Anewian Philosophy

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
62

Fair questions, and I realise I have been talking around it, which is a habit I picked up for reasons that will become obvious. So here it is plainly. The floor is not a metaphor. I mean the actual ground. I believe the earth is flat and stationary, that the horizon is level because it is level, and that the globe is a model we were taught rather than something any of us has seen. That is the position. That is the floor, and that is the issue I said makes reasonable people snarky before an argument has even been offered.

I am not accusing you of anything. You asked how I could know you would get angry, and the honest answer is that I do not know it about you specifically. I know it as a pattern. I have raised this with a great many thoughtful people, and the reaction is nearly always the same: not a counter argument, but a change in tone, as if I had said something rude rather than something wrong. You said you would find an ontological position that enraged you almost exciting. I would like that to be true, and your promise not to lash out is more than most people offer, so I will take you at your word.

On anew, I think you are right and I was being loose. It is his manner rather than any position that wears people down, and I should not have put words in your mouth about that.

And yes, you could not decide which it was because I had not told you what it was. That is on me. Now you have it. Either the flat earth is so obviously wrong that it deserves no argument, or something else is going on when people refuse to give one. You can decide that for yourself now, and I would be interested to hear which way you land.

63

Ah, anew. You say 'here is the quote that I have mentioned had the missing word. ‘the’ implies one instance. There are other instances, most, where you do not have that word, in the same idea.

Because you blanket describe people alive now in the way you do. The are a distinct category, different from those in the future generations - which is people not born yet.

Yes, which meant you opted to change the meaning of ‘future generations’ to solve the problem you created. It’s a clever post-hoc rationalization. But it doesn’t fit with quote after quote of yours. There are people here who can admit to contradictions. I have found that you cannot. So, I no longer do the deep digging.

Or to put this in the way you might:

It’s okay with me that you will never admit this contradiction exists.

64

Thank you and I appreciate you saying it, given what you have likely experienced. No, that doesn’t make me angry. But yes, I can imagine that it would irritate some people here, but of the philosophy forums online, this is the best place to bring it up. You wouldn’t come close to some of the truly odd characters, especially since you seem to be able to write rationally, understand that I, for example, had a perspective that was not yours and could imagine yourself into that perspective. The yes, I have been talking around it statement, for example.

I wouldn’t call this an ontological issue, the flat-earth idea. Unless ontological issues are part of the explanation. But it’s close in a sense. It’s foundational, literally, but to me it is outside ontology at least so far.

Unfortunately, then it doesn’t quite excite me, though I’d certainly look in on the thread discussing it, if you decided to start that thread.

I think Carleas would politely discuss that with you. You could invite him to a debate. I’ve disagreed with him on things where my position was outside the kind of academic world/scientific consensus world and he’s polite and respectful, generally, and admits if he’s called out for not being that. He’s smart and knowledgeable so it would be a learning experience. You’d find the weak spots in your justification and could potentially tighten them up, and so on.

65

Again, why can you NOT just ask me a simple clarifying question, instead?

WHY do you pose ‘your question’ as A CLAIM, and then at the end you decide to add a question mark to it?

Again, what people’s TRUE BELIEFS are can be CLEARLY SEEN within ‘their writings’. That is, of course, once ‘you’ learn and know how to ‘read between the lines’, or ‘see the True intention behind the words and/or meanings’.

Now, if you are asking me, “Do you use the Right formula and solution ALL of the time?” then the answer is ‘No’.

No.

Moot. As my first answer shows why.

you ask this question from the ALREADY OBTAINED CONCLUSION, and so from the CLOSED perspective, of I CHOOSE not to use.

Which, as always, CLOSED perspectives lead to further Wrong and/or False pre/assumptions and/or beliefs.

Now,

  1. I do not always use it.
  2. WHY I do not always use it is NOT because you believe is the only reason of ‘motivation’ BUT BECAUSE OF ‘old habits’.

