my boyfriend yelling at me

hi everybody i am new here and i just wanted to post a comment so that you know that i am going to have a fight today this is good forum. here what he said in his notebook.

Oh I see you think a girlis is better than me oh is that so I wonder why you think that I wonder what you think that that girlis can do that is better than me huh I wonder let me see here if I go back to about the first moment or the instant where I was born and think about the existence of god well then I am already at the point in time where the girlis was exempt from consideration and at that point in time guess what that is right well if you think about it the girlis didn't even exist then so she's cannon fodder and nerd material I could even say ah yes look it is a girlis because the girlis to me doesn't even exist if i am good so why does she even put up curtins in the house to protect the windows from the ouside of the sun is it because she used to be an insect of some sort or did she think perhaps that she did need some windows because the sun was too bright for her eyes I wonder I mean afterall i throughly enjoy to watch and check out other pepople and their attitudes and their behaviors so if you think about it what would that mean when someone would consider the girl or the guy to be any different from each other fudnamentall except by the way of some old myth which is refuted by another or a different or better thought huh huh huh huh huh huh huh?

It seems to me to be the case that if you look at it carefully there's litterally no distinction between us. If you think about it even more carefully you're actually able to go into the wilderness to examine the distinction between the genders from a perspective which aperspective whicha t least appread to have some validity for the thought that it didnt' is the thought that it wouldn't nor would it ever. Interestingly enough however itseems to be the only truth pertaining to the existence of women whatsoever and even if you think about not in that way it still changes nothing. Ha ha ha ha ha. I wonder what that makes of the people in society who think that they even exist as not. hahahahah. Would you perhaps or by chance think that the existence of men long ago in society existing as wolfs or wild animals or neandreathals- if you aren't aware by now- the existence of this sort is all that is belonging to humanity and guess who was the first person toe ver think of the consideratoin of humanity to exist- that is correct- the old goof Imanuel Kant was the first to consider that. Do ya by any chance have any knowledge of what existed as the distinction between the not fo the man and the not for the woman. Most likely the answer is no: you don't because long ago as you might expect- the man in the woods and in nature- thats riht pal they was the same thing as each other. It's commonly thouht to be that way really as far as I am aware. Whatever distinguishes the man from the woman- well hell- I want to know!- but i do not want any criticism along the way! I take criticism all the time and i've taken it for far too long to be honest. When it comes to the consideration of what is "not" i would say that both of the genders are completely equal in that regard. Interestingly enough it seems to apply weather we like it or not- not the consideration of not however but the consideration of the truth of what exists as the consideration of the not. If you think about not- well- not is just not- that is to say it is just what it is. You can't possibly say or remove or consider not as exempt from the thought of not existing as what not is what it is as not is indeed what it is- it however does distinguish the sexes as what they are and are what they are meant to be so if you think about it in any different way i would suspect that you change your gender into a female. Why do you ask. If the conclusion which at the moment you are supporting is at all true guess what. That's right BABY- the male would fall by the hands of what is commonly considered to be riht and guess what that is? That is one thing and one thing only: That's right- he would be wrong. But interestingly enough that is not true and od you know why that is? That's because when we existed long ago there was an equality- the preicse equlaity that im discussing right now. But do you know what else? Pity really to be entirely honest with you. Butt hat's how the world works really. If you look at it another way you'll likely fall into solphism, for solphism is simply a misconsideratoin of our rational capacitys. That's right, mollys a little author herself and a god damn genius- but I wouldn't say any more about that issue right now.

What I would say is this: If you think about it carefully, you can come to the consideration of what i"m suggesting as true. Firstly that man is not not right nor mistaken or there is also not that irrelevant consideratoin that you're placing on my feet at this moment. What does come into quesiton is that that is the animal side of our nature, that not appears to be such a way and that if it were another way- then the man- the "right" and the distinctions which I have made above would be proven invalid and would allow a person to consider a girl in the way that you are attempting to force me into the influence as it stands at this moment. At any event, the man and the masculine is the same as the girl- in a state of nature- if you go back far enough- you can litterally escape from the thought of the not. Take you and your body for instance. Place it in a forest all by itself in a land where it's alone and happy or isoalted etc- the body will take up for itself- the not will become as it's meant to be. It's simly the way of the world to run as it's mean to be and many of the thinkers or the people who use their brain think about this area of study very highly when it comes to not and if there is or not a left hand for it is one of the if not the only thing that is ever considered really and I am so sorry that you do not like it here in this house with me you pahtatic old man why you do not leave and og get a day ujob you pathetic old cum sucking fucknuted faggot with no billy boots. Get lost!




if you people here have any thing i can say aganist him tell me so that way i know why he is so mad:bawl:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just found some of his notebook writings. He think he better then me I from indinisia and i am look for the thing he writing about about why he think he mad at me. here what he say. good luvck read it he too god damn smart.


alacia from indiniasia.


The Existence of a Prior Cause, or Purpose, to Satisfy Those Who Criticize


This is contrary to the purpose of much current thought. It is productive optimistic and positive in that the debate is fully designed to be integrated into concepts around thse of Husserl as well as that of self deception. The entire purpose of Husserls work was to show that we are able to integrate our conceptions into our minds already without prior consideration and that is why his work is so often taken in and admired and liked. It is common to know, that one can share, what one believes in and already accepts as fact. Think for a moment of the people who are gay. Those people who are gay do not understand the importance of what is thought to be gay when they think of the romance that is shared in particular by gay couples. I wouldn't be aware of the attributes which apply to the love which is shared by gay men nor would I understand the many and varied different gay men who likely share a completely trustworthy relationship.

I wouldn't argue with this much less would I refute the depiction I am attempting to form in the introduction when it comes to self deception and setting ones eye on ones future in a way which is proper and applies. I would not intend to forumulate an already existent phenomonology much less my own as of the moment and leave the consideratoin as to my formulations as to a later time in this book. At the moment all that I can state properly is that gay men have attitudes which need satisfying, lesbian women also as well have desires which would need satisfying. These desires to not fully mesh and any consideration of them would likely fall where it is needed or should be already anyway in the first place.

The problem is that issues of self improvement and self attainment are real. One could litterally shoot to the sky or the stars and always remain in a full and perfect state for self improvement being right so to speak and the attainment of ends which are met in the imagination leads one to a full optimism when it comes to the full positivity of what makes one to be as he is with full potential. Yet some of the current theorys look blank or slim to none when it comes to their threashold of acceptance. I wouldn't ask why they desire to do so for I would be blanketed with conspiracy, yet I would take my own life as my own standard of worth myself.

As far as I am concerned the existence of a prior cause is steeped in many issue of self deception already- and this in the light of considering pre history and self deception which allows progress with the self prior to any alternate consideration being met. One is reminded of Zen buddhism and others which pronounce self deception on an individual and personal level and the books are greatly admired. I wouldn't know where that path would lead them nor me or anyone else but I would suggest that it seems to imply that these aspects of self deception and the improvement of our self are real in that they apply to this attitude here presented.

There are a great deal of them and they all seem to have a satisfaction. Part of the problem is that when someone publishes a book such as this sort that the categories are highlighted and outlined in depth and deep detail the criticizes one is reminded of Jean Paul Sartre again. His work Being and Nothingness achieves this type of critique, in that the critique suggests that the person who is formulating whatever he is forumlating that the formulation of the work which he is doing achieves that of being open to subjection. This is only the attitude of self deception that he likely from the outset attempted to defeat and so it is all well that the people who would criticize this mode of presentation as not fit for the job at hand. Any rewording would be great as long as they take the book at it was meant to be. Part of the problem with the book is that it suggests no real further criticism, the book is similar in outline to this one in that the presentation of a prior introduction has such signifigant merrit as to not overlook. And as knowing this as an author it is easy to say that the book which has been published by Sartre has no ability to recieve such strident criticism and looks as to have its own ends merrited. The book is a masterpeice, not a symptom of our time nor a presentation meant to be taken lightly, it was published almost anomomnously at the time of the war long ago in the 19th century. Any criticism re working or re wroding of any documentation of which he presented is not to be taken lightly. I wouldn't concieve it possible unless one wanted to do a compelte re wording of the entire book for the book as it stands is perfect and presented so that the origional paragraph is set down and in stone as it is mean to be. The book cannot be re worded and I shall pardon myself for an intrusion here.

Thusly stated any school or sect of thought typically belongs to these rules of behavior or conduct. The "intellectual" atmosphere applies to these same things as well for no matter what school, sect or area of thought you get into, they really have the same rules and agreements. Ah but they do.

Objectivism tells you: Do what is right, commend what is ideal. Live for your self.

Idealism tells you: There is a right, it is in your prior conception, and it exists for yourself. Do for yourself.

Realism tells you: Exist as yourself for you are only yourself.

Ex Nihilo tells you: You are a subjective existence with infinite innter subjectivity inherant in you.


Etc.


They all fail by the same critique and some or most of the names that exist to day fail in that the greatest one existent really is that of existentialism.
Some of the main schools to my knowledge which are attaining to signifigance are those of theology in that religion is attaining a place in the existence which we exist for ourselves. It's becoming a new existentialism and God is being decidedly removed from the consideration. Likely a fault of many of the earilier century atheists as far as I'm aware. When someone speaks of God they mean God and not the God of some false religion or the God of some one elses parents but the God that exists the God that is real. Subject God to any consideration under the planet and unless your using his name wrongly you will get no where. That is a contention that I may hold to higly if that is how I feel for this is the nature of God and it is not a nature which is infested with filth and other wrongly used termonology.

