Philosophy forum

[Barb]

i would enjoy that. i had assumed you wrote the paper, which was why there was no author mentioned.

I take issue with the idea that a woman, outside of reproduction and motherhood, is not really a woman in any meaningful way. That thought would come as some surprise to barren women, and those who choose not to have children. Are men who choose not to father children lesser men?

24 hours? excellent! it is interesting to play with the ceilings and walls we place around ourselves. or that society does. having been a boxer and kickboxer, i am well aware of the effort some must make to beak away from the naysayers who hold us to those artificial walls and ceilings. Lol! i have gone for three days with no food or sleep just to push the limits. our own minds hold us back. the changes that can occur in the human body in a matter of moments during trauma transcend physiological alterations, so the mind must be the key, and yet we pickle it, let it atrophy, opiate it and denigrate it.

The need for sleep is not an artificial wall or a societal boundary, it is a biological necessity. I wasn't playing with anything. I work the graveyard shift, and my son had a doctors appointment in the middle of the day. From that point, I just figured that since I had the night off, I may as well stay up instead of waking up at three in the morning.

i appreciate your position and input. however, i have seldom allowed public opinion to sway me. when i lived in the 'bama bible belt, i wore a pentacle outside of my shirt. i know what is true in my life. i have been doubted before, and i cannot help that. being doiubted is the choice of the doubter, and is on them, not me. if i allow the scoffing of others to alter what i do, i have given into tyranny. i allow bullies to be rewarded. i am no longer being true to myself, but live a lie for the benefit of others who aren't even a friend and haven't my best interests in mind.

if i want to post something to jamie, and dont for fear of being seen as being a "tag team" or something else, then i have compromised freedom-mine. i will have censored myself. why is it that supporting someone who thinks much like me is being a tag team? i affirm those who think as i do, or at least show traits i admire. i do that in rl also. i like to gather such ppl around me (and married one of them). you are asking me to be false to myself?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes your freedom ends where another persons nose begins, or a community would view your actions as an effort to bypass certain agreements and standards precedent to membership of the group. You have a forum of your own, you set the rules to membership of that forum. The owners here do the same. To compare flagrance of the stated rules (especially when it seems you've already been given some leeway in their regard) to a moral stance against tyranny is a bit of a stretch.

 

[vincubus]

I take issue with the idea that a woman, outside of reproduction and motherhood, is not really a woman in any meaningful way. That thought would come as some surprise to barren women, and those who choose not to have children. Are men who choose not to father children lesser men?



The need for sleep is not an artificial wall or a societal boundary, it is a biological necessity. I wasn't playing with anything. I work the graveyard shift, and my son had a doctors appointment in the middle of the day. From that point, I just figured that since I had the night off, I may as well stay up instead of waking up at three in the morning.



Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes your freedom ends where another persons nose begins, or a community would view your actions as an effort to bypass certain agreements and standards precedent to membership of the group. You have a forum of your own, you set the rules to membership of that forum. The owners here do the same. To compare flagrance of the stated rules (especially when it seems you've already been given some leeway in their regard) to a moral stance against tyranny is a bit of a stretch.

the owners here have set no rule saying i cannot post to my wife. gunny didn't say that. a young trouble hunting want to be woman did and you are supporting her. ones rights always end where anothers begin. up to now, i respect you, but you are indeed suggesting tyranny.

a habit reinforced can be the basis of a biological need. and yes, i will contest science on this. science measures the delusions that we foist upon ourselves only, that perception which isn't reality. the past doesn't exist. we cannot get to it. our perceptions are based on delusion, and part of that is physical stimulation which requires a finite travel speed. in other words, we are experiencing the past, which doesn't exist. reality is a delusion, shared, but still a delusion.

 

[Barb]

i would enjoy that. i had assumed you wrote the paper, which was why there was no author mentioned.