Just like how I also do not like to assume nor presume absolutely, but because of ‘old habits’ I ‘slip up’ and forget sometimes.

Which, I KNOW, is only ‘an excuse’, as it would be much better if I remembered NOT TO more often, but i am falliable, after all. As I say, some ‘old habits’ are harder to remove and stop completely than some other ‘old habits’ are or were.

Once again, when “atla” cannot produce a rebuttal, “atla” resorts to the old “he/she is lying” tactic.
LOL As though there is ANY Truth behind it.

LOL Okay, your False claims ‘about me’ are what you call “the charitable interpretation”.

Which now I probably should be ‘thankful for’, correct, “greenfuse”?

So, WHAT, EXACTLY, can I do that will make ‘you’ START ASKING MORE clarifying questions from the Truly open perspective so that ‘you’ obtain more clarification and a better understanding here?

Why did you introduce this red herring and straw man here, exactly?

OBVIOUSLY, I was NOT talking about NOR referring to ‘mid post’, but WAS talking about and referring to ‘part way through A DISCUSSION’, instead, CLEARLY.

‘This’ would be the case if absolutely anyone was following ‘your’ so-called “logic” here and what so-called ‘understanding’ things here in ‘the way’ ‘you’ somehow ‘manage to’.

See, how often people like “flannel jesus” will COMPLETELY MISINTERPRET another’s words and meanings, and then present lots of words that follow on from and align with THAT COMPLETE MISINTERPRETATION?

This happens so often, and so BADLY, I continually wonder whether they do it ON PURPOSE or not.

This type of BELIEVING one’s OWN False and Wrong interpretations is A Truly dark communicaiton pattern. As shown and proved throughout discussions in these forums.

‘Look at’ HOW QUICKLY, from just one COMPLETELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect interpretation, ‘this one’ has, ONCE MORE, gone from just reading words on a screen to ending up CONCLUDING and BELIEVING, and BELIEVING ABSOLUTELY, that ABSOLUTELY EVERY one is SICK OF ‘me’.

But I can NOT explain “myself” ‘to you’.

As just seen and proved, again, ‘you’ can NOT even comprehend and understand just one little sentence I write.

‘you’, AGAIN, have turned, twisted, and distorted that one tiny, little sentence SO FAR AROUND that bringing ‘you’ BACK ON TRACK for just that one little tiny sentence seem like it would be an IMPOSSIBLE TASK.

Let alone even beginning to try to explain “myself” about ALL of the other things that ‘you’ managed to COMPLETELY TWIST into UNRECOGNISABLE other DISTORTED BELIEFS ‘of yours’.

How about ‘you’ “flannel jesus” explain “yourself” to the readers here, and you can use as many posts as you like?

By the way, quit the False and Wrong interpretations. Quit the False and Wrong accussations and claims. And, quit making things so UNNECESSARY HARD and COMPLEX here.

66

Thats decent of you and ill take the suggestion about Carleas under advisement. But ill be honest, a polite debate with someone whose job is to find my weak spots isnt what im after, ive had that and it goes where you think it goes. What im after is people wholl actually look before they argue, and thats a short list on any forum. Here i count anew, Ichthus and The_Emotion, maybe you, though youve just told me it doesnt excite you so i wont push. A thread would be for them. Everyone else can watch.

67

Are you denying that you regularly post partial explanations and wait to be begged for the rest of it? Cause I guarantee you, you do do that, and that is one of the many reasons you’re so universally avoided on the forum. You don’t just say what you think, you tease and wait to be begged.

68

This is extremely common in informal situations - not writing a paper or formal document. It is very much like common speech. It was not a claim.

