Sometimes ‘we’ say things, not out loud, when ‘we’ write words here. Like, for example, when ‘we’ read words here.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
It is good that you notice how they can be aids in ‘relevation’.
I do not know what ‘you’ are talking about here.
Okay.
I do not know how the word ‘isn’t’ fits here.
Also, if there is NO ‘need’ to be concerned about how much of what looks literal, to you, out of curiosity, how do you differentiate between what is literal and what is not, exactly?
Okay, but I have no idea what that word means nor is referring to, at all.
Oh, of course, I never thought for a moment you thought I sat at my desk babbling the words I typed. And I’m anendophasic so, of course I am not in the ‘we’ you mention, and yes, I am well aware you never said I was ‘one’ of those ‘we’. It’s also a great example of how the literal ‘say’, which referred to speaking out loud has evolved figuratively to be the kinds of silent saying you mention above. Language grows, extends, sometimes sets ‘words’ aside, subtly shifts meanings over time, forgets this was a metaphor and that was some other trope. It is truly amazing what humans can build.
No worries. Iit’s a tricky structure given ‘isn’t’ is a predicate adjective ellipsis.
We don’t need to work out how much of what seems to be literal is not actually literal. That’s a clearer version.
I think I mentioned before that still water is flat, or level, but even the sea is never really still nor flat, because of wind and tides. Obviously the wind can stop, and the tides can be at a moment of changing tides.
Yes. The word ‘could’ is very, very important. And, again, thank you for noticing. Most people do not recognise that word, and many other words, I say and write here. (Although some of them I highlight them in capitalised letters.)
LOL, ‘catching up’ is a very appropriate word here. Especially considering how many times I have referred to how long it takes some to ‘catch up’.
Some talk about, ‘Sitting still, in silence’, from where Knowing exists, which can relates perfectly with ‘Just observe, without looking’. Which then can go an even ‘deeper’ about how it is possible to ‘see with the ears’ and ‘hear with the eyes’.
Also, ‘we’ can ‘see’ from the visible eyes, as well as ‘look at’ things as they Truly are, or how ‘we’ want them to be, and/or ‘look for’ things, which ‘we’ want to ‘see’. ‘we’ only have a limited vision, and so can only obtain and gain a limited perception and perspective.
Then, ‘we’ can ‘See’ from the invisible Mind, where this ‘Seeing’ can mean or refer to ‘understanding’, itself. From here ‘we’ have unlimited ability and perspective.
But, you ‘can’ still fly a helicopter; you just have not learned how-to yet.
Wind and tides. Yes. The sea moves and im the one whos been calling it still, and youre the one who sat in a lounge and told me so, which is backwards, and only you could make backwards feel like a lesson. Thats the trouble with you, you cant tell the difference between a man who understood you and a man who just stood near you long enough, and i honestly dont know which one i am, and you dont either, and youve written four hundred words about it with the important ones in capitals. Catching up. Lol. I was already here. You just never looked down.
Motivated by discussions on the thread about the case for banning Mr. anew (a frivolous case which should be dismissed with prejudice and the bringers of the suit held liable for damages), I have this to say:
Anew is guilty of something that the original philosophers themselves were: being struck with a sudden feeling of realization, and becoming convinced that this realization it is his duty to spread into every mind.
This may sound suspiciously similar to prophecy to you, and it is because the original philosophers all were essencially prophets. They most of them considered their knowledge to be divine revelation of some sort, which they considered immortal forces to hold them responsible for inculcating.
This extends to Plato and Socrates. Heraclitus, ever the charmer, as well as Diogenes, escape this. They are both exceptions and proof that philosophy achieved something that separates it from religious mission: the isolation of the wisdom element from revelation. The force, the onus of their revelations, the strength upon which they gave them as valid, was no longer simply divine authority, but a quality of providing self-evident and humanly important truth. It was no longer arbitrary. The reason may have been, except for the exceptions, that God said so (in the case of Socrate and others, that some immortal extra-human force implied so), but the case was now made on the strength of intelligibility leading to wisdom.
