Dan Rowden wrote:I can accept the sincerity of your motives up to a point - that point being where you actually let your emotions make you feel you have an understanding that you really don't, which causes you to argue without cause or real substance. That's a trap we all have to watch out for.
When we get upset over concepts, the first thing we should really do is ask why we have become upset, rather than take our response as some sort of sign that there's something automatically wrong with the concepts in question. Emotion is never an argument; it's always just a response.
yes.......but the essay on WOMAN is riddled with Davids emotions and conceptions of what a woman is or is not.
That is your response; it is not an argument.
Yes, he admitted it wasn't a scientific theory....but it was HIS observation and assetment therefore NOT scientific or proven by facts .
Actually it is a scientific theory insofar as it employs empirical observation and models, which are necessarily uncertain. "Woman" is a mix of science and philosophy. It's about the definitional, the directly experiential and the empirical.
Therefore when a deluded person such as myself reads it, anger arises.
Well, it's hardly David's fault that you - or any reader - is that delusional. Is it Nietzsche's fault that his ideas evoked ire? I don't think so.
What was the point in pointing out anything in this essay if it was written for only those that would understand, because they had a higher intelligence ?
It is, in fact, written for people who are already not so beloved of their emotions that their emotions control their intellect, hence the title. The rest can do and act they please. Their doing and their acting will have nothing whatever to do with the actual content of David's exposition, and only to do with their own ignorance. I mean, Jesus, not every philosophical treatise can be for the beginner.
Someone with a higher intelligence would automatically know all these things and wouldn't need to be educated .
That is rubbish and I suspect, or maybe just hope, you know it.
So he wrote it to educate the uneducated delusional people. But what it only amounts to be is brainwashing.
Another "response" devoid of an argument.
Either that, or it's ONLY FOR MEN THAT NEED TO DESTROY THEIR LOVE FOR WOMAN AND ALL THEIR DESIRES FOR WOMAN SO THEY CAN GO ON TO PERSUE THE HOLY LIFE. AND FOR WOMEN TO SERIOUSLY DO IT TOO, IF THEY HAVE THE BALLS. LOL
For the record, switching to caps-lock makes you look foolish and hysterical. You may want to try italics to avoid that perception. Aside from that, if that's all you've gotten from the work, I can only suggest that you have in fact not really read it at all, let alone thought about it.
David Quinn wrote:
As for "supernatural powers", the Buddha warned his followers on numerous occasions not to pursue them. Not only is it a distraction from the all-important task of becoming enlightened, but the ego can easily get boosted and unbalanced by such an increase of its powers, often to the point of no return.
How do you know this David? Have you ever gotten carried away with supernatural powers? If not, have you ever had reason to believe other people had such powers?
I'm sceptical by nature, but I am open to the possibility of the existence of paranormal powers. However, so far I have found the evidence for these powers to be extremely dubious and the people spruiking their existence extremely flakey.
I haven't had any interest in trying to develop these powers myself, just as I haven't had any interest in developing large biceps or becoming a virtuoso on the piano. I realized a long time ago that none of these things have any bearing on understanding reality and becoming wise, which has been my main interest in life.
Obviously, if someone were to become obsessed with, say, developing their biceps, constantly working on them and desiring to display them to others whenever possible, one would think that he was mentally ill and possessed very little rationality. That is pretty much how I view the paranormal crowd.
What about yourself? What's your view on the matter?
Kumga wrote: "This is a discussion form...shit happens right ? Really tho, i know i get defensive, and the TRUTH doesn't need to be defended, it can stand on it's own....but i see so many LIES that i feel the TRUTH needs to be exposed....and that's what i'm trying to do...find the truth hidden under all the lies. i'll admit if i'm delusional....and i probably really don't understand Davids essay on WOMAN ...but i'm REALLY trying to....HONESTLY. But it's really hard when your emotions get in the way, and he intensionally pushes the buttons here, triggering off an emotional response. The emotional response of a man that falls for this philosophy is probebly equal to a woman's, only the woman experiences anger and the man experiences happiness."
With respects to all concerned (of course)...
