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 9 Apr 2010 11:46 Meltdarok wrote... >> even though the varying >> flavours all appears to be very different--->(as different as biology is from >> astrophysics for example)<--- >> > > A *most* important point. ### - well i'm glad 'someone' picked-up on that heh heh :) >> the ultimate, intellectual/reason-destroying 'truth' being that nature, the >> world, >> and the rest of the universe isn't actually 'about' anything! and if you still >> think it 'is' about something, anything at all, then you are one of those still >> lost in their own fantasies and ideas born of their own imagination and >> relating >> to it exclusively as 'though' it were all real, only it isn't... >> >> to be blunt... >> there IS no 'meaning' to life > > The 'meaning' is that we are *all* family. ### - well that's certainly sweet, i could even say quite generous, but is actually more a statement of fact rather than a 'meaning' per se (human meaning is not universal, it only 'means' anything to us humans... iow 'we' have intellectually invented 'all' the meanings (to things) for ourselves, meanings that don't exist (has no meaning) outside/beyond the human species... >> there IS no 'purpose' to existence >> there IS no 'philosophy' >> the universe 'is', and we 'are', and that's it! period! >> so get used to it... >> everything else is a fantasy! Everything! >> science, religion, all and any beliefs >> 'none' of it is real except in our silly human heads >> basically because we 'want' it to be rather than face the truth >> > > http://popup.lala.com/popup/504684655011358770 > > Yours Is the Light > Music: Richard Kermode > Lyric: Michael Shrieve > > Yours is the light that will always shine > and shine eternally, eternally > Mine is the search, never-ending search > until I am with you. > For you fill my life, > all my days and nights > with (light) memories of you. > > Santana ### - nice words... here's another, same cool band ... (i just like the unspoken 'double-meaning' involved ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOHfjn1X368 I ain't got nobody That I can depend on I ain't got nobody That I can depend on Ain't got nobody That I can depend on Ain't got nobody That I can depend on Ain't got no one No tengo a nadie That I know of No tengo a nadie That I can depend on No tengo a nadie Ain't got no one Got nobody That I can depend on No tengo a nadie I ain't got nobody That I can depend on No tengo a nadie one is complaining, the other is affirming a fact of life choose :) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: slider on 9 Apr 2010 11:48 Absorbed wrote... >>>>> I'm not saying that's it's wrong for you to keep telling yourself stories, >>>>> for >>>>> you to be deluded in this way. But nevertheless, you are deluded. >>>> ### - what business is it of yours (or of anyone's really i mean) what >>>> 'other' >>>> people do? >>> This is amusing, since you're the one questioning what I do. I haven't told >>> anyone to do anything. Which leads to the question, What business is it of >>> yours >>> what I do? >> >> ### - i'm just questioning your apparent 'need' to be 'correct' beyond merely >> stating your opinion just the once, > > I may have restated my opinion in a different way. That can help other's > understand what I'm saying. It doesn't mean I 'need' to be 'correct'. A cursory > glance at my previous posts on alt.magick will reveal that I don't need to be > correct. ### - i wasn't generalising and was referring only to your on-going conversation with bassos, plus restating something for clarity is obviously fine only you seem to be taking it quite a lot further than that 'just' that to that of 'point-scoring'? (which is what i was 'actually' questioning your motives for...) >> initially as applied to you and then expanding >> that to 'or of anyone's really i mean' > > This makes no sense. ### - taken out of context it certainly makes no sense, plus i was just being 'polite' was all, using you as the initial example and then extending it to cover everyone, myself included, and so not just picking on you... >> - iow what business is it of 'ours' what >> other people do and/or choose to believe beyond simple enquiry unless they >> specifically ask... certainly not to the point then of lobbing bricks at people >> and stuff no? > > Chucking bricks at someone and making a post on Usenet aren't remotely similar. ### - no but point-scoring off another poster, is... especially when insults are being bandied about (which is the unneccessary 'brick-throwing' i'm referring to) > Since you appear to believe that it's no business of yours what I do, that means > that if I choose to meddle in other people's "business", or questioning their > beliefs, or even chuck bricks at them, it's none of your business. ### - hehe while this is 'logically' correct, someone still had to raise the subject in order to highlight it? so while the above is also comical in its content (a bit like in order to make a point once suggesting to tom that 'all words are lies', his subsequent incessant insistence that "if i really believe that then i should shut up altogether" became redundant after the first time he used it, after which he was just using it to evade the 'pointed-question' i was levelling at him at the time... like he stated it about 6 more times ha ha :) and now you're doing something similar, only it's not amusing after the first time i was trying to be subtle about it but basically: a heated conversation is one thing, flaming people another... (one is possibly intelligent, the other is definitely not :) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Absorbed on 9 Apr 2010 12:50 slider wrote: > Absorbed wrote... > >>>>>> I'm not saying that's it's wrong for you to keep telling yourself stories, >>>>>> for >>>>>> you to be deluded in this way. But nevertheless, you are deluded. >>>>> ### - what business is it of yours (or of anyone's really i mean) what >>>>> 'other' >>>>> people do? >>>> This is amusing, since you're the one questioning