You have not changed the formula I offered in summation of your thoughts:
‘out there’ knowing = illusion = sheeple.
Nearly six-months later, Tent, and I am beginning to understand Dunamis’ observations of your “holier than thou” arrogance. But please, continue proselytizing.
The point in my line of questioning is that while you waste time trying to decide on whether you are a butterfly or a man, people are starving. It would be nice if we would focus on more important questions in our world. The distinction between objective and subjective is of little importance because there are more urgent problems. What does it matter if some illusion represents reality accurately? The question you should ask if whether or not that illusion is valuable to accomplish a particular goal.
Stop wasting time, Tentative! (if you are going to proselytize to me, I should be able to do the same). As Dunamis may have said: ‘on to the Palestinian question.’
Shame you’re on the other team, though. When I charge you on the battle field, don’t try to talk me down, Thirst, by reminding me of all the good times we had at ILP. I don’t mix business with pleasure.
While you are charging down the field, I would have shot you with one of my long range rifles having prepared for this day thanks to the NRA.
I will later collect your body along with those of your comrades and drink of your blood. These pictures will be sent to your base in China so they can just surrender before we skull fuck them. But you will have a hero’s burial in the tradition of the Greeks. With two gold American coins put on your eyes so you may cross the river Styx. What? You thought you’d escape capitalism in death? Ha!
You wouldn’t be the first to make all sorts of assumptions and mistake what I’m saying. I have an objective reality just like anyone else, and I have no desire to prosyletize you or anyone else. Pragmatically, naive realism is peachy OK with me because it DOES allow us to ask how and why those questions of poverty, violence, the destruction of our environment, and all the rest.
There is just the slightest chance that you make the same mistake as did Dunamis. Don’t invest so much in words that you think you know anything about anyone else. Words are nothing more than a construct REPRESENTING realities. They aren’t one and the same.
“Fuck you, you fucking nigger!” says nothing about the sayer?
“I like to rape women” says nothing about the speaker?
“I hate fags” says nothing about a speaker?
“I am a liberal” says nothing about a speaker?
“You are a sheeple” says nothing about a speaker?
“I shed my illusions, you sheeple” says nothing about a speaker?
“Worship only internalized knowing” says nothing about a speaker?
Let’s rewind this tape a little and I’ll show you why the OP is valid. I said that I saw nothing wrong with being a sheeple. Your next post derided me for making that statement. You assumed, from my words that I was implying that I was somehow outside of that category, or in some way better than. From that, you judged me as being ‘holier than thou’. You continue with your judgement that I am both arrogant and attempting to proselytize. All of that “knowing” of me, and all from a misinterpretation of what? Words.
The point of the thread is that at any given time, we are ALL sheeple. This includes me. I’ll re-state a few things rather than ask you to look back at earlier posts. Whether we are a human or dreaming butterfly is a hyperbolic statement of a paradox. We don’t, and can’t know. Given that, we are left with our constructs because there is no ‘out there’ knowing. I said earlier that our knowing is experiential and conditional. More simply, there is no knowing outside of myself, and that is true of every person. Are we sheeple? Of course we are. We assume the validity of other’s constructs all the time. This is the best (fill in blank) in the world. New and improved! Government approved. On the best sellers list for 6 months!. We accept these constructs because we don’t have the time, the expertise, or the inclination to question everything. We are sheeple, me, you, and everyone else where two or more are gathered. The very simple point of the whole thread was this. I stated that I think it is valuable to both understand and keep in mind that all we “know” is a collection of personal constructs.
You’re welcome to keep your “knowing” of me through the words here. They prove the point of the whole thread.
Zhuang Zi never lived a full day as a butterfly. The rest of this passage is subjectivist garbage.
I guess I should provide an example of how subjectivism is garbage. Is the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 really a matter of my individual perception, or is it true for everyone? I don’t expect much epistemology out of you, but you would at least have to concede that deductive truths are objectively true whether you believe in them or not (unless you can take one thing and add another and get more or less than two things).
Of course he didn’t, but that wasn’t the point. Subjectivist garbage? Well, if that’s what you see, then it must be that way, right?
It is true for everyone who agrees to your logic and symbolism.
It is quite possible that the answer could be three or even five, depending on the construct used.
Removes white glove from left hand, looks firmly at his friend tentative, leans across table, slaps him across both cheeks with white glove, reseats himself accordingly, and scoffs at said friend