The thing that happens when one achieves a revelation of philosophical truth is very prophetic at first, one gets the feeling that it is a crime for this not to be spread to all of humanity. The feeling is not of having figured something out, but of having received a knowledge. The disease is cured the moment it is realized that it was, in fact, figured out. That wisdom is an operation of the mind, and that a mind has to be trained for it. Further, that it is useless to most people.
Even further, that there are levels of quality of revelation and that, even if actual philosophical revelation, it can be of such base quality as to make it functionally erroneous. The task of the philosopher is not to spread revelation, but to turn inwards and operate on revelation, which is not really revelation but produced work, and improve and verify its quality.
Only once this has been extensively done can an understanding of how it may be useful to others, why, which others, and how this should be communicated develop. One can count on the fingers of a mangled hand the people that have achieved this. Of course, any craftsman that has been at his shop long enough will know that nothing like this level is necessary to achieve in order to make philosophy a pursuit that justifies an entire life.
Why do such craftsmen communicate about their work?
Not to spread, but to share notes, as part of the craft, as with any other craft.
Here’s to you anew. Those of us who have tasted the wine you are drunk on can hold nothing against you.
I haven’t asserted it was only once. That would be a poor way to word the sentence if I was saying it was only once. With that placement of ‘once’ and the word order and without something like your own use of ‘only’, ‘once’ means ‘at some time in the non-recent past’.
I said something else. Perhaps a clarifying question would have helped you here.
This is related to the kinds of teasing and not informing that FJ was referring to. As was your question about whether I was sure it was only once.
Rest assured that I knew this. The post is merely framed as ‘giving advice about communication to anew’, though I think you knew that.
The medium is the massage.
The process is more telling about philosophy than the content.
What a great example of an obnoxious distraction that he fills his posts with. Instead of addressing the topic being discussed, it’s about the quantity of times he said it. Such a waste of words.
So, it was sort of a random assertion of truth, not connected to my post that you knew was not advice. Understood. Some people can consider saving face so important they will explain their own behavior as nonsensical. Yeah, I see the appeal of these post-hoc explanations, not that that appeal has led to useful or good behavior.
I hope these random facts are not interpreted as being about you. I just happened to insert them in a response to you for absolutely no rational reason. Again, I see the appeal of this nonsense. It’s conflating deniability with invisibility. Fascinating.
More teasing of the kind FJ has been pointing out. Habits can be hard to break, even if they look foolish.
Thank you for sharing these bizarre conversational tactics. I am sure you did this for my edification and not as the face saving and passive aggressive maneuvers they would be in others. I will keep an eye out for them in non-online interactions. I’m stoked.
Generally avoided as a person to have a useful philosophical discussion with. Yes, you’re getting attention, and perhaps different types of attention all seem the same to you.
Again, it seems like some people here prefer to just ‘talk about me’ instead of engaging in any real and actual philosophical discussion ‘with me’, here.
So, either no one here disagrees with anything below, or some do but just do not know how to explain the reasons why, or something else is going on here.
If this is REALLY first and foremost clearly a discussion forum, then let ‘us’ have a peaceful, open, and honest discussion.
If anyone disagrees with my claims above, then just write down with one/s, and then just explain WHY.
However, and for the upteenth time, if ‘you’ are just going to present what ‘you’ think, pre/assume, or believe is true, but ‘you’ do not have any actual proof, facts, or any sound and valid argument, then obviously there is NOTHING to discuss, really.
I say I have the proof for ‘my claims’, which obviously if ‘you’ do NOT have the proof for ‘you claims’, then just expressing what ‘you’ think, guess, or believe only is really wasting every one’s time here.
I will again suggest, that if ‘you’ are going to make ‘a claim’ here, then first have the proof for ‘your claim’.
If this is first and foremost clearly a discussion forum, then at least have the decency to admit and acknowledge from the outset that what ‘you’ are about to say and/or claim is only what ‘you’ think is true but ‘you’ do NOT have any proof for.
