Hello Philosophers

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Blair wrote:Nah, I would have said as thick as pigshit.
I sit corrected.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by cousinbasil »

Beingof1 wrote:
cousinbasil wrote:
BO1:
I did not call you a low life - that is a lie - but you are dishonest and I say so again.

When speaking to someone who is dishonest, no amount of reason can penetrate because they can always lie their way right out of any kind of reality at all.

I am done with you as you are not willing to be truthful so that is a waste of time.

cousinbasil:
All right then, what you called me was "low level human." Pretty much the same thing as a lowlife.


You lied again - link the quote. Do you ever remain forthright?
Here is your quote:
Bof1 wrote:Did you know their are those that are out to get rid of low level humans like yourself?
You really are a dumb shit, you know that? You can't remember what you said just a few posts ago.

By the way, why can't you learn to use the BBCode "quote" tags properly? It's not rocket science. Look at the way you mangle it.

And you want people to believe you have the answer for the world's ills. Amazing idiocy.

I'll accept an apology any time.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

cousin to boo wrote:All right then, what you called me was "low level human." Pretty much the same thing as a lowlife.
Ahum, but it's not the same thing at all! A low level depends on the scale but lowlife explicitly refers to lack of morals or social status.
There may be plenty of things of which I can be accused, but no one who knows me has ever accused me of being dishonest, most likely because I am not dishonest.
That claim would be more impressive if you'd have introduced yourself more straight forward, if you know what I mean.

I disagree with Boo on a lot but he definitely appears as a higher level being than your pretense smartness!
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by cousinbasil »

Diebert wrote:That claim would be more impressive if you'd have introduced yourself more straight forward, if you know what I mean.
I'm sure you meant more "straightforwadly." And no, I don't know what you mean, which is nothing new, since you are often one of the most obtuse posters here at GF.
I disagree with Boo on a lot but he definitely appears as a higher level being than your pretense smartness!
Unlike yourself, I pretend nothing. Despite your obtuseness, it's clear enough you usually have little of any significance to add to any discussion. However, that never seems to keep you from adding it.

No surprise there. After all, shit rolls downhill. Which explains why one finds so much of it below sea-level. Like in the Lowlands.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Beingof1 »

Cousinbasil:
Here is your quote:

Bof1 wrote:
Did you know their are those that are out to get rid of low level humans like yourself?

cousinbasil:
You really are a dumb shit, you know that? You can't remember what you said just a few posts ago.

I'll accept an apology any time.
Apology for what? I did not say that you were a low level human - you twister of truth. With your degrees - you must have known that.

Low level humans from the control freaks perspective.

You truly are truth impaired beyond imagination. You have ascended to mangling meaning and truth to brand new horizons.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Beingof1 »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Blair wrote:Nah, I would have said as thick as pigshit.
I sit corrected.
The human mind creates the ideal being of enlightenment. It imagines this being as levitating in a room with a halo of white. Most important of all, this illuminated being would not say anything harsh, pointed, or controversial. This person would always validate you and your path and never a word except for the kindest encouragement. It would insulate you from all negative mirror images of yourself that you may think might need improvement. This being only has nice and fluffy things to say because this is true caring. Enlightenment only means telling you that you are good, wise, noble, and hunky dory.

The above is the creation of the ego to insulate itself from truth.

BTW - I guess its OK to say I am "thick as pigshit" but not Ok for me to say "thick as a brick."

How many internal contradictions most are unaware of is truly stunning.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by cousinbasil »

Bof1 wrote:Did you know their are those that are out to get rid of low level humans like yourself?
I did not say that you were a low level human - you twister of truth. With your degrees - you must have known that.
One last time, and then I'll have to let it drop because even my high tolerance for nonsense has its limits.

Does the English language challenge you as much as it does Diebert? You clearly implied in the first quote above that I am a "low level human." (You'll note that I refrained from correcting your misuse of the word their.)

In the second quote, you deny doing so. With all my degrees, I guess I must just be missing something. Pray tell, how should I have read the first quote and not take from it that you are calling me a low-level human? Not that I care what you think - it's just that I am curious how you can deny doing something you obviously did.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Beingof1 »

cousinbasil wrote:
Bof1 wrote:Did you know their are those that are out to get rid of low level humans like yourself?
I did not say that you were a low level human - you twister of truth. With your degrees - you must have known that.
One last time, and then I'll have to let it drop because even my high tolerance for nonsense has its limits.

Does the English language challenge you as much as it does Diebert? You clearly implied in the first quote above that I am a "low level human." (You'll note that I refrained from correcting your misuse of the word their.)

