~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Arising_uk »

Bill Wiltrack wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 10:16 amWell, I mean, I don't get it but I feel like I have evolved & can no longer comfortably take the position of my distinguished fellow member.


And I respect you taking your position...but just remember -


She is making an argument against copy and pasting by copy and pasting.


She ALWAYS copy & pastes fellow members statement usually in failed attempts to attack them. ...
No this is not what she argues, what she argues is that if you copy and paste another's words then you should quote them and in general if you copy and paste another's creative output then at the very least you should acknowledge authorship or ownership and if they are copyrighted then you should ask permission and pay any dues if owed. To not do so is unethical, philosophy forum an' all that guff.
I don't care. Makes no difference to me. Kind-of boring but if that's her thing - so be it.
If you don't care why keep defending your actions?
I do take issue with one thing she has said recently, though I really don't want to pursue it.
:lol: But you will anyway eh!
While back I did want to have an article placed in the snail-mail copy of PhilosophyNow Magazine. No longer. ...
Mainly because you'd have to be able to actually write one that would past muster I suspect.
At the time I made some strong arguments for that urge. NONE of them were ultimately for my benefit.

So, she's distorting a past experience that was ultimately just a promotional plan I devised for PhilosophyNow web members to be given a rightfully higher esteem and recognition. ...
Anyone can submit an article to the PN mag so I look forward to reading yours in the future.

You want higher esteem and recognition? Subscribe to the mag and support this forum of which you take advantage.
But as far as argument, especially philosophically related arguments, I don't care how anyone chooses to form their premises. ...
Which just goes to show how little you understand of western Philosophy.
Just keep in mind, for example, we are not discussing ANYTHING philosophical related to the focus of this thread. ...
You're the one who went off-topic?
The member that is driving you and your conversation right now is attempting to attack me personally. ...
And that's your problem, you take critique of your thoughts as personal attacks, no idea why but I guess it's bound up with some psychological issue or other.
That member continually draws individual attacks as opposed to philosophical theory. Don't be fooled. Check-out that member's post history. They virtually NEVER add original posts or content. Just really sophomoric attempts to attack fellow members. Really for no reason or end. ...
Again you show your ignorance of western Philosophy, critique is there to improve one's thoughts. That I don't make initial posts very often is that I've read Philosophy and know how much of what I think has already been said and discussed. Now it might well be true that when someone posts what they think about something it is original to them but it's very rarely unique in Philosophy and with respect to your posts, well they are mainly just paraphrases of whatever has caught your attention in your latest interweebling.
Keep that in-mind. React however you wish. ...
I doubt they need your permission.
You weren't around back when but I saved that particular members ass when they were getting their **** handed to them by, what this entire site thought was a unvanquishable bully. I kicked that members ass here then then walked-over to a new site they consequently created - and kicked her ass over there too. ...
lmao! The blow-thyself crowd must have wet themselves laughing. The goaturder might have an objectionable nature and philosophy but compared to you he's a philosophical giant.
Ever since, the PhilosophyNow member that I championed has felt diminished by my presence. Just the way it is. ...
What a world of fantasy you live in. If I remember right your nose was right up his arse at the start.
-And I DON'T CARE! I have forgotten about the incident but this particular current member cannot let it go.

I'm OVER IT. [/size]
:lol: Obviously!
Last edited by Arising_uk on Fri May 11, 2018 8:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Arising_uk »

Dontaskme wrote:No one has copyright of knowledge. ...
Not heard of copyright departments?
All knowledge informs illusory reality. ...
Is it not more about 'illusory reality'?
We are born not-knowing anything. ...
Well apart from how to find the breast, grasp, move one's body about and hear I guess you're right.
All you know is what another person has told you, so you have no original knowledge of your own. ...
What do you think experience is?
All knowledge is mentally constructed via sound coming from the throat of a human being heard as words with meaning.

