/Perhaps they should teach logic before ethics? Hmm, to me "ethics" is a no-brainer. I've framed it in my mind as a perception really, as it seems that people's sense of empathy and fairness is either stunted or it isn't - though this is complicated by culture and one's natural propensity to "relate" (if there is such a thing, which I'd imagine that at least in a certain context there would have to be). Bah. Rambling. For real though I generally think that ethics is associated with empathy which is associated with emotions which is fucked if you're damaged or under-developed.
Limited by language. (it would be easier to record the interactions undertaken during my thought process and force feed them into your brain such that you experience it firsthand, but unfortunately.. I don't know how to do that so I type stuff. sometimes there's more than I can properly filter down and delineate and it comes out a little jumbled. sometimes if you stop and read and think the stuff that I typed, you can see that besides the part where i was rambling there were actually some good points and stuff in there that is if you're capable which it's obvious that some aren't. if two people attempt to communcate but the conceptual inter-relationships established in each of their minds does not share enough common geometry and content with the other's, those two minds are extremely limited regarding the amount of stimulation they can offer one another. know what i mean?) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm gonna go out on a limb here cool skill: This is irrelavent if you've never seen southpark, but I'd suspect if you have - you really don't enjoy it. You simply find it stupid and unfunny right? Maybe I'm off.
Yes I've seen south park. Wrong, I do enjoy it. It's funny as hell. So was the movie. I watched most of the first season, and a few sporadic episodes since then. I have no tv, and really no desire to watch anything. But I do download once in awhile. I have the episode where they have to return the porn video playing LOTR. LOL. Either way, I don't see any relevance to such a querry. Point?
I'm just curious. At times you seem to be completely devoid of a sense of humor that at all jives with what I know to be funny (and I'm considered pretty funny by those who are close to me). It perplexes me because I really only see a couple of possibilities: Either: You're full of shit and pimping everyone. and/or You're from a mindset completely off-kilter from my own and/or You're a discordian type. and/or hmm. I've run out for now. That's why I'm asking. It's a roundabout way of attempting to discern if you are sincere and if so, what your apparent malfunction might be. I've met a number of people who had a strong distaste for certain types of humor and have noticed a high correlation with an inability to really communicate well with them. Simply too different for the effort to be worthwhile except in the simplest of contexts. Oh, that and you missed this week's which you might note (had you seen it) that I worked into my rantings in this thread. Well, that and a little baseketball... Really it's the underlying attitude. I suppose i just relate to the attitude parlayed by the humor. I see my mistake. It's really just my attitude reflected through an input. Still, seems that southparklikedness and people that are more prone have a freakin sense of humor. I can't tell what the hell type of sense of humor you have. Hehe, way to keep a brother on his toes! The minute you seem to be competely devoid you seem to get it and then you lose it again. That in and of it self amuses me and makes me wonder if you're doing it on purpose - but THEN you do it again so convincingly that I can't tell if you doing it on purpose or not and then again, repeat. I suppose that's kind of a cool skill so... *shrug* Well done. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Egoism Thats called psychological egoism Wes and this theory is considered ethical as well but describing instead of valuing . Im not sure if I agree with such inclusion to ethics , but ethics as accademically acknowledge does . I think you are rather self-contradicting when you imply that one deems which does not imply objective reality but subjective reality in which there is no place in science . Question could be weither moral philosophy itself has , but thats a totally different subject . Also you forget the fact that one can acknowledge his choice to have been bad , later on . Sure it seemed the best choice then but his own subjectivity corrects this in a later phase . Subjectivism in this sense , if consider of value itself , can be more of an obstacle to improving one-self than it can be a tool for explaining oneself . She made the is>should transition like you just did , only she diregarded the rhetorical trick of subjectivism you threw in . The ethical implication that ought to be given is should and revolving this , a moral theory has been created : ethical egoism by Ayn Rand . Anyways her theory can be disproved on many ways , for instance because she has this Kantian influence that confuses between an individual and a group , making a group of a specific identity (you-family-neighbourhood-city-state-country) into an identy that could act out as egoist in an ethical manner . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"discordian" -See what happens when language gets in the way? People begin to make words up. Are you sad because I found your post humorless? zzzzzzzzzz I don't think I'm pimping anybody as I usually end up being the whore. I'm definitly not "discordian". (assuming that means what I think it does) I can be a little off-kilter when I deem necessary. "It's a roundabout way of attempting to discern if you are sincere" Well that might be the problem. The fact is, sometimes I'm sincere, and sometimes I'm utterly sarcastic. EDIT: Hopefully the reader is intelligent enough to figure it out.
You are pretty much missing the point of moral philosophy and the use of ethical theory . Emotion is its origin , which has function through ensuring of our survival . Our consciousness has created possibility to coprehend emotion and form it into logical theories that help us in this survival . What you are doing is pretty much diregarding the intellectual aspect that is highly relevant and in these theories , the purpose it has its succesfulniss . To throw it all on emotion is to disregard conscious and social reality , which isnt a smart thing to do i the complex society of today . I think for the stone age your idea would pretty much go , but for now not really .
Re: Re: Egoism /Also you forget the fact that one can acknowledge his choice to have been bad , later on . Sure it seemed the best choice then but his own subjectivity corrects this in a later phase. I didn't forget it, it's simply irrelevant in this context. I'll address this issue with you in more detail when I address you in other threads. /Subjectivism in this sense , if consider of value itself , can be more of an obstacle to improving one-self than it can be a tool for explaining oneself . IMO, there is only one way to address the root of a problem. You have to really accept it, along with all of its implications - only then can you attempt to circumvent it with any degree of certainty, with any sense of responsibility. Here you display what I see to be the ignorance of the objective claim. You deny perpectual culpability in the sense that from any perspective, the view is skewed tremendously. Data comes into the node which is you and is filtered through you in only the way YOU can do it. While one's subjecivism bears the impression of those one interacts with.. it cannot be other than what it is, remember? It's subjectivism. It's not a choice, it's a fact. Your brain is shaped by your evironment and you look on that environment from the perspective of your brain. The thing is you have a CHOICE about what happens to it after that, unless you refuse to take responsibility for it -> ontology = epistemology. You see Ghassan, if every human cannot be trusted with the responsibilty I've outlined, the weakest link could bring down the system. Surely you can see that inevitability. If that's true, it's my opinion based on my previous reasoning that humans must be encouraged to make formulate this understanding for themselves - otherwise... well I've already spelled it out. /She made the is>should transition like you just did , only she diregarded the rhetorical trick of subjectivism you threw in. Ad homming me with a "rhetoric" comment? Why bother? You focused on appearances too? Maybe you and nico strategizing on shallow distractions? LOL. Pardon. /The ethical implication that ought to be given is should and revolving this , a moral theory has been created : ethical egoism by Ayn Rand. I remember having read some of it and thinking she was all fucked up in the head. IMO, she was an impractical lady. While an amazing intellect to me, as she stimulated my mind in a major way - I only bought into her philosophy as much as was required to understand the story and create a lot of questions for myself. Much gratitude for all that. /Anyways her theory can be disproved on many ways , for instance because she has this Kantian influence that confuses between an individual and a group , making a group of a specific identity (you-family-neighbourhood-city-state-country) into an identy that could act out as egoist in an ethical manner. From what i've read of Kant (which is scant, ha, ha ha) I think he was very bright but uhm, well. What were the two types of knowledge? A-priori and what? Regardless in an argument a long time ago I illustrated a fundamental flaw in his classifications. It was that thread a LONG time ago by ConsequentAiheist regarding Agnosticism. Something about limited or delimited. Accept it Ghassan, the subjective is inescapable. Think Einstein. Relativity isn't just in Missouri ya know. It's centered around the concept of a POV. Learn a little something from he of the exhaulted and large hair - subjectivity is your daddy, it is your freakin GRANDFATHER'S FATHER'S FATHER when it comes to knowledge of experience, which cannot be separated from ontology.
