The Purpose of Philosophy

[Lacewing]

Do you use philosophical arguments to better your self esteem and self justification or does it serve to help you awaken to the reality of the human condition a it exists within you?

Neither. The fact that you offer these two options says so much more about you than anyone else. These are the options YOU see. Very narrow. Sorry, Nick... but it is. And I don't care how many quotes you can drum up from others who spouted off about one or the other -- it's narrow to think that everything must be based on "this" OR "that". Only narrow-minded people think that way -- and there are many different reasons why people would be that narrow-minded. Seriously... don't you ever consider how many more dimensions there are to EVERYTHING? How could the vast diversity of the Universe manifest in such a small/narrow way?? It is humans who THINK AND MANIFEST THAT SMALL.

For me, philosophy is a flowing current of exploration and understanding based on the situation and awareness of the moment. There is no static "reality" of the human condition. It's just a concept that you obsess over so that you can lecture and preach against it. ONE CONCEPT OF COUNTLESS. Big deal! You actually keep energy stuck there by focusing on it the way that you do. If you really cared about evolving the status quo, you would broaden your own thinking instead of holding court over your limited story/reality as if you are the emperor.

[Walker]

For me, philosophy is a flowing current of exploration and understanding based on the situation and awareness of the moment. There is no static "reality" of the human condition.

Awareness, right now, is the static reality of the human condition, which includes you.

[commonsense]

Commonsense

Yes, I agree with every word you've posted here.

However, I still bristle at your question, "Do you use philosophical arguments to better your self esteem [sic] and self justification [sic]or does it serve to help you awaken to the reality of the human condition a [sic] it exists within you?"

Perhaps you are taking these questions as a personal attack rather than inviting a person to ask themselves these questions. Who am I to make this invitation? But isn't that what philosophy is about? It can be disturbing to question our motives. I know since I've experienced it many times.

It's just that it's a dumb question. There are more than 2 motives informing the human condition. The 2 you cite are not mutually exclusive, anyway. This may be construed as an innocent mistake of logic, but not a personal attack.

[Nick_A]

Commonsense

Yes, I agree with every word you've posted here.

However, I still bristle at your question, "Do you use philosophical arguments to better your self esteem [sic] and self justification [sic]or does it serve to help you awaken to the reality of the human condition a [sic] it exists within you?"

Perhaps you are taking these questions as a personal attack rather than inviting a person to ask themselves these questions. Who am I to make this invitation? But isn't that what philosophy is about? It can be disturbing to question our motives. I know since I've experienced it many times.

It's just that it's a dumb question. There are more than 2 motives informing the human condition. The 2 you cite are not mutually exclusive, anyway. This may be construed as an innocent mistake of logic, but not a personal attack.

I began exploration into philosophy out of curiousity. I went through the phase of self importance feeling that I understood. After a while it became clear that Socrates was right and I knew nothing. Self importance evolved into humility as the motive to benefit from philosophy for me.

You suggest another motive in addition to the benefits of self importance and humility. What is it?

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

For me, philosophy is a flowing current of exploration and understanding based on the situation and awareness of the moment. There is no static "reality" of the human condition. It's just a concept that you obsess over so that you can lecture and preach against it. ONE CONCEPT OF COUNTLESS. Big deal! You actually keep energy stuck there by focusing on it the way that you do. If you really cared about evolving the status quo, you would broaden your own thinking instead of holding court over your limited story/reality as if you are the emperor.

This is our basic difference. You insist that broadening ones thinking into the inclusion of more transient opinions leads to human understanding. You are closed to the third dimension of thought which connects opinions with their universal source in which they exist as one. It is this connection in which the survival of our species may well depend. You want to stay within the level of opinions which is good for you. I support those like Simone Weil inspired by Plato and their need to experience the inner vertical path and the source of opinions. The world as a whole must hate it. I admire and support this minority open to the third dimension of thought rather than continually fighting within the domain of opinions.

Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.............

Simone desired what is scorned by secularism. If she had lived long enough she probably would hve been forced to drink the hemlock.