A noise coming from the vocal cords....is nothing but a meaningless sound no different to the sound coming from a barking dog...except humans have attached meaning and value to their noise making machine, and then they actually believe those noises are real things in the world....they are not, it’s all fiction arising from nothing returning to nothing. ...
Not really, its a new thing in the world 'meaning' and you need two to do it.
Words have created an artificial separation within wholeness that is life living itself...words are the cause of all human misery and suffering. ...
I thought you said 'life' is a verb, why do you keep using it as a noun?

I think a lack of resources a bigger source of misery and suffering, words have also allowed for science, medicine and writing which have improved the lot and knowledge of humans immeasurably.
Humans are so screwed and they did this to themselves, because they have believed in their own self made delusions as if they actually existed. ...
Bill knows nothing belongs to you not even knowledge or thought...these are all illusory things. ...
Your world must be a very difficult and confusing one.
Has anyone ever seen two barking dogs arguing with each other?
What do you think the barking is?
Bill is such a gentleman. Thankyou for being here. Pretending like the rest of us, except some of us take our pretending a little bit more seriously that others...Bill is not one of them.
'Us', 'you', 'one', 'them', 'our', how can you use these terms with a straight face given what you say?
Last edited by Arising_uk on Fri May 11, 2018 8:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Arising_uk »

Bill Wiltrack wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 10:43 am.....................YOU are the type of member that makes being here worthwhile. Thank you..
What! No comment about her hiding behind a phony moniker?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8863
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Dontaskme »

Bill Wiltrack wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 10:43 am .




.....................YOU are the type of member that makes being here worthwhile. Thank you.




.
Glad to be on the same page of one who has mastered the art of seeing through the delusions of ''otherness'', and has come to be in that sublime place of ''knowing thyself''.. :wink:

Love reading your creative expressive spirit in all your threads and topics, they're always full of surprises and always guaranteed to cause a good belly laugh here...thanks for not being afraid to be you. People will either get you or they will not get you. I get you Bill. :D

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is King” ~ Desiderius. “

Image

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8863
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Dontaskme »

Arising_uk wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 8:59 pmAgain you show your ignorance of western Philosophy, critique is there to improve one's thoughts.
Philosophy is mind activity - the mind is a dream weaver. The critique is mind activity. It's all fictional story telling by no one, it may seem relevant and meaningful at the psychological level of separate self, but ultimately stories have no import for or impact on one's true nature.

Why don't you improve your thoughts on this...When you know what you are, the mind is no match. Meaning, as long as the mind continually asks, who am I? who is this philosopher? who is the critique? and keeps answering ''I am'', there is no knowing Self.

The thing is there really is no knowing ''who you are'', just the possibility of knowing ''what you are not''. This way of knowing is not the way of affirmation but that of negation. Meaning true Self is not mind oriented.

You think your knowledge is what makes the man...it does not. You do not need a story of yourself to be, but are addicted to your story because without it you are nothing.

Arising_uk wrote: Thu May 10, 2018 8:59 pmThat I don't make initial posts very often is that I've read Philosophy and know how much of what I think has already been said and discussed.
Yes, and that's a good reason why all claimed authorship of knowledge is pretentious. There is nothing new under the sun, all claimed copyrighted knowledge is at it's base root plagiarism, and plagiarism is the highest form of wisdom. The human voice is nothing more than a talking parrot.

Knowledge belongs to everyone and no one.

.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Arising_uk »

Dontaskme wrote:Philosophy is mind activity - the mind is a dream weaver. ...
If you mean by 'mind' a thing separate from the ability of the body to use memory to make sequences of the representations by the senses of the body from an external world then I disagree that this 'mind'(whatever it is?) exists but I agree that the body makes representations of the external world.
The critique is mind activity. It's all fictional story telling by no one, it may seem relevant and meaningful at the psychological level of separate self, but ultimately stories have no import for or impact on one's true nature. ...
I'm as a loss that you think there is no-one but think this 'no-one' has a 'true nature', what is having this 'true nature'?
Why don't you improve your thoughts on this...When you know what you are, the mind is no match. Meaning, as long as the mind continually asks, who am I? who is this philosopher? who is the critique? and keeps answering ''I am'', there is no knowing Self. ...
How there can be no "knowng Self" and "When you know what you are"?