Acknowledge my genius or perish! Sorry it just felt good to say it. I'll expect flames. /You are pretty much missing the point of moral philosophy and the use of ethical theory. Am not. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Heh. You like to think I miss a lot of points eh? Do I do that to you too? (EDIT: I see that I've answered my question, bad wesley! I suppose we breeze right by one another eh?) Shit I dunno. I'll re-read some stuff and contemplate it if I remember to do it. /Emotion is its origin , which has function through ensuring of our survival. Hehe, are you forgetting it was ME who taught you that? Hehe, kidding. I believe we've spent some time expanding on that notion, yes. Have you forgotten? /Our consciousness has created possibility to coprehend emotion and form it into logical theories that help us in this survival . What you are doing is pretty much diregarding the intellectual aspect that is highly relevant and in these theories , the purpose it has its succesfulniss. Would you care to illustrate exactly how so I can illustrate how you are mistaken? /To throw it all on emotion is to disregard conscious and social reality , which isnt a smart thing to do i the complex society of today . Who is missing what point? You are taking what I said out of context. I showed that relationship to illustrate how the person giving an argument can make the argument impossible. It had nothing to do with disregarding conscious and social reality. Why do you take it out of context? Maybe you didn't get it? Okay illustrate to me how an emotionally stunted idiot can possibly formulate a perspective regarding a political issue that isn't tainted by subjectivity on some level that inherntly creeps into all assertions? It's called your assumptions. To formulate a perspective you assume some things and implement a theory (however poorly) to understand it fully. Your assumptions ALWAYS get processed through your calculations, JUST LIKE CORN IN YOUR SHIT. Try to separate the two and all you get is shit all over your hands. /I think for the stone age your idea would pretty much go , but for now not really, I'm talking about human behavior. Humans behave as I said, you added some about changing it later which is not relevant only because what you're doing later is the same. You just changed your criteria of what is good and bad. Happens a lot with the humans don't you think?
Egoism I do not agree that it is irrelevant to this context because it proves the little relevance such rhetorical expression as "best" has , when you speak of the choice you make . Yes its best according you at that time and place because if it wouldnt be you would not choose it . Has this acknowledgement of best any value whatsoever even within your subjective reality ? Only at that time and place , problem is that in a wider perspective there is no relevance for this "best" whatsoever . Im sure you would aim at the idea of always a momentary experience , and the lack of cohesion to make any judgement outside of this context . Unfortunatly there's this thing called memory that wouldnt disprove such lack . Ofcourse you might be aiming at something totally different which , I guess I will have to wait untill you make your stand on it . Why do you assume that objective reality holds no place for multi-perspective based on certain level of subjectivity ? Your error lies in the fact that u assume absolute consciousness , which is not the case which is exactly the reason why epistemology does not equal ontology in this sense . Is there causal relation ? Sure there is , but ontology will always have superiority for as long as you do not coprehend your self-existince 100% . And you dont . Yes I agree with your claim that it is you making a choice no matter what , the problem is that you do not have full conscious controll over the choice that you are making and that is why epistomology in this case cant be set equal to ontology . Your line of thinking belongs more in Sartre's (and others who stand direct in its opposite) phenomenology than it does in this epistemological issue we're discussing . Your choice is more a question of freedom than consciousness . Ofcourse , but I do want to point out that little relevancy can be found in such theoretical realities , if we are speaking on a practical system of responsibility , as for instance within a political or other actual system . And nobody is is denying such necesarry encouragement , however there is an outlining of objectivity (which can go as far as human objectivity as I explained elsewhere) that he will have to maintain , and that he would maintain in order to create social value out of his subjective understanding of life . I mean it would be a total bitch for say a conversation as ours if my subjectiveity would lead me to developping my own way of communicating totally independant of the rules that you are upholding . agaffgwhrwkjhfs The fact that you cannot deduce my perfect subjective point in order for it to have social value , proves my point exactly . But what is alot more interesting , is that your defence of my attack on the errors within subjectivity have ended in a retalliation on objectivity and its errors . As you see I am fully going along with you in defending the objective reality , did you do the same regarding the subjective reality ? Let me then repeat myself so I can save you the trouble of scrolling back : Subjectivism in this sense , if consider of value itself , can be more of an obstacle to improving one-self than it can be a tool for explaining oneself . No why was this ? The border between acknowledging subjective reality and upholding subjectivity as a value is very thin , and when subjectvity is becoming a value itself the rate of tolerancy and understanding declines , because one gives more value of his own crap by defintion than the crap of another . Would the same person who would not hold this subjectivity as a value acknowledge the same value of his crap in compare to the other ? It would depend on the actual logic/reality etc etc that the other asserts . See my point ? You have to see my point now . I bet you even saw it the previous post , but you had no answer to it leading you to switch from defence to offense . I am not ad-homming you , how exactly am I trying to disprove an argument here by pointing to you as the problem of the argument ? The argument of the rhetorical trick has been made far before this sentence , so it does not stand on itself . Moreover the essential message of this sentence deals with informing you and not making an argument against you , but your defence-mechanism obviously takes charge of your so conscious self . The only thing you might have on me on this issue is the implication of trick , which creates a conscious element , but you mr. epistemologic should have no problems with this now should you . Or are you telling me that your rhetorical trick of subjectivism was not intended as a trick at al ? Has your ontology taken over ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Don't think you're excused , I consider compares of myself with any other person on this forum rather pathetic , be it on based on mine or their capabilities/incapabilities . I hope mr.subjective can find a place for such , no ? Now for your accusations that obviously deal with the same substance as above , how do I focus on appearances ? How was the information I was so friendly to hand you out regarding Ayn's acknowledgement and lack of subjectivism , in compare to your own theories , any distraction ? Very dissapointing Wesley Morris :bugeye: Please allow me to inform you with all honesty and no intentions whatsoever to rhetorically distract or whatever . Ayn Rand is severely traumatized by altruism , but her theory of ethical egoism is absolutely brilliant except for the Kantian error I already pointed out (equalizing an imaginary entity (such as country) as subject of egoism . Believe it or not but this confused lady (with her Kantian errors) is the ethical basis for Western society , and I dom not wish to insult you in any way by the following , but I made notice that your personal thinking regarding politics is highly subject to these errors . I agree with Ayn on a personal level and would draw the border ultimatly at personal relations , but direct and simplistic egoism as she propagates has no place whatsoever on issues dealing with millions and billions . And thats where Ive seen it pop up in your thinking , perhaps you are not fully aware of this choice you are making , but I do hope that you can take a moment , take her theory , and think about it a little on how it affects your political outlook . I dont hope you fall into what you have explained so wondefully on the sciforums-grabbing no interest thread . I cant help but wonder who inspired you to such wonderfull conclusions . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Kant has made me vomit in 3 phases : First through studying his Categorial Imperiativ , then through the historical reality his thoughts fit in as I was confronted with his nasty face (no this isnt an asthetical issue before you would see an actual reason to start about appearances) , and finally through understanding his influence on the world that surrounds me . You can understand that this has pretty much discouraged me to show any interest whatsoever on the other sections such as the epistemology you speak of , fortunatly enough (amazing Im saying this) they made me and my vision of Kant has rationalized a little bit , making me a much better of an objective judger of his works . Anyways what you speak of is the priori-posteriori distinction , in which Kant if Im correct , distininguishes intelectual knowledge (from the mind) and sensory knowledge (from perception) , and basis this on the already existing priori/posteriori distinctions from the mid-evils I believe as former-cause/latter-effect , and originates with Aristoteles' distinction of general-universal/specific-individual . Kant applies empiricism to distinguish : he acknowledges pure priori by as non-empirical , he acknowledges perfection in knowledge within combination of the pure and impure priory . Its not that bad , but im sure you denier of objectivity can be in no position to acknowledge existance of priori , or can you ? Anyways my point with Kant was his categorial imperiativ in which he makes rule to contemplate before practicing a certain action weither this specific action would be acceptable by everybody in all times . He equals that what is acceptable to others as what should be acceptable to him , and this is exactly how he mixes up the exterme relevant differences between quantities , by simply making them up as if they would exist and react on his actions , in order for him to judge the righteousness out of it . This mixing up of quantities , or difference between collective and indivual , is the horrific error that mis Rand has decided to implement in her theory . What I wonder is weither this was really her conscious choice , or the choice of her philosophical culture . To mankind within modern western society its clearly the latter , ofcourse without philosophy . Ever heard people complaining when you are acting something , with the argument of "what if everybody would be doing just like you" , then you have discovered the Kantian influence on our ethical societies . I know that regarding ethical egoism you have fallen subject to this error (the core error of indivdual-collective confusion) which really is strange with your subjectivity beliefs . Isnt it wonderfull that a mal-understanding of X can lead you to acknowledgement of mal-understanding of Y ? How the hell am I denying subjectivity ? Im not , you're the one denying objectivity while Im for practical and theoretical co-existance . I know that subjectivity is my daddy , but my daddy doesnt seem to know that the core of his subjectivity is an objective given based on his ontologic existance as a human , which he is far before he became a daddy . Deny objectivity and you deny that you are a human subject to the choices given to you or made by your ontologic defintion . You cannot CHOOSE to walk when you have no legs , just like you CANNOT fly because you dont have any wings . Can you change this epistemologically ? I would assume so based of the amazingness of epistemology and the origins it does give to our thoughts . Are you in any position to judge this possibility as reality ? Hell no . Get back to me when you're morph-man and adapt your ontologic idnetity to your epistemology and not the other way around .
Re: Acknowledge my genius or perish! You ask for things that have accured a long time ago , are you this insecure that you need literal confirmation ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But seriously ,aside of all the bull , you can know that you are one of the most intelligent peoples that I have communicated with in my entire life , perhaps even challenging my own position (which wouldnt be possible according to you mr.subjectivity) . However your genius restricts , and in your case it is restricted to the fields (rather the structure) of philosophy , which are overwelmingly abstract (the structres that is) . Socrates (in Plato's Thathetus) can make this point much better than I can so lets take a look at that for a minute : In every occasion, private as well as public, as I said at first, when he appears in a law-court, or in any place in which he has to speak of things which are at his feet and before his eyes, he is the jest, not only of Thracian handmaids but of the general herd, tumbling into wells and every sort of disaster through his inexperience. His awkwardness is fearful, and gives the impression of imbecility. When he is reviled, he has nothing personal to say in answer to the civilities of his adversaries, for he knows no scandals of any one, and they do not interest him; and therefore he is laughed at for his sheepishness; and when others are being praised and glorified, in the simplicity of his heart he cannot help going into fits of laughter, so that he seems to be a downright idiot. When he hears a tyrant or king eulogized, he fancies that he is listening to the praises of some keeper of cattle--a swineherd, or shepherd, or perhaps a cowherd, who is congratulated on the quantity of milk which he squeezes from them; and he remarks that the creature whom they tend, and out of whom they squeeze the wealth, is of a less tractable and more insidious nature. Then, again, he observes that the great man is of necessity as ill-mannered and uneducated as any shepherd--for he has no leisure, and he is surrounded by a wall, which is his mountain-pen. Hearing of enormous landed proprietors of ten thousand acres and more, our philosopher deems this to be a trifle, because he has been accustomed to think of the whole earth; and when they sing the praises of family, and say that some one is a gentleman because he can show seven generations of wealthy ancestors, he thinks that their sentiments only betray a dull and narrow vision in those who utter them, and who are not educated enough to look at the whole, nor to consider that every man has had thousands and ten thousands of progenitors, and among them have been rich and poor, kings and slaves, Hellenes and barbarians, innumerable. And when people pride themselves on having a pedigree of twenty-five ancestors, which goes back to Heracles, the son of Amphitryon, he cannot understand their poverty of ideas. Why are they unable to calculate that Amphitryon had a twenty-fifth ancestor, who might have been anybody, and was such as fortune made him, and he had a fiftieth, and so on? He amuses himself with the notion that they cannot count, and thinks that a little arithmetic would have got rid of their senseless vanity. Now, in all these cases our philosopher is derided by the vulgar, partly because he is thought to despise them, and also because he is ignorant of what is before him, and always at a loss. But, O my friend, when he draws the other into upper air, and gets him out of his pleas and rejoinders into the contemplation of justice and injustice in their own nature and in their difference from one another and from all other things; or from the commonplaces about the happiness of a king or of a rich man to the consideration of government, and of human happiness and misery in general--what they are, and how a man is to attain the one and avoid the other--when that narrow, keen, little legal mind is called to account about all this, he gives the philosopher his revenge; for dizzied by the height at which he is hanging, whence he looks down into space, which is a strange experience to him, he being dismayed, and lost, and stammering broken words, is laughed at, not by Thracian handmaidens or any other uneducated persons, for they have no eye for the situation, but by every man who has not been brought up a slave. I hope the philo-centric (subjective) words of Socrates do not stand in the way of the objective truth that lies behind his observation of the differences . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I know that you are aware of this issue presented by Socrates , but oftenly you fail to bring in this awareness when you discuss the "lower" things , and that is what I have pointed out to you more than once in the past . Clearly your genious doesnt reach the level of succes in these areas , so lets get back to philosophy : And here the interesting Kant (yea he wishes) theory comes into place , where your empirical centrism becomes your disavantage . You see mr.philosopher , it is all that comes from the mind that you are relying your genious on , unfortunatly the fields where this genious expresses itself best have the empirical reality that you have been bitching to me about for ages , and you see , your empirical reality is kind of shitty , without the proper education . But the most wonderfull thing is that I am sure you have full awareness of this , and actually acknowledged it as a problem in the other thread regarding intellect and education , on which I disagree with you . And it is exactly that disagreement that shows your subjection in which your socalled choices become dependant of your possibilities and understanding of things around you . The handcipa you described there is real , the cause is imaginary , but I shall expand more on that on the proper thread . I hope you didnt consider the rambling in response to your genious as the flaming you expected , it surely wasnt intended as such . Im sorry if the missing of points seems to be a main issue Im throwing at you , perhaps Im unaware of the quantites etc but regarding this specific issue you did miss the point . But since you already quote/respond to the words I used regarding this , I shall leave it at this and answer as we progress . Very much so kidding I hope :bugeye: But yes we did spent time expanding the notion , and perhaps in the future we should do that some more in a more specific thread with a more specific ethical aim . Perhaps then indeed I didnt get it , so I will look at it once more : Hmm, to me "ethics" is a no-brainer. I've framed it in my mind as a perception really, as it seems that people's sense of empathy and fairness is either stunted or it isn't - though this is complicated by culture and one's natural propensity to "relate" (if there is such a thing, which I'd imagine that at least in a certain context there would have to be). Bah. Rambling. For real though I generally think that ethics is associated with empathy which is associated with emotions which is fucked if you're damaged or under-developed. Now tell me exactly how you acknowledge and value the relevance of intellectual contemplation and social reality when it comes to this "no-brainer" you call ethics . If you mean to say that the origin is a no-brainer because its emotional , you have a great point . However if you disregard the forming of ethical theory and moral philosophy based on intelligent unbderstanding of these emotions then my point has been made . So lets assume that I was the one who didnt get it for you to explain how and what this is about . Only if you seperate it like like some idiot in your toilet , bring it to the lab and you will see shit disected like you've never seen before . I understand that there always is assumptions , thats what science and life is all about , assuming shit to be true so u can base logics on it to deduce new conclusions . Can you not perfect your premisses because of this ? Can one not make dumber assumptions than the other ? But aside of this , in reality shit is being formulated and contemplated by idiots and geniousses regardless of the possibility of result , which basicly means that you have to deal with it . I understand if you wish to do away with it , but then do so . You don't , you like any other go along with the assumptions game , and not to a minimum I might ad mr.capitalist . So show me how you are not being a hypocritical whining little bitch that doesnt want to formulate shit because it would be impossible yet at the same time living up to all the formulas that are created regardless of the possibility to succeed . Here's the news , animals do no different but simply cannot have conscious comprehension of it . We can and that is where it changes , does the origin change ? Does the reality of our pathetic attempt to do right based on our parthetic instict change ? No What has changed is our capability to understand our processes and let this understanding influence in sofar that we can be more succesfull at this shit . Yes I changed criteria , because my consciousness give me possibility to improve it , not diregarding any origin of where it is coming from . Consciousness is an accident that can help you or fuck you . I choose to lead it so that the first possibility is being actualized . The third option is what you seem to be doing , and that is disregarding it . Perhaps you have a great point with it , but within this modern society it is just plain stupid .
