the insufficiency of you
the insufficiency of you
There are 8 billion people on the planet. How much influence could you have in a group of 8? How much could you stand out in a group of 80?
Re: the insufficiency of you
_
That would be dependent on what you do.. local shop owners are minor celebrities, for instance.
That would be dependent on what you do.. local shop owners are minor celebrities, for instance.
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am
Re: the insufficiency of you
My insufficiency
The gallery, of socialism to themes/aspects of life, such as biology, text, imagination, physics, and then there's philosophy.
This can be juxtaposed, with the principle from pre-universe/pre-magic, of written data or written text being a self-socialist (a Lia Haddock reference, from Limetown) to itself, amidst the story creation of the same sentences containing the socialism.
Alas, what is with the socialism to philosophy difference within the gallery:
Naturally, it can use the Thomas Heath formula, of art hierarchy as physics supported (free of national bias foundation) principle, being an identity matter identity of theology's resistance to the absence of the cynical trade of socialism game.
In terms of what it is, I would conjecture that it is a beyond the democracy of perception to visual word-algebra physics society (a Jeffrey Dean Morgan reference); this, means the inevitable involvement of the free to observe as beyond the science problem of boredom using the imagination of eye construction.
But what else, can socialism to philosophy be compounded with?
There is, of course, the ideological use of days as visual word edition, in which the term ideological is the special ingredient.
Socialism to philosophy - it is green and then blue, but, because the relay isn't disrupted, and because the identity construction meaning of the principle is the higher up, the insinuation of this is that the sociology content of individuality wants to not verify the body creation as algorithm value (for Morgan Freeman, and Katie Sarife).
The body creationism, as algorithm science. It is presumably a political game player, to the algebra physics world of safely contextualising bad weather, as a bad weather to hinder daylight as source of writing for sex paradigm, or colours not using the outer space of the universe (a William Shatner and Leonard Nemoy reference), so that they can distil themselves as a disparity for the BBC-CNN divide of appearance. The house, of history, which relies on storytelling in the universe from meta intervention (a Nadia Bjorlin reference), as a recurring name generator; it now has the freedom to control the name as location ideology (name as location means the back to front as defined as spacial logic before left to right access to travel to text - a Carol from Annabelle Creation reference), along the value of body glamour's imagination geography being hidden as known locations for the user of travel to text.
Travel to text. Of course, it is socialism to philosophy. And indeed, as the two ideologies are not centralised around body glamour, the aforementioned free to observe individual free of the eye construction boredom is free to allow the socialist spread of the two.
The gallery, of socialism to themes/aspects of life, such as biology, text, imagination, physics, and then there's philosophy.
This can be juxtaposed, with the principle from pre-universe/pre-magic, of written data or written text being a self-socialist (a Lia Haddock reference, from Limetown) to itself, amidst the story creation of the same sentences containing the socialism.
Alas, what is with the socialism to philosophy difference within the gallery:
Naturally, it can use the Thomas Heath formula, of art hierarchy as physics supported (free of national bias foundation) principle, being an identity matter identity of theology's resistance to the absence of the cynical trade of socialism game.
In terms of what it is, I would conjecture that it is a beyond the democracy of perception to visual word-algebra physics society (a Jeffrey Dean Morgan reference); this, means the inevitable involvement of the free to observe as beyond the science problem of boredom using the imagination of eye construction.
But what else, can socialism to philosophy be compounded with?
There is, of course, the ideological use of days as visual word edition, in which the term ideological is the special ingredient.
Socialism to philosophy - it is green and then blue, but, because the relay isn't disrupted, and because the identity construction meaning of the principle is the higher up, the insinuation of this is that the sociology content of individuality wants to not verify the body creation as algorithm value (for Morgan Freeman, and Katie Sarife).
The body creationism, as algorithm science. It is presumably a political game player, to the algebra physics world of safely contextualising bad weather, as a bad weather to hinder daylight as source of writing for sex paradigm, or colours not using the outer space of the universe (a William Shatner and Leonard Nemoy reference), so that they can distil themselves as a disparity for the BBC-CNN divide of appearance. The house, of history, which relies on storytelling in the universe from meta intervention (a Nadia Bjorlin reference), as a recurring name generator; it now has the freedom to control the name as location ideology (name as location means the back to front as defined as spacial logic before left to right access to travel to text - a Carol from Annabelle Creation reference), along the value of body glamour's imagination geography being hidden as known locations for the user of travel to text.