I think you may want to consider that these blokes have now got you wrapped up in their favorite game, a game they can always win. They work in a pack like canine predators. One clamps down on the thigh and the pressure of the bite disables the leg. Then, another attacks from another direction. When you stop to defend it necessarily means you have lost the battle. They are experts at taking you down. You are new arrival No. 263. Welcome!
What is helpful, I found, is to understand that in certain areas they can be said to be right on the money. Well, if it is not exactly 'right on the money' it is on a ramp that leads to the right questions, to the right focus, to possibility of a certain kind of discipline (etc). One of the issues here is that most who write here---and likely yourself---are essentially uneducated and preliterate persons. But to handle ideas, to come under the sway of great ideas and great men requires greatness. Mediocrity, partial conceptions, half-attained knowledge, a partial understanding, when it comes in contact with the possibility of great things, will 'crack', will show its failings, will become its own worst enemy. QRS are quite brilliant and very worthy in many areas, but even if they did 'have' enlightenment, it would be just such a 'cracked' enlightenment. Still, though, it hearkens to that Other, to something noble and whole and worthy.
It is just this that is a major component of the entire 'mind' of this forum, and it is reiterated ad infinitum.
To move beyond this would be very, very difficult because it would mean having, if you will permit me to say it like this, to 'go back to school'.
Just by saying these things and in this way I have (in the past) attracted the same pack-behavior you are noticing: It is almost intolerable to their self-image that anyone say such things. Ah, and the other thing: they indirectly, and yet quite obviously 'claim' 'enlightenment' (an utterly problematic category!)(they even ask it to be 'defined' in 'one sentence'!. The key here is to understand how much they enjoy, and how much they derive satisfaction at then becoming the center of attention. The 'I am enlightened!'---'No your not!' puts them right where they want to be.
David Quinn wrote:
What about yourself? What's your view on the matter?
-
My view on it is similar to your own. It seems very primitive cultures believe in magic and spirits, and they don't really have much to show for it [besides a lot of alcoholism, gambling, damaged self esteem]. Western Civilization has an amazing tradition of philosophy and science, and this has resulted in a great deal of control, foresight and power. Not to mention all the charlatans and chicanery associated with those purporting the supernatural.
It seems very primitive cultures believe in magic and spirits, and they don't really have much to show for it because they did not centralize under the religions of war and money, to defend against the Judeo-Christian coalitions, [besides a lot of alcoholism, gambling, damaged self esteem resulting from being decimated and brutally subjugated]. Western Civilization has a bloody tradition of genocide and occupation, and this has resulted in a great deal of control, wealth, and power. Not to mention all the charlatans and chicanery associated with those purporting Manifest Destiny and the glories of text messaging.
David Quinn wrote:
As for "supernatural powers", the Buddha warned his followers on numerous occasions not to pursue them. Not only is it a distraction from the all-important task of becoming enlightened, but the ego can easily get boosted and unbalanced by such an increase of its powers, often to the point of no return.
How do you know this David? Have you ever gotten carried away with supernatural powers? If not, have you ever had reason to believe other people had such powers?
I'm sceptical by nature, but I am open to the possibility of the existence of paranormal powers. However, so far I have found the evidence for these powers to be extremely dubious and the people spruiking their existence extremely flakey.
I haven't had any interest in trying to develop these powers myself, just as I haven't had any interest in developing large biceps or becoming a virtuoso on the piano. I realized a long time ago that none of these things have any bearing on understanding reality and becoming wise, which has been my main interest in life.
Obviously, if someone were to become obsessed with, say, developing their biceps, constantly working on them and desiring to display them to others whenever possible, one would think that he was mentally ill and possessed very little rationality. That is pretty much how I view the paranormal crowd.
What about yourself? What's your view on the matter?
