Expressionistic Questioning

(Destructive agents of imbecility requested not to interfere, include: “Karpal Tunnel”,“Mr. Reasonable”,“Meno”)

Expressionistic, and that means dreadfully inadequate. But, there must be an inception if the attempt is to be made:

Was the first word verb or noun?

Is it possible in our research to approach this point of entering? Is the entering into the human “ratio”, the “logos” or speech, thinkable as the split between being and becoming? Is the being, the noun, which is not merely person place or thing, but rather, whatever word can follow the article, intelligibly, beyond muthos? Is muthos truly the essence of intelligibility? Muthos, this means not myth, but truth as bare intelligibility.

The metaphor, closely bearing on muthos, one must think, is not mere metaphor in the sense of “transfer of meaning”, from here to there, rather, it is the essence of ineligibility as the bare necessity of the “raising of the eyes” which is the human griping amidst thought for a grip to hold on “all the things” or “being”.

A noun can be a verb, and vice versa. It’s not so much the word itself, but a combination of the word and the context in which it is used.

Also, you should use jargon and old ass words when there is no alternative. Otherwise, plain language is a better way to demonstrate that you understand a concept.

oh but this is in response to my criticism of your lack of clarity. look, of course some of these important things need unique language, but posturing, your posturing, is a large part of your style. drop that and it will be clearer. it adds nothing. Mr. R is noticing the same thing. How you want to come off to others is getting in the way of communicating. Being unclear can also be evasive. I mean, dropping the ‘we’ thing was a great step, why not go the whole way and just be a person communicating to other people?

The imbecile wretched censors, in their continued aim to prevent open discussion, have removed my substantive statement of the reasons for thoroughly despising such ones as “Karpel Tunnel” (and, with somewhat greater perfection, “Mr Reasonable”).

This program of shutting the door on the group’s ability to speak freely means that one can say nothing without the ominous presence of possible erasure, and so all discussion is forestalled in the extension of that shadow which drenches the group in its wretched ignorance. Why should one waste one’s time, knowing the imbecile arbitrary acts of the censor are always at work tirelessly shutting down the possibility of piercing the core of the human being through genuine deliberation over the things that matter most?

Arguing on this level is like begging the question. The mixing of logical systems is overlooked here, and since the familial versus socially defined can be confounded, it has been an escape route for Positivists, seeking to find meaning, on a level inaccessible through analysis.

Prioritising on a dialectic between the perception (raising eyes) and the presumed initial difference, sustains this retro-prejudication as to phenomenological/ontological passage.

Of course the subjective is prior in a reductive phenomenological sense, but reducing it to pure phenomenology is impossible through invariables, which are semantically sustained, in an effort to find simulated logical systems.

All systems are simulated, but reduction can not verify such, because it can not differentiate at a level or even a threshold, where meaning can encompass all the variables.

“Modern society controls human beings, not with kinship relations, but with rules which are indifferent to persons, therefore the “Ich” is prior to the “Du”. When the infinite”

The kinship relation and the societal rules can not be differentiated on retroactive levels of certainty, and that is the problem. The study of symbolism on most probability support this view.

If you object by incurring a semantic definition, it will merely hide a pre-position to propose a singularly proposed argument.

End of my intrusion.

I don’t see what “begging the question” is meant to mean other than not getting the other persons permission. Saying someone has begged the question means nothing other than not granting the premise. Under good conditions this would be done honestly, that is, according to the rule of ad hominem correctly understood to mean from the man, i.e., an honest statement of what “you really think”, as Socrates used to put it.

These rules of right reasoning, generally abused these days, tend to destroy the possibility of intelligent discussion.

Removed for being without merit

You can tell me why you despise me in a pm if you want. I love to hear that kind of stuff. Also, when you say, “with somewhat greater perfection”, does that mean you despise me more than the others and that you do so perfectly? I’m a bit confused on that by your phrasing, but I do feel pretty honored assuming that I’m interpreting you correctly.

Wait. You could discuss the issue without saying you don’t want us to participate? You don’t realize you have the power to ignore our posts? Do I really have control of your threads?
If so, you might want to look at regaining that minimal power. There is a foe function, but there are ways to do with, of course, with your own will.

You don’t immerse yourself in the life of the things written, or make any effort to do so. Instead, you strike out across the thing said on some arbitrary avenue and distract us with tedious and overly-short questions abstracted form the whole. You’re a dilettante in manner of research, and so waste the group’s vigor for the pursuit.

This was answered more carefully and thoroughly in a post the moderators treacherously removed. Undermining agents need to be drenched in armed glances; ignoring is insufficient to group vigor.