phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:17 am

Meno_ wrote:The fact that my arguments are rejected by being overly intellectual, need not compel anyone to disclaim them, in fact it is almost the mirror image of what You are implying

Perhaps the opposite of Sauwellios take is needed, for his style is topical and dynamically insubstantial. Direct quotes of major philosophers paraphrase , but miss the thought fragments which determine their synctatical organization.


Really, Meno? :icon-rolleyes: No, it's not that your arguments are rejected, it's that your posts are ignored—and not for being overly intellectual but for being overly-intellectual-sounding mosaics of nonsense: there are no arguments in them at all...

I could quote almost any clause of any of your sentences and ask what that even means. For instance, "dynamically insubstantial"... What, as opposed to statically insubstantial? Neither of those things mean anything!

Funny though that you'd make the same old, same old objection to me as so many have done over the years (yes, you do make an objection, that sentence being the one exception where you actually say something even remotely coherent). That objection was always ultimately invalid, and increasingly invalid throughout the years; but now it's completely invalid. So thanks for demonstrating that! ("If even Meno makes that objection, it must be nonsense!")

Image
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby MagsJ » Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:47 am

Meno_ wrote:MagsJ says "and yet it is not denied by they"
_
Partly, ambigiously, though, they vacillate between the universals of one and the many, to create an illusion, if the kind that dies not involve freedom or determinancy, so that nothing definite or even hypothetical can be plugged in.

The resulting ennui, can either improve or depreciate the situation, that this universal envokes, swinging between the singular lack of pyrposs, or even the mirror within any progressive reason reside in.

The fact underlying the emotion is the follow-up of the existential contraption of being and nothingness finds presence, vis. that, which reversal Sartre himself find himself in, after 1956, when he reversed the reversablility of being and nothingness, whereby fracturing from communism( after the Soviet brutal aggression toward the Hungarian Freedom uprising.

Such that the denial becomes conflated, and sych does not allow an existential leap in terms of the singular point of view, and so we are here today, fearing the very thing we fought in and through WW2, the ominous approach of national socialism.

Some things really shouldn’t be revived, and pure Socialism is one of them.. though it does become a natural default state during times of war, but a very watered-down one.

The recent austerity measures did not go down well here, and many bemoaned and moaned and wanted to spend (more) from the Treasury’s shrunken coffers, but we came out of it as quickly as we had entered it.. and so putting a (current) end, to the trend, of spending what we haven’t got. Now imagine if those exact same people had to live during the time of a post-war rationing Britain?

What have we as humans, become?

Where is The Human Manifesto? a manifesto on being human.. would one go down well? probably not, and especially if expectation wasn’t met.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21516
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Meno_ » Fri Nov 13, 2020 8:45 am

yes , Phoneutria, "could quote almost any clause of any of your sentences and ask what that even means. For instance, "dynamically insubstantial"... What, as opposed to statically insubstantial? Neither of those things mean anything!"


They do mean the difference between simply two ways of analyzing , one I'll use cliches?: looking in and looking out of the box. The dynamic arrangements come from some source, and do tend to construct an imaginative yet, probable hypothetical, which are met, on some level and interpreted: by a progressive will of intentional abstracted reality. The other, does not necessarily does the opposite, but looking in does relate in degrees or levels of depth to meet the eyes which understand what looking into the itself may mean on some constructed level.

The objective becomes the point they meet, and approximate the form that most nearly simulates it, within the contextual reificaton that recognize the variable boundaries of that context.

Relative and Absolute nihilism relate as such, and there is no adequate simulation, if such conflation of focus does not occur.

That is my impression of the problem of clarity between You and Biggy, and strangely will remain as unresolved as that, which denies any level as You claim to position Yourself : metaphysically. You do come to this same conclusion
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Meno_ » Fri Nov 13, 2020 9:11 am

MagsJ wrote:
Meno_ wrote:MagsJ says "and yet it is not denied by they"
_
Partly, ambigiously, though, they vacillate between the universals of one and the many, to create an illusion, if the kind that dies not involve freedom or determinancy, so that nothing definite or even hypothetical can be plugged in.

The resulting ennui, can either improve or depreciate the situation, that this universal envokes, swinging between the singular lack of pyrposs, or even the mirror within any progressive reason reside in.

The fact underlying the emotion is the follow-up of the existential contraption of being and nothingness finds presence, vis. that, which reversal Sartre himself find himself in, after 1956, when he reversed the reversablility of being and nothingness, whereby fracturing from communism( after the Soviet brutal aggression toward the Hungarian Freedom uprising.