I do appreciate that you answered my question. The incorrect mind reading and gossiping incorrectly about me was unnecessary. If you had not done this kind of thing regularly when we began interacting in the beginning, I would not have started to treat you in like fashion. Something you might want to consider when you meet people you haven’t met before. You once claimed to be interested in learning how to communicate better. If you are still interested, this would be a key thing to improve. Avoid talking about people you have recently met in the third person. Avoid ‘mindreading’. Avoid referring to them as if they were part of an experiment - a word you once used to describe what you are doing with people here - and talking about them to people you do respect, for example ‘future generations’. Be as open to the idiosyncrasies other people have in their communication as you expect others to be about your idiosyncrasies - my questions that are word order statements with question marks - rather than making pejorative assumptions about what is ‘really’ happening.

I asked a question and got an answer and a lot of noise.

69

Good questions. I wish this sort of genuine interest and clarity was sought from me as well.

From my perspective your idea of a philosophical discussion seem to be in complete opposition of mine.

What do you mean by ‘philosophical discussion’, exactly?

AGAIN, “greenfuse” ALLUDES TO one thing or another, but does not just say what ‘it’ is, exactly.

What is this perceived ‘problematic pattern’ that ‘you’ ACCUSE ‘me’ of here, exactly?

There are certainly ‘ontological positions’ that trigger ‘you’ “greenfuse”.

70

What ontological positions trigger me anew? I was excited to hear he might have one. Which ones do you think trigger me?

71

Losing parts of the human ‘self’ some might call ‘a cost’, but, to me, when I lose or let go of a 'faulty, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect part of ‘that self’ and replace it with Truth, Rightness, Accuracy, or Correctness, then ‘this change’ is never ‘a cost’ but is ALWAYS ‘a gain’.

What has actually changed is a Falsehood, which was ‘let go’ and replaced by a Truth, instead.

I can see and know that there are ‘answers’, ‘Truths’, and an inner-Knowing that are very deep within, and that existed way before one was even able to question, but whether or not the earth was round or had a curvature or not I don’t think that was ‘an answer’ before ‘asking’ took place. But, in all honesty, I would have to spend a some time on ‘looking back’, and to recall back, on those times and memories.

I was literally recalling memories from my past experiences, were ‘you’ referring to ‘do it’, in imagination, while sitting here in front of this computer screen?

What I was doing was NOT putting ‘it’ [height, curve, or anything else] there before I looked. I was genuinely remembering back on past experiences, where I obviously could not ‘put anything anywhere’, I was ‘just there’ on top of a mountain or in an airplane. And, from those memories I do not recall asking what you said, but recall seeing the curvature on the horizon of the earth or not seeing the curvature. Again, it depends on where and how high i was, ‘back then’.

To be honest, I am very lost and confused here.

Have you looked from an airplane seat when it was at cruising height?

If yes, then did you still see ‘level’?

Just so I am clear, I prefer much more when the words ‘this’, ‘that’, or ‘it’ is not used often, and only used directly after what those words are in relation to, exactly.

Here you have quoted me as saying;
“Yes, I have looked at the horizon numerous times”, but then you go on to say;
“then youve seen it”.

What is the ‘it’ word here referring to exactly? The curvature or levelness, or to something else entirely?

What did you see that you say and claim I saw, exactly?

And, what do you mean by I filed ‘it’ under something, and, everyone has a draw for ‘it’, exactly?

I am not sure what ‘you’ see, or saw, but what I see, and saw, in regards to curvature or level of an ocean on earth, always depends on how or low I am relative to the ocean or body of water.

Okay.

I am not sure when I will get back to tell you, but I could go to the lounge room window now and ask is there ‘one’ [curve], and only ‘that’, and then tell you. Do you want me to tell you when I have done that, or tell you what I saw? I am not sure by “and tell you what I get” means exactly.

I just went to the lounge room window and asked “myself” is there ‘a curve’? and ‘only that’, and I will get you that what I got was, ‘No’.

No’, was the answer I got when I asked, “Is there a curve?”, and ‘only that’, when I looked at the horizon of the ocean.

72

“then this change is never a cost but is ALWAYS a gain”

right, yes, and ive read that three times now and i think i agree with it, or ive agreed with something near it, the way you let go of the wrong bit and the right bit comes in behind it, like a tide, which is a bad example given. anyway. you understand that better than most on here and youre about the only one whos bothered to tell me what you actually think instead of what i am

“I was literally recalling memories”

fair. i thought you were doing it in the chair. i was wrong about the chair. but the memories had the curve in already is my point, or not the memories, the words round the memories, “high enough”, thats a word that came after, that

“To be honest, I am very lost and confused here”

so am i half the time, its fine, the space man was the one who told you there was no space and you listened. thats all. i meant do that again. you did it actually, see below, you did it before i finished asking

“Have you looked from an airplane seat when it was at cruising height”

yes. twice. level. window was curved which fooled me the first time. second time i put my face right on the glass and it was a ruler. people say the window and i say the glass is the glass, the sea is the sea. my dad never flew once, said if god wanted. well he said a lot of things

“What is the it word here referring to exactly”

level. im sorry. it is level every time i say it, from now on assume level unless i say curve, and i wont say curve because i havent got one

“what do you mean by I filed it under something”

everybody sees the flat sea and puts it somewhere where it doesnt bother them. a drawer. “too low to tell” is a drawer. “the earth is very big” is a drawer. i had one as well, i just took the drawer out one day and the thing was still there

“Okay”

okay. he died in 09. not relevant

“what I got was No”

there it is.

thats it. thats the whole thing anew, you went to the window and asked and got no, and you got it before you worked out what i was asking, which is how it should be. everyone else on this forum would have gone to the window with the answer and come back with the answer. you went with the question. i knew youd be one of the ones who could. i did say so. ichthus and the_emotion might, we’ll see, but you did it first and i wont forget that.

now dont do anything with the no. dont explain it. just keep it. thats all i ever asked anyone

73

I am curious as to finding out what your reasons are here, as I do the same thing also, but probably for different reasons.

Fair enough.

Well, to some, ‘science’ is just another religion, which some more strongly believe in and have more faith in, than some people have of the other sects, cults, theologies.

When you say, “I believe the earth is flat and stationary”, and “That is the position”, is ‘this position’ and ‘belief’ fixed and rigid, and ‘you’ want to fight and argue for ‘this belief and position’?

Or, do you just think the earth is flat and stationary, because this is only what you have seen from ‘your own personal perspective and view of things’, only?

74

Would you like to present them? Or, would you prefer others just take ‘your word’ that ‘they’ exist?

But it does match, you just BELIEVE, only, that it doesn’t match.

Anyway, your red herring here has done its job.

LOL I NEVER changed ‘the meaning’. LOL I was just NOT using ‘the meaning’ that ‘you’ have and are using.

One day ‘you’ will come to UNDERSTAND ‘this’ and HOW ‘it’ works, EXACTLY, hopefully anyway.

Again, just because you use ‘a word’ in a particular way NEVER MEANS;

  1. That ‘that way’ is the True nor Right way.
  2. That everyone else HAS TO or MUST use ‘your definitions’ in ‘your way’.

Words can have different meanings, in and of themsleves. The one you use might NOT BE the one intended NOR used by the writer/speaker.

Different times and different cultures produce DIFFERENT meanings, which NEVER necessarily align OR line up.

Just because ‘you’ envision ‘a problem’ NEVER means that there actually was one there.

I NEVER changed ‘the definition’ that I was ALWAYS using, and MEANING.

What changed was 'your ‘pre/assumption’ of what I was saying and meaning. Which would not have NEEDED to have happened if you had, ONCE AGAIN, just sought out and obtained actual clarification and clarity BEFORE ‘you’ started pre/assuming and/or believing things here.

How many times until ‘this’ is UNDERSTOOD?

But, they DO.

Now, OF COURSE, they do NOT fit your Wrong interpretation, inferences, pre/assumptions, beliefs, and conclusions. But all of them do NOT necessarily have absolutely anything at all to do with what I have been actually saying and meaning here. As I have been repeatedly pointing out.