In the second quote, you deny doing so. With all my degrees, I guess I must just be missing something. Pray tell, how should I have read the first quote and not take from it that you are calling me a low-level human? Not that I care what you think - it's just that I am curious how you can deny doing something you obviously did.
I did not even imply you were a low level human let alone say it. What part of "those" do you not understand? When I use the word "those", does this refer to myself or others?

You seriously cannot ascertain what was meant? I doubt that because you are capable of snipping posts and interjecting your own twisty turn. This tells me you do comprehend meaning because you - at times - twist the implied intent.

You need to come to grips with this and get yourself better.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Beingof1 »

Cousinbasil,
Here is the entire quote that you snipped and twisted the meaning of:
Do you have any idea what is afoot in the world right now? Did you know their are those that are out to get rid of low level humans like yourself? Do you have any idea how serious the need for transcendent consciousness is?
You really - and I mean truly - need to look yourself in the mirror and resolve to be truthful.

Get better dude.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by cousinbasil »

Beingof1 wrote:Cousinbasil,
Here is the entire quote that you snipped and twisted the meaning of:
Do you have any idea what is afoot in the world right now? Did you know their are those that are out to get rid of low level humans like yourself? Do you have any idea how serious the need for transcendent consciousness is?
You really - and I mean truly - need to look yourself in the mirror and resolve to be truthful.

Get better dude.
Okay, so then you are saying for some reason that I am one of "those" who are out to get rid of low level humans. I have no idea who "those" people are supposed to be, that is, to whom you are referring. Who are these people who are out to get rid of low level humans? And why do you think I would be one of them?

And who are the low level humans you keep talking about?

But I see you have managed to come up with yet a different way to call me a liar.

Instead of calling me untruthful in a dozen different ways, why not just point out one instance where you think I have been untruthful, and why you think that?

Or just try being truthful and honest yourself.

I'll go first. I do not think I can perform miracles, and I do not think I can "help" others to perform miracles.

Now you try it.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

EI: It's just that the "thick as a brick" comment was something I'd come to expect from Blair - not you.

Blair: Nah, I would have said as thick as pigshit.

EI: I sit corrected.
Beingof1 wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Blair wrote:Nah, I would have said as thick as pigshit.
I sit corrected.
The human mind creates the ideal being of enlightenment. It imagines this being as levitating in a room with a halo of white. Most important of all, this illuminated being would not say anything harsh, pointed, or controversial. This person would always validate you and your path and never a word except for the kindest encouragement. It would insulate you from all negative mirror images of yourself that you may think might need improvement. This being only has nice and fluffy things to say because this is true caring. Enlightenment only means telling you that you are good, wise, noble, and hunky dory.

The above is the creation of the ego to insulate itself from truth.

BTW - I guess its OK to say I am "thick as pigshit" but not Ok for me to say "thick as a brick."

How many internal contradictions most are unaware of is truly stunning.
I didn't say that it was okay to say that you were thick as pigshit. I agreed with Blair that he would have used more crass language than you did.

I did not bother fussing at Blair for his little swing at you, and I know that it can be annoying when a group is ganging up on you. Blair and Deebs are little different from vultures that just swoop in when they see a spat starting, and seem to take pleasure in turning a spat into a mobbing. They seem to know that what they lack in effectiveness due to their lack of credibility they can make up for in effectiveness by teaming up. The mobbing isn't fair to you because it puts emotion in the way of reason, though it seems that Deebs is switching teams - jumping away from cousinbasil.

I did say something to cousinbasil because he has more credibility than Blair and Deebs combined. You did not take the opportunity offered to you to take the high road and just walk off. Like I said before, I'm leaving what goes on between you two now to you two.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by cousinbasil »

I did say something to cousinbasil because he has more credibility than Blair and Deebs combined.
Thank you, Elizabeth - I shall now follw you along the high road.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Blair and Deebs are little different from vultures that just swoop in when they see a spat starting, and seem to take pleasure in turning a spat into a mobbing. They seem to know that what they lack in effectiveness due to their lack of credibility they can make up for in effectiveness by teaming up. The mobbing isn't fair to you because it puts emotion in the way of reason, though it seems that Deebs is switching teams - jumping away from cousinbasil.
Unlike you, I'm not interested in teams, credibility, house philosophies, crowd surfing, back channels or playing other games out of boredom.

