| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Lobster Bisque Registered: 11/23/04 Posts: 2,415 Loc: ethereality Last seen: 15 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
I have trouble following you sometimes gettingjiggywithit.
-------------------- Asshole
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
You made the funny voodoo straw man accusations. I was just playing along with the line of evil reasoning you imparted into the discussion.
Once more, evident it has become that I am no longer able to crack jokes with you. Sorry for the Ayn Rand joke. I figured if you could dish it out you could take it. Strawman - nowhere did I even bring up anything about your Ayn Rand jokes. I had to scroll back up to catch where you made any such "joke", in fact. How did I draw you off track anyway so you say? You need me to repeat what I've repeated once again? One last time: I didn't consider carefully enough the semantics at hand, and as such, followed with your variant. Did you expect everyone besides Phred to agree fully with that post? How can you post something that restrictive, unrealistic, linear and one sided and expect it not to be creatively or re-constructively challenged? I expected some agreement, and some disagreement - as usual. Restrictive? Not as restrictive as ignorance. Unrealistic? That must be why the premise is so utterly verifiable in reality. Unrealistic? Not as unrealistic as mystic thinking. Linear and one-sided? You mean because it doesn't include any welcoming mention of premises that you find yourself an ardent follower of, it is "one-sided"? Well, too bad. You may be used to other forums where anybody can feel good about random arbitrary junk that they pull out their philosophical ass, but the bar is a tad bit higher in this forum. You can't because Nature is not consistent. Again, false. Nature is, at the very least, just as consistent as it is inconsistent - and, nature is 100% consistent if we are talking about the actual kind of consistency that is relevant to the topic at hand. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love. Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/16/06 01:54 AM)
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote: I told you off the bat I took it as a joke. I know when you must be joking and especially there because like I said, I know you don't rationally believe in things like dark magic and voodoo. You couldn't tell I was joking around with my P.S. Boo! comment? Please......... I apologized for the Ayn Rand crack because it was the only place where I joked back in like. It seems to me like you are taking this conversation way to seriously here. Where else did I imply there was hoodoo voodoo going with anything but her philosophy. That was a joke. I was running with your joke because I did find it funny. Quote: What semantic variant are you talking about? Spit it out or be like straw man. While your at it, I asked you what salient point you made that I missed. You probably didn't catch it was one I agreed with, because you were probably reading everything I typed as an argument against the salient points of the article. That's your reading mistake not mine. Quote: I see it another way. I found the restriction to consistancy to be in ignorance of nature itself in the authors article and pointed it out, That part of the article is ignorant. Quote: Humans as natural beings are not consistant. Now how can you say consistancy related to humans is an utterly verifyable reality. Thats as unrealistic as it gets. Quote: Who ever said mystical thinking applied to the external physical, material world aka real world? If you are in ignorance beleiving it does or ever did, thats not my fault. Just because are physical bodies dwell in this world doesn't mean we don't have sublte energy bodies dwelling in other sublte worlds. The laws of physics don't apply in them. Quote: If it didn't acknowledge the practical applications and uses of both focused thinking and open free thinking, then it left itself open to that one sided criticism. The philosophy I am most ardent of is open to all possibilities and ways. It's all sided. Its also not bad for me as I am free to go anywhere in thought, including focused or wide lens and that freedom to flex serves me well. Maybe bad for you because open free thinking allows for people to critique tight articles like that. Quote: I've been posting here pretty much daily for the last year and a half and 80% more then I do anywhere else. This forum is what I am most use to. That last quote of yours came off really arrogant. Do you really believe that you are superior and above people at other forums skorp? Is putting yourself above others a part of objective philosophy? Thats right, it is as well as putting yourself before others. Objective philosophy may adhere to the delusion of superior and inferior thinking, not the reality I hold as a higher truth, that all thought holds truth within its own view, right and reason. Subjectivity gets just as much credit as objectivity does in my world view. Humans are spiritual beings before physical ones as well in my subjective view and in spirit all are equal. Bars that separate and divide don't exist there.Quote: Then how can any human nature be expected to consistently follow a philosophy? Swami was the best at being consistant here and I caught him in a huge contradiction once and he owned up to it. I understood how even he could contradict himself because, its natural and normal for free thinking humans to do that. The only reason I called him on it was so he could reflect on how he was right in both cases, relative to the position and view he had at each time.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Lobster Bisque Registered: 11/23/04 Posts: 2,415 Loc: ethereality Last seen: 15 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
Contradiction is the thing that substantiates personality in people. I consistently believe that even though my soul is riddeld with contradictions, in fact I consistnely find myself fighting urges contrary to my own moral and philosphical foundation, that that is in fact one a the beauties of intelligent scentient life. There is no inherent inconsistency in the laws of nature there.
A pattern of sheer chaos, is impeccably consistent in that you can rest assured the next manifestation of the pattern will be random. IN the tru sense of the term sheer chaos. Capiche? please excuse me my errors, I haven't slept in three days. Insomnia sucks. -------------------- Asshole Edited by nakors_junk_bag (02/16/06 09:58 AM)
| |||||||
|
I81U812 Registered: 08/06/05 Posts: 3,112 Loc: Everywhere |
| ||||||
Quote:
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
I told you off the bat I took it as a joke. I know when you must be joking and especially there because like I said, I know you don't rationally believe in things like dark magic and voodoo. You couldn't tell I was joking around with my P.S. Boo! comment? Please.........
Well, y'see, here's the thing you said: You made the funny voodoo straw man accusations. I was just playing along with the line of evil reasoning you imparted into the discussion. As I understood, you meant what you actually said - but if you say otherwise now, then alrighty. Moving along.. What semantic variant are you talking about? Once again: "You are talking about the inconsistency that pertains to irregularity, and erraticness - whereas Rowlands and I are talking about consistency that pertains to correct logical relation, non-contradictivity. This doesn't negate what has been said thus far, but it does add much more clarity to this discussion. " While your at it, I asked you what salient point you made that I missed. See above. From what I gathered in your post, you addressed only the humorous precursor to that paragraph, and then moved on to the next quote. If you actually did address it somewhere down the road, then I must've missed it - and you'll have to forgive me, as your writing style is a bit stressful for me to decipher. As a fellow member once said, "reading her posts is like trying to catch wet soap in the shower wearing a blindfold." I found the restriction to consistancy to be in ignorance of nature itself in the authors article and pointed it out, Correction: You found the restriction to your definition of consistency to be in conflict with your conceptions of nature. The fact is, the focus on consistency [defined relevantly] that is discussed in the article is in accordance with nature itself. Who ever said mystical thinking applied to the external physical, material world aka real world? If you are in ignorance beleiving it does or ever did, thats not my fault. Just because are physical bodies dwell in this world doesn't mean we don't have sublte energy bodies dwelling in other sublte worlds. The laws of physics don't apply in them. Behold the power of imagination. Humans as natural beings are not consistant. They are consistent in some respects, and inconsistent in some respects. Context is crucial here. Moroever, the kind of consistency that is relevant to the article at hand, is certainly a kind of consistency that can be integrated in a philosophy itself - that, is what we are talking about. Bad philosophy is inconsistent. This quite verifiable in reality. If it didn't acknowledge the practical applications and uses of both focused thinking and open free thinking, then it left itself open to that one sided criticism. Open free thinking isn't an issue here - but there is a difference between open-mindedness and gullibility. Just because I, for one, listen to another's ideas does not mean that I must therefore take them to be true at face value. The philosophy I am most ardent of is open to all possibilities and ways. It's all sided. In action, or in thought? Its also not bad for me as I am free to go anywhere in thought, including focused or wide lens and that freedom to flex serves me well. Maybe bad for you because open free thinking allows for people to critique tight articles like that. Hell, it isn't as if I don't wander in thought myself, Jiggy. I admit have been known by close associates to have an extremely zany and wacky mind at times - probably from watching too many certain cartoons during childhood.. and not to mention all the magic mushies I've consumed. Anybody can "play around" like that - but there is time and place for everything, and there is a time and place where one must grow up and live the life that is much more rewarding as an adult, rather than behaving like an infant. Do you really believe that you are superior and above people at other forums skorp? I believe that, in comparison to others, this forum is superior - but superior for what? Critical discussion and analytical thinking. On the other hand, I know other forums that are far more superior than this forum for that purpose alone. Conversely, other forums -such as MR&P- are obviously superior in their own respects, such as freedom from lack of reason and scientific thinking. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love. Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (02/16/06 04:44 AM)
| |||||||
|
Clyster Registered: 07/12/99 Posts: 4,805 Loc: On the Brink of |
| ||||||
|
I used to share this view of inconsistency = bad philosophy. Then I wondered why everything had to have a solid foundation. We're born into this world of uncertainty with nothing but our ability to adapt and recognize patterns. Nimble-minded and curious, we tend to grow up to be rigid and stagnant. Why?
Compulsive curiosity is the path I tread. -------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 01/14/02 Posts: 86 Last seen: 14 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I think what you mean to say is that nature is dynamic as opposed to being static. Just because nature is based upon CONSISTENT fundemental laws, does not mean that the behavior of entities in nature must show the same conistency. Think about a sport; any sport will work, but I'll use football. The sport of football has certain rules that govern its play and these rules define the sport known as football. The ball that is used has a given shape and weight which is different from the ball used in baseball. If a football game was played with a baseball one day, a football the next, and a soccerball in the final game then it would no longer be a football game, as it would be inconsistent with the rules that define it. The knowledge of these rules, however, does not mean the actual game has a consistent or predictable outcome. The rules of football are CONSISTENT, the game however is dynamic. I guess my main point is that much like football, nature is a dynamic system that is built upon consistent rules. While I consider myself an objectivist in the sense that I believe the universe is constructed with set laws the exist seperate from my perception and understanding these laws is the best path to aquiring knowledge, I disagree with the philosphical implications of objectivism. To me nature simply IS, the entire concept of right and wrong become meaningless in an objective context. Since nature cannot be wrong, neither can it be right, and therefore this can quickly lead to very disturbing philosphical implications. For all other organisms besides humans, it is impossible to label actions as right or wrong. While Phred will probably argue that objectivism leads to the discovery of natural rights, I would in turn say that it is a dead end. This idea was probably best covered in the numerous PAL threads on natural rights.
| |||||||
|
Lobster Bisque Registered: 11/23/04 Posts: 2,415 Loc: ethereality Last seen: 15 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: inconsistency does equal bad philosophy, it shows a lack of follow through. If one is inconsistent in their basic intellectual and philosophical precpets it says to me they either got tired of thinking about the end product of their musings or they just don't care. In all things, input vs output. inconsistent input equals inconsistent output. Part of the reason things need solid foundation is they continue to stand. A house with a weak fou8ndation sinks, corrputing the structural integrrity of the house. This becomes dangerous, it must be fixed. Thus tme and energy are needed to rectify the problem. Time and energy that could be used for more pleasureable endeavors instead of endeavors that could have been avoided. The outcome of the unsound foundation is non grata. Nimble mindedness does not mean you have to forfeit consistnecy, it just meand you have to adapt. You must take your new stimuli and carve out a place for it in a fashion that is relevant and ordered. If becuase you learn something new today you can't remain consistent then I say that is the definition of a hardened mind, a mind not capable of adapting. -------------------- Asshole Edited by nakors_junk_bag (02/16/06 10:06 AM)
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
I appreciate your reasoning there deep dish. I too am not opposed to the practical use of objectivity and I use it often. I also use many other philosophical approaches to life because I find that it helps myself to remain adaptive to a Dynamic and changing, not static universe as you said.
An objective approach applies well to the objective reality. A subjective approach applies well to the subjective reality. A relative approach applies well to the relative reality. And so on.......... Reality to me is made up of many facets and dimensions. If I always came at life or received it from one stance, I feel I would miss out on a lot of the larger picture. I wish to be more reasonable and understanding here though. I forget how much a multi perspective view is A LOT to manage and process. I thrive in it, others may be crushed by information sensory overload or overwhelmed not having a place to put everything in so, much with value and use to others just goes in their trash. People keep telling us to keep life simple and yet, the universe is so complex how can we know it more fully through simple means? A simple meal of bread, peanut butter and water, isn't as inviting, fulfilling, interesting or delicious as a gourmet 6 course meal. I like a quote from Auntie Mamie that says, "Life is banquet and most poor suckers are starving." I just want everyone at the banquet table of life with me is all. Off to reply to skorps last reply.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
While I consider myself an objectivist in the sense that I believe the universe is constructed with set laws the exist seperate from my perception and understanding these laws is the best path to aquiring knowledge, I disagree with the philosphical implications of objectivism. To me nature simply IS, the entire concept of right and wrong become meaningless in an objective context. Since nature cannot be wrong, neither can it be right, and therefore this can quickly lead to very disturbing philosphical implications.
Actually, Deepdish, Objectivism does not disagree with your view of nature. Strictly speaking, nature is not objective nor subjective - it is only the human mind which is objective or non-objective. Rand and Dr. Peikoff have explicitly maintained this. So yes, nature simply is as it is. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 01/14/02 Posts: 86 Last seen: 14 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: If you accept that reality exists independantly of yourself, then reality is objective. In fact the word reality itself is closely tied to objectivity. Perception does not give rise to reality, rather reality allows for perception. It is the experiance of reality that is subjective, not reality itself. Quote: Explain what you mean by many "facets" and "dimensions" Has anyone on this board advocated coming at life from only one stance? Quote: While it probably isn't your intention, this is just condescending. It would be just as easy to say people adopt vague spiritual beliefs in an attempt to deal with the fact they are overwhelmed by sensory information that they can't understand. It is much easier to say the stars are lights from heaven, then actually finding out what they truly are.
| |||||||
|
Rhizome Registered: 01/01/05 Posts: 23,576 Loc: The Barricades |
| ||||||
Quote: You exist as both subject and object. Therefore, reality is both subjective and objective. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Lobster Bisque Registered: 11/23/04 Posts: 2,415 Loc: ethereality Last seen: 15 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
I think you have it backwards, deep dish. reality does allow for perception true, but perception lends itself to reality in the sense that as you see things so must your reality be equivolent.
If you can't see the tree in fromt of you then you run the risk of running into it. Your reality must need dictate that you walk with a seeing eye dog, or run the risk of running into things. If you can see the tree then you can successfully navigate around it. But you must still adhere to the natural order of perception, I see tree, its my reality, I must act accordingly. -------------------- Asshole
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
Quote: Individual reality can be seen as subjective - defined as particular to, but ultimately, all of our experiences are objective because it is part of an objective system of reality. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 01/14/02 Posts: 86 Last seen: 14 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
The fact the tree exists and is real is not dependent on your ability to directly perceive it. There are many parts of reality that humans cannot perceive directly, but they are no less real and part of reality then the tree in front of you.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
A good nights sleep has me somewhere else. Where were we
![]() ![]() Quote: What semantic variant are you talking about? How could I have meant anything related to that running joke if I know you didn't mean what you said that got it rolling? Whats the deal, you can not mean calling someone a black magic hoodoo voodoo witch, but if I follow with like ridiculous humor, I meant it seriously? If thats what you thought, alrighty...moving on Quote: I agreed with that within its context. I don't understand why something so simply and brutally logical even needs mentioning. Thats my fault as like nakors said elsewhere, what is obvious to one may not be to another. Its true that people who can't get a thing accomplish can benefit from methodical consistent applications. Paper in, paper out, paper in paper out, paper in paper out. Don't you every start feeling like an automated machine on the repeat button when you ALWAYS live life like that? Consistent methodology that brings about predictability doesn't serve well in all applications of life. It sucks hard if you are at war. The last thing you want is for the enemy to find your pattern easily predictable and consistent. They will crush you with that knowledge. When the U.S. figured that out, the won their freedom from British rule.Granted none of us are in a war zone, yet many make their living in a competitive corporate environment here. The competition in the REAL corporate world out there will crush you if you can't adapt to dynamic environment where some of the other guy is out to crush you to get you out the game. Same reason why Bruce Lee innovated the martial arts philosophy and style of Jeet Kune Do. If your fighting style is easily predictable, you will get creamed. My point here is that, we are not bound to consistency and deviating from it can have practical use in certain real life situations. The authors article does not adhere to every bit of the fabric of reality in a useful way. You can't separate the too though is the thing. Bruce still has to develop consistent blocks punches and kicks or his fighting style of inconsistency of predictability will be useless. Quote:if I didn't specifically address something, that just meant I agreed with it as it was. I was adding further considerations to the over all topic. Quote: Put me on user ignore if its that stressful for you. Problem solved. I see it like lakefingers pointed out. Some people here are to lazy to work to understand what isn't readily understandable. Gomp use to frustrate me until i started working to understand him. Now, he brings ease to places where my thinking gets rigid. Quote: Well now that just sounds like fun to me. (Hmmm soapy blindfolded showers with hubby ) Perhaps the way to read my writing style easier is to be in fun mode because that's where its written from. I don't know how not to have fun in most all I do.Quote: I clearly continue to disagree if you haven't noticed and give many reasons and examples of why. I find most of nature to be consistently inconsistent. The same birds don't fly the same path over my home at the same time every day. Yet flying for a bird is consistent behavior for its nature. However, the mail man ruled by man made rules, does consistently drive the same truck, along the same path through my neighborhood at the same time every day, except Sunday. Sure, it gets his job done. Hey, are you familiar with the expression "going postal" ? ![]() It's just not natural for humans to act like automatons. Were' not and if we do 24/7 something is going to give and it won't be pretty when the levee breaks. Behold the power of imagination. YES! BEHOLD