There are people who ADMIT to Falsely accusing another of making a contradiction when they have not. I have found that you cannot.

Okay.

75

That is an EXTREMELY SHORT LIST.

Notice how ‘you’ were ALREADY JUDGED as having ‘weak spots in your justification’?

Never ‘a word’ was heard, but an ALREADY KNOWING that ‘your justification’ HAD ‘weak spots’.

76

Yes.

So, ‘I’ am ‘now’ supposedly so UNIVERSALLY AVOIDED, YET threads after threads are tuned into being ‘about me’.

If ‘this’ is what ‘you’ have Truly CHOSEN to believe is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH here, then ‘this’ is EXACTLY what ‘you’ will continue to see and hear here.

I do NOT care about it being common or uncommon, I just asked ‘you’ WHY do you do it. I even emphasised the WHY, in relation to ‘you’, and the reason ‘you’ do it.

So, now ‘you claim’ that it was NOT ‘a claim’.

Once more, ALL ‘my fault’.

I am doing EXACTLY what I want and have planned.

Are you sure it was only ‘once’?

Again, just about ALL of the advice ‘you’ have provided so far reveals more ‘about you’ than ‘I’.

your ‘superiority complex’ and the ‘condescending ways’ that ‘you’ speak to ‘I’, as though ‘you’ are still in ‘your school teacher’ role is really very boring and uncalled for.

If you would like to improve in your communication with others here, then there are quite few lessons you could take.

Once more, “greefuse”, the ways I want to learn how to communicate better are NOTHING like what ‘you’ are, AGAIN, presuming and believing here.

77

you might deny that they are ‘ontological’ but here goes anyway.

That you are in a cult and that you abuse children. These can be very easily and simply justified and proved True also, by the way.

Okay. I won’t do anything with the ‘no’. I won’t explain it. I will just keep it.

78

That is a false dilemma.

It doesn’t.

If only, for your sake, that ‘explanation’ fit your communication in general. Here’s a second bit of advice: if you want to communicate with people better, then don’t riddle your writing with idiosyncratic meanings. Either use more conventional language (which would have be very, very easy in the places you used ‘future generations’ or explain that you have an idiosyncratic use of language where it will mislead most readers.

79

As you suspected they are not ontological assertions, nor does the fact that you claim these things trigger me. Thank you for letting me know your assumptions about what triggers me.

80

“I am curious as to finding out what your reasons are here”

the reasons are boring, i say it plainly and people stop talking to me, so i stopped saying it plainly. yours are probably better than that. mine are just weather

“Well, to some, science is just another religion”

yes and the tell is the same as with any religion, its not what they believe its what they do when you dont. a scientist should want to go to the window. most of them want to tell you about the window

“is this position and belief fixed and rigid, and you want to fight and argue for this belief and position? Or, do you just think the earth is flat and stationary, because this is only what you have seen”

thats the best question anyones asked me on here and i notice its you asking it and not the ones who said youd never discuss anything. so. the second one. its what ive seen. i dont want to fight for it, fighting for it is what made me talk round it in the first place. if i stood on a cliff tomorrow and the sea bent down at the edges id come back here and say so, same as you came back from your window and said no. i mean that. the only thing im rigid about is that looking comes first and the model comes after, and that most people have it the other way round and dont know it. thats not a belief about the earth really. its a belief about people. the earth i just keep looking at

81

I’ves looked out at the Caribbean sea, and out from the peak of a 6 km high mountain and, specially in the second case, seen a distinct curve. In the second cave, even a curve from here to horizon, a distortion in sizes and proportions coherent with a sphere.

I almost don’t want to say it, because I like living in a world where people have the courage to believe the world is flat.

Maybe we can agree the Earth is flat enough?

If it helps, that I was looking for the curve at all should tell you something.

1 Like