hello I am teslacoils2006 180 IQ

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)

Postby Dan Rowden » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:26 pm

Dean,

Why the hell did you post Kevin Sowlay's email address? What was the point of that?


Dan Rowden
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Postby Chadwick Stone » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:53 pm

Even if that it so it only puts him in the same category as you.
At least I'm lucid and capable of constructing intelligible sentences.
Chadwick Stone
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:25 pm

Postby teslacoils2006 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:08 pm

http://www.users.bigpond.com/drowden/issue1.html

pain

drowden wrote:Dean,

Why the hell did you post Kevin Sowlay's email address? What was the point of that?


Dan Rowden
teslacoils2006
 

Postby teslacoils2006 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:19 pm

what is the point of arguing in circles and avoiding reason and then admiring the most reasonable people you can find.....answer is pain

Does my ability to solve these puzzles make me a sad genius?

no!

I have the pain before I figure things out and the pleasure now knowing the answers.....next puzzle please!





teslacoils2006 wrote:http://www.users.bigpond.com/drowden/issue1.html

pain

drowden wrote:Dean,

Why the hell did you post Kevin Sowlay's email address? What was the point of that?


Dan Rowden
teslacoils2006
 

Lets go Chadwick

Postby teslacoils2006 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:23 pm

Lets go Chadwick before Dan accuses me of knowing too much and bans me!

that would be painful because I so much want to argue with these masters now that they know what we know.
teslacoils2006
 

Dan

Postby teslacoils2006 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:36 pm

You accuse me of insanity. I dare you to prove your point using rules of reason created by socrates. If you ban me and I can ridicule you on my site on a one sided argument or you can fight like the man you claim to be.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/drowden/issue1.html

I am enjoying these articles you have twisted logic into a pretzel and crushed worthy scientists with your enlightenment. It is a game of attritian your thick skin just like Chadwicks allows you to prevail hence the pain has made you tougher. Attritian strategy is just your ability to spin a web long enough that a logical smart man can not possibly prevail. Detail after numming detail argueing the rotating of the sun and comparing apples an oranges to new meanings of words.
teslacoils2006
 

Postby teslacoils2006 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:59 pm

Socrates believed in no such thing. Dialectic reasoning is to construct details on moral playing field not a contest who can mix words the longest. Don't think for a second I can not go toe to toe. Sadly I can be banned and we probably never find out.

Pye wrote:.

There are deeper points here, deeper beliefs. One among others is Socrates' belief in all knowledge being already contained in every person. The dialectic is what brings it out. Plato has Socrates saying that educators do not put knowledge into people, but rather pull it out of them, and this speaks to the Socratic belief in the veracity and integrity of human reason, properly directing its gaze. The dialectic is the highest activity of the mind, and it is not restricted to people talking together. This dialectic happens in the mind of the thinker alone, as well, whenever it is posing and examining its thinking. The dialectic is the set of stairs built by questions and answers -- meant to rise. For Plato, it meant the only access to anything metaphysical, the only legitimate "eye" through which to see.

Socratic dialectic extrudes the field and tools of inquiry to the operations of the mind alone, and just as it assumes people have varying degrees of capabilities, so too does it assume that natural geometry can be brought out in an uneducated slave. If individual capabilities, then a unified and singular truth, to which men and women of reason -- properly educated, properly encouraged, respected and indulged, would all arrive to the same conclusion of what is most reasonable in any given case. The dialectic was for Socrates the only possible way to the truth - privately or collectively.

.
teslacoils2006
 

Postby suergaz » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:16 pm

Telsacoils, why do you think Socrates did not believe in the veracity and integrity of human reason? Was it the way he died?

Why should I trust you more than I trust freemasons? What is a moral playing field?
suergaz
 

Postby teslacoils2006 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:10 pm

Put words in the mouth of your adversary good tactic but does not make a very good moral playing field. I never said what you accuse me of saying. I simply dissagree that socrates believed every person had the truth within them. The statement would be against dialectic reasoning.



He was sentenced to death by Babylonions the same as you. This forums beliefs are the same as socrates accusers.



Plato - The Phaedo
  As related in the Crito Socrates is imprisoned awaiting the time when a sacred ship returns from Delos as this will lift a prohibition on the completion of the sentence he faces - the drinking of the fatal poison - Hemlock.

  Socrates' friends offer him a sure escape to Thessaly but Socrates insists that he cannot return evil for evil. He has a duty to respect the due process of the Law in the city that had nurtured him.