-
When speaking of the supernatural powers of the enlightened, it's important to remember that this is often the intersection of poetic speech, that which is latent in most people but not used, and possible genetic aberration. "Levitation" doesn't sound all that different from the figure of speech "walking on air" and could have had a similar meaning. The first humans to walk on 2 legs might have been seen by their peers as having supernatural powers, but today we consider that normal. Up until recently, moderate psychic ability was not only not an evolutionary advantage, due to people's fear and prejudice, it was an evolutionary disadvantage (people didn't want to mate with such "abominations of God") Mild psychic ability might have helped with survival, so long as the effects were attributed to something more socially acceptable like luck or divine intervention, so certain kinds of mild psychic ability could easily be in the gene pool. By "certain kinds" I mean whatever might be able to be sensed through a carrier wave of quantum particles just like light can be sensed through photons, thus triggering an indirect awareness of that which reflected or transmitted the light.
Some abilities may come naturally as a side effect of wise living and the removal of delusion. One must just be careful not to replace mundane delusions with mystical delusions.
Carl G wrote:It seems very primitive cultures believe in magic and spirits, and they don't really have much to show for it because they did not centralize under the religions of war and money, to defend against the Judeo-Christian coalitions, [besides a lot of alcoholism, gambling, damaged self esteem resulting from being decimated and brutally subjugated]. Western Civilization has a bloody tradition of genocide and occupation, and this has resulted in a great deal of control, wealth, and power. Not to mention all the charlatans and chicanery associated with those purporting Manifest Destiny and the glories of text messaging.
Jason, your knee-jerk reaction aside, and without my checking your link, please note that I did not attribute wisdom, peacefulness, spirituality, or nobility to any primitives.
Carl G wrote:Jason, your knee-jerk reaction aside, and without my checking your link, please note that I did not attribute wisdom, peacefulness, spirituality, or nobility to any primitives.
Noted.
Note that my previous post was not a knee-jerk reaction.
Carl G wrote:It seems very primitive cultures believe in magic and spirits, and they don't really have much to show for it because they did not centralize under the religions of war and money, to defend against the Judeo-Christian coalitions, [besides a lot of alcoholism, gambling, damaged self esteem resulting from being decimated and brutally subjugated]. Western Civilization has a bloody tradition of genocide and occupation, and this has resulted in a great deal of control, wealth, and power.
Aboriginal cultures have an even worse track record for genocide and conquest. The difference is that western culture had the science to unleash the most power, and so through this greater capacity for rationality, they dominated. Rightly so, because native cultures make incredibly inefficient use of the land, making it untenable to feed a large population. When the land can't support many people, there is naturally a greater motive for violence, and studies show that existing native tribes indeed engage in more frequent warfare for territory than modern cultures, and it makes perfect sense why they would.
So really, western culture, by being able to feed more people more efficiently actually reduced the motive for violence. And that's partly why we live in a more peaceful time than any period in history. Other reasons for greater peace revolve around an ever evolving centralization that encompasses and protects unprecedented numbers of people.
Carl G wrote:It seems very primitive cultures believe in magic and spirits, and they don't really have much to show for it because they did not centralize under the religions of war and money, to defend against the Judeo-Christian coalitions, [besides a lot of alcoholism, gambling, damaged self esteem resulting from being decimated and brutally subjugated]. Western Civilization has a bloody tradition of genocide and occupation, and this has resulted in a great deal of control, wealth, and power.
Aboriginal cultures have an even worse track record for genocide and conquest.
Worse than the Europeans? Didn't know that. Over whom?
The difference is that western culture had the science to unleash the most power, and so through this greater capacity for rationality, they dominated.
Scientific (technological) power to dominate is rational, how?
Rightly so, because native cultures make incredibly inefficient use of the land, making it untenable to feed a large population.
And large population (over-breeding, arguably) is necessary and beneficial, how?
When the land can't support many people, there is naturally a greater motive for violence, and studies show that existing native tribes indeed engage in more frequent warfare for territory than modern cultures, and it makes perfect sense why they would.
True, but certain modern cultures have perfected the insanity of violence, and often employ it for much lesser reasons.
So really, western culture, by being able to feed more people more efficiently actually reduced the motive for violence.
LOL. Why then, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Monday Night Football?
And that's partly why we live in a more peaceful time than any period in history.
LOL, with only 24,000 children dying peacefully of hunger each day. With divorce, domestic abuse, poverty, homelessness, and wars so common that they barely make the news anymore.
Other reasons for greater peace revolve around an ever evolving centralization that encompasses and protects unprecedented numbers of people.