IT. Einstein imagined what it would be like to travel on a light particle and ......you know the rest of the discovers that lead too. Some awesome woman imagined what it would be like for her mother to have a robot vacuum cleaner and voila, the roomba was born. Bless the gift of imagine for without it, we never would've made it out of the cave. Quote: This is just getting redundant now. I agreed with the use of it in a context. In some, its use is limited and inconsistent application is the better alternative to reach an objective. The guy who walks away from reading just the article and thinks he should run his competitive business strategy consistently will be crushed. As soon as his competitors figure out his game, they can smack it down and one up it. If his philosophy doesn't allow for him to be inconsistent so he can stay ahead or adapt to the change, Consistency in such a case is now a BAD philosophy. Quote: Thats not even what I meant by open mindedness or being free thinking. If one just thinks solely along the lines of the article, without a critical analysis, they may miss, the miss applications of a consistent philosophy as I pointed some out. That is all. had he said, "it works well for this and that, but not so well for that and this, I would've had nothing to add. The philosophy I am most ardent of is open to all possibilities and ways. It's all sided. In action, or in thought? Both. What good is thought being able to go places if the body can't follow its lead to new realities. An infertile couple wanting children will be screwed if they think their is only one way to conceive. Those that open up to ideas like in vitro and take action, may be changing diapers in no time. My mom taught me that where there is a will, there is a way, through her actions. She's right. I don't give up easy, and I find ways to get to where I want to be because I believe they are there to be found and traveled. Quote: ![]() Quote: Were you referring to your hoodoo voodoo infantile joking around you laid on me earlier? ![]() Seriously, if you believe my life off a message board is free from mature adult interaction and responsibility and life management, then, you must be joking again. If I had a dollar for every ad hominem you throw into this post at me, I'd have a lot of dollars in my hand. They are funny to me so, who cares. Quote: Have I not been giving critical analysis of the article you posted? You're getting pissy because I am doing just that. Lower the bar if you can't handle where its placed. Quote: Could it be that MR&P is not a science forum? Why are you comparing it to one? Could it be that the line of reasoning used in it, does not fit within the rules of your personal philosophy or rule system of how reason is suppose to work? Others seem to be able to make use of it. Thats just because they aren't limited to what environments they can allow themselves to interact in and adapt to. It serves a different function then P&S and the science forum. It covers the areas of subjective reality experienced by people that share in it, which science and objectivists only, write off as non existent because they don't have the tools or rules to let that part of knowable existence in. Comparing the functions of P&S to MR&P is like comparing a cat to a dishwasher. If all you're after is clean dishes then, yes the dishwasher is the superior means of utilization for you. Saying dishwashers are superior to cats (P&S is superior to MR&P) is a senseless and useless comment. Cervantes's was concerned with the split that posters of MR&P would put down P&S, however, its been the other way around so far. What was that you were saying about acting like a mature and reasonable adult Skorp? ![]()
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Rhizome Registered: 01/01/05 Posts: 23,576 Loc: The Barricades |
| ||||||
Quote: What you fail to see is that it works just as easily the other way around. Objective reality is just as much a part of my subjective perception as my subjective experience is of objective reality. Reality is contained within perception, while the subject is contained within reality. I call it the subject-object paradox. --------------------
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote: WOW in one swoop of a sentence, you just wiped our collective life's experiences off the face of realities map. Are your experiences any less really happening though you then, the earth spinning round? I really watch a movie and really experienced much laughter through it. Are you going to tell me that never really happened? Quote: Lets say you are standing in front a home and I am standing behind it. We are both looking at the house. You give your description of it from your view and I give mine. There are people here who believe, their view of just the front of the house, is the only view it can be seen from and the right one. For real. Its funny stuff. Applying the dimensions would include, the space inside the house, inside, the rooms, inside, the closets, inside the boxes in them. The further you go move around into seeing all the faceted views of the homes exterior, and then into its interior spaces, the more knowledge you have of the entire homes truth. Thats all dimensions are, space within space. Facets are sides of things with many sides, like a diamond cut gem. Quote: Exactly and I don't want to be that way and I realized I may have been getting that way. Quote: You could say it but you would be flapping wind. The stuff that may sound like vague spiritual beliefs deals with what of reality, science has not yet come to understand. Spirituality deals with the spirit and realms of spirit and how it interfaces with the physical. The closest science has come to helping us out with it are advancements in vibrational medicine and quantum mechanics. They still have a ways to go before they can help us to understand meta-physics. If you meant to say, meta physical perception, is just the result of chemicals in your brain, and a meta reality doesn't exist then.....that could be equally condescending/ignorant of others because you can't prove that. A broader view would say, certain chemicals in the brain allow for us to perceive the meta reality from within physical human consciousness/beingness. It's both to me and probably much more.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
I agreed with that within its context. I don't understand why something so simply and brutally logical even needs mentioning.
