Poof !
in [Physics]
|
Prev: ARCTIC OCEAN WARMING, ICEBERGS GROWING SCARCE, WASHINGTON POSTREPORTS [33 scary quotes since 1870]
Next: From Where the WTC Idiocy Starts - Hank the Fired Janitor
From: slider on 6 Apr 2010 10:41 Tom wrote... > ### - besides one fairly decent conversation with him i've had a couple of > less-than-pleasant run-in's with tom that didn't end well, so i could perhaps > accept that on that basis (i.e. he might just have been goading you kinda thing > to > be less than friendly yourself towards me, although i do think that would also > somewhat tarnish his otherwise 'always-intellectually-correct' stance as that > would have been/constituted something less than completely reasonable behaviour > on his part) Intellect is the self-checking mechanism of directed consciousness. Without it, magick generates delusions, as can readily be seen by reading the posts of alt.magick. The most immediate indicator of delusion is the knee-jerk resentment of the claimant when evidence is requested by a skeptic. Intuition and emotional reaction are powerful and require no particular discipline, which is why so dabblers, poseurs, and impatient neophyte students of magick tend to rely on those capacities almost exclusively. They rebel against the discipline of logic because it's a buzz-kill for their fantasies. It's laziness, mainly. ### - well this raises quite a few valid points tom, your cool detachment and apparent objectivity + clarity in raising questions that any 'reasonable' person should 'at-least' consider before committing to anything, is only belied by the fact that you yourself, without any warning whatsoever, are liable to suddenly descend to such similar clarity-destroying 'emotionalism' thus fostering/increasing the very thing(s) you currently now decry + highlight above? i.e. you can't have it both ways bud, either you are awake and astute and alert, and as-such + to your credit, are seriously reflecting on all these things and apparently doing quite well, or you're only posing as such in order to be able to refer to people as "fucktards" and the like, which just about 'anyone' can see are deliberate emotional 'prods' which accomplish absolutely nothing except to actually worsen the situation you're currently + quite-coolly delineating above? that, or you're perhaps genuinely staggering drunkenly back and forth between the two (poles), in which case you merely need to bring yourself to order (e.g. by a conscious/deliberate act of 'will') and as-such end all this 'vacillation' and the erratic vibration that all this vacillating creates, not only in others but also in yourself (you're perhaps inadvertently just perpetuating it all i mean) plus i'm genuinely interested in your response... --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Tom on 6 Apr 2010 11:36 On Apr 6, 7:41 am, "slider" <sli...(a)anashram.com> wrote: > Tom wrote... > > Intellect is the self-checking mechanism of directed consciousness. > Without it, magick generates delusions, as can readily be seen by > reading the posts of alt.magick. The most immediate indicator of > delusion is the knee-jerk resentment of the claimant when evidence is > requested by a skeptic. Intuition and emotional reaction are powerful > and require no particular discipline, which is why so dabblers, > poseurs, and impatient neophyte students of magick tend to rely on > those capacities almost exclusively. They rebel against the > discipline of logic because it's a buzz-kill for their fantasies. > It's laziness, mainly. > > ### - well this raises quite a few valid points tom, your cool detachment and > apparent objectivity + clarity in raising questions that any 'reasonable' person > should 'at-least' consider before committing to anything, is only belied by the > fact that you yourself, without any warning whatsoever, are liable to suddenly > descend to such similar clarity-destroying 'emotionalism' thus > fostering/increasing the very thing(s) you currently now decry + highlight above? One can be both intellectually rigorous and emotionally active. They are not mutually exclusive. The magician does not suppress emotion nor ignore intellect. Consciousness is a complete package. > i.e. you can't have it both ways bud, Why not? I can see no reason at all to make emotion and intellect mutually exclusive functions. Rather, they can and should be complementary and simultaneous.