  The very last days of Socrates are related in Plato's the Phaedo. The sacred ship has arrived back from Delos, Socrates shackles are removed and he is allowed a final visit from his weeping wife Xanthippe who has brought with her their infant son in her arms.
  Following Xanthippe's visit Socrates' final hours were spent in discussion with a group of his friends, the subjects of discussion including "the immortality of the soul". This discussion was later written about by Plato who was not actually present on this last day possibly because his own distress might well have disappointed his friend Socrates.
  The discussions set out in the Phaedo feature a justification of a life lived with a view to the "cultivation of the Soul". The Orphic and Pythagorean faith background against which Socrates lives accepted the deathlessness of ths Soul, and accepted physical death as also involving the release of the Soul.
  Where a person had lived a good life, - had cultivated their Soul, - they were held to merit a far more pleasant situation in an afterlife reincarnation than where a person had led a bad life.
  The very fact of belief in an afterlife making the cultivation of the Soul a matter of the utmost importance.
  People were deemed to be "chattels of God" however and were not deemed to be free to seeking induction into the afterlife by taking their own lives.
  Crito asks Socrates in what way would he like to be buried. Socrates replied that he would be happy to be buried any way Crito likes, provided the Crito can get get hold of him and takes care that he does not walk away.
  Socrates then addressed the whole company present and smilingly commented that Crito had difficulty in perceiving that the real Socrates would soon depart to the joys of the blessed and that only his body would remain to be buried. 
  Socrates went into the bath chamber in order to wash and save the womenfolk the task of washing his body after death. While he was gone his friends considered amongst thenselves how like a father Socrates was to them and how like orphans they would be before long.
  After a final visit from Socrates sons and womenfolk just before sunset a jailer entered and respectfully and tearfully told Socrates that the time was come for him to drink the cup of Hemlock.
  Shortly thereafter the Hemlock was brought to Socrates who drank it as if a libation to the Gods. Socrates upbraided some of his assembled friends for the extremity of their distress. 
  As was usual in such cases Socrates was required to walk about a little until a certain heaviness, due to the effects of the Hemlock, crept into his legs. Thereafter condemned persons could expect their bodies to be increasingly overtaken by a fatal numbness.
  Just before his death Socrates last words were:- 
 
  Crito, we owe a cock to Aesculapius; please pay it and don't let it pass.

  Aesculapius was the God of Medicine and these words implied that Socrates felt that he owed a debt to the God of Medicine because of the cup of Hemlock he had just drunk.



  After Socrates' death opinion in Athens turned against his accusers.

suergaz wrote:Telsacoils, why do you think Socrates did not believe in the veracity and integrity of human reason? Was it the way he died?

Why should I trust you more than I trust freemasons? What is a moral playing field?
teslacoils2006
 

oh good you just revealed a weakness

Postby teslacoils2006 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:17 pm

oh good you just revealedyour weakness

now I can sell you the brook yn bridge on sale now for ten thousand...

Why should I trust you more than I trust freemasons? What is a moral playing field?

A lot of tricks in arguments moral playing field means you can not use them. So you can not put words in my mouth and argue against yourself.
teslacoils2006
 

Re: oh good you just revealed a weakness

Postby teslacoils2006 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:20 pm

just a tip

learn what moral playing field is and you will be able to rely on your own judgement of who you should trust.

teslacoils2006 wrote:oh good you just revealedyour weakness

now I can sell you the brook yn bridge on sale now for ten thousand...

Why should I trust you more than I trust freemasons? What is a moral playing field?

A lot of tricks in arguments moral playing field means you can not use them. So you can not put words in my mouth and argue against yourself.
teslacoils2006
 

Postby suergaz » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:03 pm

The reason I asked was because you said to Pye "He believed in no such thing". The only place Pye mentioned belief was "Socratic belief in the veracity and integrity of human reason..."

You then write:
"I simply dissagree that socrates believed every person had the truth within them. The statement would be against dialectic reasoning."

Ok, though you can see why I asked. I think we should be clear.

For instance, I do not believe in god or satan. I am not politically active. I trust you as far as you are willing to make sense to me.
suergaz
 

secrets of kingmaking revealed

Postby teslacoils2006 » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:15 pm

Secret of King making revealed


All around us are the secrets you just have to know where to look

I like the revelation of the secret of steel in red sonja starring arnold swartzenegger
http://www.lufa.ca/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=999
The steel is nogood without the power needed to use it meaning the sword needs a human being. Humans all need the same agenda to function.