I'm on team reason and I attack abuse of reason wherever I see it and when I care about a person or a topic enough to attack. Blair is abusive but quite reasonable, while you are nicer, smarter but probably a psychopath. Boo believes too much but he knows truth, while cousin is lost in a web of emotions and attachments which only rarely allows for straight talk. This analysis is important to understand why I post the way I do. Or at least, some might understand.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Blair »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Blair is abusive but quite reasonable, while you are nicer, smarter but probably a psychopath.
Hey steady on, there is none smarter than I :).

JizaBelle has sociopathic tendencies, rather than psycho.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by cousinbasil »

Diebert wrote:while cousin is lost in a web of emotions and attachments which only rarely allows for straight talk.
Pathetic resort to standard "QRS" rhetoric to cover up your deep-seated feelings of inadequacy, your self-doubts which often overtly plague your posts. What you could use is the mental equivalent of a high-colonic. All those long-forgotten and half-digested fragments of thoughts which have become impacted would be flushed out and you would know what it is to be a clear-thinking person. Like Elizabeth. And princey. And Q and R and most of all S. And most of the other people who post here.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by cousinbasil »

Diebert wrote:But if that breakfast doesn't grab you by the throat and nearly choke you, it's not worth eating.
And this is what caused the impaction. You shouldn't have to choke things down all the time.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

cousinbasil wrote:Pathetic resort to standard "QRS" rhetoric to cover up your deep-seated feelings of inadequacy, your self-doubts which often overtly plague your posts. What you could use is the mental equivalent of a high-colonic. All those long-forgotten and half-digested fragments of thoughts which have become impacted would be flushed out and you would know what it is to be a clear-thinking person. Like Elizabeth. And princey. And Q and R and most of all S. And most of the other people who post here.
Forget it Basil the Bow Wow, you're not even capable to make a clever or coherent rant. First you talk about my "pathetic resort" to standard "QRS" speak, and then you go on to praise Q, R and mostly S as being clear-thinking persons. Make up your mind! You're lost in a swamp of goo-woo and you don't even realize it.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Blair wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Blair is abusive but quite reasonable, while you are nicer, smarter but probably a psychopath.
Hey steady on, there is none smarter than I :).

JizaBelle has sociopathic tendencies, rather than psycho.
Okay, lets call it smartesque then.

As for the kind of pathology, the only things that matters in the end is how one would behave in an abandoned hotel perched on an isolated mountain top...
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by cousinbasil »

Forget it Basil the Bow Wow, you're not even capable to make a clever or coherent rant. First you talk about my "pathetic resort" to standard "QRS" speak, and then you go on to praise Q, R and mostly S as being clear-thinking persons. Make up your mind! You're lost in a swamp of goo-woo and you don't even realize it.
Here is a perfect example of what I am saying. Your use of QRS rhetoric is pathetic. Not theirs, you nitwit. All three of them are clear-thinking persons. You aren't.

The "swamp" and the "goo" are in your own head.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

cousinbasil wrote: Your use of QRS rhetoric is pathetic. Not theirs, you nitwit. All three of them are clear-thinking persons. You aren't.
The term "rhetoric" at least in British English is generally not a positive qualification. Anyway I'm sorry you cannot see any value in my posts or reasoning. You're the first one that I know of but perhaps you don't like my pushing your sensitivities at times. To me your emotional ties to delusion stand out like a sour thumb. So the least I can do is to trigger them once in a while so you might notice. And all you have is accusing me of the same things I accused you of many times before. It's like discussing with a parrot! You cannot even come up with your own insults!
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by cousinbasil »

Diebert wrote:The term "rhetoric" at least in British English is generally not a positive qualification
Exactly. Which is why "lost in a web of emotions and attachments" is a pathetic use of standard QRS rhetoric. You used buzzwords in a rhetorical fashion. That doesn't mean Q, R, or S use them in a rhetorical fashion, although it strikes me I may have seen Q do so. And I don't need you to explain nuances of English to me, King's or otherwise. (Although sometimes that AussieSpeak baffles me...)
To me your emotional ties to delusion stand out like a sour thumb.
This is obviously a case of sore grapes on your part.
And all you have is accusing me of the same things I accused you of many times before.
Well, now you know why I do it! You started it!
It's like discussing with a parrot! You cannot even come up with your own insults!
How dare you insult my insults!
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Beingof1 »

Cousinbasil,
You feel alienated by being thwarted at attempts of bonding. As Diebert just shared with you, it only matters what you think, feel, and do when you are all alone and none around to see (his example of the skyscraper). Diebert is trying to help you as he tries to help me. I for one appreciate the effort. It is not so important that we disagree as long as we are clear as what it is we disagree on. If we are clear we can discern the truth through logic.

It is never - now pay attention - it is never about 'who' is right. It is always about 'what' is right.