what I do. I haven't told >>>> anyone to do anything. Which leads to the question, What business is it of >>>> yours >>>> what I do? >>> ### - i'm just questioning your apparent 'need' to be 'correct' beyond merely >>> stating your opinion just the once, >> I may have restated my opinion in a different way. That can help other's >> understand what I'm saying. It doesn't mean I 'need' to be 'correct'. A cursory >> glance at my previous posts on alt.magick will reveal that I don't need to be >> correct. > > ### - i wasn't generalising and was referring only to your on-going conversation > with bassos, plus restating something for clarity is obviously fine only you seem > to be taking it quite a lot further than that 'just' that to that of > 'point-scoring'? (which is what i was 'actually' questioning your motives for...) My latest approach to Bassos is to demonstrate that I understand the way he sees something, while attempting to force his attention on the explanation of why he's deluded. If you go back over my exchanges with Bassos for the last few months, you'll notice how I frequently try to explain things from his point of view. At the end of the day, Bassos's treasured beliefs have withstood years of criticism in alt.magick and undoubtedly outside of alt.magick as well. I doubt anything I post here is actually going to change what he thinks. That doesn't stop it being fun to try. >>> initially as applied to you and then expanding >>> that to 'or of anyone's really i mean' >> This makes no sense. > > ### - taken out of context it certainly makes no sense, Taken in context it makes no sense as well. Perhaps you didn't mean "really" but "reality". You should pay more attention to whether people are actually going to understand your intended message from the words you've used. >>> - iow what business is it of 'ours' what >>> other people do and/or choose to believe beyond simple enquiry unless they >>> specifically ask... certainly not to the point then of lobbing bricks at people >>> and stuff no? >> Chucking bricks at someone and making a post on Usenet aren't remotely similar. > > ### - no but point-scoring off another poster, is... especially when insults are > being bandied about (which is the unneccessary 'brick-throwing' i'm referring to) You must consider my insults to be considerably potent, but I'm sure Bassos doesn't consider my insults on a par with a brick in the face. In fact, as far as he's concerned, I suspect he just thinks he's "pwning" me. If you've got a problem with insults, perhaps you've chosen the wrong place to debate in. I believe you yourself said (although I could be wrong) that someone without an ego cannot be insulted, since there is nobody to be insulted. If I ever feel insulted, I consider it a positive.
From: slider on 9 Apr 2010 13:45 Absorbed wrote... >>>>>>> I'm not saying that's it's wrong for you to keep telling yourself stories, >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> you to be deluded in this way. But nevertheless, you are deluded. >>>>>> ### - what business is it of yours (or of anyone's really i mean) what >>>>>> 'other' >>>>>> people do? >>>>> This is amusing, since you're the one questioning what I do. I haven't told >>>>> anyone to do anything. Which leads to the question, What business is it of >>>>> yours >>>>> what I do? >>>> ### - i'm just questioning your apparent 'need' to be 'correct' beyond merely >>>> stating your opinion just the once, >>> I may have restated my opinion in a different way. That can help other's >>> understand what I'm saying. It doesn't mean I 'need' to be 'correct'. A >>> cursory >>> glance at my previous posts on alt.magick will reveal that I don't need to be >>> correct. >> >> ### - i wasn't generalising and was referring only to your on-going >> conversation >> with bassos, plus restating something for clarity is obviously fine only you >> seem >> to be taking it quite a lot further than that 'just' that to that of >> 'point-scoring'? (which is what i was 'actually' questioning your motives >> for...) > > My latest approach to Bassos is to demonstrate that I understand the way he sees > something, while attempting to force his attention on the explanation of why > he's deluded. ### - i can accept that as being reasonable, only 'deluded' is just too-emotive a term, and is surely only an attempt (in this instance on your part) to make things rather unnecessarily 'personal' (iow there is ostensibly no necessity to add your opinion, thus reducing everything (the argument/debate re reality) to the level of mere 'opinion-bashing', which doesn't go anywhere... > If you go back over my exchanges with Bassos for the last few months, you'll > notice how I frequently try to explain things from his point of view. > > At the end of the day, Bassos's treasured beliefs have withstood years of > criticism in alt.magick and undoubtedly outside of alt.magick as well. I doubt > anything I post here is actually going to change what he thinks. That doesn't > stop it being fun to try. ### - surely for the intellectual 'fun' is being able to apply clever and/or novel argument to an on-going issue, otherwise you're equating fun with the equivalent of leaning out of one's car-window and yelling obscenities at other drivers, which doesn't appear so much to be like fun as rage? (usenet-rage :) >>>> initially as applied to you and then expanding >>>> that to 'or of anyone's really i mean' >>> This makes no sense. >> >> ### - taken out of context it certainly makes no sense, > > Taken in context it makes no sense as well. Perhaps you didn't mean "really" but > "reality". You should pay more attention to whether people are actually going to > understand your intended message from the words you've used. ### - i think what has confused you is the fact that i quoted myself at the time using 'or of anyone's really i mean', instead of : "or of anyone's really i mean", and so in that context no i didn't mean 'reality' but "of anyone's (concern) really" (this is unimportant btw) >>>> - iow what business is it of 'ours' what >>>> other people do and/or choose to believe beyond simple enquiry unless they >>>> specifically ask... certainly not to the point then of lobbing bricks at >>>> people >>>> and stuff no? >>> Chucking bricks at someone and making a post on Usenet aren't remotely >>> similar. >> >> ### - no but point-scoring off another poster, is... especially when insults >> are >> being bandied about (which is the unneccessary 'brick-throwing' i'm referring >> to) > > You must consider my insults to be considerably potent, but I'm sure Bassos > doesn't consider my insults on a par with a brick in the face. In fact, as far > as he's concerned, I suspect he just thinks he's "pwning" me. ### - am not sure what "pwning" means (new term for me that:), plus it's not that your insults are particularly potent or anything, only that the 'intention' behind them is the equivalent of rock-throwing... for example it is obvious that you're actually trying to 'wound' someone with these insults, which is entirely different from merely expressing one's opinion however popular or unpopular it happens to be... plus there's a difference between that of gravel and a pebble/boulder, one rattles the windows a bit, the other breaks them :) > If you've got a problem with insults, perhaps you've chosen the wrong place to > debate in. I believe you yourself said (although I could be wrong) that someone > without an ego cannot be insulted, since there is nobody to be insulted. If I > ever feel insulted, I consider it a positive. ### - if there's no one there to be insulted, then why even 'bother' inventing clever insults? (iow ego is still there somewhere then, no? only it's on the other side:) and while it's true that someone without ego can't be insulted, surely then you are deliberately probing to elicit any remnants of it in order to then wound it? and i just question this need of yours (or anyone's really i mean) to find 'fun' (or delight then) in such attempts, which imho borders on a potentially questionable sadistic streak? i mean i dunno who started this 'war' between you and bassos, but from an outsider's pov (in this instance mine) it just looks ugly instead of being intelligent :) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Tom on 9 Apr 2010 15:11
On Apr 9, 9:15 am, "slider" <sli...(a)anashram.com> wrote: > > ### - rational thinking is 'only' effective in the realm of the rational, but > there are other, just as-viable, realms of awareness where reason doesn't count > for much, if anything at all... There is no "realm of the rational". Rationality is a tool, not a place. You apply it to whatever you think or feel in order to check it for consistency. Sure, there are lots of times when situations change and assumptions can no longer be relied upon. It is the function of rationality to help you discover what the rules are, as well as why and how they change. > i.e. it's not that i'm afraid of the dark, it's you who's afraid of the light ;-) Nihilism is not light. It's not truth. It's not anything. The only true nihilist is in a vegetative coma. For any active creature, it's just an affectation. > > to be blunt... > > there IS no 'meaning' to life > > there IS no 'purpose' to existence > > there IS no 'philosophy' > > That *is* a philosophy. > > ### - ah well if you continue to 'believe' so then you're probably gonna keep > finding such useless things to trip-over + this explains your rather stubborn > insistence on nonsense that seems perfectly sensible only to you and others like > you... > the fact that there isn't any philosophy is not a philosophy in itself, that is > unless you turn it into one + it is precisely that 'kind of thing' which i'm > critiquing in the first place :) You don't seem to know what the word "philosophy" means. Sartre's existentialism, which is what you've been touting, is a very specific kind of philosophy. Essentially it's a sort of overblown skepticism with depression added onto it. It was a product of Europe's war-torn 20th Century, in which everything seemed pretty depressing, especially for the French. > ### - if you 'turn-off' ALL mental activity (all rational activity that is) then > from that pov 'all' mental activity IS the same, and that's the point you're > overlooking... What you're saying is that if you don't perceive a difference then there is no difference, which means that what you perceive is always the truth. Therefore there can be no misperceptions, no illusions. That is demonstrably false. Just because you refuse to acknowledge differences doesn't mean there aren't any. Now, you can invent a very broad conceptual category and then assign every experience to it, but that's just ignoring the fact that there are other ways of categorizing experience. The plain fact is that your body distinguishes automatically between sensations long before any of it ever gets represented rationally. This is why your hand withdraws from a hot surface before you even become aware of the heat. The perception of differences is not an artifact of rationality. > 'empirical evidence' is just another 'belief' of science and the > scientific method which we ourselves invented/created, thus making it (science) > just another one of those self-reinforcing belief-thingys :a cult iow :) Not only do you not know what "philosophy" means, you also don't know what "empirical evidence" means. You're just parrotting words you've heard without comprehending what they mean. > Actually the stupider you are, the more likely it is you'll believe > any old lie. It is only slightly less stupid to react to the > discovery that you've been lied to by concluding that everybody is > lying all the time. It's much smarter to recognize that sometimes > people lie and sometimes they don't and there are some pretty good > ways to tell the difference. > > ### - you can 'always instantly' tell whenever people are lying... > > their lips move :) There you go again, being only slightly less stupid than the believers. Knee-jerk distrust is just as ineffective as knee-jerk trust. |