In some country Not sure where lives the spider monkey. The creature
is smart agile hard to catch and delicious meal for the locals. Only
the best hunters the elite of the tribe had spider monkey for
dinner. Till one day a mere boy broought a banana into the forest
and set the food behind him. The spidermonkey stealthily walked up
and reached through the branches for the banana. The monkey could
not get the banana through the branches and was caught. The boy
picked up a rock and had spidermonkey at his table. The boy found
out the monkey would never let go of the banana and he devised a
simple trap.

The freemasons discovered the same effect with money. The only
President to discover the secret of the spidermonkey and devised a
way to stop the freemason was Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was
assasinated for his discovery as is a long chain of people
discovering who the Bilderbergs, Alluminati really are. The reason
why the pyramids are on the dollar bill is simple treachury and
treason and greed. If the public knew the real story behind the
dollar bill and the link to the freemasons this would put the united
states back to a democracy. Free enterprize would flourish and life
would be worth something and the oligarchy would be destroyed.
teslacoils2006
 

Postby suergaz » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:30 pm

If all you're after is the destruction of the oligarchy, then I can only say it occurs naturally, just as its overall occurrence is entirely natural also. Inevitability.

If my life, as you've said, is in danger, that I am sentenced to death by babylonians, and yourself also, then what's to lose in telling the real story of the dollar bill?
suergaz
 

Postby Pye » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:33 pm

.

teslacoils2006 writes:
I simply dissagree that socrates believed every person had the truth within them. The statement would be against dialectic reasoning.


The statement is a description of dialectical reasoning itself.


[Socrates speaking] "But anyone with any sense", I said, "will remember that the eyes may be unsighted in two ways, by a transition either from light to darkness or darkness to light, and will recognize that the same thing applies to the mind. So when he sees a mind confused and unable to see clearly he will not laugh without thinking, but will ask himself whether it has come from a clearer world and is confused by the unaccustomed darkness, or whether it is dazzled by the stronger light of the clearer world to which it has escaped from its previous ignorance. The first condition of life is a reason for congratulation, the second for sympathy, though if one wants to laugh at it one can do so with less absurdity than at the mind that has descended from the daylight of the upper world."

"You put it very reasonably." [Glaucon]

"If this is true," I continued, "we must reject the conception of education professed by those who say that they can put into the mind knowledge that was not there before -- rather as if they could put sight into blind eyes."

"It's a claim that is certainly made," he said.

"But our argument indicates that the capacity for knowledge is innate in each man's mind, and that the organ by which he learns is like an eye which cannot be turned from darkness to light unless the whole body is turned . . ."

Plato The Republic
Part Seven -- The Philosopher Ruler
Book Seven -- "The Simile of the Cave"
Trans. Desmond Lee
Penguin, 1987


.
Pye
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

we are clear

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:01 am

I seen a child of eight years old with no disabilities crap his pants. He simply found it easier than to run and use the toilet. His mother failed to potty train him and there was no insidE information within him to correct the issue. It took years of training and psychologists

suergaz wrote:The reason I asked was because you said to Pye "He believed in no such thing". The only place Pye mentioned belief was "Socratic belief in the veracity and integrity of human reason..."

You then write:
"I simply dissagree that socrates believed every person had the truth within them. The statement would be against dialectic reasoning."

Ok, though you can see why I asked. I think we should be clear.

For instance, I do not believe in god or satan. I am not politically active. I trust you as far as you are willing to make sense to me.
teslacoils2006
 

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:13 am

you are forcing your own religion into dialectic reason.

The statement is a description of dialectical reasoning itself.

Dialectical reasoning is an aggreed governance to keep the conversation true. If you choose to disagree here then we can not move on from this detail till there is a common understanding and aggreement.

The statement wether aggreed true or false is not a set of rules to govern arguments.
teslacoils2006
 

socrates is not talking about knowledge in the body

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:43 am

Socrates is not talking about mystical knowledge within the body he is simply argueing the fact that without the experience in real life meaning whole body interaction with life you can not learn what you can not see. If you never seen a bumblebee and I described it to you it would sound so foreign you would reject my insight on the bumblebee. However you seen it heard it and felt the sting we would have common ground to discuss the bumblebee.