Such that the denial becomes conflated, and sych does not allow an existential leap in terms of the singular point of view, and so we are here today, fearing the very thing we fought in and through WW2, the ominous approach of national socialism.

Some things really shouldn’t be revived, and pure Socialism is one of them.. though it does become a natural default state during times of war, but a very watered-down one.

The recent austerity measures did not go down well here, and many bemoaned and moaned and wanted to spend (more) from the Treasury’s shrunken coffers, but we came out of it as quickly as we had entered it.. and so putting a (current) end, to the trend, of spending what we haven’t got. Now imagine if those exact same people had to live during the time of a post-war rationing Britain?

What have we as humans, become?

Where is The Human Manifesto? a manifesto on being human.. would one go down well? probably not, and especially if expectation wasn’t met.



I agree they shouldn't be revived, but then some effects are not recreated by those thus effected.
Like " Make America Great Again, until the newly forming ' soul' of the nation is depleted toward bankruptsy. The price becomes an inflated reverse pyramid, and as the whole bottom tier becomes the source of the pyramids apex hardly touching it's ground, then it is but a matter of time, before the tipping point is reached.

Socialism bisected into national and international segments,( with Capital vampiristically digesting the profit generated by the difference) creates more disunion then union, where more and more control, becomes necessary when mere political labels fail to function.

MagsJ, there was an OP-ed, yesterday, promoting the idea that there are no more moderates left in the US Republican Party, as they have gone under the Trumpian resolve to run in 2004. This willingness to go along with this hugely reactionary theater, has upset the whole socially required integration of equitable elements.

With social justice following this political fragmentation, the question needs to be asked, wether it is the nature of wider contexts, stemming from the unsuccessful resolutions that remained after the World Wars, or is it basic instinctive manifestations of negative human traits which have brought this present crisis into actuality.

Narrowing national socialist interests are reductive, and bring on the stereotypical devolutions of what group identity can entail what national organization appears to topically and internally represent.


Britain suffers this problem even more acutely, albeit and it is no co- incidence that wider applications were prophisized by Huxley and others with apprehending the coming of a brave new world. Though the predated it to 1984, it is only now that they seem to be coming into focus.

Perhaps, there is some association with that idea (Huxley, HG Wells) and the intended post modern idea of failure -a suspected Marxian idea . After all, Marx intended socialism toward the developed and advanced industrial country that Britain was at the turn of the 20th century and not Russia, the underdeveloped agricultural serfdom of Russia.


"Where is The Human Manifesto? a manifesto on being human.. would one go down well? probably not, and especially if expectation wasn’t met."

Let's not abandon hope ! We may wake up to the real purpose we were torn from the natural womb to post industrial contensions.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Fri Nov 13, 2020 9:29 pm

Zeroeth Nature wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Zeroeth Nature wrote:I do not believe my values are derived from a core self or "soul", in fact it's precisely because I don't believe that that my values spring from the realest me there could possibly be... On the other hand, my valuation of that realest me and its values—in other words, my embrace thereof—does spring from a kind of core self or "soul": my cosmic self, a "World Soul", kind of a Buddhist God:


What values? In regard to what set of circumstances in which another might challenge your behavior because it is not in sync with his or her values? Here, in my view, you are ever and always "up in the clouds".


I have given you examples. Christianity. Man-made climate change. Trump et al. Choose your pick! (Hint: it's all about the same thing for me.)


Then we understand examples and the point of them differently.

In regard to Christianity, climate change, Trump etc., someone can note a context in which they express their own particular spiritual or moral or political prejudices. These prejudices precipitate behaviors that conflict with my own. Now, as a moral nihilist, my point to them is that the conflicts revolve around the manner in which I construe individual value judgments as rooted existentially in dasein. Conflicts are expected by me because, in a No God world, there does not appear to be a font that mere mortals can turn to make the conflicts go away. So while the conflicts are expected, I don't expect there to be any actual definitive resolutions.

What I'm trying to grasp is how, regarding your own conflicts with others pertaining to spiritual, moral or political values, you explain the conflict to them as a perfect nihilist.

Note where your examples above have accomplished this.

On the other hand, as an objectivist myself back then, if someone expressed an opposing opinion about Christianity, Nixon, abortion etc., I would insist that they were wrong. They must be. Why? Because I knew for certain that I was right.

On the contrary, in choosing to interact with others [minimally as with you] my moral nihilism is open to challenge. Just as is your perfect nihilism. My explanation to others then revolves around my attempt to explain the manner in which "for all practical purposes" I am "fractured and fragmented". But: I'm still grappling to understand what you tell them in regard to your being a perfect nihilist.


