~ The Sum of Your Accomplishments ~

[Bill Wiltrack]

.












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










.

[Arising_uk]

Rewritten title for the subtext.

The Sum of My Accomplishments.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




The complete arbitrary happenings of life.


Each of our moments is but a well constructed series of accidents.




I cover your moment. I cover your post as if it never existed.


And we call this time.



Our sliver, our slice of misunderstanding.









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







.

[Arising_uk]

The complete arbitrary happenings of life.


Each of our moments is but a well constructed series of accidents. ...

Do you pay no attention to what others point out to you?

As not only do the two sentences once again contradict themselves but the latter one contradicts itself!

If you need help the problem lies with the phrase "well constructed".

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


By well constructed I mean our reality follows well constructed sets of rules or laws. From the movement of solar systems to the tracks of what we now call quarks.


There are laws. What we may refer to them as scientific laws but laws none the less.


Yet, you and I do not know what the next moment may bring. We are literally blind to our own future.

We are a series of accidents. Our lives are nothing but a string of crossroads that we have no overall conception of or control over.


And we constantly misunderstand each other...thinking that know one another.





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




More along the lines of the essence of this thread:

Outward or outer accomplishments mean nothing. The relationship we have with our perception of ourselves, our self-consciousness means everything. It's a different world that we, as philosophers, can possibly step into.





.

[Arising_uk]

If we have no conception of it how do you think your words have any relationship to what you claim?

By well constructed I mean our reality follows well constructed sets of rules or laws. From the movement of solar systems to the tracks of what we now call quarks.


There are laws. What we may refer to them as scientific laws but laws none the less.

And yet your Physics says its all only probably true?

Yet, you and I do not know what the next moment may bring. We are literally blind to our own future.

You'd have to say what you mean by 'our future'? As in a large part we make 'our future' all the time.

Rewwritten for subtext:
I do not know what the next moment may bring. I am literally blind to my own future.

I am a series of accidents. My life is nothing but a string of crossroads that I have no overall conception of or control over.

And I constantly misunderstand the other...thinking that I know the other. rather than myself as an other

More along the lines of the essence of this thread:
Outward or outer accomplishments mean nothing. The relationship we have with our perception of ourselves, our self-consciousness means everything. It's a different world that we, as philosophers, can possibly step into.

Rewwritten for subtext:

I am an existential solipsist.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.








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






Not sure where you are trying to go with this.


I have represented myself and I have openly expressed myself here at the Philosophy Now Forums and I will continue to do so.



I stretched the boundaries. I have crossed the line many times and I have been rightfully reprimanded by the site's Owner or his incredibility benevolent Moderators.


I will continue to express myself as a living philosopher.


By doing this, this simple but honest act, I have become better. I have evolved.

By contrast, I am becoming better able to see your rather static approach to me, to fellow members here, and to most philosophical thought in general.

You seem lost, confused and continually frightened.


You've had a bumpy road.


It's like you relish the fact that you have never had the guts to express yourself as your self.


And it's NOT the format. It's you.


Philosophy is made-up of many pillars. One of those pillars is the respect for truth.





I'm really coming,... slooowly coming, to disrespect what you represent to all of us here.




Challenging each others thoughts and concepts is important.


Just attacking each line of a post from the shadow of the rock you hide behind is incongruous and distracting.



You disrespect your self and painfully, you are repeatedly expressing that disregard to your self and to all of us here at the forum.


It's painful to watch.

And it's becoming more difficult to resist agreement with you.








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








.

[Arising_uk]

More of your cod-psychology in an effort to ignore the contradictions in your thoughts.

Not sure where you are trying to go with this. ...

Just hearing an actual reply to a philosophical objection to your statements would be nice.

I have represented myself and I have openly expressed myself here at the Philosophy Now Forums and I will continue to do so.

No-one is saying you shouldn't.

Although this is funny given your latest posts that claim its not about you but an experiment upon us.

I stretched the boundaries. I have crossed the line many times and I have been rightfully reprimanded by the site's Owner or his incredibility benevolent Moderators.

I will continue to express myself as a living philosopher.

Get over yourself.

By doing this, this simple but honest act, I have become better. I have evolved.

In this 'evolution' and 'honesty' do you think you'll get time to reply to questions that point out philosophical problems with your thoughts?

By contrast, I am becoming better able to see your rather static approach to me, to fellow members here, and to most philosophical thought in general.

Since you've never read any I find this assertion groundless.

You seem lost, confused and continually frightened.

Of what?

You've had a bumpy road.

You'd know this how?

It's like you relish the fact that you have never had the guts to express yourself as your self.

I do this all the time upon this forum. You mean because I don't have a cod-metaphysics or wish to be a gnu like you?

I'll express myself when I have an actual philosophy that hangs together, i.e. a metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, and maybe a phil of mind, that are reflected in a politics, all of which I hope to be tied into a phenomenology.

And it's NOT the format. It's you.

Since you claim no understanding of words or language I'm amazed you think you can think this.

Philosophy is made-up of many pillars. One of those pillars is the respect for truth.

And Logic and clarity is another, so when faced with an obvious contradiction your reply is what?

I'm really coming,... slooowly coming, to disrespect what you represent to all of us here.

Once again the gnu speaks for all does he? And once again I'll remind you that, so far, your opinions and feelings are immaterial to me.

Challenging each others thoughts and concepts is important.

At yet you appear to dislike it intensely.

Just attacking each line of a post from the shadow of the rock you hide behind is incongruous and distracting.

From what? Your gnu agenda?

If you wrote in paragraphs you'd get a paragraph in reply.

You disrespect your self and painfully, you are repeatedly expressing that disregard to your self and to all of us here at the forum.

Gnu speaking for all again is he? Once again, save your cod-psychology for yourself, you appear to need it.

The easiest way to be rid of me is to reply to my questions rather than all this nonsense.

It's painful to watch.

Aww! Boo-boos.

And it's becoming more difficult to resist agreement with you.

You may want to re-read this!

See what I mean by you being to fragile to engage in philosophical discussion? As its all your feelings and me, me, me with you, you, you.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



May want to re-visit my prior post.



Think you missed the concept of the last part.












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








.

[uwot]

Grow up, Bill.

[Arising_uk]

.

May want to re-visit my prior post.

Think you missed the concept of the last part.

True, but on analysis I think the conjunction false but the latter conjunct true and something you should start to follow.

Still ignoring answering the contradiction that another raised with respect to your thoughts I see. A contradiction that you appear to think becomes true if repeated enough times?