24 hours? excellent! it is interesting to play with the ceilings and walls we place around ourselves. or that society does. having been a boxer and kickboxer, i am well aware of the effort some must make to beak away from the naysayers who hold us to those artificial walls and ceilings. Lol! i have gone for three days with no food or sleep just to push the limits. our own minds hold us back. the changes that can occur in the human body in a matter of moments during trauma transcend physiological alterations, so the mind must be the key, and yet we pickle it, let it atrophy, opiate it and denigrate it.



i appreciate your position and input. however, i have seldom allowed public opinion to sway me. when i lived in the 'bama bible belt, i wore a pentacle outside of my shirt. i know what is true in my life. i have been doubted before, and i cannot help that. being doiubted is the choice of the doubter, and is on them, not me. if i allow the scoffing of others to alter what i do, i have given into tyranny. i allow bullies to be rewarded. i am no longer being true to myself, but live a lie for the benefit of others who aren't even a friend and haven't my best interests in mind.

if i want to post something to jamie, and dont for fear of being seen as being a "tag team" or something else, then i have compromised freedom-mine. i will have censored myself. why is it that supporting someone who thinks much like me is being a tag team? i affirm those who think as i do, or at least show traits i admire. i do that in rl also. i like to gather such ppl around me (and married one of them). you are asking me to be false to myself?

at another forum, a young man assumed i was working for the FBI, and stalking him. that i was part of a team who were posted outside his house. his paranoia arose from fondness for very young girls and weed. he doubted my credibility when i laughed and told him the truth. *shrug*. i suppose i was simply new and change bothers some ppl.

the owners here have set no rule saying i cannot post to my wife. gunny didn't say that. a young trouble hunting want to be woman did and you are supporting her. ones rights always end where anothers begin. up to now, i respect you, but you are indeed suggesting tyranny.

a habit reinforced can be the basis of a biological need. and yes, i will contest science on this. science measures the delusions that we foist upon ourselves only, that perception which isn't reality. the past doesn't exist. we cannot get to it. our perceptions are based on delusion, and part of that is physical stimulation which requires a finite travel speed. in other words, we are experiencing the past, which doesn't exist. reality is a delusion, shared, but still a delusion.

I didn't mention the mods, why would you? I also didn't say you couldn't post to your wife, but responded to a post your wife made. Odd, but why did you answer a post directed to her in the first place? That's where you two appear a tag team rather then individual posters, and that is what I was trying to caution you about. Still, it is your business, although the young woman you mention is not the only one in this forum that has dismissed you both because of how you conduct it. No hair off my ass either way. Good luck.

As for biological functions, try staying up for days at a stretch and have your vitals monitored. It won't be pretty, and that's not an illusion.

And respect? You don't know me. I don't know you. Respect isn't anything I extend or retract so promiscuously.

 

[Amanda]

the owners here have set no rule saying i cannot post to my wife. gunny didn't say that. a young trouble hunting want to be woman did and you are supporting her. ones rights always end where anothers begin. up to now, i respect you, but you are indeed suggesting tyranny.

I've heard Del called a lot of things but this is a 1st.

 

[Barb]

I've heard Del called a lot of things but this is a 1st.

Actually, that post was : Quote: Originally Posted by vincubus View Post

 

[Amanda]

Actually, that post was : Quote: Originally Posted by vincubus View Post

yea, the quoting got messed up. But whatever... Del is the 1 IIRC that told Vinny/"Jamie" not to use USMB like their fridge to leave notes to each other, not me. In any case, it was a mod, not me!

I'm the 1 that is calling "them" on their BS of asserting facts without citing sources and posting as each other.

 

[Xenophon]

Hey Xeno, I think I found that pic you were looking for...

That's not him, here he is.

 

[JBeukema]

a curse be upon you, xeno, for afflicting to forums with that most horrible of sights...

 

[Intense]

the owners here have set no rule saying i cannot post to my wife. gunny didn't say that. a young trouble hunting want to be woman did and you are supporting her. ones rights always end where anothers begin. up to now, i respect you, but you are indeed suggesting tyranny.

a habit reinforced can be the basis of a biological need. and yes, i will contest science on this. science measures the delusions that we foist upon ourselves only, that perception which isn't reality. the past doesn't exist. we cannot get to it. our perceptions are based on delusion, and part of that is physical stimulation which requires a finite travel speed. in other words, we are experiencing the past, which doesn't exist. reality is a delusion, shared, but still a delusion.

