You know what, Orn, your truth couldn't be further away. In order to help you understand what you are doing you will from now on only be getting answers. No more criticism, no more issues, but answers.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:58 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > gabby, the truth is I thought you were asking me direct questions. > Other times when I didn't respond thinking them to be rhetorical, you > criticised me too. > > I won’t feign being stupid nor not-stupid. That isn’t the immediate > issue. > > Perhaps to help communication you could be more clear with what you > say/ask. > > > On Aug 29, 6:43 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > Orn, I resist the temptation to post a link to a definition of rhetorical > > question, because I assume you don't need me to tell you what this is. It > > would help communication if you you would stop pretending to be stupid. > > Thank you. > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:59 PM, ornamentalmind > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Gabby, one can take the stance that anything is ‘conceivable’, even > > > that one can know for sure what another person’s meanings are > > > including the projection of masterplans. Or, that it is necessary to > > > point out that people have differing views because one is sure that > > > others are not so aware. > > > > > Obviously someone has ‘conceived’ these beliefs and couched them as > > > questions for others to answer. > > > > > On Aug 29, 3:07 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hm. I see. Would it somehow be conceivable to you that your > masterplan is > > > > what it is, namely your masterplan? Which then would allow for the > option > > > of > > > > you not understanding paradox'es meaning/intention? But I agree with > you > > > > that he could have written that his response was a continuation of > your > > > > exchange of worldviews in order to make it absolutely clear that he > is > > > not > > > > you. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:18 AM, ornamentalmind > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > "...Why would you not accept this > > > > > semantics? " - gabby > > > > > > > Because it was not what I had intended. I fully accepted that his > > > > > interpretation was his interpretation. And, as appears to be the > case, > > > > > he didn't understand my meaning/intention. The use of the term > > > > > 'semantics' here implied that we both were using words in > apparently > > > > > different ways. > > > > > > > On Aug 28, 2:40 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hm, Orn. I thought paradox'es thought was quite appropriate in > its > > > > > > formulation. The "well of disillusionment" can also be seen as a > > > > > complexity > > > > > > reduction to one point. No depth, no up, only flat > constructedness. > > > The > > > > > > point "where one begins to see things as they actually are" would > > > then > > > > > mean > > > > > > shutting your eyes to the complexity of life. Why would you not > > > accept > > > > > this > > > > > > semantics? > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:54 AM, ornamentalmind > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > “Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have > > > > > > > thought... “ – paradox > > > > > > > > > IF you somehow interpreted my having said “Relativism and > > > > > > > deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the well of > > > > > > > disillusionment.” as a call for blindness, nothing could be > further > > > > > > > from the truth. > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is the semantics involved with the term > > > ‘disillusionment’. > > > > > > > If so, in an attempt at clarification, this term to me is > fairly > > > high > > > > > > > up the ladder of levels of consciousness. In fact, it is very > close > > > to > > > > > > > where one begins to see things as they actually are. The term > > > itself > > > > > > > means that one is no longer held by the trance of illusions. > And, > > > in > > > > > > > this context, such a realization compared to how most people > > > apprehend > > > > > > > the world before reaching being disillusioned, can be quite > painful > > > – > > > > > > > thus the reference to depths of a well. Here, even though such > pain > > > > > > > has always been part of the psyche; at this level, one who is > > > ‘waking > > > > > > > up’ is no longer anesthetized to their ego (illusion) pain… it > is > > > > > > > being felt quite strongly consciously for the first time. > > > > > > > > > So here, with the awareness of pain, one actually is able to > begin > > > to > > > > > > > open one’s eyes metaphorically. > > > > > > > > > As an aside, Sartre’s novel, “Nausea”, is an example of the > psyche > > > > > > > reaching this particular level of consciousness. And, as most > are > > > > > > > aware, Jean-Paul was opening his eyes rather than closing them. > > > Thus > > > > > > > it can be said that this level of transition is where the > awareness > > > of > > > > > > > the emptiness of life is quite acute. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 10:57 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't > have > > > > > > > > thought... > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 3:13 pm, ornamentalmind < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Relativism and deconstructionism do lead one into the > depths of > > > the > > > > > > > > > well of disillusionment. > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that > bourgeois > > > > > morality > > > > > > > > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover > debt. > > > I > > > > > take > > > > > > > > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. > To > > > > > abandon > > > > > > > > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in > > > practical > > > > > > > > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism > and > > > 'low > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover > morality > > > and > > > > > > > > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be > > > generally > > > > > > > > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in > > > considering > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and > > > wonder > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we > have > > > any > > > > > > > 'right' > > > > > > > > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman > > > concerned > > > > > > > > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it > - > > > that > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > help with her distress. > > > > > > > > > > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt > to > > > 'free > > > > > > > > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially > approved > > > > > > > > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to > 'moralising') > > > - > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche > and on > > > to > > > > > > > > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever > be an > > > > > > > > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - > the > > > answer > > > > > > > > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis > could > > > > > replace > > > > > > > > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us > > > with > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of > govern-mentality or > > > the > > > > > > > > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe > 'subjective' we > > > can > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > in this sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is probably about how we can get into > meaningful > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good > > > example > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can > hold > > > this > > > > > > > view > > > > > > > > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to > repay. > > > Yet > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book > that > > > > > > > > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on > > > debt - > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom > from > > > debt' > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin > - in > > > the > > > > > > > > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our > definition > > > of > > > > > debt > > > > > > > > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should > not > > > be. > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and > ethical > > > about > > > > > > > debt > > > > > > > > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in > understanding > > > > > history. > > > > > > > > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - > at > > > least > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and > ethics, > > > we > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a > better > > > > > > > > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind > of > > > > > 'return' - > > > > > > > > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking > things > > > > > through - > > > > > > > > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much > > > 'morality' > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here > at > > > all. > > > > > > > Makes > > > > > > > > > > > a change huh! > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems > to > > > kick > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more > remarkable > > > when > > > > > you > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their > siblings, > > > but > > > > > then > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, > > > > > religion, > > > > > > > > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and > > > > > expectations > > > > > > > > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can > work > > > out > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas < > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. > > > Anybody > > > > > who > > > > > > > thinks > > > > > > > > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking > > > straight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard > of > > > > > deity, > > > > > > > and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course > > > religious > > > > > faith > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does > not? > > > > > > > Culture does, > > > > > > > > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even > age. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