Zeroeth Nature wrote: Nothing. I'm not going to tell them, "Listen to me! I'm a perfect nihilist!" It's just not on the same plane. On your plane I'm no nihilist.


Sure, to the extent you largely avoid interacting with others, your values and your behaviors don't get challenged. What interest me however are those who call themselves perfect nihilists and who do find their values and behaviors challenged by others. And this is the case because they do spend a lot of time interacting with them. What then for the perfect nihilists when explaining the behaviors they choose?

Zeroeth Nature wrote: (Note to others: On the meta-plane, I'm a perfect nihilist, which, as I've said, means in effect a post-nihilist. What makes a perfect nihilist a post-nihilist is precisely the contrast between these two planes: that there is a plane which is non-nihilist (pre-nihilist, and at most semi- or pseudo-nihilist). Note though that this is no metaphysical dualism; they're just different aspects of one and the same reality—see Buddhism's two truths doctrine.)


Note to others:

Let's try this:

1] If you think you do understand what he is saying here and
2] if you do interact with others and
3] If, from time to time, your values and behaviors are challenged by them, what do you imagine his point above about being a perfect nihilist is?


In other words, given a specific situation in which challenges must be resolved. My own "solution" can only revolve around the extent to which both parties are willing to accept moderation, negotiation and compromise as the best of all possible worlds.


Zeroeth Nature wrote: Yes, at this point I suddenly understand you completely.


Maybe you do. We'll still need to examine a specific set of circumstances in order to explore the components of moral nihilism and the components of perfect nihilism.

But: my point here is even more dismal. To wit: Even to the extent that I would embrace "moderation, negotiation and compromise" if I was socially, politically and economically active again, "I" would still be no less "fractured and fragmented".

And it's that part the objectivist are themselves most repelled by. This thread itself revolves around exploring the extent to which phoneutria is herself an objectivist as I understand it. If she is, is she smart enough to perhaps yank me up out of the hole I'm in? Or, if she engages with me, will I be the one who succeeds in yanking her down into it.

In fact, I suspected that this concerned her enough to "foe" me.

As for all this...

Zeroeth Nature wrote: "In the seventeenth century, a new philosophy and a new science began to emerge. They made the same claims as all earlier philosophy and science had done, but the result of this seventeenth century revolution produced something which had never existed before—the emergence of Science with a capital 'S'. Originally the attempt had been to replace traditional philosophy and science by a new philosophy and a new science; but in the course of a few generations it appeared that only a part of the new philosophy and science was successful and, indeed, amazingly successful. No one could question these developments, e.g. Newton. But only a part of the new science or philosophy was successful, and then the great distinction between philosophy and science, which we are all familiar with, came into being. Science is the successful part of modern philosophy or science, and philosophy is the unsuccessful part—the rump." (Leo Strauss, "Progress or Return?")

Physical, chemical, biological circumstances etc. versus religious, moral, political values etc.

"We all know of the enormous successes of the new science and of the technology which is based on it, and we all can witness the enormous increase of man’s power. Modern man is a giant in comparison to earlier man. But we have also to note that there is no corresponding increase in wisdom and goodness. Modern man is a giant of whom we do not know whether he is better or worse than earlier man. More than that, this development of modern science culminated in the view that man is not able to distinguish in a responsible manner between good and evil—the famous value judgment. Nothing can be said responsibly about the right use of that immense power. Modern man is a blind giant." (ibid.)


...what is it other than just another ponderous "intellectual contraption" that in no way addresses itself to any particular contexts that revolve around "morality here and now and immortality there and then". The existential relationship I wish to explore with phoneutria and her ilk.

Thus...

Bring "Nietzsche's Natural Ethical Order" out into the world of conflicting goods, note a context most here will be familiar with and we can exchange specific description of the "moral nihilist" and the "perfect nihilist" interacting with others who challenge their values and behaviors..


And I still have no arguments for the moral nihilists who are in turn sociopaths.


Zeroeth Nature wrote: You don't need arguments against sociopaths...


More to the point, they don't care about your intellectual contraptions above. And they sure as shit don't care about mine. And, in this postmodern world, they are everywhere. They live their lives entirely in sync with doing whatever the fuck they want to. And if you or I or phoneutria or others get in their way, it's dog eat dog survival of the fittest.

For them, the number one concern is this: don't get caught. And, if you do, mow them down.