You might want to get your property checked for toxins. In one sense, how do you know you are reading this right now? Could it be a delusion? Could it be that every time one blinks, or hiccups, or wakes, they are born into a new alternate reality?

I think I'll stick to Moral Absolutes, Relative Application, and Limited Perception. By chance did you fry your brain on "Lost In Space", "Time Tunnel", or "Star Trek".

 

[Barb]

You might want to get your property checked for toxins. In one sense, how do you know you are reading this right now? Could it be a delusion? Could it be that every time one blinks, or hiccups, or wakes, they are born into a new alternate reality?

I think I'll stick to Moral Absolutes, Relative Application, and Limited Perception. By chance did you fry your brain on "Lost In Space", "Time Tunnel", or "Star Trek".

Just to clarify, that wasn't posted by barb.

 

[Amanda]

Just to clarify, that wasn't posted by barb.

The quoting has gone completely bizarre.

 

[JBeukema]

The quoting has gone completely bizarre.

If you quote fucked-up quotes, the open quotes you quoted remain. Hence the

People need to add the closing quote command (/quote in brackets) when they trim a quote.

 

[Avatar4321]

The quoting has gone completely bizarre.

It's easy enough to fix.

 

[vincubus]

You might want to get your property checked for toxins. In one sense, how do you know you are reading this right now? Could it be a delusion? Could it be that every time one blinks, or hiccups, or wakes, they are born into a new alternate reality?

I think I'll stick to Moral Absolutes, Relative Application, and Limited Perception. By chance did you fry your brain on "Lost In Space", "Time Tunnel", or "Star Trek".

it is unfortunate that youi characterize my post as an example of someone who has groiund toxicity that leeched into the water supply.

we all do just what my post described.

example. there is a poster on this site who has decided that i am a sock puppet. that poster has accepted "evidence" to bolster that idea in a cherry picking format. then this person has sought to bring others to that reality. that position assumes that gunny doesn't know what he is doing, and that that poster alone has the hang on reality, which is false. the question must be asked why that poster has taken that approach, since they are crafting a false and very selective reality set. what bias underlies the quest to craft such a reality?

"god" is an office. i define "god" as that which is most important to us and the least changing

no one is born with a knowledge of a god. we assume the existence of a supernatural "parent" from an ancient, superstitious assessment that there must be a force behind common forces that we had/have no control over, perhaps extrapolated from us having parents who control/correct/punish us. we then sought to control those forces via some means...some effort on our part, perhaps to reassure ourselves that we have some personal power over our "parent" much as a child will attempt to manipulate its parents. as our degree of sophistication progressed, so did our description of our god(s) and goddess(es) from a vast pantheon of spirits that each control animals, wind, sun, water etc, to a monotheistic god (or triune god) from which stems all things. but we must come to this position with outside help and influence. that being the case, we learn of others various supernatural ( a phrase i dislike) gods that vary from culture to culture. then we decide if we wish to believe or not. if we believe, then these supernatural gods come alive. we give them life. we perpetuate a dominant reality set and support that via our own phrasing of what others have already found

then we must ask, as we did of the poster mentioned above, what is the motivation, the bias? for power? perhaps. pascal boyer and jung both suggest religion (and thus god) arise as a psychological mechanism, and note the similarities of religions 'round the world indicate the similarities in how our minds work. boyer as an anthro offers a greater proof of the process. the similarities of world religions with the jungian archetypes suggest that morality is a function of our brains not a supernatural parent. it could be argued that this is evidence of that supernatural parent, but the many varied systems each with their various gods/goddesses, varied rituals, and similar but not universal morals would deny a universal parent. if there is an absolute morality, then that would make the mind god, not a supernatural parent, but there is enough variance among the world religions to also deny an absolute morality.

since the above seems true to me, i cannot accept an absolute morality.

it seems we all live on ground contaminated by toxins, and those toxins have leeched into the worlds water supply.

 

[JBeukema]

You might want to get your property checked for toxins. In one sense, how do you know you are reading this right now? Could it be a delusion? Could it be that every time one blinks, or hiccups, or wakes, they are born into a new alternate reality?

