The Hard Line By CP

Post questions or suggestions here.
millipodium

Post by millipodium » Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:13 am

Cory Patrick wrote:Milli wrote,
You're hilarious, corey.
Do you think I am intentionally trying to be hilarious?

Or is me being an object of comedy, unintentional, involuntary?
I don't know, but keep up the good work!

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:24 am


Cory: Do you think I am intentionally trying to be hilarious?

Or is me being an object of comedy, unintentional, involuntary?

Milli: I don't know, but keep up the good work!
ok, fair enough.

Are you going to work on some responses to my latest questions? Or are you losing interest?

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:32 am

Cory Patrick wrote:

Cory: Do you think I am intentionally trying to be hilarious?

Or is me being an object of comedy, unintentional, involuntary?

Milli: I don't know, but keep up the good work!
ok, fair enough.

Are you going to work on some responses to my latest questions? Or are you losing interest?
Let me just guess where you're going.

The avoidance of problems is fear based.
Fear is bad.
Therefore, avoiding problems is bad.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:14 am

Milli wrote:

Let me just guess where you're going.

The avoidance of problems is fear based.
Fear is bad.
Therefore, avoiding problems is bad.
No, that is not really where I am going.

Where am I going?

You will see where I am going to the degree that you can come to an agreement with me on some basic facts.

And one of those basic facts that I would like you to agree with me on is the fact that, as humans, we are all fundamentally driven by fear, and this fear is the essence of what drives us to avoid injury/problems.

Do you agree?

If you don't agree, then I ecourage you to provide me with the logistics of your disagreement.

If you do agree, then I shall inquire a bit deeper, and perhaps it will become a bit more clear to you where I am going with all of this, and why.

So do you agree?

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:34 am

Cory Patrick wrote:Milli wrote:

Let me just guess where you're going.

The avoidance of problems is fear based.
Fear is bad.
Therefore, avoiding problems is bad.
No, that is not really where I am going.

Where am I going?

You will see where I am going to the degree that you can come to an agreement with me on some basic facts.

And one of those basic facts that I would like you to agree with me on is the fact that, as humans, we are all fundamentally driven by fear, and this fear is the essence of what drives us to avoid injury/problems.

Do you agree?

If you don't agree, then I ecourage you to provide me with the logistics of your disagreement.

If you do agree, then I shall inquire a bit deeper, and perhaps it will become a bit more clear to you where I am going with all of this, and why.

So do you agree?


Sure, fear of problems causes us to avoid problems. Now get on with it.

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:17 am

...and fear is bad, therefore solving problems is bad.

I'm just waiting for him to say it. This is how they think. It's hilarious.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:28 am

Milli: Sure, fear of problems causes us to avoid problems. Now get on with it.
I'm glad we can agree on that much.

Now, do you agree that 'fear of problems' (which is basically fear of the injury conflict deals), motivates us to both

a) avoid facing problems (in other words flee, escape from problems)

and to

b) face problems in order to solve them?


I think that fleeing from a problem is passive, femmine, whereas I think facing a problem is more masculine, agressive.

And I would also say that both actions, 'fleeing' and 'facing' are rooted in a fear of the potential a problem has.

Potential to do what?

Inflict harm of course.

That being said, my next main question to you is this:

If fear is indeed the root of both phenomenon, facing and fleeing, then what is the factor differentating the man who faces problems with intentions of solving them, and the man who escapes, avoids and hides from problems?

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:18 am

Cory Patrick wrote:
Milli: Sure, fear of problems causes us to avoid problems. Now get on with it.
I'm glad we can agree on that much.

Now, do you agree that 'fear of problems' (which is basically fear of the injury conflict deals), motivates us to both

a) avoid facing problems (in other words flee, escape from problems)

and to

b) face problems in order to solve them?


I think that fleeing from a problem is passive, femmine, whereas I think facing a problem is more masculine, agressive.

And I would also say that both actions, 'fleeing' and 'facing' are rooted in a fear of the potential a problem has.

Potential to do what?

Inflict harm of course.

That being said, my next main question to you is this:

If fear is indeed the root of both phenomenon, facing and fleeing, then what is the factor differentating the man who faces problems with intentions of solving them, and the man who escapes, avoids and hides from problems?
Well, facing a problems gives a new circumstance in which it may be possible to learn more about the phenonomenon, so when and if you face it in the future, you may be more effective. When we run, we eliminate the chance to learn. Plus, some problems may be eliminated forever after facing them only once, like punching a bully in the face.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:08 pm


Cory: If fear is indeed the root of both phenomenon, facing and fleeing, then what is the factor differentating the man who faces problems with intentions of solving them, and the man who escapes, avoids and hides from problems?