LOL. You speak like just one more mindless automaton glad to be a serf in history's biggest and most comprehensive feudal farm ever.
Alex T. Jacob wrote:I think you may want to consider that these blokes have now got you wrapped up in their favorite game, a game they can always win. They work in a pack like canine predators.
As absolutists they are wedded to their paradigms, and do not grant validity to any others. One has to find a way to break out of their paradigms and forge the validity of alternatives if one is to take wing above the pack. Kunga is perhaps insufficiently aware of the nature of the paradigm she is tackling to be capable of transcending it, if she is currently capable at all without a "teacher". No offence, Kunga - I admire you a lot for your sense of humanity, but as others have pointed out you've contradicted yourself quite a lot in your posts to this thread, and I'm sure you would benefit from more experience in this type of discussion and thought.
Alex T. Jacob wrote:What is helpful, I found, is to understand that in certain areas they can be said to be right on the money. Well, if it is not exactly 'right on the money' it is on a ramp that leads to the right questions, to the right focus, to possibility of a certain kind of discipline (etc). [...] it hearkens to that Other, to something noble and whole and worthy.
They are serious about understanding reality, and for that I can't fault them; they are serious about interrogating the assumptions of convention, and I can't fault them for that either; they are serious about constructing a spiritual platform, and I find that admirable: so I agree that the questions, focus and possibility of discipline are right; it's just the particular definitions, answers, solutions and paradigms that I debate.
Carl wrote:
Scientific (technological) power to dominate is rational, how?
I didn't say it was rational, I said the greater capacity for rationality unleashed greater power, and thus dominance.
And large population (over-breeding, arguably) is necessary and beneficial, how?
I didn't say it was necessary or beneficial, although I do see it as mostly inevitable, at least until a populace reaches a certain level of education. Good education and diverse rich economy seems to curb breeding, bringing numbers slowly down to easier to manage levels. An initial phase of over breeding is certainly not unique to scientific culture, as Aborigines/natives overpopulate too, but Abos cannot likely outgrow such a trend without scientific knowledge and rich culture, which tends to bring self control.
Population pressure motivates violence, and efficient food production releases pressure, and thus reduces the incidence of violence. Violence itself also releases population pressure too, obviously. Fighting for limited territory. Because aboriginals don't have efficient agriculture and centralized government, there is more insecurity, and thus greater frequency of violence.
True, but certain modern cultures have perfected the insanity of violence, and often employ it for much lesser reasons.
I would say the reasons are the same. Preservation of ones culture is the impetus. One world government will fix that real spiffy.
carl wrote:
cory wrote:
So really, western culture, by being able to feed more people more efficiently actually reduced the motive for violence.
LOL. Why then, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Monday Night Football?
I said the motive for violence was reduced, not eliminated. Western Culture doesn't organize public beheading's, stoning, burning at the stake, head hunting, etc. We are an evolved culture. With plenty of room for improvement, of course.
And that's partly why we live in a more peaceful time than any period in history.
LOL, with only 24,000 children dying peacefully of hunger each day. With divorce, domestic abuse, poverty, homelessness, and wars so common that they barely make the news anymore
You think it's bad now. You should have seen what it was like 2000 years ago. There's been progress, Carl.
LOL. You speak like just one more mindless automaton glad to be a serf in history's biggest and most comprehensive feudal farm ever.
Good citizen Cory, good luck!
Globalization/one world government, here we come! *puts on Mickey Mouse Cap*
Laird (guest_of_logic) wrote: "They are serious about understanding reality, and for that I can't fault them; they are serious about interrogating the assumptions of convention, and I can't fault them for that either; they are serious about constructing a spiritual platform, and I find that admirable: so I agree that the questions, focus and possibility of discipline are right; it's just the particular definitions, answers, solutions and paradigms that I debate."