I think I'll stick to Moral Absolutes, Relative Application, and Limited Perception. By chance did you fry your brain on "Lost In Space", "Time Tunnel", or "Star Trek".

it is unfortunate that youi characterize my post as an example of someone who has groiund toxicity that leeched into the water supply.
....
it seems we all live on ground contaminated by toxins, and those toxins have leeched into the worlds water supply.

 

[vincubus]

You might want to get your property checked for toxins. In one sense, how do you know you are reading this right now? Could it be a delusion? Could it be that every time one blinks, or hiccups, or wakes, they are born into a new alternate reality?

I think I'll stick to Moral Absolutes, Relative Application, and Limited Perception. By chance did you fry your brain on "Lost In Space", "Time Tunnel", or "Star Trek".

it is unfortunate that youi characterize my post as an example of someone who has groiund toxicity that leeched into the water supply.
....
it seems we all live on ground contaminated by toxins, and those toxins have leeched into the worlds water supply.

in short, we all create our reality, or have that ability. we feel more comfortable around those who share our reality. those on the fringes of our reality we tend to eradicate to keep our zone "comfortable".

i know, i could have simply said that, but i picked up a box of words at a yard sale yesterday, and no where to put them

 

[JBeukema]

Why is 'Vinny' arguing with itself?

 

[Xenophon]

Why is 'Vinny' arguing with itself?

With the same logon or his female one?

 

[Intense]

Vincubus: it is unfortunate that youi characterize my post as an example of someone who has groiund toxicity that leeched into the water supply.

we all do just what my post described.

example. there is a poster on this site who has decided that i am a sock puppet. that poster has accepted "evidence" to bolster that idea in a cherry picking format. then this person has sought to bring others to that reality. that position assumes that gunny doesn't know what he is doing, and that that poster alone has the hang on reality, which is false. the question must be asked why that poster has taken that approach, since they are crafting a false and very selective reality set. what bias underlies the quest to craft such a reality?

"god" is an office. i define "god" as that which is most important to us and the least changing

no one is born with a knowledge of a god. we assume the existence of a supernatural "parent" from an ancient, superstitious assessment that there must be a force behind common forces that we had/have no control over, perhaps extrapolated from us having parents who control/correct/punish us. we then sought to control those forces via some means...some effort on our part, perhaps to reassure ourselves that we have some personal power over our "parent" much as a child will attempt to manipulate its parents. as our degree of sophistication progressed, so did our description of our god(s) and goddess(es) from a vast pantheon of spirits that each control animals, wind, sun, water etc, to a monotheistic god (or triune god) from which stems all things. but we must come to this position with outside help and influence. that being the case, we learn of others various supernatural ( a phrase i dislike) gods that vary from culture to culture. then we decide if we wish to believe or not. if we believe, then these supernatural gods come alive. we give them life. we perpetuate a dominant reality set and support that via our own phrasing of what others have already found

then we must ask, as we did of the poster mentioned above, what is the motivation, the bias? for power? perhaps. pascal boyer and jung both suggest religion (and thus god) arise as a psychological mechanism, and note the similarities of religions 'round the world indicate the similarities in how our minds work. boyer as an anthro offers a greater proof of the process. the similarities of world religions with the jungian archetypes suggest that morality is a function of our brains not a supernatural parent. it could be argued that this is evidence of that supernatural parent, but the many varied systems each with their various gods/goddesses, varied rituals, and similar but not universal morals would deny a universal parent. if there is an absolute morality, then that would make the mind god, not a supernatural parent, but there is enough variance among the world religions to also deny an absolute morality.

since the above seems true to me, i cannot accept an absolute morality.

it seems we all live on ground contaminated by toxins, and those toxins have leeched into the worlds water supply.[/quote]




example. there is a poster on this site who has decided that i am a sock puppet. that poster has accepted "evidence" to bolster that idea in a cherry picking format. then this person has sought to bring others to that reality. that position assumes that gunny doesn't know what he is doing, and that that poster alone has the hang on reality, which is false. the question must be asked why that poster has taken that approach, since they are crafting a false and very selective reality set. what bias underlies the quest to craft such a reality?

Sometimes we run the gauntlet, but you may find yourself stronger for it.

