PN forum stats

[HexHammer]

SoB what job does one such as you have?

[SpheresOfBalance]

SoB what job does one such as you have?

Hex, man... A job has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy, or anything else of any intellectual importance. It's just a means to buy ones freedom after it's been taken away from them. If in fact my freedom hadn't been taken away from me, I'd answer that my job was keeping my family alive, amongst the earths variables, as a farmer/hunter-gatherer, such as it should be, if not for the selfish that take, so as to have power and more than the rest, so they can stand around shouting commands, like the lazy slave owners, that has been their purpose.

What jobs have I done?

A grave digger (by shovel, pickaxe, sledge and jackhammer); laborer; landscaper; groundskeeper; greenhouse plant cloner; porter (janitor); weapon systems maintainer; bomb loader/nuclear weapons loading team member; corrosion control technician; spray painter (both compressed air and electrostatic); carpenter; drywall installer/finisher; machinist (CNC: screw machine/lathe/vertical & horizontal milling center operators); automotive mechanic; aircrewman aft observer; aviation antisubmarine warfare operator (electronics warfare operator, operating 5 electronic sensors, i.e., IFF/SIF, ESM, RADAR, IRDS, MAD); weather avoidance aircrew member (RADAR operator); aviation support equipment technician (working with pneumatic/hydraulic/mechanical/electrical systems including turbo jet engines & AC); video equipment technician; audio equipment installer; audio equipment electronics technician (working with digital/analog oscilloscopes, frequency generator/counter/DMM/soldering station, etc); photographer; cable TV installer/repair technician; satellite TV installer/repair technician; computer builder; computer repair technician; computer software installer/troubleshooter; computer network designer/installer/troubleshooter/maintainer.

Of course my job was also as a student at university for a while.

That may be all of it, though I may be forgetting a few things, so now go ahead and try and pigeon hole me through your rationalization. Try and quantify me relative to you, as if my jobs have necessarily defined me. To me of course, they were just done so as to buy my naturally born freedom back, from those that stole it from me. Of course I wish it was otherwise; born in the wrong time period, of the wrong species, or on the wrong planet. Maybe I'm just ahead of my time, preferring a more advanced, versus the current, more animal species, to belong among.

[HexHammer]

Hex, man... A job has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy, or anything else of any intellectual importance

There has been so far a good indication of job and ability to reason.

The better one is able to reason and figure things out, the higher one can potentially reach in a big business. A very smart person wouldn't usually have a low wage job.
..that is basic logic.

I'm sorry but I don't think you are a top philosopher.

[lancek4]

HH. Your statement reveals your very capitalistic ideological One reality that everyone is supposed to fall in line with. It completely denies educated thought of at least the past 40 years. It shows a relapse into Modernistic belief that cannot cope with the evidence of humanity. Again, if you even took a moment to inestigate my essays you would see how you fall in line with what I'm saying, and then could even maybe offer some direct rebuttal.

[HexHammer]

HH. Your statement reveals your very capitalistic ideological

This is very true, but rest is bs, spare me.

Ask youself why so few are interested in your long babbelicious book, because it sucks and are nothing but nonsense and babble?

If it was actually sound reasoning, people would be all over it, but too few are interested in long essays about nothing.

You live in a delusional world, the sooner you leave it, and steps out to reality, the better, then we can engage in serious discussions.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hex, man... A job has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy, or anything else of any intellectual importance

There has been so far a good indication of job and ability to reason.
What do you mean? That in your studies of people, you have found that the ability to reason is directly proportional to ones job? If so, how so? What's the relationship, and what type of study have you conducted?

The better one is able to reason and figure things out, the higher one can potentially reach in a big business.
Based upon your assumption that one wishes to work for a big business, an that they all want to get to the top, assuming top can be defined, universally.

A very smart person wouldn't usually have a low wage job.
First I'm glad you believe you can usually speak for everyone. It depends what smart entails. For instance, I don't want to follow anyone, yet I also don't want to lead anyone.

I don't want to follow because I don't want to be led astray, to be responsible for something I don't fully understand, until hindsight is 20/20, then it's too late. I'd be just as guilty as the one I followed, because I didn't know what I was getting into, yet I dove in.

I don't want to lead anyone because I don't want to be their downfall, considering the situation I raised in the previous example about following. I don't want that kind of responsibility. To act as though I know, because I believe I do, then hindsight as 20/20 proves otherwise, then I'd feel responsible for the downfall of those that followed. I don't want that kind of pressure.

So I try not to do either one, yet I can't help but be involved in both cases, just a little! Unless of course I hid from sight, speaking to no one, which is a bitch, let me tell you.

..that is basic logic.
No that's your basic logic, and I agree that it's in fact basic. But then who the hell am I, relative to your concerns, as they are not mine. I don't want to have more than anyone else, as I can only have more if they have less, that's the way dichotomies work. Remember, I don't want to lead or follow.

I'm sorry but I don't think you are a top philosopher.
No need to be sorry, as what you think is top, may be my bottom. And I've never claimed to be top at anything, nor do I want to be, for the reasons I mentioned above, as to following or leading. To me simply being is good enough, until I am no longer. And a philosopher, I've never claimed to be either. I do love the point of philosophy though, and I try and root out the truth in knowledge as much as possible, case in point. I am now doing exactly that, showing that perspective is everything, that it's all relative, with regard to top or bottom, left or right, or up and down for that matter.

There is always a bottom above the top, and a top below the bottom, this, relativity, dictates!

Being at some top or some bottom, gets you where? You're still going to die, no matter what sort of dramas you create, to hide from the fear of your death, it's inevitable.

[SpheresOfBalance]

HH. Your statement reveals your very capitalistic ideological

This is very true, but rest is bs, spare me.

Ask youself why so few are interested in your long babbelicious book, because it sucks and are nothing but nonsense and babble?

If it was actually sound reasoning, people would be all over it, but too few are interested in long essays about nothing.

You live in a delusional world, the sooner you leave it, and steps out to reality, the better, then we can engage in serious discussions.

The difference between you and Lance is that he actually understands philosophy, while you're just a working stiff interested in it. Which is OK, and specifically you'd be OK, if you didn't try and demean as a way to qualify your lack of understanding of ones attempt to do good philosophy. Lance, I believe to be a good and patient man, because I've seen him work philosophy in our past encounters. He is genuinely interested, are you? So far many here have called you out as being more of a fighter than a lover, and I tend to agree, at least so far the majority of your words surely seem to indicate as much. But to give you something, you have calmed down a bit, relaxed a little. I believe finally getting closer to your equilibrium here. You'll get there. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm there either.

[HexHammer]

HH. Your statement reveals your very capitalistic ideological

This is very true, but rest is bs, spare me.

Ask youself why so few are interested in your long babbelicious book, because it sucks and are nothing but nonsense and babble?

If it was actually sound reasoning, people would be all over it, but too few are interested in long essays about nothing.

You live in a delusional world, the sooner you leave it, and steps out to reality, the better, then we can engage in serious discussions.

The difference between you and Lance is that he actually understands philosophy, while you're just a working stiff interested in it. Which is OK, and specifically you'd be OK, if you didn't try and demean as a way to qualify your lack of understanding of ones attempt to do good philosophy. Lance, I believe to be a good and patient man, because I've seen him work philosophy in our past encounters. He is genuinely interested, are you? So far many here have called you out as being more of a fighter than a lover, and I tend to agree, at least so far the majority of your words surely seem to indicate as much. But to give you something, you have calmed down a bit, relaxed a little. I believe finally getting closer to your equilibrium here. You'll get there. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm there either.

What you and I have in common is the love of wisdom, just that the 2 of you doesn't comprehend it.

[HexHammer]

Hex, man... A job has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy, or anything else of any intellectual importance

There has been so far a good indication of job and ability to reason.
What do you mean? That in your studies of people, you have found that the ability to reason is directly proportional to ones job? If so, how so? What's the relationship, and what type of study have you conducted?

The better one is able to reason and figure things out, the higher one can potentially reach in a big business.
Based upon your assumption that one wishes to work for a big business, an that they all want to get to the top, assuming top can be defined, universally.

A very smart person wouldn't usually have a low wage job.
First I'm glad you believe you can usually speak for everyone. It depends what smart entails. For instance, I don't want to follow anyone, yet I also don't want to lead anyone.

I don't want to follow because I don't want to be led astray, to be responsible for something I don't fully understand, until hindsight is 20/20, then it's too late. I'd be just as guilty as the one I followed, because I didn't know what I was getting into, yet I dove in.

I don't want to lead anyone because I don't want to be their downfall, considering the situation I raised in the previous example about following. I don't want that kind of responsibility. To act as though I know, because I believe I do, then hindsight as 20/20 proves otherwise, then I'd feel responsible for the downfall of those that followed. I don't want that kind of pressure.

So I try not to do either one, yet I can't help but be involved in both cases, just a little! Unless of course I hid from sight, speaking to no one, which is a bitch, let me tell you.

..that is basic logic.
No that's your basic logic, and I agree that it's in fact basic. But then who the hell am I, relative to your concerns, as they are not mine. I don't want to have more than anyone else, as I can only have more if they have less, that's the way dichotomies work. Remember, I don't want to lead or follow.

I'm sorry but I don't think you are a top philosopher.
No need to be sorry, as what you think is top, may be my bottom. And I've never claimed to be top at anything, nor do I want to be, for the reasons I mentioned above, as to following or leading. To me simply being is good enough, until I am no longer. And a philosopher, I've never claimed to be either. I do love the point of philosophy though, and I try and root out the truth in knowledge as much as possible, case in point. I am now doing exactly that, showing that perspective is everything, that it's all relative, with regard to top or bottom, left or right, or up and down for that matter.

There is always a bottom above the top, and a top below the bottom, this, relativity, dictates!

Being at some top or some bottom, gets you where? You're still going to die, no matter what sort of dramas you create, to hide from the fear of your death, it's inevitable.

You don't have any statistical knowledge of how many geniuses are in low wage job, you don't know what kind of geniuses with which disabilities, if it's autistics savants, or people with brain damage, bipolar ..etc.
You only speak about youself, and you havn't show any kind of genius side, math, sport, or any great insigts.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hex, man... A job has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy, or anything else of any intellectual importance

There has been so far a good indication of job and ability to reason.
What do you mean? That in your studies of people, you have found that the ability to reason is directly proportional to ones job? If so, how so? What's the relationship, and what type of study have you conducted?

The better one is able to reason and figure things out, the higher one can potentially reach in a big business.
Based upon your assumption that one wishes to work for a big business, an that they all want to get to the top, assuming top can be defined, universally.

A very smart person wouldn't usually have a low wage job.
First I'm glad you believe you can usually speak for everyone. It depends what smart entails. For instance, I don't want to follow anyone, yet I also don't want to lead anyone.

I don't want to follow because I don't want to be led astray, to be responsible for something I don't fully understand, until hindsight is 20/20, then it's too late. I'd be just as guilty as the one I followed, because I didn't know what I was getting into, yet I dove in.

I don't want to lead anyone because I don't want to be their downfall, considering the situation I raised in the previous example about following. I don't want that kind of responsibility. To act as though I know, because I believe I do, then hindsight as 20/20 proves otherwise, then I'd feel responsible for the downfall of those that followed. I don't want that kind of pressure.

So I try not to do either one, yet I can't help but be involved in both cases, just a little! Unless of course I hid from sight, speaking to no one, which is a bitch, let me tell you.

..that is basic logic.
No that's your basic logic, and I agree that it's in fact basic. But then who the hell am I, relative to your concerns, as they are not mine. I don't want to have more than anyone else, as I can only have more if they have less, that's the way dichotomies work. Remember, I don't want to lead or follow.

I'm sorry but I don't think you are a top philosopher.
No need to be sorry, as what you think is top, may be my bottom. And I've never claimed to be top at anything, nor do I want to be, for the reasons I mentioned above, as to following or leading. To me simply being is good enough, until I am no longer. And a philosopher, I've never claimed to be either. I do love the point of philosophy though, and I try and root out the truth in knowledge as much as possible, case in point. I am now doing exactly that, showing that perspective is everything, that it's all relative, with regard to top or bottom, left or right, or up and down for that matter.

There is always a bottom above the top, and a top below the bottom, this, relativity, dictates!

Being at some top or some bottom, gets you where? You're still going to die, no matter what sort of dramas you create, to hide from the fear of your death, it's inevitable.

You don't have any statistical knowledge of how many geniuses are in low wage job, you don't know what kind of geniuses with which disabilities, if it's autistics savants, or people with brain damage, bipolar ..etc.
You only speak about youself, and you havn't show any kind of genius side, math, sport, or any great insigts.

Genius could circumvent need for job. Would that make them less genius?

You don't know what I've shown, yet you speak as if you do, I guess that shows who the genius really isn't.

I was once a prodigy, but I gave it up for lent. There goes your philosophy on genius'.

[HexHammer]

Genius could circumvent need for job. Would that make them less genius?

You don't know what I've shown, yet you speak as if you do, I guess that shows who the genius really isn't.

I was once a prodigy, but I gave it up for lent. There goes your philosophy on genius'.

Now you just making silly excuses.

And you have shown me ample examples of how limited your cognitive abilities are in that quite long period of time I've known you.

If you think many year isn't enough to show you have a genius side, then you live in a delusion.

[lancek4]

0]The difference between you and Lance is that he actually understands philosophy, while you're just a working stiff interested in it. Which is OK, and specifically you'd be OK, if you didn't try and demean as a way to qualify your lack of understanding of ones attempt to do good philosophy. Lance, I believe to be a good and patient man, because I've seen him work philosophy in our past encounters. He is genuinely interested, are you? So far many here have called you out as being more of a fighter than a lover, and I tend to agree, at least so far the majority of your words surely seem to indicate as much. But to give you something, you have calmed down a bit, relaxed a little. I believe finally getting closer to your equilibrium here. You'll get there. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm there either.[/color][/quote]What you and I have in common is the love of wisdom, just that the 2 of you doesn't comprehend it.[/quote]



Yes, I am not in love with your wisdom, and if your (HH) proclamations are any indication of what wisdom really is, then I definitely don't want anything to do with it.
Now, if you could account for my position without merely denying that it is indeed evident as part of your reality, without blatant generalizations of propriety, then we might be getting somewhere. But it seems you are too busy proclaiming the Gospel according to HH to see beyond your polarized lenses.