Sunday Sermon 24th June 2012

The Jesus Head · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:49 am

Thundril wrote:

I think you mean "neurotic" pendant.

Quote:

I think you mean 'neurotic pedant'.

Is there any way that Arising can escape this observation ;such as saying
I use the American dictionary?
Would it have been wiser not to point out his gaff ?
What did you get out of pointing it out?
Is it it in fact a mistake or is pendant the noun of
the adverb pedantic?
Is it important to settle this or is such just being pedantic?

Thundril · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:09 pm

pedant.
pendant
:roll:

SpheresOfBalance · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:19 pm

The Jesus Head wrote:

In thought experiment 2 we witnessed what I described as an unruly entanglement of conflict .
Here we see little evidence of philosophical thought and nothing of agreement and harmony.
Is your real name Sybil? Or are you simply blinded by your unruly entangled conflict, of disharmony

The inheritance of Enlightenment thinking and ,by that, I mean thinking which
derives from religious notions , suggests that there is a perfect answer to a provisional diversity of human values and ,when this is found ,we will truly understand the way we must live our lives. This ,however, is nothing but a faith.
I don't know much about religion, and I'll not take your word, but it's obvious that human values are not the crux of importance, rather, Human Needs! And as to that, there are, "perfect" answers.

Isaiah Berlin, the 20th century philosopher, found this idea
wholly unacceptable . In John Gray’s remarkable book “Gray’s Anatomy ”
he describes the thoughts of his close friend Isaiah Berlin .

Berlin writes : “ we find the same common assumption that the answer to all great questions must necessarily agree with one another, for they must correspond with reality, and reality is a harmonious whole. If this were not so there is chaos in the heart of things which is unthinkable .”
They do agree, and it is in fact, a whole, of both chaos and harmony, as the animate requires the harmony, of the chaotic inanimate, of harmony. To think otherwise, is a testament of incorrect answers.

No doubt many on this forum believe in Enlightenment values that they have the ultimate truth and yet there is little evidence of agreement on this forum.
Thus, their lives are spent attempting to persuade the intransigent that their world
view is correct.
And you were saying?
No one has the ultimate truth, but it is obtainable, but only in the distant future, if we survive ourselves, that is.

But, in a sense, even if we were to believe in the singularity of truth it would not
promote harmony. Human deliberation is not part of the subject it analyses.
It is a faculty brought to bear on an exterior mechanism.
To say that something is true or untrue does not change the nature of the subject.
This means that the subject is a perception and can be many things .
This accounts for the conflict of ideas and shows us that Enlightenment thinking is merely a dogma.
Purely an argument designed by those that want to get away with murder, as long as it's not theirs, of course.
The truth is, your 'perception' of understanding the end result, 'can be many things,' as it is currently in transition, so you're premature as to what it 'means,' as are we all.

It is not possible to find a singular answer to the question is the colour black
good or bad, if forced to choose one or the other . In our world , many values have a constitution such as is posed by this kind of question . Value has , therefore, an inherent propensity to be subjective and therefore to cause disagreement .
So you're saying there's a problem with our language, or better yet, the people that wield it. You, as many, are stuck in the selfish mode of what you want, what you value, as if that's important at all, and therein lies your problem, as all that glitters, is surely not gold.

So where does this leave one in terms of the practice of philosophy?
On this forum your perpetual arguments are ,in a sense fruitless , in achieving
agreement. Not because the arguments are necessarily flawed ,but because
the arguments are not in alignment , with the ultimate goal of a singular truth.
Speak for yourself, as neither you nor I can say this, as the jury is still out, there will come a day, but it's not today. The coming to this singular truth, is the totality of all the possible truths, and is in fact built piece by piece, in this very place, as well as others everywhere, where serious minded people care to consider such things, as the arguments of today come to define the foundation of tomorrows query.

One correspondent here declared “pearls before swine” .
Socrates met his fate because he valued more the pursuit of a singular truth than
he recognized the nature of humanity .
The failure of many a philosopher resides in the fact that there is an aspiration to discover a truth which is a truth for everyone.
There is no one 'nature of humanity,' as it constantly evolves, and shall continue to do so, unless we kill ourselves off, because we don't see the cues. Your last sentence is dead wrong, as you only see values, fraught with selfishness! But I see the one truth of our biosphere as the natural unifying construct.

If in fact, this was in truth, then it would suffer from itself, as the very nature of the argument, dictates such.