Okay, but in describing who I am, it seems absurd to me to just shunt aside all of the existential variables that came together to make me that way. Clearly, to the extent that you recognize this you recognize this is also the case for others. And, once both parties recognize the nature of dasein as a crucial factor in explaining their political prejudices, they can recognize the possibility of changing those variables...opening up the door to so many more options.


Zeroeth Nature wrote: But at the same time, that will mean they no longer have any criteria for choosing between those options; they can only put their chairs in the middle, as you have. So isn't it actually self-undermining for you to try and convince others of your own conundrum, as you also have? If everyone agreed with you, there would no longer be a middle to sit in...


Again, from my frame of mind, it depends on the extent to which they see their interactions with others [in a world of conflicting goods] as a "fractured and fragmented" persona. Yes, the more successful I am at bringing them over to my frame of mind, the greater the chances are that they themselves might choose the route of the sociopaths. I can only attempt to suggest instead that they accept the arguments I make in my signature threads and agree to accept their values and their behaviors as the embodiment of "existential leaps of faith" based on particular political prejudices rooted in dasein.

And then when they note that this is just another "intellectual contraption", I say ,"you're right, let's bring it down to earth."

But from my frame of mind to the extent determinism is as I am wholly compelled by the laws of nature to understand it, that would include you posting the above then and me reading it now.


Zeroeth Nature wrote: So?


So?! So, in a wholly determined universe as I understand it, this very exchange that we are having is unfolding only as it ever could have -- entirely in sync with laws of matter. That's not important to note? Isn't this precisely why the advocates of free will insist human autonomy must be the case or else everything is reduced down to those laws? The human brain being no exception.


Zeroeth Nature wrote: It doesn't change anything... In fact, it's only a problem on the plane of conventional truth (see my two truths link above).


We don't know what changes or does not change as a result of a "will to power" rooted in the actual reality of human autonomy. All I can do is to speculate regarding this. If my own understanding of determinism is the case any change at all is only in accordance with whatever set the laws of matter into motion going back to whatever set into motion existence itself.

Conventional truth, unconventional truth...what's the difference if truth itself is merely an "act of nature" going back to the explanation for existence itself.

What, you think that anything Nietzsche thought, felt, said, wrote or did is somehow the exeption? Or that perhaps you and I are?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39805
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:15 pm

Zeroeth Nature wrote:
Meno_ wrote:The fact that my arguments are rejected by being overly intellectual, need not compel anyone to disclaim them, in fact it is almost the mirror image of what You are implying

Perhaps the opposite of Sauwellios take is needed, for his style is topical and dynamically insubstantial. Direct quotes of major philosophers paraphrase , but miss the thought fragments which determine their synctatical organization.


Really, Meno? :icon-rolleyes: No, it's not that your arguments are rejected, it's that your posts are ignored—and not for being overly intellectual but for being overly-intellectual-sounding mosaics of nonsense: there are no arguments in them at all...

I could quote almost any clause of any of your sentences and ask what that even means. For instance, "dynamically insubstantial"... What, as opposed to statically insubstantial? Neither of those things mean anything!


What he said. Definitely.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39805
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 14, 2020 1:01 am

I admit , another's opinion does count to reinforce one's own convictions.

That goes to the heart of objectivism, reliance on the other. The singular Das Ein in then is circumvented.

Then, the effects will not disentangle affectively, leaving shorted out projections, in favor over long held conventional objectives.The ego gets involved , so political biases form, that result in polarized social organization.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 14, 2020 1:27 am

phoneutria takes up abortion on the 2nd Amendment thread.
No, really.

phoneutria wrote:well if the woman has made up her mind about it
and the fetus is going to come out no matter what
why waste it
when we already know that fetal tissue contain properties
that could start a new era of medical breakthroughs?
i don't even think we should bury the dead honestly
it's entirely wasteful
pull out every organ that can be used
then make animal feed and fertilizer with the rest
powder up the bones for calcium supplements
why lock up all of this Sun energy in a cement box?


Can we assume that this is merely her own subjective opinion rooted existentially in dasein...or do you think she might actually be arguing this frame of mind reflects that which all rational and virtuous people are obligated to share in turn?

Is this an important question for philosophers to ask?

Again, to what extent does she take the time to explore how "points of view" like this come to be a part of her contributions in a philosophy venue.

Or, perhaps, does she just figure that for whatever reason this is how she thinks "here and now", and that need be as far as it goes.

Now, this seems to be an incredibly naive approach to grappling with your own value judgments. But I have come upon any number of people are were quite content to let it go at that.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39805
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 14, 2020 1:51 am

This certainly coincides with her self categorical assertion of being an absolute nihilist moralist.


Since it is based on reverse moralism, it can present an early arcytipical type of primitive ethical stance.

For instance , Tibetan monks follow a long adhered to custom of burial; take the deceased up into the mountains, after breaking the back of the corpse, then bundle it, and leave it unburied for animals to feed upon it.

Another one is similar to the Ancient Inca civilizations of Mexico , the hero of a war was taken to the top of a Mayan pyramid , his back broken while alive, and left as a sacrifice to the Sun God, to assure a long and fertile rain during the coming wet season with plenty of sunshine to follow.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Nov 14, 2020 3:24 am

Hey Meno, Incas where 100's of 1000's of kilometers away from Mayan pyramids.

Otherwise, you know, there do are people that understand what you mean, even though you phrase it in such a way as to avoid contention.

But cmon. Never happened.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 14, 2020 3:57 am

[quote="Pedro I Rengel"]Hey Meno, Incas where 100's of 1000's of kilometers away from Mayan pyramids.

Otherwise, you know, there do are people that understand what you mean, even though you phrase it in such a way as to avoid contention.

But cmon. Never happened.[/quo



Sorry I meant Aztecs, and i learned from a guy in the Yucatan. , where other barbaric things happened like sacrificing virgins , them again giving themselves for such an honor.

You are right me avoiding contention cause I am a peace loving person
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Sat Nov 14, 2020 4:52 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Otherwise, you know, there do are people that understand what you mean, even though you phrase it in such a way as to avoid contention.


Well, I suppose he does have relatively lucid moments. Thus he's actually said something since then, namely that phoneutria's "absolute nihilist moralism" or "reverse moralism", whatever that means, can be compared to the "primitive ethical stance" of Tibetan monks and Incan or Aztec (but not Mayan) civilizations (which is "arcytipical" because it was shared by such remote people as Tibetans and Native Americans). I find it strange, though, that you haven't objected to this assertion. I mean, aren't you in love with phoneutria, and weren't you of the opinion that it was a good thing that Christianity mostly replaced such "barbaric things" in the Americas? (Fixed Cross told me that last bit once.)

Also, seeing as you do understand what Meno means, please tell me what he means by that post of his in which he did the opposite of avoiding contention by claiming that my style was "dynamically insubstantial":

Meno_ wrote:Even if an unreal something or an other, I tend to agree with You, but the thought occured, why is the topics of alienation aka known as despair through the metaphor of no exit, can't be tran- versed into post modern level of inducing some level of certainty of deducing it.in terms of conducing bridges? Why need to take existential leaps, when the gaps are increasingly filled in by willfully arrived corresponding power increments?

I think this way at least to me, makes much more cohesive arguments. At least in the contexts You bring into focus by corresponding meta arguments.


The fact that my arguments are rejected by being overly intellectual, need not compel anyone to disclaim them, in fact it is almost the mirror image of what You are implying

Perhaps the opposite of Sauwellios take is needed, for his style is topical and dynamically insubstantial. Direct quotes of major philosophers paraphrase , but miss the thought fragments which determine their synctatical organization.

Your dynamic organization does come through, as used , in pointing to the metalevel as a differencial contrast, where such methods like synthetic modes of 'mediation' and ' compromise' appear as , again politically reified traces which are limited to archaic and unprogressive signals toward the post-modern stage. Admittedly, this was Kant' s categorical problem as well, which Marx, likewise inherited, and could not transverse to inducing sets of quantifiable social indexes.

So the problem is universal in scope, but singular in an objective manifested stage of constructive development.

How on earth can this be understood in both senses: if even three: metaphysical, psychological and socialpsychological.
"The ultimate truth is the flux of things with the contradiction that it contains within itself [i.e., the contradiction between past and future]. Being torn between its opposites and formless, this ultimate truth is not world, either. There is only an unreal world; the real is nothing but pure negativity, time, or, as Nietzsche also calls it: suffering. But pure negativity has, by itself and out of itself, no persistence: it only is as it produces the show [Schein] out of itself, which, however, because it stands in opposition to it, is itself not real either but only a show. [...W]ithout the show, taken by itself, the eternal flux has no persistence. It must produce the show out of itself. The show therefore belongs to its truth." (Georg Picht, Nietzsche, pp. 251-52, my translation.)
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:18 am

Meno_ wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Hey Meno, Incas where 100's of 1000's of kilometers away from Mayan pyramids.

Otherwise, you know, there do are people that understand what you mean, even though you phrase it in such a way as to avoid contention.

But cmon. Never happened.




Sorry I meant Aztecs, and i learned from a guy in the Yucatan. , where other barbaric things happened like sacrificing virgins , them again giving themselves for such an honor.

You are right me avoiding contention cause I am a peace loving person
[/quote]

You are an idiot disliking person. But you pay the price of filtering out smart ones too, and maybe that's also wise.

Aztecs did sacrifice war heroes. But usually not by breaking their backs and leaving them there. They would be made to battle opponents until they got killed. It was meant as an honor, not a humiliation.

they did also sacrifice virgins though. Brutally. Anyway I'm sure this is off point.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:36 am

Pedro said :

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Meno_ wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:"

"Hey Meno, Incas where 100's of 1000's of kilometers away from Mayan pyramids."

Otherwise, you know, there do are people that understand what you mean, even though you phrase it in such a way as to avoid contention.

But cmon. Never happened ".


()()()()()()()()********()()()()()()()()**********()()()(



Sorry I meant Aztecs, and i learned from a guy in the Yucatan. , where other barbaric things happened like sacrificing virgins , them again giving themselves for such an honor.

You are right me avoiding contention cause I am a peace loving person


You are an idiot disliking person. But you pay the price of filtering out smart ones too, and maybe that's also wise.

Aztecs did sacrifice war heroes. But usually not by breaking their backs and leaving them there. They would be made to battle opponents until they got killed. It was meant as an honor, not a humiliation.

they did also sacrifice virgins though. Brutally. Anyway I'm sure this is off point.[/quote]






&&&&&__&&&&&&&&&_&&&&&&_&__&&&&&&&&


If I got false ' facts' then i shouldn'tshouldn't be blamed with breaking a budding romance with fishy Phoneutria. The source believed reliable was in Yucatan and near a pyramid, as this innuendo was reported.

The hero, iaccompanied by a highly placed priest and the king of the land, accompanied the hero to the top of the pyramid, in sight of the crowd, and his back was broken, and then that is where the story ends. The virgins, all stunning beauties, all dressed in magnificent jewels, were cast into a deep vat, all of them nonesswimmers.

As far as not liking intelligent women, maybe. interpreting this as a sign of demanding submission from a challenging women, well perhaps but no.

Anyway ruffling feathers is not my forte, and maybe the intelligence bit, may occasion reversely in this case.

That she is lovely, no doubt about it, and with wit to boot, and of course she must be able to begin to understand that to me , rejecting a sound argument and thinking that my posts add answered for a purpose could translate to very similar signals: namely some arguments remain closed, not by the author, but by the reader, for reasons unknown.

Note: to live on a plateau which requires post modern undefstanding, one must behind to live there, as the Romans once did.

Of course there, the habit of wearing masks, still determined the roles meant to be conveyed.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:43 am

Meno_ wrote:Pedro said :

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Meno_ wrote:[quote="Pedro I Rengel""

"Hey Meno, Incas where 100's of 1000's of kilometers away from Mayan pyramids."

Otherwise, you know, there do are people that understand what you mean, even though you phrase it in such a way as to avoid contention.

But cmon. Never happened ".[/quote

()()()()()()()()********()()()()()()()()**********()()()(



Sorry I meant Aztecs, and i learned from a guy in the Yucatan. , where other barbaric things happened like sacrificing virgins , them again giving themselves for such an honor.

You are right me avoiding contention cause I am a peace loving person


You are an idiot disliking person. But you pay the price of filtering out smart ones too, and maybe that's also wise.

Aztecs did sacrifice war heroes. But usually not by breaking their backs and leaving them there. They would be made to battle opponents until they got killed. It was meant as an honor, not a humiliation.

they did also sacrifice virgins though. Brutally. Anyway I'm sure this is off point.







&&&&&__&&&&&&&&&_&&&&&&_&__&&&&&&&&


If I got false ' facts' then i shouldn'tshouldn't be blamed with breaking a budding romance with fishy Phoneutria. The source believed reliable was in Yucatan and near a pyramid, as this innuendo was reported.

The hero, iaccompanied by a highly placed priest and the king of the land, accompanied the hero to the top of the pyramid, in sight of the crowd, and his back was broken, and then that is where the story ends. The virgins, all stunning beauties, all dressed in magnificent jewels, were cast into a deep vat, all of them nonesswimmers.

As far as not liking intelligent women, maybe. interpreting this as a sign of demanding submission from a challenging women, well perhaps but no.

Anyway ruffling feathers is not my forte, and maybe the intelligence bit, may occasion reversely in this case.

That she is lovely, no doubt about it, and with wit to boot, and of course she must be able to begin to understand that to me , rejecting a sound argument and thinking that my posts add answered for a purpose could translate to very similar signals: namely some arguments remain closed, not by the author, but by the reader, for reasons unknown.

Note: to live on a plateau which requires post modern undefstanding, one must behind to live there, as the Romans once did.

Of course there, the habit of wearing masks, still determined the roles meant to be conveyed.


I have a feeling we're not talking about Inca pyramids anymore.
Last edited by Pedro I Rengel on Sat Nov 14, 2020 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 14, 2020 8:11 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:I have a feeling we're not talking about Inca pyramids anymore.




No and maybe we shouldn't. Masks yes. We are all wearing them. for real or not, and someone said that in the end we wear the most deserving one The point is, we really do not know one another, and so. allowences are to learn how to respond according to some appraisal calculated beat in that context, within a wider margin of situation.

So it is, so it should not come as a surprise if some off the wall presuming response of the

wall knocks our socks off.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Nov 14, 2020 10:33 am

Good to see you fc.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 14, 2020 5:19 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Good to see you fc.


Thanks.

Likewhys now, but then with a need to reconstruct daily, I seek the innerds to sustain assurance.of existential certainty.

No real faith in the outer shell fish. Swimming upstream has it's moments, though, ......

And will waft the breeze with spider woman at a later time, as occasion requires it, but it seems this forum is pretty well wound up. Though along with Buggy, I may be off on it, it is endless with prefab images blocking the view from most angles. (& Al I want is a room somewhere, but no chocolate to eat-allergic you know)
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby MagsJ » Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:06 pm

Meno_ wrote:You are right me avoiding contention cause I am a peace loving person

That is why I understand, why you post how you do, because we are alike in that respect, but I possess a volatility (that requires exercising now and again), that you do not.

When an argument is not of a confrontational kind, respondents are unsure of how to approach it and formulate a response.. because there’s no hook.. unlike in ac electricity or Velcro. Our type is also the most disliked by other types, but hey. :D

“but it seems this forum is pretty well wound up” Meno, it’s called having a pulse.. don’t make me have to call you the Endocrinology Police again now, will you.. ; )
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21516
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby MagsJ » Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:15 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Good to see you fc.

ZN is FC?
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21516
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 14, 2020 7:18 pm

in a way i predict you'll say that there is not much difference between your definition and mine
because you will find a way to reduce everything to use
but I think this distinction is important
as it pertains to being a person
an actual person inside a human body with human thoughts and feelings and processes
and not just a schema of a person written down on some paper
that when you say:
"Value is the degree to which something is useful in attaining one's goals."
i would instead say
"Value is the degree to which something has a meaning"
"but meaningful things are useful!"
"but useful things are meaningful!"
yeah... whatever
does that mean the subject ends there then?
in a way i predict you'll say that there is not much difference between your definition and mine
because you will find a way to reduce everything to use
but I think this distinction is important
as it pertains to being a person
an actual person inside a human body with human thoughts and feelings and processes
and not just a schema of a person written down on some paper
that when you say:
"Value is the degree to which something is useful in attaining one's goals."
i would instead say
"Value is the degree to which something has a meaning"
"but meaningful things are useful!"
"but useful things are meaningful!"
yeah... whatever
does that mean the subject ends there then?
what does it explain about the human animal to say that we value useful things?


Of course phoneutria is also quite capable of sustaining exchanges that never seem to come down out of the "theoretical stratosphere". Here in regard to "value".

Value? No, not actual things or relationships or beliefs...not actual entities that some value and some don't. Instead, as "serious philosophers", it becomes vital to pin down "value" as an intellectual concept. Only when philosophers are thoroughly familiar with all of the technical, epistemological parameters of "value" might they decide to bring that down into the world where people do value different, conflicting things. And, in fact, get into arguments over whether rational human beings are obligated to value some things more than others.

Still, she does come closer to it than he does:

"but I think this distinction is important
as it pertains to being a person
an actual person inside a human body with human thoughts and feelings and processes
and not just a schema of a person written down on some paper"


It's basically the same distinction that I make. But there's no actual context proposed in which to "illustrate the text".

Instead, it stays up in the didactic clouds:

"that when you say:
"Value is the degree to which something is useful in attaining one's goals."
i would instead say
"Value is the degree to which something has a meaning"
"but meaningful things are useful!"
"but useful things are meaningful!"


What things pertaining to what goals in what set of circumstances?

