SpheresOfBalance wrote:As to the literal: not a bunny (PERIOD)! Rather a human!
A very insecure, suspicious and angry one.
to slang: your condescension as you ignorantly characterize so as to elevate self.
Not so, it's to express my opinon about the personality behind their thoughts.
A double edged sword that you swing all too willingly!
What giving others compliments, I swing that very rarely.
That I observe peoples, snarkyness, as they interact with others, making them transparent, is your problem, not mine!
Not my problem at all, just your issue of creating what you seek and then finding it.
Your confusion, ignorant of my poetic side, that you attribute to only that, which you believe you know, self, yet not much, at least about me. But I do appreciate your telling me more and more about you, the epitome of ignorant arrogance.
My pleasure and I'll bear in mind that you think yourself poetic, me I think it garbled pretention writ large.
Thanks for proving my point. That I rush to save people out of love, while you obviously its antithesis, rush to demean and condescend, indicative as usual, stroking yourself as usual. Ignorant as usual, of that which lends to all our differences, every mirror to your obliviousness, like that in a fun house.
Where I come from those who love others allow their loved ones to stand on their own two feet and wait to be asked before charging in. You have a 'white knight' complex for reasons known only to yourself.
A magic book for children, that all respectable psychologists laugh at, indeed; in deed!!
Not all, Milton Erickson, Viginia Satir and Gregory Bateson disagree with you, although the latter is not strictly a psychologist. I'd have thought a poet like yourself would recognise poetic license to express the power of an approach.
You the fool, as you assume that human knowledge, is all knowing. (ignorant arrogance) Yet you started talking of gods!
Nope, I talked of 'Gods', I'd have thought a poet such as yourself would recognise a metaphor? As such I used such licence to talk about about the power of Logic and that it is more than just human thought but a consequence of their being things and states of affairs, i.e. existence.
One way gods could cause things to exist and not exist at the same 'time,' to please your belief, is by switching existence on and off at 1/2 the Planck unit thus making them exist and not exist at the same 'time.' And you can neither agree nor disagree, because you believe in no gods, while I posit the possibility of gods. Yet, since you, an atheist, started this but about gods, they could do it also not considering your belief, by just doing it. I do not know how, because I'm no god, I merely posit something greater that could, as to know how would mean I'm a god.
You just said how, turning on and off these Planck units, so despite all your protestations you consider yourself a 'God'. I've already told you, Logic comes from the things and states of affair of the existence they create, in your example your 'Gods' still cannot make this switch be on and off at the same time. If you are saying that because this is happening and we don't notice it happening, i.e. we don't notice that existence is going on and off but experience it as 'on' all the time, I'd say two things, one, either this Planck world of switches is not part of this existence and as such its existence is immaterial and unknowable to our existence so does not affect the Logic of our existence, or two, it is part of our existence and we just don't notice ourselves existing or not existing but in reality this is what is happening but what is not happening is that we are exisiting and not existing at the same time.
Funnily enough this is what Zuse, fredkin, et al are postulating, i.e. we are running on some-kind of Planck-bit 'computer' and that all of our existence is discrete and is, a la Conway, a kind of Game of Life . This also could appear to be backed-up by the ocurrence of these virtual particles that appear to be popping-in and out of existence at the very small levels, go figure.
You, admittedly confused by dictionaries, thus you of circular logic! It is in fact that it must be true for it to be perfect, and that it must be false for it to be imperfect. "True" being a synonym of "perfect," and "false" being it's antonym. This the reason for your confusion, so much parroting of others work, merely your memorization, little comprehension, as it all becomes a tangled mess, your admitted confusion with dictionaries.
What I say is not a parrot of others work nor memorisation, in fact, very few philosophers would agree with my thoughts upon Logic, they are the result of studying and thinking about the subject. I find it more than ironic that you decry the books of others but turn to dictionaries for your thoughts. But I stand corrected and even though I find it strange and archaic to say, 'That unicorn is true', 'This apple is true', etc, I take your point and say that Logic is true, i.e. Logic is perfect.
No wonder, you, admittedly programed by a child's magic book, and I qoute: "The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience." The disease of your belief, indeed!
Once more, Bandler and Grinder made no claims for NLP being a science, it was a grab-bag of techniques from psychotherapy that appeared to work, allied with an epistemology and, in my opinion, a phenomenology that makes great sense when experienced and allows belief change, accelerated learning and outcomes to be realistically identified and achieved. That you oppose such things is no surprise to me.
I also find it more than ironic that the psychotherapists who disliked and castigated NLP then adopted pretty much the whole approach, rebranded it as CBT and then sold it to their clients.
that why you are so condescending? Your country, Arising UK indeed????
Already told you umpteen times, my nik is the result of accident, apart from the _uk bit which I use on all logins to ensure uniqueness as I got bored with "This username has been taken please...".
How shallow a mind can be! As soon as you can finally see, we all together, all together is me and you, then finally your awakening. A philosopher alone in their castle, on their island, bombarding passing ships, understands not, at least their human condition! Bill and Bob commanding their ships, as do we ALL, yes even you! No need for cannons of offense, only ever defense. Lest you be a crazy pseudo-philosophizer, at least in this day and age, as the men of MAD are all to clear to me, fear the mind killer!
