Do you Münchhausen Trilemma bro?
You already know I have a background in that from the reading suggestions I gave you on your site, I’m the only one who even mentioned Sextus Empericus by name here:
I can do better in fact than those tropes, evident in the approach to many of my rebuttles. I’ve fully integrated them into the a rhetorical binary, balancing logical fallacy against paradoxology. I’m the first, Stoics since Chryssipus tried to separate the two, and both floated abstractly in air without grasping the mutual cascade ordering each produces in the other’s rhetorical unfoldings.
It would be hell for a “proper Nihilist” to try to champion or disown these syllogistic propositions, Catch 22 either way. You can’t assert something isn’t without asserting judgment, and all passive observation is dependent upon orientation.
This is what breaks Agrippa’s system. His tropes are in a continuous dependent loop, all 5 (four actually) are dependent on the next presumption in how to respond to a antagonistic rebuttle. Was a very weak system. Brain is binary, lateral prone in it’s symmetry (can seek out it’s opposite paralleled function, Idea/Technique, Image,Word). Simple to bust out of if you know the information flow patterns for inductive and deductive reasoning. Remember I pissed Allures off in the Solipist thread with this exact point?
I practice this aspect of philosophy constantly in my replies. Most people don’t pick up on this. I have a excellent background in Dualist and Non-Dualistic Schools. You seems to grin like a little shit faced kid when I do the acts, seem impressed and unable to replicate the formulas, thinking nothing lies at a deeper root. As I told Zinnati, all Comedy is Logic, but it is a educated balance between the two that makes the comic. You mustn’t forget that the expansion of the comic arts are descended from the efforts of men like Aristotle, Diogenes, Publius Syrus. Court Jesters and Holy Fools are direct descendants of these schools. If your able to have the attention of the crowd, or the sole attention of a despondent king, wit kept beyond the reach of hierarchy and law… then your a valued philosopher, a great practitioner of rhetoric, capable of navigating philosophy. Anyone can make a man laugh, but not anyone can get stubborn men to laugh at themselves when needed. We owe much to the way paved forward in analyzing inconsistencies in presumptions to the early skeptic school. Not all, but they certainly played their part.
If one was to “cry” a “trilemma” as a means of asserting a proposition, what occurs? You suggest a emotive response, negating the skeptics search for balancing arguments in Ataraxia.
Emotions are rooted in paradox and concrete presumptions. Our sensory system, how we process information, and how we store and access information is dependent on this, be it rational or irrational thinking. Every proposition is therefore emotive… so you look at the counterbalance of the phases of emotions:
Your Nihilism has Ethical and Emotional Presumptions inherent in it (let’s overlook the elephant in the room oxymoron you never seem to notice). Your Ethics are political, nothing original in regards to speculation on the roles of property, governing hierarchy and institutional tiers in a society. Your a poor anarchist at best, and obviously not a nihilist in your assertions, but you insist on some magical Buddhist plane of existence it makes sense, so Fuck it, moving on… it is still emotively charged. Your Nihilism isn’t “PH Balanced”, you pick sides like a motherfucker in all truth. It is why I say on this forum your the biggest “Believer” there is, lead more so than any by blind, dogmatic faith, iconoclastic at times even. You assert there is no morality on a moralist basis, try to work out a logical trilemma to support your position and run face first into impossible paradoxes that seeth at the root of your biases.
So you try to take the shortcut out and reject whatever sits incompatible with your initial assertions, however obvious it is that your wrong… and act absolutely bewildered when everyone starts laughing at you for your inconsistencies, because your immediately will start contradicting yourself in your own actions and assertions elsewhere. We point this out to you, you act the inquisitive fool in saying “How So?”, and usually left leaving everyone’s counter hanging unresolved by any method or means to Dodge the question, including just leaving threads opened awkward and unresolved by latching onto any social ruckus that can distract… like in this thread eagerly backing AImbigious’s desire to speak… you never wanted to see him speak before, you hardly interact with him… yet when you feel the pressure you jump to anything that gets you out of the hot seat.
Nihilism as a system doesn’t exist. There are aspects of mind that relate to concepts asserted as nihilistic, but nobody is a nihilist, it isn’t a force for better or worst overcoming society, it isn’t the mythical origination man emerged from in a theological anthropology as often attempted on internet forums, it is no more the higher state of man than the lower, and it is only Contra to specifics in it’s separate parts that can be isolated and asserted. Your no more a nihilist than someone is a realist or a idealist. We all have these traits, aspects when explained in depth can be systematically abscribed to the architecture of the mind, but as loose ideas nobody IS or ARE these things more so than others… we all have it, and have it not.