No idea why you think philosophy or the mind is asking 'who am I' or any of the other 'who's' you mention? Sounds all Psychology to me.
The thing is there really is no knowing ''who you are'', just the possibility of knowing ''what you are not''. This way of knowing is not the way of affirmation but that of negation. Meaning true Self is not mind oriented.
How do you know this 'true Self'?
You think your knowledge is what makes the man...it does not. You do not need a story of yourself to be, but are addicted to your story because without it you are nothing. ...
I think Reason is what maketh Man.

I think what you say is just a story you make-up because you don't like yourself.

Arising_uk wrote:Yes, and that's a good reason why all claimed authorship of knowledge is pretentious. There is nothing new under the sun, all claimed copyrighted knowledge is at it's base root plagiarism, and plagiarism is the highest form of wisdom. ...
There is new knowledge discovered everyday and it is created by individuals who have every right to assert authorship.
The human voice is nothing more than a talking parrot. ...
Actually it's the sound of a thinking primate.
Knowledge belongs to everyone and no one.
A contradiction and always false.

I agree that knowledge should belong to everyone unfortunately knowledge can be power and as such many hoad it.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8863
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Dontaskme »

I agree that the body makes representations of the external world.
Oh really, and how does that happen?

When the brain.body is dead, it can still be seen, it exists...so if the body makes representations of the external world then why does it stop doing that when it’s dead...? The body is there, so where is the representations, where have they gone?

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8863
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Dontaskme »

‘’A contradiction and always false.’’


If there’s just everything, then there’s no separate owner, no separate thing to make a claim of authorship...it’s not a contradiction...you just lack the basic understanding of nonduality.

Have you ever studied nonduality?

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8863
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Dontaskme »

Arising_uk wrote.

No idea why you think philosophy or the mind is asking 'who am I' or any of the other 'who's' you mention?
So what the heck is philosophy doing then, what’s it’s purpose?

If it’s not a who...then what it it? ...is it a wall, or a brick...what the heck is philosophy?

.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Arising_uk »

Dontaskme wrote:Oh really, and how does that happen?
External stimuli impact the body get converted into electro-chemical impulses which active neuronal nets which can trigger responses in the various internal body systems but can also be recalled by those systems.
When the brain.body is dead, it can still be seen, it exists...so if the body makes representations of the external world then why does it stop doing that when it’s dead...? The body is there, so where is the representations, where have they gone?.
You ask the strangest questions, the body is dead so no responses to external stimuli.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Arising_uk »

Dontaskme wrote:If there’s just everything, then there’s no separate owner, no separate thing to make a claim of authorship...it’s not a contradiction...you just lack the basic understanding of nonduality. ...
Who's this 'everyone' then?
Have you ever studied nonduality?.
No idea, what is involved in such a study?
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Arising_uk »

Dontaskme wrote:So what the heck is philosophy doing then, what’s it’s purpose?
Well supposedly it's a love of wisdom but for myself it's to think logically about things.
If it’s not a who...then what it it? ...is it a wall, or a brick...what the heck is philosophy?
That's a hard question, generally it's a name given to categories of questions that have been asked about things so it clumps together Metaphysics(what you do in the main), Epistemology, Ethics and Morals, Politics and lately 'Mind' and Language, it's main analytical tool has been Logic. So to have a 'philosophy' is to have a metaphysic, an ethic, an epistemology, a politics and maybe the other two, which all hang together logically with the aim of explaining pretty much everything about the world, ousrselves and our relationship to the world and others and how we should act. This is probably all too simplistic but the best I could do off the cuff.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8863
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Dontaskme »