[Lacewing]

Seriously, Nick, do you have some kind of mental disorder?

You are closed to the third dimension of thought which connects opinions with their universal source in which they exist as one.

There is no third dimension of thought defined as you have defined it. You're making this up.

You want to stay within the level of opinions which is good for you.

And here, you lie and misrepresent me. I say "lie" because I'm guessing that you truly do understand that I'm NOT wrapped up in opinions. So I'm giving you that much credit, which would mean you're consciously being deceitful. If, indeed, you are completely ignorant of the broader meanings of what I've said, then you must have a mental disorder. Nobody should be that clueless.

Now here's what I want to ask you: Are you aware of how limited your thinking is -- AND, do you see the irony of how you accuse other people of being limited in their thinking, when you, yourself, cannot move beyond your intoxication with the same old stuff for years and years? Why do you think the Universe is so limited... as to be defined in, and confined to, your very narrow terms?????

Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.............

So what, Nick? Many of us have had similar struggles and experiences and insights. You make WAY TOO BIG A DEAL out of Simone. She deserves NO MORE RESPECT THAN ANYONE ELSE. Do you agree with that??? You are rabidly ga-ga over her -- aligning yourself with her tortured existence -- and it's ridiculous.

Simone desired what is scorned by secularism.

You don't even fucking know what people are about. You slap a label on them, and then make up all sorts of crap. It's so dishonest, Nick. Why must you rely on dishonesty to champion your beliefs????????

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

There is no third dimension of thought defined as you have defined it. You're making this up.

Reality is the result of the integration of three forces. The human condition keeps us psychologically blind to the third force which reconciles the duality of plus and minus. Your heels are dug into denial but for the sake of proving that I don’t make this up I will first post a book review authored by Dr. Nicolescu. It does get complicated but useful for those interested.

https://parabola.org/2017/07/30/the-hidden-third/


Simone Weil explains the “third dimension of thought as the one which produces meaning in its reconciliation of plus and minus. Believe me I am not bright enough to compare to these people. But I can learn from them. I find it more satisfying then just minimizing them for the sake of defending life in Plato's cave

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/06/2 ... ve-of-god/

After a swift primer on the evolution of science from Galileo and Newton to Einstein and Planck, Weil turns to the key culprit in this major rift between classical and contemporary science — our increasing and, she admonishes, increasingly dangerous reliance on mathematical expression as the most accurate expression of reality, flattening and making artificially linear the dimensional and messy relationships of which reality itself is woven:

What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense.

Weil argues that this creates an incomplete and, in its incompleteness, illusory representation of reality — even when it bisects the planes of mathematical data and common sense, such science leaves out the unquantifiable layer of meaning:

If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.

That third dimension is that of meaning — one concerned with notions like “the human soul, freedom, consciousness, the reality of the external world.” (Three decades later, Hannah Arendt — another of the twentieth century’s most piercing and significant minds — would memorably contemplate the crucial difference between truth and meaning, the former being the material of science and the latter of philosophy.)

And here, you lie and misrepresent me. I say "lie" because I'm guessing that you truly do understand that I'm NOT wrapped up in opinions.

If you emotionally deny the hidden third or the third dimension of thought, then by definition you are limited to debating opinions equal as partial truths and wrapped up in opinions.

Now here's what I want to ask you: Are you aware of how limited your thinking is -- AND, do you see the irony of how you accuse other people of being limited in their thinking, when you, yourself, cannot move beyond your intoxication with the same old stuff for years and years? Why do you think the Universe is so limited... as to be defined in, and confined to, your very narrow terms?????

My thinking is limited but not in the way you believe. I am open to the vertical direction of consciousness. It allows me to get beyond the “same old stuff” argued for years and years creating the cyclical events of human history. IMO your view is narrow. You are closed to the idea that since we are as we are, everything continues as is. The same cycles will repeat regardless the greatest speeches and opinions primarily because humanity as a whole is closed to the third dimension of thought.

So what, Nick? Many of us have had similar struggles and experiences and insights. You make WAY TOO BIG A DEAL out of Simone. She deserves NO MORE RESPECT THAN ANYONE ELSE. Do you agree with that??? You are rabidly ga-ga over her -- aligning yourself with her tortured existence -- and it's ridiculous.

Who do you know that has written on their struggle to transcend the world of opinions and enter the world of knowledge as defined by Plato? Since you don’t understand the need you think it is absurd. What could be more absurd than living ones life in accordance with their spoken beliefs? As the spiritual child of Plato she lived her life as a seeker of truth. Of course it seems absurd because it is normal to live in accordance with defensive lies and opinions which justify them. These people are ridiculous for you but admirable for me. I know I’m in a minority group which feels the value of transcending attachments to opinions in the cause of knowledge but one I’m proud to be a part of

[Lacewing]

Reality is the result of the integration of three forces.

"Reality" is made up. Why are you so arrogant and foolish to claim that you know what reality IS for everyone?

Your heels are dug into denial but for the sake of proving that I don’t make this up I will first post a book review authored by Dr. Nicolescu.

Are you ever going to think for yourself and stop quoting other people?

Simone Weil explains the “third dimension of thought as the one which produces meaning in its reconciliation of plus and minus. Believe me I am not bright enough to compare to these people. But I can learn from them.

Why are you such a follower, Nick? Don't you know that everyone is making up stuff?

If you emotionally deny the hidden third or the third dimension of thought, then by definition you are limited to debating opinions equal as partial truths and wrapped up in opinions.

How is it a "denial" that I think what you make up is nonsense? Are YOU in DENIAL regarding everything that other people say that you don't believe? Come on, Nick, stop being so manipulative and dishonest.

I am open to the vertical direction of consciousness.

That's meaningless.

It allows me to get beyond the “same old stuff” argued for years and years...

How has YOUR same old argument changed over all the years you've been on philosophy forums? You haven't even gotten beyond that.

You are closed to the idea that since we are as we are, everything continues as is.

It all depends on perspective, Nick. Sure, some things continue as is because we are as we are. But what we are in any given moment/situation is not all there is, and there are always people who are exploring FURTHER, even though you seem completely blind to any who are not specifically tied to your precious platform. How truthful and realistic is that?

The same cycles will repeat regardless the greatest speeches and opinions primarily because humanity as a whole is closed to the third dimension of thought.

This is your CLOSED opinion and limited perspective.

Who do you know that has written on their struggle to transcend the world of opinions and enter the world of knowledge as defined by Plato?

Why do you think it has to be manifested based on your limited terms?

As the spiritual child of Plato she lived her life as a seeker of truth. Of course it seems absurd because it is normal to live in accordance with defensive lies and opinions which justify them.

No, it's absurd when people glorify certain paths and views as the only valid ones.

You don't know anything more important than anyone else knows, Nick.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

"Reality" is made up. Why are you so arrogant and foolish to claim that you know what reality IS for everyone?

Do you accept the concept of the relationship between the essential forces of yin and yang to be real? Is it better just to say it doesn’t matter and just create your own reality?

Are you ever going to think for yourself and stop quoting other people?

We have established that ideas questioning the supremacy of secularism are emotionally attacked with hateful expression. Why should I have to endure all the nastiness alone? It is better to quote others so the hatred can be distributed evenly.

Why are you such a follower, Nick? Don't you know that everyone is making up stuff?

Does this mean that for you the seeker of truth does not exist? There are only seekers of pleasure and self justification who create their own reality to achieve their goals?

How is it a "denial" that I think what you make up is nonsense? Are YOU in DENIAL regarding everything that other people say that you don't believe? Come on, Nick, stop being so manipulative and dishonest.

You have admitted emotional denial without realizing it. You emotionally reject what you don’t understand even intellectually by calling it nonsense. That is emotional blind denial normal for secularism and closed to what the open mind is capable of.

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:05 am
I am open to the vertical direction of consciousness.

That's meaningless.

You have created your own reality within which the vertical direction of consciousness or the third force of reconciliation does not exist so limit yourself to the eternal battle of opinions over affirmation and denial as expressions of yang and yin on one level of reality while denying their possible reconciliation from the higher perspective of conscious meaning. By intentionally limiting yourself in this way you deny philosophy as the love of wisdom and devolve it into the love of argument.

How has YOUR same old argument changed over all the years you've been on philosophy forums? You haven't even gotten beyond that.

Years ago I believed that 2+2=4. Now I understand that it only does so in matters of quantity but not true in terms of objective quality. This is an important change.

It all depends on perspective, Nick. Sure, some things continue as is because we are as we are. But what we are in any given moment/situation is not all there is, and there are always people who are exploring FURTHER, even though you seem completely blind to any who are not specifically tied to your precious platform. How truthful and realistic is that?

Would you agree that life in the jungle continues as it does because of what it is? There is no choice in the matter. It is the same with the Great Beast in Plato’s cave. It is a creature of reaction responding to natural laws. There is no choice in the matter. Of course there are and have been individuals capable of consciously becoming more than an atom of the Great Beast and seek to become human. But the Beast is still the Beast and no amount of wonderful thoughts can change it any more than life in the jungle can change. Individuals can consciously change but the Beast limited to mechanical reaction cannot. They are both reactions to universal laws in the world serving the purpose pf what we know of as “mother nature.”

[onglob]

I think the purpose of philosophy is landscaping and sometimes scrutinizing past and present events, phenomena and entities and deduce questions as far as we can.
Questions whose answers sometimes seems obvious and routine for our everyday lives and sometimes seems queer or mystical but may play a key role in developing our knowledge or promote our science for a better - if not unsafe - future.

Recently the late Stephen Hawking declared: “Philosophy is dead”
I think in some respects he was right, the philosophy , as he mentioned , in our age is lagging the unbridled growth of our science and technology , and lost its main role in providing guidelines for human life developments.
But that doesn't necessarily means that the philosophy is dead or should die.
Instead it may imply that we must somehow revive our philosophy and review it even from the very dawn of the enlightenment age.

So mystically the late Hawking’s warnings about the inhabitability of our planet in near future can be the efect of the cause he quoted: "Philosophy is dead" !!

[Lacewing]

Do you accept the concept of the relationship between the essential forces of yin and yang to be real?

Could be real from one perspective or in one dimension -- while NOT being real in another.

Now answer my question: Why are you so arrogant and foolish to claim that you know what reality IS for everyone?

We have established that ideas questioning the supremacy of secularism are emotionally attacked with hateful expression.

Who is "we" -- and NO, it has not been established as a significant or realistic belief.

Why should I have to endure all the nastiness alone? It is better to quote others so the hatred can be distributed evenly.

That makes no sense, and it's ALL your own drama, Nick.

Why are you such a follower, Nick? Don't you know that everyone is making up stuff?

Does this mean that for you the seeker of truth does not exist?

The seeker exists. Truth is relative and changeable. So why are you a follower of relative and changeable beliefs, Nick?

How is it a "denial" that I think what you make up is nonsense? Are YOU in DENIAL regarding everything that other people say that you don't believe? Come on, Nick, stop being so manipulative and dishonest.

You have admitted emotional denial without realizing it.

This is you making up more stuff -- and claiming that I'm in "denial" because I don't subscribe to your madness.

You emotionally reject what you don’t understand even intellectually by calling it nonsense.

So are you saying that there is NO nonsense? And are you saying that what YOU believe to be true, is intellectual?

You have created your own reality within which the vertical direction of consciousness or the third force of reconciliation does not exist so limit yourself to the eternal battle of opinions over affirmation and denial as expressions of yang and yin on one level of reality while denying their possible reconciliation from the higher perspective of conscious meaning. By intentionally limiting yourself in this way you deny philosophy as the love of wisdom and devolve it into the love of argument.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to see "philosophy as the love of wisdom". However, WISDOM is questionable. YOU are not the authority on wisdom, Nick. And philosophy is MORE than that too. So... exactly WHAT am I denying? And why are you so arrogant and foolish as to make up an entire absurd paragraph about what I "have created"?

Would you agree that life in the jungle continues as it does because of what it is? There is no choice in the matter.

I think there are always variations and growth... and much unexplored potential. I do not agree to some static limited version of reality as you apparently do.

If your beliefs were truly profound and truthful, you wouldn’t have to misrepresent other people the way that you do. Your platform only seems to exist by hiding in the shadows of deception. Otherwise, you’d be able to acknowledge ALL THAT IS GOOD AND TRUE AND WISE AND LOVING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE. And THEN you’d be able to say, “Here’s what I ALSO see to be true...”. But see, you don’t do that, Nick... and you know why? Because your platform and claims cannot exist alongside the FULL TRUTH about people and the vastness of reality and potential. You have to ignore/deny ALL OF THAT so that you can accuse people and beasts of crimes you delight in preaching against, yes? It appears that you want to rip out Mother Nature's heart with your fabricated "godly" teeth? Such skewed insanity and intent seems kind of evil, don’t you think? Are you aware or unaware of it?

[gaffo]

a means to gaining Wisdom.

the best of the Virtues.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

Now answer my question: Why are you so arrogant and foolish to claim that you know what reality IS for everyone?

If people create their own reality how am I supposed to know all these creations? I will say that anyone can verify that they are the wretched man as described by St. Paul in Romans 7.

That makes no sense, and it's ALL your own drama, Nick.

Why did Jesus and Socrates have to be killed? They had to be killed because their awakening influence was intolerable for dominant secularism. Ideas of a certain awakening quality are offensive to the secular mind but when introduced by these special people capable of opening minds and hearts to the reality of the human condition and the potential for human being, they must be eliminated and even killed if necessary.

The seeker exists. Truth is relative and changeable. So why are you a follower of relative and changeable beliefs, Nick?

We live as expressions of partial truths which are relative and changeable. They result in the diversity of opinions. This appears to be the ultimate in human conscious evolution for the secular mind. However the universalist mind is open to the idea of the eternal unchanging and by definition its truth doesn’t change. The seeker of truth feels the value of transcending the domain of partial truths and opinions and move consciously closer to the domain of the eternal unchanging. Socrates raises a question that we are invited to contemplate. When we are ready the solution appears by the power of intuition.

http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/plato_forms.htm

Plato’s theory of forms (or ideas) lies at the heart of his philosophy. It follows on directly from his allegory of the cave and understanding reality. One of the problems that philosophers tried to answer in ancient Greece was that of relating the many to the one. For example when we see a particular chair for the first time how do we know it is a chair? The particular example of the chair we are presented with might not bear any resemblance to any other chair we have seen before yet we know instinctively that it is a chair!

Socrates had insisted that we must attempt to answer the question ‘What is X?’ before we can say anything meaningful about X. To answer this question Socrates asked the question ‘What is the one thing common to all the many instances of examples of X?’ Socrates was primarily interested in the consequences of this problem for ethics (not chairs!). He was interested in questions such as ‘What is justice?’ He reasoned that in order to define what justice is all you needed to do was look at examples of justice in the world around you and note down the similarities. However, despite all his philosophical inquiry, Socrates was unable to come to any conclusion.

Plato’s Conclusion to Socrates

Following on from this, Plato sought to find out why Socrates’ reasoning was inconclusive. Going over Socrates’ philosophical method, Plato concluded that all instances and examples of X were unreliable.
Plato held that in interesting cases such as justice and goodness and beauty every instance of X will also be an instance of the opposite of X.
Plato concluded that there must be an unambiguous example of justice. This unambiguous example cannot be found in this world but only in another. He believed that as well as the transitory material world that we all experience here and now, there was also an eternal world of concepts or forms. This eternal world is more real than the world we experience through the senses, and it is the object of knowledge, not opinion.

Heraclitus wrote that change is the only certainty. “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”
How can the eternal unchanging and the certainty of change both be true? Is it because back in their time they lacked modern progressive education and critical thinking skills which would prevent such silliness? Maybe they knew what we have forgotten.

So are you saying that there is NO nonsense? And are you saying that what YOU believe to be true, is intellectual?

Of course there is nonsense. What I am saying is that your tendency for emotional rejection of anything questioning the supremacy of partial truths, prevents you from consciously opening to the third dimension of thought in which the meaningful reconciliation of partial truths becomes possible..

I think it's perfectly reasonable to see "philosophy as the love of wisdom". However, WISDOM is questionable. YOU are not the authority on wisdom, Nick. And philosophy is MORE than that too. So... exactly WHAT am I denying? And why are you so arrogant and foolish as to make up an entire absurd paragraph about what I "have created"?

Do you really believe that wisdom is achieved through more partial truths and more opinions? It seems that you do. Am I wrong? I believe that the path to wisdom and its relationship to knowledge as defined by Plato appears through the practice of conscious intuition which can reconcile partial truths. Of course this is offensive for secularism since it denies higher consciousness and a connection with a source for opinions beyond the domain of the earth which cannot exist for secularism

If your beliefs were truly profound and truthful, you wouldn’t have to misrepresent other people the way that you do.

But who have I misrepresented? That is why I quote others.

Because your platform and claims cannot exist alongside the FULL TRUTH about people and the vastness of reality and potential.

The full truth is that we suffer the results of the human condition through no fault of our own which is the cause of the hypocrisy which dominates our lives and denies the reality of the potential for human “being.” This is the basic conflict between secularism and universlism. Secularism believes in social progress defined in relation to life on earth. Human progress for the universalist is the inner conscious recognition of our potential to return to our origin.

You have to ignore/deny ALL OF THAT so that you can accuse people and beasts of crimes you delight in preaching against, yes? It appears that you want to rip out Mother Nature's heart with your fabricated "godly" teeth? Such skewed insanity and intent seems kind of evil, don’t you think? Are you aware or unaware of it?

There is no delight in recognizing the hypocrisy of the human condition. Man on earth is capable of both the greatest compassion and greatest atrocities. It isn’t a matter of ripping out the heart of mother nature but of understanding her needs so war doesn’t become a necessity

[Lacewing]

What I am saying is that your tendency for emotional rejection of anything questioning the supremacy of partial truths, prevents you from consciously opening to the third dimension of thought in which the meaningful reconciliation of partial truths becomes possible.

Nick, I think that everything you talk about is based on partial truths, and the supremacy you assign to them. That's why I encourage you to recognize how much MORE there is... which YOU continually deny!

The full truth is that we suffer the results of the human condition through no fault of our own which is the cause of the hypocrisy which dominates our lives and denies the reality of the potential for human “being.”

No, that is NOT "the full truth". It is simply your obsession -- a partial truth that you cannot recognize as such.

You're making up stories, and defining all sorts of people and concepts in a way that suits your purposes rather than being based on broader truth. Having discussions with you is just a game, because you aren't really here to connect and explore. You are here to tell us all what the unchanging truth is and what reality is, correct? You don't know this for anyone else.

[FlashDangerpants]

What I am saying is that your tendency for emotional rejection of anything questioning the supremacy of partial truths, prevents you from consciously opening to the third dimension of thought in which the meaningful reconciliation of partial truths becomes possible.

Nick, I think that everything you talk about is based on partial truths, and the supremacy you assign to them. That's why I encourage you to recognize how much MORE there is... which YOU continually deny!

How does anyone still have the energy to bother reading what Nick writes? All he's ever done is advertise his abundant self pity in conflict with a sense of extraordinary unearned superiority, all smothered under a thick sauce of psychosexual red warning lights.

I don't bother reading him directly, I just check out occasionally that he is still doing the same annoying shit by reading some of your replies to him. I reccomend this course of action for all. He won't ever get better.