"god" is an office. i define "god" as that which is most important to us and the least changing

I define God as beyond the limit of defining and limitation, I don't think that we compliment or serve by limiting, what is beyond our comprehension. If I can find God or have a relationship with God, through Conscience, through Conscious Awareness, through Purpose, through what I learn from Cause & Effect, or through Grace, I am Satisfied. I neither limit or control, place barrier or restriction, on what is not mine to do.

From your perspective, how much did God change today from yesterday, or from last week. From my perspective, Who is to say or know with authority? From my perspective, to know what I must do or change from yesterday, or last week, to progress, advance, proceed, is relative to circumstance. My focus is relative to my situation, I'm not questioning the validity of my source, though You, have Every Right to. My perspective is that My Source and Your Source, and Everyone Else's Source is the same, with One Possible Exception (That is a Different Argument), and though we argue over Title, Description, Nature, Limit, and Boundaries, It is to that Same Source We are All, First Bound.


no one is born with a knowledge of a god. we assume the existence of a supernatural "parent" from an ancient, superstitious assessment that there must be a force behind common forces that we had/have no control over, perhaps extrapolated from us having parents who control/correct/punish us. we then sought to control those forces via some means...some effort on our part, perhaps to reassure ourselves that we have some personal power over our "parent" much as a child will attempt to manipulate its parents. as our degree of sophistication progressed, so did our description of our god(s) and goddess(es) from a vast pantheon of spirits that each control animals, wind, sun, water etc, to a monotheistic god (or triune god) from which stems all things. but we must come to this position with outside help and influence. that being the case, we learn of others various supernatural ( a phrase i dislike) gods that vary from culture to culture. then we decide if we wish to believe or not. if we believe, then these supernatural gods come alive. we give them life. we perpetuate a dominant reality set and support that via our own phrasing of what others have already found


I disagree. It's okay to disagree though. Take comfort in that. It's okay for each of us to work it out in our own way, that is part of why we have that power. We do come into realization with help, internal and external, We overcome manipulation both internal and external with realization for one. Run with it.

From an Atheist perspective, have you ever read "The Fountainhead" or "Atlas Shrugged". I know I'm pushing Ayn Rand on these boards right now and I will stop, but I really think Her perspective on the Sovereignty of the Self, will help inflate that tire. Feel good about yourself, don't take me too much to heart. It is not my intention to put you down.

then we must ask, as we did of the poster mentioned above, what is the motivation, the bias? for power? perhaps. pascal boyer and jung both suggest religion (and thus god) arise as a psychological mechanism, and note the similarities of religions 'round the world indicate the similarities in how our minds work. boyer as an anthro offers a greater proof of the process. the similarities of world religions with the jungian archetypes suggest that morality is a function of our brains not a supernatural parent. it could be argued that this is evidence of that supernatural parent, but the many varied systems each with their various gods/goddesses, varied rituals, and similar but not universal morals would deny a universal parent. if there is an absolute morality, then that would make the mind god, not a supernatural parent, but there is enough variance among the world religions to also deny an absolute morality.

What is Individual Purpose? What Principle is being served? That is a partial answer to Motive. Is it not a drive, a tool to accomplish a directive? Bias is relative to focus? What is being served that would require a specific POV or Perspective? Power we are drawn to, sometimes like moths, yet mostly do we control it, or does the addiction to it control us? We barely understand it, I would argue that is why so much damage is done. We do not get some of the absolutes, and harm is done. I think that refusing to believe that absolutes exist, does not aid in the healing.

I think your Boyer might recognize God as the Authority over his God's and Goddesses.

I think that inside of each one of us there is a Governor that does not like to admit when it's wrong. Everything being relative is a tool to save face. Authorities and councils, Beaurocracies, Boards, Councils, easily find Absolutes for the masses, and relative exceptions for themselves, their friends and relatives. On Moral Grounds, when stumped, they easily claim all is relative, rather than take the time to search out a meaningful resolution. Maybe the resolution is not limited to true or false, or multiple choice A through D. Maybe they just have not yet found the right approach.

Humility, and Humbleness are so important in Spirituality? Why? What is absent in those states, that we are made ready to receive instruction? What is removed that would otherwise stand in the Way?

 

[JBeukema]

You people need to check your tags ._.;;