Philosophy Now Forum

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 5:57 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:21 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 9:39 pm You walked into it, you silly wanker. Go on then; what do I accept?

No, you did, bub. If you've locked down, if you wear a mask, if you've been jabbed: you've accepted the wolf (Coronapocalypse) you've told about as bein' real. You trust the shepherds. let you in on a little secret: the shepherds are the wolves

I'll let you into a little secret: one of my daughters works in an intensive care unit which, for a while, was overwhelmed with people suffering precisely the symptoms associated with the disease you believe is a conspiracy. For you to persuade me of your version of reality, you need to convince me either that the people in the ICU are actors, good enough to fool my daughter, or that my daughter is part of a massive conspiracy and is lying to me. Go for it!

uwot, me old bean, one would think that after your recent episode of endlessly banging your head against the wall in trying to reason with Age/ken in the "A World Without Men" thread, that you would be reluctant to engage in yet another exercise in futility against an equally unreasonable opponent.

Oh well, I suppose there's some value in the readers being able to see the stark contrast between rational thinking and irrational thinking.

And in regards to this thread, as I have suggested in other threads, what we see happening with the devolving mentality of the American populace is no doubt (at least in my mind) the result of the necrotizing karma that its ("look the other way") citizenry are reaping from the treachery their leaders have sown across the planet.

Unfortunately, it's only going to get worse, so brace yourselves.

In the meantime, in regards to the American anti-vaxers, maga-hatters (Trumpists), and conspiracy nuts that you are being subjected to on this "philosophy" forum,...

...I blame it on the fact that even though it is generally a "good" thing (for all of us nuts) that the forum is lightly moderated, nevertheless, the good is offset by the toleration of those who would have been sent packing long ago under a stricter regime of moderators.
_______

"seeds",

if you want to bring the name and label "age" or "ken" into this, then will you explain what, exactly, "uwot" was being, supposedly, "reasonable" about, and which I was, supposedly, being an "unreasonable opponent" about?

You suppose there's some value in the readers being able to see the stark contrast between rational thinking and irrational thinking.

I claim that there will be a LOT OF VALUE in readers being able to see the clearly stark contrast between 'rational thinking' and 'irrational thinking', specifically from within this forum. So, let the readers SEE what you claim was the "rational thinking" under the label "uwot" and the "irrational thinking" under the label "age".

Are you able to shine a light on this?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then why not?

uwot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 9:55 am I have the germ of an idea. Whatever enjoyment people, let's call them normal people, get from a book or a film, they know that when the closing credits roll, the story is over. Whatever larks may be had playing with the themes and logic, it's time to unsuspend disbelief and understand that what has been seen is a fiction. Perhaps for conspiracy nuts it is not enough to play with ideas and stories, they have to be real - a story isn't compelling to a conspiracy nut if they are not an actor in it. I have said before that, in my view, philosophy is basically story telling with a set of rules attached. In that sense, philosophers create coherent narratives based on a fairly limited palette of initial premises. The people who provide the material for conspiracy role play, ranging from the fairly respectable Dan Brown, who uses conspiracy theories to create ambiguous stories, to the flat out fruitloopery of the David Ickes of this world, are just doing the same thing, but with a more colourful set of premises.

Yeah uwot, like many of us you seek certainty, though some get quite carried away with it, sometimes seeing it due to their wants. Facts, thus the truth, is often only belief, due to the facts that we don't know that we don't know. The search for certainty, such that we diminish our fears, which in fact is the entire point, is often fraught with misconception that we serve up otherwise. There's nothing worse than a commander that only believes they know what they're doing.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:08 am "seeds",

if you want to bring the name and label "age" or "ken" into this, then will you explain what, exactly, "uwot" was being, supposedly, "reasonable" about, and which I was, supposedly, being an "unreasonable opponent" about?...

...Are you able to shine a light on this?

Yes.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:08 am If yes, then will you?

No.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:08 am If no, then why not?

Two reasons...

