Philosophy Now Forum

More than possible: probable.

meh

#

"He wasn't suggesting anything to me. His call to courtesy was made in response to Greta,"

Okay, then: he suggested sumthin' to G (not a contract or agreement as I reckon it), so how it is he owes you anything? If there was a contract (there wasn't) it was with G, not you.

Hey Henry, thanks for the earlier comment.

You’re right. No one owes anyone anything under these conditions.
Under these conditions of forum message board, each person’s time and energy (life force) is freely given (gift).

No one "needs to" * accept the content that completes the trinity of time, energy, and content.


* is obliged to

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:29 am "He wasn't suggesting anything to me. His call to courtesy was made in response to Greta,"

Okay, then: he suggested sumthin' to G (not a contract or agreement as I reckon it), so how it is he owes you anything? If there was a contract (there wasn't) it was with G, not you.

Henry, you are smarter than this, surely?

The "contract" is with yourself first. The contract is based on personal expectation and binding in reciprocity.
A side-effect of contrarianism is that others are allowed to hold YOU accountable to YOUR principles.
e.g "do as I say, not as I do" is not a good foundation for contractarianism. Sooner or later people figure out your word is good for nothing.

So when Walker says to Greta: "Do try and rise above personal attacks, and respond with logic and reason"

You could interpret it one of two ways: Either:

A. Walker only wants Greta to engage him "above personal attacks, and respond with logic and reason". And thus: he is OK with anybody else engaging him with insults, irrationality and lack of logic.
B. Walkers everybody to engage him "above personal attacks, and respond with logic and reason"

You are arguing for A.
Walker's behavior is arguing for A also.

I am arguing for B. And I am reciprocating in kind to his contractual violation.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:59 am
Under these conditions of forum message board, each person’s time and energy (life force) is freely given (gift).

I feel so fortunate then! That you blessed me with your time and energy. What would have I done without your gift?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:47 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:44 am
The hardest war of all is fighting against a faceless nemesis.

The process of personifying and projecting one's self-loathing onto others is incredible to watch and pity at the same time.

Moron.

Everybody wants free speech till they have to account for their words

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:57 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:46 pm It's called never regret, never apologize.

It's also called deny, deny deny, dodge responsibility and refuse to learn from mistakes.

Henry Quirk:

A proper Socratic dialogue requires either trust, or a legal oath to tell the truth.

These conditions only permit trust as a basis for a proper Socratic dialogue.
Based on my observations, you are trustworthy enough … for these conditions.
I’ve observed that you naturally follow a teaching of Buddha, which says to rely on the meaning and not the words, which is in fact how I ascertain that you do not have evil intent.

Should you ever want to conduct a Socratic dialogue in the manner of Plato, then this thread would be a good place to visit, from time-to-time. The purpose for me would be to practice Socratic dialogue.

I figure it would be beneficial and wouldn’t cost too much time, because we both have an appreciation for brevity.

It’s simply a formal and respectful offer for proper, informal Socratic dialogue. No expectations, attachments, no obligations to yes or no, and best of all, I’m confident that wounded, hysterical squealing will not be part of the dialogue.

If the spirit should ever move you to do so, just appear and eventually I’ll take notice.

Here’s a suggested topic to question:

- The value of gifts is determined by the receiver, based on the receiver’s views.
- The value of communication is clarity.
- If a receiver lacks the clarity to comprehend an intelligent transmission, then as a gift, the transmitter may change the frequency to another frequency, the only one that the receiver has demonstrated a capacity to comprehend.
- In that case, the transmission changes to words expressing the same principle, that the receiver will understand.
- For instance, the transmission of “Fuck Off,” can express the same meaning as words aimed at intelligent folks.
- Both the intelligent transmission, and the transmission for those on another frequency, express the same principle. Both are gifts, the value to be determined by the receiver.

Note: Any spelling and grammatical deficiencies in the transmission are due to my limitations, not intent.

There was no agreement or contract...W doesn't owe G or you diddly.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:18 pm There was no agreement or contract...W doesn't owe G or you diddly.

Then your word is worth less than toilet paper.

If you demand X from others, but refuse to reciprocate - you aren't worth doing business with.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:17 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:56 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:45 pm
if there's a agreement offended then harm of some form has been done.

From this I would say, that if someone calls you a name, and you have no ego attachment, then an apology is unnecessary.

Would you agree?

Yeah because LOVE has no name.

And true nameless LOVE means never having to say you are sorry.

There's just the open and raw space of LOVE all allowing, all forgiving, all knowing, all encompassing, unconditional all alone all-one space to BE.