Dontaskme wrote:So what the heck is philosophy doing then, what’s it’s purpose?
Arising_uk wrote: Sun May 13, 2018 1:11 amWell supposedly it's a love of wisdom but for myself it's to think logically about things.
Dontaskme wrote:If it’s not a who...then what it it? ...is it a wall, or a brick...what the heck is philosophy?
Arising_uk wrote: Sun May 13, 2018 1:11 amThat's a hard question, generally it's a name given to categories of questions that have been asked about things so it clumps together Metaphysics(what you do in the main), Epistemology, Ethics and Morals, Politics and lately 'Mind' and Language, it's main analytical tool has been Logic. So to have a 'philosophy' is to have a metaphysic, an ethic, an epistemology, a politics and maybe the other two, which all hang together logically with the aim of explaining pretty much everything about the world, ousrselves and our relationship to the world and others and how we should act. This is probably all too simplistic but the best I could do off the cuff.
So who or what gives the questioneer the name ''philosophy'' ?

Can the questioneer not ask ''who'' the questioneer is?

Or doesn't philosophy bother asking who wants to know? does it not occur to the questioneer to ask questions such as who is clumping knowledge together to gain wisdom?

Explaining pretty much everything about the world is okay because the mind loves making up conceptual words and weaving them together to make stories, it's an activity whereby it cannot stop thinking ..but lets not bother asking the hard questions about who or what this mind is that seeks to explain everything, that's way too hard to figure out, lets just pretend we already know the knower...otherwise the alternative is that the questioneer named philosophy can just ignore the part of who wants to know...philosophy is just not concerned with things like that is it?

Oh I get it, maybe it's all the work of the thinking primate ..so it must be thought that want to know? and yet no primate has ever seen a thought in it's entire life, neither can a thought be touched or sensed or photographed.

So yes, I ask the hard questions, lets get real here and stop pretending we know it all. When we clearly don't.

We'll just sweep the hard questions under the rug and hope no one thinks about them.
Arising_uk wrote: Sun May 13, 2018 1:11 amNo idea why you think philosophy or the mind is asking 'who am I' or any of the other 'who's' you mention? Sounds all Psychology to me.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8863
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Dontaskme »

Arising_uk wrote: Sun May 13, 2018 12:57 am
Dontaskme wrote:Oh really, and how does that happen?
External stimuli impact the body get converted into electro-chemical impulses which active neuronal nets which can trigger responses in the various internal body systems but can also be recalled by those systems.
When the brain.body is dead, it can still be seen, it exists...so if the body makes representations of the external world then why does it stop doing that when it’s dead...? The body is there, so where is the representations, where have they gone?.
You ask the strangest questions, the body is dead so no responses to external stimuli.
There is no knowledge of what death is, nor of what life is...except what the mind makes up....all that can be known is there appears to be a continuous stream of what looks like an unbroken chain of life living itself endlessly recycling from latent to kinetic to latent to kinetic on a constantly sustaining feedback loop... as two sides of the same coin, neither dead nor alive, but rather having the effect we see in everyday mechanics like a computer that is either offline or online depending on whether the machine is plugged into it's animating source. And notice that while the machine can be either off or online, the source aka electricity the animating spirit of all machines can never be negated. Source is a formidable force that cannot be known, for it is the only knowing there is.

Ask yourself what is it that is alive here...and why if it's alive would that aliveness die?...how can life die, and how can that which is dead be alive.It does not make sense.

Neither does this belief make sense>>
If you didn't exist before you was born, and you won't exist after you die, WHO is it now that is supposed to be alive and will one day die? please explain who that is..that has suddenly popped into existence between two non-existences? ..see how that belief does not make sense?
Your philosophy has to explain that..who that is?