1. Because I'm not dumb enough to be drawn into an endless labyrinthian maze of word games that never yield anything of any worth or substance.

2. Because the ancient and "channeled entity" who claims to have been the inspiration for the writing of the Bible, and who claims to be using the human who goes by the names "ken/Age" on this forum, should already be wise enough to know the answers to the questions that he (she/it) is asking.
_______

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:21 pmYeah uwot, like many of us you seek certainty...

No Spheres, I seek beauty at best, coherence at least. I have made it abundantly clear that I believe all theories are underdetermined - that there will always be more than one empirically adequate hypothesis - and I'm happy to concede that even that might be wrong.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:21 pm...though some get quite carried away with it...

Yup, that's basically the thesis behind this thread.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:21 pm...sometimes seeing it due to their wants.

I think I would categorise conspiracy nuts as believing in the objective reality of their preferred fruitloopery. If you can get one to confess that they only believe what they do because they like the idea, I'll give you a lollipop.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:21 pmFacts, thus the truth, is often only belief, due to the facts that we don't know that we don't know.

Well yeah, one should only form an explanation for the present phenomena. People who make shit up, and then explain it are two steps removed from the real world.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:21 pmThe search for certainty, such that we diminish our fears, which in fact is the entire point...

Again, I'm not searching for certainty but if you say that is your motivation, I wouldn't argue.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:21 pm...is often fraught with misconception that we serve up otherwise. There's nothing worse than a commander that only believes they know what they're doing.

Have you tried a 40 mile cycle ride in ill fitting underpants?

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:14 am The ways of the moderators are all powerful and mysterious. Just ask henry quirk.

As I say elsewhere: message received.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:08 am...Are you able to shine a light on this?

Yes.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:08 amIf yes, then will you?

No.

seeds, I salute your wisdom.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:59 am I wrote: So: I'll just go back to postin' lil memes and odd essays and specific data

Apparently I won't.

This thread...

...is locked. No warning issued.

Wow... interesting!

I admit that I felt relief to hear it because I've always seen it as a personal soapbox of propaganda. I'm surprised it lasted this long... I thought it was inappropriate for, and an abuse of, a philosophy forum meant for discussions... but I do appreciate the more general leniency of this forum regarding the discussions and playful/creative banter.

You are more interesting, Henry, when you engage in discussions for yourself, rather than continually posting the creations of others on little more than a manic bulletin board for skewed notions.

seeds to Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm 1. Because I'm not dumb enough to be drawn into an endless labyrinthian maze of word games that never yield anything of any worth or substance.

Well said.

seeds to Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm 2. Because the ancient and "channeled entity" who claims to have been the inspiration for the writing of the Bible, and who claims to be using the human who goes by the names "ken/Age" on this forum, should already be wise enough to know the answers to the questions that he (she/it) is asking.

Brilliant. Age will probably respond something like "but "I" DO KNOW the anSWers, I just ask YOU to sEe if YOU KNOW!"

This is why I have Age on my Ignore list... to filter out all of his self-glorifying repetition and noise. When Ken/Age stops pretending to speak as god, and interfaces on the human level where we all are, I would find it more interesting to interact with him. But his loopy, self-serving routine that he has been crafting for years is boring and not worthwhile to me.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:08 am "seeds",

if you want to bring the name and label "age" or "ken" into this, then will you explain what, exactly, "uwot" was being, supposedly, "reasonable" about, and which I was, supposedly, being an "unreasonable opponent" about?...

...Are you able to shine a light on this?

Yes.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:08 am If yes, then will you?

No.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:08 am If no, then why not?

Two reasons...

1. Because I'm not dumb enough to be drawn into an endless labyrinthian maze of word games that never yield anything of any worth or substance.

2. Because the ancient and "channeled entity" who claims to have been the inspiration for the writing of the Bible, and who claims to be using the human who goes by the names "ken/Age" on this forum, should already be wise enough to know the answers to the questions that he (she/it) is asking.
_______

I ALREADY KNOW the answers to the questions. I am just seeing if you are yet ready to be open and honest enough. You obviously are not.