Travel to text. Of course, it is socialism to philosophy. And indeed, as the two ideologies are not centralised around body glamour, the aforementioned free to observe individual free of the eye construction boredom is free to allow the socialist spread of the two.
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: the insufficiency of you
_
Why has the OP author abandoned this thread?
Was it something we said.. or didn’t say?
Why has the OP author abandoned this thread?
Was it something we said.. or didn’t say?
Re: the insufficiency of you
Some.
It all depends on relation to 'what', EXACTLY. For example I could cause the flying of planes into buildings, in some particular country, and 'stand out' to just about EVERY one in that country, and even the world, let alone to just 80.
Re: the insufficiency of you
[quote=MagsJ post_id=575316 time=1653877648 user_id=9496]
_
Why has the OP author abandoned this thread?
Was it something we said.. or didn’t say? :?
[/quote]
If i provoked thought about meaning and scale, my work here is complete.
_
Why has the OP author abandoned this thread?
Was it something we said.. or didn’t say? :?
[/quote]
If i provoked thought about meaning and scale, my work here is complete.
Re: the insufficiency of you
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=574086 time=1653168864 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=568121 time=1650000775 user_id=15238]
There are 8 billion people on the planet. How much influence could you have in a group of 8? How much could you stand out in a group of 80?
[/quote]What are your criteria for judging someone sufficient?
[/quote]
Whatever it is, to be relevant seems a prerequisite.
[quote=Advocate post_id=568121 time=1650000775 user_id=15238]
There are 8 billion people on the planet. How much influence could you have in a group of 8? How much could you stand out in a group of 80?
[/quote]What are your criteria for judging someone sufficient?
[/quote]
Whatever it is, to be relevant seems a prerequisite.
Re: the insufficiency of you
Ahhhh..
One can be well-known in their family circle, peer circle, community circle, Town circle.. if one gets about enough to influence an 'audience'.
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: the insufficiency of you
I don't know what that sentence meansAdvocate wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 3:49 pmWhatever it is, to be relevant seems a prerequisite.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 10:34 pmWhat are your criteria for judging someone sufficient?
Re: the insufficiency of you
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=575718 time=1653994583 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=575417 time=1653922167 user_id=15238]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=574086 time=1653168864 user_id=3619]
What are your criteria for judging someone sufficient?
[/quote]
Whatever it is, to be relevant seems a prerequisite.
[/quote]
I don't know what that sentence means
[/quote]
To be one of millions can only be sufficient if you're needs are absolutely mundane; that you essentially don't matter at all. For an ordinary person to feel sufficient would require at least being more than another face in the crowd.
[quote=Advocate post_id=575417 time=1653922167 user_id=15238]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=574086 time=1653168864 user_id=3619]
What are your criteria for judging someone sufficient?
[/quote]
Whatever it is, to be relevant seems a prerequisite.
[/quote]
I don't know what that sentence means
[/quote]
To be one of millions can only be sufficient if you're needs are absolutely mundane; that you essentially don't matter at all. For an ordinary person to feel sufficient would require at least being more than another face in the crowd.
-
- Posts: 6802
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: the insufficiency of you
So, sufficient as judged by yourself?
Re: the insufficiency of you
[quote=Sculptor post_id=575958 time=1654020803 user_id=17400]
[quote=Advocate post_id=568121 time=1650000775 user_id=15238]
There are 8 billion people on the planet. How much influence could you have in a group of 8? How much could you stand out in a group of 80?
[/quote]
This is not an effective argument for apathy.
[/quote]
I don't care. See? It works!
[quote=Advocate post_id=568121 time=1650000775 user_id=15238]
There are 8 billion people on the planet. How much influence could you have in a group of 8? How much could you stand out in a group of 80?
[/quote]
This is not an effective argument for apathy.
[/quote]
I don't care. See? It works!
Re: the insufficiency of you
You are sufficient no matter how many others there are.
It may indeed appear that you are a grain of sand in the immensity of the universe, but you are not.
Because there is only you.
You were thrown into the world. And the world is the One.
You are the only begotten child, as long as you are there.
When you are no longer there, you will go back to being what you have always been: the Father.
You are the only begotten child, as I am.
And there is no contradiction in this.
It is the One!
Denial of denial.
It may indeed appear that you are a grain of sand in the immensity of the universe, but you are not.
Because there is only you.
You were thrown into the world. And the world is the One.
You are the only begotten child, as long as you are there.
When you are no longer there, you will go back to being what you have always been: the Father.
You are the only begotten child, as I am.
And there is no contradiction in this.
It is the One!
Denial of denial.