|
 nugsarenice
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 06/04/00
Posts: 3,442
Loc: nowhere
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
|
 Re: Tribal Association  [Re: Jared]
#631427 - 05/15/02 08:37 AM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
In french arretez is said like ahretee, I think, my name is more said like Airahtae, but if you were to translate that to french it would mean a mountain that slopes down on three sides, opposed to two sides, which I don't know what it is called.
|
 Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Tribal Association [Re: nugsarenice]
#631673 - 05/15/02 12:00 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Another dead thread...
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 7 months
|
Swami your turban is too tight [Re: Swami]
#631933 - 05/15/02 03:05 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Cranial expansion will do that every time.
Swami ponitificates: "My claim of victory is not about ego, nor merely about belief systems like so many think. It is more of a "Here I caught you in a major inconsistency" and instead of admitting it or defending it, the poster runs and hides."
Let me bring in a recent exchange. (Non-believers and ego-loss)
Swami (5/11)
"...Very heavy doses bring on complete neuronal disruption, to the point where you are unable to process any thoughts whatsoever; i.e. ego loss."
Two things came to mind--first, you don't know anything about "complete neuronal disruption; and second, you don't know anything about ego loss.
But there's something I didn't realize: Swami has a very special definition of "thought." Can you guess what it is? Come on, it's easy--it's "the one that most closely applied to the discussion" about ego loss. Whatever that means.
So when Smarmi says "any thoughts whatsoever" we can be sure he means "any of the particular kinds of thoughts that I'm talking about whatsoever."
He later clarifies-obfuscates: "Thinking decreases with increased dosage." (5/12)
Obviously I was still struggling with his definitions (they do play hard to get), and I responded, (5/13)
"Sometimes, on shrooms, my thoughts are going a thousand mph! And constantly branching into fractal sub-thoughts. One thought creates two parallels, each of these spawns a pair of afterthoughts, and so on. On higher doses I can see the pattern of the thoughts, like a spiral tie-dye, on the backs of my eyelids. Thinking, however rambled and confused, is anything but decreased.
Swarmy replies with this gem: "The number of thoughts may increase exponentially, but I would not call that thinking. One's ability to reason or to intentionally control the thought process decreases." (5/13)
Are you rewriting the English language?
(And then, FINALLY, "the" definition is offered)
Think:
1 a : to exercise the powers of judgment, conception, or inference : REASON
Your ridiculously tunnel-visioned definitions of 'thought' and 'think' came only after the fact, when you were compelled by my and other posts to qualify just what in hell you were talking about.
Why don't you just admit that you've failed to bridge the span between the physiological and psychological aspects of psilocybin mushrooms?
hongomon
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Reading Comprehension... [Re: hongomon]
#632866 - 05/16/02 08:40 AM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
You didn't say anything, I hope you realize...
You obviously overlooked (or didn't comprehend MY post in that thread):
As far as the thought vs. think issue...
It is my contention that "think" implies intention whereas "thought" does not necessarily imply intention. I think that psiloc(yb)in triggers neural cascades that are similar to that of a normal thought process, however since it is a random event... there is no intentionality. Therefore, shrooms do not make you think (until afterwards maybe)... they merely bombard you with thoughts.
Question: What's so narrow about my use of the language?
hongomon: My dictionary has 27 entries for "think," and I believe Swami's and Sclorch's definitions to be very narrow.
Swami: I "think" that listing all 27 definitions would not only have bored everyone to tears, but would have muddied the waters more than picking the one that most closely applied to the discussion. Succinctness has a beauty all its own.
Did you miss that too?
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 7 months
|
Comping readehension [Re: Sclorch]
#633201 - 05/16/02 12:32 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
(From my post that is apparently beyond Sclurch's grasp)
[But there's something I didn't realize: Swami has a very special definition of "thought." Can you guess what it is? Come on, it's easy--it's "the one that most closely applied to the discussion" about ego loss. Whatever that means.]
Yes, I caught that. It made me laugh. The definition that most closely applied to the discussion. I love it! Your pseudo-definitions are a laugh too, but at least you show effort to qualify them as your own POV.
The gripe I have with Swampi is something like this:
1) He makes sweeping statements full of absolutes like "most closely," "all," and "whatsoever."
2) He throws out these ridiculous statements and declares, "Prove me wrong!"
3) He's a condescending twit with a Polonius complex.
If we insist on redefining as we go or otherwise altering details to keep lame duck assertions afloat, we merely dogmatize ourselves.
No handicaps you need to worry yourself over, thanks for asking.
hongomon
Edited by hongomon (05/16/02 12:33 PM)
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Clarification [Re: hongomon]
#633251 - 05/16/02 01:36 PM (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Pettiness (read childish):
"Sclurch's" "Swampi" "Swarmy" "Smarmi"
Now I know you're in high school still.
Your pseudo-definitions are a laugh too, but at least you show effort to qualify them as your own POV.
Aw... you bring a tear to my eye. Rather than just ASSERTING that I am wrong, why don't you SHOW me? So that I won't make the mistake again.
The gripe I have with Swampi is something like this:
1) He makes sweeping statements full of absolutes like "most closely," "all," and "whatsoever."
Okay, those words are out of context...
However, if you interpreted (correctly or incorrectly- I don't know) the posts that used those phrases as absolutist and you don't like the idea of absolutes... then more power to you.
2) He throws out these ridiculous statements and declares, "Prove me wrong!"
Examples???
3) He's a condescending twit with a Polonius complex.
Constructive. No... really, I like polemics.
If we insist on redefining as we go or otherwise altering details to keep lame duck assertions afloat, we merely dogmatize ourselves.
Well, I agree... we shouldn't have to define words so much. But if people knew how to use the words correctly...
As far as the lame duck assertions... I generally agree with that.
You do realize the phrase "lame duck" is not only polemical, but also implies absolute judgement (see gripe #1), don't you?
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Red Vein Kratom 
Mono Tub Substrate 
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies 
Buy Kratom Extract
Edit 
Reply 
Cosmic_Monkey
Grav
Tasty_Smurf_House
1 2 3 4 5 all )
YouInfoIt
Fcuerkt
GazzBut
evolvingfucker
tastyshroom