Continually ‘talking about me’ is a posting pattern that is CERTAINLY NOT conducive to a philosophical discussion forum, and so is chronically opposed to what is required for an actual discussion here.
If anyone disagrees with any my claims I made above, then reply so explicitly and make clear why you disagree. But, again, at least be open and honest and admit when ‘your disagreement’ is made only on guesses and assumptions.
I do NOT want to just hear what ‘you’ have been told and/or have read somewhere. I want to be informed of what the actual proof is that you have, precisely. If sources are NOT irrefutable, then ‘we’ just end up going around in circles. “I disagree because I read it in a book”, or, “I disagree because such and such said so”.
Is it NOT blatantly obvious YET that when people so call “argue” ‘this way’ here, it has NOT WORKED for hundreds of thousands of years, so it is NOT going to just start working ‘now’?
If people are not going to engage with ‘my ideas and claims’ or are going to refuse to clarify when asked to, then this is NOT conducive to what this forum is first and foremost.
To me, discussions in philosophy forums, or philosophical discussions, are to FIND answers, and NOT to fight over who is right or not. So, if one just says something like, "I think ‘this’ is right because I read it in a book and/or because someone told me so, but I have no proof at all if it is actually true, right, accurate, and/or correct, in some hope that ‘you’ will ‘win’ something, then ‘that’ is CERTAINLY NOT ‘for me’.
So, if anyone disagreed with ‘my claims’ above, then don’t “pussyfoot” around, and just explicity say so. But, if NO one does, because they do NOT have any actual proof that backs up and supports their disagreement, then I totally understand. I also do not want to see ‘bad arguments’. Either you have a sound and valid argument for ‘your disagreement’, which obviously NO one could refute, or you do not.
Oh, that’s the silliest. ‘some people’ have engaged in real and actual philosophical discussions with you which is why ‘some people’ know your counterproductive, evasive, irrational and toxic communication much better than others for whom you are an abstract entity that they don’t bother to engage with much at all, and who have never shown much curiosity about your claims. Anyone who has been curious and has engaged, or tried to, with you, experiences your ridiculous shenanigans. So, frame it binarily if it makes you feel better, but that was just another silly assertion on your part.
A momentary seach of the Motion to Ban anew thread will find that nearly every person against the ban, including myself, either finds your communication toxic or, more mundanely, a waste of time. ‘some people’ actually showed you some respect until that was pointless.
ONCE AGAIN, ‘this one’ ACTUALLY BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that the definitions that it has and uses are THE ONES everyone should have and use or should be using.
AGAIN, it is ‘about me’, and a ‘philosophical discussion’ does not even begin.
If people don’t want to communicate like I do, openly and honestly, while seeking clarification, clarity, and understanding, and they do not like that this is how I communicate, then so be it.
To know whether ‘we’ are using something properly and Correctly or misusing it, ‘we’ first need to know what its purpose in Life is, exactly. Until others also come to know what human beings’ purpose in Life is, exactly, children need clean enough air and water, nutrients, and attention for their continued survival.
Polluting or taking away what children need to live is abuse.
Earth’s purpose is to house, sustain, and support life.
Adults polluting the water and air on earth is a misuse of earth.
Polluting is obviously not the right thing to do and so is a wrongdoing.
All children need enough clean air and water to sustain their lives.
‘Polluting’, by definition, is making what is needed to sustain life unsafe or harmful.
When adults are polluting, as ALL are when this is being written, then
Is ‘this’ what ‘you’ have resorted to “greenfuse”?
Again, what ‘we’ can very clearly see here is just how much “greenfuse” believes, ABSOLUTELY, that ‘the way’ it defines and uses words is ‘the way’ others SHOULD and MUST ALSO, and if they do not, then they are just idiosyncratic.
Which is extremely hilarious considering that it is “greenfuse” who is STILL seeking answers, with and from ‘the words’, and 'their definitions", that “greefuse” believes, again absolutely, are the commonly used ones.