"what does it explain about the human animal to say that we value useful things"

Or, for that matter, value things that others consider to be entirely useless.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39805
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Zeroeth Nature » Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:41 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Good to see you fc.

ZN is FC?


No, but apparently Meno is:

Meno_ wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Good to see you fc.


Thanks.


And in fact it's not totally unfeasible. After all, FC/Jakob is/was barbarianhorde, abhi-pratapta, and who knows how many more.

Then again, Meno seems unable, by and large, to make sense of others or to make sense himself. You just pretend otherwise out of pity, perhaps (for his having lost his son, and his mind). If you contest this, please explain that post of his which I quoted to Pedro.
User avatar
Zeroeth Nature
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Meno_ » Sun Nov 15, 2020 7:22 am

Well you do sound upset Which usually a good sign to people like myself, who accidentially step on a buried nerve, thus releasing by catharsis , the negative energy there.

That the barbaric has a function in life is obvious, and the person honest with herself, must admit to the fact that the instinctual callback to it present is only the obvious: The thin veneer of civilization is not a personal thing, but a cover for long suppressed instinctual reactivation of the sorry emotional baggage we all carry around with us.

It does take fortitude to face that in others, but before that, primarily in one's self.


But at times like these, it's hard to separate the comic relief from the tragic undertow, and the difference keys in all kinds of misinterpretations.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8085
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:08 am

Meno_ wrote:Well you do sound upset Which usually a good sign to people like myself, who accidentially step on a buried nerve, thus releasing by catharsis , the negative energy there.

That the barbaric has a function in life is obvious, and the person honest with herself, must admit to the fact that the instinctual callback to it present is  only the obvious: The thin veneer of civilization is not a personal thing, but a cover for  long suppressed instinctual reactivation of the sorry emotional baggage we all carry around with us.

It does take fortitude to face that in others, but before that, primarily in one's self.


But at times like these, it's hard to separate the comic relief from the tragic undertow, and the difference keys in all kinds of misinterpretations.


I'm not at all upset. :) (Originally you'd written "unhinged", which is even wider off the mark.) But I am somewhat surprised now; in fact, I think I must have hit a nerve, for you to summon all your wits together like that to form a coherent post! (The last sentence, which you added later, detracts from it again, though.)

I will admit that your "exceptional" objection has turned out to be "the last straw" for me, though. Although my quoting throughout this thread has been an expression of exuberance, not lack, I see now that people need to rationalise it to themselves as a weakness on my part...

::

I understand it may seem out of proportion to lash out at Nemo—and to a lesser extent at Pezo, and Madge—like that, but it's not; I simply refuse to spare people who provoke me anymore, and confront them instead. I think the earth's population should decrease, fast! Christians and other deplorables first.

"Some Christian or post-Christian form of monotheism, and with it the death of serious politics, has triumphed everywhere during the last two millennia. If isolated pockets of warrior piety exist today they are pitied as 'backward' or 'underdeveloped' peoples, that is, people whose 'sexist', 'chauvinist' or 'racist' prejudices require replacement by Christian-liberal ideals. The Jews, and only the Jews, never were reconciled to this replacement. They remained aware of the terrifying emptiness of apolitical, cosmopolitan solutions." (Neumann, Liberalism, "The Case Against Liberalism".)

"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Postby MagsJ » Sun Nov 15, 2020 2:29 pm

Zeroeth Nature wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Good to see you fc.
ZN is FC?
No, but apparently Meno is:

Meno_ wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Good to see you fc.
Thanks.


I found it more plausible for you to be FC than Meno, hence my assertion, and not my stupidity.

And in fact it's not totally unfeasible. After all, FC/Jakob is/was barbarianhorde, abhi-pratapta, and who knows how many more.

..and many still don’t believe he was all those posters. He’s very good (I’ll give him that) is probably the reason why, most still don’t..

Then again, Meno seems unable, by and large, to make sense of others or to make sense himself. You just pretend otherwise out of pity, perhaps (for his having lost his son, and his mind). If you contest this, please explain that post of his which I quoted to Pedro.

Lost.. as in gaining custody, or lost.. as in died. If it’s the latter, then that’s way worse than the former could ever be, but either way it’s a loss and a grieving process to have to go through because of it.

Why can I understand Meno? I’ll blame that on my education and English Literature class.. all those books read, which at first were a bugger to dissect, has now paid off, in being able to dissect real people in real time.
Having read the Dictionary thrice, also helps.

Isn’t Satyr going through the exact same experience? Odd!
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21516
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users