The Significant Event.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



No. There are an infinite number of realities as far as I'm concerned. We live in a multidimensional continuum.



...I may have said that about a dozen times here before....So, in one sense you are correct; I am having fun repeating myself.



.

[lancek4]

.




Maybe my response here to HH might help toward your suggestion.


No. Actually your response didn't help at all.


The more I see how your mind works, the more I understand how your inability to write and your naturally occurring thought process undermines any possible insight you may possess.


Good luck with your daily life. I imagine the bumps in the road that you must continually experience deserve your complete attention. Much more so than any type of writing you may want to develop.



This is what I actually said:

Look, we've given you a critique. We have given our opinions. Take them.

Ingrain them into you & rewrite your article.

You may have a very good & interesting philosophical point...but now, your writing does not reflect that.




If you would...tell me, in one sentence, what is the point of your article in question? Just that article.


What would you want me to take from it?






I feel nothing but sorrow and empathy for you. Sincerely.

.

And I have empathy for your having empathy for me (or did you mean sympathy ?) lol

I will certainly take you suggestion to heart and re look how I am presenting these ideas. But it would be much more helpful if someone could point out specific points and how or in what way they are nonsensical .

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Look, you've got a pile of leaves covering up a bicycle.


You are asking which specific leaf is the problem.


I'm asking you to dig through that pile of leaves and grab that bike.


Tell me what that bike actually is. Describe it to me.



Don't ask us to ask you to rearrange the leaves. The leaves are the problem to your clarity.



.

[lancek4]

H

[lancek4]

.



No. There are an infinite number of realities as far as I'm concerned. We live in a multidimensional continuum.



...I may have said that about a dozen times here before....So, in one sense you are correct; I am having fun repeating myself.



.

I didn't see this post..

So, how do you know there are infinite realities? Is the reality that contains this infinity of multidimensions constantly break up an exclude itself?

[lancek4]

I will pose in the first person to perhaps allow for a more intimate asking of such questions:

From where do I gain knowledge?

From where do I gain this idea ?

These are fundamental questions that reach to the significance of all other proposed ideas that people call philosophy.

I have found that people who have not first asked this question often appear more concerned with establishing themselves as an identity of importance, than they are with finding the truth of their existence. In this, I must say, there is a reliance upon a 'given' that is left uninvestigated. Hence, I say that those more worried about their identity are conventional thinkers, replaying and relaying the same arguments, concerned more about covering up what they don't know than they are with finding out the truth of the matter.

So I ask if there is anyone who is interested in discussing these fundamental questions, or, is everyone either talking about things upon an assumed base and are comfortable with discussing 'suspended' ideas, or merely schmoozing and asserting and accusing, talking about philosophy as if it is another parlor game of wit and deception, a party that could be just as easily called 'business', or 'politics',or 'social strategy' or 'how to win friends and influence people'.

Faith, I propose, is that by which the individual cannot escape from, it is that which allows for the individual to have truth. It is not a choice or a belief, it is that which distinguishes those concerned with identity for those who search for truth. For those who must hide that the base from which they argue is 'unclear' or basically unfounded In their knowledge, and so merely acts as a truth instead of being a truth that is known through a firm foundation -- I say these "philosophers" are conventional, they take what is given to them as a puzzle to be worked out in the name of, for no better term, their God, the base of their knowledge that is taken on faith to be true.

Hence I propose to seek into such base, how it functions, and take nothing for granted.

Of course, this is all up for argument, but it seems no one (here) wants to discuss, no one wants to make an argument. They only want to cower and point and accuse and insult. A sure sign that this faith is being challenged. That is, unless someone wants to discuss how this idea is incorrect. I'm open.

[lancek4]

Of course, I have spent many hours on PN, and I know there is always a portion who are not into learning. In fact, my experience here at PN helped to develop my essays.

--

It seems Ginko, though he may not be interested, is the only one who at least shows respect and consideration. Of the four so far.
Yea, it seems from my extensive experience on this forum that 25% indeed have a capacity to engage constructively. I'd say roughly another 25% are those who are still seeking honestly. Maybe another quarter are stuck in 'talking philosophically', and the last quarter merely confused puppets who only want to spread their discontent.


Any comment on those rough sociological stats?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Of course, I have spent many hours on PN, and I know there is always a portion who are not into learning. In fact, my experience here at PN helped to develop my essays.

--

It seems Ginko, though he may not be interested, is the only one who at least shows respect and consideration. Of the four so far.
Yea, it seems from my extensive experience on this forum that 25% indeed have a capacity to engage constructively. I'd say roughly another 25% are those who are still seeking honestly. Maybe another quarter are stuck in 'talking philosophically', and the last quarter merely confused puppets who only want to spread their discontent.


Any comment on those rough sociological stats?

I see you can write coherently when you want to.

[lancek4]

Of course, I have spent many hours on PN, and I know there is always a portion who are not into learning. In fact, my experience here at PN helped to develop my essays.

--

It seems Ginko, though he may not be interested, is the only one who at least shows respect and consideration. Of the four so far.
Yea, it seems from my extensive experience on this forum that 25% indeed have a capacity to engage constructively. I'd say roughly another 25% are those who are still seeking honestly. Maybe another quarter are stuck in 'talking philosophically', and the last quarter merely confused puppets who only want to spread their discontent.


Any comment on those rough sociological stats?

I see you can write coherently when you want to.

Lol Ok; maybe 2 of the 4; 50% here fall into the first quarter percentile . But I wouldn't want to ruin your reputation.
Well then, perhaps with this I may be given a benefit of doubt that my essays do have a certain sensibility.
I think I may have made a small mistake posting a middle segment of the essay.

Maybe I'm being a bit selfish, but I want critique. I want people to question the essay; insult is fine, I guess, so far as it confirms part of the essays impetus, but an actual addressing of the terms of my argument would be so appreciated.

[SpheresOfBalance]

OP is pure ramblings, not a tiny bit of sound thinking.
Wrong, rather you can find nothing of substance. Blame not as yet to be understood.

Everything is rave and babble.
Wrong, only that it is what you understand of it.

OP? What is OP?

Can you tell me how or what specifically in my essay is unsound?

The instrumentality of reality is faith;

This quote alone shows:
- you don't understand the concept of relevance.
Or, you don't understand it's relevance.

- you waste time on irrelevant things.
Or rather you may not be capable of seeing it otherwise.

- you say things in a too weird way,
There is no weird, only stated to serve self as being normal.
that has nothing to do with how intelligent people should precieve things.
And where, pray tell, is this rule book?

- faith has nothing to do with reality in itself.
Finally, your honest view of opposition, good.

- this is supersticious nonsense and babble.
Maybe, but maybe not. You should engage to be sure, if you care about the OP at all, otherwise why comment in the first place?

- anyone writing such babble wouldn't be hired in any seious buisness, or fired right away as it would scare away customers and investors.
What is it with you and always framing things in terms of work? You've got to be kidding me.

..what kind of job does one such as you have?
Like it really matters, NOT!

all forms of veto stem from the resistance, innate to the individual, to have reality find solution. The condition of reality thereby posits no solution but through faith, which I call ‘conventional faith’, and this insolute situation that requires faith is founded upon the True Object. The True Object is the basis of having reality, and the motion of reality, called progress, is toward the absolutely True object. Reality thereby determines that the individual human being should find the Truth through the terms of reality, and this is to say that the terms are seen to reflect or otherwise show what the True object may be and thus presents the route or method by which the individual may find solution; the solution found through conventional faith is called identity.

..rest is also completely incoherent babble and nonsense.
Of rather, to you it is, as it can go either way, best to be sure before flaming, lest one eats crow!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Any opinions?

http://lancek4.wordpress.com/2014/06/20 ... nt-part-2/

Hey Lance, good to see you again! You were a good friend, giving much time and energy, thanks!

I read your bit, at least for a while, but see as usual, that it seems to be obvious, that you are not trying to appeal to laymen. I feel that sometimes you omit words for the sake of brevity, at the expense of clarity. Which I do as well, sometimes. Of course it could just be the differences between us, our individual methodology of conveyance. I have always believed that somethings you get caught up in complicated concepts, precluding clarity through wording. I'll not presume the why of it, as only you can honestly answer that. My perception, from my perspective, obviously, but a point to note, depending on your target audience.

I hope you found this somewhat constructive, as that was indeed my intention, due to your patience of past encounter, though sometimes a bit cheeky, it was to to be understood.

I'm glad Ginkgo engaged, as he can always be counted upon to honestly try and address ones words, in an honest, respectful fashion; a gentleman and a scholar for sure, one of the few here I actually have some respect for.