Logic will show you that there is no break in the cycle of reality that can only ever be wholeness in every moment, and so there is no room for separate entities to exist. Who would that separate entity be? ..but a thought!
Arising_uk wrote: Sun May 13, 2018 12:57 am I agree that the body makes representations of the external world.
The electrical impulses are no longer responding to stimuli not because the body is dead, we cannot know what death is, but a cycle of regeneration process is what's probably and more logically taking place, the body has stopped responding to life on a human level, but on a deeper level there are changes taking place that the mind is unaware of and has no direct experience of....the bodies mechanism to process sensory data has temporally gone off line to the mind on a human level, just like it does in deep dreamless sleep, or during anesthesia.
But nothing is dead, because nothing is alive, these are just ideas, thoughts...
Notice that a computer will suddenly stop responding, it will crash or freeze, but that does not mean the end, all that's required is a rebooting and all is up and running again. We can compare that to how reality of bodies and form are operating.

So as usual, you are talking typically from a programmed conditioned mentality about what you think you know about the world, and then state it is not important to ask the question who is the questioneer in search of wisdom and who is it that has called itself a philospher ..who is this I AM that wants to KNOW...philosophy just ignores that bit, it's so darn sure of itself, it never needs to question it...but this is a programme that the mind has conjured up about itself, transferred from one generation to the next, on and on and on and no body ever stops to question the sense of who AM I..who is the questioneer? ..it's okay we don't know that part so we'll just ignore it.

Best not ask questions about things we know nothing about...we'll just live with what we believe in, with what we believe are our beliefs, even though we don't know what they are either..but lets cling to belief because without the beliefs we have absolutely no idea who we are, or what we are, or what we are looking at, or why we want to know what we want to know. We'll just keep pretending and making it all up.

.

.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: ~ Philosophically, You Are Going to be Sooooo Screwed ~

Post by Arising_uk »

Dontaskme wrote:So who or what gives the questioneer the name ''philosophy'' ?
Er!? We do.
Can the questioneer not ask ''who'' the questioneer is?
They could and the answer would be "us".
Or doesn't philosophy bother asking who wants to know? ...
I'd have thought the answer was pretty straight forward, 'we do'.
does it not occur to the questioneer to ask questions such as who is clumping knowledge together to gain wisdom?
That'll be us again.
Explaining pretty much everything about the world is okay because the mind loves making up conceptual words and weaving them together to make stories, it's an activity whereby it cannot stop thinking ..but lets not bother asking the hard questions about who or what this mind is that seeks to explain everything, that's way too hard to figure out, ...
I'm still unclear as to what it is you think "mind" refers to? Or even 'thinking' for that matter?

If you are asking what 'mind' is you'll have to give me an idea of what form of answer and from what field would satisfy you?

However as a starter I'd say who this 'mind' is is us and all our minds or at least those that can be bothered with such stuff as philosophising. What our minds are or how they work I think will be best answered by the natural philosophers.
lets just pretend we already know the knower...
No pretend about it, its us.
otherwise the alternative is that the questioneer named philosophy can just ignore the part of who wants to know...
But we know who wants to know, its us.
philosophy is just not concerned with things like that is it?
Well mainly I guess because we know the answer, its us.
Oh I get it, maybe it's all the work of the thinking primate ..so it must be thought that want to know? ...
Like 'life' you are reifying 'thought'. It's us who wants to know things so you are right, thinking primates wish to know things.
and yet no primate has ever seen a thought in it's entire life, neither can a thought be touched or sensed or photographed.
Tell me what you think a thought is? As from my point of view over the last few decades we have been sensing and photographing thoughts by the dozen.
So yes, I ask the hard questions, lets get real here and stop pretending we know it all. When we clearly don't.
That's funny as a while back you said you had no questions as you had all the answers?

Philosophy and the Sciences well understand that we don't know it all but they also understand when they do know a little about some things.
We'll just sweep the hard questions under the rug and hope no one thinks about them.
But the answers to your questions do not seem very hard?
Post Reply