Milli: Well, facing a problems gives a new circumstance in which it may be possible to learn more about the phenonomenon, so when and if you face it in the future, you may be more effective. When we run, we eliminate the chance to learn. Plus, some problems may be eliminated forever after facing them only once, like punching a bully in the face.
Understandably, instead of answering my question, you've instead provided an answer to a question that I did not ask.

But if I did ask you that question, I believe it would haved sounded like this: "Why is facing problems better than running away from problems?"

You answered by saying:

Milli: Well, facing a problems gives a new circumstance in which it may be possible to learn more about the phenonomenon, so when and if you face it in the future, you may be more effective. When we run, we eliminate the chance to learn. Plus, some problems may be eliminated forever after facing them only once, like punching a bully in the face.
In other words, escaping from problems makes us weaker, and facing problems makes us stronger.

I agree with you on that milli.

I'm glad you didnt answer my actual question, because the response you instead gave has granted me the ability to pose my original question in a stronger and more simpler form.

Milli,

When all men and women are born in the same world, each fated to face problems, why are the responses of some people more intelligent and strong then the responses of the other people who become defined as more weak?

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:00 pm

Cory Patrick wrote:

Cory: If fear is indeed the root of both phenomenon, facing and fleeing, then what is the factor differentating the man who faces problems with intentions of solving them, and the man who escapes, avoids and hides from problems?


Milli: Well, facing a problems gives a new circumstance in which it may be possible to learn more about the phenonomenon, so when and if you face it in the future, you may be more effective. When we run, we eliminate the chance to learn. Plus, some problems may be eliminated forever after facing them only once, like punching a bully in the face.
Understandably, instead of answering my question, you've instead provided an answer to a question that I did not ask.

But if I did ask you that question, I believe it would haved sounded like this: "Why is facing problems better than running away from problems?"

You answered by saying:

Milli: Well, facing a problems gives a new circumstance in which it may be possible to learn more about the phenonomenon, so when and if you face it in the future, you may be more effective. When we run, we eliminate the chance to learn. Plus, some problems may be eliminated forever after facing them only once, like punching a bully in the face.
In other words, escaping from problems makes us weaker, and facing problems makes us stronger.

I agree with you on that milli.

I'm glad you didnt answer my actual question, because the response you instead gave has granted me the ability to pose my original question in a stronger and more simpler form.

Milli,

When all men and women are born in the same world, each fated to face problems, why are the responses of some people more intelligent and strong then the responses of the other people who become defined as more weak?
Attitude, faith in self's ability to deal with problems.

To be, or not to be, -- that is the question: --
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:33 am


Cory: milli, When all men and women are born in the same world, each fated to face problems, why are the responses of some people more intelligent and strong then the responses of the other people who become defined as more weak?

Milli: Attitude, faith in self's ability to deal with problems.
But, why do some have this superior attitude and a greater faith?
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:34 am

Cory Patrick wrote:

Cory: milli, When all men and women are born in the same world, each fated to face problems, why are the responses of some people more intelligent and strong then the responses of the other people who become defined as more weak?

Milli: Attitude, faith in self's ability to deal with problems.
But, why do some have a superior attitude and a greater faith in regards to what they can do when faced with problems?
Because they haven't been indoctrinated with postmodernist perpetual self doubt.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:41 am


Cory: But, why do some have a superior attitude and a greater faith in regards to what they can do when faced with problems?

Milli: Because they haven't been indoctrinated with postmodernist perpetual self doubt
Indoctrinated? So people are victimized by external forces?

Individuals are caused to be weak individuals by other weaker (paternalistic) individuals?

How did the 'indoctriner' (the original weak individual) come into being?
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:34 am

And most importantly, why do some people (the stronger)
resist indoctrination and others (the weaker) don't?

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:44 am

Cory Patrick wrote:

Cory: But, why do some have a superior attitude and a greater faith in regards to what they can do when faced with problems?

Milli: Because they haven't been indoctrinated with postmodernist perpetual self doubt
Indoctrinated? So people are victimized by external forces?
Yes. Quite often.

