And if it makes you happy …. I went to hell because of trying to figure out what should have been taught by everyone before me.
The whole thing was absurd.
Even as I teach you these things, you’re still out for blood.
Imagine the incremental steps it takes to be in a universe that is blasphemy and then having to find words to put to it.
At the end of the day mag. You got your wish granted. For no reason at all, I went to the deepest pits of hell (thousands of them) for 30 fucking years.
Why? Because I committed no crime. The crime was committed because none of you knew or taught this before I was born.
You’re just mad that I out classed you and outsmarted you.
I wouldn’t stoop so low as to say you’re the devil.
You’re worse than the devil.
And that’s a fact.
Mag. I’m going to tell you something. This is the battle you’re going to have in cosmic courts…. Meaning all of us in our purest states….
You’re going to try so hard to plead sanity in court, and I’m going to send you to a mental institution reality because you are insane. This will hurt your ego for a while, but not your soul.
You are batshit crazy mag. I know what it’s like, I used to be as well. Because of what I did and what I went through, I helped everyone’s sentencing. Including yours.
You read the words I wrote.
They’re perfect. Something that’s not even in you to do (defend yourself and others from hell). They helped me out and they will help you out.
I’ve approved your post, but I do want to ask you: was this produced by Chat GPT? Much of your writing has a tone to it that I’ve only ever seen from gpt.
The fact that you took Value Ontology seriously, is a major red flag.
Maybe a reading of Weininger’s On Last Things will help you find a link, through a similar use of the term “value”. The link being a circumcised penile piece, symbolically tying up an imaginary covenant in a sexually insinuating verbal mind-fucking.
Narcissism is the other component, replacing erotic pathos.
The “Van Clan” had the makings of a sex cult, scored by a techno-cRap background beat, that maintains the rhythms of their infertile thrusts…in & out…in & out.
Rising passions to an apex…
A communal drive to a final orgasmic release…in laughter?
Impotent release of libidinal energies.
The tragedy of humour.
Use of language to exploit feeble minds, maintaining the avenue of claiming that it was all in jest.
Freedom from reality?
Yes, salvation it has been called.
The biggest joke of all.
One can laugh…until it brings us to the edge of Armageddon.
Or could the use of language, in all seriousness, conceal a joke played upon itself?
Paradoxically…what if the one using jest was exposing something serious, and the ones he was exposing, used language seriously to conceal a big farce?
Just sayin’
Is that what you think?
The audience validates a philosophical insight?
A joke is not a joke unless the audience laughs?
If language is so versatile then you would say that men can create worlds using words, no?
If he can find a gullible audience, that is.
The grifter secretly laughing at an audience who is taking his words seriously.
What a postmodern vision.
Could this be an inversion?
What of the speaker who said serious things confronted by an audience that laughs because they are clueless, so they conclude that it is all a joke?
Ha!!!
The use of “value” already identifies.
There is no paradox which is not linguistic in origin.
Words released from their original utility of connecting subjective minds with objective reality, that cares not about what subjective minds think and do.
Words as mediators, neurologic nexus, representing the synthesis of the represented and the representor; the translated and the translator.
What is being translated and are all translations as good as any other?
What consequences would a bad interpretation have on the bad interpreter, if any?
Will he cynically laugh it away?
In this case, “value” - your beloved ontological insight - would only represent a triangulation …not an orology at all.
Like the term ‘love’ has been corrupted…when it simply refers to actions, behaviours and to no otology, no being.
Verbs converted to nouns and pronouns.
Now that’s the beginning of a cosmic joke, going back thousands of years…a punchline might be imminent.
When dealing with insanity, or psychotics, one has to turn to levity, to help you deal with the gravity of the situation.
You can think of no third factor…the most crucial?
If all is a play between text and reader, then man is a literally, literal, creator god.
All you know is text, and text reader?
How Abrahamic, of you.
Was ‘the word’ first.
What, “paradox” disrupts this delusion of yours?
Text, reader/interpreter, and…? That’s it?
What determines the validity of the text - which is itself a representation of another reader who has now become a writer - and the passive reader?
What escapes this solipsistic loop, you’ve tied around your neck?
So, between Bible and reader, there’s nothing?
What about between Dictionary and reader?
What gives meaning to the text?
Other readers? A collective of readers that have been duped?
A joke usually exposes a contradiction between the expected and the actual.
Distance gives the audience relief, releasing its stress in orgasmic convulsions, mirroring sexual orgasms.
All that stress is expunged. The audience feel good - relieved…de-stressed.
More expectations to be relieved down the line, in bouts of…laughter, or tearful convulsions?
As always…time…time measuring interactivity, will be the determining factor.
I appreciate the time and intellectual labor you’ve invested in responding to my treatise. Philosophy, as we both know, is an enterprise grounded not merely in the quest for answers but in the articulation and examination of questions themselves. It is a discipline that has historically thrived on dialogue, dissent, and the dialectic process, values that I believe enrich our current exchange.
As Plato espoused, the dialectic is an instrument of philosophical inquiry, a way to harness the power of collective reasoning to distill abstract thought into its purest form. Plato’s dialogues seldom offer resolutions but thrive on a perpetual maturation of questions. The mere act of dismissal could be antithetical to this noble tradition. While your critique of my viewpoint may be rooted in serious contemplation, the act of relegating it to the domain of irrelevance seems to misalign with the philosophical exercise’s inherent openness. We must remember that even Socrates, a cornerstone of Western philosophy, was less an oracle of wisdom than a facilitator of dialogue. His method was to provoke, to challenge, and yet, to remain open to the myriad possibilities of human thought.
Similarly, the 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant advanced our understanding of epistemology and ethics by emphasizing the limitations of human knowledge and reason. Kant was no stranger to contesting popular viewpoints, but he did so with the understanding that his critiques were themselves subject to scrutiny. His “Critique of Pure Reason” is less an assertion of ultimate truths than a guide to the boundaries of human understanding. It opens doors even as it closes others, fully aware of its own potential fallibility.
Therefore, I suggest we both stand to gain more by approaching each other’s ideas as potential seeds for broader understanding rather than as competing dogmas vying for the mantle of ‘truth.’ While we might locate ourselves at different junctures in the philosophical landscape, these are but vantage points—each offering a unique panorama of the intellectual territory that stretches out before us. The ancient Eastern concept of “Many Paths, One Truth” could be illustrative here. Philosophical stances, be they rooted in differing schools of thought or individual intuition, each contribute to the intricate tapestry of human understanding.
The temptation to prove one’s point of view as ‘right,’ as opposed to illuminating, seems to be a diversion from the philosophical quest. It nudges us closer to sophistry than to wisdom. As philosophers, our role is less to defeat each other in argument than to sharpen each other’s understanding and expand the sphere of collective insight. The very essence of a philosophical conversation is the antithesis of finality; it is a recognition of the eternal nature of philosophical investigation.
So, I propose we continue this dialogue not as a contest to be won but as a collective venture. After all, is not the whole point of philosophy to extend the boundaries of understanding, to poke holes in our preconceptions, and to arrive, however uncertainly, at a more nuanced grasp of the complexities that frame our existence?
I look forward to your response, and to the furtherance of this enriching philosophical exchange.
Your mistake is that flannel is protecting your spirit more than me.
I’m trying to open your mind to infinite possibility.
You’re stubborn.
Once I structurally changed existence, I need no accolades.
That part is done.
Look at it from my perspective.
We’re all creating this together. All of you chose me for the deepest pits of hell. Something you’d never do to yourselves. Nobody deserves hell. That being said, you all deserve it more than me.
You pride yourself as an independent woman with a keen intellect.
Calling me a superiority complex is not going to look good for you.
I have an analogy for you.
The muddled person bows to everyone in hopes of being bowed to by everyone. I bow to nobody because I want nobody to bow to me.
Chivalrous love, being replaced by loose/faster love… the new Frankfurt School guise? designed for the newer much-more modern demographics, that need to be divided-and-conquered, in kind.
People been falling for it for decades/Millenia… and more fool them! …as upset one apple-cart, you upset them all.
