Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:... I've never killed anyone. ...

lancek4 wrote:The object can exist. The issue is whether one is fixed upon the object's truth in order to gain his truth.

Where one's 'gaze' is confined to the true object, his argument will always be based in an offence, an 'embarrassment' of the individual's inability to reconsile his existence with the object. He thus asserts himself As Truth, as the total route to the true object. He can thus justify himself through his 'faith' in the true object. Discussion of the true object can thus supply the individual with a justified position in the world despite his inability to come to terms with this limitation. In other words he asserts his stable position in an existence that is always changing.

The issue of existence is thereby effectively solved a priori for the individual in the assumption of a common humanity that exists within a knowledge that holds potential to gain an 'absolute ' truth.

When one's gaze is not fixed upon the true object then the irony of his existence is not lost, and he can thereby uphold a possibility of himself that one may call a 'sponteneous involvement with the universe. But this situation is akways suspended in a present condition that defies an absolutely true object.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, as to your first two reposts, as I've already said, as to this new post, as follows: You, I, we are all individual objects. So as to see yourself the clearest, to really know you, you have to view yourself from a specific vantage point, outside of your self, and I see this vantage point as a zone, from anywhere above planet Earth, so that one can see it amid the backdrop of infinite space; containing all the billions of galaxies, stars, planets, lifeforms etc, especially including yourself; all the way out to just beyond our moon. This then, combined with all the cumulative understanding mankind has mustered, up to and including any particular now, gives us the only clearest vision of ourselves/oneself. This is the absolute truth of the matter. One must remain objective in viewing self.

So Nietzsche had the right idea to climb to a mountain top, though mine as understood by most astronauts is the ultimate perch, of clearest vision, but where Nietzsche went astray was not being capable of objectifying his vision of self, he looked from the inside out, missing himself, his life's plagues as they impact his vision, thus he has no cure for humanities ills, he just creates another religion, of self absorbed people. The true vision of self, is from the outside in, thus objectifying your vantage point, so as to see yourself amid everything else. He almost had it, but for his selfishness, which is, as I'm sure you've heard me say before, mans biggest problem, that shall surely be his undoing, if left unchecked. We in fact are not wholly individuals, but a part of a symbiosis contained in Earths biosphere, and here in our totality, we shall either make or break ourselves.

The only way to truly see ourselves is through the objectification of ourselves. We are, individuals; individuals are, we; we are, the biosphere; the biosphere, we are! I can do "Cat in the Hat" too! But seriously!!!!! I just knew someone might say this, so I thought I'd beat them to the punch, but their is soundness if you look close enough.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:The object can exist. The issue is whether one is fixed upon the object's truth in order to gain his truth.

Where one's 'gaze' is confined to the true object, his argument will always be based in an offence, an 'embarrassment' of the individual's inability to reconsile his existence with the object. He thus asserts himself As Truth, as the total route to the true object. He can thus justify himself through his 'faith' in the true object. Discussion of the true object can thus supply the individual with a justified position in the world despite his inability to come to terms with this limitation. In other words he asserts his stable position in an existence that is always changing.

The issue of existence is thereby effectively solved a priori for the individual in the assumption of a common humanity that exists within a knowledge that holds potential to gain an 'absolute ' truth.

When one's gaze is not fixed upon the true object then the irony of his existence is not lost, and he can thereby uphold a possibility of himself that one may call a 'sponteneous involvement with the universe. But this situation is akways suspended in a present condition that defies an absolutely true object.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, as to your first two reposts, as I've already said, as to this new post, as follows: You, I, we are all individual objectsYes of course: the one oriented upon the true object is the subject-object. From there all explanation asserts the true object, the faith thereof.

. So as to see yourself the clearest, to really know you, you have to view yourself from a specific vantage point, outside of your self, and I see this vantage point as a zone, from anywhere above planet Earth, so that one can see it amid the backdrop of infinite space; containing all the billions of galaxies, stars, planets, lifeforms etc, especially including yourself; all the way out to just beyond our moon. This then, combined with all the cumulative understanding mankind has mustered, up to and including any particular now, gives us the only clearest vision of ourselves/oneself. This is the absolute truth of the matter. One must remain objective in viewing self.

So Nietzsche had the right idea to climb to a mountain top, though mine as understood by most astronauts is the ultimate perch, of clearest vision, but where Nietzsche went astray was not being capable of objectifying his vision of self, he looked from the inside out, missing himself, his life's plagues as they impact his vision, thus he has no cure for humanities ills, he just creates another religion, of self absorbed people. The true vision of self, is from the outside in, thus objectifying your vantage point, so as to see yourself amid everything else. He almost had it, but for his selfishness, which is, as I'm sure you've heard me say before, mans biggest problem, that shall surely be his undoing, if left unchecked. We in fact are not wholly individuals, but a part of a symbiosis contained in Earths biosphere, and here in our totality, we shall either make or break ourselves.