Re: Egoism /I do not agree that it is irrelevant to this context because it proves the little relevance such rhetorical expression as "best" has , when you speak of the choice you make. Why do you contend it to be rhetoric? In the pertinent context, the function of thought is to optimize the results of actions to acheive the desired consequences. This means that people do what is best for them. How is that rhetorical? /Yes its best according you at that time and place because if it wouldnt be you would not choose it . Has this acknowledgement of best any value whatsoever even within your subjective reality? Absolutely. It is the value you place in your own mind indeed, most literally. It is your investment in your thoughts. The acknowledgement of "best" in this function is indicative as to acknowledgement of the function being optimized. /Only at that time and place , problem is that in a wider perspective there is no relevance for this "best" whatsoever . Exactly where does this "wider perspective" exist other than in your mind? /Im sure you would aim at the idea of always a momentary experience , and the lack of cohesion to make any judgement outside of this context. And you are correct. It's not a lack of cohesion rather than a complete deficit of any other time than "the moment". The past and future only exist in our minds. Both are pure abstract. /Unfortunatly there's this thing called memory that wouldnt disprove such lack. And exactly when is memory usefull? Your "bigger picture" only exists as a subset of the conceptual inter-relationships in your mind. What of them in all perspectives but yours? You may be right about some things but what if your entire perspective is completely flawed because you missed a fucking negative sign somewhere or your assumptoin didn't include an apostrophe? I only ask in the context of authoritative epistemology, if you can follow my somewhat obscure point. /Why do you assume that objective reality holds no place for multi-perspective based on certain level of subjectivity ? That was supposed to say "perceptual culpability". /Your error lies in the fact that u assume absolute consciousness How am I doing that? I never did that, I said I ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY for my consciousness. I do this because it is the only possible route besides luck to the strength of acceptance, will and understanding. Do you see the difference? Note that I take NO responsibility for that which is not in my understanding or sphere of control. I can maximize my local influence to the highest degree to my ability and confidence (once I'm sure it has merit) at a given time. In this manner I fullfill my mandate of satisfying one's compulsion (the result of 'choices' or the "action chosen" when one engages thought/interaction) /which is not the case which is exactly the reason why epistemology does not equal ontology in this sense. I think I've shown you YOUR mistake and that they ARE the same. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Such is the method eh? At least we can enjoy the journey. /Is there causal relation ? Sure there is , but ontology will always have superiority for as long as you do not coprehend your self-existince 100% . And you dont. Taking 100% responsibility amounts to the same effect. /Yes I agree with your claim that it is you making a choice no matter what , the problem is that you do not have full conscious controll over the choice that you are making and that is why epistomology in this case cant be set equal to ontology . I have control over the thoughts that lead to the choice. This shapes the framework of the choice. This means in a round about way, I 100% control my choice. Further, I claim responsibility for that choice regardless of the control I can exert in making it. Of course if the choice is made outside my realm of control (for instance I am shot at or attacked, etc.) I cannot take responsibilty for those events. I can merely accept them and seek an alternative environment. If I could not find one I would attempt to bear with the pressures of the current environment until I could escape or annihilate it. I would assume that eventually I would be driven mad by a fully oppressive environment. I'm not sure danger would bother me as much as a cage. /Your line of thinking belongs more in Sartre's (and others who stand direct in its opposite) phenomenology than it does in this epistemological issue we're discussing . I wouldn't know. I really haven't read many philosophers. I've read bits and pieces of each, but tend to avoid it for fear of contamination. Well that and I generally find them boring. I don't like to watch baseball, I like to play it. Maybe I'm good enough for the big leagues, maybe not but regardless my imperative is to develop MY philosophy, through sharing ideas with others. I simply love it. It's inspiring. /Your choice is more a question of freedom than consciousness . Without freedom what good is consciousness? The imperative is to fulfill the abilities of the system (a person is the system in this case). (note that one might think that the distribution of different aspects of a person, how far they can jump, how good they are at chess, that kind of thing is also a multitude of functions, constantly being optimised through interactions in the different facets of each individual POV's exerience. Many in harmony, many at odds) to Disallow the system freedom and it can go terminal, depending on a lot of operational parameters like "In what manner am I allowed freedom and how does that jive with whatever aspect of the actions required to fulfull my function?" and related issues. /Ofcourse , but I do want to point out that little relevancy can be found in such theoretical realities , if we are speaking on a practical system of responsibility , as for instance within a political or other actual system . I believe I'm speaking ontologically and epistemologically at the same time. I'm not talking about theory. I don't even remember half the shit I type. This is derivation. This is the resultant of my thoughts in flow. I don't think it's impractical at all. It's the absolute truth as I see it. It changes all the time. Generally not fundamentally. What exists is enhanced through interactions like these. You know what is weird is earlier the thought "maybe I have just created 'the deen of me' for myself. Seemed noteworthy. /And nobody is is denying such necesarry encouragement , however there is an outlining of objectivity (which can go as far as human objectivity as I explained elsewhere) that he will have to maintain , and that he would maintain in order to create social value out of his subjective understanding of life. He cannot maintain objectivity as he is a subjective being. He can try, but it cannot be. If one is not constantly conscious of such conditions, one will almost certainly fall into the trappings of exploded ego (which can really simply be thought of as "accepting that the objective is knowable" if you analyze it thoroughly). This would necessarily result in argument from authority for all but a few people on Earth I'd guess. /I mean it would be a total bitch for say a conversation as ours if my subjectiveity would lead me to developping my own way of communicating totally independant of the rules that you are upholding . Well yes. You speak in essence of the price of knowledge and understanding. I thing understanding is of higher emphasis to knowledge, as all knowledge is pointless without it. I've lost context though and I'm not sure how counters anything I've said. I'm just not sure how "your subjectivity" is an issue. It simply IS regardless of your developing your own way of whatever. Really you are developing your own way of speaking, thinking - etc. I mean, how many people do you think that could read this, could understand it at all? Especially out of the context of the rest of our conversations? *shrug* /The fact that you cannot deduce my perfect subjective point in order for it to have social value, proves my point exactly. How does your "perfect subjective point" have social value besides in the interpretation of those to experience it? /But what is alot more interesting , is that your defence of my attack on the errors within subjectivity have ended in a retalliation on objectivity and its errors. You think I'm cheating? Hehe. I'm not damnit I promise. If I did anything wrong I did it earnestly. I didn't notice this because... As you see I am fully going along with you in defending the objective reality , did you do the same regarding the subjective reality? Yes I did actually but as soon as I started thinking about it the same thing that always happens when I think about it. It dissipates into fantasy. It's no more than a theoretical limit. Something that must be considered but is always out of reach. Certainly it is our job to search for it, but we cannot find it if we pretend it is attainable. Do you see? Kind of weird I think. The extents of logic. I'm sure we'll get back to this. /No why was this ? The border between acknowledging subjective reality and upholding subjectivity as a value is very thin , and when subjectvity is becoming a value itself the rate of tolerancy and understanding declines , because one gives more value of his own crap by defintion than the crap of another. I don't see subjectivity as a