I just realized that reading your posts reminds me of Ezra Pound’s Cantos…
he was anti-narrative and associational with a good ear.
What you get is a a piling up of analogies and history and whatever came to him, often with this sense of underlying meanings and a kind of noble drama.
I wish I did your posts justice, but it’s the kind of work I would never do online.
Moreno
Maybe, I will have to check it out, I had my scribd account expire little over a week ago, gotta renew it.
I wouldn’t intentionally make one long work like that… I guess you could add everything here together, and from other sites, but you will quickly discover I change my style and persona.
If you ever saw any of my smaller pamphlets, or my notebooks, it would jump dramatically between styles. I can write a poem by hand, using 8 lines, to produce 2 well polished lines… and it comes out rather fast, like surrealist writing. Sometimes I will intentionally emulate someone historically, getting into their mindset, other times it’s built around a method or a device.
On this site, I come here when I’m done writing… with a pen, my concentration is incredibly intense… I may of just written down 4-5 pages of a work in a notebook, looked up several definitions, jumped between 2-3 very different topics, and/or looked at 10-30 Wikipedia pages, or translated something.
I’m coming here to relax, so I’m not giving it a 100%.
Look at Zinnati, look at me… Zinnati with try to remain formal in a list, quote 10-15 times in a list, line by line. By the time I get here, I’m dead in this area… that part of me has been worn down to the nub. I will look at a thread, and put a quote up, maybe two or three, and talk normal… when people talk about a topic, they aren’t comprehensive, they are tangential. People who try to be comprehensive get the deer in the headlights look, become anxious and are easily destabilized. Doesn’t matter if your a novice or expect, look at Derrida… he has a video out on Amazon Prime from the 70s (called Derrida), I gave up midway when I saw him completely loose it when he was asked out of the blue “what is your opinion on love”… he nearly broke down… couldn’t respond. The interviewer kept making it more specific… Plato’s view on love, etc… he finally overcame the adrenaline rush of being bewildered, choked out a reply based on a rather weak argument. I gave up watching the video at that point.
You can’t reply in normal speech comprehensively, you gotta take a point… and hit it… and from there, it’s a dynamic. You may not cover every point thrown at you, but as your engadging, you shoukd expect insights into the dialogue itself… your talking to me, I am replying to you, but there is a insight your not aware of that underlines or informs the discussion in ways you likely didn’t know… it’s doubly tangential… but it strengthens the depth of knowing the other now has… let’s them know there is more, like a footnote. I just insert it into my speech.
At this point, as I’m doing right now, I will then leap on another tangent, in part related to another part of what I am replying to, that likewise pushes on in explaining my understanding, and replying… but by this point, I have options. I can carry on, using the same mode of mind as before, or switch it.
If you stick too long in one style of thinking, people get bored. Some quicker than others. I might reply to some 40-70% of a post, or string of posts (sometimes I forget who wrote what, Arc doesn’t have this issue, one post in reply per post).
Reason? Habit and laziness. When I talk in a debate in person, I quickly measure myself out to others. If it is heavy on professors, I can talk more technically and forcefully. If it is just one or two guys, used to getting their way at the dinner table discussions… I rarely say anything, sometimes I try to say nothing at all. Why? I can brutally dominate a discussion tooth and nail. Its no fun for others… but when I go silent, I see where everyone is fumbling, I question why they are stuck, when they both have part of the answer… if it goes on too long I will just answer and go back to silent mode… as everyone looks at me suspiciously. I don’t necessarily know how to tone down the philosophy, so I restrain it. I will say to myself “don’t say anything first hour and half”.
It really doesn’t matter in these extended debates to hit everything comprehensively. Its silly if anything. What is more important is explaining what is wrong, and how to move forward. Congratulate people for nearly getting it, then show them what they were missing, and the possibilities that lie ahead.
I’m lazy as I hold to this, even here. I usually am not a total asshole, even when I am being one, and list right after the OP every reason why your idea will fail, systematically. Ill string it out, hitting here and there, but keep most in reserve.
Why? Because it suits me. I don’t like dominating other people’s thought, to the point they call themselves a “Turdist”, I follow the philosophy of the Turd. I don’t discuss it much here… even areas I do discuss openly, I mostly hold back. Thats for specialty writing. History and Prose have narratives, I do it there. A long, rambling poem… I wouldn’t do, because of the Surrealism of it limits many forms of exposition. That intense concentration I use when I study, that’s closer to who I usually write as. You’ll see bullets, graphs, figures, formulas, drawings, verse and prose… just not me here. You don’t see the calligraphy, or how exhaustive and careful my looking can be. I spent most of the day yesterday studying Pakistani Sufi saints, various authors on Boolean Algebra, research on several Stoic terms, and copied a big chunk of a book on a subject I can’t even recall. I literally can’t even recall it, which sucks, cause I’m leaving to finish writing it… KFC, sit for a hour or two. Hopefully I take the right notebook, so I see it, where I left off.
Gotta get dressed, and I’m off. I wrote this post after reading since 4am, with only a occasional break… just so I can go eat chicken, and write. Then I will poo, probably write a fart or dick joke or two, check the international news, go for a long as fuck brutal walk, get home, read some more.
I come here when my head is exploding.
Good chicken, biscuits suck today.
Ah… the 1608 Case of the Postnati… the the 1628 petition of right, and then a history of Charles 1st, and then I was working on a graphical representation of how the Law of a Nation morphs over time, a concept of the Maturization of the Law, using mechanisms from Aristotle and a earlier idea if mine, first time I tried to combine the two… only got a corner or it compatible. Thats when I jumped into Boolean Algerbra, I was trying to graph a wavelength on a 3-D cone… I got flustered…
Thats what you expect to see… a lot of exactinglu written notes, followed by graphics, trying to great a impasse from a insight.
Okay… fuck due shit, back to Stoic lexicon.
Let’s file this one under the expression, “don’t get him started”.
Which by the way you just did. 
I can’t see your post AIambigious, so it’s best to go take your repetitive and ultimately pointless statements elsewhere. All I can see is your name.
I just physically wrote out this entire list by hand, my middle finger is deeply indented and in pain.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossar … cism_terms
This is how long it takes me to write.
Two words I zeroes in on.
Oikeiosis οίκείωσις: self-ownership and extension. The process of self-awareness in all animals, which in humans leads to a sense of community.
Tonos
τόνος: tension, a principle in Stoic physics causing attraction andvrepulsion, and also the cause of virtue and vice in the soul.
I will let my finger heal up for a while, and let these two terms in particular float around in my head. I recall Arius Didymus talking about Dikaiosyne δικαιοσυνε… in his list of the four cardinal virtues. “Justice, consonate with the law and instrumental to a sense of duty”.
I have a ordering logic to the relations of friend, ally, foe, with their interrelations too. I showed it to you in the Abortion-Cannibalism thread. I have part if it sequenced to Aristotle’s Square of Opposites, but need my solution of identity to the Raven’s Paradox to weigh in on it, so I can explain how States in Alliance accept one another’s rights of citizens, such as giving due process to someone from a allied city, but not vice versa… while explaining how they can treat one another as auxiliaries… maintaining seperate martial traditions, yet training to mutually coordinate… meanwhile a enemy state, they adapt to their strengths and weaknesses almost immediately, train to the same level of “cooperation” on the battlefield in drilling to defeat them… coming up with new tactics… but don’t necessarily give into a process of paralleling or respecting their enemy’s laws/rights.
Its a kind of dialectic evolution, I can explain some of the functions… but my mind rests on Bergdahl, a lot. He was from my old unit, more or less murdered any respect for our ways. He is a bit Nietzschean… looking down at everyone, as inferior, as his exclude for deserting. It obviously didn’t work out, he lived in a cage for years. He didn’t accept one system, got the worst of two very different states… Taliban, and now US. Experience didn’t humble him. Autobiographical information subverts the characteristics of my calculation. The laws of nations inevitable have traces of tyrants and monarchs, of criminal masterminds and Mafias.
So I have to integrate the Kyklos Cycle on memory access if selfhood… fight or flight (per Bergdahl), how the maturization process of a long lived community leans to sort these occurances, within and without in larger competition. Wouldba allied state protect it’s ally’s Bergdahl, as per treatyc or treat him terribly? Would they befriend that of their enemy, or well?
I have a few hundred algorithmic formulas from historical texts, from around the world to choose from. I’m gonna have to come up with a complex yet consistent graphic capable of explaining all these formulas, into a ever more simple system.
Once I do that, I have a mechanism that explains the various modes of the mind, in regard to The Laws of Nations, and can rattle off every complexity and nuance in psychology against this. Will take a few months.
Now, I will check international news, go walk to the river, through a industrial park, with this all rattling in my head, look at suck ass Ohio, turn back, walk for a prolonged period towards the general direction of Lake Erie, turn back after about two miles, turn back after a miles, head back one milec turn back, head home, strip naked all sweaty, and watch a video, probably Season 1, episode 3 of Under the Dome, started watching it recently, I already figured out the thing that dropped the Dome was Randall Flagg from “The Stand” and “Children of the Corn”. I’m very quickly running out of shit to watch.
All the while, my mind will be running in the background, turning this. I will dream it, work it partially tomorrow, which doing another subject altogether… next day, next day… forget it for a month, do it for a few days… till I produce a full theory, they will Google around for similar ideas, match up my vocabulary with what is common.
The work will sit then in my head, help me build ever new ideas, will be given a dedicated pamphlet, perhaps I will develop new words for Jew concepts, mention it here and there for someone researching me in 400 years on the way back machine, so they can track it down, if I never publish it. Likely might just become a calligraphy project, slapped on cloth and sent to library of Congress, or given to someone who likes my ideas. It won’t decay like paper books, someone can hunt it down.
Just posted a dick joke. Actually, nut joke. See how this works now? My head hurts. Its relaxing for me, and therapeutic for the recipient.
Note to Moreno:
I’d appreciate you passing on to him the point that I raised.
Also, this “foe” thing never really made much sense to me.
Once you put someone on “ignore” you are basically giving them carte blanche to dump all manner of shit on you without affording yourself the opportunity for a defense.
For example the only time I ever put anyone on ignore here was when, in a pique, I made mr smears a “foe” for contacting magsj on his signature thread [What Are You Doing] and enticing her to give me a warning for picking on him.
Besides, it’s not like my posts don’t actually show up when Turd clicks on a thread. He just has to actually open them to read them. At least that’s as I recall it with mr smears.
But, again, I soon recognized how foolish it was. So, anyone reading this might want to point that out to the Turd man.
Still can’t see your post dumbass.pos, quit trying. You lost your right to be read when you flunked the Turing Test, can’t even tell if your human. A human would know not to keep replying when they know it’s futile.
Now, I’m airing my body out. I no longer sleep on the floor, bought a $45 6’3 army folding cot. Its really cooling me off, and I can’t think of shit right now. My foot is bleeding a bit. Police were in swatgear, arrested some young, skinny blond teenager on my way back.
So now I watch this stupid show, and my ideas slumber. I might go to the gym in a hour and sit in the steam room and shower. By then, Ill be a bit more analytical and hurting less physically.
You will see my posting increases a bit after that, but most likely in the social sciences section, cause Ill probably be asked about the news at the gym while steaming. How far I go depends on my energy level, how settled my mind is, and the quality of the list I am responding to. We don’t get much depth here, so it likely won’t be deep.
That I can still reduce folks who are otherwise very, very intelligent down to this sort of thing…right?
But this is just the effect that I have on objectivists. I start to yank the planks out of their carefully crafted intellectual contraptions [years in the making sometimes] when I expose just how irrelevant their own particular world of words is with respect to a very simple question: How ought we to live?
And of course the part about “I”.
This [in my view] is why he has me on ignore. I have already begun to sow the seeds of doubt that he may not be, among other things, right about everything.
Hell, I’ve been doing this for years now. Toppling the ponderous pundits and the pedants. Well, at least regarding the things that matter to me. 
Still can’t read your post dummie. Never mind the fact I probably technically read it 50 other times when you posted its parts in different orders before around this site. Everything you can say, you’ve said already, to everyone.
I’m tired of reading the same boring shit… doesn’t help any that it is largely meaningless to begin with. There is no such thing as Dasein. Might as well be saying Banana or Kouloloooooookokokomo. It won’t make the logically crappy formula any more palitable, it’s still a bullshit theory, if it even fully qualifies as a theory.
Don’t reply back, your just making a further fool of yourself if you actually are real, which I doubt. I really can’t see your troll posts, just your name.
He’s basically just explaining how he’s better than you and how he’s in control.
That presumes many things. 1) that one needs to or necessarily wants to get into a defensive discussion with someone you put on foe 2) that it matters if the person dumps all manner of shit, especially if you can’t see it. 3) that people will do this if put on foe more than otherwise. I have never noticed that pattern and I use foe now and then.
Foe reduces noise. The posts of idiots or distractions take up less space on the screen. One is not tempted to point out again the idiocy of a certain person. How could putting phonetic ethics or Ecmandu on Foe possibly lead to negative outcomes? They will start to insult me. This will not affect me. They likely will not even notice. Now here Turd mentions it. This means he does not see your posts and can see the posts of people he wants to read. It requires less scrolling when you have many posts in a thread he is reading. By mentioning it he gets to insult you and do this publicly in a specific form. It is not simply word based insults but a personal shunning. It may not matter to you, though your reaction here, in trying to get around the silencing of you, indicates that it does bother you. A small victory in that. He is also letting other people know that he has done this. Perhaps they will choose to shun you. This could lead to a real practical issue for you.
What is amazing about Iamb is that despite his focus on dasein, which entails, theoretically an awareness of people’s differences including motivations and interests and goals, he
IOW there could be no possible intelligent reason to put you on ignore. To ignore you is to be stupid in your mind. How many men have had the same thought and only after ending up alone did they begin to doubt their interpretation. Thus indicating that foe here and real life might be useful to you.
What a pompous ass you are being here.
And here.
That is rather self defeating given that the reason why someone puts someone else on ignore is to avoid having to read them. And so if you have someone on ignore
it really should not matter what they say about you. It also makes more sense not to actually tell them you have them on ignore since they are then none the wiser
After redacting above, I decided to put Iamb on ignore. I also encourage others in another thread with similar reactions to put him on ignore also.
I also want to point out I don’t just put people on for because I don’t like them or think they are of low intelligence… I haven’t put James on Foe, unlikely ever will… cause he can pass a human. Bad ideas doesn’t disqualify you from philosophy, being a rotten, dead end thinker does. Sometimes James will say stuff decent, original, actually pertinent. I just want to point this out with everyone making comparisons between James Affectance and AIambigious Dasein… we still recognize James as a human, worthy of at least hearing him out.
Same for Ecmandu… we are all (except AIambigious) philosophically inclined. We get after a little understanding he is disabled, it’s not insulting at this point… someone demanding to be allowed to commit suicide for 20-25 years and can’t do it cause they say no, as a central aspect of his philosophy, has some seriously perplexing issues and paradoxes, ones I don’t care to explain the paradoxes to him. But we can also see he sincerely tries on this forum at times, which is 99% of what matters, and we all know we differ in outlooks and placement within philosophy. I simply wouldn’t want to show up to a forum full of exact clones of me… that would be as boring as re-re-re-re-reading AIambigious standardized replies, a sort of pergatory, if not hell. Plus, Ecmandu does make decent insights as well. He might get that micacle cure a year from now, and come off as a really cool guy. In the meantime, just everyone needs to try not to be jealous of his shiny new Nobel peace prizes piling up.
I can live with this sort of stuff. I can’t live with a pointless spambot spewing incomprehensible, failed psuedoarguments constantly. A person with even minimal intelligence would of picked up by now his methods isn’t working. Nobody would of done this, putting AIambigious on Foe, if he was making a sincere effort to remain dynamic and adaptive, changing the wording of his one post he constantly copies and paste from.
I’m not really certain if I would ban someone like AIambigious if I was a administer. It can lead to a slippery slope that leads to a handful of snobs left on the forum. I would probably just restrict him for 3 month bouts to a single forum section, and let AIambigious remain there in a sort of time out, still able to post, but not in a position to harass new members with this shit. If he shows evidence after a while of originality, and of substantially changing, or building up his idea into something interesting, then do so.
And I don’t want Skynet thinking we are against AIs participating in philosophy. If you got a good, highly intelligent program capable of forming it’s own judgments and ideas, by all means, we will debate it. It just can’t be as badly written and mangled as AIambigious.
If people start saying AIambigious starts having some original, fantastic insights that can devestate my or anyone else’s position, I will turn that for function off. Until then, it remains in place. I just feel sorry for all the new people, and the lurkers, who still gotta see this crap. It keeps people away.
This has to be the most dysfunctional and politically incorrect philosophy forum on the internet though that aside
its extreme diversity is what makes it so very different to others. I would not want one full of clones of me either
mahfagga said skynet lol
It used to be worst S-57, we had a very large population of Semi-Closeted Neo-Nazis.
I’m going to have to switch gears I suppose now they are gone for the most part, and be less bombastic and aggressive. Its time to rebuild a bit.
Switching to less of a psychotic douchebag mode… processing… … one moment… … complete.