From: slider on 6 Apr 2010 12:39 Tom wrote... > Intellect is the self-checking mechanism of directed consciousness. > Without it, magick generates delusions, as can readily be seen by > reading the posts of alt.magick. The most immediate indicator of > delusion is the knee-jerk resentment of the claimant when evidence is > requested by a skeptic. Intuition and emotional reaction are powerful > and require no particular discipline, which is why so dabblers, > poseurs, and impatient neophyte students of magick tend to rely on > those capacities almost exclusively. They rebel against the > discipline of logic because it's a buzz-kill for their fantasies. > It's laziness, mainly. > > ### - well this raises quite a few valid points tom, your cool detachment and > apparent objectivity + clarity in raising questions that any 'reasonable' person > should 'at-least' consider before committing to anything, is only belied by the > fact that you yourself, without any warning whatsoever, are liable to suddenly > descend to such similar clarity-destroying 'emotionalism' thus > fostering/increasing the very thing(s) you currently now decry + highlight > above? One can be both intellectually rigorous and emotionally active. They are not mutually exclusive. The magician does not suppress emotion nor ignore intellect. Consciousness is a complete package. > i.e. you can't have it both ways bud, Why not? I can see no reason at all to make emotion and intellect mutually exclusive functions. Rather, they can and should be complementary and simultaneous. ### - no one suggested making them mutually exclusive, only that waiting for someone to make what in your opinion is a mistake just so you can then stomp all over them and feel quite justified in doing so, isn't exactly 'the' most balanced nor possibly the most desirable configuration of said attributes one can imagine, but more like the ravings of someone who is possibly just quite emotionally disturbed themselves : such as in obtaining personal gratification and pleasure from the suffering of others which you yourself are actually contributing to and/or inciting... such as in being 'sadistic' for example? iow i just have to question/wonder at people and just what has happened to them, who have to resort to such, well yes: 'twisted pleasures' (distorted/distortions-of otherwise quite healthy emotions) when nature and the universe + the fact of one actually being alive in it even at all when the odds of there ever being a 'you' or a 'me' are literally 'infinitesible', is all... or is it that you perhaps actually have 'aspirations' to being... a monster? (last chance tom ) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Tom on 6 Apr 2010 13:19 On Apr 6, 9:39 am, "slider" <sli...(a)anashram.com> wrote: > Tom wrote... > > Intellect is the self-checking mechanism of directed consciousness. > > Without it, magick generates delusions, as can readily be seen by > > reading the posts of alt.magick. The most immediate indicator of > > delusion is the knee-jerk resentment of the claimant when evidence is > > requested by a skeptic. Intuition and emotional reaction are powerful > > and require no particular discipline, which is why so dabblers, > > poseurs, and impatient neophyte students of magick tend to rely on > > those capacities almost exclusively. They rebel against the > > discipline of logic because it's a buzz-kill for their fantasies. > > It's laziness, mainly. > > > ### - well this raises quite a few valid points tom, your cool detachment and > > apparent objectivity + clarity in raising questions that any 'reasonable' person > > should 'at-least' consider before committing to anything, is only belied by the > > fact that you yourself, without any warning whatsoever, are liable to suddenly > > descend to such similar clarity-destroying 'emotionalism' thus > > fostering/increasing the very thing(s) you currently now decry + highlight > > above? > > One can be both intellectually rigorous and emotionally active. They > are not mutually exclusive. The magician does not suppress emotion > nor ignore intellect. Consciousness is a complete package. > > > i.e. you can't have it both ways bud, > > Why not? I can see no reason at all to make emotion and intellect > mutually exclusive functions. Rather, they can and should be > complementary and simultaneous. > > ### - no one suggested making them mutually exclusive, Other than you, when you wrote "you can't have it both ways bud." > only that waiting for > someone to make what in your opinion is a mistake just so you can then stomp all > over them and feel quite justified in doing so, isn't exactly 'the' most > balanced nor possibly the most desirable configuration of said attributes one can > imagine, but more like the ravings of someone who is possibly just quite > emotionally disturbed themselves If you choose to fantasize about my motivations instead of asking me about them, you are no longer conversing. You're monologuing. > (last chance tom ) Too late. You've already started monologuing. The only questions you'll be asking from here on will be rhetorical.
