The Pathos of Distance

THIS IS AN ANNOYING LOG-IN POP UP JUST FOR YOU
The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -


    Cheers to All

    Share
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Cheers to All

    Post by Satyr on Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:04 am

    I'm a wandering genius looking for a flock to dominate and lead to redemption and unfathomable power.
    Will you people be that group?
    I suspect not....but one must hope.

    I am pro-drugs, pro-guns and anything that clears spaces for me to walk through.
    avatar
    witchdoctor

    Posts : 89
    Join date : 2018-02-13

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by witchdoctor on Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:24 am

    No.
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Satyr on Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:27 am

    Nay sayer...
    Yes.


    _________________
    Know Thyself

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Zoot Allures on Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:10 pm

    i got some good news and some bad news, goatman. which do you want first? okay, the bad news.

    why does everybody always want the bad news first, anyway?

    alright so we're gonna have to move at least one of your posts, maybe more. the post we're going to move is in that science thread. now, where would you like me to put it? do you want to start your own thread, or, even better... would you like to have your own forum? you would be able to post and lock it from other members, if you chose, and you would have full jurisdiction over it.

    lemme know what you want to do man.

    i'm letting the post in the WTP thread go because that thread turned into a discussion about swans, anyway. i figure swans have a will to power, too, so it can't be entirely off topic. observe:

    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Satyr on Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:38 pm

    That's terrible news, chief.
    I'm gonna need a few to recover, or go full Rambo...."They drew first blood" on this place.

    Happy place
    Happy place
    Happy place

    Ok
    We're safe.
    Don't want the other guy to come out.

    Do what you want to do....it's your house. I'm a guest passing through.
    Just dropped in to use the toilet.

    If you want, you can ban me, and your friends will sigh in relief, and I can add you on the list of forums that banned me.
    To be banned by the man himself - Zoot...fuckin' Allures....
    Wow!!
    Like being shot by Jesse James, raped by Jeffrey Dahmer, eaten by Hannibal Lecter....the honour.....horror.....the honour.....horror...

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Zoot Allures on Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:20 pm

    relax, compadre, i'm not a banner. i know how it feels to be hated, alienated, chastised, disenfranchised, estranged, despised, stigmatized, exiled, ostracized... and i love it.

    welcome to the pathos-of-distance.

    your benevolent administrator,

    zoot fuckin' allures

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Zoot Allures on Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:22 pm

    ... besides, this forum needs more members. we'll take what we can get.
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Satyr on Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:12 am

    Your antipathy for authority makes you a terrible leader of men, and a weak judge of character.


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    witchdoctor

    Posts : 89
    Join date : 2018-02-13

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by witchdoctor on Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:41 am

    I thought that my post about power from the physical point of view might derail the WTP thread. I should have posted that in the science forum.
    Maybe you can rename the WTP thread "scientific uncertainty and green swans" and create a new one for WTP.
    Sorry Smile

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Zoot Allures on Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:28 am

    goatman wrote:Your antipathy for authority makes you a terrible leader of men, and a weak judge of character.

    this is an internet forum, not an army or an empire. i don't believe the great demise of mankind would ever result from failing to ban a single philosophy forum member, do you?



    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Satyr on Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:10 am

    I have a huge ego.
    Banning me would be a devastating blow on humanity...on the entire course of co(s)mic existence.
    I've renamed existence 'love'. It's the new thing this baptismal ritual.
    The hard part is finding morons to buy this shit.

    I just remarked on your cynicism, and what it is founded on.
    This makes you charming....funny, laid back.
    Your antipathy of authority is now a life goal...vengeance against another.
    I wonder where it is rooted...something to do with your father - cliche.
    Constant challenging of the norms, of conventions....a way of rebelling and making yourself noticed (exposed).
    Skeptical of all....resistant to all external order, all authority.

    This also makes you open to all theories, no matter how absurd. Your humouring of the VO crap was expected.
    For a moment I wondered if your rational skepticism would be overwhelmed by your recent experiences in jail, or if this had softened you up to the absurd....making you more willing to grasp at anything that offered a sense of belonging - a family...a van clan, hoodies optional.  
    I think this is why you were approached. Ex-cons are more vulnerable to seduction.

    I am less tolerant with stupidity, particularly the kind that is loud, obnoxious and arrogant.
    Humble stupidity I can deal with.
    How often does the biggest fool absorb all the attention with its antics?
    The least worthy of attention always demand the most, by making the most extraordinary claims.

    Anyway....back to my LOL godly insight.

    Life is selfish?
    Who knew.
    It consumes what it is made of.
    Ironic.
    No, this is where it gets good....all existence is alive. All is trying to survive.
    Survival is the fabric of reality.
    Stones, clouds, rivers...all trying to make it through, holding it together....
    All in love with love.
    If you do not love yourself you lose yourself in other.

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Zoot Allures on Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:05 am

    the great goat wrote:I just remarked on your cynicism, and what it is founded on.

    my cynicism is more of an intellectual condition than an emotional one... which is to say, my skeptical frame of mind before philosophy is a natural consequence of my commitment to logic. as such, i find a great deal of philosophy to be very questionable in terms of its coherency. the result of this then becomes emotional; for example, growing up and realizing that santa clause doesn't exist. the first stage following this realization is an emotional crisis, but the crisis isn't the cause of the skepticism. the skeptism is purely intellectual and indifferent. see the difference?

    in shorther words, one can't choose to believe in santa clause simply because they would prefer that santa clause existed, if they find the idea to be unreasonable and illogical in the first place. one's cynicism would have little to do with the realization that one's desire to avoid beliefs that aren't agreeable, is irrelevant to the fact that they can't believe in santa clause.

    the great goat wrote:This makes you charming....funny, laid back.

    i am a diogenes who is able to laugh last.

    the great goat wrote:Your antipathy to authority is now a life goal.

    this couldn't be further from the truth. i have rather given up on any notion of proper authority in the world, having discovered over the years that the democratization of the world is preventing such a thing from ever existing. you might call me a facist defector who has become an anarchist through attrition, if you prefer. my views have become stirner over the years.

    the great goat wrote:I wonder where it is rooted...something to do with your father. This constant challenging of the norms, of conventions....a way of rebelling and making yourself noticed.

    fortunately, yes, my anti-authoritarian... or i should actually say 'ultra-authoritarian' attitude, probably began with the experiences i had during my childhood battles with the old man. he was the first authority figure i came into contact with that would be the symbol of all later figures of authority. but here's the kicker. it wasn't the authority per se that was the problem, but the incompetence, hypocrisy, and inefficiency of his authority that forever branded in my mind, the idea that authority wasn't infallible. as i grew up, i noticed in all forms of authority this same incompetence, hypocrisy and inefficiency. so you see the grand irony here; i am in fact not anti-authoritarian, but ultra-authoritarian. the old man was doing it all wrong.

    the great goat wrote:This also makes you open to all theories, no matter how absurd. Your humouring of the VO crap was expected. For a moment I wondered if your rational skepticism would be overwhelmed by your recent experiences in jail, or if this had softened you up to the absurd....making you more willing to grasp at anything that offered a sense of belonging - a family...a van clan, hoodies optional.

    i am no VOist, and never was. i rather play along half-heartedly with the few people i have come to know on these forums. it's all in good fun.

    the great goat wrote:I am less tolerant with stupidity, particularly the kind that is loud, obnoxious and arrogant.
    Humble stupidity I can deal with.
    How often does the biggest fool absorb all the attention with its antics?
    The least worthy of attention always demand the most, by making the most extraordinary claims.

    there is a kind of natural selection of ideas that operates on these forums. those people who fall into believing a questionable philosophy are obviously ripe for that kind of thing, or they wouldn't be able to believe it. i'd rather let this natural mechanism work by itself than try to interfere with it. besides, what do i care if someone else is wrong? moreover, to use an analogy, these erroneous systems of philosophy are, in the language of natural selection, like intellectual vestigial organs. they don't increase the philosophical fitness level of the thinker, but neither do they put the thinker into real jeopardy. this is because there is very little pragmatic efficacy to such philosophies. it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong in believing something nonsensical, you might say, unless such beliefs put you into immediate danger. VO is one such philosophy; it isn't a dangerous ideology (if it could even be called an ideology).

    now of course you'll argue that bad memes bring about an overall decline, but the world is beyond the stage where conflicting philosophies can actually make a difference. what rules the world now is not philosophy, but economics. philosophies are adjusted to coorespond to socio-economic systems, not vice-versa.

    there will never be another locke, or hegel, or smith, or marx, to name a few pioneers, who's ideas actually provide foundation for politics and economics. all that has already been done, and unless the human species undergos a significant physiological change, nothing new in philosophy will ever emerge. you'll find only a mish-mash of already existing ideas.  

    on the other hand, if mankind physically changes in some substantial way- let's say he develops new sensory perception or something like that- new philosophy and science will evolve to address this new capacity.... and then, possibly, new socio-economic theories to organize this new, evolved version of man.
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Satyr on Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:38 pm

    Zoot Allures wrote:
    my cynicism is more of an intellectual condition than an emotional one... which is to say, my skeptical frame of mind before philosophy is a natural consequence of my commitment to logic. as such, i find a great deal of philosophy to be very questionable in terms of its coherency. the result of this then becomes emotional; for example, growing up and realizing that santa clause doesn't exist. the first stage following this realization is an emotional crisis, but the crisis isn't the cause of the skepticism. the skeptism is purely intellectual and indifferent. see the difference?
    Building probabilities....yes.
    Philosophy is a gradual process accumulating knowledge and understanding, determining what is more and what is less likely.

    i am a diogenes who is able to laugh last.
    But this is easier if you never take a stance on anything.

    this couldn't be further from the truth. i have rather given up on any notion of proper authority in the world, having discovered over the years that the democratization of the world is preventing such a thing from ever existing. you might call me a facist defector who has become an anarchist through attrition, if you prefer. my views have become stirner over the years.
    So, no ideal other than pleasure?

    fortunately, yes, my anti-authoritarian... or i should actually say 'ultra-authoritarian' attitude, probably began with the experiences i had during my childhood battles with the old man. he was the first authority figure i came into contact with that would be the symbol of all later figures of authority. but here's the kicker. it wasn't the authority per se that was the problem, but the incompetence, hypocrisy, and inefficiency of his authority that forever branded in my mind, the idea that authority wasn't infallible. as i grew up, i noticed in all forms of authority this same incompetence, hypocrisy and inefficiency. so you see the grand irony here; i am in fact not anti-authoritarian, but ultra-authoritarian. the old man was doing it all wrong.
    I sensed an anti-authoritarian cynicism.
    You want to understand ideologies to dismiss them.

    i am no VOist, and never was. i rather play along half-heartedly with the few people i have come to know on these forums. it's all in good fun.
    Of course, what sane person would fall for those word-games?
    i only know that both, Messiah and prophet were conspiring...thinking your vulnerable stat, after incarceration, could be converted to another follower.
    you saw poor Saully openly express his 'work' on you, in private exchanges.
    It's a cult-like hierarchy.
    They've taken old ideas, changed the words, and tried to obscure meaning to the point where Nietzsche can be synthesized with Judaism.
    It's their post-Nietzsche reinvention of Christianity, integrating Frank critique into a new, revised, Christianity 3.0
    A Jesus, Spinoza, Nietzsche amalgamation.
    Value is the replacement brand name for love. They've made survival a universal force.

    But morons aside...this sort of stuff is my bread and butter. I'm sure they are inflated by us discussing them but for me its a study of human folly.
    Another nihilistic version of the same mental virus.

    Satyr calls it Positive Nihilism....copying me.


    there is a kind of natural selection of ideas that operates on these forums. those people who fall into believing a questionable philosophy are obviously ripe for that kind of thing, or they wouldn't be able to believe it. i'd rather let this natural mechanism work by itself than try to interfere with it. besides, what do i care if someone else is wrong? moreover, to use an analogy, these erroneous systems of philosophy are, in the language of natural selection, like intellectual vestigial organs. they don't increase the philosophical fitness level of the thinker, but neither do they put the thinker into real jeopardy. this is because there is very little pragmatic efficacy to such philosophies. it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong in believing something nonsensical, you might say, unless such beliefs put you into immediate danger. VO is one such philosophy; it isn't a dangerous ideology (if it could even be called an ideology).
    Yes, natural selection for memes.
    But in this environment weakness is sheltered.
    Idiocy is not allowed to suffer the severity of its condition. It becomes dominant because ti satisfies the system's need for docile, gullible, needy, citizens.

    The decline of Abrahamism left masses of slaves lost, and in need for a substitute absolute. So charlatans emerge to feed the market.
    God is dead....No.
    God is resurrected and re-baptized and can be called Marxism, or by any positive moniker.

    Abrahamic god's omnipresence is now given a new title, and resold to the same types that bought into Christianity and Marxism.
    Rocks contain the spirit of god....and that sound like?

    now of course you'll argue that bad memes bring about an overall decline, but the world is beyond the stage where conflicting philosophies can actually make a difference. what rules the world now is not philosophy, but economics. philosophies are adjusted to coorespond to socio-economic systems, not vice-versa.
    No, bad memes emerge when there is decline...like you are more vulnerable to parasites and viruses when you are old and feeble.
    This virus will not die....it follows the same cycles genetic viruses and parasites follow.
    A memetic virus using words/symbols to infect feeble minds....zombifying them.
    Words in text are the virus' crystalline, inert state. It awaits a vulnerable host to begin the cycle again....and again.

    there will never be another locke, or hegel, or smith, or marx, to name a few pioneers, who's ideas actually provide foundation for politics and economics. all that has already been done, and unless the human species undergos a significant physiological change, nothing new in philosophy will ever emerge. you'll find only a mish-mash of already existing ideas.  
    Yes, so everything is repackaged and resold...by changing the brand name.
    The species has not evolved enough.
    Jaynes talked about Bicameral Minds and how an emerging self-consciousness was mistaken for spiritual voices....now we have this projection of self into matter. Man sees his own reflection, anthopomorphosizing existence.
    he sees himself in everything.
    Idea was god, represented by word.
    Human = god.
    The new word is humanity.
    Humanity = world.
    to expand the sphere of effect they must make all human, or conscious, alive.
    How else would their words void of references outside the mind, have any power?
    Magical power of words/symbols have a range equal to the quantity of minds that have been trained/educated to decipher them and be affected by them in specific ways.

    on the other hand, if mankind physically changes in some substantial way- let's say he develops new sensory perception or something like that- new philosophy and science will evolve to address this new capacity.... and then, possibly, new socio-economic theories to organize this new, evolved version of man.
    Empiricism is the base.

    I've symbolized philosophy as a structure, a home, built upon the ground - sensually, empirically, rationally.
    Metaphysics is the foundation.
    Idealism is the noetic point in space time aligning the structure.
    All three must be in alignment, otherwise there's a mistake.
    One begins with making a space upon the ground.

    Nitwits begin with the ideal. They begin with the abstraction, the noumenon, and then build backwards.
    They then sample or reshape reality to accommodate the ideal....they rename concepts, they mystify them to hide their contradictions and so on.
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Satyr on Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:44 pm

    When dealing with men, particularly young virile males, you are dealing with strong wills, egos, and authority challengers.
    This is why males dominate the arts, sciences and philosophy. They challenge authority.

    This can have negative consequences, particularly when masculinity is fragile unsure and is hyper-masculinity compensating for insecurity.
    If the feminine is silenced or shamed, the masculine can go mad, challenging even the obvious to appear virile.


    _________________
    Know Thyself

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Zoot Allures on Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:17 am

    GM wrote:Building probabilities....yes.
    Philosophy is a gradual process accumulating knowledge and understanding, determining what is more and what is less likely.

    and what is just as important as knowing what is more or less likely, is knowing how to determine what is more or less likely. many philosophers are not preoccupied enough with logic and language analysis to be able to understand why and how they come to their conclusions about something.

    GM wrote:So, no ideal other than pleasure?

    it depends on how you define 'pleasure'. there is as much pleasure in, say, defending one's principles despite the physical distress they have to endure to do so, as there is in vulgar hedonism. the former is a perfectly antithetical expression of what is thought to be hedonistic, because it involves purposely engaging in acts that don't bring physical pleasure, and yet those acts are pleasurable.

    people do not necessarily strive for pleasure, but some kind of power. power may involve pleasure, sure, but it isn't always the pleasure that is motivating them. the pleasure is a bonus.

    GM wrote:You want to understand ideologies to dismiss them.

    no, i want to understand them so i can use them if they prove to be useful, and i will dismiss them if they are not.

    GM wrote:i only know that both, Messiah and prophet were conspiring...thinking your vulnerable stat, after incarceration, could be converted to another follower.
    you saw poor Saully openly express his 'work' on you, in private exchanges.
    It's a cult-like hierarchy.

    ha! i wish it were like that, as that would make it more interesting. unfortunately, saully did no such thing in our private discussions, neither in emails or on the phone. he (and jakob) know i'm not easily persuaded to believe anything.  

    GM wrote:They begin with the abstraction, the noumenon, and then build backwards. They then sample or reshape reality to accommodate the ideal....they rename concepts, they mystify them to hide their contradictions and so on.

    that's a pretty accurate depiction of most philosophy:

    Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:For over two thousand years Traditional Philosophers have been playing on themselves and their readers what can only be described as a series of complex verbal tricks. Since Ancient Greek times, metaphysicians have occupied themselves with deriving a priori theses solely from the meaning of a narrow range of specially-selected (and suitably doctored) words. These 'philosophical gems' were skilfully polished and then peddled to the rest of humanity dressed-up as profound-looking truths about fundamental aspects of reality, peremptorily imposed on nature, almost invariably without the benefit of a single supporting experiment.