Part of the wordings which are used are also quite inapt in that they do not appear to apply to us a signifigant understand of the terms which we use. This is part an irrelevant consideratoin yet the thought is very valid. Words such as "Activists" "Socialists" "buisnessman" "buisnesswomen" "martial artists" each of these thoughts has a place when it comes to through consideration. These points and these alone really deserve a great deal of high consideration done to them before many of the movements move past this thought.


Then there is the thought about self deception and self improvement which would inspire many to search for a pre existent or already established truth. Well these truths exist all the same in some order or another. Consider the work of Husserl as I have suggested above and you'll find for yourself that the work was established so as to conclude the fallacy of many or much all of the work of the and this and nearly every other century for the past thousand years to date.

Following my role model Sartre, I suggest his emphysis on imagination as far as I am aware is quite profound. It's partly exempt from consideratoin because he debates the bounds where it can exist, but in such a way where he removes the thought of it from our lives. Imagination, as full potential, I am certain would exist, for imagination would take us to the stars, and any thought in imagination I cannot see tested on incongruent levels and thoughts. Most imagionation is real, as far as I'm aware all of it is, yet the bounds between reality and what is real is not tested, most if not all of these bounds do not exist when it comes to the thought of imagination being false or un real.

With these considerations out of place and with no one knowing the precise origin of the universe it would be best to proceede with further considerations. All that I have intended to do here is to show the sharp end of the point of self deception, the ability of men and man them selves to take it up with one another and to form tribes sects cults wars or brotherly love. Family communion and others with regard to forming for oneself without self deception what may exist for self tests or levels to self attainment or improvement. I will remind one that this is a real public issue and has signifigant validity to much of what is occuring.

I actually consider the perspectives of self attainment in the light of phenomonological perspectives and researchers the worst type of study. For precisely the reason is that we must keep those and only those under consideration and in play so to speak. When it occurs to us that they are kept where they belong- in the light of self deception/bad faith/ or self improvement- only then may we continue our work with regard to considering the issues to be relevant or important- for although they may exist to some extent- from a very large and great perspective, in the light of self deception they do not exist for attaining to yourself by yourself and in the light of self improvements no one on this earth can hope to attribute to issue of self improvement in the light of fully positive descriptive purposes. This refutes and invalidates the whole attempt of all european and contentinial philosophy from Descart to Wittgenstein, and in this light one would understand and dare I say know that he cannot do this in this light. Thus, in this instance there is a state of seeming crisis for no one would in their right mind say that they are not able to attain to the dignity of self deceptuion and improvement considered in the same light- and this- a truth- albeit one which is to be considered- one is aware that in this fact lies some very contingent fact, some positive value which is not yet placed. It may be considered by our reader now. I can not improve because improvement you say, is not there and open to me already? And my point precisely I say is that improvement already being open to you would lead you to consider that it isn't already open. One must discover his improvement himself to be certain.... In that light what is made of the issue of self deception and universal truths are they considered from a lower perspective or are they considered at all. I hear the sounds of trumpets and ignorante stomping around the streets proclaiming to themselves "where is my right to have self improvement" and the continuious improvement not existing to them is pretty shocking. Alas it must exist in some for or another and this is precisely why Husserl is to be looked down upon and considred in the light of brilliance and importance and by no means disgraced as a sub disclipine of existentialism for it was he alone who formulated the completed versions of kantiean Idealism and the existentialist pursuit. The conclusions of his results are similar to those of his preceeders yet his work is the more complete. These are personal opinions comming from the standpoint of what is considered to be self deception and the current contempary works of art.


On Philosophys Completion



Philosophy does not appear to ever necessarially be able to be completed as far as any origional ends are seen. It is the case I admit that in contemporary achedemia they appear to be closing the limits on the existence of the philosophy. Yet it is also seen to be the case that philosophy has not yet achieved its place outside of achedemia and the only place it can make its homecoming is in our back yard, front or inside of the house? To be honest I wouldn't know for such an explaination of philosophys existence is dangerous and above all shouldn't be mentioned. Yet this is what the people ask for in way of description and way of explaination also way of attaining the ways which I run my own life so that is what I am doing. I feel that there is a very deep and very profound signifigance attributed to most of this clarification and which so hard to explain or express would drive one mad before he expressed the nature of the thoughts which he has and does posess. The completion of philosophy has in no way achieved its end for the salvation of the race many shout does not exist. And is there any whom are pessimistic about it ever comming. What a dull conclusion when it comes to the variety of things which are expressed and the conclusions which many are making to this day of old works and unfinished validity. If we have a pessimistic today we have a pessimistic tomorrow and we cannot abandon shore until it is discovered precisely what God has left us to see. Interestingly enough this conclusion is shared by just about everybody yet the first person who would dare to convince me otherwise of my conclusions would be the first person to make the same mistake that I seem to be making here. Interestingly enough when it comes to it people are uncaring in this respect yet say the first thing that comes to mind. I couldn't clarify the distinction. Philosophy is complete are you sure. And if it is to be complete is it to be finished. How would one imagine a philosophy which is complete that is not complete unless it is already complete. I couldn't consider placing it unless it were remote from conception already and depended on some external or supernatural power. God or some epistemologicial existence dating back to a while ago when we saw religious philosophers assuring us of their validity. Some of the philosohies which coencide with this existence are similar to physics in that their existence pertains to showing how they exist- thus the physicists- arragant to the last and final ..... Time when they will pronounce whatever it is that they intend to pronounce. I would suggest however something different.... If it is the case that these philosophers are saying Gods existence is not limited to our conception outside of our self and the philosophers are now formulating how it does exist intside of ourself are they not themselves validating the existence of the circle. Is this conception not remote from many peoples thoughts? It is difficult indeed to preach to the audience when the philosophies of today are of this sort.

What about a permenant paradise and how would it be done.
Why is phenomonology so often criticized and existentialism so often praised.
And further why do the criticisms come on to us non stop.

Is precisely the feeling that crosses my mind, for I see the conception of the mentality of the individual as the real whearabouts of existential or philosophy as it stands to the day really. What I would make of it would be rather absurd if I were forced into considering it. Sartre has us considering an existential psychology or psychoanalysis where the individual is the true self as he is meant to be yet does not go on to completion. I am not attempting to respond to his call as being the psychoanalist who would take up his therapy as this is already one of my thoughts which I will not share with regard to my carrer yet I would suggest that the high validit which Sartre is suggesting there is one of the high points of current or contemporary theory. Part of the problem with such a standpoint is that it would refuese analysis when one comes to considering the truth of what would make the disclipine really complete. It would necessarially indicate some sort of formulation with regard to reestablishing the old norms of plato or some such and this is where I really stand. The genders cannot be considered inequal side by side and comparison for their equality is one which has the highest fundamental right known to us, and the consideration of marrage would scourage the world if considerd improperly and so we're left really with what is known to be obvious, obvious as in the thought that the obvious must occur to us in no other way. No sane individual would consider solphism as the only absolute standpoint of which ot make his existence known for there are many really to say and pronounce loudly that they cannot themselves escape solphism. And when they are shown how then they perceede to show how the bounaries of society do not exist ect and these do not accord with their beliefs beforehand. The thought of solphism in this consideration shows how improper- inadequate really of a basis or belief that it really is and hasn't a validity outside of it. If one considers clearly the thoughts which would come to one before he or after he or she considers solphsim it takes us really to the thought of the historial validty of what would become of it in the light of myths and other thoughts etc.

So philosphy is concerned as it always was with philosophy is anyone then presently consiering the myth of the old philosophers stone for it's still around behind all the muck and criticism by the people trying to do good for the world. Hero complexes are pretty rampant in the modern world gotta get used to this fact these days I suppose....

I would wonder though where the hero complexes stem from and also would debate those who attempt to firm themself grisp or grasped tight ahold of an individual remote from their conception. It's as if as indiivduals we do not consider sex in the way that sex is natural and historicla. Sure, lock the man up and put him in a prison and find out if he seems suspectible to solphism I think not. Grab him by the throat and tell him that they are going to find out what he really knows because any feminine hides her tears. Why does she. And the psychological examination here is pretty precise to be sure: she hides her tears because.... And who ever knows the answer to this I would assume also knows what happens when one considers the solphist. The solphist indeed pronoucnes loudly: After I am beat up in a fight I will submit to you as you are right. He places no reality to his own assersions that relaity can escape reality and that the truth of any given individual is not suspect to.... You get the picture, you get a refrence to "so what" "as if" and "why would I think that" when one thinks what appears obvious to him in the light that it seems to be the proper way to consier a solphist. There's no factual evidence here and it doesn't even exist. We're not searching for a way to lock a man or woman up and find how to think about them- no we are searching for a way to the society in which it can be unveiled in prosperous union, as it is the goal of all people to achieve the satisfaction of peace or happiness in their life time. And confronting such bounds and walls we say to ourself, "what becomes of my desires to achieve the profound unity of myself as I say that I can do" well then in this instance it is purely positive but we wouldn't suggest further than that to be sure....