Individuals are cause to be weak individuals by other weaker (paternalistic) individuals?
Individuals can be weakened by any type of individual who introduces destructive memes into their psyche.

How did the 'indoctriner' (the original weak individual) come into being?
I don't know.

One can be indoctrinated with positive, helpful memes too. Like I'm doing to you.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:18 am

Milli,

In order for me to proceed further, I need you to agree with me on some simple facts.

For instance.

I say that fire burns and destorys.

Yet, I also say that fire purifies by burning away the contamination coating an object. Fire gives life in that the sun pulls life towards the heavens. Fire takes life in that it consumes flesh.

Do you agree on these simple truths?

Please don't think I am giving you a metaphor in order to encourage you to think that 'I am fire', that evil is good, or fire is good, or I am good.....

I just want you to agree on the simple fact that fire burns, destroys, yet also, in a particular context; purifies.

Do you agree?

If so, then we can proceed further. If not, then I encourage you to share with me your reasons.

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:21 am

Cory Patrick wrote:Milli,

In order for me to proceed further, I need you to agree with me on some simple facts.

For instance.

I say that fire burns and destorys.

Yet, I also say that fire purifies by burning away the contamination coating an object. Fire gives life in that the sun pulls life towards the heavens. Fire takes life in that it consumes flesh.

Do you agree on these simple truths?

Please don't think I am giving you a metaphor in order to encourage you to think that 'I am fire', that evil is good, or fire is good, or I am good.....

I just want you to agree on the simple fact that fire burns, destroys, yet also, in a particular context; purifies.

Do you agree?

If so, then we can proceed further. If not, then I encourage you to share with me your reasons.
Yes. Fire can be helpful or destructive, depending on the contraints on and circumstances of it's usage. Continue, my good man.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:50 am

Milli: Yes. Fire can be helpful or destructive, depending on the contraints on and circumstances of it's usage. Continue, my good man.
Now, that being said, can we agree that the correctedness of a fact (such as the one we just agreed on) is true whether one believes in it or not?

For instance, let us pretend that I don't believe in what we just agreed on.

Just because I don't believe in a fact, doesnt mean the fact ceases to be true. Correct?

And likewise, just because I believe strongly that something is good and truthful, doesnt mean that it is good and truthful.

For instance, let us pretend I believe that a good moral action involves having all human beings branded with a hot iron symbol by my very will.

Just because I believe that, doesnt mean it's true, correct?

You get the point. Shall we proceed? Or do you refute?

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:55 am

Cory Patrick wrote:
Milli: Yes. Fire can be helpful or destructive, depending on the contraints on and circumstances of it's usage. Continue, my good man.
Now, that being said, can we agree that the correctedness of a fact (such as the one we just agreed on) is true whether one believes in it or not?

For instance, let us pretend that I don't believe in what we just agreed on.

Just because I don't believe in a fact, doesnt mean the fact ceases to be true. Correct?

And likewise, just because I believe strongly that something is good and truthful, doesnt mean that it is good and truthful.

For instance, let us pretend I believe that a good moral action involves having all human beings branded with a hot iron symbol by my very will.

Just because I believe that, doesnt mean it's true, correct?

You get the point. Shall we proceed? Or do you refute?
I concede, proceed, indeed.

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:56 am

Cory Patrick wrote:
Milli: Yes. Fire can be helpful or destructive, depending on the contraints on and circumstances of it's usage. Continue, my good man.
Now, that being said, can we agree that the correctedness of a fact (such as the one we just agreed on) is true whether one believes in it or not?

For instance, let us pretend that I don't believe in what we just agreed on.

Just because I don't believe in a fact, doesnt mean the fact ceases to be true. Correct?

And likewise, just because I believe strongly that something is good and truthful, doesnt mean that it is good and truthful.

For instance, let us pretend I believe that a good moral action involves having all human beings branded with a hot iron symbol by my very will.

Just because I believe that, doesnt mean it's true, correct?

You get the point. Shall we proceed? Or do you refute?
I concede, proceed, indeed.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:25 am

ok, then let us go back to a previous response of yours, one that I had not felt comfortable to address up until now.
Milli: One can be indoctrinated with positive, helpful memes too.

Like I'm doing to you.
Now, Do you agree with me when I say that:

To agree with one thing (a truth or lie) is to disagree with the opposing thing (a truth/lie)?

If you agree with that, then you must also agree with me when I say that:

to say yes to the opportunity to consume a drug, is to say no to sobriety.

