Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

ken wrote:
Honestly I did not even notice any advice that you supposedly gave me.

But on re-reading are you suggesting that I should make more of an "effort"?

If so, then that is ridiculous. For example if 1 + 1 = 2 is true and I know this already, then I do not need to make any more "effort".

By the way how much "effort" do you think it takes to discover the Self?

Also, once something is discovered then no more effort is needed.

Okay, you know yourself. Enjoy.

By the way dalek what is your airtight philosophy?

Feel free to read my 3200 odd back posts anytime.

Dalek Prime wrote:

ken wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Okay, you know yourself. Enjoy.

By the way dalek what is your airtight philosophy?

Feel free to read my 3200 odd back posts anytime.

Where do you suggest I start? I am just relatively new here in this forum.

I was just reading a couple of your posts in What is most basics in ethics, and it appears you are suggesting humans should stop procreating. But I could be completely wrong here.

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:[

Sometimes this is necessary to be better understood.

I think not.

I know so.

Don't you mean 'Ken knows so."?
Pretentious dickwad.

ken wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

ken wrote:
By the way dalek what is your airtight philosophy?

Feel free to read my 3200 odd back posts anytime.

Where do you suggest I start? I am just relatively new here in this forum.

I was just reading a couple of your posts in What is most basics in ethics, and it appears you are suggesting humans should stop procreating. But I could be completely wrong here.

No, you're completely right. I'm am antinatalist, ken. If you really are interested, I'll explain further, but for the sake of everyone else who's heard it a million times here, I try to lay off the topic directly. Check my intro thread, perhaps.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greta wrote: The situation reminds me of the promises made in the 70s and 80s about how automation will lead to a glorious new leisure age. Maybe in another few hundred years if nothing too exciting happens in the interim ...

Yes, we still could have that. Sadly we have rejected Keynesian economics and adopted the Monetarism of Milton Friedman (Reaganomics/Thatcher) economics right through the political process from left to right, Labour to Conservative and Democrat to Republican.
This has increased inequality and the polarisation of wealth increasing poverty and squeezing all the money ever upwards to the rich.

It's hard to be impressed with the trickle-down effect unless you're a billionaire and/or large company. If the money gushes upwards but only trickles down over an extended period there's only one possible result.

Here's something I find perplexing...

When people say, "The lord".

Why are they not saying "My lord"? After all, it is THEIR lord... it is not everyone's lord... and it is not some ultimate lord, as there are many lords for many different people, and some people have no lord at all. So what is this audacity to say "the lord" when they're amongst people who don't share their lord? It seems so presumptuous and rude to superimpose their belief of their lord... over everyone.

Lacewing wrote:Here's something I find perplexing...

When people say, "The lord".

Why are they not saying "My lord"? After all, it is THEIR lord... it is not everyone's lord... and it is not some ultimate lord, as there are many lords for many different people, and some people have no lord at all. So what is this audacity to say "the lord" when they're amongst people who don't share their lord? It seems so presumptuous and rude to superimpose their belief of their lord... over everyone.

Slavery likes company?

Lacewing wrote:Here's something I find perplexing...

When people say, "The lord".

Why are they not saying "My lord"? After all, it is THEIR lord... it is not everyone's lord... and it is not some ultimate lord, as there are many lords for many different people, and some people have no lord at all. So what is this audacity to say "the lord" when they're amongst people who don't share their lord? It seems so presumptuous and rude to superimpose their belief of their lord... over everyone.

What part of speech is "the?" (Not thee)

Walker wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Here's something I find perplexing...

When people say, "The lord".

Why are they not saying "My lord"? After all, it is THEIR lord... it is not everyone's lord... and it is not some ultimate lord, as there are many lords for many different people, and some people have no lord at all. So what is this audacity to say "the lord" when they're amongst people who don't share their lord? It seems so presumptuous and rude to superimpose their belief of their lord... over everyone.

What part of speech is "the?" (Not thee)

Are you able to understand what is being communicated... or must you wrestle with everything like a Chihuahua with a stuffed squeak toy, in order to AVOID understanding (and responding honestly to) what is being communicated? Who the hell cares what part of speech "the" is -- the point is that most people saying "THE LORD" are making an all-encompassing statement... and that intent is clear. They proclaim THEIR lord as the ONE and ONLY lord over ALL. What kind of lunacy drives that?

sthitapragya wrote:Slavery likes company?

Lacewing wrote:

Walker wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Here's something I find perplexing...

When people say, "The lord".

Why are they not saying "My lord"? After all, it is THEIR lord... it is not everyone's lord... and it is not some ultimate lord, as there are many lords for many different people, and some people have no lord at all. So what is this audacity to say "the lord" when they're amongst people who don't share their lord? It seems so presumptuous and rude to superimpose their belief of their lord... over everyone.

What part of speech is "the?" (Not thee)

Are you able to understand what is being communicated... or must you wrestle with everything like a Chihuahua with a stuffed squeak toy, in order to AVOID understanding (and responding honestly to) what is being communicated? Who the hell cares what part of speech "the" is -- the point is that most people saying "THE LORD" are making an all-encompassing statement... and that intent is clear. They proclaim THEIR lord as the ONE and ONLY lord over ALL. What kind of lunacy drives that?

Well, here's the situation.

I started to write

You're wound pretty tight

But the spelling didn't look right

So I looked it up

The dictionary tells me to say, you're winded pretty tight

But that sounds like you're running a race and can't catch your breath, which coincidentally and when you think about it, saves face if you run faster cause they only see your dust and not the face being saved.

Kind of moot anyway. Who winds a watch anymore, though folks can get winded up rather than say, gee whiz, how about that. The past tense of wind a watch is about to become anachronistic because of technology, like so many other things. Ain't language funny like that.

I guess I better not ask what lord means.

Lacewing wrote:What kind of lunacy drives that?

Let’s employ reasoning from the yes root, and see if that flies:

Short answer, a happy person.

Longer answer: one who is filled with an inner joy naturally shares that joy. The sharing manifests in thought and deed. In thought the sharer shares that which causes the joy. She or he does this by being inclusive of all life when thinking on things, and so speaks inclusively rather than exclusively, or tribally. Thus she, or he, says “the” to modify or signify the mysterious, undefined Lord.

(I think that would read well with bongos. What do you think?)

Walker wrote: (I think that would read well with bongos. What do you think?)

Yep... that would seem to be an appropriate accompanyment.

Feynman PLAYS THE BONGOS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWabhnt91Uc

I would play with less intensity, to enhance the rhythm of the words.

One might even say, to enhance the rhythm inherent in the form that follows content.
(Oh dear, there it is again.)

Walker wrote:Feynman PLAYS THE BONGOS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWabhnt91Uc

I would play with less intensity, to enhance the rhythm of the words.

One might even say, to enhance the rhythm inherent in the form that follows content.
(Oh dear, there it is again.)

Richard plays well. Many physicists play musical instruments, no doubt attracted by the mathematical patterning of music.

I can accept RF's playing ... I rarely listen to lyrics anyway, which IMO defeat the main benefit of music - to give us a break from mental noise, allowing us to think without words for a time.