It was not meant to be a compliment nor an insult but I have always seen him this way. The splitting of wood is a positive.
Well, may your light shine in the darkness of others.
It was not meant to be a compliment nor an insult but I have always seen him this way. The splitting of wood is a positive.
Well, may your light shine in the darkness of others.
More like splitting stone.
MagsJ: PolandYoung:so? you do realise being crassly mean and snarky as a supposed fully mature adult makes you look retarded and infantile??? you are not much above or below this piece of shit in terms of your own magnitude of character or intellect or anything else
Seconded…
Come on, Mags, I’ve bent over backwards to avoid making you a laughingstock here.
I never asked you to hold back… it is you who disappears from the conversation or endlessly repeats yourself, when you mentally hit a wall and fall into paternosterisms.
That onus is on you, not anyone else… being disingenuous/ingenuine is not particularly moral.
I never asked you to hold back… it is you who disappears from the conversation or endlessly repeats yourself, when you mentally hit a wall and fall into paternosterisms.
That onus is on you, not anyone else… being disingenuous/ingenuine is not particularly moral.
Come on, MagsJ, as I noted previously, given that I am involved in numerous exchanges both here and at PN, I might “disappear” from the occasional exchange with you. That’s why I asked you to get back to me if that was ever the case.
Also, you have “disappeared” yourself from our exchanges. Just recently you noted that you would get back to me regarding our exchange on gib’s thread:
Also, with communities like the Amish and Pagans, there’s a “spiritual” element. Morality comes to revolve around it. How, for example, Maia has come to construe Nature and the Goddess as her own rendition of MagsJ’s “intrinsic self”. Something that is not applicable to those like me.
Call it what you will, I think it’s ‘self-assuredness’ in being capable of forming/giving an educated opinion on many matters.
From my frame of mind, it’s not what I call it, but how you explain it. Your “self-assuredness” is to me, in the is/ought world, just another manifestation of dasein. Only here, both gib and Maia acknowledge that they themselves are at least somewhat in sync with my own understanding of it. That, had their lives been different, they might be here voicing opposite convictions regarding the trucker protest.
And, I suspect, both sides in the trucker protest will embrace very different assumptions regarding what it means to be “educated” about it.
How about you? Is your “self-assuredness” here predicated largely on your own “intrinsic self”? And, if so, how is that not a particularly effective moral philosophy? After all, no one can really challenge it because, well, they are not you.
And how is this “deep down inside you” Self the same or different from gib’s intuitive Self and Maia’s spiritual Self. In regard to such things as the trucker protest and abortion.
One does not have to have experienced the phenomena, to give rise to formulating an opinion and/or making a decision, on them.
Agreed. After all, I was not even fully aware of the trucker protest until gib brought it to my attention on this thread. But, as I noted above, how we react to it will revolve existentially around how “ambivalently”, “intuitively”, “spiritually” and how you reacted to it, one is inclined to be.
Then going deeper to our own subjective reactions to things like capitalism vs. socialism, big government vs. small government, I vs. we, genes vs. memes, religion vs. atheism, idealism vs pragmatism, might makes right vs. right makes might vs. democracy and the rules of law.
Then the arguments I make.
Note to Maia and MagsJ:
By all means, weigh in here on how your own rendition of an “intrinsic self”, enables you to avoid becoming “fractured and fragmented” in regard to the moral conflagrations that pop up in forums like this over and again. Maia…you in particular. Why? Because as with gib you share part of my own assessment of dasein, but there is still a part of your “spiritual self” that “somehow” enables you to feel wholly connected with the “Right Thing To Do”.
What… as opposed to the wrong thing to do?
Enslaving others is/isn’t wrong?
Forced abortions are/aren’t wrong?
Prejudices are/aren’t wrong?
Wars are/aren’t wrong? etc. etc. etc.
Well, I’m fractured and fragmented regarding all of them. Why? Because in a No God world [a subjective assumption that “I” make], what font/moral foundation is there for me to turn to in order to pin these things down definitively, beyond all doubt? Science? Philosophy? Metaphysics?
