it, Spheres; you'll be amazed how much peace you can create instantly.
Blaggard
Posts: 2245
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by Blaggard »

I notice despite Grey posting extensively on other threads, he has still yet to tackle my argument about his contention with evolution being nonsense. Not going to happen is it though... Ah well as long as people realise he was completely off the scientific radar with that maths who cares. Typical ID type advocate, they make some arm waving hypothesis and then lose interest when people show them to be fraudulent and not based on Science at all. Just like all the other arguments, like the classic about an eye not being able to evolve, or a flagellum, which are equally dumb.
Blaggard
Posts: 2245
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by Blaggard »

I've no doubt spheres isn't half as bad as I make out,

No he's probably worse.
I doubt he's this bad in real life otherwise it probably spend all his time getting beaten up by people for being a condescending p****, hiding behind a keyboard lends you the courage to act like a total dick to others. Which is only really a bad thing when it becomes demeaning to others such as in the case of trolling or whatever. What he's doing may not be in the same league as trolling but telling people how they think is distinctly extremely rude, especially when they are wrong. If he was right about how and what I think it would be different, but he isn't and it's frustrating to be mischaracterised by some fool who thinks he has special powers.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5725
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

uwot wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Seemingly I'm the only one here that sees a more advanced human on the horizon...
As John sang:

"Imagine all the people living life in peace..."
One small step would be for people to think:
I am in the happy position of not having to give a fuck what you think of me. So I don't.
You should try it, Spheres; you'll be amazed how much peace you can create instantly.
I hear you but in truth that way of thinking stymies growth, allowing idiots that destroy things to do so. In my world "everyone" 'knows' for real, not just belief. There are no arguments on those things that benefit the symbiosis, as everyone is taught and thus understands the absolute truth as to that which gives/supports life, and obviously backs it, else committing suicide another way, that only affects themselves, though that would seldom be an issue. In my world everyone really cares for everyone, so they care what another thinks of them, as everyone supports everyone, as we are one, a team of one species, of common goal, to support that precious gift (all) life, in this way we make progress as to knowledge/science, by leaps and bounds, many times more than today's man, as all the static of misappropriated direction doesn't exist. Each of this species smiles at all others immediately, knowingly, as their intellects merge in symbiosis, a true benevolent collective. If you care to get a glimpse, watch those at the end of A.I. to see the stature/nature they exude, as a fair representation.

That you and everyone doesn't 'care' is fine, to be expected of the twisted, confused, fearful man of the day, full only of self interest, always cutting off their nose to spite their two faces, sometimes more.

I'm not the problem, rather those that start crap, are in fact the problem. I told you, no matter how hard I try, I can't turn my cheek, to those that would then nail me to a cross! (metaphor).

In my world of all caring for all, there would be no such problem, as we would be more like our closest of distant cousins, the bonobos, yet far grander in all respects! Then the brunt of Freud's observations, would truly not apply, all cigars would in fact, just be cigars. As John sang, "a brotherhood of man." There will be no deep dark secrets/fears that confound ones logic and reason. Basically all negative emotion would be all but gone, don't get me wrong there would be caring, and much of it, no one would ever be alone, an outcast.

Yes, one would always care of what another thought, and vice verse, we would all care, for one another!
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5725
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Blaggard wrote:
I've no doubt spheres isn't half as bad as I make out,

No he's probably worse.
I doubt he's this bad in real life otherwise it probably spend all his time getting beaten up by people for being a condescending p****, hiding behind a keyboard lends you the courage to act like a total dick to others. Which is only really a bad thing when it becomes demeaning to others such as in the case of trolling or whatever. What he's doing may not be in the same league as trolling but telling people how they think is distinctly extremely rude, especially when they are wrong. If he was right about how and what I think it would be different, but he isn't and it's frustrating to be mischaracterised by some fool who thinks he has special powers.
All projections of self, that which you're guilty of, while fearful of an even playing field, thus cowardly, fearful of ones own shadow, in denial! Of course it's largely age related, you'll grow out of it, as you ever approach death, closer and closer. I know, it's changing me that way! ;-)
uwot
Posts: 6092
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by uwot »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I hear you but in truth that way of thinking stymies growth, allowing idiots that destroy things to do so.
In your experience, Spheres, how many times do you have to call someone an idiot before they share your vision of world peace?
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5725
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

uwot wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I hear you but in truth that way of thinking stymies growth, allowing idiots that destroy things to do so.
In your experience, Spheres, how many times do you have to call someone an idiot before they share your vision of world peace?
In this sentence whom did I call an idiot? NOONE here, necessarily!! I said, "...that type of thinking, allows idiots..." I surely called you no idiot. So you should not take offense. I may have insinuated that, "your thinking allows" for such possibilities, though that is not you! Yes, it was bold, but I do not hold you accountable, remember I'm 56, and been around the world more than a few times, I've heard that view more than once, so you did not coin it, you just repeated it. It is common for each of 'us' to hear something and repeat it, that seems on the surface to be a good idea, not having the time to truly contemplate every single nuance, as to all it's ramifications and implications. It was not aimed at you, that you are any more incapable than I am. Just really a very strong, FYI.

Yes it's true that, our thinking, we each hold dear, an extension of self, as this is in fact what sets me off sometimes. But make no mistake, I am not angry at you, as you seem to be more of a voice of true reason, that's not as self interested here, as you make your cases. I was just saying that, we cannot allow those that would take without giving, to do so.
You said:
One small step would be for people to think:
I am in the happy position of not having to give a fuck what you think of me. So I don't.
You should try it, Spheres; you'll be amazed how much peace you can create instantly.
And if you truly believed it, yourself, then you would not take offense. My point is that, if we allow even one to have these self serving illusions, it spreads like wild fire, as it allows for the possibility of those that would eventually become a "Charles Manson." Some people require harsh words, that would think themselves wolves and the rest sheeple, before they get that far.

Yes I guess in some respects you are correct, that coddling is a much better way, bringing someone instead to your bosom, and patting them on the back, it's just that I'm fighting a distant foe that has left me scarred, crippled, such that it's hard for me, sometimes, to stand tall and firm, amidst a raging storm, being like the rock of Gibraltar. My model, was crippled thus handing some of it off to me. I'm slow to show love, as self evident, because when I was learning how to do that, the model did not exude it, quite the opposite, fear and selfishness of course, that which ruled the lessons. I have no real problems with selfishness. I've always believed that if I had not had such hardness during those formative years, that I probably would have been a very successful scientist, not in terms of money, rather peace of mind and resolve, that my center would be more calmed, that I could stand stronger, exuding love that is indeed obvious, not cloaked for fear of vulnerability. Yet as you look out at the others here, even yourself, you'd be remiss to not acknowledge it's widespread existence.

I'm sure you are incapable of fully understanding my point as everyone's life long experience is different. You'll just have to trust that my words, no matter how harsh sometimes, are truly for the recipient that I utter them. I am most often, cruel to be kind. Of course I've been in rework all my life, trying to undo that which has left me, seemingly uncaring on the surface. Some days are better for me than others, I blame it on the moon! ;-)

Actually I'm starting a new exercise program to ward off old age, and hoping that it shall allow for a better version of the SoB! ;-)
Post Reply