|
 3MJ3
i&I
Registered: 03/01/03
Posts: 102
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
 Re: The true purpose of humanity  [Re: castaway]
#1639495 - 06/17/03 11:26 AM (21 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Pink Shark Mark....Firstly, you just did it again! You used that dissecting approach that you are so akin to. I don't dislike it...but I'm just saying that it is rather self-defeating. Why?, you say. Because most people take offense to such over-analyzing of each sentence and phrase of their posts. The fact that this forum is conversational makes your methods a tad excessive. Why?...oh brother!
As for the function of discourse, you should read Discipline & Punish by Michel Foucault. You can't understand it's function by looking it up in the dictionary. Foucault sees discourse as a consequent of rational institutions (schools, church, politics, economics etc.) creating a specialized rhetoric which corresponds to a collection of knowledge. For instance, the lawyer and the judges all have some form of legal discourse, which gives immediate advantage to their understanding, and at the same time greatly disadvantages the condemned, because of his lack of knowledge of legal proceedings. Hence the unbalanced economy of power between those involved (condemned, lawyers, judge). Such is the case with your analysis. It is a discourse, a methodology used in philosophy by philosophy students. So really, your discourse was overpowering him because it related back to a collection of knowledge with which he had no knowledge of. He probably doesn't even know the logicality of philosophical debate. You do. Hence, you hold the power of discourse. He had no discourse, for discourse is not based on speculation, but as I said before, rational institutionalism. It's obvious who came out with the power in that transference of words.....how many posts did he make? Did he even respond?
This is a problem that is propogated by the fact that this forum is both spiritually and philosophy related. I am thinking that PsycheStudents speculation is more spiritually oriented, rather than philosophical and this can make a big difference in how one builds a conversation with the other. I say that there be a purely philosophical thread, for scrutinization, and a purely spiritual thread. Here's a question that relates...why do you think philosopher's like Nietzsche could never disprove religion (spiritual)? Because religion is NOT logical. Spirituality is NOT logical. Faith is NOT logical.
Anyways.....go take a look at Foucault's book. I think you might like it.
P.S: I would take it as a compliment if you did not dissect this post. I hate having to write a long post just to answer all your questions, which I'm sure I haven't 
Peace,
i&I
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: The true purpose of humanity [Re: 3MJ3]
#1640126 - 06/17/03 04:18 PM (21 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
3MJ3 writes:
...most people take offense to such over-analyzing of each sentence and phrase of their posts. The fact that this forum is conversational makes your methods a tad excessive.
I ask again ... what over analysis? Let's review my post, shall we? I let the vast majority of his statements slide by with no comment at all. This is hardly "over-analyzing". As a matter of fract, I did no analyzing at all. I asked eleven questions, the most important of which I asked twice -- just what exactly does he believe our purpose to be?
I pointed out a logical fallacy -- that existence in and of itself "proves" or even implies purpose.
I nudged him a bit hoping he would expound on the cryptic statement that we are "consciousness evolved".
I pointed out a second logical fallacy -- that the fact we are different than other life forms "proves" or even implies purpose.
I challenged his arbitrary assertion that if we ever make it to another planet we will wipe it out.
That's all I did. And it was done in just over a hundred and fifty words. This is "analysis"? This is "discourse"?
At what point did this forum become restricted to "conversational", by the way? I have very carefully read and re-read all the various sticky posts here from the time I have started reading here some years ago. I must have missed that part somehow.
As for the function of discourse, you should read Discipline & Punish by Michel Foucault. You can't understand it's function by looking it up in the dictionary. Foucault sees discourse as .....
Um, yeah, I can understand the function of discourse without reading what Foucault opines about the specialized jargon so beloved of various institutions. Besides, I repeat that what I was doing was not even close to "discourse". I asked for clarification and pointed out two logical fallacies. Period. I was not lecturing, intimidating, browbeating, using specialized jargon, exhibiting esoteric or specialized knowledge, using multi-syllabic words or expounding on the philosophical principles of the Greek Rationalists. I was asking simple (in many cases single-word) questions.
As an aside, note that a defendent is not at a disadvantage because the judges and lawyers use "discourse", he is at a disadvantage because of (as you point out) his lack of knowledge. The same is true of your average car owner trying to decipher a conversation between two mechanics, a medical patient trying to grasp the concept of histamine tolerance, or my mother trying to unravel the complexities of Unix.
So really, your discourse was overpowering him because it related back to a collection of knowledge with which he had no knowledge of. He probably doesn't even know the logicality of philosophical debate. You do. Hence, you hold the power of discourse.
What knowledge did I display that he lacked? (and why do you persist in presuming he knows nothing about logic, by the way?) All I did was ask him questions about the knowledge he was trying (unsuccessfully) to impart to us, fa cryin' out loud! I have no power whatsoever -- he is the one who holds all the power, since he chooses to withhold from us what our true purpose is and how he discovered it.
Here's a question that relates...why do you think philosopher's like Nietzsche could never disprove religion (spiritual)? Because religion is NOT logical. Spirituality is NOT logical. Faith is NOT logical.
Why? Because one cannot (and need not) logically disprove an arbitrary assertion. If I claim there are intelligent beings who bear a startling resemblance to camshafts inhabiting the moons of Jupiter and influencing the course of human invents through mental manipulation of a sort indetectible to our current instrumentation, you need not disprove my assertion, you need only ignore it.
However, we are straying far afield from the topic of this thread. I must note that we still remain ignorant of the true purpose of humanity.
pinky
--------------------
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
|
Re: The true purpose of humanity [Re: Phred]
#1642114 - 06/18/03 11:19 AM (21 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The universe and it's realms of existence are so vast that they cannot be imagined. Picture this physical 3D+Time universe as large as you can, and you've not matched the significance of a single grain of sand on the largest beach. Just as we look out into the macroscopic, so far deep we can look to the microscopic.
How can we think of ourselves as so important?
Etymologically, the word "faith" is not meant to imply thoughtless trust in an unprovable concept. Rather, it means to suggest a pursuant conviction to the truth. "I want to know the truth." "I am seeking the truth." A faithful person, therefore, questions himself and what he is told on a constant basis. A faithful person is open to the suggestion that all things he knows are obsolete.
--------------------
 Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
3MJ3
i&I
Registered: 03/01/03
Posts: 102
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: The true purpose of humanity [Re: Ped]
#1644850 - 06/19/03 12:58 PM (21 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
In my egoless state of euphoric stupor induced by the humble mushroom, I see that ultimately, these words and their essence are all beautiful. Why. Because they hold the true 'being' of life. Our purpose in life is not to be argued over logically...only to be realized that it is right here in front of us.....our purpose is to be understood, and to understand. I can't think it could be much more than that....
|
c_mathimatics
kaok
Registered: 05/23/03
Posts: 59
Last seen: 21 years, 6 months
|
Re: The true purpose of humanity [Re: 3MJ3]
#1644855 - 06/19/03 12:59 PM (21 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Beautifully said.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom 
Buy Kratom Extract 
No Unicorns Here—Just Quality Bags That Work 
Injection Grain Bag 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
Mixomatosis
HarveyWalbanger
mrfreedom
Cory Duchesne
HagbardCeline