value. I see it as a stark reality. /Would the same person who would not hold this subjectivity as a value acknowledge the same value of his crap in compare to the other? Certainly he would. Everyone is invested in the abstraction of their experiences. /It would depend on the actual logic/reality etc etc that the other asserts. Well no not really. It would depend on that person's ego. Regardless of the accuracy of their observations in the objective context (which is only imaginary), that person is right to themselves until proven otherwise to them. Otherwise that person is wholly convinced of whatever reality they have created in their mind. The actual logic/reality etc etc really is only applicable to analysis, study of the system, problem solving, etc. It has nothing to do with whether or not a person holds this subjective as a value except that in order to ascertain the negative impression of the unattainable objective. In other words, of course 'if you are right or not is important', but to be right you have to know that the objective rightness cannot be claimed on more than a subjective level. Er, I'm pretty sure anyway. /See my point ? You have to see my point now. I bet you even saw it the previous post , but you had no answer to it leading you to switch from defence to offense. I don't know now if I did then but I do now and still object based on interference of conceptual organization. I cannot integrate your assertions into mine because I do not let them jive because the structure of my mind is based on them. I try dilligently to re-assert my own structure by the experience of the reasoning that re-enforces it while attempting to dissect the aspects of your reasoning that strengthens (or alters if you introduce something I'm unfamiliar with) the structure behind my own position - unless faced with an obvious mistake, which I force myself to stop and accept to the best of my ability. /I am not ad-homming you , how exactly am I trying to disprove an argument here by pointing to you as the problem of the argument ? You accused me of rhetoric. In my opinion that is equivalent to saying I'm the problem, not my logic. Maybe I took it out of context. I see it as a comment on my character and skill of analysis. I'm sure now that you didn't mean it that way - you're simply doing the same thing to me that I'm doing to you. Such is fair. /The argument of the rhetorical trick has been made far before this sentence , so it does not stand on itself. I only remember you mentioning it once and I let it go because I figured you didn't mean it as an attack on character. The second time it seemed more character-related. I believe this is a misunderstanding. /Moreover the essential message of this sentence deals with informing you and not making an argument against you , but your defence-mechanism obviously takes charge of your so conscious self . Certainly. (I am actually conscious of my defense mechanisms. The actual construction and implementation thereof would make an interesting thread I'd think) I'm conscious of it - just not all the time. You're right in a way. It was an underlying watchdog which had noted it before and when provoked a second time, was programmed to attack. It seemed as I said above. /The only thing you might have on me on this issue is the implication of trick , which creates a conscious element , but you mr. epistemologic should have no problems with this now should you. I had the problem I described above. /Or are you telling me that your rhetorical trick of subjectivism was not intended as a trick at al? It was not. /Has your ontology taken over ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes, but epistemology and ontology are not separate. /Don't think you're excused , I consider compares of myself with any other person on this forum rather pathetic , be it on based on mine or their capabilities/incapabilities . Oh get a sense of humor and don't think I'd slander you. I said that because it seems that the other person I mentioned sees you as a role model and I wanted to make a dig on you as if you were meeting and mentoring him, I probably could have phrased it better but that was imaginary strategizing session that I saw in my head for a second. I cracked a smile and tried to write it down. Obviously you are his daddy by far. Are you so insecure that you actually need to hear the words??? LOL. Again, JOKING - promise. /Now for your accusations that obviously deal with the same substance as above , how do I focus on appearances? It was a passing thought regarding your assertion of rhetoric. Obviously I was mistaken. The "appearances" part came from another conversation where I'd been thinking that about another scenario. I think there was some conceptual bleed-over. /How was the information I was so friendly to hand you out regarding Ayn's acknowledgement and lack of subjectivism, in compare to your own theories, any distraction ? It wasn't. I remember thinking it was interesting. I was still rambling about my offence to your accusation of rhetoric or trickery. I wasn't referring to your discussion of Rand, merely your comment of rhetoric. As I mentioned, at the time it seemed conspicuous. Now, not. Pardon. /Please allow me to inform you with all honesty and no intentions whatsoever to rhetorically distract or whatever . /Ayn Rand is severely traumatized by altruism I remember thinking that when i finished the fountainhead. I was like "my fucking GOD that bitch is unyielding". It was the most impressive thing I'd ever read at the time. It took me a while to sort out why she was fucked up. /but her theory of ethical egoism is absolutely brilliant except for the Kantian error I already pointed out (equalizing an imaginary entity (such as country) as subject of egoism. Honestly I think I've corrected it. Maybe too brazen of me. Surely I could not be so brilliant? It messes with my head. I'm sometimes in a difficult spot with agnosticism, as it can be dizzying. When I step back it seems that the most sensible perspective is "surely you are not, you cannot win the game from the sidelines" but then I realize, this site is my first step onto he field. Maybe it's just high-school games, but part of the reason I'm here to see if I've got potential to go pro and/or to develop my ideas and contrast them with others. /Believe it or not but this confused lady (with her Kantian errors) is the ethical basis for Western society , and I dom not wish to insult you in any way by the following , but How is that true? I would probably see it differently, but I need to take a class or few eh? Ack. I needs to get my ass financially independent so I can go to school and write books and stuff. /I made notice that your personal thinking regarding politics is highly subject to these errors. But I do not make the same Kantian errors that she did and my analysis is truly my own (which is maybe bad?) in that what I say could not be someone else's words since I don't really have any to give. I've thought about stuff a lot. It's what I do. I expect to defend whatever I say so I'm as careful as I can manage while still getting it out of my head. It's a balancing act. Eh, I'm just trying to get you to understand that "western influence" means NOTHING to me besides I know that I have it from having been in it my whole life. I have advantages in that my brain functions well and that helps insulate me front the full force of the tendency to bias. *shrug* My words are put forth in earnest so if you see errors, attack them. I'll attempt to explain why I think they're right and we'll see where it goes. /I agree with Ayn on a personal level and would draw the border ultimatly at personal relations , but direct and simplistic egoism as she propagates has no place whatsoever on issues dealing with millions and billions. Me too but you're still not seeing what I'm driving at. I'm trying to understand the system. Here I thought I explained it well to hype: link /And thats where Ive seen it pop up in your thinking , perhaps you are not fully aware of this choice you are making , but I do hope that you can take a moment , take her theory , and think about it a little on how it affects your political outlook . I can see how you might draw that conclusion. I've thought about it. I don't think I'm doing that. As a matter of fact I'm pretty confident that is not at all what is happening. I'm sure there are commonalities between her view and mine, but you have to realize: I'm trying to look at it as an investigation of root cause. I'm giving you what I've gleaned from observing the system and from my knowledge and gift for systematic type thinking. Do you know what industrial engineers do? Think linear algebra! Optimize functions and such. /I dont hope you fall into what you have explained so wondefully on the sciforums-grabbing no interest thread . The point is that it's happening, like it or don't. We're already in it... We can only try to get close to the top where there is air. /I cant help but wonder who inspired you to such wonderfull conclusions . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am a product of my attempt to be the most me that I can, my initial conditions and my environment. I believe I've reached that conclusion because it's consistent with my entire philosophy. Maybe I'm just a puppet. How would I know? /Kant has made me vomit in 3 phases : First through studying his Categorial Imperiativ , then through the historical reality his thoughts fit in as I was confronted with his nasty face (no this isnt an asthetical issue before you would see an actual reason to start about appearances) , and finally through understanding his influence on the world that surrounds me . I don't know his work well enough to comment. /Its not that bad , but im sure you denier of objectivity can be in no position to acknowledge existance of priori , or can you? You are correct. IMO Knowledge cannot be objective. /Anyways my point with Kant was his categorial imperiativ in which he makes rule to contemplate before practicing a certain action weither this specific action would be acceptable by everybody in all times . Wow. A noble but horrificly impractical and idealistc notion. /He equals that what is acceptable to others as what should be acceptable to him , and this is exactly how he mixes up the exterme relevant differences between quantities , by simply making them up as if they would exist and react on his actions , in order for him to judge the righteousness out of it . And you see this as what I'm doing eh? /This mixing up of quantities , or difference between collective and indivual , is the horrific error that mis Rand has decided to implement in her theory . What I wonder is weither this was really her conscious choice , or the choice of her philosophical culture. A great question. I see exactly what you mean and would just ask that you consider that I might not be doing that. The difference may be subtle, but I see it very differently. My entire perspective is basically built on individualism as a means of maximizing the possibility of everyone having their way, while maintaining strict ethics based on the four components I listed to Hype: freedom responsibility accountability compassion IMO, this is the recognition that miss Rand screwed up on. She would necessarily demand that I subject myself to her altruistic principles. If you'll note, I am Mr. Subjectivity. There is a big difference but you kind of have to make sense of all the bullshit I've written to see it. I realize that might not be easy as I'm not always sure how clearly it is possible for me to communicate what I mean. When I read it, i see it as perfect sense but apparently when you do.. hehe. Well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't think I make as much sense to others as I do to me. /To mankind within modern western society its clearly the latter , ofcourse without philosophy . Good point, I'd never seen it in that context. Ultimately though it's somewhat inconsequential as to who did what. /Ever heard people complaining when you are acting something , with the argument of "what if everybody would be doing just like you" , then you have discovered the Kantian influence on our ethical societies . Sure. Crazy that people would but that shit. I suppose one has to buy something and apparently not many have the sense for much more. It's weird, I've always felt that ethics was just plain obvious. It still seems strange to me when people don't get it. /I know that regarding ethical egoism you have fallen subject to this error (the core error of indivdual-collective confusion) which really is strange with your subjectivity beliefs . /Isnt it wonderfull that a mal-understanding of X can lead you to acknowledgement of mal-understanding of Y ? Man it's insidious and in a way can be thought of as the reason behind my whole subjectivity thing. Acknowledgement of error at all levels. /How the hell am I denying subjectivity ? Im not , you're the one denying objectivity while Im for practical and theoretical co-existance. Hehe, you know to me that acceptance of the idea of objectivity as even remotely realistic or more than a theoretical limit is to deny subjectivity. *shrug* It's the nature of my position. It's perspective. It's why we argue. It's subjectivity. /I know that subjectivity is my daddy , but my daddy doesnt seem to know that the core of his subjectivity is an objective given based on his ontologic existance as a human , which he is far before he became a daddy . that's because knowledge (IMO) doesn't extend to the limit at which I can know that as an absolute. I can be pretty sure though. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! /Deny objectivity and you deny that you are a human subject to the choices given to you or made by your ontologic defintion . Not at all. Lack of knowledge about something doesn't mean that something can't kill me or limit me. I don't deny that the objective exists - I just insist that by its very nature it cannot be known, only thought about in terms of probabilities. I don't mind making assumptions to get through life but if you are going to assert things to be true regarding this that or the other, I will bring this up if it seems pertinent to me. /You cannot CHOOSE to walk when you have no legs , just like you CANNOT fly because you dont have any wings. Of course you can't. I could choose to contend that I do or can. Though there may be a litany of negative repurcussions for my choices, it's still valid for me to make them. It's also valid for you to call me an idiot for doing so, as these opinions are of little to no consequence to other people (unless they are somehow invested in either of our actions). I can pretend you aren't going to kill me right up until the moment that you do. /Can you change this epistemologically ? I would assume so based of the amazingness of epistemology and the origins it does give to our thoughts . I think so, yes as I described above. I'm sure we'll discuss it more. /Are you in any position to judge this possibility as reality ? Yes, for me I can judge it all I want. I only expect you to believe me on the merits of my argument along with your inclination and/or ability to accept or reject it. /Hell no . Get back to me when you're morph-man and adapt your ontologic idnetity to your epistemology and not the other way around. Hehe, I'm no morph-man as I tend to attempt to accept my perception on faith and think I've adapted it to give me a realistic picture of what's happening in my environment. I don't however, insist this to be so since so many people seem to get so many different ideas and perceptions that differ so distinctly from my own.
2 down /You ask for things that have accured a long time ago , are you this insecure that you need literal confirmation ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Even a humble ego requires fuel from time to time. Thank you. /But seriously ,aside of all the bull , you can know that you are one of the most intelligent peoples that I have communicated with in my entire life , perhaps even challenging my own position (which wouldnt be possible according to you mr.subjectivity). I reciprocate the assessment. Thank you again. /However your genius restricts Opportunity cost can be a bitch. For every "what you are" there are infinite "what you are not"s. /and in your case it is restricted to the fields (rather the structure) of philosophy , which are overwelmingly abstract (the structres that is). And obviously that perspective seems pertinent to me at any level of analysis, at least to some extent. When it comes to politics and economics, it seems terribly important. In politics, poor understanding of philosophy gets you ignorance on nico's scale. I mean all things considered nico has impressive potential but if his attitude is allowed as influential in a political schema, it's horrible - not because he's silly, but because he's shallow and all of his opinion/analysis follows. I will concede however if one were able to maintain a scientific perpective regarding these issues one might escape the applicability of philosophy in this area, but that obviously a large portion of my argument is that this is simply not possible as of yet, as there is no means of real science with which to analyze politics which is IMO, incredibly abstract. /Socrates (in Plato's Thathetus) can make this point much better than I can so lets take a look at that for a minute : /I hope the philo-centric (subjective) words of Socrates do not stand in the way of the objective truth that lies behind his observation of the differences . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually it did. I had to read it a few times to have half a clue what he's trying to say. I get it, but I don't think that's really what I'm going as I tried to explain above. If I didn't make it clear I'll try harder in my next follow-up. /I know that you are aware of this issue presented by Socrates , but oftenly you fail to bring in this awareness when you discuss the "lower" things , and that is what I have pointed out to you more than once in the past . I'm aware of it but don't bring it up because again at this point it seems like theory. Science and Politics? I don't see it, that makes philosophy relevant. /Clearly your genious doesnt reach the level of succes in these areas , so lets get back to philosophy : I disagree, you just have yet to fully appreciate my perspective. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ah, maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. /You see mr.philosopher , it is all that comes from the mind that you are relying your genious on , unfortunatly the fields where this genious expresses itself best have the empirical reality that you have been bitching to me about for ages , and you see , your empirical reality is kind of shitty , without the proper education. In what way to you see my empirical reality kind of shitty? /But the most wonderfull thing is that I am sure you have full awareness of this , and actually acknowledged it as a problem in the other thread regarding intellect and education , on which I disagree with you . I have a decent education damnit. Certainly anyone could use more but I found engineering incredibly stimulating. Maybe I'm not as bright as you think? I mean, I'm aware that to YOU my empirical reality is shitty, but to me it isn't. What I acknowledge is that most likely our opinions of these kinds of issues will differ. /And it is exactly that disagreement that shows your subjection in which your socalled choices become dependant of your possibilities and understanding of things around you . How does that keep me from shaping my mind over time to change the way I make choices? /The handcipa you described there is real , the cause is imaginary , but I shall expand more on that on the proper thread . Give me the link damnit. /I hope you didnt consider the rambling in response to your genious as the flaming you expected , it surely wasnt intended as such . Nope, killing me with kindness eh? What a bastard. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! /Im sorry if the missing of points seems to be a main issue Im throwing at you , perhaps Im unaware of the quantites etc but regarding this specific issue you did miss the point . No stress, it's just the way of things. /But since you already quote/respond to the words I used regarding this , I shall leave it at this and answer as we progress . *kowtow* /Very much so kidding I hope :bugeye: :bugeye: /But yes we did spent time expanding the notion , and perhaps in the future we should do that some more in a more specific thread with a more specific ethical aim . That would be interesting. Give me a link when you start the thread. /Perhaps then indeed I didnt get it , so I will look at it once more : Hmm, to me "ethics" is a no-brainer. I've framed it in my mind as a perception really, as it seems that people's sense of empathy and fairness is either stunted or it isn't - though this is complicated by culture and one's natural propensity to "relate" (if there is such a thing, which I'd imagine that at least in a certain context there would have to be). Bah. Rambling. For real though I generally think that ethics is associated with empathy which is associated with emotions which is fucked if you're damaged or under-developed. /Now tell me exactly how you acknowledge and value the relevance of intellectual contemplation and social reality when it comes to this "no-brainer" you call ethics . I say no-brainer because to me it seems automatic as I described somewhere recently. The relevance comes in regarding the matter of cause and effect when it comes to pondering how/why situations/people become as they are and what will yield a net change in the desirable direction. IMO, social reality DEMANDS intellectual contemplation of ethics on a grand scale, at which it is more complex than the no-brainer. Pardon if I've mixed contexts at some point, but my thinking of ethics as a no-brainer can come to the conclusion of "no answer" when decisions have no ethical solution. There is no ethical solution to "kill this innocent person or this innocent person" besides the flip of a coin. As you know it can get complicated from there. My point was that if you're a jacked up person and have no understanding of these philosophical issues, you will make poor judgements. Further I am always attempting to imply that all of the "systems" that tie us together on this planet are so hopelessly integrated that cause and effect are extremely illusive. Hell man, just discerning good and bad is pretty much only possible as a matter of perspective. If your evolutionary function is to be a murderer, then you are good if you are a murderer even though I would think that you're a murderer. That puts you (the murderer I mean) at odds with me (and you (you) I would assume) since I don't desire to be murdered. Not wanting to be murdered creates integrates quite differently into ethics, changing one's ethical perception significantly as we know. If we fail to recognize this inherent difference in perspective, our attempts to strategize will be hindered. /If you mean to say that the origin is a no-brainer because its emotional , you have a great point . I didn't mean to say that. I suppose I mostly agree with it. I've explained my retardedness I think. /However if you disregard the forming of ethical theory and moral philosophy based on intelligent unbderstanding of these emotions then my point has been made. But I wouldn't. It's just that my perspective renders my theory significantly different than yours, even though many of our observations are similar. /So lets assume that I was the one who didnt get it for you to explain how and what this is about . I hope I did so. I tried damnit. /Only if you seperate it like like some idiot in your toilet , bring it to the lab and you will see shit disected like you've never seen before . There is no lab for this. I appreciate your good intent but you know as well as I there is no way to do that. Sure you can try, but well, I've pointed out what i see to be the flaws in your efforts. /I understand that there always is assumptions , thats what science and life is all about , assuming shit to be true so u can base logics on it to deduce new conclusions . I just think socio-economics is tremendously affected by presumptions as subjectivity complicates it further than you seem to think. I don't think it's possible to be scientific about it unless you start as wholly agnostic. You seeminly disagree. /Can you not perfect your premisses because of this ? Can one not make dumber assumptions than the other ? IMO, premises are basically equivalent to opinion. /But aside of this , in reality shit is being formulated and contemplated by idiots and geniousses regardless of the possibility of result , which basicly means that you have to deal with it. Agreed. Like I said, impossible decisions must be made. It all comes down to which set of assumptions you choose, which is as I said - your opinion - which is also what puts you on your team. I didn't mean to imply you didn't choose it - but it doesn't matter if you did or not because you end up on one anyway. /I understand if you wish to do away with it , but then do so . You don't , you like any other go along with the assumptions game , and not to a minimum I might ad mr.capitalist . You're missing what I'm trying to do. I'm a problem solver. I want to understand the system such that I can shine light on it for those idiots who might attempt to make retarded decisions without my light. In this area I sincerely doubt I can succeed because people just do what they want (and I doubt many are able to really get what I'm driving at), but I enjoy the discussion regardless. I am retarded enough to think I'm looking at it more clearly than most. In my defense I have a lot of evidence that this is indeed the case (your compliments included *kowtow*). /So show me how you are not being a hypocritical whining little bitch that doesnt want to formulate shit because it would be impossible yet at the same time living up to all the formulas that are created regardless of the possibility to succeed . I hope I've illustrated how I'm doing exactly the opposite of that. I'll see when you respond eh? /Here's the news , animals do no different but simply cannot have conscious comprehension of it . We can and that is where it changes , does the origin change ? Does the reality of our pathetic attempt to do right based on our parthetic instict change ? No Agreed but once in a while people come along who take the whole thing to a new level eh? Let's give it a go shall we? /What has changed is our capability to understand our processes and let this understanding influence in sofar that we can be more succesfull at this shit. To an extent maybe. I'm not sure we'd agree on to what extent. This makes me think of the point I made about nico. Great equipment doesn't improve things much if the operators can't figure out the instruction manual. /Yes I changed criteria , because my consciousness give me possibility to improve it , not diregarding any origin of where it is coming from . I didn't imply that changing your opinion is bad, it is the way of things is what I was implying. The immediate effects the long term; in the present, the long term changes. /Consciousness is an accident that can help you or fuck you . I choose to lead it so that the first possibility is being actualized . I'm down with that. /The third option is what you seem to be doing , and that is disregarding it. From this I read that you think I am disregarding consciousness? That can't be right so I'll have to ask that you re-iterate. Would you mind clarifying please (or disregard, as you wish)? /Perhaps you have a great point with it , but within this modern society it is just plain stupid. ROFLMAO Well at least you managed to stay emotionally nuetral as you acknowledge my genius and call me plain stupid in the same post. You sir, are quite the talent. *kowtow*