Interesting. What we seem to be coming up with is a kind of 'key' and also a sort of 'shield' so that we can enter into the mythical domain where the Australian Caballeros del Veraz roam. We might describe it as a virtual reality, and indeed it is: a virtual reality of the mind. But a very interesting aspect of the realm, and the game, the playing of the game, is in how many Units of Knowledge one has in one's possession before one enters the Domain. Because in a certain very real sense they have a limited number of Units in their possession which limits their perception and inhibits their reception. Which is to say that the mental landscape they operate in, in which they 'occur', is a limited landscape. So, let us imagine that they have, say, "10 units of Understanding" and they construct the 'ramp' that leads toward what must be described as nearly infinite, a jumping-off point, the point where true Higher Life begins.
But what if one enters into their Game with "12 Units of Understanding" or fifteen---or fifty? One is surrounded with a more ample atmosphere and entering their strict Domain, and believing it (it is part of the nature of a perceived world that one is forced to 'believe' it, right?), one is thereby reduced and not expanded, as is the real goal. Since one does not want to shrink one has to carefully sort through their Tenets and select those that accord with a more ample understanding. Or, one has to allegorize those limited tenets, expand them if you will.
______________________________________________________________________
I have come under the sway of an interesting idea, but I am finding it hard to articulate. It is essentially that we live in the aftermath of a sort of 'death' of an entire conceptual order that sustained us (The Medieval Order, European man, and the 'self' that had been constructed to live in a complete, a Totality, world, universe, kosmos...)
Our relentlss pursuit of knowledge, in all fields but especially all that is subsumed under 'science' and materialism (science of the senses), essentially undermined an old conceptual order with which the world was sustained, and was understood (and which 'made sense'). This is an event of real magnitude for humankind but especially for the modern individual, the individual sentient being. It is nothing less than losing the ground under one's feet. But, very few can really grasp what is happening, or why. So in the world in which they now exist, they are essentially surrounded by shades and ghosts that rise up from the 'Graveyard of Meaning'.
It is fair to say that no one really understands any longer where they exist, why they exist, and how to act in existence. It is therefor a strange and dangerous territory, a land through which one must voyage without a Guide.
However, we are in fact (or perhaps it should be a question: Are we in fact?) on the cusp of the formation of a new total relationship to the Whole (or 'the Totality' as QRS like to put it). A relationship that involves the whole man, not just the reasoning side. In the death of a conceptual order which I mentioned there is a schism, a stark and dangerous separation: the spirit goes one way, the mind goes another, and the 'body' is left in the dark. This leads, obviously, to various pathologies. When we lose our unity we naturally become desperate, and one of the 'signs' of modern man is just this desperation. It is a dangerous point in the psychic life of the individual and, of course, the collective.
In this dangerous space, the world that we live in, in this terrible division between spirit and mind and body---horribly---a new player has come on the scene. It is an invention of man but it also become independant of him. In the absence of the Whole Human it necessarily arises. And that is the Machine.
Since we live, effectively, in a world divorced from a conceptual order where God is real, and really interacts with us, what arises to order existence, to control it and offer sense, is the Machine. It is all very, very peculiar because the structures we create begin to look more and more like machines, and one is 'asked' to imitate the machines that rule over us. In a sense the successful personality of today is a machine-personality. But we are in no sense such machines. To become machines is, very really, a kind of madness. And in our modernity this is something we really do deal with. There is a very real pressure that is put on us.
So, the questions seems to come forward, If we once had an organic relationship to the Totality, if once 'the world' made sense, can't we again redefine and reexperience---in a somatic/spiritual sense---a new unity? I mean, isn't this what all of us who struggle with ideas in an existential sense are attempting to do? Do the doggy stroke just to survive? Just to keep from drowning?
But we don't really know what 'spiritual life' is anymore. We don't seem to know how to 'recover' our relationship to the Whole. It certainly cannot be done exclusively mentally, that seems true enough. One cannot 'think' one's way to wholeness, one cannot 'reason' one's way. No, it has to be the Whole Person who finds the magical key.
Most people---I have found---who pontificate about spiritual life, often just cobble together portions of the Old Mysticism, that is to say, they take hold of concepts they find in the Graveyard of Meaning, they blow a little life in them and try to get them to walk about on the land, but they are just partial-entities...ghosts...phantasms. They do not ever seem capable of really answering the questions we are all posing, whether we are conscious of it or not.
It is of paramount importance that we somehow come to articulate the right questions.
Alex T. Jacob wrote:I have come under the sway of an interesting idea, but I am finding it hard to articulate. It is essentially that we live in the aftermath of a sort of 'death' of an entire conceptual order that sustained us (The Medieval Order, European man, and the 'self' that had been constructed to live in a complete, a Totality, world, universe, kosmos...)
Just rehashing Nietzsche's writing on nihilism and some post-modern concepts du jour?
Lets assume for a moment its truth, in what way would it not be a watered down version of the reasoning around here? How would it augment it, how would it not lead to the very things which are so often talked about here?
But, very few can really grasp what is happening, or why. So in the world in which they now exist, they are essentially surrounded by shades and ghosts that rise up from the 'Graveyard of Meaning'.
Ah, but Alex is one of those very few who has an inkling, who possesses the magical power to start articulating the right questions? This idea would make your whole post immensely ironic. But to me it seems it's just the beginning. The journey of asking you're suggesting leads to the " nearly infinite, a jumping-off point, the point where true Higher Life begins". Or death and destruction ("there is no therapy of meaning or therapy through meaning: therapy itself is a part of the generalized process of indifferentation." - J. Baudrillard).
In this dangerous space, the world that we live in, in this terrible division between spirit and mind and body---horribly
The body being a handy construction of the mind as well: a thought, a belief. One that is bestowed with some kind of 'absolute reality' by most people or at least an overarching important necessity - obsessed with our sensual world, like an average drunken poet. The division has always been a form of ignorance and in modern time the error is only more painful, more obvious.
It would be stronger, and it would make it easier to talk with you (in this conversational context) if you would speak independently about your own thoughts and perceptions. Really, you are just making some statements about me (my thoughts)(and possibly my activities)(heh heh), and here they are:
1) Your ideas are a rehash of Nietzsche's ideas and a blending-in of ideas from post-modernists.
2) If ('if') these ideas have truth in them, they are just a watered-down version of ideas that we regularly discuss. We know all about these things, and we are quite a ways into the 'remedy'.
3) You think that you are better than others, or more insightful, and seem to assume you have a 'magical power' to articulate the 'right questions'. This, according to me, is laughable.
4) It is my opinion that the questions you are asking lead to "the infinite, the jumping-off point...the point where Higher Life begins".
5) But here's a little tid-bit: the body is just as much a construct as anything else.
6) Most people have a sort of 'absolute' belief in the existence of their 'body', and become 'obsessed' with the physical world...
6a) '...like an average drunken poet'. ;-)
7) This division (Alex asks: '¿Between seeing all ideation as a construct, and the body too and the material creation we exist in?') has always existed as the malady of 'ignorance' and in our modernity it only becomes more apparent, more obvious. (I would interpret this as Diebert's view that one must 'turn inward' and away from both).
________________________________________________________
Of those listed above, just let me know which you want me to address.
In your post, the questions you have asked are those you'll have to answer. I find also that your response here---as Pancho Sanchez to their Don Quixote--is too much like the same old formula: Diebert as Defender of QRS, as their 'cachorro'. Really, that is boring. It was boring then and it is boring now. It would be so much more interesting to do things differently. It is 'the New Year' after all. January 2, 5770.
Alex T. Jacob wrote: Really, you are just making some statements about me (my thoughts)(and possibly my activities)(heh heh)
And if you could make some statements about my thoughts we'd have an actual discussion! Actually I'm not sure in what kind of dialog you are interested in. The way you rephrased my points, mutilating them beyond intended meaning, makes me wonder about your emotional state right now.
But I can select two of the list
2) Lets assume for a moment its truth [that of your idea we live in the aftermath of a sort of 'death' of an entire conceptual order that sustained us so far], how does this differ from the common notion of nihilism, Nietzsche's 'death of God' or the "mountain not being a mountain anymore"? Are you looking at this from a personal subjective space or only like a process in time and culture, like (post-)modernity? And if both, I fail to see any conflict between that view and much written around here about ultimate reality versus everything else.
7) The schism between mind and body, or inner world and outer world, senses and objects - what makes you think this is a new or worsening development. Aren't Gods versus Demons based on exactly the same mistaken identities as your concepts of Machine versus Organic Relationships.
