Tumbleman/OS 012 link/goodbye

Post questions or suggestions here.

Tumbleman/OS 012 link/goodbye

Postby Bubblefish » Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:51 am

Hello. This thread is only a quick hello, goodbye, and although I know my fame here is rather weak with many opponents wishing me ill, I do know there are a few here whom are interested in OS 012 enough to want to know that the new OS 012 site, along with a forum (now I can leave all of you alone;-) is up and running.

The last OS 012 discussion of course got deleted midway after the hacker attack, if anyone is interested in discussing OS 012, they can do it at the new forum, and are requested to leave these other forums to thier own ideological territories respectfully.

http://www.highintelligence.com

Again, although contentious arguements developed, this community did help to advance the dialectic, and i thank all of you for doing so. At least you didnt delete the threads and ban me like some other forums (cough*TPG*cough)

Peace out, and enjoy your new forum. Good luck to all of you.

Bubblefish, AKA TUmbleman
Bubblefish
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:46 am

Postby Tharan » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:13 pm

Tumble, I feel you are welcome here with your message as long you are able to take what you get back in return. I am just a long time poster though.

I think you are smart guy trying to save the world. Nothing inherently wrong with that, though the implementation can range from humorous to menacing. Oh wait, humorous, menacing or MYSTERY! :P

Tharan
Tharan
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Seattle

Tharan old buddy....

Postby Bubblefish » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:48 am

mystery indeed. now that establisment science is coming to accept mystery as a constant, I hope love for TM increases in bounty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4676751.stm

sorry, you gotta copy and paste the link, but it sure is a welcoming read.

Hey man, you like the new site, or what?
Bubblefish
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:46 am

Mystery

Postby Kevin Solway » Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:44 pm

The more mystery that is revealed, the less mysterious the world becomes, since the question as to whether something is mysterious or not is removed.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Postby Bubblefish » Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:54 pm

yet mystery remains none the less. Inside an infinite environment, (or inside the heads of those whom ponder the wisdom of the infinite;-), there is always infinite truth being revealed as the infinite mystery retreats.

I would imagine that the mind must eventually become accepting of mystery to transcend to any expansive hieghts.
Bubblefish
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:46 am

Postby Blair » Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:51 pm

yes it's all a big MYSTERY!!

what a presumptuous dumbass.
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Mystery

Postby Kevin Solway » Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:22 pm

Bubblefish wrote:yet mystery remains none the less.


Saying that something is a mystery is really a contradiction in terms. Since if you know that something is necessarily mysterious, as opposed to something which might one day be understood, then you are claiming some sort of absolute knowledge, which is the exact opposite of mystery.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Mystery

Postby Leyla Shen » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:14 pm

ksolway wrote:
Bubblefish wrote:yet mystery remains none the less.


Saying that something is a mystery is really a contradiction in terms. Since if you know that something is necessarily mysterious, as opposed to something which might one day be understood, then you are claiming some sort of absolute knowledge, which is the exact opposite of mystery.


Really, it couldn't be said in any simpler terms.

As Dan somewhat recently pointed out, it is astounding to see how something as simple as A=A can get so complicated.
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Postby Bubblefish » Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:51 am

prince wrote:yes it's all a big MYSTERY!!

what a presumptuous dumbass.


Since your pre assuming the conclusion and method, then your statement appears to apply to YOU. *dumbass*

Dont be afraid of the word 'mystery', little man, it wont hurt you.
Bubblefish
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:46 am

Re: Mystery

Postby Bubblefish » Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:57 am

Hey, come on..what gives? come by the OS 012 forum if you want to argue, I mean, these arguements you guys give here are stale stale stale....


Saying that something is a mystery is really a contradiction in terms.


noteing that certain ideas are mystery as opposed to true and false relative to the perciever, and that mystey is a constant in human perception is not a contradiction, but rather an expansive and rational point of view. if there is a contradiction, please show it.

Since if you know that something is necessarily mysterious, as opposed to something which might one day be understood, then you are claiming some sort of absolute knowledge, which is the exact opposite of mystery.