The only way to truly see ourselves is through the objectification of ourselves. We are, individuals; individuals are, we; we are, the biosphere; the biosphere, we are! I can do "Cat in the Hat" too! But seriously!!!!! I just knew someone might say this, so I thought I'd beat them to the punch, but their is soundness if you look close enough.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:The object can exist. The issue is whether one is fixed upon the object's truth in order to gain his truth.

Where one's 'gaze' is confined to the true object, his argument will always be based in an offence, an 'embarrassment' of the individual's inability to reconsile his existence with the object. He thus asserts himself As Truth, as the total route to the true object. He can thus justify himself through his 'faith' in the true object. Discussion of the true object can thus supply the individual with a justified position in the world despite his inability to come to terms with this limitation. In other words he asserts his stable position in an existence that is always changing.

The issue of existence is thereby effectively solved a priori for the individual in the assumption of a common humanity that exists within a knowledge that holds potential to gain an 'absolute ' truth.

When one's gaze is not fixed upon the true object then the irony of his existence is not lost, and he can thereby uphold a possibility of himself that one may call a 'sponteneous involvement with the universe. But this situation is akways suspended in a present condition that defies an absolutely true object.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, as to your first two reposts, as I've already said, as to this new post, as follows: You, I, we are all individual objects. So as to see yourself the clearest, to really know you, you have to view yourself from a specific vantage point, outside of your self, and I see this vantage point as a zone, from anywhere above planet Earth, so that one can see it amid the backdrop of infinite space; containing all the billions of galaxies, stars, planets, lifeforms etc, especially including yourself; all the way out to just beyond our moon. This then, combined with all the cumulative understanding mankind has mustered, up to and including any particular now, gives us the only clearest vision of ourselves/oneself. This is the absolute truth of the matter. One must remain objective in viewing self.

So Nietzsche had the right idea to climb to a mountain top, though mine as understood by most astronauts is the ultimate perch, of clearest vision, but where Nietzsche went astray was not being capable of objectifying his vision of self, he looked from the inside out, missing himself, his life's plagues as they impact his vision, thus he has no cure for humanities ills, he just creates another religion, of self absorbed people. The true vision of self, is from the outside in, thus objectifying your vantage point, so as to see yourself amid everything else. He almost had it, but for his selfishness, which is, as I'm sure you've heard me say before, mans biggest problem, that shall surely be his undoing, if left unchecked. We in fact are not wholly individuals, but a part of a symbiosis contained in Earths biosphere, and here in our totality, we shall either make or break ourselves.

The only way to truly see ourselves is through the objectification of ourselves. We are, individuals; individuals are, we; we are, the biosphere; the biosphere, we are! I can do "Cat in the Hat" too! But seriously!!!!! I just knew someone might say this, so I thought I'd beat them to the punch, but their is soundness if you look close enough.

lancek4 wrote:So onward or back into the text: can any one explain why N would make such statements as Sob likes to flaunt of N, and then N little description of Jesus ?

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:So onward or back into the text: can any one explain why N would make such statements as Sob likes to flaunt of N, and then N little description of Jesus ?

Specifically which completely out of context statements is SoB repeating?

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:The object can exist. The issue is whether one is fixed upon the object's truth in order to gain his truth.

Where one's 'gaze' is confined to the true object, his argument will always be based in an offence, an 'embarrassment' of the individual's inability to reconsile his existence with the object. He thus asserts himself As Truth, as the total route to the true object. He can thus justify himself through his 'faith' in the true object. Discussion of the true object can thus supply the individual with a justified position in the world despite his inability to come to terms with this limitation. In other words he asserts his stable position in an existence that is always changing.

The issue of existence is thereby effectively solved a priori for the individual in the assumption of a common humanity that exists within a knowledge that holds potential to gain an 'absolute ' truth.

When one's gaze is not fixed upon the true object then the irony of his existence is not lost, and he can thereby uphold a possibility of himself that one may call a 'sponteneous involvement with the universe. But this situation is akways suspended in a present condition that defies an absolutely true object.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, as to your first two reposts, as I've already said, as to this new post, as follows: You, I, we are all individual objects. So as to see yourself the clearest, to really know you, you have to view yourself from a specific vantage point, outside of your self, and I see this vantage point as a zone, from anywhere above planet Earth, so that one can see it amid the backdrop of infinite space; containing all the billions of galaxies, stars, planets, lifeforms etc, especially including yourself; all the way out to just beyond our moon. This then, combined with all the cumulative understanding mankind has mustered, up to and including any particular now, gives us the only clearest vision of ourselves/oneself. This is the absolute truth of the matter. One must remain objective in viewing self.

So Nietzsche had the right idea to climb to a mountain top, though mine as understood by most astronauts is the ultimate perch, of clearest vision, but where Nietzsche went astray was not being capable of objectifying his vision of self, he looked from the inside out, missing himself, his life's plagues as they impact his vision, thus he has no cure for humanities ills, he just creates another religion, of self absorbed people. The true vision of self, is from the outside in, thus objectifying your vantage point, so as to see yourself amid everything else. He almost had it, but for his selfishness, which is, as I'm sure you've heard me say before, mans biggest problem, that shall surely be his undoing, if left unchecked. We in fact are not wholly individuals, but a part of a symbiosis contained in Earths biosphere, and here in our totality, we shall either make or break ourselves.

The only way to truly see ourselves is through the objectification of ourselves. We are, individuals; individuals are, we; we are, the biosphere; the biosphere, we are! I can do "Cat in the Hat" too! But seriously!!!!! I just knew someone might say this, so I thought I'd beat them to the punch, but their is soundness if you look close enough.

You are arguing what I have said of you. It is not that I don't understand this perspective; it is not that I do not live my life along similar perspectives: as I say, the object can exist. I am not positing an 'essential' subject either. The discourse of such polemics, subjective or objective perspective, is not the issue; such polemics are firmly located in the objective, as you point out: having perspective on the object. I am not talking of a negotiation of opinions. I am talking about the reduction of knowledge: what ( ironically) knowledge (the object that is knowledge) reveals of itself when considered for what it is (which is part of the issue).

lancek4 wrote:What is the relation between the weak perishing and what N says about Jesus and the gospels?

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:So onward or back into the text: can any one explain why N would make such statements as Sob likes to flaunt of N, and then N little description of Jesus ?

Specifically which completely out of context statements is SoB repeating?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:The object can exist. The issue is whether one is fixed upon the object's truth in order to gain his truth.

Where one's 'gaze' is confined to the true object, his argument will always be based in an offence, an 'embarrassment' of the individual's inability to reconsile his existence with the object. He thus asserts himself As Truth, as the total route to the true object. He can thus justify himself through his 'faith' in the true object. Discussion of the true object can thus supply the individual with a justified position in the world despite his inability to come to terms with this limitation. In other words he asserts his stable position in an existence that is always changing.

The issue of existence is thereby effectively solved a priori for the individual in the assumption of a common humanity that exists within a knowledge that holds potential to gain an 'absolute ' truth.

When one's gaze is not fixed upon the true object then the irony of his existence is not lost, and he can thereby uphold a possibility of himself that one may call a 'sponteneous involvement with the universe. But this situation is akways suspended in a present condition that defies an absolutely true object.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, as to your first two reposts, as I've already said, as to this new post, as follows: You, I, we are all individual objects. So as to see yourself the clearest, to really know you, you have to view yourself from a specific vantage point, outside of your self, and I see this vantage point as a zone, from anywhere above planet Earth, so that one can see it amid the backdrop of infinite space; containing all the billions of galaxies, stars, planets, lifeforms etc, especially including yourself; all the way out to just beyond our moon. This then, combined with all the cumulative understanding mankind has mustered, up to and including any particular now, gives us the only clearest vision of ourselves/oneself. This is the absolute truth of the matter. One must remain objective in viewing self.

So Nietzsche had the right idea to climb to a mountain top, though mine as understood by most astronauts is the ultimate perch, of clearest vision, but where Nietzsche went astray was not being capable of objectifying his vision of self, he looked from the inside out, missing himself, his life's plagues as they impact his vision, thus he has no cure for humanities ills, he just creates another religion, of self absorbed people. The true vision of self, is from the outside in, thus objectifying your vantage point, so as to see yourself amid everything else. He almost had it, but for his selfishness, which is, as I'm sure you've heard me say before, mans biggest problem, that shall surely be his undoing, if left unchecked. We in fact are not wholly individuals, but a part of a symbiosis contained in Earths biosphere, and here in our totality, we shall either make or break ourselves.

The only way to truly see ourselves is through the objectification of ourselves.




Here is the defining statement. Then see below....



We are, individuals; individuals are, we; we are, the biosphere; the biosphere, we are! I can do "Cat in the Hat" too! But seriously!!!!! I just knew someone might say this, so I thought I'd beat them to the punch, but their is soundness if you look close enough.

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:So onward or back into the text: can any one explain why N would make such statements as Sob likes to flaunt of N, and then N little description of Jesus ?

Specifically which completely out of context statements is SoB repeating?

The ones about killing people.

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:So onward or back into the text: can any one explain why N would make such statements as Sob likes to flaunt of N, and then N little description of Jesus ?

Specifically which completely out of context statements is SoB repeating?

The ones about killing people.