(PS why do you keep thinking I'm defending anything or anyone as some motive? Do you feel attacked or singled out? Were you addressing someone specifically with your posts, did I enter some exclusive tête à tête? You raise some potentially interesting points, and whenever I see that, and I've some time or inclination I write.).
Sorry Diebert. I'm not going to take the bait this time. Well, I will, but just a wee nibble. I would suggest that what you are doing is part of the 'pack' game I mentioned earlier. It is standard MO 'round here.
If you are really interested in anything I wrote, then take some part of it and jump in. If you think that what I wrote is about 'garden variety nihilism' maybe you can talk about that? How many varieties are there anyway? Maybe you could also talk about the problem or difficulty (for you) of coming at the issue 'subjectively' or as a cultural-historical process? Your thoughts about this, and your struggles within this problem would I'm sure be really interesting.
Your phrasing of question number 7 simply doesn't appear appetizing to me. I only mentioned that I think, for many, the 'spirit' goes in one direction, the 'mind' in another, and the body is 'left in the dark'. But whatever it is that you want to say, please go ahead and develop it. I'd like to know more. As always, of course, I'm always more interested in how Diebert manages these things in his actual life, and not just in a mental domain, the expository domain of a post written on an email forum.
I 'always think you are defending someone or something' because you always interpose yourself between my comments of QRS and the QRS themselves. You see yourself as particularly apt for that role, as you say. I say it is now boring, distracting and, quite frankly irritating.
Though it wasn't a 'private tête à tête', what I wrote had a context. I feel that the 'conclusions' (to abreviate it) are too limiting. I created a metaphor to express this. I wrote this out in the post above and you can comment on it if you'd like. This was in a comment to Laird, who in some senses sees things similarly to me. If I had my way, I would simply request that you launch into a discussion of those ideas of mine you agree with or don't.
Like in this weirdly convoluted 'question': "Lets assume for a moment its truth, in what way would it not be a watered down version of the reasoning around here? How would it augment it, how would it not lead to the very things which are so often talked about here?"
Alex T. Jacob wrote: I would suggest that what you are doing is part of the 'pack' game I mentioned earlier. It is standard MO 'round here.
To pack animals everything looks like a pack! And to a paranoid, weak mind "they" are always conspiring. Why are you sounding like one here?
If you think that what I wrote is about 'garden variety nihilism' maybe you can talk about that? How many varieties are there anyway?
You are introducing varieties so why should I explain them? I was referring to nihilism as in detail explored by Nietzsche, Baudrillard as specific named examples.
I only mentioned that I think, for many, the 'spirit' goes in one direction, the 'mind' in another, and the body is 'left in the dark'. But whatever it is that you want to say, please go ahead and develop it. I'd like to know more.
I've tried to clarify it in my last post. There's not much more to say at this stage.
As always, of course, I'm always more interested in how Diebert manages these things in his actual life, and not just in a mental domain, the expository domain of a post written on an email forum.
Says someone using fake names and even fake fake names, hiding from his own earlier pseudonyms. And did we hear anything about your life? Online the person reveals itself with their thoughts, with their logic, more so than with just style chatter or humor as such things can be contradictory to the person or just emulated way easier - quelque grimage. But applied logic one cannot fake, at least not before my eyes.
I can't do it Diebert, for the reasons I have been telling you. We're gonna have to take another approach. I sent you an extensive PM. Take any singular idea you want from that and bring it forward.
Alex T. Jacob wrote:As always, of course, I'm always more interested in how Diebert manages these things in his actual life, and not just in a mental domain, the expository domain of a post written on an email forum.
Says someone using fake names and even fake fake names, hiding from his own earlier pseudonyms. And did we hear anything about your life? Online the person reveals itself with their thoughts, with their logic, more so than with just style chatter or humor as such things can be contradictory to the person or just emulated way easier - quelque grimage. But applied logic one cannot fake, at least not before my eyes.
It's always revealing when people imply that "the real you" is a thoughtless, emotional-drunk buried some where beneath all that superfluous logic and rationality. Revealing in that it shows what they truly value, and what kind of person they are.