Your FEAR of coming across as not be truly able to explain your claims is clear enough now. The readers are able to clearly recognize and SEE this now. You have just provided the irrefutable Truth of this.

What is becoming clearer for readers is where the 'irrational' and 'rational' thinking REALLY IS.

You want to make claims but will not back up and support those claims because you are AFRAID that it could actually be you and/or "uwot" with the 'irrational thinking'.

By the way, your "reason" 1. contradicts your claims that there's some value in the readers being able to see the stark contrast between rational thinking and irrational thinking. If you will NOT show the, alleged, "rational thinking", then there is NO value for ANY one.

Also, your "reason" 2. is just a twisted and distortion of your own making, from your wrong assumptions.

What I have ACTUALLY said IS DIFFERENT, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN, by the readers.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:01 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:21 pmYeah uwot, like many of us you seek certainty...

No Spheres, I seek beauty at best, coherence at least. I have made it abundantly clear that I believe all theories are underdetermined - that there will always be more than one empirically adequate hypothesis - and I'm happy to concede that even that might be wrong.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:21 pm...though some get quite carried away with it...

Yup, that's basically the thesis behind this thread.

The belief that the Universe, Itself, is, or could even be, finite and have begun is an example of when some get quite carried away with just a 'theory'.

Some people, in the days when this was being written, are even so 'carried away' that they actually believe the finite and beginning Universe idea/theory to be so absolutely true that they class this as 'rational thinking' and anything opposing this view/belief as being 'irrational thinking'.

But where the 'rational' and 'irrational' thinking REALLY IS is completely obvious. That is, there is NO rationality at all in ANY CLOSED THINKING.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:01 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:21 pm...sometimes seeing it due to their wants.

I think I would categorise conspiracy nuts as believing in the objective reality of their preferred fruitloopery. If you can get one to confess that they only believe what they do because they like the idea, I'll give you a lollipop.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:21 pmFacts, thus the truth, is often only belief, due to the facts that we don't know that we don't know.

Well yeah, one should only form an explanation for the present phenomena. People who make shit up, and then explain it are two steps removed from the real world.

The idea that the Universe, Itself, is finite and begun is an example of when "shit" is just being made up, by people.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:01 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:21 pmThe search for certainty, such that we diminish our fears, which in fact is the entire point...

Again, I'm not searching for certainty but if you say that is your motivation, I wouldn't argue.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 2:21 pm...is often fraught with misconception that we serve up otherwise. There's nothing worse than a commander that only believes they know what they're doing.

Have you tried a 40 mile cycle ride in ill fitting underpants?

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:04 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:08 am...Are you able to shine a light on this?

Yes.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:08 amIf yes, then will you?

No.

seeds, I salute your wisdom.

What you failed to recognize here "uwot" is that "seeds" supposes there's some value in the readers being able to see the stark contrast between rational thinking and irrational thinking, but will NOT shine a light on the, supposed and alleged, 'rational' and 'irrational' thinking. There is therefore NO 'stark contrast' AT ALL if NONE is provided.

For ANY one to make the claim that they KNOW "the stark contrast between rational and irrational thinking" but FAILS to provide ANY example just SHOWS some of the True INABILITIES of the 'human being', itself.

And, 'trying to' BLAME me for one NOT 'shining a light' on their CLAIMS just SHOWS some of the EXCUSES 'you', human beings, will use for your OWN INABILITIES.

I did NOT ask if "seeds" will 'shine a light' for ANY other reason than to just SEE if they would, or would NOT. They OBVIOUSLY would not.

I was NOT necessarily going to reply to what they wrote. But, if I did, then they also did NOT HAVE TO carry with the, so called, "word games". But at least they would have backed up and supported their claims. Until then what they claim just remains a completely and utterly UNSUPPORTED belief of theirs.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:55 pm

seeds to Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm 1. Because I'm not dumb enough to be drawn into an endless labyrinthian maze of word games that never yield anything of any worth or substance.

Well said.