What is to become of an individual. Is it not precisely the evolution of each individual to step outside of his own gender norm and to achieve a relation with others. This would be another way to consider how philosophy is currently evolving and what remains to really be published. Anyone who is willing to think about the outside of this brick wall we're stuck in has to go do it one way or another and as far as I can see, well, thats what people gotta think about. Dissapointment when it comes to works already completed, this already having been established seems to really have come upon some firm footing. Most wisdom seems fully positive and yet in the light of it litterally or actually being fully positive we face some tricky areas of thought. What becomes of this what becomes of that etc etc etc....

Works in the light of existential perceptions seem to have some defination and this defination I would see as perhaps pertaining to some glimpse of some type of reality which would not matter. If I am an existentialist philosopher and I say to myself: I am going to do this the way that I know is right for it is right as it is right. Then I am saying to myself "how many other existential philosphers were there and what state of crisis would this imply if the number that there are that exist counteracts like a counterweight the number of mes that could exist". Many of these thoughts exist as they should be do they seem to imply a positive number.


Most of these considerations in the current realm of thought seem to imply a given positivity in that a thinker may be or could be another thinker. Thinkers seem to be comming out by the millions really but the thought put into play there doesn't really have an arguement. If there are if I consider to myself:

8 thinkers
and the eighth is the final one to think.
He is the best one. What does this make of the others if they were actually better. The answer is that they were better but the newer one is one of the more current, and although he is not better, he is thought of as presenting newer ideas. This considerion can easily be brushed off at once. The newer thinker has not presented the ideas in a way that their validity we say is achieved. His ideas are remote from the truth and do not apply to what he has thought may be god. I am here thinking of the film prodoucer and existentialist philospoher who, as with Sartre went public. What is the case here when philosophy is publicizing itself and the older thinkers less profound but more current become such a way if there are only eight of them at one time and then at a later date the are thought to be nine or ten. If I think "may I place myself in the rank of the tenth if there is a ninth and place the tenth" etc ahead of me and this thinker would have a predecesor and his predecesor has a predecesor and so on to a certain number. This seems to be an arguement counter to the ex nihilo movement which suggests that the fifteen thinkers would be the fiftheenth in that there could most likely not exist millions there would probably be a round off somewhere here in that the number of thinkers would produce the 100,000th or the one millionth. If there are however one billion different ones then that would suggest that the billionth thinker would have a place amongst the first, the one billionth would likely go to another number if the race would permit it as existing to the standard of one dillion. Most likely it would satisfy the not in ex nihilo, for it would validate history and show us our bounds in society.


It couldn't be considered in another way, what the race of humanity is if this truth about thinkers and others has some place where it is meant to be. Further, it couldn't be thought of differently if this place were perfect, universal and singular. If that is the case the thought that could be provoked on any given issue would suggest an insurmountable optimism. Yet the consideration, and as husserl has understood the bracketing of these thoughts would easily come before the gazillion different types of thinkers if the singular thinker was indeed absolute. If this is a truth then it could be considered as being a truth. Every afterall "Why" that exists for us in the world seems to share with us "why" this or why that and if the truth is already there with us as a why one then what becomes of other truths that why one would refute. Excuse me for attributing a bit of humor the to existence of what philosophy seems to be capable of but this is simply one of the thoughts which crosses our minds when we think about our ethics or our different types of thinkers. How many different existentialists have their been in current thought. I can think of about twenth each holding different views. So the validity here is pretty extereme if one considers the religious philosophers etc. One could litterally say that they are a contemprary preist pertaining to a religion which is known as alpha beta, and be an existentialist. This is part of the pity which is existing the documents of today in that they are so wide spread and individuals are seen perhaps as having less worth than that which they acutally already have. So if you think hard about it and I mean real hard, you could potentially see infinite possibilities. If there are a trillion or gazillion different thinkers it would at least prove that I am not mistaken in my conception of there existing this many thinkers.

Another thought would be what limit if these preceeding analysises or the criticism of some current books is considered to be as it is, is there really to my freedom, if it is able to be shown that it has any whatsoever at all, that there would truly be none. I can see this as valid. But I would share the smile as I progress to the further thought. Some of the issues underway also have a lot to do with the thought that as we would be aware most of the right is thought to be exempt from possibility and so they are thinking of ways to remove the I from the existence of the self well pooie on you if you know what I mean because removing the I from its exemption entirely from society without refrence to the historical nature. Indeed we say to ourself and precisely what Husserl has attempted to do is to bracket experience. It is as if no one in this world or society man or woman recieves the proper behavior needed to consol them with regard to the state of the world. I would not be the first to raise these questions.

Where we are left when it comes to further imput is the answer finally to be infinite, if the answer is seen to be infinite. I can see that as philosophy fades in distant time there would be a time where it would heat back up again. Most of this work is the preparation for the obvious, the nature which we can no longer overlook. My purpose here is precisely to defend and to satisfy the needs of those who feel as if they see or think of society to be in a state unsatiable and uncomfortable. The world we live in at present is nothing of the sort. It's rather much different in that it has the qualities which are able to be comforted. Most of the pain in the existence that we live is without any or all of the notions which would support those ideals. So when it comes to considering where we are at in society today. It seems obvious to mention that in society today we are no where except the fact that society is that which would seem to be the one to need the work to be clarified or containing distinguishment. It's a rough task to take up for such a thing when those you write for or about take the most abuse.

I see to it that this part of my chapter marks the part where I declare thumb war. Well so be that! It is not like philosophys future is anything similar to being completed. Surely some revolutonary will come along again after the time this book is complete.... I see to be honest there existing a truth which is reductible. A truth so simple and yet seemingly complex that no one would let it be found if it had already been seen.... But what the heck! The current philosophical trend is heading seems to be to a positive place. I haven't the ideas where it may lead us. But that's that.



On where we may take existence


When it comes to existence, perhaps the absolute most fundamental right that we have, is to exist as ourself in a self stabalizing society and so on and so forth. It seems as if the thought here is fundamental in that many do not see it in the same light, but vastly in a similar light. It would not be hard to make some clarifications there, but that is precisely what is not important at the moment. What is more impotant now is to consider where we may exist as how we do exist in this society which we are ala Heiegger, thrown or abanoned. Abandonment is a state of which a person may exist in this society. Further, there is another consideration which is more important. In discussing how we may exist in this world, the consideration was made that "the not is simpler and easier than the nothing." Yet the thought of this idea is fundamental to be sure, for Heidegger has not realized the considerable impact which not is. Yet in questioning the not, he questions the nothing, and goes from there to consider the profundity of the claim of "the not is more simple and easier than the nothing" and then precedes to twist and convolute the assersion made in regard to the not which as we should indeed be aware is important for his consideration of the not implies what it means. The not in this regard is considered only from the standpoint of the high philosophical consideration which has been attributed to it by heidegger himself and has no other signifigance in this passage (editors note).

What then becomes the not, says heidegger, in uncovering the signifigance attributed to the not itself. What is the not, is it the not as the not afterall is the not. And then he proceeedes to end the lecture. It is a complicated but interesting lecture to be sure. The only problem that I have been able to assertain with the lecture is that it does fall short of its promise. The purpose is to attain a reality assertainable by direct perception and conception, in the light of in my opinion what everyone else would do. This assersion is not without validation. It seems to apply in any if not most or all circumstances, for what one would do is indeed valid for what all would do. And this type of a statement in retrospect of the not is valid, and this is Sartre's interpretation of what must be done in society in the light of what I choose to do others choose to do. This type of consideration is reality based in that it does not conflict or contort the issue of perception of reality in the light of "what everyone else would do". This type of thought has a very signifigant grounding with regards to modern thought. It's far more valid in that it attains to a very signifigant philosohicl position in very high regard and needs no less consideration than the thought of it's signifigance. It is a shocking statement, has full shocking effect and is terrifying when one considers applying the assersion to ones life. Further than that it applies to the not as well. I would not consider placing on my shoulders full responsibiity for my existence unless I already knew that that was my purpose to do so. Yet what I would indeed do is to apply a perspective. I would state my reasons before I applied any derrorigitory perspective.

In this light it is seen that the two theorists have a very signifigant contribution to make with regard to the current scene which we exist in with regard to reality. In that respect one may consider the not and what place the not would have. I could not think of a better way to take responsibility for myself than to think that the cogito was the placement of priority on my life yet the cogito is precisely the moment perception of the self and if one isn't easily able to understand his own personal cogito- in that he strugles with it then this is also a reality of the cogito. Sartre, understands this in that he states, "one must apply the cogito in that the cartesian I think present moment" - is a way of attaining to the self but only in the presence of the moment. So one says, "I may attain to myself by application of the cogito" yet this assersion is invalid for the assersion requires self reflection. He knew this.

What seems the most valid for us is that in order to apply these considerations the not is brought into play. In many peoples minds people try and save the not most of the time. Not is something that one desires to save from the abuse that the individuals have seen of what the not is. In this light it means nothing other than that that is what the not is. It is how it is when it comes to what the not is, the not is a rock of sorts and yet no a fundamental one entirely but in consideration only for the most part.

I would suggest here something. It is not entirely and absolutely the not that is the highest priority, but it is also something similar or related. It would be that the not is not the absolute. There is a consideration made. Attaining to the self (that is to say, the self that is presented), requires that the cogito not be the absolute and only, but only that the self be realizable in this connection or consideration. This, is the absolute. One describes the absolute in many different ways therefore it is absolutely imperative to get the absolute right before any errors are made. The cogito for instance, falls to the second order of what is absolute. What one may consider as aboslute is much distinct or different you would say than the consideration of what is the absolute for the absolute here is that and nothing else. If I go and to consider myself in the proper fashion I will establish only those things which I have said above. Nothing else.

