Apologies

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 4375
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Apologies

Post by Walker » Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:12 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Walker wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Truth is not an object of perception, Duh.

Truth is a relationship. It relates to your conception, and perception. It is the measure of coherence and correspondence between the phenomena and your conception of them. It is relative between your world view and reality.
Relationships are perceived and deduced, which is a form of mind perception.
Do not be ridiculous.

With life as the objective standard against which particulars are measured, for the same reason that the source of evil is ubiquitous but evil is not ubiquitous, truth is ubiquitious.
You are just not on the right Forum.
One man's good is another's evil.
Is it I who am ridiculous, or am I ridiculous because you say so, just as Art is Art because you say so.
One man's good is another's evil.
Don’t fool yourself, ridiculous one. Cults of death are evil. Murder is evil. They are not evil because anyone says so, though folks do say so. Rather, they are evil because they assume ownership of life rather than custodial responsibility of life. Life’s owner and not life’s janitor has the inherent moral authority to destroy life.

Thus, you can conclude that yes, you are evil for destroying that innocent parsnip. Life measures the shade of gray for that evil act of destroying. Now that you know this, you must live out the remainder of your life with cognizance of this evil within you that destroyed the life of what feeds the beautiful parsnip flower. Such is the burden of parsnip enemies who retain a shred of sensitivity not dulled into nullification mindset by the machine.

In this vein we can surmise that Twinkie Eaters and offshoots such as Ring Dingers, ShooFly Pie Affectionatos and Chocolate Chip Cookie Connoisseurs are simply out to destroy that which is fashioned by man. They are therefore the true iconoclasts.
Last edited by Walker on Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5136
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Apologies

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:53 pm

Apologies, if legitimate, are acknowledgements that what one has done to another, they wouldn't want done to themselves.
It's that simple people!
This is not to say that they aren't used illegitimately. But then that's where a really 'good' teacher comes in, as they teach the difference between the two. Of course there have been a plethora of illegitimate teachers, right HC? ;-)

Truth stands alone as a object, the only people to say otherwise, are those that want to get away with doing what ever the hell they want, regardless of how it hurts another, they wouldn't know what an apology was if it bit them on their self centered ass, er a face, er ah ass, oh what the hell, same difference for those types.

Walker
Posts: 4375
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Apologies

Post by Walker » Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:47 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Apologies, if legitimate, are acknowledgements that what one has done to another, they wouldn't want done to themselves.
It's that simple people!
This is not to say that they aren't used illegitimately. But then that's where a really 'good' teacher comes in, as they teach the difference between the two. Of course there have been a plethora of illegitimate teachers, right HC? ;-)

Truth stands alone as a object, the only people to say otherwise, are those that want to get away with doing what ever the hell they want, regardless of how it hurts another, they wouldn't know what an apology was if it bit them on their self centered ass, er a face, er ah ass, oh what the hell, same difference for those types.
When analyzed for content, you said nothing other than the concept: "truth stands alone as an object," perhaps with the intent of causing a choiceless apoplectic episode in Hobbes?

Walker
Posts: 4375
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Apologies

Post by Walker » Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:55 pm

Greta wrote:
Walker wrote:That does not invalidate the statement. That truth is ubiquitous does not mean that you always perceive the truth.
If parts of reality do not perceive the truth then the truth is not ubiquitous, just widespread. Besides, there's too much truth around to take in. It'd drive you batty to try. That's why we ignore almost everything, reducing it all to abstractions, almost never quite in touch. It's a suboptimal situation, but preferable to being overwhelmed by input.
Truth is everywhere eyes can see, ears can hear, and mind can think. The existence of any other "where" is a mind inference subject to known probabilities and intuition. However, not all eyes see what is to be seen, not all ears hear what is to be heard, and not all minds think what is to be thought.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5136
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Apologies

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Aug 13, 2016 3:35 pm

Walker wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Apologies, if legitimate, are acknowledgements that what one has done to another, they wouldn't want done to themselves.
It's that simple people!
This is not to say that they aren't used illegitimately. But then that's where a really 'good' teacher comes in, as they teach the difference between the two. Of course there have been a plethora of illegitimate teachers, right HC? ;-)

Truth stands alone as a object, the only people to say otherwise, are those that want to get away with doing what ever the hell they want, regardless of how it hurts another, they wouldn't know what an apology was if it bit them on their self centered ass, er a face, er ah ass, oh what the hell, same difference for those types.
When analyzed for content, you said nothing other than the concept: "truth stands alone as an object," perhaps with the intent of causing a choiceless apoplectic episode in Hobbes?
Which simply indicates that there is something wrong with your analyzer; that your mind is stymied. I could have told you that, as it's extremely self evident! ;-)

Walker
Posts: 4375
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Apologies

Post by Walker » Sat Aug 13, 2016 3:49 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Walker wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Apologies, if legitimate, are acknowledgements that what one has done to another, they wouldn't want done to themselves.
It's that simple people!
This is not to say that they aren't used illegitimately. But then that's where a really 'good' teacher comes in, as they teach the difference between the two. Of course there have been a plethora of illegitimate teachers, right HC? ;-)

Truth stands alone as a object, the only people to say otherwise, are those that want to get away with doing what ever the hell they want, regardless of how it hurts another, they wouldn't know what an apology was if it bit them on their self centered ass, er a face, er ah ass, oh what the hell, same difference for those types.
When analyzed for content, you said nothing other than the concept: "truth stands alone as an object," perhaps with the intent of causing a choiceless apoplectic episode in Hobbes?
Which simply indicates that there is something wrong with your analyzer; that your mind is stymied. I could have told you that, as it's extremely self evident! ;-)
Observe the aggressive/dominant stance of a boring ankle nipper.

Let Hobbes smell your analyzer. Tell us about your "object of truth" which stands alone in the universe.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5136
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Apologies

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:09 pm

Walker wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Walker wrote: When analyzed for content, you said nothing other than the concept: "truth stands alone as an object," perhaps with the intent of causing a choiceless apoplectic episode in Hobbes?
Which simply indicates that there is something wrong with your analyzer; that your mind is stymied. I could have told you that, as it's extremely self evident! ;-)
Observe the aggressive/dominant stance of a boring ankle nipper.
Yet you respond, character armor?

Let Hobbes smell your analyzer.
Keep your nose out of my ass, I'm heterosexual.

Tell us about your "object of truth" which stands alone in the universe.
And you can play with your object all you want, it's yours, but please keep it to yourself.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Apologies

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:29 pm

Walker wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Walker wrote: Relationships are perceived and deduced, which is a form of mind perception.
Do not be ridiculous.

With life as the objective standard against which particulars are measured, for the same reason that the source of evil is ubiquitous but evil is not ubiquitous, truth is ubiquitious.
You are just not on the right Forum.
One man's good is another's evil.
Is it I who am ridiculous, or am I ridiculous because you say so, just as Art is Art because you say so.
One man's good is another's evil.
Don’t fool yourself, ridiculous one. Cults of death are evil. Murder is evil. They are not evil because anyone says so, though folks do say so. Rather, they are evil because they assume ownership of life rather than custodial responsibility of life. Life’s owner and not life’s janitor has the inherent moral authority to destroy life.

Thus, you can conclude that yes, you are evil for destroying that innocent parsnip. Life measures the shade of gray for that evil act of destroying. Now that you know this, you must live out the remainder of your life with cognizance of this evil within you that destroyed the life of what feeds the beautiful parsnip flower. Such is the burden of parsnip enemies who retain a shred of sensitivity not dulled into nullification mindset by the machine.

In this vein we can surmise that Twinkie Eaters and offshoots such as Ring Dingers, ShooFly Pie Affectionatos and Chocolate Chip Cookie Connoisseurs are simply out to destroy that which is fashioned by man. They are therefore the true iconoclasts.
Christianity is evil. The USA is evil.
Now prove that I am objectively wrong.

Walker
Posts: 4375
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Apologies

Post by Walker » Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:01 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Walker wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Which simply indicates that there is something wrong with your analyzer; that your mind is stymied. I could have told you that, as it's extremely self evident! ;-)
Observe the aggressive/dominant stance of a boring ankle nipper.
Yet you respond, character armor?

Let Hobbes smell your analyzer.
Keep your nose out of my ass, I'm heterosexual.

Tell us about your "object of truth" which stands alone in the universe.
And you can play with your object all you want, it's yours, but please keep it to yourself.
Good to see you’re lightening up. Hobbes, take a lesson. Lighter spheres are easier to balance, don’t you know.

Persevering to speak to the best within you, then I must wonder. Has he (pick one) discovered the balance of total freedom and total responsibility as one finds in the vast Western U.S. of A. of empty skies and empty land of total silence that turns purple and gold at sunset, with fragrances that shall go unnamed? I’d say the odds would be 50-50 if not for evident provincialism that reduces the odds significantly against, knowing what I know of the effects of anachronistic caste system sensibility as opposed to an egalitarian indoctrination, which in fact is a theme of the scene. Freedom of mind, freedom of imagination, and attunement to truth with only life as the measure, and guide. It's like turiya, or wu-wei. You never really leave after the real discovery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgiQPdPUNvs

What truth do you see in the scene?

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3234
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Apologies

Post by Greta » Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:34 am

Walker wrote:
Greta wrote:
Walker wrote:That does not invalidate the statement. That truth is ubiquitous does not mean that you always perceive the truth.
If parts of reality do not perceive the truth then the truth is not ubiquitous, just widespread. Besides, there's too much truth around to take in. It'd drive you batty to try. That's why we ignore almost everything, reducing it all to abstractions, almost never quite in touch. It's a suboptimal situation, but preferable to being overwhelmed by input.
Truth is everywhere eyes can see, ears can hear, and mind can think. The existence of any other "where" is a mind inference subject to known probabilities and intuition. However, not all eyes see what is to be seen, not all ears hear what is to be heard, and not all minds think what is to be thought.
We can't handle the truth!

Image

Seriously, we can't. Consider walking down the street. Every single being and thing that you ignore, step on, sidestep and push past has a history, deep and fascinating reasons as to why it is the way it is.

Then you see a few people walking slowly together, side by side, blocking the path. The "truth" is that each of those people has a rich history of intense subjective experience, with a particular charm to their smile, firm moral points, naive failings, all manner of loves, connections and relationships, hopes and dreams. Further, they are the entire world to a range of microscopic lives and a biological system of astonishing complexity and extraordinary functionality.

But to survive, those remarkable, complex beings all I see are some inconsiderate bastards that should get out of people's way :) They are reduced to abstracted ciphers - like almost everything that we don't choose to focus deeply on, and that's how it must be for any animal. Then we find something to focus on and finally appreciate something beyond its abstract functionalism - and then declare that that is the crux and secret to reality ...

Walker
Posts: 4375
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Apologies

Post by Walker » Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:50 am

Sometimes the truth is too big to handle.

I heard that Cruz and Jack switched roles when rehearsing to find the manifested truth of that character. Flexible instruments of body and mind to discover principles inherent in the synergy of character and situation make actors a good study in what constitutes our own thoughts, in reaction to their fleeting art that sometimes gets recorded for posterity and reference in relationship to their situational conundrums.

Watched Judgement at Nuremberg. Big talents on display there from back in the days when acting and not special effects was the medium. Acting trends now towards inarticulate emoting, like the first films that had no sound.

The film is about objective and impartial judgement found in relation to an absolute. Spencer Tracy’s last words to Burt Lancaster are awesome.

I’ve heard that older folks experience time differently due to processing the present though a big well of experience that causes conceptual connections to spontaneously appear to mind. You express the inherence of this phenomenon well in an ever-fresh style that is right when it openly expresses from truth realized. I find myself often sitting in stillness for stretches of time over most anything, which is likely an organic balance to stretches of no thought. Perhaps meditation is preparation for the culmination of accumulated experience. ('ions nudging 'isms)

User avatar
NielsBohr
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:04 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Apologies

Post by NielsBohr » Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:56 am

Greta wrote:uwot's apology thread was presumably deleted due to its toxicity, but it's clear that people were interested in talking about the sincerity and usefulness of apologies. So if anyone had more to say on the subject, they can do it here without the baggage.

The story so far ...

Some felt that apologies were insincere and futile, that their actions were deliberate and, if those actions happened to cut across another's needs, so be it. That's life. For them apologies are neither given, accepted nor expected.
You and Uwot should be very near perfection, to ask such question. The best way to be sincere about this, is not to apology for one's own, but to "beg someone's pardon".

That is the way is is... If apology is an automatic, self-satisfactory process - then it has no worth.

But, hum..., that is not all the story. I shall admit that some people are really idiots Once upon a time, as I was waiting for the garage opening, and the car in front to me did not move. So I took the opposite (and forbidden) sense. It followed from it a kind of rodeo; I made a gesture for excuses, but no calm.
Endly, when we went out of our respective car, the other person, a rather mad woman, was so idiot that she told me, in french:
"You could excuse yourself"!!!
Indeed, some people are SO IDIOTS, that they want you to give excuses to yourself, so that it give them a signal, from which they prime the process (rather hard, sometimes) in giving you their pardon. Huh... definitively stupid, but real.
Greta wrote:Others (including me) think that apologies are usually trivial gestures that help to smooth relations. By my way of thinking, it's similar to saying "hello". It's not actually needed because eye contact makes the connection clear. Yet we greet each other verbally. It's ostensibly a gesture of goodwill but if one is not in the mood for reaching out a greeting might be just conforming to social norms for the sake of peace. Ditto "thank you". The facial expression and other involuntary responses already say all that needs saying, but we verbalise "thanks" anyway - even if it's a present of socks.
-Try to make eye contact in Asia, and you'll really have to beg pardon. :wink:

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Apologies

Post by Terrapin Station » Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:33 pm

Greta wrote:uwot's apology thread was presumably deleted due to its toxicity, but it's clear that people were interested in talking about the sincerity and usefulness of apologies. So if anyone had more to say on the subject, they can do it here without the baggage.

The story so far ...

Some felt that apologies were insincere and futile . . .
Wait, some people felt that all apologies were the same in terms of the motivations, sincerity, etc. of the person presenting the apology???

User avatar
NielsBohr
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:04 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Apologies

Post by NielsBohr » Sat Sep 10, 2016 9:35 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:Wait, some people felt that all apologies were the same in terms of the motivations, sincerity, etc. of the person presenting the apology???
Huh? Who are "some people" for you, and where did you read the remaining ?

Well, in fact am I near to think the same, (even if I do not know where you read that).

Indeed, this seems to be obvious. I have a somewhat "skeptical" consideration about this, (the same as the economists telling us that men do not their job well for altruism nor for your eyes - but only to keep their job, (indemonstrable, but nevertheless efficient or visible in everyday) :

These people only make a catharsis, as in any situation could we pretend, but really much deeper in important cases as for the case of giving pardon.

What means: They only hope that they will benefit the pardon from the considered person, in any future situation.

I hope I was clear.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Apologies

Post by Terrapin Station » Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:22 pm

NielsBohr wrote:Huh? Who are "some people" for you, and where did you read the remaining ?
I had just quoted Greta saying "Some felt that apologies were insincere and futile . . . "
Well, in fact am I near to think the same, (even if I do not know where you read that).

Indeed, this seems to be obvious.
Why would you think that everyone has the same thing in mind, the same disposition, etc. when they apologize? Clearly different situations, different people are different.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests