Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

[jayjacobus]

What is your take on the merging of inner and outer?

The inner and outer don't merge. For example everyone has an inner feminine but most people are not in touch with their inner feminine. Instead they relate to outer women. If the outer women are manipulative (or toxic), the inner feminine will be outraged but can be ignored. This creates psychological problems for the inner masculine.

The inner feminine wants the inner masculine to "Put your foot down, Put your damn foot down." Unfortunately, the inner masculine is only in touch with outer reality and is inept at dancing with his own feminine.

















, the inner masculine should follow his inner feminine.

[Eodnhoj7]

In agreement with Nick, Walker and Jay.

[Nick_A]

What is your take on the merging of inner and outer?

Matthew 6

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

What the lily does is an expression of what it is. Its outer presence is the result of its essence.

In normal man, the personality would be an expression of our essence or what we are. But the human condition has made it so that humanity is governed by imagination. In this situation our personality suppresses our essence stunting it and sometimes even psychologically killing it.

Merging of the inner and the outer is the normal condition in which the personality is an expression of and serves our essence in the world. With fallen man it is the opposite. The dominant acquired personality dominates our essence which is the source of human conscious potential. As a result our species turns in circles producing the hypocrisy you see in the world.

[Skepdick]

What I notice is that you introduced the boggle, turned it into some kind of mess, then tried to dump it off. Boggle is your bag.

I introduced boggle - you introduced fear. My boggle is no more a mess than your fear.

I am boggled because you are fearful. The question still remains. Why are you so fearful, when you live in the most peaceful of times, and safests societies in human history? It it possible that you are over-reacting?

If boggle is my bag - fear is yours. To be frank, you do strike me as the paranoid type.

I'm ascertaining if you may be a violent, physical threat.

Because you act like it.

[henry quirk]

nope

[Walker]

Re: Skepdick

Your boggle hasn’t done much for your understanding. If you must share your distractions from the extraordinarily important, I suggest boogie rather than boggle clinging.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h86nJUHrJ1E

“If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you spoke the truth, or shot because you acted upon the truth – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this.”
- Jiddu Krishnamurti

[jayjacobus]

Re: Skepdick

Your boggle hasn’t done much for your understanding. If you must share your distractions from the extraordinarily important, I suggest boogie rather than boggle clinging.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h86nJUHrJ1E

“If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you spoke the truth, or shot because you acted upon the truth – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this.”
- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Until you are shot, the truth is not a problem and then it is too late to determine what truth will get you shot.

[Luxin]

Post too psyched up. Authoritarians unworthy of effort. One only has "free speech" (which carries danger) until the forces that demand conformity take it away.

[Nick_A]

Nick, nothing is really worth defending in the sense of getting emotionally worked up about it. I'll try to cover your "free speech" enquiry, but first ... We all have karma, good and bad, to come to us, bad karma for our mistakes. I may sound like I'm fighting "Nazis", but to think that's what I'm doing is wrong. In a forum one has the opportunity to tell people exactly what they are. Some, like me, can say things to people they might never say a word to in person. Most mental dwarf trolls just attack from their negative perspective of anger, judgment, jealousy, etc. I may seem to attack the "Nazi" censors here (who do have some tolerance), but the essence of my "attack" is to put them in their place or (ideally) help them to see who and where they are, if they're humble enough.

My attacks may seem "rude", with "bad language" (no such thing, the problem is always bad thoughts). I've said that I either fuck people up or inspire people with the Truth. (I have perfect confidence in this because I do have the Truth, and I don't explain what my Truth is so that, as you say, the peace isn't disturbed too much; so that sleepers can keep snoring). The greater truth is that some people fuck themselves up in response to my thoughts. ("philosophy" fucking anywhere is an enormous pretense). If quotes or paraphrases of Pythagoras or Plato come out, or are reflected in writers' own concepts of the Cave analogy or the Great Beast, that means they actually got what P & P said and might be actual philosophers, because they might have been able to talk to P & P back in the day.

It's important for all of us to know where we are in Life, and virtually none of us can fully know where we are without feedback from others -- how they perceive us. An intelligent person knows when their critic is correct.

"I don't give 'em hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell". (Harry S. Truman).

Something I see coming out in me these days is righteous anger. My harsh language and the "f" words are really just stress words. As far as anger goes, there actually isn't any emotional heat in my words. I'm beyond fucking anger and into harsh fire-and-brimstone preacher fucking rebuke.

As the human race approaches the end of this version, I'm roaring out condemnation of the "Nazi" scum who will ensure the end of the world with their moral deficiency. I've also got little good to say about the pretentious smooth talking sophists here -- not philosophers AT FUCKING ATALL.

Oh yes, "free speech". What a crock. Not worth making any effort to "defend". Even your life is not worth defending. If your karma is such that you're going to be killed, you can't beat your karma. But if your karma is good enough you might be able to run for your life. If you find when you're captured that you can't run for your life at the first available opportunity, then you're "finished", locked into your bad karma; you're meant to pay the price of death for your sins whatever the fuck they were.

There's a saying something like "Speak out until they stop you". So if you have to speak -- like I'm compelled now to recommend that the U.S. step into Hong Kong and shut down the CCP's mess there .... speak the Truth as you know it. I "gave the mods hell" here and AMod gave me a good laugh when I read his response. The response to my rubbish proves that there is some kind of tolerance here -- at other places I got the figurative guillotine for talking about Pythagoras, Plato and Number. Fucking Number, the most dangerous thing for idiots to claim as their own; banned by the Kabbalists themselves. The poor so-called "philosophers" couldn't handle being exposed to real philosophy. Fucking joke. I see them in extended care wheelchairs trying to keep fucking Wittgenstein or whoever alive, as if philosophy started in the 1600's. FUCK ME! And I have been fucked. But it's all good. Enough.

Nice post. Let me ask you what your primary aim is for posting on a philosophy forum. Regardless of the reactions of others is it to prove yourself right or others wrong?

Is communication possible in a forum?

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.
George Bernard Shaw

What if he is right? Is it possible that free speech can bring us closer to commnication?

I've learned that words have both a literal meaning and an emotional meaning we acquire through our living experiences. Two people reading the same paragraph can understand it differently because of emotional interpretations.

For the sake of the good of philosophy do we have the obligation to intentionally use free speech in ways that do not intensify negative emotions? If we do, how can we do it even if Shaw was right and in reality we are incapable of it?

[Nick_A]

The kids are wising up. Ban free speech. It just gets in the way of right thinking.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... finds.html

Poll shows students agree with banning speakers whose views they dislike
Up to half of those questioned failed to consistent support free speech
Students feel uncomfortable expressing pro-Brexit views in their classes
It follows similar polls in the U.S. in which students have questioned free speech

We are incapable of educated conclusions so must depend on an all knowing government to teach us right from wrong. The kids realize it so are willing to prohibit politically incorrect speech.

See how simple it is. No need to think. Just believe, obey, and pay the bills. Who in their right mind could object?

[Walker]

For the sake of the good of philosophy do we have the obligation to intentionally use free speech in ways that do not intensify negative emotions? If we do, how can we do it even if Shaw was right and in reality we are incapable of it?

You inquire with, how? This requests a method. Every root philosophical inquiry requires a simple seed, as does this particular how inquiry. Quite simply, eliminate all forms of to be, first from communication. Eventually, the concept disappears from consciousness. Only being remains. Do this to know, and to subsequently realize non-delusional implications of the knowing. Non-doing only leads to speculation about the doing. Without the intellectual crutch of to be asserting separation from all the unsaid, thinking and communication disengages from auto-pilot.

[Nick_A]

For the sake of the good of philosophy do we have the obligation to intentionally use free speech in ways that do not intensify negative emotions? If we do, how can we do it even if Shaw was right and in reality we are incapable of it?

You inquire with, how? This requests a method. Every root philosophical inquiry requires a simple seed, as does this particular how inquiry. Quite simply, eliminate all forms of to be, first from communication. Eventually, the concept disappears from consciousness. Only being remains. Do this to know, and to subsequently realize non-delusional implications of the knowing. Non-doing only leads to speculation about the doing. Without the intellectual crutch of to be asserting separation from all the unsaid, thinking and communication disengages from auto-pilot.

“Only dead fish swim with the stream.” Malcolm Muggeridge

But without a sense of I, wouldn't communication just be the interactions of dead fish swimming downstream? Perhaps the solution doesn't lie with eliminating "to be" from communication but distinguishing between imaginary and realistic expressions of "to be."

[Walker]

For the sake of the good of philosophy do we have the obligation to intentionally use free speech in ways that do not intensify negative emotions? If we do, how can we do it even if Shaw was right and in reality we are incapable of it?

You inquire with, how? This requests a method. Every root philosophical inquiry requires a simple seed, as does this particular how inquiry. Quite simply, eliminate all forms of to be, first from communication. Eventually, the concept disappears from consciousness. Only being remains. Do this to know, and to subsequently realize non-delusional implications of the knowing. Non-doing only leads to speculation about the doing. Without the intellectual crutch of to be asserting separation from all the unsaid, thinking and communication disengages from auto-pilot.

“Only dead fish swim with the stream.” Malcolm Muggeridge

But without a sense of I, wouldn't communication just be the interactions of dead fish swimming downstream? Perhaps the solution doesn't lie with eliminating "to be" from communication but distinguishing between imaginary and realistic expressions of "to be."

The effortless repetition of simple changes reality, first non-conceptually and then conceptually. Still mind stills thoughts. No thoughts, no mind. Reality therefore changes in a non-conceptual way. To communicate the conceptual change wrought by perpetual awareness of mind’s arbitrary, conceptual creative nature, which displays via communicating the thoughts that come and then go forgotton, one could do worse than perpetuating a simultaneously simple, profound, innocuous and conceptual change of persistent insistence caused by experiencing reality stripped bare of any being illusions, by witnessing the arbitrary nature of thought. Spiritually speaking, one ventures into the unknown by freeing from the comfort of known via a known method and in this particular situation of existence where the conceptual nature of words both creates and limits existence, freedom of speech bound by the limitation of censorship* frees the mind in ways that can transcend limitations inherent to any medium. Spiritually speaking, under circumstances of existence literally devoid of being,when the written replaces the writer the medium expands.

* by the act of censoring to be, which in this situation acts as the petty tyrant.

[Nick_A]

Walker

The effortless repetition of simple changes reality, first non-conceptually and then conceptually. Still mind stills thoughts. No thoughts, no mind. Reality therefore changes in a non-conceptual way.

I may be wrong but I read this suggesting the still mind of a dog which just responds to life in a non-conceptual way without thought is the evolutionary goal for Man. Is this true?

[Nick_A]

Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Plato

The problem with free speech is that it is abused. There are certain valuable ideas which are first communicated through speech but at the same time the greatest nonsense is spoken and defended as expressions of free speech.

The defender of liberty is willing to put up with the nonsense to preserve freedom.

Those who defend statist slavery would rather ban quality for the sake of guiding the expression of nonsense for political aims