In this light one must attain to himself. But it is not the self that one must attain. The pre reflecive is not fully the authority for backing this line of thought one recieves not only supports (ala Sartre's follower and predecessor the great Mal awa Lkoa pardon me but i do not know the proper name of this person).
So you think to yourself that the in itself is valid. But the in itself is the um the self.
So the


This is a girlis have u ever met a girlis before. You have no idea what a girl is like mister because you have never even seen a girlis before. Get your facts straight before you touch this again you perverted old retarded fucking idiot.

When it comes to the not the girl can not do any thing like that oh hah ha ha ha ha that they can not ha ha ha ha ha ah ah.

Why? This is what a girl is like you dumbnut fucking fruitball. They walk around oh yeah oh yeah oh yeah and guess what ha ha ha that is right senior take advantage of the dumb whores who dont even have a fuckin nap sack you sorry perverted goofey retard!

You may leave now mister retard. ha hah ha.

I am dealing with a person who desires to continue to pronounce that girlises are better than guys. Well if you want to look at it that way why don't you get your facts straight first mister I forgot how to pick up my left elbow!

Girlis are second sex that mean they are evolutionary cannon fodder.

I can do anything with mine. It is kinda like saying, "okay let me see here what do I want to do with this murahahahahaha" and therein it is capable of subjecting itself to anhything.

For example.




now i dont think meant ne thin bad bout the talking about how i is a cannon fodder.

i sorry if this so long!

xxooxxooxxoo

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I very good at logical scientific inquiry and a boyologis from oops biologist from a old and bad place like a mill where the wind blows . i like to do math like 4+4 = 8 and think about the oher thing we are privilege to in world. i love every one bye!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just found out he is writing a whole book. I will publish what i find because he was writing bada bout me and stuffs and so i want to see u aopainion.s



INTRODUCTION

This is to be a document on the importance of the consideration of vanity and proper deeds done in society, the fact that they are- not paid back with sufficient respect to the notions of what would concur with the most admirable effects, and the leaving the one who would succeed in the dusk or the dark of which God had created at his wave of a hand, the light or perfection in which the world is commonly considered to be created. The fact is only this: this document is precisely about an issue commonly over looked, it is when good deeds are done from positive hands and the results are fully positive and encouraging, - yet when one discovers that the deeds that one has done and the positive intellectual value and particularly that of the intellectual entraprise of today is over looked, one is left standing saying to himself who what what? What is the myth of the homonculus - particularly considered in the light of self deception- and although this myth appears to have a very obvious and self evident truth- for instance from an intellectual perspective for a moment consider the author of Phenomonology and the creator Husserl. Husserl the man was criticized unto his death and continued to recieve his intellectual activity reciving full praise in the activitys in which he persisted to commit to. The fact that he was mistaken about some deal from his experience from a very personal or psychological perspective remains to be debated but what cannot be over looked is the overwhelming importance husserl placed in his document entitled phenomonology. The overwhelming importance was far beyond what was needed, yet according to him, sufficient and valid. It cannot to be sure be over looked at the impact as well as the importance with regard to self egos and other important related matters when it comes to particularly and what I am going to clarify and discuss in length in according time in this document, the homuncolus- that is to say- an anchient feather. Now this is only the presetnation at the beginning and the document as this is the introduction could turn into preicsely an entire book as this is and was my precise purpose at taking up the keyboard for the moment here. I am not debating a validity of keyboards or reasons to use them but keeping in mind the historical signifigance attributed to self deception only.

From this perspective one may accuse me of playing with the bounds and testing the field, intellectually speaking. And I am aware that many before me have come to present the validity of the phenomonologicl entraprise. Yet this I am not debating and my subject is far remote and not just entirely exempt from consideration.To be sure when a person considers taking his profoundity to the tops and to the achedemias he knows to himself only one thing and that thing is that he must join in a acceptable crowd which has an intellectual atmosphere or feel to it. Comfort and satisfaction anybody? The truth with regard to the atmosphere of becoming an intellectual would press hard on the bounds for acceptance with regard to self deception and this precisely seems to be the goal not to say the least of the homuncolus but also of a great variety of the intellectual attitudes which persist today. If we consider the variety of them within the main text which I am going to present later one would come up with a very profound conclusion. Sartre, in Being and Nothingness, presented to us one of the most amazing and profound introductions to all of the intellecutal atmospheres books in the achedmeas which I have yet to see. An introduction to a book as profound and lengthy as that of being and nothiness and the authors intent with regard to the introduciton can no longer be over looked. We are not however dealing with a crisis in the departments but yet with an embarassment. This embarassment is precisely one which cannot be understanded for when it comes to the achedemias and the philosophy departments of today the embarassment is indeed extreem. Most of the old words and famous docterines are established as nonchalant and non existant to be precise in that they disregard most of the myths and those fearful to commit to creating the myth which is counter to the old ones - these do not exist today to be precise. Further in regard to the post modern movement, I would dare to say that when one comes to the consideration of the embarassment in place there today, we see disorder, disestablishment and discontent. Many are searching seeking cannot find a way, many thinkers come along with brilliant ideas and succeed only into a world of fantasy and myth where their established self content is debatable in that it establishes them on precisely the same ground as where this consideration is leading us. It is not a prehistoric journey or a demand that gender issues be concerned more than they are. Nor is it any other thing. This is only our introduction and further it couldn't be more far from the truth than that.

The truth though as we all know is precisely that the homunculus must exist. A consideration may be made on this point first to justify the importance of the consideration on it and also from here at least a historical perspective or standpoint. If the error of modern philosophers is that their optimism has ran them short when it comes to the nature god given which they can not stand up for not support than I would suggest a through viewing of all of the myths in history which attach a very valid perspective to their consideration. The myth of medusa, suggests only one thing: she was left handless, and existed solitary. One could take this into the imagination. There are further myths, others than bambie or any other childhood legends. And the bible is just one of those myths this I cannot assert or remind enough. If we are not only to have a consideration of what must be accepted intellecutally to go down then the consideration of the truth of the issue must not be in vain.

As this is true I would remind one that the truth of our history would not look anything from an actual perspective of the dinosaurs for all of us man woman alike demand and only consider as paradise that which reminds us the most of it. A paradise would go beyond the dinosaurs into a land where color perhaps existed, food may have been scarse, the existence of it fully optimistic, and fruther the fact of it pertaining to humanity be far more important to the existence of its reverse fact.

To be entirely sure the existence of something remote from humanity such as ice age people and the existence where they lived in olden civilizations cannot stress the existence of what has created us evolutionarially. If it is true that the neandrathals existed durring the times prehistoric I would suggest this as a demanded research material covering material superceeding the existence of what one would consider as God. Further I would demand that that existence has perhaps not been uncovered and perhaps for more than one reason who is to say. And whoever today can predict the validity of the planet losing its evidence due to natural causes would be the first to debate the non existence of the neandrathals. After this is considered, and paradise is seen as either evolutionary or not the existence into a phenomonology achieves far more credit and the wherabouts of our dreaded homonculus becomes more considered and important. For any phenomonology that decides to consider history as that important timeless impact to his or her lifes must consider these things first that being that historically regarded the existence of the fact that I hither spoke refers to the importance in itself to historicizing the homuncolus. This is one of the more important considerations in thought when it comes to being and existence and not simply being and time or any other such. As I remember heidegger interperting the existence of the homunculus in the fact that its existence is predicated by our losing the very ground benieth our feet which is a consideration which falls far short of optimism and asks heidegger to consider his psychology further. I would not stand myself for a paradise which would be remote from the consideration of my proper ancestry. What is my ancestry if not what I am today in whatever form I want to be, and who would suggest that my history would be otherwise. I would like to know the distinction here so I would press further. But indeed do I stop short of the mark when it comes to the non existence of a homuncolus and the fact that our losing our ground below us as a fact that we must have not existed as non seperate from the beginning.

Even the exstence of Adam and Eve suggest a myth which has positive results. These obvious facts are by no means smothering, for there are far more than these alone. Yet does it not seem entirely possible that there is some truth which exists in the way for us as it should that is entirely optimistic. Would it seem absurd to raise the question of the reason of there existing the preachers of peace and attainment socieitally. My suggestion is yes for an important reason. If we consider light to exist we suddently encounter unsurmountable difficulties. For what are we as humans as to suggest that we may reach outside of our home and prosperous existence without consideration as to what we may do if that is how we desire to live. I cannot understand for the life of me why a person would proclaim "because your head is not intact with the rest of the animals and because your "for itself" (whatever that is) is not aligned with the existence of the sky and because you are not of the feminine gender..." I could not suggest enough times how absurd statements such as this truly are and to those such as myself whom like or enjoy to live high up in the skys and high rather by themselves with no one friendly to remark of their beautiful new tan that they got the day before, may I suggest very slightly that these considerations if not well met must be further enforced until the truth is dragged out of the departments to allow reaching outside. Yet the reaching outside of the departments (the achedemias) would not be important if the truth could remain intact as it is. This is an investigation at present into the ways in which we may consider truth to pertain to us, and further it is a document on self deception. As only the introduction I could not bear to give all of the thoughts which exist. But I can do my best to make it as prepared as possible for publishing.

Self deception is a very appropriate consideration which would easily hit home to those of us who consider it. As a bit of thought being presented on the matter I couldn't suggest the irrelevance of many of the consideratoins I'm throwing out here in the light of the embarassment I see in the philosophy departments. As far as I am concerned and as far as I know that anyone else would or should be I would give hell before I go out into an epidimic of fallacy and theories and pronouncements unholy and aganist all that is - before I submit to the beliefs which are presented to us today.

If someone tells you to your face "go and feel despair at the truth of this document" when there is clearly no truth to the documents that they are presenting. They fail precisely as they fail to take care of our youth. If someone does not take extreme despair or pity at these words I would thorughly love to see their face when they realize the impact that it takes. On the contrary, "I am not right" - indeed- you are not right for you are a filthy animal and you shall never be right". Ah but this .. they say.. is a truth about who you a... Indeed a truth of which you have no buisness placing on me- ah- indeed a truth which I have- ah- indeed a truth which I have my own buisness placing on myself. I would not submit to a consideration made in vain or haste which some one would decide to contort my perception of myself if it was aganist my will that the person do so, and further I would not for a moment make a mockery out of myself and my body. Yet, I would indeed consider the moment of thought designated as "you are right so know that" - as a positive affirmative- if the consideration is made in a vain jest which has no thought attributed to the fact that maybe just maybe I am not. And these thoughts cannot not recieve support, must require validating. Some indeed resort to anarchy at the thought that their "self" and their existence is being presented and submitted to the absurd, for the thought of such an ideal would be remote from their conception- if it goes aganist all that is being spoken, philosophically speaking reading a text and being unable to desire anothers words or anothers written this or that when it has been said repeatedly and consistently that the desire which the person has is already as the person desires for it to be. I would beg to contrary, for the myths which I hold highly and believe with full self esteem are highly held and will not be easily given up. What afterall is a persons "right" when considering the issue of self deception but precisely that of " I am right " ah - but being right from this perspective, when I know that I am not- is precisely another issue alltogheter. I would beg to contrary that someone suggest "it is how you are right" when all about me suffering will persist. I hear the discussion of the existence in itself for itself repeated quite often today. I hear "well if that is the case maybe historically considered my in itself was an in itself that is right" maybe I would take an animal or a vain existence or one which would suit my "right" far better than that would suit my existence as a right. When the existence as a right is considered at depth you get precisely this analysis:

"Hello" says the child.

The brother father mother or sister would reply,

"You are crying"

"Why are you crying?"

"Shut up!"

Ah and here we have the consideration of "shutting up" when the person who should be shutting up is supposed to be quiet. I would wonder at the consideratoin as the existence to this right here. Further we have the truth presented to us in the following lines:

"No, I am worried"

"*sobs*"


The child is not in self deception.

Crying when the individual is good and cannot do other than good is precisely the sign that the child is good and cannot do other than good. If this predates our history it would be worth examining for the evolutinary pull and historically regarded is far more important than any as if and but this etc. Sexuality would come into the consideratoin but far less than is thought.

If the child would perist in his attitude of self deception as is thought by many to be, what will happen is that the child will continue to cry regardless to what occurs around him. Crying continuiously with absolutely no hope we are thought to be entirely abandoned- yet we are never fully abandoned and this is the thought of what is usually considered to be not. But the not has no place here for the thought of nots existence as full potential would not exist unless the state of abandonment was real and true when it comes to the rest of the universe at large. Not would be a consideration that would take second hand, a minor consideratoin which has no importance. The good of a child here is questioned far more than would be relevant, for the good of the child is here the highest aim the highest purpose and the tears could never ever meet a better consideration than this. Other than that the consideration would never take place and would not exist outside of the persons unhappyness. One would consider that the right that the person has is his and forever his, that a woman would not have this existence and evolutionarially they would progress to get their right as well. I would reverse the matters suggesting that there is an infinite pull which likely has no relevance. This in the terms of gods existence. For the thought that the evolutionary battle which persists with us today is important or in the least imperative would suggest that the battle of the sexs would be a real imperative which exists and something which is not escapable. I would suggest to the contrary and suggest that any babys or further, any others which has others had a pre dated history. Tears did not exist in the 1700s. Much less to they exist today. The eye as it existed long long ago was an eye really without an eye, most likely in all probability the eye existed as nothing other than "I" which likely was related to some animal existence. When it comes to the form that the human body would take this would be the proper consideratoin. And further than that an investigation of what would make "I" am "I" seems here important. The conclusion to the "I am I" thought is far more important because it leads one to consider his "I" not only as "your eye is perfect don't worry" ah but it is not and this is a truth. My eye is not perfect and as suffering persists in the world it will forever be imperfect says my subconscious thoughts which try and play tricks on me. The truth is that my eye may perhaps be right as they suggest. Any phenomonological consideratoin of the right of a male eye must place this in to a very through consideration in that the history of the male eye is the history of how he would be right himself. As far as I would see that would be remotely true. Yet the thought that the 'I' is an 'I' as similar to an 'I' that is an unescapable 'I" has no precedence here no consideration and no worth for the pre existence of our humanity our myths and whatever else would suggest differently. I would attest to this being at least one instance of self deception, and following other psychoanalitical thinkers would suggest that this is true. My I is no more certain than anyone elses. It is as valid as anyones ever has or ever will. I would attest to this being a truth. A gender distinction is here called for one which is now already being considered in the example which we have before us.


"Please stop crying" says the sister or brother

"*sobs louder*"


The child is now showing us that he is correct in that his right is as right as any others yet the right can only exist as that. You would not believe your eyes at the ignorance to which others would suggest that this is a fallacious attempt to retain to the dignity of the person and his good qualities. Yet crying does not in my mind remove one from life because as far as I am concerned crying would be precisely an attempt to show as far as examples are concerned the existence of how a peson would be himself in any example. Crying although it would remove all the meaning from life has not been proved as a removal from the absurd condition of man nor has the myths which suggest to a positive pre history disprove the existence of this or that ideal history or present paradise....

If the person crying becomes who he is further he becomes just as he is and nothing less. Crying would be a positive support for a person who would desire to live the right and true way in a society and show how the individual is good.

In a society remote from the days of adam and eve, the existence of men and women are now deciding in terms of psychology what would make them exist themself to the fullest. As a man I would not allow myself to know "a woman is god to me" while I am the existence to myself as a person of whom to give the thought or lable of a god to. For existing as a god is not a very positive thought for existing as god would never allow the person to be how the person is supposed to be.

Further if there is no "right" in this world or society then we are all doomed to nothingness for the right which would exist us would permit endless wars and countless sad boys and countless unhip and unhappy girls- for eternity. The guys if they are not right would commit suicide, and I am not aware of what would be come of the women. The same result I am sure.



The Existence of a Prior Cause, or Purpose, to Satisfy Those Who Criticize


This is contrary to the purpose of much current thought. It is productive optimistic and positive in that the debate is fully designed to be integrated into concepts around thse of Husserl as well as that of self deception. The entire purpose of Husserls work was to show that we are able to integrate our conceptions into our minds already without prior consideration and that is why his work is so often taken in and admired and liked. It is common to know, that one can share, what one believes in and already accepts as fact. Think for a moment of the people who are gay. Those people who are gay do not understand the importance of what is thought to be gay when they think of the romance that is shared in particular by gay couples. I wouldn't be aware of the attributes which apply to the love which is shared by gay men nor would I understand the many and varied different gay men who likely share a completely trustworthy relationship.

I wouldn't argue with this much less would I refute the depiction I am attempting to form in the introduction when it comes to self deception and setting ones eye on ones future in a way which is proper and applies. I would not intend to forumulate an already existent phenomonology much less my own as of the moment and leave the consideratoin as to my formulations as to a later time in this book. At the moment all that I can state properly is that gay men have attitudes which need satisfying, lesbian women also as well have desires which would need satisfying. These desires to not fully mesh and any consideration of them would likely fall where it is needed or should be already anyway in the first place.

The problem is that issues of self improvement and self attainment are real. One could litterally shoot to the sky or the stars and always remain in a full and perfect state for self improvement being right so to speak and the attainment of ends which are met in the imagination leads one to a full optimism when it comes to the full positivity of what makes one to be as he is with full potential. Yet some of the current theorys look blank or slim to none when it comes to their threashold of acceptance. I wouldn't ask why they desire to do so for I would be blanketed with conspiracy, yet I would take my own life as my own standard of worth myself.

As far as I am concerned the existence of a prior cause is steeped in many issue of self deception already- and this in the light of considering pre history and self deception which allows progress with the self prior to any alternate consideration being met. One is reminded of Zen buddhism and others which pronounce self deception on an individual and personal level and the books are greatly admired. I wouldn't know where that path would lead them nor me or anyone else but I would suggest that it seems to imply that these aspects of self deception and the improvement of our self are real in that they apply to this attitude here presented.

