Observations and Thoughts

WanderingLands wrote:

Arcturus Descending wrote:

My question to you would be this:
Do you think that it is conducive at this point in this forum to start banning people? They might be back you know - not everyone has the time to be here every single day and how can you know what his or her true motive was in opening that line of questioning? Don't go throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

One also has the power of reason too. Look just how well "moderating" power does over at ilp.
We need to use what little power we actually have in moderation, don't you think or at least exercise that power to the degree which it actually must be exercised. That's what I think.

I understand your concerns and will guarantee that there will not be any abuse of power here.

This is NOT a challenge here, WLs but how can you guarantee that IN THE MOMENT?
Wouldn't that be something taken care of moment to moment?

Quote :

You have been banned from this forum.
Until 04/04/2015 For the reason : Drive-by posting. If you want to stay, please actually participate on this forum.

I may be missing something here but was the person actually banned until Aprill 4th? I never noticed that.
Why would this happen because of a first impression?
We aren't mind readers and we can't really feel and sense exacting what is going on very often with a post.
How can we actually know what was in his or her mind with that post which I actually saw as interesting and worthy of commenting about.
If someone at first shows up but then doesn't show up again for months - then perhaps one can give one's self the authority to ban or to send a PM saying that the username will be deleted as a result of not having posted for months.

People do at times have to get their feet wet in a manner of speaking.
That's just my 2 cents.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

This is NOT a challenge here, WLs but how can you guarantee that IN THE MOMENT?
Wouldn't that be something taken care of moment to moment?

I never mentioned a challenge, or meant what I said that way.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

I may be missing something here but was the person actually banned until Aprill 4th? I never noticed that.
Why would this happen because of a first impression?
We aren't mind readers and we can't really feel and sense exacting what is going on very often with a post.
How can we actually know what was in his or her mind with that post which I actually saw as interesting and worthy of commenting about.
If someone at first shows up but then doesn't show up again for months - then perhaps one can give one's self the authority to ban or to send a PM saying that the username will be deleted as a result of not having posted for months.

People do at times have to get their feet wet in a manner of speaking.
That's just my 2 cents.

I've un-banned him on the same day as I took action; I realized that it was faulty reasoning on my part and will not take that route again.

WanderingLands wrote:

Arcturus Descending wrote:

This is NOT a challenge here, WLs but how can you guarantee that IN THE MOMENT?
Wouldn't that be something taken care of moment to moment?

I never mentioned a challenge, or meant what I said that way.

LOL I never said that you DID mention a challenge. I was simply saying that I was not challenging you.

WanderingLands wrote:

Arcturus Descending wrote:

I may be missing something here but was the person actually banned until Aprill 4th? I never noticed that.
Why would this happen because of a first impression?
We aren't mind readers and we can't really feel and sense exacting what is going on very often with a post.
How can we actually know what was in his or her mind with that post which I actually saw as interesting and worthy of commenting about.
If someone at first shows up but then doesn't show up again for months - then perhaps one can give one's self the authority to ban or to send a PM saying that the username will be deleted as a result of not having posted for months.

People do at times have to get their feet wet in a manner of speaking.
That's just my 2 cents.

I've un-banned him on the same day as I took action; .

Who are YOU and what gives YOU the authority to ban him in the first place? I'm just asking.

Quote :

I realized that it was faulty reasoning on my part and will not take that route again

Ah, an intelligent person who recognizes faulty reasoning in him -her self.
You can't guarantee you will not take that route again...you can only be as you are in the present moment.
I know...I've thought and said the same thing at times and have been proven wrong by myself. You can only be more mindful of doing it.

Arc, he is a co-administrator, alongside mannequin and myself; thus he has the right and power to do such things, if deemed appropriate.

Might is right!

This is NOT a democracy; this forum is aristocratic in nature.

WL is not some mindless person on a power trip ( I would not have made him a co-administrator, if he was of that nature ); he made a mistake, acknowledged it, and speedily corrected himself.

No worries.