"If this is true," I continued, "we must reject the conception of education professed by those who say that they can put into the mind knowledge that was not there before -- rather as if they could put sight into blind eyes."

"It's a claim that is certainly made," he said.

"But our argument indicates that the capacity for knowledge is innate in each man's mind, and that the organ by which he learns is like an eye which cannot be turned from darkness to light unless the whole body is turned . . ."
teslacoils2006
 

Postby suergaz » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:02 am

And the dolar bill?
suergaz
 

Re: we are clear

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:18 am

awareness does need full commitment and the body has to be fully involved. Which simply means you have to eat sleep and live in the reality you chose.....

turned from darkness to light unless the whole body is turned . . ."

teslacoils2006 wrote:I seen a child of eight years old with no disabilities crap his pants. He simply found it easier than to run and use the toilet. His mother failed to potty train him and there was no insidE information within him to correct the issue. It took years of training and psychologists

suergaz wrote:The reason I asked was because you said to Pye "He believed in no such thing". The only place Pye mentioned belief was "Socratic belief in the veracity and integrity of human reason..."

You then write:
"I simply dissagree that socrates believed every person had the truth within them. The statement would be against dialectic reasoning."

Ok, though you can see why I asked. I think we should be clear.

For instance, I do not believe in god or satan. I am not politically active. I trust you as far as you are willing to make sense to me.
teslacoils2006
 

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:22 am

suergaz wrote:And the dolar bill?


just a trap to turn you into a slave

however in honest hands could still be used as a tool for barter....
teslacoils2006
 

Postby Pye » Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:45 am

.

teslacoils, is your understanding of Socratic Dialectic grounded in reading Plato or Wikpedia?

I should know, because I think I am arguing with the characterization in the Wikpedia entry, and you seem to keep defending this one point in it that the dialectic has to happen between two people for moral reasons. It can and does. But dialectical reasoning is the same thing you use when you think. Your singular thinking takes on this form as well, if it intends to seek and discover.

teslacoils:
you are forcing your own religion into dialectic reason.


See, here is where the dialectic between you and I has already been malfunctioning. You presented an article that explains what Socratic dialectic is. I responded with the beliefs -- Socrates's!! -- upon which I estimate he grounds this idea upon, because I found the article 1. not of depth and inclusive of this, 2. hence not entirely accurate [to my understanding of Socrates]. I have not made a personal value statement on any of what Socrates is saying yet. I am still working with my understanding of it --we ought to be working on our understanding of it, dialectically speaking.

In an effort to move that along, I provide you an excerpt in defense of my initial characterization of the beliefs behind Socratic Dialectic.

Socratic Dialectic will indeed do as you say among two people, Socrates indeed employed it, and Socrates is indeed all about the moral and the virtuous in anything (the Form of the Good); the governance not just of debate, but the State. But intelligence itself is dialectical, and a thinker, a philosopher, uses the same high-process of reasoning when thinking alone. Socrates speaks of this aspect of dialectical reasoning copiously enough in "The Divided Line" from the Republic; it is the occupation of his philosophers: to think dialectically. It's the only way to the truth. Dialectical reasoning is not just a social phenomenon.

teslacoils:
Socrates is not talking about mystical knowledge within the body


was I? Yet again, the Socratic notion of Ideas/Forms in residence, so to speak, in the metaphysical world and only accessible through the mind [exeunt Socrates] sounds pretty bloody-well mystical to me <<< and that was my negative opinion of this, his idea. (First part of this paragraph was his thinking/second part mine, okay?)

teslacoils:
he is simply argueing the fact that without the experience in real life meaning whole body interaction with life you can not learn what you can not see.


There is just simply no way you can be a deep reader of Plato's dialogues themselves if you are presenting Socrates as an empiricist, which is what you do here when you when you claim he'd say you have to see something to know it. Socrates is a rationalist thinker through and through, and this means that knowledge is not seen in the visible world at all, but thought about (through dialectical reasoning!) in the mind. The only way your "see" is going to work is if you do like Socrates and distinguish the physical eye from the mind's eye. It is only the mind's eye that can truly see. The physical eye (according to Socrates) is stuck with viewing the physical world -- the "twilight world of change and decay." Won't find anything lasting (true) there, according to Socrates.

teslacoils
Dialectical reasoning is an aggreed governance to keep the conversation true.


It is to keep thinking true, too, which is my original disagreement with the article you posted as being depthless and hence not entirely accurate. You're not doing much better, either -- my opinion, of course.