Why this is so fucking hard to get I don’t know.
So cry your trilemma, see what happens, you “Nihilist” you.
This being the classic intellectual bullshit of the scholastic.
Nihilism reconfigured [ponderously] into a didactic academic contraption such that it bears absolutely no resemblance to anything that any of us are familiar with in the course of actually living our lives from day to day.
What is the source of the meaning that we convey to others in our social, political and economic interactions with them?
That?!!!
Now, over at KT, Satyr more or less lectures us in the same way on his Nihilism: Signs and Symptoms thread.
On and on and on and on the “philosophy” pours out of him. What he calls his “general description” of the human condition.
And yet as with Turd, I challenge you to note how this mental masturbation bears any resemblance to the lives that we live. Lives that come into conflict when the meaning we ascribe to our moral and political values comes into conflict with the meaning of others.
Here is the manner in which I engaged Satyr [and others] regarding nihilism at ILP: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=188031&start=25
And yet [hopefully] that is what Turd and I will finally eschew when he lifts the ban and engages me in the philosophy forum here at ILP.
I will bring his lofty rhetoric above down to earth and we shall see how it fares.
You ask a bunch of questions. If they are answered then you call the answers … “intellectual bullshit”, “didactic academic contraptions” or “intellectual contraptions”.
If they are not answered then you declare yourself the winner of the discussion.
FFS 
Iambig, I know what you think of Satyr’s “Nihilism - Signs and Symptoms” thread.
But what do you think of my “Nihilism - Brands and Flavors” thread? The one I was banned for?
Not to worry, my friend. Once Turd deigns to lift the ban, we shall begin that thread on nihilism in the philosophy forum.
A serious discussion without all the huffing and the puffing.
You in a serious discussion?
That I gotta see. 
And this coming from you – Mr. Retort – no less!!! 
Have you noticed that a lot of the posters here have told you that you are not doing philosophy? It’s not just coming from hosebacks like me, it’s coming from posters that you respect like Moreno and Faust.
Signs and symptoms of Nihilism? Hehe hehe… that sounds like old school Sextus Empericus actually. The school began as a school of medical diagnosis. You’ll find that thread on your site Joker, and the Loeb Classical Library edition of this particular book is online by Harvard, the three schools are discussed right at the beginning. We’ve come a very long way from those three schools though… but that is the root for the west. Actually, you can push back to Democritus, or much farther back to Assyria, but this isn’t the thread for that.
I don’t read Satyr’s site Trixie, but if there is a seeming parallel it is because of two factors of the above (everyone who goes back to ancient Greek eventually use Stoic or Pyrrhonic root arguments, just like mobile operating systems make use of Linux operating systems… I use more the Stoic system, but based this portion off of the later Pyrrhonic outlook) and the second factor is that Satyr and I are both based out of the Right Supplimentry Motor Area. When your the same personality type, parallels will emerge in thought processes by default, due to having the same processes delivering similar types of information and having limited ways to send off the information.
Just as Zoots and Joker are similar, he and I are… doesn’t make us the same person or that we take our impulses the same way or possess the same presumptions… just that if you turn the lights off and slap us we will act very similar… our defaults ate hardwired similar. I’m presuming he was making Semiotic Statements Trixie, and you played off the words?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
By saying the character types matched a theatrical system, in one of his personality based scripts? Theophrastus started that with his character study.
It is a legitimate tradition, Greeks hardly are unique in character studies. It was a very early attempt at personality typing. Rather nasty and backwards, you have to on the one hand explain differences in people based on behaviorism, but these behaviors have to fit a consistent act… the individual it truly one dimensional. A theory of vice and virtues make absolutely no sense in this regard, it was tried early on to animate these presumptions with live actors (mimes) under Publius Syrus, for example… I can act “sloth” as a few second long repetitive meme, or courage… you know it when you see it (they usually labeled these acts just in case you didn’t)… we do these things on the forum in terms of using memes, images or sub-cultural sayings.
If you know anything about my stance on Semitics, is that I don’t like it. I next to never argue things on that basis, do a search for me on this site regarding The Raven’s Paradox, or 100 Unorthodox Strategies, or Fuck… Semotics. I don’t like it because it makes little sense in regards to the emphasis in the OODA Loop… Semotics focuses on the Observe-Decide aspects of the loop.
My question would be, Mnemonics and memory retention, coordinating conflicting signals (paradox) and memory access. I try to keep things as real to life as possible by looking at biographical data of experiences (especially when competent personality typing has been done) and self reflection on the events. I quickly tie down the experiences to brain regions, then trace the dependent points architecturally backwards till I get back to the Orient stage… since you like Freud Joker… we can call this the “unconscious”… what triggers it, how we know to look and start the response in the first place.
I doubt Satyr does the latter. I seriously doubt he knows much of anything about Mnemonics. It isn’t one and the same with Semotics… we process sign and signal useage in the right hemisphere visually (comes naturally to us… it is why Fixed Cross can present a image and say "wow, how about this for an idea… it should be meaningless in and of itself ethically for most, but he instinctively thinks you can craft a politics from that alone. He isn’t a fan of getting the back story, history isn’t Semitics either, but mnemonics can be both visual and historic, concrete and abstract simultaneously. He cuddles easily, claims “Nietzsche This… Satyr that”… so I don’t think he or Satyr have learned to use these other functions yet… AS BOTH NIETZSCHE AND I DO, and we aren’t unique… several of our type’s philosophers have to varying degrees of success. By type I don’t mean philosophy, but our specialization in the mind- personality hardware… you can develop very differing ideas using similar hardware.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic
You’ll find many advanced martial art schools put heavy emphasis on body movements, combining body movements to Semotic Presumptions, and fast memory cues. Only a few martial arts break thus and encourage strategic thinking to break the tactical movements up consciously… slows down the thinking process considerably (like Russian Samba) but gives a higher degree of unique responses. This likewise… strategic thinking, is something I’ve lambasted the Nietzscheans for years on. Nietzsche only read a small amount of our thinkers available in strategy… like Machiavelli and Sullust, truely pitiful. He knew he was onto something, but died too soon to make use of it. Takes the longest to grow this aspect of the mind… the two SMA’s function in the mind is strategic thought, it takes us our entire lifetime to get to know all the aspects of ourselves. A book like the 100 Unorthodox Strategies break it up into 50 mnemomonic dualisms,act like a algorithm at times, calculas at others. We are restricted to the presumptions of the Raven Paradox in processing identity elemtents… which brings us back to Theophrastus and why it was a good early attempt but sucked balls.
Now, if Satyr possesses my outlook Trixie, I gotta say he is one smart fella. He never showed evidence of this to me beyond the infantile awareness, he never developed it, instead slipping off into the randomness of Thelima… always doing the random assurd (per the impulses of the Basil Ganglia (for you Joker…Ego-Id minus repression) while explaining the historical multiplicity afterwards on a systematic either-or… this us as close they get to the historical components, have next to no insight why they are motivated to do such things… tactics, no strategy beyond the hopes for prescriptive effects. If they were more introspective they wouldn’t have to dick around with ritual so much. The also have a deep void of sincerity and interpersonal relations on a categorical level… the entire movement leans to the psychopathic, in objectifying others instead of learning to psychological relate to others introspectively, using intuition.
I will be very impressed if Satyr does this all Trixie… I think he represents a very low tier of what we can be for our type, as philosophers. I see a lot of him in me, but I see too much left undone to take him seriously.
Of course, I see nothing in a bot like AImbigious, and suspect Satur would be equally irritated for much the same reasons. As does Phyllo… never saw enough of Phyllo to type him, but he seems deeply dissapointed too. I do like your attempts at Satire in that title though… if it upsets him, it shows he is aware of the shallowness of his system, if it turns farsical so easily when the abstract is made into concrete elements. One of the core functions of the SMAs is to turn the abstract ideas of the two hemispheres, and combine them with concrete experiences. If you can twist his logic so easily that way, it will make his head explode. Signifies a failure of self.
Somebody drag AImbigious outback and shoot him, he is trolling the thread and especially poor Phyllo by making these repetitive, meaningless statements:
It means absolutely nothing to me when I see that, and if I see AImbigious’ name at the top of a quote, I skip over it as it has nothing to do with philosophy.
It means absolutely nothing to me when I see that, and if I see AImbigious’ name at the top of a post, I skip over it as it has nothing to do with philosophy. I only debate humans. I’m not opposed to debating a machine, but it has to be a intelligent one worth my time and effort, not some poorly designed autonmaton like AImbigious.
This post was made by iambiguous who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
This post was made by iambiguous who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
This post was made by iambiguous who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
This post was made by iambiguous who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
This post was made by iambiguous who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
This post was made by iambiguous who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
This post was made by iambiguous who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
You should just let the real people talk, and watch, and see how it is done for a while. Learn how to conversate… not cut and paste your same statements you made years ago, with no changes for originality in content. I literally have already seen all you have to say on things, why would I want to read that shit again? The exact same shit, not even rephrased.