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, only that “here and now” it doesn’t exist for me.
Maia is very attractive, voluptuous. Look at her avatar. The other photos she has posted. Of course there are going to men here [even women] who might wish to take things beyond a world of words with her. Same with MagsJ. She too is an attractive woman with brains. Same with phoneutria back when. Or take Astro Cat over at PN: forum.philosophynow.org/search. … 2&sr=posts
The men there lining up to impress her. Crushed that she is a lesbian!!
What…this all changes with philosophers?
…and that photo is supposed to be real? Get real.
Huh? What on earth are you suggesting here? Maia told us that the shot had nothing to do with anything sexual. Her brother took it and she was just trying to be playful as I recall. But all I can do is to react to it as “I” did. And to note that there does not appear to be a way in which to establish how one ought to react to it. Sexually or otherwise. Same with the photos that you post of yourself. Sexually and otherwise, different strokes for different folks, right?
The disingenuous/catfishing posts here (and now over there at PN) couldn’t be more transparent. Do people actually fall for that sh*t?
I have no idea where you are going with this. Catfishing? Transparent shit that people “fall” for? Well, sure, maybe on “social media” or “chat room” or “dating” sites that sort of thing is prevalent. But how is whatever you do mean by it applicable here?
After all, philosophers can discuss sexuality [including their own sexuality] without getting as someone here once put it, “creepy”.
Or being “immature”.
Overall, my main impression of you is that you are here less to engage in actual philosophical discourse and more to use ILP as just another “social media” outlet to “chat” with others about “things”. That and to convey your own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices. It’s here that you share many of Satyr’s own right-wing declamations regarding the odious “liberals”. This is what draws you to him, in my own subjective opinion. Only here he has his intellectual contraptions and you your “intrinsic Self”.
Then back to this:
Well, all I know for sure [if it is true] is that she is a person of color and a woman. Though I don’t think she is gay or a Jew.
This and Satre’s own “political prejudices”.
MagsJ:I never asked you to hold back… it is you who disappears from the conversation or endlessly repeats yourself, when you mentally hit a wall and fall into paternosterisms.
That onus is on you, not anyone else… being disingenuous/ingenuine is not particularly moral.
Come on, MagsJ, as I noted previously, given that I am involved in numerous exchanges both here and at PN, I might “disappear” from the occasional exchange with you. That’s why I asked you to get back to me if that was ever the case.
This is going back the last few years, not recent times.
Also, you have “disappeared” yourself from our exchanges.
Yes… from 1 exchange.
Just recently you noted that you would get back to me regarding our exchange on gib’s thread:
The conversation had turned to women and their voluptuosity… I took a break, I left you ‘guys’ to it.
iambiguous:Also, with communities like the Amish and Pagans, there’s a “spiritual” element. Morality comes to revolve around it. How, for example, Maia has come to construe Nature and the Goddess as her own rendition of MagsJ’s “intrinsic self”. Something that is not applicable to those like me.
MagsJ:Call it what you will, I think it’s ‘self-assuredness’ in being capable of forming/giving an educated opinion on many matters.
iambiguous:From my frame of mind, it’s not what I call it, but how you explain it. Your “self-assuredness” is to me, in the is/ought world, just another manifestation of dasein. Only here, both gib and Maia acknowledge that they themselves are at least somewhat in sync with my own understanding of it. That, had their lives been different, they might be here voicing opposite convictions regarding the trucker protest.
And, I suspect, both sides in the trucker protest will embrace very different assumptions regarding what it means to be “educated” about it.
How about you? Is your “self-assuredness” here predicated largely on your own “intrinsic self”? And, if so, how is that not a particularly effective moral philosophy? After all, no one can really challenge it because, well, they are not you.
And how is this “deep down inside you” Self the same or different from gib’s intuitive Self and Maia’s spiritual Self. In regard to such things as the trucker protest and abortion.
You seem to have answered your own inquiries… if you have any new ones, let me know…?
MagsJ:One does not have to have experienced the phenomena, to give rise to formulating an opinion and/or making a decision, on them.
iambiguous:Agreed. After all, I was not even fully aware of the trucker protest until gib brought it to my attention on this thread. But, as I noted above, how we react to it will revolve existentially around how “ambivalently”, “intuitively”, “spiritually” and how you reacted to it, one is inclined to be.
Then going deeper to our own subjective reactions to things like capitalism vs. socialism, big government vs. small government, I vs. we, genes vs. memes, religion vs. atheism, idealism vs pragmatism, might makes right vs. right makes might vs. democracy and the rules of law.
Than the arguments I make.
…what else?
iambiguous:Note to Maia and MagsJ:
By all means, weigh in here on how your own rendition of an “intrinsic self”, enables you to avoid becoming “fractured and fragmented” in regard to the moral conflagrations that pop up in forums like this over and again. Maia…you in particular. Why? Because as with gib you share part of my own assessment of dasein, but there is still a part of your “spiritual self” that “somehow” enables you to feel wholly connected with the “Right Thing To Do”.
MagsJ:What… as opposed to the wrong thing to do?
Enslaving others is/isn’t wrong?
Forced abortions are/aren’t wrong?
Prejudices are/aren’t wrong?
Wars are/aren’t wrong? etc. etc. etc. iambiguous:Well, I’m fractured and fragmented regarding all of them. Why? Because in a No God world [a subjective assumption that “I” make], what font/moral foundation is there for me to turn to in order to pin these things down definitively, beyond all doubt? Science? Philosophy? Metaphysics?
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, only that “here and now” it doesn’t exist for me.
Stop being such a ‘nihilist’…
…or you could just answer these:
Enslaving others is/isn’t wrong?
Forced abortions are/aren’t wrong?
Prejudices are/aren’t wrong?
Wars are/aren’t wrong? etc. etc. etc.
iambiguous:Maia is very attractive, voluptuous. Look at her avatar. The other photos she has posted. Of course there are going to men here [even women] who might wish to take things beyond a world of words with her. Same with MagsJ. She too is an attractive woman with brains. Same with phoneutria back when. Or take Astro Cat over at PN: forum.philosophynow.org/search. … 2&sr=posts
The men there lining up to impress her. Crushed that she is a lesbian!!
What…this all changes with philosophers?
MagsJ:…and that photo is supposed to be real? Get real.
iambiguous:Huh? What on earth are you suggesting here? Maia told us that the shot had nothing to do with anything sexual. Her brother took it and she was just trying to be playful as I recall. But all I can do is to react to it as “I” did. And to note that there does not appear to be a way in which to establish how one ought to react to it. Sexually or otherwise. Same with the photos that you post of yourself. Sexually and otherwise, different strokes for different folks, right?
MagsJ:The disingenuous/catfishing posts here (and now over there at PN) couldn’t be more transparent. Do people actually fall for that sh*t?
iambiguous:I have no idea where you are going with this. Catfishing? Transparent shit that people “fall” for? Well, sure, maybe on “social media” or “chat room” or “dating” sites that sort of thing is prevalent. But how is whatever you do mean by it applicable here?
After all, philosophers can discuss sexuality [including their own sexuality] without getting as someone here once put it, “creepy”.
Or being “immature”.
Overall, my main impression of you is that you are here less to engage in actual philosophical discourse and more to use ILP as just another “social media” outlet to “chat” with others about “things”. That and to convey your own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices. It’s here that you share many of Satyr’s own about right-wing declamations regarding the odious “liberals”. This is what draws you to him, in my own subjective opinion. Only here he has his intellectual contraptions and you your “intrinsic Self”.
Astro Cats’ photo being faux, not Maia’s…
I rarely ‘chat’ on social media…
Everyone here has aired their political views, from time to time… some views, being attacked more than others…
Your impression of me, is incorrect!
Then back to this:
Well, all I know for sure [if it is true] is that she is a person of color and a woman. Though I don’t think she is gay or a Jew.
This and Satre’s own “political prejudices”.
Why would any of that, be of interest to anyone?
More like splitting stone.
“Look at a stone cutter hammering away at his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred-and-first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not the last blow that did it, but all that had gone before.”
― Jacob August Riis
There is ancient story about a stone cutter who felt himself powerless and grim
When he passed a wealthy merchant’s and said, “I wish that I was him.”
Then he became the merchant but one day watching the King parading by
He said, “If I could only be the King, no one would be as powerful as I.”
Then he became the King but before the day was done
He saw the power in the daylight and he wished he was the sun.
Then he became the sun high in the sky for everyone to see
And smiling contentedly he said, “Nothing is as powerful as me.”
Until one day a huge black cloud moved in blocking his sunny glow
No longer did he shine so bright on the people down below.
“That cloud is more powerful than me.” He said, “Oh it would make me very proud
To have the power he possessed, I wish I were the cloud.”
Then he became the cloud and quickly his wish he would rescind
When he realized that he, the cloud, could be driven by the wind.
“I wish I was the wind.” He said, “With all that energy and speed
Oh, if only I could be the wind I’ll have everything I need.”
Then he became the wind and, harnessing his power, he blew both night and day
Until he came upon a huge, towering rock which he could not blow away.
“That rock is truly powerful I cannot budge it…I am shocked
I wish to be that powerful…I wish to be that rock.”
Then he became the rock and was happy being as mighty as he could be.
For he could think of no force in nature more powerful than he.
One day he felt someone chisel into his hard surface and as the day passed by
He felt weak and wondered, “Who in the world could be more powerful than I? ”
He looked down to see who wielded such power and was immediately filled with awe
He could not believe his eyes…for a stone cutter is who he saw.
That’s the story, I hope you like it and so as not to cause confusion…
I leave it up to all of you to draw your own conclusion. 
Jim Yerman
Chew on slowly to digest. Some cool wisdom in that poem.
Power is relative.
One does what he can, with the tools he has in his possession, and the talent he inherited form his parents.
iambiguous: MagsJ:I never asked you to hold back… it is you who disappears from the conversation or endlessly repeats yourself, when you mentally hit a wall and fall into paternosterisms.
That onus is on you, not anyone else… being disingenuous/ingenuine is not particularly moral.
Come on, MagsJ, as I noted previously, given that I am involved in numerous exchanges both here and at PN, I might “disappear” from the occasional exchange with you. That’s why I asked you to get back to me if that was ever the case.
This is going back the last few years, not recent times.
Can you cite actual examples of me disappearing from an exchange with you, you reminding me of that and me still ignoring you? Exchanges that contained actual philosophy and not the “social media” stuff.
Also, you have “disappeared” yourself from our exchanges.
Yes… from 1 exchange.
No, from others. I recall one in which both you and wendy darling came after me but than did not respond to my posts.
Anyway, the past being what you and I both remember it to be, let’s agree not to ignore each other’s post going forward pertaining to philosophy or other substantive issues.
On the other hand, the manner in which you respond to my point here…
[b]
iambiguous:Just recently you noted that you would get back to me regarding our exchange on gib’s thread:
The conversation had turned to women and their voluptuosity… I took a break, I left you ‘guys’ to it.
iambiguous: iambiguous:Also, with communities like the Amish and Pagans, there’s a “spiritual” element. Morality comes to revolve around it. How, for example, Maia has come to construe Nature and the Goddess as her own rendition of MagsJ’s “intrinsic self”. Something that is not applicable to those like me.
MagsJ:Call it what you will, I think it’s ‘self-assuredness’ in being capable of forming/giving an educated opinion on many matters.
iambiguous:From my frame of mind, it’s not what I call it, but how you explain it. Your “self-assuredness” is to me, in the is/ought world, just another manifestation of dasein. Only here, both gib and Maia acknowledge that they themselves are at least somewhat in sync with my own understanding of it. That, had their lives been different, they might be here voicing opposite convictions regarding the trucker protest.
And, I suspect, both sides in the trucker protest will embrace very different assumptions regarding what it means to be “educated” about it.
How about you? Is your “self-assuredness” here predicated largely on your own “intrinsic self”? And, if so, how is that not a particularly effective moral philosophy? After all, no one can really challenge it because, well, they are not you.
And how is this “deep down inside you” Self the same or different from gib’s intuitive Self and Maia’s spiritual Self. In regard to such things as the trucker protest and abortion.
You seem to have answered your own inquiries… if you have any new ones, let me know…?
…is not exactly what I had in mind. Where’s the beef as they say?
MagsJ:One does not have to have experienced the phenomena, to give rise to formulating an opinion and/or making a decision, on them.
iambiguous:Agreed. After all, I was not even fully aware of the trucker protest until gib brought it to my attention on this thread. But, as I noted above, how we react to it will revolve existentially around how “ambivalently”, “intuitively”, “spiritually” and how you reacted to it, one is inclined to be.
Then going deeper to our own subjective reactions to things like capitalism vs. socialism, big government vs. small government, I vs. we, genes vs. memes, religion vs. atheism, idealism vs pragmatism, might makes right vs. right makes might vs. democracy and the rules of law.
Than the arguments I make.
…what else?
How about the arguments you’d make?
iambiguous:Note to Maia and MagsJ:
By all means, weigh in here on how your own rendition of an “intrinsic self”, enables you to avoid becoming “fractured and fragmented” in regard to the moral conflagrations that pop up in forums like this over and again. Maia…you in particular. Why? Because as with gib you share part of my own assessment of dasein, but there is still a part of your “spiritual self” that “somehow” enables you to feel wholly connected with the “Right Thing To Do”.
MagsJ:What… as opposed to the wrong thing to do?
Enslaving others is/isn’t wrong?
Forced abortions are/aren’t wrong?
Prejudices are/aren’t wrong?
Wars are/aren’t wrong? etc. etc. etc. iambiguous:Well, I’m fractured and fragmented regarding all of them. Why? Because in a No God world [a subjective assumption that “I” make], what font/moral foundation is there for me to turn to in order to pin these things down definitively, beyond all doubt? Science? Philosophy? Metaphysics?
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, only that “here and now” it doesn’t exist for me.
Stop being such a ‘nihilist’…
Right. Find the nihilist button in my brain and switch it to off.
…or you could just answer these:
Enslaving others is/isn’t wrong?
Forced abortions are/aren’t wrong?
Prejudices are/aren’t wrong?
Wars are/aren’t wrong? etc. etc. etc.
Right. After I switch the dasein button in my brain to off. Of course for you there’s the “intrinsic Self” button that “just knows” how to think and feel about conflicting goods. But there is no off on it, is there?
iambiguous:Maia is very attractive, voluptuous. Look at her avatar. The other photos she has posted. Of course there are going to men here [even women] who might wish to take things beyond a world of words with her. Same with MagsJ. She too is an attractive woman with brains. Same with phoneutria back when. Or take Astro Cat over at PN: forum.philosophynow.org/search. … 2&sr=posts
The men there lining up to impress her. Crushed that she is a lesbian!!
What…this all changes with philosophers?
MagsJ:…and that photo is supposed to be real? Get real.
iambiguous:Huh? What on earth are you suggesting here? Maia told us that the shot had nothing to do with anything sexual. Her brother took it and she was just trying to be playful as I recall. But all I can do is to react to it as “I” did. And to note that there does not appear to be a way in which to establish how one ought to react to it. Sexually or otherwise. Same with the photos that you post of yourself. Sexually and otherwise, different strokes for different folks, right?
MagsJ:The disingenuous/catfishing posts here (and now over there at PN) couldn’t be more transparent. Do people actually fall for that sh*t?
iambiguous:I have no idea where you are going with this. Catfishing? Transparent shit that people “fall” for? Well, sure, maybe on “social media” or “chat room” or “dating” sites that sort of thing is prevalent. But how is whatever you do mean by it applicable here?
After all, philosophers can discuss sexuality [including their own sexuality] without getting as someone here once put it, “creepy”.
Or being “immature”.
Overall, my main impression of you is that you are here less to engage in actual philosophical discourse and more to use ILP as just another “social media” outlet to “chat” with others about “things”. That and to convey your own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices. It’s here that you share many of Satyr’s own about right-wing declamations regarding the odious “liberals”. This is what draws you to him, in my own subjective opinion. Only here he has his intellectual contraptions and you your “intrinsic Self”.
Astro Cats’ photo being faux, not Maia’s…
I rarely ‘chat’ on social media…
Everyone here has aired their political views, from time to time… some views, being attacked more than others…
Your impression of me, is incorrect!
Fine. We can just agree to completely disagree here. Others can click on “Search user’s posts” and decide for themselves how much philosophy is in them.
Then back to this:
Well, all I know for sure [if it is true] is that she is a person of color and a woman. Though I don’t think she is gay or a Jew.
This and Satre’s own “political prejudices”.
Why would any of that, be of interest to anyone?
Because it might strike them as…ironic? Satyr and his racist, sexist diatribes. You [to the best of my knowledge] not addressing that.
And just for the record, are you gay or Jewish?
_
Resorting to condescension, as expected… there’s definitely a fallacy, for that.
Leave me out of your game… you’re not up to it!
I’ll watch from the sidelines and say my piece at will… the floor is all your’s.
_
Resorting to condescension, as expected… there’s definitely a fallacy, for that.Leave me out of your game… you’re not up to it!
I’ll watch from the sidelines and say my piece at will… the floor is all your’s.
No, seriously.
_
…it’s the stare to camera, that really gets me.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZpi-XVvG20[/youtube]
Even dogs can learn from watching others.
Even dogs can learn from watching others.
I, await… Their reaction.
_
…it’s the stare to camera, that really gets me.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZpi-XVvG20[/youtube]
Of course: TikTok!!!
Next up: knowthyself.forumotion.net/t2021-race
Me? I’m no less “fractured and fragmented” here as well. Given the staggering complexity of genes begetting memes begetting possible changes in the genes themselves there are countless conflicting arguments able to be made about race and gender and sexual orientation.
I’m just not insisting that everyone must think exactly as I do about them or they are, among other things, “morons”.
Evolution has become God to the average moron. Everything is evolution, evolution is everywhere, nature explains everything. How to conceive morality? Nature, evolution. Except that evolution is a process and does not explain its outcomes in all their manifestations and aspects because the study of evolution is a study of the process itself, just like the study of weather does not explain the process of gravity making sure rain always falls down, not up(because it does not always do so) or it does not explain the technology the aviation industry uses to navigate through thick clouds around the globe. And regarding nature, it simply does not exist and the world is nonsensical, except when it is applied in an obvious and general way and then it is trivial. If evolution evolved humans, and humans have a morality, then it does not follow that evolution explains morality but the moron thinks it perfectly does, because he makes that very mistake. So what is morality, why is morality. To aid evolution solely, ie. to aid survival… Even if this is true…this does not explain it fully. Its just stating the obvious, except that evolution does not even ‘evolve survival’, but evolve reproduction…which is far less mechanistically explanatory premise.
Of course: TikTok!!!
Do you get it, though… does it resonate? …or shall I not mention the diversion-elephant in the room.
Just how many YouTube links do you think you have posted on ILP, in total? …including all those dull one-liners and ancient-quip vids?
You, divert… ignore… repeat… cajole… lie… stir… back-track… what else? …too many to list.
Its because evolution is so FUNDAMENTAL of a cause, so little of its products can be explained by the study of it solely. Like a butterfly effect… Study sperm penetrating the egg as much as you want…how much of an understanding of human behaviour and actions and their outcomes will you grasp??? will you understand how a watch a human made works??? idiots should play sudoku
iambiguous:Of course: TikTok!!!
Do you get it, though… does it resonate? …or shall I not mention the diversion-elephant in the room.
Just how many YouTube links do you think you’ve posted on ILP, in total? …including all those dull one-liners and ancient-quip vids?
You, divert… ignore… repeat… cajole… lie… stir… back-track… what else? …too many to list.
Pick one:
:
The wedding is still on, right?