You do keep switching sides, it is a pattern with you. You might want to ponder why you need a side at all?


Elizabeth,
You are so caught up in the drama, you think there are sides to. Do you know the high path? Could you share what the high path is?



There is no side, grow up people. I am always, in all places at all times, the teacher and the student. I am on your side but that takes a paradigm to see.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by cousinbasil »

Bo1 wrote:You do keep switching sides, it is a pattern with you. You might want to ponder why you need a side at all?
Thank you so much for suggesting things for me to ponder. Except I cannot possibly "keep switching sides" because as you yourself noted, there are no sides. Perhaps you could ponder your frequent lapses of logic, like that one?
It is never - now pay attention - it is never about 'who' is right. It is always about 'what' is right.
How very true. And 'what' you say is often not right, especially if it includes magical thinking.
Diebert is trying to help you as he tries to help me.
And as I try to help the both of you. I am not sure you can be helped, and I truly do not mean to be offensive. At any rate, it has become apparent that you cannot be helped by me. I am not qualified to plumb the depths of your massive delusions - I can only point them out. This seems to irritate you. As it would most people. The best I can do - and I will sincerely try to do this - is take the "high" road. That is, I will not keep telling you the truth about these fantasies you have about magical healing power. For example, I am quite certain that running your fingertips along the shattered torso of an accident victim, and picturing pulverized bone-shards healing will not cause electrons to do whatever you claim they will do and effect some kind of accelerated mending. All of which is not to deny the mind/body connection, which really is a misnomer since a "connection" is only an appropriate concept in the context of two things that are separate. Which, the merest reflection tells one, the mind and the body are not.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

cousinbasil wrote: That doesn't mean Q, R, or S use them in a rhetorical fashion, although it strikes me I may have seen Q do so.
When you accuse someone to "resort to standard QRS rhetoric", it really reads like there's something out there like a "QRS rhetoric" which belongs to QRS and is even "standard". Resorting to a "standard GWB verbiage" does not mean GWB is a brilliant speaker and I'm somehow dragging it down. It means you think I'm doing exactly the same thing you are comparing me with. Really, you think you have language skills? In your opinion only?
And I don't need you to explain nuances of English to me, King's or otherwise.
I'm not so sure. While I'm still improving and learning, language is all about internal consistency, realizing who is at the receiving end, striking the right tone and understanding the topic. My opinion is that your language often lacks internal consistency, that you're not realizing what type of person you're speaking to, you often use the wrong tone at the wrong moment and your understanding of many topics is sub par, even while you seem to think otherwise. So therefore I do think I can explain the nuances of English to you, which are nothing but the nuances of thought. It's like that time I had to explain the nuances of the Torah to a crowing Jew on this forum. It took a while but in the end he admitted he knew shit.
This is obviously a case of sore grapes on your part.
Your sense of humor is broken or you're misunderestimating mine.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Hello Philosophers

Post by cousinbasil »

My opinion is that your language often lacks internal consistency, that you're not realizing what type of person you're speaking to, you often use the wrong tone at the wrong moment and your understanding of many topics is sub par, even while you seem to think otherwise.
You are the last one I would listen to concerning the consistency of my language usage or anything else. I understand English is not your first language, so I do not criticize you because it is often stilted - but this idea that you have some kind of idea of the "type of person" I am speaking to is utter nonsense. Even when - maybe especially when - I am speaking to you, since your opinion of yourself is overblown to a ghastly, comical degree.
...language is all about internal consistency, realizing who is at the receiving end, striking the right tone and understanding the topic.
The four areas you are weakest at.

You are very easy to criticize, Deebs, because you are so quick to criticize. And not just me - just about every other poster whom you address, and others you attack in a snide third person way. It is so easy because the very thing you attack is almost always a failing of yours, one that sticks out like a sour thumb.
It's like that time I had to explain the nuances of the Torah to a crowing Jew on this forum. It took a while but in the end he admitted he knew shit.
You can't be talking about Alex. Alex runs rings around you, so fast that your "gooey" mind cannot keep up.

But this kind of hubris is common among autodidacts, as is the persistent, defensive projection of inadequacy.
Your sense of humor is broken or you're misunderestimating mine.
The sense of humor is fine, thanks - which you would know if you had one. BTW - if you are going to lecture me on my own language, try not to say things like "misunderestimating," which if it were a word would mean that I fail to underestimate your sense of humor. Which would be correct, but, as usual for you, unintentionally so. It is also a good example of what I am talking about: the very thing you criticize others for is the thing you are guilty of doing. And it usually happens in the same post, like this time!
Locked