There are a great deal of them and they all seem to have a satisfaction. Part of the problem is that when someone publishes a book such as this sort that the categories are highlighted and outlined in depth and deep detail the criticizes one is reminded of Jean Paul Sartre again. His work Being and Nothingness achieves this type of critique, in that the critique suggests that the person who is formulating whatever he is forumlating that the formulation of the work which he is doing achieves that of being open to subjection. This is only the attitude of self deception that he likely from the outset attempted to defeat and so it is all well that the people who would criticize this mode of presentation as not fit for the job at hand. Any rewording would be great as long as they take the book at it was meant to be. Part of the problem with the book is that it suggests no real further criticism, the book is similar in outline to this one in that the presentation of a prior introduction has such signifigant merrit as to not overlook. And as knowing this as an author it is easy to say that the book which has been published by Sartre has no ability to recieve such strident criticism and looks as to have its own ends merrited. The book is a masterpeice, not a symptom of our time nor a presentation meant to be taken lightly, it was published almost anomomnously at the time of the war long ago in the 19th century. Any criticism re working or re wroding of any documentation of which he presented is not to be taken lightly. I wouldn't concieve it possible unless one wanted to do a compelte re wording of the entire book for the book as it stands is perfect and presented so that the origional paragraph is set down and in stone as it is mean to be. The book cannot be re worded and I shall pardon myself for an intrusion here.

Thusly stated any school or sect of thought typically belongs to these rules of behavior or conduct. The "intellectual" atmosphere applies to these same things as well for no matter what school, sect or area of thought you get into, they really have the same rules and agreements. Ah but they do.

Objectivism tells you: Do what is right, commend what is ideal. Live for your self.

Idealism tells you: There is a right, it is in your prior conception, and it exists for yourself. Do for yourself.

Realism tells you: Exist as yourself for you are only yourself.

Ex Nihilo tells you: You are a subjective existence with infinite innter subjectivity inherant in you.


Etc.


They all fail by the same critique and some or most of the names that exist to day fail in that the greatest one existent really is that of existentialism.
Some of the main schools to my knowledge which are attaining to signifigance are those of theology in that religion is attaining a place in the existence which we exist for ourselves. It's becoming a new existentialism and God is being decidedly removed from the consideration. Likely a fault of many of the earilier century atheists as far as I'm aware. When someone speaks of God they mean God and not the God of some false religion or the God of some one elses parents but the God that exists the God that is real. Subject God to any consideration under the planet and unless your using his name wrongly you will get no where. That is a contention that I may hold to higly if that is how I feel for this is the nature of God and it is not a nature which is infested with filth and other wrongly used termonology.

Part of the wordings which are used are also quite inapt in that they do not appear to apply to us a signifigant understand of the terms which we use. This is part an irrelevant consideratoin yet the thought is very valid. Words such as "Activists" "Socialists" "buisnessman" "buisnesswomen" "martial artists" each of these thoughts has a place when it comes to through consideration. These points and these alone really deserve a great deal of high consideration done to them before many of the movements move past this thought.


Then there is the thought about self deception and self improvement which would inspire many to search for a pre existent or already established truth. Well these truths exist all the same in some order or another. Consider the work of Husserl as I have suggested above and you'll find for yourself that the work was established so as to conclude the fallacy of many or much all of the work of the and this and nearly every other century for the past thousand years to date.

Following my role model Sartre, I suggest his emphysis on imagination as far as I am aware is quite profound. It's partly exempt from consideratoin because he debates the bounds where it can exist, but in such a way where he removes the thought of it from our lives. Imagination, as full potential, I am certain would exist, for imagination would take us to the stars, and any thought in imagination I cannot see tested on incongruent levels and thoughts. Most imagionation is real, as far as I'm aware all of it is, yet the bounds between reality and what is real is not tested, most if not all of these bounds do not exist when it comes to the thought of imagination being false or un real.

With these considerations out of place and with no one knowing the precise origin of the universe it would be best to proceede with further considerations. All that I have intended to do here is to show the sharp end of the point of self deception, the ability of men and man them selves to take it up with one another and to form tribes sects cults wars or brotherly love. Family communion and others with regard to forming for oneself without self deception what may exist for self tests or levels to self attainment or improvement. I will remind one that this is a real public issue and has signifigant validity to much of what is occuring.

I actually consider the perspectives of self attainment in the light of phenomonological perspectives and researchers the worst type of study. For precisely the reason is that we must keep those and only those under consideration and in play so to speak. When it occurs to us that they are kept where they belong- in the light of self deception/bad faith/ or self improvement- only then may we continue our work with regard to considering the issues to be relevant or important- for although they may exist to some extent- from a very large and great perspective, in the light of self deception they do not exist for attaining to yourself by yourself and in the light of self improvements no one on this earth can hope to attribute to issue of self improvement in the light of fully positive descriptive purposes. This refutes and invalidates the whole attempt of all european and contentinial philosophy from Descart to Wittgenstein, and in this light one would understand and dare I say know that he cannot do this in this light. Thus, in this instance there is a state of seeming crisis for no one would in their right mind say that they are not able to attain to the dignity of self deceptuion and improvement considered in the same light- and this- a truth- albeit one which is to be considered- one is aware that in this fact lies some very contingent fact, some positive value which is not yet placed. It may be considered by our reader now. I can not improve because improvement you say, is not there and open to me already? And my point precisely I say is that improvement already being open to you would lead you to consider that it isn't already open. One must discover his improvement himself to be certain.... In that light what is made of the issue of self deception and universal truths are they considered from a lower perspective or are they considered at all. I hear the sounds of trumpets and ignorante stomping around the streets proclaiming to themselves "where is my right to have self improvement" and the continuious improvement not existing to them is pretty shocking. Alas it must exist in some for or another and this is precisely why Husserl is to be looked down upon and considred in the light of brilliance and importance and by no means disgraced as a sub disclipine of existentialism for it was he alone who formulated the completed versions of kantiean Idealism and the existentialist pursuit. The conclusions of his results are similar to those of his preceeders yet his work is the more complete. These are personal opinions comming from the standpoint of what is considered to be self deception and the current contempary works of art.


On Philosophys Completion



Philosophy does not appear to ever necessarially be able to be completed as far as any origional ends are seen. It is the case I admit that in contemporary achedemia they appear to be closing the limits on the existence of the philosophy. Yet it is also seen to be the case that philosophy has not yet achieved its place outside of achedemia and the only place it can make its homecoming is in our back yard, front or inside of the house? To be honest I wouldn't know for such an explaination of philosophys existence is dangerous and above all shouldn't be mentioned. Yet this is what the people ask for in way of description and way of explaination also way of attaining the ways which I run my own life so that is what I am doing. I feel that there is a very deep and very profound signifigance attributed to most of this clarification and which so hard to explain or express would drive one mad before he expressed the nature of the thoughts which he has and does posess. The completion of philosophy has in no way achieved its end for the salvation of the race many shout does not exist. And is there any whom are pessimistic about it ever comming. What a dull conclusion when it comes to the variety of things which are expressed and the conclusions which many are making to this day of old works and unfinished validity. If we have a pessimistic today we have a pessimistic tomorrow and we cannot abandon shore until it is discovered precisely what God has left us to see. Interestingly enough this conclusion is shared by just about everybody yet the first person who would dare to convince me otherwise of my conclusions would be the first person to make the same mistake that I seem to be making here. Interestingly enough when it comes to it people are uncaring in this respect yet say the first thing that comes to mind. I couldn't clarify the distinction. Philosophy is complete are you sure. And if it is to be complete is it to be finished. How would one imagine a philosophy which is complete that is not complete unless it is already complete. I couldn't consider placing it unless it were remote from conception already and depended on some external or supernatural power. God or some epistemologicial existence dating back to a while ago when we saw religious philosophers assuring us of their validity. Some of the philosohies which coencide with this existence are similar to physics in that their existence pertains to showing how they exist- thus the physicists- arragant to the last and final ..... Time when they will pronounce whatever it is that they intend to pronounce. I would suggest however something different.... If it is the case that these philosophers are saying Gods existence is not limited to our conception outside of our self and the philosophers are now formulating how it does exist intside of ourself are they not themselves validating the existence of the circle. Is this conception not remote from many peoples thoughts? It is difficult indeed to preach to the audience when the philosophies of today are of this sort.

What about a permenant paradise and how would it be done.
Why is phenomonology so often criticized and existentialism so often praised.
And further why do the criticisms come on to us non stop.

Is precisely the feeling that crosses my mind, for I see the conception of the mentality of the individual as the real whearabouts of existential or philosophy as it stands to the day really. What I would make of it would be rather absurd if I were forced into considering it. Sartre has us considering an existential psychology or psychoanalysis where the individual is the true self as he is meant to be yet does not go on to completion. I am not attempting to respond to his call as being the psychoanalist who would take up his therapy as this is already one of my thoughts which I will not share with regard to my carrer yet I would suggest that the high validit which Sartre is suggesting there is one of the high points of current or contemporary theory. Part of the problem with such a standpoint is that it would refuese analysis when one comes to considering the truth of what would make the disclipine really complete. It would necessarially indicate some sort of formulation with regard to reestablishing the old norms of plato or some such and this is where I really stand. The genders cannot be considered inequal side by side and comparison for their equality is one which has the highest fundamental right known to us, and the consideration of marrage would scourage the world if considerd improperly and so we're left really with what is known to be obvious, obvious as in the thought that the obvious must occur to us in no other way. No sane individual would consider solphism as the only absolute standpoint of which ot make his existence known for there are many really to say and pronounce loudly that they cannot themselves escape solphism. And when they are shown how then they perceede to show how the bounaries of society do not exist ect and these do not accord with their beliefs beforehand. The thought of solphism in this consideration shows how improper- inadequate really of a basis or belief that it really is and hasn't a validity outside of it. If one considers clearly the thoughts which would come to one before he or after he or she considers solphsim it takes us really to the thought of the historial validty of what would become of it in the light of myths and other thoughts etc.