Because a priori, you kept bringing up examples of inconsistency that dealt with irregularity and erraticness, as if this is the kind of inconsistency that you thought the article was discussing. Don't you every start feeling like an automated machine on the repeat button when you ALWAYS live life like that? Consistent methodology that brings about predictability doesn't serve well in all applications of life. It sucks hard if you are at war. The last thing you want is for the enemy to find your pattern easily predictable and consistent. They will crush you with that knowledge. When the U.S. figured that out, the won their freedom from British rule. Granted none of us are in a war zone, yet many make their living in a competitive corporate environment here. The competition in the REAL corporate world out there will crush you if you can't adapt to dynamic environment where some of the other guy is out to crush you to get you out the game. Yes - eccentricity is most certainly valuable in many, many situations. That isn't something I am in disagreement with, nor is it the kind of inconsistency that is relevant to the topic at hand. But, thank you for illustrating the other kind of inconsistencies that are okay - if that is your whole, entire point, then very well then! ![]() Both. What good is thought being able to go places if the body can't follow its lead to new realities. In thought, I can roam around wherever the hell I want to. But in action that's another story. If I want to create or utilize a philosophy only dealing with thought - then hell, almost anything goes. However, if I am to do the same but with a philosophy that deals with reality, thought, action, and even politics - the whole entire package - then I must excercise much more caution and responsibility, for the same reason that the engineers of BMW must excercise caution and responsibility in engineering the design of their well-built vehicles - because an egregious error can lead to disasters, and even fatalities. Seriously, if you believe my life off a message board is free from mature adult interaction and responsibility and life management, then, you must be joking again Strawman. I made no such assumptions nor claims. As however difficult it may be for you to believe, what I wrote was not an ad hominem. Have I not been giving critical analysis of the article you posted? You're getting pissy because I am doing just that. Lower the bar if you can't handle where its placed. Strawman, and faux psychic impersonation. If your psychic skills were any better, you'd know that I'm quite collected and calm. The fact is, I am enjoying the spiciness of this forum and thread - in other words, the colorfulness that results from the varieties of positions and stances. We have our Christian, our Empiricist, our Objectivists, our Mystic, this and that, it's quite stimulating and lively. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Problems in Philosophy: Knowledge | 1,075 | 3 | 05/03/04 08:38 AM by TheShroomHermit | ||
![]() |
Philosophy: Who needs it? ( |
3,880 | 24 | 05/27/08 06:51 AM by zouden | ||
![]() |
interview with O.G's and their philosophy | 1,384 | 17 | 05/06/04 08:23 AM by kaiowas | ||
![]() |
Philosophy and Depression ( |
1,555 | 22 | 06/20/04 05:51 PM by Grav | ||
![]() |
Political Philosophy: The Status Quo | 1,332 | 12 | 04/28/02 08:09 PM by greenlight | ||
![]() |
Maynard and philosophy | 1,663 | 6 | 12/08/02 08:33 PM by 3eyedgod | ||
![]() |
Finding Philosophy in Everyday Life :) | 923 | 9 | 07/27/02 05:42 PM by Sclorch | ||
![]() |
Overcoming a bad trip | 1,723 | 3 | 04/10/03 12:26 AM by Strumpling |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 8,041 topic views. 0 members, 11 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

Do you really believe that you are superior and above people at other forums skorp? Is putting yourself above others a part of objective philosophy? Thats right, it is as well as putting yourself before others. Objective philosophy may adhere to the delusion of superior and inferior thinking, not the reality I hold as a higher truth, that all thought holds truth within its own view, right and reason. Subjectivity gets just as much credit as objectivity does in my world view. Humans are spiritual beings before physical ones as well in my subjective view and in spirit all are equal. Bars that separate and divide don't exist there.

I see it like lakefingers pointed out. Some people here are to lazy to work to understand what isn't readily understandable. Gomp use to frustrate me until i started working to understand him. Now, he brings ease to places where my thinking gets rigid.
) Perhaps the way to read my writing style easier is to be in fun mode because that's where its written from. I don't know how not to have fun in most all I do.

They are funny to me so, who cares. 