Look, I know you guys love to think your super smart, but your so smart the easiest things go quicly over your head.

Your above statement, even though it does not even apply to the dialectic, is a irrational absurdity. I mean, come on, I cant call an unknown flying object in sky an unknown flying object because I am presupposing it's inherent unknown value? huh?

the dialectic is INCLUSIVE of the observer to the phenomena. It is irrelevant if one object is truth and then mystery to another, ALL ideas and aspects of environment morph from mystery to true and false, all the time.

There is true, false, and mystery. Include your own perception into it, and perhaps you will come to understand.
Bubblefish
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:46 am

Re: Mystery

Postby Bubblefish » Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:05 am

Really, it couldn't be said in any simpler terms.

As Dan somewhat recently pointed out, it is astounding to see how something as simple as A=A can get so complicated.


yikes, more contradictions from the genius crowd.

a=a is also mystery =mystery
true = true,
false= false.

you three just above argued that mystery=true, so your contradicting your own self proclaimed logic.

a=a is saying 'existance exists'
when anything has any form of existance, even conceptual or imaginative, it has existance relative to those realms and is thus TRUE.

Thus, we have three values of truth. mystery, true, and false.

catch up pokey crowd.
Bubblefish
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:46 am

Postby Bubblefish » Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:29 am

if you wish to discuss this, come here.


http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/os012-post-32.html#32

or, you can stay here, and I shall come to you. either way, you are both here, and there!

love, bubblefish
Bubblefish
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:46 am

Re: Mystery

Postby David Quinn » Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:21 am

Babblefish wrote:

the dialectic is INCLUSIVE of the observer to the phenomena. It is irrelevant if one object is truth and then mystery to another, ALL ideas and aspects of environment morph from mystery to true and false, all the time.

You're merely describing what is going on in your head - and nothing more.

This is probably the core reason why most people here don't find your ideas all that interesting. Arresting though they might be inside that head of yours, here in the outside world your ideas are flat and lifeless. They don't excite the intellect, they don't go anywhere, they don't go under the surface of things and reveal the nature of Reality with any penetration or incisiveness. In short, they are boring.

So yes please, take this discussion away from Genius Forum and conduct it somewhere else. It has no place here.

I just hope I never see the words "true", "false" and "mystery" in the same sentence ever again. God have mercy on us all.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Mystery

Postby Bubblefish » Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:47 pm

Oh sweet jesus mercy me, Ol David quinn again

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Babblefish wrote:

You're merely describing what is going on in your head - and nothing more.



close. I am merely describing what is mutually going on in our heads whilst we peruse ideas.


This is probably the core reason why most people here don't find your ideas all that interesting.


oh please, my discussions here were longer and more continuous than any other discussions here, so if no one was that interested they wouldnt be discussing.


Arresting though they might be inside that head of yours, here in the outside world your ideas are flat and lifeless.


Ideas, my friend, are not 'flat and lifeless' they are 'true, false, and mystery'

your trying to use poetry to slyly suggest that OS 012 is false again. that doesnt work. Nor is it anywhere anyway close to 'rational' thinking which your site claims to praise so highly.



They don't excite the intellect, they don't go anywhere, they don't go under the surface of things and reveal the nature of Reality with any penetration or incisiveness.


really? becoming aware of becoming aware is not penetrating the surface? Becoming aware of how reality deconstructs perfectly into 0, 1 , and 2 both subjectivly and objectivly is not penetration? metaprogramming human brain is superficial?

humpf, David Quinn, your good with philosophy up until 1850, til then, sorry my friend, but reality since then has gotten a little stranger than you appear to be able to keep up with.



In short, they are boring.


oh, an art critic now are you?



I just hope I never see the words "true", "false" and "mystery" in the same sentence ever again.


lol. well as long as you all communicate with each other here at genius, I dont think you will ever be seeing mystery at all. that's the problem, you dont include 1/3 of all information and your whole system is 2/3's irrational and not what you claim it to be. (In the dialectic, we call that lying with out even knowing it! that's a real pity when that happens. help me, my friend, to make sure that does not happen to me!)



