Einstein and the Cosmic Man

[Walker]

it's more about people trying to destroy what they can't convince. Perhaps convincing is only the ostensible reason for participation.

As usual, Walker, you've used the English language in such a way as to completely obscure the meaning of what you're trying to say.

The principle in motion is:

If you can't understand them, or you can't rationally refute them, destroy them.

Do you understand that?

You should. After all, it's common as dirt.

[Harbal]

The principle in motion is:

The principle in motion?

If you can't understand them, or you can't rationally refute them, destroy them.

Do you understand that?

Yes, Walker, well done. Now all you need to do is make clear who you think cannot rationally refute who. Only after you've done this, can it be decided whether you deserve an onslaught of verbal abuse or thanks for your support.

[Walker]

Yes, Walker, well done. Now all you need to do is make clear who you think cannot rationally refute who. Only after you've done this, can it be decided whether you deserve an onslaught of verbal abuse or thanks for your support.

No Harbal.

Identify the destroyers to see the principle.
To do that, open your eyes.

Then ask, what is being destroyed?

Or not. Can't make you do it, can't make you think for yourself.

But you're very good at making light of things, and that's rare, 'specially when you translate the words (light of things) literally.

[Harbal]

No Harbal.

Identify the destroyers to see the principle.
To do that, open your eyes.

Then ask, what is being destroyed?

Or not. Can't make you do it, can't make you think for yourself.

But you're very good at making light of things, and that's rare, 'specially when you translate the words literally.

Okay, Walker, pending an intelligible version of the above, I'm going to put you down as on the fence.

[Walker]

Okay, Walker, pending an intelligible version of the above, I'm going to put you down as on the fence.

How do you define existence under these conditions?

[Harbal]

How do you define existence under these conditions?

Could you give an example of one possible answer to this question to act as a guide to understanding it?

[Walker]

How do you define existence under these conditions?

Could you give an example of one possible answer to this question to act as a guide to understanding it?

No.

The question stands as it is.

Take all the time you need.
I must go seize up on chores.

Write anything you like, but preferably, answer the question.

[Harbal]

The question stands as it is.

Perhaps you'd better get it a chair, it's legs are going to get awfully tired if it has to stand there until I answer it.

[Walker]

The question stands as it is.

Perhaps you'd better get it a chair, it's legs are going to get awfully tired if it has to stand there until I answer it.

Some philosopher.

[Harbal]

Some philosopher.

I've never said I am a philosopher but you did say you were going to do some chores, yet you appear to be still here.

[Walker]

Some philosopher.

I've never said I am a philosopher but you did say you were going to do some chores, yet you appear to be still here.

That's right. Are you fishing for a reason? The reason is, you keep replying to what I write, and since I am not a slave to time, I extend you the courtesy of sincere attention. I can leave at any time, temporarily or permanently. My call, whether or not you need to keep responding.

Since you're not a philosopher, I can adjust the presentation to your capacity.

[Harbal]

I can leave at any time, temporarily or permanently.

Would you like an opinion on which you should go for?

Since you're not a philosopher, I can adjust the presentation to your capacity.

You haven't been able to so far, what's changed?

[Walker]

I can leave at any time, temporarily or permanently.

Would you like an opinion on which you should go for?

Since you're not a philosopher, I can adjust the presentation to your capacity.

You haven't been able to so far, what's changed?

The time. Right now.

Oh Harbal.

Nothing but silly questions.

But, to make light is a great thing.

It's worthy of admiration.

[Harbal]

Nothing but silly questions.

At least people can understand them.

[Nick_A]

Walker wrote:

If you can't understand them, or you can't rationally refute them, destroy them.

Do you understand that?

You should. After all, it's common as dirt.

Well put and very true. In biblical terms natural man must destroy spiritual man as a threat. When a person reads what those like Greta and Harbal are writing it is clear that they are defending against and attacking what they do not understand. People like this are becoming more dominant in public institutions further destroying the collective attraction to the cosmic man. What is left is the futile struggle between secular opinions concerning things like multi national corporations. It never dawns on the spirit killers that these institutions are symptoms and not causes for human abuse.

Destroy Einstein’s conception of the cosmic man and Simone Weil’s belief in the necessity of grace. They disturb the peace loving concerns of secularists and their idea of social justice willing to kill anything questioning the supremacy of social justice as the ultimate concern..

This thread is really proof of why collective conscious evolution is impossible and really only for the minority with the need, will, and courage to liberate the self from its dependence on the Great Beast to define its meaning and purpose in the process of becoming human.

Give us Barabbas!" Now the world has him and will receive the fruits of his being as it argues with itself for supremacy into oblivion. Does that mean those like Einstein and Simone have lost. No they have won for themselves and for others who they have inspired to open their minds. It is the world because of its glorification of self serving imagination created by the human condition that will lose and consume itself.