I see that all philosophers referenced including the writer, suffers from a modern day easy chair mentality, that a quick trip back in time, would easily remedy. It's easy to sit in the relative lap of luxury, and spout such absurdities, loosing sight of the big historical picture, as the gap in the dichotomies involved, have narrowed considerably. And this form of rhetoric, could easily be seen as nit picking, from a more worldly view, spanning much more time.

Another flawed assertion here, is that of generalizing an idea, a concept, as necessarily being associated with any particular group, religion, etc., especially as a means to attribute negative connotation as with it's utterance. This is a common ploy used by either those sharp enough, as a means to deceive, or unknowingly, by the truly ignorant, that just don't get the fact, that an idea or concepts coinage, is not necessarily, solely, a reflection of the authors belief system. I see that an idea or concept is born of time, on the foundation of that which was laid down in the past, and as such, in it's due time, of any particular human, in any particular group, that in fact stands on its own, as understood by those more worldly and wise. This then, shows that no man can claim exclusivity, as to any particular idea or concepts coinage, as the foundation of his education that preceded him, is largely responsible, for his realization.

So this is the flaw, of the selfish, blinded by their ignorance, in their child's game of grouping, as if there is necessarily any substance, contained within the inference.

Arising_uk · **Joined:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am **Posts:** 10396

The Jesus Head wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Quote:

I think you mean skim-read..............

And you stated earlier "I assume you'd say that Socrates was a psychotic pendant? As he questioned each and every statement his interlocutors made."

I think you mean "neurotic" pendant.

I know what I meant as it was in the context of your statement, "...is a kind of psychotic episode of pedantic mischief."

But :oops:

as it appears to be me who thought him a type of necklace. And me with my pedantic aspirations an' all. :lol:

Arising_uk · **Joined:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am **Posts:** 10396

The Jesus Head wrote:

Thundril wrote:

I think you mean "neurotic" pendant.

Quote:

I think you mean 'neurotic pedant'.

Is there any way that Arising can escape this observation ;such as saying
I use the American dictionary?

Or maybe just don't use one.

You make much use of the terms from psychology in your thoughts, why is this?

Quote:

Would it have been wiser not to point out his gaff ?

No and might have been quite funny. Although I'm puzzled at the one who made much of of and off claiming this line?

Quote:

What did you get out of pointing it out?

I guess he got humour out of someone who made much ado about off.

Quote:

Is it it in fact a mistake or is pendant the noun of
the adverb pedantic?

I think it a necklace?

Quote:

Is it important to settle this or is such just being pedantic?

Depends on how important the other thinks they are and how often they criticise others grammar.

Thundril · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:12 pm

It's gotta be better than having a pedant hanging round your neck.

The Jesus Head · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:41 pm

Arising_uk wrote:

Quote:

You make much use of the terms from psychology in your thoughts, why is this?

Could be because I am a psychologist .

Quote:

I'm puzzled at the one who made much of of and off claiming this line?

That was in my provocative persona in the Thought Experiment.
I must confess however that like yourself I was convinced that the noun of pedantic was pendant. Why that is I do not know . My assumption is that someone else made the same error as yourself and stated the man is a pendant. Since the noun is rarely used in English I would have taken this as an example of the noun version of the adverb pedantic.
So I do not think your error was particularly bad but of and off and to and too you simply must
understand, or people will think you completely ignorant.

The Jesus Head · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:46 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

The Jesus Head wrote:

In thought experiment 2 we witnessed what I described as an unruly entanglement of conflict .
Here we see little evidence of philosophical thought and nothing of agreement and harmony.
Is your real name Sybil? Or are you simply blinded by your unruly entangled conflict, of disharmony

The inheritance of Enlightenment thinking and ,by that, I mean thinking which
derives from religious notions , suggests that there is a perfect answer to a provisional diversity of human values and ,when this is found ,we will truly understand the way we must live our lives. This ,however, is nothing but a faith.
I don't know much about religion, and I'll not take your word, but it's obvious that human values are not the crux of importance, rather, Human Needs! And as to that, there are, "perfect" answers.

Isaiah Berlin, the 20th century philosopher, found this idea
wholly unacceptable . In John Gray’s remarkable book “Gray’s Anatomy ”
he describes the thoughts of his close friend Isaiah Berlin .

Berlin writes : “ we find the same common assumption that the answer to all great questions must necessarily agree with one another, for they must correspond with reality, and reality is a harmonious whole. If this were not so there is chaos in the heart of things which is unthinkable .”
They do agree, and it is in fact, a whole, of both chaos and harmony, as the animate requires the harmony, of the chaotic inanimate, of harmony. To think otherwise, is a testament of incorrect answers.

No doubt many on this forum believe in Enlightenment values that they have the ultimate truth and yet there is little evidence of agreement on this forum.
Thus, their lives are spent attempting to persuade the intransigent that their world
view is correct.
And you were saying?
No one has the ultimate truth, but it is obtainable, but only in the distant future, if we survive ourselves, that is.

But, in a sense, even if we were to believe in the singularity of truth it would not
promote harmony. Human deliberation is not part of the subject it analyses.
It is a faculty brought to bear on an exterior mechanism.
To say that something is true or untrue does not change the nature of the subject.
This means that the subject is a perception and can be many things .
This accounts for the conflict of ideas and shows us that Enlightenment thinking is merely a dogma.
Purely an argument designed by those that want to get away with murder, as long as it's not theirs, of course.
The truth is, your 'perception' of understanding the end result, 'can be many things,' as it is currently in transition, so you're premature as to what it 'means,' as are we all.

It is not possible to find a singular answer to the question is the colour black
good or bad, if forced to choose one or the other . In our world , many values have a constitution such as is posed by this kind of question . Value has , therefore, an inherent propensity to be subjective and therefore to cause disagreement .
So you're saying there's a problem with our language, or better yet, the people that wield it. You, as many, are stuck in the selfish mode of what you want, what you value, as if that's important at all, and therein lies your problem, as all that glitters, is surely not gold.

So where does this leave one in terms of the practice of philosophy?
On this forum your perpetual arguments are ,in a sense fruitless , in achieving
agreement. Not because the arguments are necessarily flawed ,but because
the arguments are not in alignment , with the ultimate goal of a singular truth.
Speak for yourself, as neither you nor I can say this, as the jury is still out, there will come a day, but it's not today. The coming to this singular truth, is the totality of all the possible truths, and is in fact built piece by piece, in this very place, as well as others everywhere, where serious minded people care to consider such things, as the arguments of today come to define the foundation of tomorrows query.

One correspondent here declared “pearls before swine” .
Socrates met his fate because he valued more the pursuit of a singular truth than
he recognized the nature of humanity .
The failure of many a philosopher resides in the fact that there is an aspiration to discover a truth which is a truth for everyone.
There is no one 'nature of humanity,' as it constantly evolves, and shall continue to do so, unless we kill ourselves off, because we don't see the cues. Your last sentence is dead wrong, as you only see values, fraught with selfishness! But I see the one truth of our biosphere as the natural unifying construct.

If in fact, this was in truth, then it would suffer from itself, as the very nature of the argument, dictates such.

I see that all philosophers referenced including the writer, suffers from a modern day easy chair mentality, that a quick trip back in time, would easily remedy. It's easy to sit in the relative lap of luxury, and spout such absurdities, loosing sight of the big historical picture, as the gap in the dichotomies involved, have narrowed considerably. And this form of rhetoric, could easily be seen as nit picking, from a more worldly view, spanning much more time.

Another flawed assertion here, is that of generalizing an idea, a concept, as necessarily being associated with any particular group, religion, etc., especially as a means to attribute negative connotation as with it's utterance. This is a common ploy used by either those sharp enough, as a means to deceive, or unknowingly, by the truly ignorant, that just don't get the fact, that an idea or concepts coinage, is not necessarily, solely, a reflection of the authors belief system. I see that an idea or concept is born of time, on the foundation of that which was laid down in the past, and as such, in it's due time, of any particular human, in any particular group, that in fact stands on its own, as understood by those more worldly and wise. This then, shows that no man can claim exclusivity, as to any particular idea or concepts coinage, as the foundation of his education that preceded him, is largely responsible, for his realization.

So this is the flaw, of the selfish, blinded by their ignorance, in their child's game of grouping, as if there is necessarily any substance, contained within the inference.

I am sorry old boy but reading your material here is like wading through a marsh bog.
I suggest that you consolidate your ideas to one or two paragraphs and then
I can see the fundament of your argument. And please leave out the childish insults
if you want to be taken seriously.

Arising_uk · **Joined:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am **Posts:** 10396

The Jesus Head wrote:

John knows . Maybe you should have a beer with him.

Hah! Agreement at last.

What about it John? You ever down in The Smoke or are you one of the countless Jocks already here?

Not that I'm exactly in it any more but can make it within 20 mins.

Arising_uk · **Joined:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am **Posts:** 10396

The Jesus Head wrote:

That was in my provocative persona in the Thought Experiment. ...

Is that so? Yet to see the other one. Is this it? I definitely prefer it.

Quote:

I must confess however that like yourself I was convinced that the noun of pedantic was pendant. ...

Nope, mine was a stupid error as I know the difference, just can't spell or type at times. I blame senior moments.

Quote:

Why that is I do not know . My assumption is that someone else made the same error as yourself and stated the man is a pendant. Since the noun is rarely used in English I would have taken this as an example of the noun version of the adverb pedantic.

Waffle I think, especially as its been used countless times upon this forum and pretty much always comes up in a philosophy forum.

Quote:

So I do not think your error was particularly bad but of and off and to and too you simply must
understand, or people will think you completely ignorant.

I think it atrocious and the 'of' and 'off' a typographical error easily made. 'Too' and 'to' I have now sorted. You really must stop trolling my posts, it's a waste of your time I'd have thought when there's money to be made.

The Jesus Head · **Posted:** Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:40 pm

Arising_uk wrote:

The Jesus Head wrote:

That was in my provocative persona in the Thought Experiment. ...

Is that so? Yet to see the other one. Is this it? I definitely prefer it.

Quote:

I must confess however that like yourself I was convinced that the noun of pedantic was pendant. ...

Nope, mine was a stupid error as I know the difference, just can't spell or type at times. I blame senior moments.

Quote:

Why that is I do not know . My assumption is that someone else made the same error as yourself and stated the man is a pendant. Since the noun is rarely used in English I would have taken this as an example of the noun version of the adverb pedantic.

Waffle I think, especially as its been used countless times upon this forum and pretty much always comes up in a philosophy forum.

Quote:

So I do not think your error was particularly bad but of and off and to and too you simply must
understand, or people will think you completely ignorant.

I think it atrocious and the 'of' and 'off' a typographical error easily made. 'Too' and 'to' I have now sorted. You really must stop trolling my posts, it's a waste of your time I'd have thought when there's money to be made.

You may in fact be a bit like Socrates . He did not appreciate that the twists and turns of apparent logic can be seen as silly sophistry vs common experience.
A good deal of your argument is characteristically petty .
It is also seething with anger.
I recommend that you see a psychologist and talk over your problems.
Dissecting the comments of people on this forum forever and a day is
something that only an ill person would practice.
You really need to save yourself.

SpheresOfBalance · **Posted:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:49 am

The Jesus Head wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

The Jesus Head wrote:

In thought experiment 2 we witnessed what I described as an unruly entanglement of conflict .
Here we see little evidence of philosophical thought and nothing of agreement and harmony.
Is your real name Sybil? Or are you simply blinded by your unruly entangled conflict, of disharmony

The inheritance of Enlightenment thinking and ,by that, I mean thinking which
derives from religious notions , suggests that there is a perfect answer to a provisional diversity of human values and ,when this is found ,we will truly understand the way we must live our lives. This ,however, is nothing but a faith.
I don't know much about religion, and I'll not take your word, but it's obvious that human values are not the crux of importance, rather, Human Needs! And as to that, there are, "perfect" answers.

Isaiah Berlin, the 20th century philosopher, found this idea
wholly unacceptable . In John Gray’s remarkable book “Gray’s Anatomy ”
he describes the thoughts of his close friend Isaiah Berlin .

Berlin writes : “ we find the same common assumption that the answer to all great questions must necessarily agree with one another, for they must correspond with reality, and reality is a harmonious whole. If this were not so there is chaos in the heart of things which is unthinkable .”
They do agree, and it is in fact, a whole, of both chaos and harmony, as the animate requires the harmony, of the chaotic inanimate, of harmony. To think otherwise, is a testament of incorrect answers.

No doubt many on this forum believe in Enlightenment values that they have the ultimate truth and yet there is little evidence of agreement on this forum.
Thus, their lives are spent attempting to persuade the intransigent that their world
view is correct.
And you were saying?
No one has the ultimate truth, but it is obtainable, but only in the distant future, if we survive ourselves, that is.

But, in a sense, even if we were to believe in the singularity of truth it would not
promote harmony. Human deliberation is not part of the subject it analyses.
It is a faculty brought to bear on an exterior mechanism.
To say that something is true or untrue does not change the nature of the subject.
This means that the subject is a perception and can be many things .
This accounts for the conflict of ideas and shows us that Enlightenment thinking is merely a dogma.
Purely an argument designed by those that want to get away with murder, as long as it's not theirs, of course.
The truth is, your 'perception' of understanding the end result, 'can be many things,' as it is currently in transition, so you're premature as to what it 'means,' as are we all.

It is not possible to find a singular answer to the question is the colour black
good or bad, if forced to choose one or the other . In our world , many values have a constitution such as is posed by this kind of question . Value has , therefore, an inherent propensity to be subjective and therefore to cause disagreement .
So you're saying there's a problem with our language, or better yet, the people that wield it. You, as many, are stuck in the selfish mode of what you want, what you value, as if that's important at all, and therein lies your problem, as all that glitters, is surely not gold.

So where does this leave one in terms of the practice of philosophy?
On this forum your perpetual arguments are ,in a sense fruitless , in achieving
agreement. Not because the arguments are necessarily flawed ,but because
the arguments are not in alignment , with the ultimate goal of a singular truth.
Speak for yourself, as neither you nor I can say this, as the jury is still out, there will come a day, but it's not today. The coming to this singular truth, is the totality of all the possible truths, and is in fact built piece by piece, in this very place, as well as others everywhere, where serious minded people care to consider such things, as the arguments of today come to define the foundation of tomorrows query.

One correspondent here declared “pearls before swine” .
Socrates met his fate because he valued more the pursuit of a singular truth than
he recognized the nature of humanity .
The failure of many a philosopher resides in the fact that there is an aspiration to discover a truth which is a truth for everyone.
There is no one 'nature of humanity,' as it constantly evolves, and shall continue to do so, unless we kill ourselves off, because we don't see the cues. Your last sentence is dead wrong, as you only see values, fraught with selfishness! But I see the one truth of our biosphere as the natural unifying construct.

If in fact, this was in truth, then it would suffer from itself, as the very nature of the argument, dictates such.

I see that all philosophers referenced including the writer, suffers from a modern day easy chair mentality, that a quick trip back in time, would easily remedy. It's easy to sit in the relative lap of luxury, and spout such absurdities, loosing sight of the big historical picture, as the gap in the dichotomies involved, have narrowed considerably. And this form of rhetoric, could easily be seen as nit picking, from a more worldly view, spanning much more time.

Another flawed assertion here, is that of generalizing an idea, a concept, as necessarily being associated with any particular group, religion, etc., especially as a means to attribute negative connotation as with it's utterance. This is a common ploy used by either those sharp enough, as a means to deceive, or unknowingly, by the truly ignorant, that just don't get the fact, that an idea or concepts coinage, is not necessarily, solely, a reflection of the authors belief system. I see that an idea or concept is born of time, on the foundation of that which was laid down in the past, and as such, in it's due time, of any particular human, in any particular group, that in fact stands on its own, as understood by those more worldly and wise. This then, shows that no man can claim exclusivity, as to any particular idea or concepts coinage, as the foundation of his education that preceded him, is largely responsible, for his realization.

So this is the flaw, of the selfish, blinded by their ignorance, in their child's game of grouping, as if there is necessarily any substance, contained within the inference.

I am sorry old boy but reading your material here is like wading through a marsh bog.
I suggest that you consolidate your ideas to one or two paragraphs and then
I can see the fundament of your argument. And please leave out the childish insults
if you want to be taken seriously.

So you fear me? I thought so!

Arising_uk · **Joined:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am **Posts:** 10396

Thundril wrote:

It's gotta be better than having a pedant hanging round your neck.

Just thought! If John joins us it'll be "An Englishman, Welshman and Scotsman are in a pub..."

Thundril · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:09 am

Arising_uk wrote:

Thundril wrote:

It's gotta be better than having a pedant hanging round your neck.

Just thought! If John joins us it'll be "An Englishman, Welshman and Scotsman are in a pub..."

Cardiff is where I am just now, but I'm actually Scouse. Irish on me mum's side thuogh, so we sort of make it.

reasonvemotion · **Joined:** Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am **Posts:** 1633

Guys, as an aside, I lived in Hampstead for two years and worked in London. Great place, but so expensive, food and real estate. OMG. You are such a diverse lot! I was sad to leave as I enjoyed it immensely.

Philosophy Now Forum

Sunday Sermon 24th June 2012

Who is online