As soon as one says I love you to another, a condition has been placed, and that's not real true love. YOU already are LOVE, no one can love you, and you can't love another. There is only love and this love make no apologies for being what it is unconditionally and freedom to be totally selfless without self..where there's a self there is selfishness.

.

what does love got to do with it? sheesh!!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:18 pm There was no agreement or contract...W doesn't owe G or you diddly.

If you constantly insist that other people 'be nice' while you continue acting in a manner that is precisely opposite, one must conclude that your words are nothing but a powerplay.

Naturally. I already recognized it for what it is when I asked the question: Cooperation or competition?

Game theory 101 stuff.

- The value of gifts is determined by the receiver, based on the receiver’s views.

Exactly. Jan gives me a tie...she spends a lot of time and thought and money on the thing...I don't wear ties, though...certainly, I love Jan, appreciate her effort, but the tie is valuless to me...but: mum's the word: I don't wanna hurt Jan's feelings.

#

- The value of communication is clarity.

Well, I'd say the value lies in havin' sumthin' to communicate with clarity bein' a means.

#

- If a receiver lacks the clarity to comprehend an intelligent transmission, then as a gift, the transmitter may change the frequency to another frequency, the only one that the receiver has demonstrated a capacity to comprehend.

If communication with that particular reciever is desirable, yeah.

#

- In that case, the transmission changes to words expressing the same principle, that the receiver will understand.

Yeah.

#

- For instance, the transmission of “Fuck Off,” can express the same meaning as words aimed at intelligent folks.

Yeah.

#

- Both the intelligent transmission, and the transmission for those on another frequency, express the same principle. Both are gifts, the value to be determined by the receiver.

Yeah.

##

"If you demand X from others, but refuse to reciprocate - you aren't worth doing business with."

Yeah, W didn't demand squat, not from G, not from you: there was no agreement for him to violate.

You're just wrong.

##

"what does love got to do with it?"

Indeed: it's just a second-hand emotion.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:33 pm Yeah, W didn't demand squat, not from G, not from you: there was no agreement for him to violate.

Bullshit.

This is a request for courtesy:

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:46 pm Do try and rise above personal attacks, and respond with logic and reason.

This is a request for courtesy:

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:48 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:47 pm Till then - you've made your bed. You will sleep in it.

Be nice.

If there is zero intent to reciprocate (play by the same rules) it's a powerplay.
Game theory. If you are not in a co-operative game, you are in a competitive game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coope ... ame_theory

Suggestions are not requests.

And, there was a very specific reason for the suggestion.

To interpret a suggestion as request indicates the receiver is on some kind of personal, ego-maniacal, wavelength.

You get more of what you subsidize. Feed the squeal, you get more squeals from an ego-wounded contrarian.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:49 pm

Since Greta now seems to be the topic of the wounded egoist, then it boils down to this.

One blow to a wise horse.
One word to a wise woman.

Greta demonstrated the capacity to hear that, without being told.
She just needed one word.
"Be nice." (two words.)
Subsequently, she was nice.

A million words won’t satisfy a stupid horse.

*

Some folks on this board have a particular M.O.
It's not a problem for me, but maybe more words will stop the squealing of the wounded ego.


Some folks like to gang up and attack the person, rather than discuss philosophy.

Usually, the content involves religion or politics, which is referenced only to imply that the person is some kind of … whatever. Something pejorative.

Simply look at the past threads of Nick_A that haven’t been erased.

You’ll see some disgusting examples of attacking the person, many festooned with playful emoji’s.

So, the inherent meaning in the suggestion to be nice, for anyone with the capacity to see, as Greta demonstrated with actions and not words, is, don’t start the usual games.

It's not an order. She can do what she must.

The message was a response to Greta’s first posting to me, which was personal and did not involve the content of the topic, and, she appeared roughly the same time as Lacewing’s negative observations about the person, rather than content.

They are two of those who would pile onto Nick_A, personally.

I don’t ever see conservatives, or people discussing religious content, behave this way.

Thus the conclusions drawn about Leftists in general, as derived from anecdotal evidence demonstrated by Leftists on more than one occasion.

It’s not a snowflake thing. It’s wading through irrelevant crap directed at the person, in an attempt to discuss content with intelligent people. The crap buries sincere discussions.

So, so as not to be hoisted by my own petard and bury the content, which is what would happen to Nick by folks pissing all over his politeness, I have been known to speak the language of folks accustomed to discussing the person, and not the topic, and address such folks exhibiting that behavior according to the nonsense they spew, in doing so.

For those such as Greta, one word will do.

Stupid horses that require a million words, and that's not enough, aren't going to get a million words, usually. They get what they understand.

That is the situation on this board.

Some folks deal with content.

Some folks behave like moronic idiots and attack, rather than address content.

I know at least one person these gifts of words will be wasted upon.