.
Pye
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

go ahead

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:48 am

real story of the dollar bill? I am interested go on.....

suergaz wrote:If all you're after is the destruction of the oligarchy, then I can only say it occurs naturally, just as its overall occurrence is entirely natural also. Inevitability.

If my life, as you've said, is in danger, that I am sentenced to death by babylonians, and yourself also, then what's to lose in telling the real story of the dollar bill?
teslacoils2006
 

Re: go ahead

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:52 am

The oligarchy demise is natural. I feel it needs a bit of a push since the oligarchy pushed me...

When it is personal the reality is different than jyst pondering life from a peaceful perspective.

teslacoils2006 wrote:real story of the dollar bill? I am interested go on.....

suergaz wrote:If all you're after is the destruction of the oligarchy, then I can only say it occurs naturally, just as its overall occurrence is entirely natural also. Inevitability.

If my life, as you've said, is in danger, that I am sentenced to death by babylonians, and yourself also, then what's to lose in telling the real story of the dollar bill?
teslacoils2006
 

pye

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:03 am

I can trade childish insults with the neighbours kid and still get more out of the conversation. This forum advertised socrates rules of moral playing field. Without the rules we go nowhere and you brag you won and you did because we both remained stuped. Then I look dumbfounded as you raise your hands in victory. Ok... you won pie we are enlightened... I can just feel your I.Q rising master

Pye wrote:.

teslacoils, is your understanding of Socratic Dialectic grounded in reading Plato or Wikpedia?

I should know, because I think I am arguing with the characterization in the Wikpedia entry, and you seem to keep defending this one point in it that the dialectic has to happen between two people for moral reasons. It can and does. But dialectical reasoning is the same thing you use when you think. Your singular thinking takes on this form as well, if it intends to seek and discover.

teslacoils:
you are forcing your own religion into dialectic reason.


See, here is where the dialectic between you and I has already been malfunctioning. You presented an article that explains what Socratic dialectic is. I responded with the beliefs -- Socrates's!! -- upon which I estimate he grounds this idea upon, because I found the article 1. not of depth and inclusive of this, 2. hence not entirely accurate [to my understanding of Socrates]. I have not made a personal value statement on any of what Socrates is saying yet. I am still working with my understanding of it --we ought to be working on our understanding of it, dialectically speaking.

In an effort to move that along, I provide you an excerpt in defense of my initial characterization of the beliefs behind Socratic Dialectic.

Socratic Dialectic will indeed do as you say among two people, Socrates indeed employed it, and Socrates is indeed all about the moral and the virtuous in anything (the Form of the Good); the governance not just of debate, but the State. But intelligence itself is dialectical, and a thinker, a philosopher, uses the same high-process of reasoning when thinking alone. Socrates speaks of this aspect of dialectical reasoning copiously enough in "The Divided Line" from the Republic; it is the occupation of his philosophers: to think dialectically. It's the only way to the truth. Dialectical reasoning is not just a social phenomenon.

teslacoils:
Socrates is not talking about mystical knowledge within the body


was I? Yet again, the Socratic notion of Ideas/Forms in residence, so to speak, in the metaphysical world and only accessible through the mind [exeunt Socrates] sounds pretty bloody-well mystical to me <<< and that was my negative opinion of this, his idea. (First part of this paragraph was his thinking/second part mine, okay?)

teslacoils:
he is simply argueing the fact that without the experience in real life meaning whole body interaction with life you can not learn what you can not see.


There is just simply no way you can be a deep reader of Plato's dialogues themselves if you are presenting Socrates as an empiricist, which is what you do here when you when you claim he'd say you have to see something to know it. Socrates is a rationalist thinker through and through, and this means that knowledge is not seen in the visible world at all, but thought about (through dialectical reasoning!) in the mind. The only way your "see" is going to work is if you do like Socrates and distinguish the physical eye from the mind's eye. It is only the mind's eye that can truly see. The physical eye (according to Socrates) is stuck with viewing the physical world -- the "twilight world of change and decay." Won't find anything lasting (true) there, according to Socrates.

teslacoils
Dialectical reasoning is an aggreed governance to keep the conversation true.


It is to keep thinking true, too, which is my original disagreement with the article you posted as being depthless and hence not entirely accurate. You're not doing much better, either -- my opinion, of course.

.
teslacoils2006
 

PreviousNext

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests