Come Back!

[MagsJ (..a chic geek)]

I miss anyone that I could have a healthy discussion with… sprinkled with humour and lacking uncalled for aggression - Typist and Maynard James Keenan… those two I miss the most.

[LaughingMan]

@obe

And i know that You really mean that! (No kid)

Thanks Obe.

[LaughingMan]

@MagsJ

I miss anyone that I could have a healthy discussion with… sprinkled with humour and lacking uncalled for aggression - Typist and Maynard James Keenan… those two I miss the most.

I have a sense of humor.

Can’t you see that I’m always laughing at the world? Can’t you see me smiling all the time?

I bet that I could get a laugh or chuckle out of you.

[statiktech]

@fuse

i wish trevor would come back. other than that Dunamis and Xunzian were great.

@mr reasonable

I can’t believe no one mentioned detrop.

hardly anyone’s left at ilp from that far back. he was smart and amusing, if somewhat whacked.

All great suggestions; especially Xunzian.

[statiktech]

@Fixed Cross

@Twilight of the Idols

@mr reasonable

I can’t believe no one mentioned detrop.

I would have but then you just did.

I can’t believe no one mentioned Impenitent.

Also liquidangel.

Yeah what happened to Imp anyway?

I thought he got banned for some reason, but Imp definitely belongs on the list.

[statiktech]

@mr reasonable

I dunno. But tentative should come back too.

Definitely!

[statiktech]

@Ben JS

@phyllo

I’m objective because I’m not attached.

An illustration of your partiality in regards to your perception of me.

You said, ‘Get over yourself’, in response to me asking questions.

You implied that it’s a fact that my efforts here are a product of ego. You didn’t display any signs of trying to verify if this was the case, by communicating with me respectfully, you went straight to disrespecting me for a fault you projected on me.

This is not objective, and your surprise my reaction of your partiality, is indication of your ignorance in regard to this matter, in combination with your first statement in this post - ‘I’m objective’

@phyllo

I merely state that whatever is said to the suicidal individual… he is really in control of his life. Even if you promote a philosophy of death and destruction, which is very common on ILP, you are still not responsible for his suicide.
Nobody owns your life… not your parents, your wife, your friends, the government, God… only you.

There’s a difference between being solely responsible, and influencing the result.

I don’t ask whether I’m solely responsible, I ask whether I influenced the result.

I’m asking myself, if I did influence Abstract, was a positive or negative influence.

I want to learn from the past, to make sure I do right in the present and future.

And you criticize me in my efforts to do so.

Privilege, Arrogance, Luck & Accountability

====

As for Satyr,

An example of Satyr and his friends

=====

James, amongst others, prompted me to return to this site.

There’s a difference between not explicitly justifying one’s claims, and not implicitly justifying one’s claims. OR not being able to justify one’s claims.

Through my experience of James, he often offers his conclusion or resolution to an issue in a very concise manner, then leaves.

I interpret this to be, he offers an answer, but you must partake in the understanding of it. Either by discovering the train of thought that lead to the conclusion, or by asking questions and hoping he invests the time to respond.

I believe one reason he doesn’t take the time to defend a position, is because it is far more resource intensive than only offering the answer. The power of knowledge, is it allows us to conserve energy.

Another: If one participates actively in the understanding and comprehension of a theory, it will be internalized more effectively than if it were spoon fed. Spoon feeding may lead to reliance. Short term, this may be relevant, but not long term - people ought be allowed the capacity to resolve their own adversity. Spoon feeding restricts that.

Another: In order to understand the offerings of James, you must invest energy. If you have sincere intent, this wont be a problem. If you only want to project, then James will prove frustrating for you because you’ve little room to attack him, without first investing the time to understand what he wrote.

It’s a very efficient.

I don’t mean to undermine James’ objective with this post, rather, encourage people to give him a chance.

====

(In defense, I generally avoid reading the Science (I’ve no qualification) /Religion (Not relevant to me, atm) sections of this forum, so I wont comment of his efforts in them - I say his psychology, general philosophy, and social beliefs are what I’ll often consider)

Well, I think it’s fair to say your assessment of James is rather charitable, albeit a little disturbing. You seem to treat him like a sort of sage or spiritual advisor.

[MagsJ (..a chic geek)]

@Tyler Durden

@MagsJ

I miss anyone that I could have a healthy discussion with… sprinkled with humour and lacking uncalled for aggression - Typist and Maynard James Keenan… those two I miss the most.

I have a sense of humor.

Can’t you see that I’m always laughing at the world? Can’t you see me smiling all the time?

I bet that I could get a laugh or chuckle out of you.

I bet you could

[LaughingMan]

@statiktech

@fuse

i wish trevor would come back. other than that Dunamis and Xunzian were great.

@mr reasonable

I can’t believe no one mentioned detrop.

hardly anyone’s left at ilp from that far back. he was smart and amusing, if somewhat whacked.

All great suggestions; especially Xunzian.

I for one don’t miss the drunken master.

His philosophy was way too esoteric. It was always eastern philosophy this and eastern philosophy that.

[statiktech]

You know there are books on eastern philosophy available for anyone to read.

[LaughingMan]

@statiktech

You know there are books on eastern philosophy available for anyone to read.

I prefer Western over Eastern. Less emphasis on mysticism.

[statiktech]

You know, at first glance I was inclined to agree with you, but I’m actually not so sure that’s correct.

[von_Rivers]

@statiktech

Faust
Mo aka Von Rivers
Tralix
Captaincrunk
Volchok
anon
Caldrid aka H&H
Tab
Jayson aka Stumps

Guys, seriously, get your asses back here. I certainly understand the need to take breaks from this place, but why not come stop by every now and again?

Feel free to add to the list anyone you’d like to see back at ILP.

Wuddup, brethren.

[statiktech]

Wassup kid? Glad you stopped through. How goes it?

I saw a post by you over at KTS and thought it was a sad state of affairs that you’d rather post your ideas there than here.

[von_Rivers]

Sometimes you wannnna go, where everyyybody knows your name…
aaaand they’re always glad you came…

[iambiguous]

@statiktech

Wassup kid? Glad you stopped through. How goes it?

I saw a post by you over at KTS and thought it was a sad state of affairs that you’d rather post your ideas there than here.

What I’m curious to learn is this: how much closer to “objective morality” are they over at KTS?

And a sad state of affairs indeed: knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1486-this-and-that

Mo and Satyr: Towering male egos more in line with this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles from The Magus

More and more I am convinced exchanges of this ilk revolve around this. The more impotent some folks [mostly men] are the more they seem compelled to huff and puff in places like that. And places like this too. And I don’t necessarily exclude myself either. But these things [human motivation and intention] are always so damn complex.

[Fixed_Cross]

That’s actually a far more interesting thread than what’s been going on here lately.
Mo is being tested but he’s also testing Satyr. They are both wrong in opposite directions, one missing the honesty and another the optimism to arrive at an actual statement.

[iambiguous]

@Fixed Cross

That’s actually a far more interesting thread than what’s been going on here lately.

True. Way too many Kids here. And, as I noted above [or somewhere], it is obvious that Satyr has given some serious thought to many of the things that folks tend to think of philosophers pursuing. So has Monooq/Mo/von rivers.

But, as I proposed to statiktech above, they are both locked into this bullshit psychological agenda where the other has to admit that he is wrong. In this respect they are [to me] both moral and political objectivists.

In this sense: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

All that “I am a river to my people” crap.

Well, if it is crap of course.

[Moreno]

@iambiguous

@Fixed Cross

That’s actually a far more interesting thread than what’s been going on here lately.

True. Way too many Kids here. And, as I noted above [or somewhere], it is obvious that Satyr has given some serious thought to many of the things that folks tend to think of philosophers pursuing. So has Monooq/Mo/von rivers.

But, as I proposed to statiktech above, they are both locked into this bullshit psychological agenda where the other has to admit that he is wrong. In this respect they are [to me] both moral and political objectivists.

In this sense: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

All that “I am a river to my people” crap.

Well, if it is crap of course.

Nice catch with the disclaimer at the end.

It seems to me little difference if one labels people negatively because they will not admit one cannot be certain about something
or one labels people, if Mo has for example, because they will not admit there are moral truths. It seems to me both sides want the other to perform a linguistic move the other is unwilling to make. And here we have the epistemological relativist - meaning you - putting people in a set with a label, a set you elsewhere blame for making things worse - with occasional disclaimers.

I find this high moral ground, because it is one, with an occasional disclaimer, rather odd.

But you know that.

It’s just that you worded things a new way, and so here I am, coming at it from yet another fruitless angle.

[statiktech]

But, as I proposed to statiktech above, they are both locked into this bullshit psychological agenda where the other has to admit that he is wrong.

It’s not an agenda, it’s called an argument. You’ll find those occur in philosophy pretty often. Nobody has to admit anything as a good argument should speak for itself.

That, in my opinion, is still more productive than simply throwing your hands up and remaining in a state of relativistic indifference because the subject is complicated.