To gain, is also to lose. To depart is also to arrive.

In that regard opposites are rooted in each other, indivisible.

You may look at a sunset and see the sun dipping into the west. However, it is equally true to say that the sun, which appears to be setting in the west, is rising in the east.

Therefore the east, is also the west.

Do you concede to all of this, or refute?
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:43 am

Cory Patrick wrote:ok, then let us go back to a previous response of yours, one that I had not felt comfortable to address up until now.
Milli: One can be indoctrinated with positive, helpful memes too.

Like I'm doing to you.
Now, Do you agree with me when I say that:

To agree with one thing (a truth or lie) is to disagree with the opposing thing (a truth/lie)?

If you agree with that, then you must also agree with me when I say that:

by saying yes to the opportunity to consume a drug, is to say no to sobriety.

To gain, is also to lose. To depart is also to arrive.

In that regard opposites are rooted in each other, indivisible.

You may look at a sunset and see the sun dipping into the west. However, it is equally true to say that the sun, which appears to be setting in the west, is rising in the east.

Therefore the east, is also the west.

Do you concede to all of this, or refute?
I concede in the examples listed.

Can you just get to it?

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:01 am

Since we agree on that much, I'd like to come back to a particular response of yours.
Milli: One can be indoctrinated with positive, helpful memes too.

Like I'm doing to you.
Do you agree with me when I say that humans subscribe to evil, stupid, and degrading memes because they fear injury from other memes?

Have there ever existed or do humans presently exist who subscribe to memes in order to both deliberately inflict harm upon themselves and deny hope for a more pleasant future?

Is there such a human whose actions are not driven by the fear of greater injury, the hope for greater peace?

I say that there have been and there are humans who deliberately injure themselves - however this is only because they believe that doing so is the best way to a more pleasant future.

Therefore, I say that there is no man alive who is not motivated by the fear of greater injury and a hope for greater peace, even if he appears to be deliberately injuring himself, he does so as a means to achieve what he believes is a greater good.

Do you concede? Or do you refute. If you refute, I encourage you to explain yourself.

If you concede we can go deeper.

millipodium

Post by millipodium » Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:09 am

Cory Patrick wrote:Since we agree on that much, I'd like to come back to a particular response of yours.
Milli: One can be indoctrinated with positive, helpful memes too.

Like I'm doing to you.
Do you agree with me when I say that humans subscribe to evil, stupid, and degrading memes because they fear injury from other memes?
Some do. Some don't.

Have there ever existed or do humans presently exist who subscribe to memes in order to both deliberately inflict harm upon themselves and deny hope for a more pleasant future?
I would say no on this one.

Is there such a human whose actions are not driven by the fear of greater injury, the hope for greater peace?
Now these people do exist I believe. They are very powerful and rich elitists who only seek to perpetuate their own power and who actually fear nothing.

I say that there have been and there are humans who deliberately injure themselves - however this is only because they believe that doing so is the best way to a more pleasant future.
sure.

Therefore, I say that there is no man alive who is not motivated by the fear of greater injury and a hope for greater peace, even if he appears to be deliberately injuring himself, he does so as a means to achieve a greater good.
I feel there are some who may fear a loss of power, but are not really concerned with greater peace. I also agree that some may view self injury, rightfully or wrongfully, as a way to achieve something greater.

Do you concede? Or do you refute. If you refute, I encourage you to explain yourself.

If you concede we can go deeper.
I've said, what i've said. We haven't been in complete agreement.

User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne » Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:45 am

Milli, let’s take a few steps back and ruminate upon a moment of agreement you and I had yesterday or the day before…..
Cory: One of the basic facts that I would like you to agree with me on is the fact that, as humans, we are all fundamentally driven by fear, and this fear is the essence of what drives us to avoid injury/problems.



Milli: Sure, fear of problems causes us to avoid problems.
That being said Milli, do you agree with me when I say that; as humans, we subscribe to a particular system of memes in order to avoid having greater problems?

Earlier milli, you have me an example of a solution, a response to a problem.

Here it is:
Milli: Some problems may be eliminated forever after facing them only once, like punching a bully in the face.
Milli, would you consider 'punching a bully in the face' to be an example of an individual excercizing power in order to solve a problem?

And would you say that 'punching a bully in the face' is an act that is driven by both fear of further injury and a desire for greater peace for the individual being picked on by the bully?

Post Reply