    In fact, Traditional Theorists went even further; their acts of linguistic legerdemain 'enabled' them to uncover Super-Truths in the comfort of their own heads -- concocting doctrines they claimed revealed the underlying and essential nature of existence, valid for all of space and time. Unsurprisingly, discursive magic of this order of magnitude meshed rather well with contemporaneous ruling-class forms-of-thought, chief among which was -- and still is -- the belief that reality is rational.

    http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2002.htm#Traditional_A_Priori_Dogmatics
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Satyr on Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:29 am

    Zoot Allures wrote:
    and what is just as important as knowing what is more or less likely, is knowing how to determine what is more or less likely. many philosophers are not preoccupied enough with logic and language analysis to be able to understand why and how they come to their conclusions about something.
    Best method is applied theory....second, the philosophical method is juxtaposing theories in relation to a shared world.
    Precedent exposes what is more or less likely. Not hope, not desire.

    Zoot Allures wrote:it depends on how you define 'pleasure'. there is as much pleasure in, say, defending one's principles despite the physical distress they have to endure to do so, as there is in vulgar hedonism. the former is a perfectly antithetical expression of what is thought to be hedonistic, because it involves purposely engaging in acts that don't bring physical pleasure, and yet those acts are pleasurable.
    I'm using Schopenhauer's definition of pleasure as a 'negative'.
    Pleasure is the ephemeral gratification, or satiation of a need/desire.

    Flux stresses organism...challenges it - agon.
    Organism interprets this challenge as need/suffering. It's resources continuously depleted by the effort to maintain self in the fluctuating world.
    This is felt as need.
    If organism successful satiates needs it can produce surpluses energies at its disposal, to be directed towards growth or reproduction - this is desire....felt as the sexual impulse, the desire to expunge excess energies.

    Both feeding lack and dealing with excess is felt as pleasure.

    Pleasure can also be associated with possibilities. We feel pleasure at a nature's grandeur.....its possibilities offer the potential for expunging our energies towards growth, towards feeding the mind's hunger 'curiosity'.....

    Zoot Allures wrote:people do not necessarily strive for pleasure, but some kind of power. power may involve pleasure, sure, but it isn't always the pleasure that is motivating them. the pleasure is a bonus.
    Very Nietzschean.
    Power is this accumulation of excess energies...the feeling of overflowing, of abundance. The sensation of virility, of possibility.

    Zoot Allures wrote:no, i want to understand them so i can use them if they prove to be useful, and i will dismiss them if they are not.
    Most ideologies do not offer a ready-made application....and you get cAnus the cunt (iambiguuos) and his endless desire to refute so as to preserve his investments in negativity. No absolutes means all is equally meaningless therefore we must all make concessions - the uniformity of weakness.

    The application of an ideology can only go through the individual's particular goals, and its particular inherited genetic strengths and weaknesses. All in relation to an indifferent world, and a manmade world (system) that intervenes upon world to establish its own principles, and meanings...where meaning means how phenomena inter-relate.

    Zoot Allures wrote:ha! i wish it were like that, as that would make it more interesting. unfortunately, saully did no such thing in our private discussions, neither in emails or on the phone. he (and jakob) know i'm not easily persuaded to believe anything.  
    He was trying to play both sides.....I know.
    Doing 'work' to bring you over to the cult, and doing your 'work' of challenging the premises of the cult. He is inspired by your spirit of resistance. Something he does not have....having been easily deduced, by Nietzsche, some character named Commander, and now the new Messiah of Abrahamism. He has a very feminine spirit....needing a masculine spirit to lend him power, reason, will.
    I was curious as to how it would develop. An insight as to how Christianity began as a cult, drawing to ti the slaves, the needy, weak, gullible, ill...to become a powerful religion. Also insight into Scientology and Koresh and how the cult of personality, evolves. Also Marxism.

    Zoot Allures wrote:that's a pretty accurate depiction of most philosophy:
    Most Modern philosophies...not all.
    I call it the Top<>Down Nihilistic method.
    i prefer the Bottom<>Up...a gradual building of data, establishing what is more from what is less probable...upwards.
    Starting from the experienced, the sensually perceived, the apparent.

    You must not begin with the conclusion and then work backwards integrating perceptions into it, justifying it.
    That's what imbeciles do. nothing they see ever contradicts their philosophy....because they will not let it.
    you can justify any conclusion using this method. All that is required is a lack of integrity, and a deep need - a talent to redefine words and to sample reality.
    What's left to validate but popularity, how many buy into the self-referential, self-consistent, noetic crap you present them..so the ideology has to also be seductive, pleasing, positive.

    Zoot Allures wrote:
    Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:For over two thousand years Traditional Philosophers have been playing on themselves and their readers what can only be described as a series of complex verbal tricks. Since Ancient Greek times, metaphysicians have occupied themselves with deriving a priori theses solely from the meaning of a narrow range of specially-selected (and suitably doctored) words. These 'philosophical gems' were skilfully polished and then peddled to the rest of humanity dressed-up as profound-looking truths about fundamental aspects of reality, peremptorily imposed on nature, almost invariably without the benefit of a single supporting experiment.

    In fact, Traditional Theorists went even further; their acts of linguistic legerdemain 'enabled' them to uncover Super-Truths in the comfort of their own heads -- concocting doctrines they claimed revealed the underlying and essential nature of existence, valid for all of space and time. Unsurprisingly, discursive magic of this order of magnitude meshed rather well with contemporaneous ruling-class forms-of-thought, chief among which was -- and still is -- the belief that reality is rational.

    http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2002.htm#Traditional_A_Priori_Dogmatics
    [/quote]Nice quote...
    This is exactly what Satyr has been saying on KT about nihilism and how it is entirely language based.
    He plagiarized me...the fucker.

    Manipulating words to produce an effect in the audience, so that you can exploit their feebleness, is not philosophy. It is the use of psychology.
    I am applying this method in my Love Ontology.
    Selling bullshye to men-children and women, easily impressed by shiny things and pleasing ideas, is a political application of insights into human nature.
    Human husbandry.

    In essence it detaches words from their references...or it uses words to detach the noumenon from the phenomenon....liberating it to be manipulated easier, into a toy, a joy toy, for children and hedonists.

    I call those "philosophies' positive nihilism....because they are always positive. they have to be.
    The type of positivity is determined by the type of idiot they wish to seduce and attract.
    So, the negative is automatically excluded as unreal, as evil, as error, as non-existent.
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Satyr on Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:29 am

    The intentional misuse of language is how imbeciles pretend to be discovering something profound.
    An linguistic epiphany of deep insight into....the magical power of language on the human psyche.

    For example.
    If I intentionally use 'love' instead of pattern or energy, I am inserting an insinuation into where it has no place.
    I am implying a discovery when i am repeating the self-evident and merely connecting it to human needs - triggering a positive reaction to everything i then say.

    So I say say all is 'dynamic' active, and i would not be saying anything others have not heard before.
    But if i replace 'dynamic' with erotic, or love, or lust, then the superfluous nuance is meant to trigger a positive reaction, and it connects whatever I say with what is already believed in Abrahamism, particularly Christianity.
    I'm preaching to the choir, or reselling the same crap to the same audience that purchased it the first time.
    The audience having lost faith in the previous narrative is now vulnerable to a updated version that can manage to imply a connection with what destroyed its faith to begin with.A virus evolves to become more resistant to the autoimmune system that kills it.

    So, what was one of the critiques that demystifies Abrahamism for millions of intelligent believers?
    The upper 10%
    Nietzsche. His psychological insights, because he really has no new philosophy, were devastating to Christians.
    He was a diagnostician, of a dis-ease.
    Nihilism.
    As am I.

    So, this new and improved virus must integrate redefined portions of Nietzsche to make it more resistant to future critiques.

    Marxism redefined Christianity to invent a secular version of it, and post-modernity redefined Marxism for a post-Cold War generation.
    A revised Christianity, Christianity 3.0 would have to redefine itself in relation to its harshest critique...a post-Nietzsche Christianity.
    Fresh with new terms and imagery.
    For who was Nietzsche the harshest critique?
    for the upper 10% of believers....because the rest never had a clue. they do not even know the name, or if they've heard it they know not what it means.

    So, this upper 10% more intellectual Abrahamics must reinvent Christianity, a merger of Hellenism with Judaism, are suing language to repackage, redefine and integrate selectively, Nietzsche.
    Spinozean Panpsychism is a start...for he too is of the chosen who became disillusioned by the religion, with Abrahamism, and invented a secular version of it.

    Memetic warfare.....including memetic viruses and parasites.
    How do memes spread?
    Symbols/words - semiotics.

    What is nihilism?
    Detachment of noumenon from phenomenon.
    How?
    Language inversion.
    Language is a manifestation of the nervous system.
    Mind/Body is synthesized by the nervous system, including the brain, its hub.

    Nihilism is a detachment of mind from body, the idea from the real, the noumenon from the phenomenon, the psychological from the physical.
    It turns inward...where the mind has dominion.
    It can manufacture any reality, sue words in any way....unhindered by natural order.
    It feels powerful, free.
    But this is only possible if there is a sheltering system protecting it from its own detachment.
    Like a junky is protected by a system, otherwise if he were high in the wild he would be dinner.




    _________________
    Know Thyself

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Zoot Allures on Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:07 pm

    GM wrote:The intentional misuse of language is how imbeciles pretend to be discovering something profound.

    i don't think philosophers do it on purpose. i think rather that they fail to consider the ways in which a word is usually used, and then make two critical mistakes: first, that they cannot understand the word they are using in a new way, meaningfully, because, as wittgenstein put it metaphorically, all the usual road signs are missing. take for instance the word 'conscious'. for how many centuries do you suppose the word 'conscious', or a word denoting the same thing, was used to mean 'he is aware', or 'be aware of what you are doing', or 'he isn't asleep'?

    'joe is conscious, bob. he knows what you're doing.'
    'joe, pay attention to what you are doing... be conscious of it.'
    'what?... no, he's not asleep... he's conscious.'

    and then, all of a sudden, the word 'conscious' becomes a mysterious, immaterial 'thing' that can have 'content', or that can exist in space/time, like an object. now, philosophers begin using the word in new ways that aren't meaningful in the way the old use of the word, was. formerly, we could confirm what the word meant by simply observing some behavior. now, there is no confirmation available for the meaning of the word, other than more words:

    example: consciousness can have no causal effect on material, so cartesian dualism is wrong.

    but wait a minute. consciousness was never something that could or could not have a causal effect on material, in the first place, so that statement is nonsensical. we wouldn't say that the fact that joe is aware, or paying attention, or not asleep, has anything to do with causal relationships to things in the world. so consciousness wouldn't not have a causal effect on anything anymore than it would.

    see what is happening here? a systematic redefining of the word to mean things that we couldn't possibly make sense of.

    and the second mistake philosophers make is; they assume that the person they are communicating with has in mind the same, new understanding of the word, as they do.

    i wouldn't be confused if you said to me 'joe is conscious right now... he just woke up', or 'joe's conscious of what he's doing', and pointed to joe mowing the grass.

    but when you say something like 'consciousness contains qualia that cannot be observed from a third-person perspective or be reduced to material states of the brain,' i'm like 'what the hell does that mean?'

    but most folks wouldn't admit that they might not understand that to mean the same thing the speaker means when he says it... and they keep right on going as if everything they are saying is perfectly clear to each other.

    it gets really good when they start arguing against a point they believe was made by the speaker, but which wasn't, ... and then the speaker responds to the misunderstood point with a point that misunderstands the misunderstanding of the persons point. on and on this goes... each person really only having an imaginary argument in their own head against what they believe the other person meant, but did not.

    anyway, philosophers rarely do this on purpose. they really are honestly engaged in what they think is a meaningful discussion. that's why you gotta love em. just look at em go... completely oblivious to the nonsense they are emerged in.

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Zoot Allures on Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:14 pm

    ^^^ oh, and i do this all the time too. i am not excluding myself by any means.
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Satyr on Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:13 am

    Zoot Allures wrote:
    GM wrote:The intentional misuse of language is how imbeciles pretend to be discovering something profound.

    i don't think philosophers do it on purpose.
    Some do...some are trapped in linguistic confusion.

    Zoot Allures wrote:i think rather that they fail to consider the ways in which a word is usually used, and then make two critical mistakes: first, that they cannot understand the word they are using in a new way, meaningfully, because, as wittgenstein put it metaphorically, all the usual road signs are missing. take for instance the word 'conscious'. for how many centuries do you suppose the word 'conscious', or a word denoting the same thing, was used to mean 'he is aware', or 'be aware of what you are doing', or 'he isn't asleep'?
    I begin by clearing the underbrush....I connect the noumenon via the symbol/word to a phenomenon, outside the brain that all, not only me can witness.
    This makes the noemenon, the idea(l) in all our heads testable, verifiable.
    I then distinguish words that cannot be used in this way...and those i categorize as metaphors or pure ideas - theories.

    The degree to which a concept includes words that are metaphors or pure ideas, determines the degree to which I doubt their veracity.

    Metaphors are particularly troubling, as they inject a nuance that does not belong and then the mind forget it used a metaphor, and believes in it literally.
    Metaphors can also validate the absurd by synthesizing it with the sensible.
    I call this the 'Trojan horse method'.
    You take a sensible idea, then you synthesize it with imagery which alludes to absurdities, or to what cannot be validate sensually, and you symbolize the end product with a word. then you forget that it was you, or some other, that constructed this absurdity and you believe in it literally.

    Another way to corrupt thinking is to take the observed, the sensually perceived and invert it.
    So where you see change, you invert it in the mind into a static, immutable, indivisible absolute.
    Where you perceive the ephemeral and the mortal, you invert it to eternal, immortal.
    You can call darkness light, and light darkness...This is, in fact, what nihilistic ideas do. They invert the world.
    So you can then have death being a rebirth into a higher life, a more real reality.
    When the mind is detached from world, wants to remain detached because the world is threatening, unflattering, stressful, or whatever....too boring, perhaps....then it can invent anything using abstractions and words to justify them.

    I've categorized two types of nihilism which I've named pure or authentic nihilism, and 'positive' nihilism. The contradiction is that of their assertions: they propose and project ideas that negate the experience of the real.
    The latter I've divided into two types....those that react to world as 'too much' to handle, and those, born and raised in a sheltering system, spoiled rotten, that react to it as 'too little, to matter'.
    Schopenhauer's divide of stress/ennui.
    Brain evolved in more austere environments, for larger challenges. It is a tool to satisfy needs/desires. In Modern systems it becomes bored - excess energies accumulate and demand expunging.

    Needs, as lack, becomes desire as excess energy.
    Art is one outlet. Creativity and pro-creativity is how libidinal energies are expunged. But man, in modern systems, accumulates energies easily.
    Entertainment, sports, drugs, and imagination detached from reality, called Fantasy, are ways to deal with these energies.
    and then, all of a sudden, the word 'conscious' becomes a mysterious, immaterial 'thing' that can have 'content', or that can exist in space/time, like an object. now, philosophers begin using the word in new ways that aren't meaningful in the way the old use of the word, was. formerly, we could confirm what the word meant by simply observing some behavior. now, there is no confirmation available for the meaning of the word, other than more words:

    Zoot Allures wrote:example: consciousness can have no causal effect on material, so cartesian dualism is wrong.

    but wait a minute. consciousness was never something that could or could not have a causal effect on material, in the first place, so that statement is nonsensical. we wouldn't say that the fact that joe is aware, or paying attention, or not asleep, has anything to do with causal relationships to things in the world. so consciousness wouldn't not have a causal effect on anything anymore than it would.
    Consciousness is passive.
    It is the differentiation of pattern in what is perceived - constantly streaming into brain from the outside, and through the nervous system from the inside. During sleep the external sources are reduced to a trickle, allowing the internal sources to dominate.
    The body communicates with the brain more loudly during sleep. But it no abstractions to communicate....only sensations, triggering emotions.
    during sleep the mind uses memory to give the internal sensations form, image etc.
    The body is talking to the mind in dreams.
    Body is the sum of all past. It is the past made present/presence.
    DNA is memory - Jung's Collective Unconscious.
    During wakeful hours external stimuli, experiences, are mixed and overwhelm the internal data. In women this subtle subconscious internal stream expresses itself as intuition....an incomprehensible feeling, a judgment imposing itself on the brains judgments.
    Body is honest...it cannot lie. Mind can lie.
    Conflict of Meme<>Gene.

    Zoot Allures wrote:and the second mistake philosophers make is; they assume that the person they are communicating with has in mind the same, new understanding of the word, as they do.

    i wouldn't be confused if you said to me 'joe is conscious right now... he just woke up', or 'joe's conscious of what he's doing', and pointed to joe mowing the grass.

    but when you say something like 'consciousness contains qualia that cannot be observed from a third-person perspective or be reduced to material states of the brain,' i'm like 'what the hell does that mean?'

    but most folks wouldn't admit that they might not understand that to mean the same thing the speaker means when he says it... and they keep right on going as if everything they are saying is perfectly clear to each other.

    it gets really good when they start arguing against a point they believe was made by the speaker, but which wasn't, ... and then the speaker responds to the misunderstood point with a point that misunderstands the misunderstanding of the persons point. on and on this goes... each person really only having an imaginary argument in their own head against what they believe the other person meant, but did not.

    anyway, philosophers rarely do this on purpose. they really are honestly engaged in what they think is a meaningful discussion. that's why you gotta love em. just look at em go... completely oblivious to the nonsense they are emerged in.
    Mind works like a camera....stringing together stillshots (abstractions - noumena) of reality.
    Causal chains. The succession is what we call linear time.
    The brain is like those old movie projectors running the photos continuously and in succession.
    But the mind can also splice and edit....changing the movie, inverting the sequences.
    Consciousness is this running of abstractions, these snapshots through a brain agency that then projects the imagery on another...and this we experience as consciousness.

    iambiguous

    Posts : 4
    Join date : 2018-03-07

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by iambiguous on Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:11 pm

    GoatMan wrote:
    Most ideologies do not offer a ready-made application....and you get cAnus the cunt (iambiguuos) and his endless desire to refute so as to preserve his investments in negativity. No absolutes means all is equally meaningless therefore we must all make concessions - the uniformity of weakness.

    The application of an ideology can only go through the individual's particular goals, and its particular inherited genetic strengths and weaknesses. All in relation to an indifferent world, and a manmade world (system) that intervenes upon world to establish its own principles, and meanings...where meaning means how phenomena inter-relate.

    Just for the record, allow me to reconfigure Satyr's narrative into my own.

    Most ideologies [rooted in one or another God or deontology or objectivist philosophy or political dogma or a scripture regarding Nature] revolve around the assumption that there is only one optimal frame of mind to be had if one wishes to be thought of as "one of us".

    Of course this is all "theoretical". It is encompassed in one or another "general description" of human interactions up in the didactic clouds.

    Really, I challenge someone here to note instances where Satyr has brought his intellectual contraptions down to earth and situated them out in particular contexts that we might be familiar with.

    And for those who are familiar with my own frame of mind, I do not argue that all value judgments are "equally meaningless". I speculate only that they are situated existentially in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

    And trust me: If you do not concur entirely with Satyr regarding "how phenomena inter-relate" -- interrelate "naturally" --  then you become "one of them".

    And here, if he were running the show, you would rather quickly be dumped into whatever the equivalent of the "dungeon" might be.
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Satyr on Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:23 pm

    Oh shit...hide your convictions, your beliefs, the objectivist killer has arrived.
    The linguistic Gordian knot tier has come....perhaps ignored by ILP as her sickness can only be suffered for so long.
    She will whisper to you, asking you to come closer, to discuss, slowly pulling you into her linguistic knots, where she cannot live alone. She wants all to be tied up, so that the final solution will be the only escape.  
    She likes existing tied up and hypocritically perplexed, as she waits for Godot. Snuggling warm and all tied up and safe.

    Prepare for hours of wasted time....I wonder how long it will take for Zoot to, like Alexander the Great, cut and run.

    Beware her linguistic knots are formidable; magical...incomprehensible, un-definable, perplexing.
    A confused jumble of ropes all leading nowhere. Creating a little hemp nest to lay her verbal eggs.
    Words will drag you down to her mind-hole, and there bury you in repeating sentences.  

    Run....run and hide.
    She brings with her her cut-outs & twirling nipple-pasties.....refusing to read, refusing to respond, only asking you to doubt yourself, to dance to her musical chairs.....only one solution is accepted by her =
    All must compromise, and make concessions, because all is a social construct, and a matter of nurturing, and upbringing. All is equally invalid and valid....thinking for invalids.
    She declares it...so it must be so.
    She says it, so it must be correct.
    She asks for absolute proof and perfect arguments, to replace her perfect God (Abraham) and perfect State (Marx). If it is not perfect it is equal to all others.
    God died....all hail chaos. If absolute order is dead, what is left but absolute randomness. If not one, then nil.

    But she has a defence for that...she will conclude her every post with a self-doubting hypocritical end.
    I may be wrong.
    'Bringing it down to earth' is code for....make it personal, about me...about you...not general....'buy into my belief that all is subjective, and keep it subjective.
    Be subjective to prove my starting presumption
    '.
    Coy....no?

    Will I be able to ignore her?
    Shall we see?

    Tortured soul....the solution is application.
    No doubts there. No debates.
    Each lives with the consequences of her judgments. No system to come and help with an abortion, when Mary is a whore, or the condom breaks, or the pill fails.
    You make a choice, and you accept the risks...and the costs.
    there's a price to pay for denying races ans sexes. There's a risk you will pay in full. You insist to share the load because you know you are insane, and your judgments are feeble - you fell for Christianity and then Marxism and you blamed your family for it. That's why you repeat the same mistakes. Some moron in Vietnam gave you post-modernity and you fell for that...after a night of passionate love-making.
    Marxism repackaged for imbeciles...and you were the perfect candidate.

    No universal morality, moron...only in relation to an ideal, an objective. No such thing as universal good and bad...only superior and inferior.
    Good/Bad only means something in relation to an intent, a goal.
    One of us and one of you, is life.
    Your skin creates the "I", pathetic as it is.
    I've defined the terms I use...if you do not like them replace them with better ones, and then let the audience decide. Don't just slander them hoping they will be abandoned.
    Don't destroy because you cannot build.

    Demanding social intervention to save you from our own subjectivity, to maintain the illusion of parity, is based on you existing in a protective system.
    No parity outside human systems....and not all human systems...western ones.
    Sluts are stoned in Asia. They don't abort bad decisions, they kill her with the baby, or they force her to have it so that she will not repeat her mistake.
    Cost/Benefit suffered by the judging mind. No debate...no word-games.
    Choice, entails risk leading to cost/benefit...your responsibility. not the system's, not your family's upbringing...your responsibility.  

    Down to earth, means defining words.
    Connecting words to the earthly...the apparent, that which can be experienced by all.
    To take them off the ...skyhooks, remember those imbecile?
    It does not mean subjectifying it. No philosophy talks about you, personally, old hag.
    It speaks of generalities in world. It speaks of humanity, not a worn out mentally retarded old bag, who wants to die.

    This is my last response....I'll let others ask me your cut & pasties if they deem them insightful.
    I presume they haven't changed for how many years?
    In time you will go to Zoot and he'll spend weeks on you....before he realizes you are fucked up.
    He gravitates to the strange and fucked-up, so you never know.
    He likes quirky.
    But he gets bored easily...so I don't know how long you have.
    Maybe he'll direct your way a cynical remark, a little quote here and there, to feed your hunger.

    How it irked you when I ignored you....ha!!
    Now you come begging for my attention.
    Keep it in one thread to keep track of the views...I know how your vagina moistens when you think people are reading you because of your insightful comments, and not because of how insane you are.
    Oh and...

    Ta, Ta,

    iambiguous

    Posts : 4
    Join date : 2018-03-07

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by iambiguous on Thu Mar 08, 2018 2:47 pm

    GoatMan wrote:Oh shit...hide your convictions, your beliefs, the objectivist killer has arrived.

    Blah, blah, blah...

    Already I've reduced him down to huffing and puffing, blustering rhetoric and making me the argument.

    But my offer still stands:

    Let him note an example of actual conflicting human behaviors anchored to conflicting value judgments embedded in conflicting goods out in a context that most here will be familiar with.

    Note to others:

    If he actually does this on another thread, please, by all means, link me to it.


    And "down to earth" as it pertains to the question "how ought one to live?". As that revolves around the extent to which one is able to demonstrate that the values/behaviors one subscribes to either can or cannot be differentiated between "one of us" and "one of them".

    Existentially as it were.

    You don't have to hide your convictions from me. You merely have to substantiate them by taking the bullshit intellectual contraptions that many "serious philosophers" employ to keep their "general descriptions" as far removed from the lives that we actually live as they can.

    Though, sure, if your thing is defining conflicted human interactions into existence, he's your man. If only scholastically.

    He's through with me here though. And that by definition means he's thumped me.  Wink
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Satyr on Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:27 pm

    Curtain call....amidst silent cheers, and bouquets flying...
    The actor bows as thanks and then stands straight to deliver one final eulogy...

    See?
    This is all predictable.
    We all know what she's going to say before she says it.

    Words connected to world, connecting ideas to the real, is bullshyte for this creature....because all has to be made so, unless it speaks of votes, and compromises.
    All words are meaningless unless they speak of uniformity and collectives, and submitting self to the group.
    She only wants to discredit, spread doubt, to ensure that no absolute means all is equally valid, and the weak shall be protected from their weakness by the strong...and Mary's poor judgments, or slutishness or risk taken, shall come to no wrong.  
    All judgments must be equalized. The collective absorbing the costs so that the feeble minded do not have to suffer them.  

    She wants to be told how to live her life...as if philosophy is psychology.
    She wants a personal mentor, to then denounce and return to her contraptions....her hole where she feels safe from the big bad world.
    She's looking for a psychologist to tell he what she wants to hear.
    She blames her upbringing, saying in twenty sentences what she can say in one: We are all the product of our upbringing.
    Are we? Is it all nurturing, because she declares it so....because some moron told her so in-between gay-orgies and drug induced highs?
    But she can't substantiate it, so for her the absence of God is the absence of absolute, meaning all is possible. All is equally valid. There is no superior inferior....all is the same.  

    I've defined 'morality' for the twat, connecting it to evolution, observable tangible behaviour, but she cannot stand this connection....she wants this either/or dichotomy...this Christian absolute base to then dismiss, absolutely; indication of her enlightenment as the one who rejects Christian ethics, for Marxist collectivism.
    Either/Or
    Morality is either of divine origin or it is state sanctioned law. There's no other alternative...it must be the product of a will.
    Might is right...she can't even understand right is might. She thinks it means the same thing.  
    Her only acceptable answer is our might is right....straight out of the Red Book of Mao.
    A no-god world means, to her, there is no morality. Morality is up for grabs, a product of some decision imposed upon the masses.
    She asks to bring it down to earth, and then when morality is connected to an evolved behaviour, she rejects it as insufficient for her post-god Marxist utopia world to come. No God, for the twat, means good/bad are subjective...they can mean anything and everything.

    She went from Christianity to Marxism, and from Marxism to post-modernity....that's what a kind of mind she has.
    She thinks us & them is a deep insight...as if she does not do the same, as if this is not useful and good, separating dirt from gold...defining and identifying.
    But she admits she's a nihilist...the pure kind.
    She dreams of a world of only Us.
    She wants all to be levelled down to nil - fodder for the coming post-modern state. Mindless robots deferring to the collective will.
    Manure for the united gardens of the future.
    An excuse to surrender to majority rules; to disappear in uniformity because she cannot stand herself...and her upbringing, blaming it for her many wrong judgments.
    In post-modernity, Frankfurt School Jewry she found the perfect tool to dismiss her past, her family and make it all current.
    To forget herself in the crowd....to die as she waits for Godot to erase what remains of her.

    Her hole is of her own digging...she wants to stay there - she's buried before her death, waiting for it to come; wrapped up like a mummy, in twine....that goes round and round and connects so it cannot be unravelled, but only severed.
    I gave the poor thing an out...connecting words to reality, bringing ideas down to observable phenomena...but she refused them, and returned to her twisted mummification, offering nothing.  
    She doesn't want to get out of her conundrum...that's her ploy. She wants to take the world down with her.
    Tie it all up in knots, in linguistic twine....and enslave it as she was enslaved by her inherited cowardice.
    Vengeance against a world she could not make sense of...she will allow nobody else to make sense of.

    Now let us enjoy more of her usual verbal acrobatics.
    Even attention is a victory, for her. This is how desperately pathetic she is.  
    Even telling her what she is, is you lowering yourself to get into her hole. she finds in this a reason to be proud.
    But....all can climb out, at any time....she cannot, she will not.
    It's too late now, as the darkness comes. All she has is her resentment.


    Curtain drops.
    Scene.

    iambiguous

    Posts : 4
    Join date : 2018-03-07

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by iambiguous on Thu Mar 08, 2018 5:23 pm

    See how it works?

    I accuse him of resorting to huffing and puffing, blustering rhetoric and making me the argument.

    So how does he respond? By resorting to more huffing and puffing, blustering rhetoric and making me the argument!

    As for this:

    Let him note an example of actual conflicting human behaviors anchored to conflicting value judgments embedded in conflicting goods out in a context that most here will be familiar with.

    Nope, nothing yet.

    So, by all means, be on the lookout for more substantive posts from him on other threads. Draw my attention to them in other words.

    And please note: The only reason I got drawn into this at all is because he dragged me into it above.

    Now he will either put up or shut up.

    And then you can decide for yourself who is the bigger fool.  Wink

    Sponsored content

    Re: Cheers to All

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:21 pm