So philosphy is concerned as it always was with philosophy is anyone then presently consiering the myth of the old philosophers stone for it's still around behind all the muck and criticism by the people trying to do good for the world. Hero complexes are pretty rampant in the modern world gotta get used to this fact these days I suppose....

I would wonder though where the hero complexes stem from and also would debate those who attempt to firm themself grisp or grasped tight ahold of an individual remote from their conception. It's as if as indiivduals we do not consider sex in the way that sex is natural and historicla. Sure, lock the man up and put him in a prison and find out if he seems suspectible to solphism I think not. Grab him by the throat and tell him that they are going to find out what he really knows because any feminine hides her tears. Why does she. And the psychological examination here is pretty precise to be sure: she hides her tears because.... And who ever knows the answer to this I would assume also knows what happens when one considers the solphist. The solphist indeed pronoucnes loudly: After I am beat up in a fight I will submit to you as you are right. He places no reality to his own assersions that relaity can escape reality and that the truth of any given individual is not suspect to.... You get the picture, you get a refrence to "so what" "as if" and "why would I think that" when one thinks what appears obvious to him in the light that it seems to be the proper way to consier a solphist. There's no factual evidence here and it doesn't even exist. We're not searching for a way to lock a man or woman up and find how to think about them- no we are searching for a way to the society in which it can be unveiled in prosperous union, as it is the goal of all people to achieve the satisfaction of peace or happiness in their life time. And confronting such bounds and walls we say to ourself, "what becomes of my desires to achieve the profound unity of myself as I say that I can do" well then in this instance it is purely positive but we wouldn't suggest further than that to be sure....

What is to become of an individual. Is it not precisely the evolution of each individual to step outside of his own gender norm and to achieve a relation with others. This would be another way to consider how philosophy is currently evolving and what remains to really be published. Anyone who is willing to think about the outside of this brick wall we're stuck in has to go do it one way or another and as far as I can see, well, thats what people gotta think about. Dissapointment when it comes to works already completed, this already having been established seems to really have come upon some firm footing. Most wisdom seems fully positive and yet in the light of it litterally or actually being fully positive we face some tricky areas of thought. What becomes of this what becomes of that etc etc etc....

Works in the light of existential perceptions seem to have some defination and this defination I would see as perhaps pertaining to some glimpse of some type of reality which would not matter. If I am an existentialist philosopher and I say to myself: I am going to do this the way that I know is right for it is right as it is right. Then I am saying to myself "how many other existential philosphers were there and what state of crisis would this imply if the number that there are that exist counteracts like a counterweight the number of mes that could exist". Many of these thoughts exist as they should be do they seem to imply a positive number.


Most of these considerations in the current realm of thought seem to imply a given positivity in that a thinker may be or could be another thinker. Thinkers seem to be comming out by the millions really but the thought put into play there doesn't really have an arguement. If there are if I consider to myself:

8 thinkers
and the eighth is the final one to think.
He is the best one. What does this make of the others if they were actually better. The answer is that they were better but the newer one is one of the more current, and although he is not better, he is thought of as presenting newer ideas. This considerion can easily be brushed off at once. The newer thinker has not presented the ideas in a way that their validity we say is achieved. His ideas are remote from the truth and do not apply to what he has thought may be god. I am here thinking of the film prodoucer and existentialist philospoher who, as with Sartre went public. What is the case here when philosophy is publicizing itself and the older thinkers less profound but more current become such a way if there are only eight of them at one time and then at a later date the are thought to be nine or ten. If I think "may I place myself in the rank of the tenth if there is a ninth and place the tenth" etc ahead of me and this thinker would have a predecesor and his predecesor has a predecesor and so on to a certain number. This seems to be an arguement counter to the ex nihilo movement which suggests that the fifteen thinkers would be the fiftheenth in that there could most likely not exist millions there would probably be a round off somewhere here in that the number of thinkers would produce the 100,000th or the one millionth. If there are however one billion different ones then that would suggest that the billionth thinker would have a place amongst the first, the one billionth would likely go to another number if the race would permit it as existing to the standard of one dillion. Most likely it would satisfy the not in ex nihilo, for it would validate history and show us our bounds in society.


It couldn't be considered in another way, what the race of humanity is if this truth about thinkers and others has some place where it is meant to be. Further, it couldn't be thought of differently if this place were perfect, universal and singular. If that is the case the thought that could be provoked on any given issue would suggest an insurmountable optimism. Yet the consideration, and as husserl has understood the bracketing of these thoughts would easily come before the gazillion different types of thinkers if the singular thinker was indeed absolute. If this is a truth then it could be considered as being a truth. Every afterall "Why" that exists for us in the world seems to share with us "why" this or why that and if the truth is already there with us as a why one then what becomes of other truths that why one would refute. Excuse me for attributing a bit of humor the to existence of what philosophy seems to be capable of but this is simply one of the thoughts which crosses our minds when we think about our ethics or our different types of thinkers. How many different existentialists have their been in current thought. I can think of about twenth each holding different views. So the validity here is pretty extereme if one considers the religious philosophers etc. One could litterally say that they are a contemprary preist pertaining to a religion which is known as alpha beta, and be an existentialist. This is part of the pity which is existing the documents of today in that they are so wide spread and individuals are seen perhaps as having less worth than that which they acutally already have. So if you think hard about it and I mean real hard, you could potentially see infinite possibilities. If there are a trillion or gazillion different thinkers it would at least prove that I am not mistaken in my conception of there existing this many thinkers.

Another thought would be what limit if these preceeding analysises or the criticism of some current books is considered to be as it is, is there really to my freedom, if it is able to be shown that it has any whatsoever at all, that there would truly be none. I can see this as valid. But I would share the smile as I progress to the further thought. Some of the issues underway also have a lot to do with the thought that as we would be aware most of the right is thought to be exempt from possibility and so they are thinking of ways to remove the I from the existence of the self well pooie on you if you know what I mean because removing the I from its exemption entirely from society without refrence to the historical nature. Indeed we say to ourself and precisely what Husserl has attempted to do is to bracket experience. It is as if no one in this world or society man or woman recieves the proper behavior needed to consol them with regard to the state of the world. I would not be the first to raise these questions.

Where we are left when it comes to further imput is the answer finally to be infinite, if the answer is seen to be infinite. I can see that as philosophy fades in distant time there would be a time where it would heat back up again. Most of this work is the preparation for the obvious, the nature which we can no longer overlook. My purpose here is precisely to defend and to satisfy the needs of those who feel as if they see or think of society to be in a state unsatiable and uncomfortable. The world we live in at present is nothing of the sort. It's rather much different in that it has the qualities which are able to be comforted. Most of the pain in the existence that we live is without any or all of the notions which would support those ideals. So when it comes to considering where we are at in society today. It seems obvious to mention that in society today we are no where except the fact that society is that which would seem to be the one to need the work to be clarified or containing distinguishment. It's a rough task to take up for such a thing when those you write for or about take the most abuse.

I see to it that this part of my chapter marks the part where I declare thumb war. Well so be that! It is not like philosophys future is anything similar to being completed. Surely some revolutonary will come along again after the time this book is complete.... I see to be honest there existing a truth which is reductible. A truth so simple and yet seemingly complex that no one would let it be found if it had already been seen.... But what the heck! The current philosophical trend is heading seems to be to a positive place. I haven't the ideas where it may lead us. But that's that.



On where we may take existence


When it comes to existence, perhaps the absolute most fundamental right that we have, is to exist as ourself in a self stabalizing society and so on and so forth. It seems as if the thought here is fundamental in that many do not see it in the same light, but vastly in a similar light. It would not be hard to make some clarifications there, but that is precisely what is not important at the moment. What is more impotant now is to consider where we may exist as how we do exist in this society which we are ala Heiegger, thrown or abanoned. Abandonment is a state of which a person may exist in this society. Further, there is another consideration which is more important. In discussing how we may exist in this world, the consideration was made that "the not is simpler and easier than the nothing." Yet the thought of this idea is fundamental to be sure, for Heidegger has not realized the considerable impact which not is. Yet in questioning the not, he questions the nothing, and goes from there to consider the profundity of the claim of "the not is more simple and easier than the nothing" and then precedes to twist and convolute the assersion made in regard to the not which as we should indeed be aware is important for his consideration of the not implies what it means. The not in this regard is considered only from the standpoint of the high philosophical consideration which has been attributed to it by heidegger himself and has no other signifigance in this passage (editors note).

What then becomes the not, says heidegger, in uncovering the signifigance attributed to the not itself. What is the not, is it the not as the not afterall is the not. And then he proceeedes to end the lecture. It is a complicated but interesting lecture to be sure. The only problem that I have been able to assertain with the lecture is that it does fall short of its promise. The purpose is to attain a reality assertainable by direct perception and conception, in the light of in my opinion what everyone else would do. This assersion is not without validation. It seems to apply in any if not most or all circumstances, for what one would do is indeed valid for what all would do. And this type of a statement in retrospect of the not is valid, and this is Sartre's interpretation of what must be done in society in the light of what I choose to do others choose to do. This type of consideration is reality based in that it does not conflict or contort the issue of perception of reality in the light of "what everyone else would do". This type of thought has a very signifigant grounding with regards to modern thought. It's far more valid in that it attains to a very signifigant philosohicl position in very high regard and needs no less consideration than the thought of it's signifigance. It is a shocking statement, has full shocking effect and is terrifying when one considers applying the assersion to ones life. Further than that it applies to the not as well. I would not consider placing on my shoulders full responsibiity for my existence unless I already knew that that was my purpose to do so. Yet what I would indeed do is to apply a perspective. I would state my reasons before I applied any derrorigitory perspective.

In this light it is seen that the two theorists have a very signifigant contribution to make with regard to the current scene which we exist in with regard to reality. In that respect one may consider the not and what place the not would have. I could not think of a better way to take responsibility for myself than to think that the cogito was the placement of priority on my life yet the cogito is precisely the moment perception of the self and if one isn't easily able to understand his own personal cogito- in that he strugles with it then this is also a reality of the cogito. Sartre, understands this in that he states, "one must apply the cogito in that the cartesian I think present moment" - is a way of attaining to the self but only in the presence of the moment. So one says, "I may attain to myself by application of the cogito" yet this assersion is invalid for the assersion requires self reflection. He knew this.

What seems the most valid for us is that in order to apply these considerations the not is brought into play. In many peoples minds people try and save the not most of the time. Not is something that one desires to save from the abuse that the individuals have seen of what the not is. In this light it means nothing other than that that is what the not is. It is how it is when it comes to what the not is, the not is a rock of sorts and yet no a fundamental one entirely but in consideration only for the most part.

I would suggest here something. It is not entirely and absolutely the not that is the highest priority, but it is also something similar or related. It would be that the not is not the absolute. There is a consideration made. Attaining to the self (that is to say, the self that is presented), requires that the cogito not be the absolute and only, but only that the self be realizable in this connection or consideration. This, is the absolute. One describes the absolute in many different ways therefore it is absolutely imperative to get the absolute right before any errors are made. The cogito for instance, falls to the second order of what is absolute. What one may consider as aboslute is much distinct or different you would say than the consideration of what is the absolute for the absolute here is that and nothing else. If I go and to consider myself in the proper fashion I will establish only those things which I have said above. Nothing else.

In this light one must attain to himself. But it is not the self that one must attain. The pre reflecive is not fully the authority for backing this line of thought one recieves not only supports (ala Sartre's follower and predecessor the great Mal awa Lkoa pardon me but i do not know the proper name of this person).
So you think to yourself that the in itself is valid. But the in itself is the um the self.
So the


This is a girlis have u ever met a girlis before. You have no idea what a girl is like mister because you have never even seen a girlis before. Get your facts straight before you touch this again you perverted old retarded fucking idiot.

When it comes to the not the girl can not do any thing like that oh hah ha ha ha ha that they can not ha ha ha ha ha ah ah.

Why? This is what a girl is like you dumbnut fucking fruitball. They walk around oh yeah oh yeah oh yeah and guess what ha ha ha that is right senior take advantage of the dumb whores who dont even have a fuckin nap sack you sorry perverted goofey retard!

You may leave now mister retard. ha hah ha.

I am dealing with a person who desires to continue to pronounce that girlises are better than guys. Well if you want to look at it that way why don't you get your facts straight first mister I forgot how to pick up my left elbow!

Girlis are second sex that mean they are evolutionary cannon fodder.

I can do anything with mine. It is kinda like saying, "okay let me see here what do I want to do with this murahahahahaha" and therein it is capable of subjecting itself to anhything.

For example.

How about this do u like that oh i see you don't hahahhahahahahahaha.
What about this do you like this hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
This? hahahahhahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Oh I see you think a girlis is better than me oh is that so I wonder why you think that I wonder what you think that that girlis can do that is better than me huh I wonder let me see here if I go back to about the first moment or the instant where I was born and think about the existence of god well then I am already at the point in time where the girlis was exempt from consideration and at that point in time guess what that is right well if you think about it the girlis didn't even exist then so she's cannon fodder and nerd material I could even say ah yes look it is a girlis because the girlis to me doesn't even exist if i am good so why does she even put up curtins in the house to protect the windows from the ouside of the sun is it because she used to be an insect of some sort or did she think perhaps that she did need some windows because the sun was too bright for her eyes I wonder I mean afterall i throughly enjoy to watch and check out other pepople and their attitudes and their behaviors so if you think about it what would that mean when someone would consider the girl or the guy to be any different from each other fudnamentall except by the way of some old myth which is refuted by another or a different or better thought huh huh huh huh huh huh huh?

It seems to me to be the case that if you look at it carefully there's litterally no distinction between us. If you think about it even more carefully you're actually able to go into the wilderness to examine the distinction between the genders from a perspective which aperspective whicha t least appread to have some validity for the thought that it didnt' is the thought that it wouldn't nor would it ever. Interestingly enough however itseems to be the only truth pertaining to the existence of women whatsoever and even if you think about not in that way it still changes nothing. Ha ha ha ha ha. I wonder what that makes of the people in society who think that they even exist as not. hahahahah. Would you perhaps or by chance think that the existence of men long ago in society existing as wolfs or wild animals or neandreathals- if you aren't aware by now- the existence of this sort is all that is belonging to humanity and guess who was the first person toe ver think of the consideratoin of humanity to exist- that is correct- the old goof Imanuel Kant was the first to consider that. Do ya by any chance have any knowledge of what existed as the distinction between the not fo the man and the not for the woman. Most likely the answer is no: you don't because long ago as you might expect- the man in the woods and in nature- thats riht pal they was the same thing as each other. It's commonly thouht to be that way really as far as I am aware. Whatever distinguishes the man from the woman- well hell- I want to know!- but i do not want any criticism along the way! I take criticism all the time and i've taken it for far too long to be honest. When it comes to the consideration of what is "not" i would say that both of the genders are completely equal in that regard. Interestingly enough it seems to apply weather we like it or not- not the consideration of not however but the consideration of the truth of what exists as the consideration of the not. If you think about not- well- not is just not- that is to say it is just what it is. You can't possibly say or remove or consider not as exempt from the thought of not existing as what not is what it is as not is indeed what it is- it however does distinguish the sexes as what they are and are what they are meant to be so if you think about it in any different way i would suspect that you change your gender into a female. Why do you ask. If the conclusion which at the moment you are supporting is at all true guess what. That's right BABY- the male would fall by the hands of what is commonly considered to be riht and guess what that is? That is one thing and one thing only: That's right- he would be wrong. But interestingly enough that is not true and od you know why that is? That's because when we existed long ago there was an equality- the preicse equlaity that im discussing right now. But do you know what else? Pity really to be entirely honest with you. Butt hat's how the world works really. If you look at it another way you'll likely fall into solphism, for solphism is simply a misconsideratoin of our rational capacitys. That's right, mollys a little author herself and a god damn genius- but I wouldn't say any more about that issue right now.

What I would say is this: If you think about it carefully, you can come to the consideration of what i"m suggesting as true. Firstly that man is not not right nor mistaken or there is also not that irrelevant consideratoin that you're placing on my feet at this moment. What does come into quesiton is that that is the animal side of our nature, that not appears to be such a way and that if it were another way- then the man- the "right" and the distinctions which I have made above would be proven invalid and would allow a person to consider a girl in the way that you are attempting to force me into the influence as it stands at this moment. At any event, the man and the masculine is the same as the girl- in a state of nature- if you go back far enough- you can litterally escape from the thought of the not. Take you and your body for instance. Place it in a forest all by itself in a land where it's alone and happy or isoalted etc- the body will take up for itself- the not will become as it's meant to be. It's simly the way of the world to run as it's mean to be and many of the thinkers or the people who use their brain think about this area of study very highly when it comes to not and if there is or not a left hand for it is one of the if not the only thing that is ever considered really and I am so sorry that you do not like it here in this house with me you pahtatic old man why you do not leave and og get a day ujob you pathetic old cum sucking fucknuted faggot with no billy boots. Get lost!







This is all he have write so all i can say is that this is all he have write of the book he have write. Now I can only say that is all he have write so that that means it is good what he have write but i want to embarass him because he write bad aganist girl please help! And tell me hat u think kuz i no as smart as hie is.

 

I'd love to indulge you here, but I simply don't know where to begin.

 

Well u can start by talking about why i am so angry

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you silly goof. Listen. When it comes down to it, me boyfriend jus anger me real bad so if you enjoy that kind of t hing fine. You can leave theread. If you dont enjoy it then stay and make positive comment on what i have said. Hello to you too and thank you for introduction to forum bye.

 

That would be ideal.


But if u can comment please beczuse the boyfriend has say these thing.

 

Well, Alacia from Indonesia, what you present is lots of words that all together do not make much sense to us.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you indeed copied all of what you posted from a book that your boyfriend is writing, then he is very confused, will likely not find a publisher to print his book and you are likely wasting your time trying to understand what he is saying.

If this is all your writing, then you are confused and seem to be abusing yourself. This would mean that you need some help to organize your thinking from a councilor so that you do not hurt yourself.

 

Well if that what you think king fredric I suggest you scratch the top of your head real hard. Then, sit down. After that. Consider that it is introduction to book I am writing. If you have any disagreement or criticism feel free to word it however you like.

jessc

 

OK, will do. I note that you have lost that 'foreign' dialect you were assuming up there.

You presented what you have written as the work of another (we call that plagiarism), now you admit that it is indeed your composition. Besides being a tad disingenuous, you have not been honest and forthcoming with us here. Whoops. That is problematic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am afraid that I cannot take you seriously at this juncture, you have flunked the troll test. I believe that I can see this falling into our Cesspool soon.