Philosophy Now Forum

.





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





I think that's EXACTLY what I said.


That is, if you are talking to me?





.

It didn't (and doesn't) seem that way to me.

*shrug*

No big whoop either way.

I think I feel an unsubscribe coming on.

.







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







Well don't unsubscribe this thread because of me.


I explained myself.


You & I both see & understand the tremendous power of the GIFs & images that I have infused into the forum.


I welcome you to join me; to join us...


This is not the time to close your mind. Not the time to retreat. Not the time for fear.




Do not be afraid of what I represent...









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







.

If that's directed at me: nope, not goin' anywhere.

And, if NOT directed at me: *shrug*

Bill, please

It is time to get some control and stop, now.

All the best.

.



Control?


Out of control how?


I feel as though I am almost completely in control of my posts.




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


................................................................................................................................You talkin to me?






Seriously? Did you mean to address me?




.

Great job Bill! And that you are commenting on parroting, I sympathize, understand, that people with their programmed preconceptions are often not aware of where their monkey comes from, as they merely see and thus do. But in truth we are all victims of this, to some extent or another, it's just that the truly wise ones are more self aware, and thus understand this fact.

As Socrates said: I only know, that I know nothing. The first, truly wise, man.

As to this thread, RE, I see that she has an idealized view, as per her perspective, and while it's perfectly right for her and anyone that agrees, it does not necessarily understand the multitudes, the diversity that are humans. I can see a couple that are fine with their dominate/submissive roles, as they mesh well together, as per their decision as a couple. This then is their perspective, and is perfectly fine for them and anyone that agrees.

We don't have to agree, so as to be the same, we only have to agree to let one another find our own place in our sun! Our perspectives are loaded with the code that our individual sequence of experience, has deemed, varying also due to intensity and longevity of exposure, thus our perception of our mental sameness, merely an illusion, so as to bond; a need to feel accepted, why then, is anyone ostracized, merely for being on the fringe of different?

Emperors take turns, allowing the cold of the fringe, to enter he warmth, of the center.

Yes Bill, I was talking to you, minus all the malicious suggestions by Spheres.

.



With all due respect to your request...what do you want me to stop?



.

Do not be afraid of what I represent...

What does this post mean?

If you really love philosophy wouldnt it stand to reason you would want to express this verbally as you verbally express your love for it. What little you have written when a topic touches your passion has been great, you seem to under value your abilities. I think that is what I have been trying to say to you. Nothing else.

.




So...so stop what?






What do you want me to stop?









It is time to get some control and stop, now.



Out of control how?








.

reasonvemotion wrote:Yes Bill, I was talking to you, minus all the malicious suggestions by Spheres.

What malicious suggestions? I think you misunderstood. I know you misunderstood if you took anything personal.

So...so stop what?
What do you want me to stop?

It is time to get some control and stop, now.

What I am trying to say, (rather badly), there are times for pictures, but there are also times for words, without pictures. Sometimes just pictures are not helpful and I will give an example. This was written by Spheres, I hope he doesnt object to me using it, it just seemed very appropriate for what I am trying to explain.

But Van Der Beek's facial expression is that of condescension/sarcasm. Is that in fact what you mean to convey?

I would love more verbal input from you. Perhaps you can reverse the current trend, more words less pictures, as it stands there are more pictures less words.
Geez Bill, it seems however I put it, it comes out wrong. LOL I can see a picture looming LOL. U no wot, I get you. Forget everything I have said.

except

I still would like (in words) the meaning of the post I enquired about, please.