Which human condition? Existentialism? Solipsism? Nihilism? Etc, etc. This day-and-age, at least in the West, is the age of the shallow thinker and the hedonist with a restricted attention-span, of those who think all is equality and that all views and opinons are of equal worth, they are not and especially not when they are based upon no study of the subject under thought.
Do you understand any of this, probably not, evidence of your disease.
You've had too much therapy and think everything a disease, as I am pretty much at ease with myself thanks.
What are you talking about, I own one, pay attention! ...
What's its title? About which Logic?
Is this the same Asinking UK of old? Can you possibly keep track of our conversations of old, obviously not, while I can! As I said, the words used to define logic, were all driven by the perspective of human conceptualization, which is not necessarily universal, they only feed humans, until a bigger predator comes along, maybe an asteroid, then where are they, these so called logical conclusions, like "dust in the wind," they are. Not universal at all. And gods, if their are any, by whatever form or not form, continue; that which is actually universal, if the actually exist.
If you think this then you've not thought about what your Logic book describes as you keep confusing the empirical with the logical and the symbolization of Logic with the Logic of things and states of affairs, so your asteroid will either come along or it won't, it won't come along and not come along, if it is perfect that if it comes along and it is big enough to destroy mankind. It comes along. Mankind will be destroyed. Universals in this and any existence that has things or states of affairs.
Possible World (Actual World): "In philosophy and logic, the concept of a possible world is used to express modal claims. The concept of possible worlds is common in contemporary philosophical discourse but has been disputed."
Possibility, necessity, and contingency: "Those theorists who use the concept of possible worlds consider the actual world to be one of the many possible worlds. For each distinct way the world could have been, there is said to be a distinct possible world; the actual world is the one we in fact live in. Among such theorists there is disagreement about the nature of possible worlds; their precise ontological status is disputed, and especially the difference, if any, in ontological status between the actual world and all the other possible worlds."
There is no possible world that consists of things or states of affairs where Logic does not hold, if there is then I want you to describe it. If you say it is indescribable then I want to know how you know that Logic doesn't hold there?
Of course my point is that any possible world can only be hypothesized from the human point of view, where existence is as it currently is, as a model. (The word "existence" in this case, used only so as to speak, because obviously it would bear no resemblance.) But that's not necessarily the case. There is no reason to necessarily believe that our planets biosphere is definitive to others in this universe, let alone another of completely different physics, there could be, but not necessarily. I mean of course humans can only posit possibility from the podium on which they stand, all else being unfathomable.
You once again confuse the emprical with the logical.
My understanding of the universe, is directly proportional to the percentage of the universe they've explored, and we haven't done much, quite probably nano-knowledge.
Empirical knowledge may have this attribute, although I doubt is as I doubt you can ascribe direct proportionality to what you claim is an unknown? But Logical knowledge applies irregardless as to the size of the Universe as it's the boundary of what can be known about the empirical world, not that useful I will admit, but perfect none the less.
One can either be a closed system, only ever seeing things relative to their podium of knowledge, thus leaving no room for growth, without extreme friction that is, clinging to human concepts of old, merely a fool, until such time they know the actual state of affairs, or an open system, beyond their podium of knowledge where anything is possible, , thus only ever expecting growth, embracing possibility never being fooled, until such time that they know the actual state of affairs, and I choose to be the latter.
Or one can know what is necessary, what impossible and what contingent and explore the contingently useful, i.e. the actual state of affairs, rather than wasting time fooling themselves that they are thinking.
analogy:
Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
You the conservative, a closed system, fearing change, rigidity the fool maker; me the liberal, an open system, only ever expecting change, flexibility the fool stayer.
What are you babbling about now? Have you ever been a member of a radical party? Have you worked with others for political change? Have you marched, demonstrated and organised for you political opinions? I have so I find my thoughts not restricting upon action but understand the value of both conservation and flexibility, pretty much the bywords for my country's history of politics.
many times I have looked into the great expanse of the cosmos, and many times scrutinized the movement on the ground, of earths inhabitants from altitude, as the cosmos looms in the background.
You've been in a plane or a spaceship?
The difference between us, that you fail to understand, is that I do not say what is, I only ever say what might be possible, and you say what is and what is not possible. So it's you that thinks you can say this, without being capable, not I!
The difference is I understand what being possible means whereas you think it just means saying it but without being capable of describing what you say and this is because you fail to understand the relationship between Logic and Probabililty.
reason why you shall loose this argument, is because you are the atheist, believing there can't be gods, while I'm an agnostic, believing no man either currently knows or currently can know, that there are in fact gods. Yet you are the one that started this silly argument with your statement as to 'gods being subservient to logic,' so your argument is illogical, your assertion fails not only as an atheist, but as a person of logic as well. Additionally, as I posit the possibility of gods, I can do whatever I want with them, and you can't, as you do not posit their possibility at all, how can you say what they can or can't do.
Because I understand Logic and it's relationship to things and states of affairs and if these 'Gods' are things or states of affairs then Logic applies to them. Of course if they are not then the whole conversation is moot as they don't exist for the Logic of their existence to apply to them.
Really doesn't matter, I was just trying show you something using your very own perspective.
Given you don't understand my perspective I think you'll fail.
So then you can't deduce anything about gods, so why even bring them up in the first place?
As a bit of poetic licence to emphasis the universality of Logic. As I can deduce something about 'Gods', if they exist, and that's that they cannot exist and not exist, that they cannot make any object, thing or state of affairs exist and not exist, etc. I'll also borrow one from Wittgenstein,
"5.123 If a god creates a world in which certain propositions are true, he
creates thereby also a world in which all propositions consequent
on them are true. And similarly he could not create a world in
which the proposition “p” is true without creating all its objects."
I've covered this already. And I'm surprised you have to be spoon fed after my last response, immediately above. You just sometimes act stupid, to serve your arguments purpose, both disingenuous and futile. Using logic of course.
No, you are using an empirical argument. Logically if the world is only what one is aware of then I doubt one can make there assertion that it persists when one is not aware of it, this conversation was had by Berkely and he solved it by having 'God' as the sustaining idea. The assumption needed is that the world is not only what one is aware of but an independent entity that exists without one's awareness as it is that which one is aware of, hence it's there when one isn't and is still there when one goes back there.
You seem kind of slow, what I said was gods are currently unknown, and currently unknowable. To say that they are currently unknown means that no knowledge has been used to come to that conclusion as of this moment. To say that they are currently unknowable, indicates that no knowledge that man currently has, would allow gods to be knowable, as of this moment. My stretch is that in any given instant, I can't know this, but certainly the news of it being possible would be broadcast immediately, around the globe.
Nah! You added this 'currently' later on but fair enough. So are you saying you are agnostic because we haven't used our current knowledge to come to a conclusion about 'God's'? Would you be agnostic about Santa, The Tooth-Fairy, Dwarfs, Elves, Pixies, Gnomes and the FSM as they are currently unknowable?
Do you think you think this currently unknowable creator would say 'See me, I exist and I don't exist'.?
I feel things at a level you could only dream about, ...
Of course you do.
so you turn to books that tell you how to feel, ...
Nope, I know how to feel, I turn to techniques that help one think and communicate better and that involves integrating feelings into the thoughts where they belong.
your "something to believe in," your NLP, because as Kansas sang: "...everyone needs something to believe in..." even if it's that: dictionaries are confusing, ...
Never said this. I said that dictionaries are after the event things when it comes to meaning in language and are essentially circular definitions.
a book that attempts to appeal to ones interest in psychology, ...
Had little interest in Psychology as I think it essentially a pseudo-science but enjoyed finding their books in a library as they had an interesting take upon Psychology and how the techniques could be used.
with the allusion of it being magical,
Not heard of a poetic metaphor?
like that of childhood belief, can be anything other than a pseudoscience, ....
Told you, they never claimed to be a science.
that the meaning of ones spoken words can only be found in another's response to them, ...
Never said this, the "only" is what you want to hear as you don't want to hear that meaning in communication and language involves two and means that much as you wish it the meaning of what you say is the response you get despite what you think you said.
as if the responder necessarily knows, the intentions of the other person, (or so your particular summation on your thoughts on communication surely seem to indicate), which is nothing at all, like your elaborated version; (megalomania, clairvoyance,?), ...
See, you don't understand what is being said by the phrase as what it is is listening and responding to the message you get back as to how one's meaning has been conveyed as meaning in language and communication takes two.
or in a game of "My country's better than your country, my countries better than yours,..." so let me lob shit at yours, (perpetuation of war?).
You'll not find me playing this game other than in response to one who does.
Because as you surely know, at least I would hope, when ones foundation of belief is crushed, their whole world comes crashing down, as they are utterly lost without direction, much like an automaton, that's isolated from the "collective".
Not so as it's nearly impossible to crush such a belief as beliefs have little connection to the world and such believers can always come-up with a reason why their belief still holds.
Take you, a while back you said you've been to therapists and from the process picked and chose what you wanted from them rather than complete the process, now in theraputic circles this would make you a borderline psychopath as you did not go with the intention of change but to confirm your own self-analysis or diagnosis and hence have no need to change your beliefs.
Fear, the mind killer!
Always liked Frank Herbert but it's, "“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. ..."
And that's all one would be left with, as their means to attempt covering it up falls flat, on it's face. So Arising UK sings the song of the collective, as it knows nothing else!
I sing the song of the individual, philosophy, reason, logic, clear thinking and communication. You sing the song of psychology and the psychotherapists.
Hey, remember you started the attempt at humiliation, the condescension, and demeaning demeanor, and I'm just following suit. You 'know' that I would prefer that everyone finally dispense with it, as it's born of ignorance.
How do you explain that at one time or another you have had this kind of interaction with pretty much every member you have conversed with?