God have mercy on us all.

-


Invoking religion now, oh vey, and from a man of proclaimed logic and rationality! Have we done a job on him or what!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

love

Bubblefish
Bubblefish
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:46 am

QUANTITY v. QUALITY

Postby Leyla Shen » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:48 pm

oh please, my discussions here were longer and more continuous than any other discussions here, so if no one was that interested they wouldnt be discussing.

Your dick might be bigger than mine, but mine has the stuff after which potency is named...
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: QUANTITY v. QUALITY

Postby Bubblefish » Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:29 am

Leyla Shen wrote: [/b]

Your dick might be bigger than mine, but mine has the stuff after which potency is named...


Oh Leyla, if you want to get 'penile' in comparison, you could say that the OS 012 penis kept the natives here aroused for months, whilst the Genius Forums penis ideas 'came' a bit to quick and shrivled up into nothingness.

As for 'potency' of such metaphorical penis, let's brag some more a bit, shall we?

the new OS 012 site just launched on monday to a new server where I can finally track this meme's 'potency' country to country....

and lo and behold, look at how well this power cock of an idea is doing!

all word of mouth in 5 days! I would imagine this would somehow, rationally of course, disprove David Quinn's poetic and non rational ascertion that the idea is 'flat and lifeless'.

1 38.88% 159 United States
2 18.83% 77 Germany
3 6.60% 27 Switzerland
4 5.62% 23 Canada
5 4.89% 20 Austria
6 3.42% 14 Italy
7 3.18% 13 Australia
8 2.93% 12 United Kingdom
9 2.69% 11 Netherlands
10 1.96% 8 Sweden
11 1.47% 6 France
12 0.98% 4 Poland
13 0.98% 4 Taiwan
14 0.98% 4 Portugal
15 0.73% 3 Belgium
16 0.73% 3 Spain
17 0.73% 3 Mexico
18 0.49% 2 Hong Kong
19 0.49% 2 Denmark
20 0.49% 2 Israel
21 0.49% 2 Japan
22 0.24% 1 Egypt
23 0.24% 1 Singapore
24 0.24% 1 New Zealand
25 0.24% 1 Luxembourg
26 0.24% 1 Russia
27 0.24% 1 Finland
28 0.24% 1 Philippines
29 0.24% 1 Ireland

When your ready, open up and say ahhh....you'll like it!
Bubblefish
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:46 am

COCKSUCKERS

Postby Leyla Shen » Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:04 am

Wank, wank, fucken wank. You’re so easy, Tumbleman. See, I don’t swallow -- never have. Nor do I measure my potency by the number of people who suck my dick.

[Plays El Sariri - vihuela, panpipes…]
Aye-yi, hee-hee-heeeeee!
[Cracks her heels rapidly against the floorboards, twisting her skirt left and right.]
Rrrrrrrrrr-eee-ha! Wah-ya-ya-ya, yi-ya-ya-yaaaa.

Suck your own cock, mate.
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: COCKSUCKERS

Postby Bubblefish » Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:45 am

Leyla Shen wrote:Wank, wank, fucken wank.


I hear a scottish accent. hmmm, yet no hits from Scottland on the list. Interesting. I guess yer one of them 'down under' people, eh?


See, I don’t swallow -- never have.

hmm, guess your not so down under, hehe.

Nor do I measure my potency by the number of people who suck my dick.


How do you measure your potency? Surely not by rational tit for tat debate, because so far, both you, DQ and a few others here potency gets all super tiny in simple honest exchange.

And who cares? Ol hermit DQ made a refrence to OS 012 being not interesting, which is merely a personal opinion, not an objective criteria. If OS 012 was not interesting, then perhaps it would not be shared by so many word of mouth.


[Plays El Sariri - vihuela, panpipes…]


I am playing the banjo


Aye-yi, hee-hee-heeeeee!



hee-haw!

[Cracks her heels rapidly against the floorboards, twisting her skirt left and right.]


twisting skirt, eh, who cares, she doesnt swallow..


Rrrrrrrrrr-eee-ha! Wah-ya-ya-ya, yi-ya-ya-yaaaa.


I dont know what that means, but is sure sounds funnier backwards than forward.


Suck your own cock, mate.


Um, that's not how it works...


Now I have a song to sing!

To the tune of Funkadelic..
.'No sex, no head, no backstage pass' (repeat three times)
Bubblefish
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:46 am

Postby Blair » Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:57 pm

There's no mystery to where your concept will end up - in a year or two, in the trashcan, so to speak. It's rubbish mate, it has no value in the broader context, only to such lads as yourself who don't know what the hell is going on, upstarts who think they have all the answers.

Mystery can be defined as simply what you do not know yet. Those who know the answers won't give them to your project, you are creating an insulated circle, limited in quality and scope by the limits of your current understanding.
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Postby Bubblefish » Sun Jul 17, 2005 5:03 pm

prince wrote:There's no mystery to where your concept will end up - in a year or two, in the trashcan, so to speak.


yeah, that's what they said two and half years ago.


It's rubbish mate, it has no value in the broader context, only to such lads as yourself who don't know what the hell is going on, upstarts who think they have all the answers.


I dont think you understand what dialectic is.


Mystery can be defined as simply what you do not know yet.


yes. and you dont know what mystery is,nor OS 012.

Those who know the answers won't give them to your project, you are creating an insulated circle, limited in quality and scope by the limits of your current understanding.


Who ever willing witholds knowledge and understanding from those whom they percieve as inferior are deluding themselves and certainly dont impress me.

if you can rationally argue ONE point in this post of yours, you may impress me. if not, you just sound like any other drunk from down under. all words, and no logic, no dialectic, no understanding, and most importantly, no friggin sense of humor.
Bubblefish
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:46 am

Postby Leyla Shen » Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:02 am

I hear a scottish accent. hmmm, yet no hits from Scottland on the list. Interesting. I guess yer one of them 'down under' people, eh?


What the hell are you banging on about now?

If you mean to imply that I have visited your site, I have not -- not yet. I may. I may not. If it was some sort of joke, I didn't get it! Must be that slur in your voice.

How do you measure your potency? Surely not by rational tit for tat debate, because so far, both you, DQ and a few others here potency gets all super tiny in simple honest exchange. And who cares?...


I don't think you fully understand the term "potency." Nonetheless, you're quite right -- you don't have to care.

Um, that's not how it works...


Well, I hear you can have a couple of ribs removed...
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Postby Jamesh » Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:05 am

I just read this thread.

To me as a reader, David was absolutely slaughtered in this debate. Gutted. His first posts were quite good - a real see-saw of a discussion - but deteriorated in the second half due to TM's more rational responses.

Fascinating discussion which clearly outlines the limitations of the QRS non-methodology.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Postby David Quinn » Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:44 pm

Well, I think you're too easily caught up in his theological upstream to be unbiased in this matter. I personally find his ideas too boring to give any sustained attention to, and hence I pulled out of that discussion after a short while.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Postby Jamesh » Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:01 pm

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Well, I think you're too easily caught up in his theological upstream to be unbiased in this matter. I personally find his ideas too boring to give any sustained attention to, and hence I pulled out of that discussion after a short while. -


This is true. My mind continues to be very flowy. I flit from one thing to the next - but is it this way because I do not have as many solid attachments as others? I'm still learning, growing (I hope).

This is my initial response. What is your opinion? I just can't see how you are being rational relative to the circumstances. If you want wisdom to survive then you must work to create a world that humans can survive in, one of the first steps should be to remove the massive distraction of petty conflict. Nor quite frankly do I accept the boredom reason, I think you talked yourself into being bored.

What this terrific discussion clearly shows is the need to identify objective truths. David badly lost this argument even though he was often right, albeit that TM was more often right. (I haven't read the last part of the discussion yet).

Really what the argument is about is the need to convince others of a value judgement dealing with the STRATEGY required to progress humanity. In such discussions the facts need to be identified and values need to placed on each fact. Only then can the most rational strategic decisions be made by THIRD parties. The third party in a discussion like this is the individual, the self, whether it be the reader or the participants, and not the ideas or CAUSE being presented.

As far as I can see there are only two strategic options relative to the people involved.

Option 1 – TM’s. The world utilises some form of OS012 methodology to solve issues affecting human groups, PRIOR to then going through the process of ridding itself of attachments.

or

Option 2 - Davids. A limited number of individuals, free thinkers become enlightened and spread wisdom to others until it becomes a dominant way of life, in which case an OS012 process will occur by default.

Option 1 has:

a) An identifiable structure
b) A method
c) A desired win/win scenario (meaning it can be of advantage to all)
d) is not a significantly different process so as to be too great a burden for the believer. Any time we cooperate we are using the underlying principle of OS012. The shift to win/win could occur in a step by step process.

Option 2 has:

a) No structure – you must decide to cause it to occur, the ability to decide such must be pre-existing within you. One must find their own structure.
b) No method – its teaching path is random and uncontrolled.
c) A zero win scenario – that is the concept of winning would need to be abandoned, which is something completely foreign to all entities, material or biological.
d) Requires a significantly different way of life. It requires a quantum shift in one’s way of thinking. The pursuit of realities truths is completely foreign to most people. Those seeds that do germinate truth have difficulty in reproducing themselves. The sum of causes for most humans are not presently of the nature that would cause an abrupt shift in one’s perspective. Those who hold positions of power are largely unaffected by the direct personal experiences of the hardships that would be needed to cause the abrupt change.

It is quite obvious that Option 1 is a superior strategy to option 2. The odds of OS012 or some closely aligned dialectical system might be low (due to David’s points about ego, or more particularly what drives ego) but the odds of David’s philosophy being successful are almost non-existent. It would require the pain of something like a significant worldwide disaster that had the affect of destroying a portion of that which one holds dear, such as people or the ease and security of modern life, before people would be caused to undertake the hardships that David’s philosophy requires. Even then one would have to fight against it’s opposite – believers in the QRS philosophy would have to battle against the descent into domination by religious fundamentalists who would flourish in such an environment.

I think David is making a fundamental error in his decision that his sort of wisdom is what is required at the moment. He is far too idealistic.

In being idealistic he is making the “error of relative free-will”. While he doesn’t cognitively believe in free-will in any way, underneath he must, otherwise he would be rational rather than idealistic. What he seems to believe in is relative-free will. He recognises that ultimately there is no free will, yet he spends his life trying to achieve just that. Enlightenment is a form of relative free will – it is relative to other humans. He is saying that he is free from the affect of emotions and of irrationality and thus has a higher, more noble consciousness. He says that they free themselves from irrationality and in the process free themselves from the binds of strong causes such as morality, conventions, conformity, mental barriers. Is a mind with less barriers of the nature of a freer will? (Ultimately it isn’t, it is one that is just based on memory and the brains CPU). It is NOT a higher form of consciousness, but merely a different form – it has a different mode of operation. If it was a higher form than he would have to call himself a mystic, which he doesn’t.

Now there is nothing wrong with all this, what is wrong is that he is projecting his living experience, his experience of a freer will, onto the whole of humanity and is saying that one size fits all –when clearly it does not.

The QRS still have some instinctual desires, namely the desire to propagate themselves. Their wisdom of reality becomes their dicks, the tool by which they can reproduce themselves, the mental control impulse that can steer their will. As they are deeply involved in this freer will world they live in, and it sustains them and gives them some form of masculine satisfaction, they then project that others should be capable of achieving the way of life that they have completely disregarding the likely negative outcomes of their choices for the average human in today’s world.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Postby MKFaizi » Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:29 pm

Dicks? How do you equate wisdom with penises?

You are naive and inexperienced. Like most of those posting here. Still hung up on your genitals.

Your post is most revealing -- not necessarily of QSR but of your own weaknesses.

Faizi
MKFaizi
 

Next

Return to Help Desk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests