I find it very hard to introduce these in any other form than that of an apology for acting like a complete moron.
youtube.com/watch?v=7qzHx678Ro0
youtube.com/watch?v=_iQJkIl4Xx8
Still, there will be more. I find quite a bit of freedom in this form of acting.
Nice soundtrack 
Second that motion!
That was pretty funny.
Have you been to Rome? How would you compare it to Athens if you have?
well thank you I do my best.
[sometimes a post is just a bit much and must be deleted after a while, you know how it is]
youtube.com/watch?v=KW8ascJ1EQI
In the future I will get a microphone and a better camera.
Another one.
youtube.com/watch?v=rbW-HhGxOdg
I’m not sure about intro, in fact I wonder what the hell I was doing.
It seems I am trying to discredit what I am saying or play it down.
Everything in me resists to take philosphy to a level where it is “Serious”, i.e. where it ceases to be play, where it becomes a job.
I see your passion for truth, but you need to chill FC, it seems to have reached the point of torment for you.
Inner calm for you, will show you your true essence.
youtube.com/watch?v=7qzHx678Ro0
You seem to be one of those people who likes to move while thinking. But your style of walking while talking to the camera is distracting to the viewer, there is too much movement behind you, and your voice is uneven at places. Maybe audio only would be better for this style. (I mean, does the audience really need to go for a backwards spin around the block while listening to your philosophical views?)
Having said that, it sounds to me like you’re trying to give sentience to every aspect of dynamic existence.
On the contrary, this is my inner calm restoring.
The passion for sharing the truth that I have found, has caused great torment in me the past years, as I noticed that no one save three or four people seemed to understand what the hell I was on about. Writing from this position was always frustrating and required of me immense efforts to constrain my frustration with all these minds that would simply not register what I presented them with… even though what I present is the perfect explanation for them not registering it! It is so ironic, and there is so little possibility of sharing this sense of irony with others, I am very glad to have found a way to deal with it in a way that allows me to blow off some steam.
Now, that I can express myself freely in a somewhat comical way, a lot of energy comes pouring out. A lot of this energy is restless. But this is a method of calming myself.
In fact I have felt more calm the past days, since I started posting these videos, than I have felt in years.
I have felt like sitting on the greatest gift ever given to man, and not knowing how I could share it, not knowing how to get others to recognize its worth.
You should see the keyboards I have typed to shreds!
I am already preparing some forms that will make for a calmer and more stable viewing and listening experience. Thanks for the comment.
Rather the opposite; I am showing sentience to be just a more complex form of valuing.
Forgive me but, I really do wonder how it is possible that so many people do not understand that values are not predicated on consciousness or sentience. I will keep working to make this clear, in what I hope to be increasingly watchable videos.
The purpose is not to do a video, but good philosophy, which just happens to be on video. The video is incidental and the walking is necessary. All great thoughts are conceived while walking.
FC wrote:
It will be unrecognised by many In today’s corrupt society, like a leaf blowing in the wind.
Take heart my friend. The journey is yours.
Thanks.
VO relates to Wittgenstein in a way that he perhaps lost hope for in his later years. I only recently got interested in Wittgenstein (though I did conceive this philosophy a stone throw away from his native home) as I used to figure him for a bit of a fool for taking language so literally. I now see that his notion of what a thought is/must be is correct, despite all that is still missing from any notion that treats language in general (his mistake, I think) as strictly representative, as a ‘pure cousin’ to logic, which disregards among other things that there is also a great physiological aspect to language and its forms of expression.
Despite these errors, philosophy-pure is able to produce such a language, and value ontology allows it to come into existence by objectifying representation itself, thereby approaching these conditions:
3.04: An a priori true thought would be one whose possibility guaranteed its truth.
3.05: We could know a priori that a thought is true only if its truth was to be recognized from the thought itself (without an object of comparison).
I suffer from excess of heart - it is a proud suffering of a happiness that the world has yet to learn. Don’t worry about me, my path is necessarily a wilderness not many areas of which are accessible in terms of what already exists.
-Seeds underneath the soil. We do not see that the sun shines for them, because we do not see their existence.
-The leaf which indicates the winds direction and heralds change when it is afoot.
FC wrote:
I have always been bewitched by words. For me words can be powerful. I recognise it in poetry and in philosophy, I see how it progresses with man’s increasing personal knowledge of the world and of his own nature. Words can be seen to be used as a weapon cruelly, the blades without mercy, or seductively, so powerful as to control a person’s behavior. It is the only medium that a Forum has, (or rather, I associate words as the major source of expression on a Philosophy Forum) and for some for optimal effectiveness, it is finely tuned and finely honed. It also allows others to see the true nature of a person, perhaps when “to read between the lines”, gives greater understanding. To use the correct word is imperative when one wishes to be understood, to themselves and for others. “Words crystallise our thoughts, make our thoughts recoverable. Make the thoughts of others recoverable.” Robin Allot.
Probably I am a better writer than talk-video maker, I do not intend to shit into the mouth of the gift, if that is an expression. The first days of making these videos gave me a lot of strength and joy, I was told I even looked taller. I wonder if years of being hunched over a keyboard had such an effect that could be undone by a few ventures into standing-up. In the meantime I have produced about a dozen new videos that I haven’t posted because of the obvious shortcomings and likely futility. I think it was better to just post these things and not give a shit about their success or lack thereof.
no matter what you are talking about,
the style of coming to conclusion on the subjects !!!
changing might be necessary here.
two did existed :
confusion about the subject.
and
trust on idea(?) you stated.
and yet you concluded !!!
video is good.approach to express is nice.
i liked it.
why don’t you do some street interview / census on lot of subjects.
it will be nice.
along with you others too.
Can you make mocking video on kim jong.
Asking youtubers not to make funny video’s on kim jong.
else,
kim jong got hackers tracing your IP and location.
you fellows will be taken out !!!
(make it serous)
I will keep this in mind my friend. If I grow comfortable as this person, confident enough to not lapse into normal speak, I will engage the (even) stranger(s)
In the meantime I have gone outside to there where it would be certain that I encountered no-one.
youtube.com/watch?v=fhyqlj0qmDA
Some acausal parallelism is going on here. Four hours ago I was at work messing around and swinging a drywall sanding pole like a Kwan tou at four of my coworkers.
You have that hiking stick there, or whatever it is, doing the same thing.
Skeptics will tell you to remember to count the misses… how many times things don’t coincide or synchronize. But I’ll be damned if the few times it does happen, it is something that doesn’t seem like something that was/is likely to happen. You know what I mean?
The extent of a synchronicity’s uniqueness and meaningfulness is proportionate to the person’s ability to find a possible connection. That is to say people who have less knowledge have a more limited ability to believe in the meaningfulness of a synchronicity because they cannot envisage some significance in it.
But if an imagined significance it given to a perceived synchronicity which is in fact incidental, the person’s powers of conceptualization expand. Off of an imagined connection, new dendrites (rhizomes) extend and create more, potential synchronicity in the events to follow… and this is so because one has increased the number of ways in which a conceptual relation can be actualized among a continuum of ideas.
I mean synchronicity also in the sense of philosophy when ideas are treated in combination because they are believed to be extensions of each other, related, compatible, composite. In these ideas were not, there wouldn’t be any less affectation occurring in thought.
There can never be a clear distinction made between a purely real thing and an invented thing when concerning the belief in the meaning or significance of a thing. ‘Things’ don’t matter. What we think of the things, does. (…it is not the things but the opinions of things that have so affected, etc.- FN)
If the meaningfulness of the things we think of require some kind of epistemological connection to something else, the manner in which it is recognized as a connection has everything to do with the intellectual capacity to make a connection… not ‘find’ it or ‘observe’ it neutrally, externally.
But what more could this coincidence mean than the simple fact that we both swung a stick around today. How could someone give relevance to the Jungian conception of synchronicity. By attributing a kind of unfolding of teleology over a topographical plane of immanence and making it meaningful and symbolic, by giving it poiesis, by making it paranormal. Or, super-normal, maybe.
I’d like to reverse the skeptical excuse; there are synchronicities everywhere all the time, and only rarely can we count the hits.