If people could back up and support their claims, then there would NOT be a, so called, "labyrinth maze of word games".

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:55 pm

seeds to Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm 2. Because the ancient and "channeled entity" who claims to have been the inspiration for the writing of the Bible, and who claims to be using the human who goes by the names "ken/Age" on this forum, should already be wise enough to know the answers to the questions that he (she/it) is asking.

Brilliant. Age will probably respond something like "but "I" DO KNOW the anSWers, I just ask YOU to sEe if YOU KNOW!"

This is why I have Age on my Ignore list... to filter out all of his self-glorifying repetition and noise. When Ken/Age stops pretending to speak as god, and interfaces on the human level where we all are, I would find it more interesting to interact with him. But his loopy, self-serving routine that he has been crafting for years is boring and not worthwhile to me.

WHY do 'you', human beings, BELIEVE your OWN ASSUMPTIONS in regards to what I say are true, right, and/or correct, but which are CLEARLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect to begin with?

If ANY one wants to KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth is in regards to what I say, then, ONCE AGAIN, I suggest JUST ASK ME, INSTEAD.

You can put ANY one on the ignore list for ANY, so called, "reason", but the "reasons" given are sometimes based on completely False, Wrong, and Incorrect assumptions.

Both "lacewing" and "seeds" here have CLEARLY misconstrued what I have ACTUALLY SAID, and then have a twisted and distorted view, based on their Wrong assumptions.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout these writings is that these people have made Wrong assumptions from the outset, and have REMAINED with and in that Wrong view, without EVERY seeking clarification AT ALL. Which is the EXACT POINT that I have been SHOWING and REVEALING here.

The message about WHY it is MUCH BETTER to seek and gain CLARIFICATION FIRST, BEFORE any one makes any ASSUMPTION will be becoming MUCH CLEARER, NOW.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:55 pm

seeds to Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm 2. Because the ancient and "channeled entity" who claims to have been the inspiration for the writing of the Bible, and who claims to be using the human who goes by the names "ken/Age" on this forum, should already be wise enough to know the answers to the questions that he (she/it) is asking.

Brilliant. Age will probably respond something like "but "I" DO KNOW the anSWers, I just ask YOU to sEe if YOU KNOW!"

Girl, you nailed that prediction!

I know I shouldn't do this because it's just going to rile him up and invite more of his nonsense, but seeing how you have him on ignore, I'll repeat what he said...

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:21 pm I ALREADY KNOW the answers to the questions. I am just seeing if you are yet ready to be open and honest enough. You obviously are not.

He also said this...

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:21 pm By the way, your "reason" 2. is just a twisted and distortion of your own making, from your wrong assumptions.

What I have ACTUALLY said IS DIFFERENT, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN, by the readers.

Just for the record, as it pertains to reason number "2", here is what he actually said in a post long ago...

ken/Age's channeled entity wrote: ...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things...

...which can now be CLEARLY SEEN by the readers ("in the days when this is being written").

I don't mean to make fun of Age, for lord knows I've presented some wild and questionable ideas of my own. But his brazen dishonesty in denying (or not recognizing) the implications of his own statements, demands a calling out.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:59 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:55 pm

seeds to Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm 2. Because the ancient and "channeled entity" who claims to have been the inspiration for the writing of the Bible, and who claims to be using the human who goes by the names "ken/Age" on this forum, should already be wise enough to know the answers to the questions that he (she/it) is asking.

Brilliant. Age will probably respond something like "but "I" DO KNOW the anSWers, I just ask YOU to sEe if YOU KNOW!"

Girl, you nailed that prediction!

I know I shouldn't do this because it's just going to rile him up and invite more of his nonsense, but seeing how you have him on ignore, I'll repeat what he said...

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:21 pm I ALREADY KNOW the answers to the questions. I am just seeing if you are yet ready to be open and honest enough. You obviously are not.

He also said this...

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:21 pm By the way, your "reason" 2. is just a twisted and distortion of your own making, from your wrong assumptions.