If you'd like me to quote specific instances where I believe you loose the layman, I'll more than gladly give you the time.

Have a good one!

[lancek4]

Any opinions?

http://lancek4.wordpress.com/2014/06/20 ... nt-part-2/

Hey Lance, good to see you again! You were a good friend, giving much time and energy, thanks!

I read your bit, at least for a while, but see as usual, that it seems to be obvious, that you are not trying to appeal to laymen. I feel that sometimes you omit words for the sake of brevity, at the expense of clarity. Which I do as well, sometimes. Of course it could just be the differences between us, our individual methodology of conveyance. I have always believed that somethings you get caught up in complicated concepts, precluding clarity through wording. I'll not presume the why of it, as only you can honestly answer that. My perception, from my perspective, obviously, but a point to note, depending on your target audience.

I hope you found this somewhat constructive, as that was indeed my intention, due to your patience of past encounter, though sometimes a bit cheeky, it was to to be understood.

I'm glad Ginkgo engaged, as he can always be counted upon to honestly try and address ones words, in an honest, respectful fashion; a gentleman and a scholar for sure, one of the few here I actually have some respect for.

If you'd like me to quote specific instances where I believe you loose the layman, I'll more than gladly give you the time.

Have a good one!

See, this is exactly what I'm taking about . Hello SOB; good to see ur still around. This is good input. Thank u.

Example: 'for the sake of brevity' I would not see that, for I'm trying to be as clear as I can.
'Not for the layman' likewise. I hope to put things simply.

But of course. My blog is a work in progress and also it develops through the whole blog.
Do yes. sOB some specific examples would be much appreciated. If u have the time.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Any opinions?

http://lancek4.wordpress.com/2014/06/20 ... nt-part-2/

Hey Lance, good to see you again! You were a good friend, giving much time and energy, thanks!

I read your bit, at least for a while, but see as usual, that it seems to be obvious, that you are not trying to appeal to laymen. I feel that sometimes you omit words for the sake of brevity, at the expense of clarity. Which I do as well, sometimes. Of course it could just be the differences between us, our individual methodology of conveyance. I have always believed that somethings you get caught up in complicated concepts, precluding clarity through wording. I'll not presume the why of it, as only you can honestly answer that. My perception, from my perspective, obviously, but a point to note, depending on your target audience.

I hope you found this somewhat constructive, as that was indeed my intention, due to your patience of past encounter, though sometimes a bit cheeky, it was to to be understood.

I'm glad Ginkgo engaged, as he can always be counted upon to honestly try and address ones words, in an honest, respectful fashion; a gentleman and a scholar for sure, one of the few here I actually have some respect for.

If you'd like me to quote specific instances where I believe you loose the layman, I'll more than gladly give you the time.

Have a good one!

See, this is exactly what I'm taking about . Hello SOB; good to see ur still around. This is good input. Thank u.

Example: 'for the sake of brevity' I would not see that, for I'm trying to be as clear as I can.
'Not for the layman' likewise. I hope to put things simply.

But of course. My blog is a work in progress and also it develops through the whole blog.
Do yes. sOB some specific examples would be much appreciated. If u have the time.

So apparently you speak in a language that we mere 'laypeople' are not privy to. It looked like English to me.

[lancek4]

Veggie: lol. Yes, well I figured I'd get into that when SOB replies. Thank you, I think .
But like I said, I am realizing perhaps I should have put the link to the beginning of the essay. 'The Romance..." Which sets it up .

[lancek4]

I would think for those who see my essay as blabber that the more constructive approach to not understanding what I may be saying is to ask what it is I am saying.
So perhaps I can try to say what I mean by 'faith'.

To begin, I turn the conventional and usual idea of faith on its head, and propose that faith is something not chosen, not of a specific system of belief, but that which supplies or other wise informs that system.
So, that which is usually known as at least having a capacity or ability to inform us to what we may choose to believe, I have termed 'reality'.

Hence, by this upturning of the usual conception of 'faith' on its head, I come by the meaning that reality is of faith. Ones faith is that by which reality is known as true, or and the true platform by or through which we have a playing field to discuss what may be really-true. But this is an assumption of a One reality, and even more, a One reality that contains and accounts for what has been posed as multiple realities.

By this move I also claim that such reduction is faulty.