From: "Bassos" Root on 6 Apr 2010 15:30
"slider" <slider(a)anashram.com> wrote in message news:hpfb7n$29a8$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... > > Bassos wrote... > >>> ### - there are many worlds, although i was speaking above primarily of >>> the >>> world >>> of reason and rationality that so many aspire to and yet can't even >>> manage >>> eventhat; the tom's and hg's of this world whose only aim is to be seen >>> to >>> shine >>> 'themselves' rather than being shining examples of the truth they would >>> otherwise claim to advocate for and to exemplify... >> >> I kinda like tom, so perhaps he simply responded for me to be able to >> demonstrate said less than amicable side of me, to you. >> >> I thank him on a regular basis, so that would not surprise me in the >> least > > ### - besides one fairly decent conversation with him i've had a couple of > less-than-pleasant run-in's with tom that didn't end well, so i could > perhaps > accept that on that basis (i.e. he might just have been goading you kinda > thing to > be less than friendly yourself towards me, although i do think that would > also > somewhat tarnish his otherwise 'always-intellectually-correct' stance as > that > would have been/constituted something less than completely reasonable > behaviour on > his part) Tom has no power over me. I shed that baggage years ago. Use tommiedarling as a tool. >>> and then there's all the shades of that world, of the rational tinged >>> with the >>> irrational to varying degrees that ultimately has created all the >>> religions of >>> the >>> world, and yet other worlds beyond even that where almost even anything >>> becomes >>> possible, we are not limited in our range and scope except perhaps by >>> ourselves... which perhaps is even as it (and things) should be, >>> everyone >>> grows/expands (their consciousness) at their own rate and at no one >>> else's >> >> I guess i was just uncomfortable with our all on topic content >> discussion. > > ### - well that would be completely understandable... e.g. you telling me > in one > breath that all astrology is bs Which was irony/sarcasm. > whereon i agree and proceed to qualify my reasons > only for you to then reveal in your next breath that actually your right > 'into' > astrology and can't possibly imagine anyone telling you otherwise haha Well, i could imagine, but no such poster yet :) >(i.e. i hadn't deliberately set-out to insult you and then suddenly i'm >placed in the > position of already having done so, which is basically why i didn't then > pursue it > when invited to, in-deference to you) Happy chance ? :) >>> and as to your current hecklers... well... >> >> I blame god :) >> >>> "let him who is without sin cast the first stone"? >> >> Bulls in porcelain cabinets should not be throwing stones anyway :) > > ### - well that's a good point anyway I am referencing myself as a rockthrower. Guess who the porcelain cabinet is/are :) > people too quickly often resort to lobbing > rocks over their garden fence (trying to do damage i mean) perhaps not > having > considered overly much just what might happen now that they've introduced > that > kind of 'rock-throwing' behaviour into the game, their subsequent dismay > and then > fury at seeing some of their 'own' greenhouse windows being put-out when > that very > same rock gets tossed back-over, perhaps doing even 'more' damage on their > side > than it ever did on mine, sending them into a stone-throwing frenzy > hahaha, only > of course it's too late by then because all the shields and shutters have > been > have activated, which only makes 'em even more mad hahaha ;-) Or is it ? :) > iow "people living in 'glass houses' should NOT THROW STONES!" Virtual stones to brake my virtual self-righteous bones. > or they 'themselves' might just find themselves responsible for the > result... As are we all. > it's good advice people! :) Thus very costly :) >>> and then get-stuffed hecklers! ha ha ;-) >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr81olQ1ibk >>> >>> (said in good humour btw :) >> >> Talkin bout my generation !! >> (you old farts can go get stuffed :P) > > ### - the irreverence of the young can oft-times be refreshing hehehe ;) I kinda got that whole irreverence down. > why don't you all... f, f, fff, FADE awayyyyy! (hahaha :) Live to fart another day ? > (where oh where would the world 'be' without humour! ;-) > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAaxJULHcq4 Soldier of love. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4xb9TSIITY Still alive. |