What I have ACTUALLY said IS DIFFERENT, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN, by the readers.

Just for the record, as it pertains to reason number "2", here is what he actually said in a post long ago...

ken/Age's channeled entity wrote: ...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things...

...which can now be CLEARLY SEEN by the readers ("in the days when this is being written").

I don't mean to make fun of Age, for lord knows I've presented some wild and questionable ideas of my own. But his brazen dishonesty in denying (or not recognizing) the implications of his own statements, demands a calling out.
_______

Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of one BELIEVING that their OWN ASSUMPTION of what "another" has said is ABOVE needing ANY CLARIFICATION AT ALL.

So, ONCE AGAIN, what you are ASSUMING I am saying, AND MEANING, is NOT Right. And, until you decide to CLARIFY you will NEVER learn WHY.

Also, I write in a VERY SPECIFIC WAY, and this is because I KNOW EXACTLY what the implications ARE now, and WILL BE in, and for, the future.

I am NOT denying (nor not recognizing) the ACTUAL 'implications' of my OWN STATEMENTS. You just ASSUME I am denying (or not recognizing) "the implications", which you imagine or ASSUME will arise.

I am therefore NOT being dishonest. You are just basing ALL things here on your OWN ASSUMPTIONS, which you would HAVE TO ADMIT, if you are Honest, could be Wrong.

The more 'you' laugh, ridicule, and talk about me, "behind my back", as it is said, and do NOT clarify, with me, the BETTER this is working out, for Me.

The implications are being CLEARLY SEEN, by the readers, not in the days when this is being written.

The readers I write for are NOT necessarily the ones the readers, in the days when this was written, ASSUME they are.

Oh, and by the way, what do you CLAIM will be the actual implication of my OWN statements, which you BELIEVE I am being "brazenly dishonest in denying (or not recognizing)?

Your Honesty and OPENNESS here will be MUCH APPRECIATED. But sadly there was NO Honesty NOR OPENNESS last time I asked you to CLARIFY your CLAIMS.

Furthermore, your, so called, "wild and questionable ideas", which you have previously presented, can be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY explained, in an amount of detail, which will fit in PERFECTLY with the Big and WHOLE, united, Picture (explanation) of Life, Itself.

Also, WHERE do 'you' think 'these ideas' are coming from, EXACTLY?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:59 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:55 pm

seeds to Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:46 pm 2. Because the ancient and "channeled entity" who claims to have been the inspiration for the writing of the Bible, and who claims to be using the human who goes by the names "ken/Age" on this forum, should already be wise enough to know the answers to the questions that he (she/it) is asking.

Brilliant. Age will probably respond something like "but "I" DO KNOW the anSWers, I just ask YOU to sEe if YOU KNOW!"

Girl, you nailed that prediction!

I forgot to mention, although the first part of this prediction may be ABSOLUTELY Right, the rest was NOT. Therefore, your claim here that they had "nailed that prediction" was NOT EXACTLY Right, which can be VERY DIFFERENT, indeed.

Seeing if one is READY to be open and honest enough is VERY DIFFERENT to seeing if one KNOWS, the answer.

Also, to add to this, I NEVER was asking if YOU KNOW anyway. So, the "prediction" was WAY OFF TRACK, in this regard. I was just asking you WHAT YOUR CLAIM was in regards to, exactly, and, OBVIOUSLY, you would ALREADY KNOW this, ANYWAY.

I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest that you posters here read the ACTUAL words that I USE, BEFORE you start making ANY ASSUMPTIONS, AT ALL.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:59 am I know I shouldn't do this because it's just going to rile him up and invite more of his nonsense, but seeing how you have him on ignore, I'll repeat what he said...

WHY would you ASSUME what you write, "riles me up"? Or is this just what your intention IS?

Also, WHY is what I write "nonsense" but what you write is "NOT nonsense"? Do you know of some direct way to 'that', what makes PERFECT sense?

Combine this with WHY 'you', "yourself", present what you KNOW are "wild and questionable ideas". So, WHY do you do this?