(not wanting to disturb the flow of discussion in the Bergson thread, I'll put this here)

Quote :

Consciousness will never be fully explained through materialism. We need to transcend this purely mechanistic way of thinking

Philosophers have been in pursuit of this problem for centuries, and their interest is not genuine in the form of wanting to know the truth about consciousness for scientific or philosophical reasons; what they've wanted is to find a way to believe human mortality does not stop consciousness from happening.

But an understanding of what consciousness is changes and affects consciousness in absolutely no way. The problem is not 'what is consciousness and when and how is there consciousness, but that there can only ever be consciousness... if indeed consciousness is more than the material and somehow transcends it.

In any form, consciousness and self-awareness would be structured basically the same. To discover that consciousness is some kind of eternal process that transcends the world in an immaterial way, shouldn't make anyone any more enthusiastic about it than they were before they made this discovery.

What would change, fundamentally, upon discovering you were immortal?

Wouldn't it be just more of the same? There is an inescapable, existential characteristic to being conscious, which, in any form, is expressed in the same kinds of experiences, circumstances and consequences.

Again, supposing you were a transcendent, immaterial 'embodied' consciousness, what now?

All this talk is, of course, granting for the purpose of philosophy a temporary license to make the category mistake Ryle points out, by using the word 'consciousness' as if it were an object, position, container, or process. The word means none of these things in ordinary use; for example, a neurologist's and/or doctor's clinical use of the word denotes a verification of a patient's being aware, and there is no speculation about there being a metaphysical nature to this being aware... or even what that would entail if there were (how could one know?).

Only when consciousness is treated like something inside a Cartesian box, or a box itself, does it take on these mysterious, philosophical peculiarities.

Zoot wrote:

Philosophers have been in pursuit of this problem for centuries, and their interest is not genuine in the form of wanting to know the truth about consciousness for scientific or philosophical reasons; what they've wanted is to find a way to believe human mortality does not stop consciousness from happening.

Many philosophers, mostly theistic ones, have a subconscious agenda, whereby this notion of consciousness not being merely reducible to the brain provides them with existential solace. That's not my aim, of course, as I don't believe in an afterlife; though I acknowledge it is possible, or conceivable.

Quote :

In any form, consciousness and self-awareness would be structured basically the same. To discover that consciousness is some kind of eternal process that transcends the world in an immaterial way, shouldn't make anyone any more enthusiastic about it than they were before they made this discovery.

What would change, fundamentally, upon discovering you were immortal?

Well, as a philosopher, a seeker of truth, discovering things which don't have a tangible utility, like the nature of consciousness, is still something that I enjoy doing. A lot of philosophical inquiry doesn't have practical application, but so what?

Quote :

Again, supposing you were a transcendent, immaterial 'embodied' consciousness, what now?

Now I have an additional, highly enlightening perspective from which I can base further philosophical inquiry. Look! A practical utility after all.

Quote :

All this talk is, of course, granting for the purpose of philosophy a temporary license to make the category mistake Ryle points out, by using the word 'consciousness' as if it were an object, position, container, or process. The word means none of these things in ordinary use; for example, a neurologist's and/or doctor's clinical use of the word denotes a verification of a patient's being aware, and there is no speculation about there being a metaphysical nature to this being aware... or even what that would entail if there were (how could one know?).

Only when consciousness is treated like something inside a Cartesian box, or a box itself, does it take on these mysterious, philosophical peculiarities.

Language is limited. When I say consciousness is a thing, I don't mean to say that it's some inert, physical thing you can put inside of a box and shake around. Consciousness is a no-thing, not an object.

Mechanical thought still has a purpose for understanding the metaphysical. One could explore the galaxy in hopes of randomly stumbling upon some magical aethor or alien race that would provide education. Or one could upgrade the DNA to improve humans from the rock bottom state they're in right now.

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Mechanical thought still has a purpose for understanding the metaphysical. One could explore the galaxy in hopes of randomly stumbling upon some magical aethor or alien race that would provide education. Or one could upgrade the DNA to improve humans from the rock bottom state they're in right now.

If there is an alien race, which has superior intelligence, I don't think they would be interested in edifying humans, no more than humans are interested in educating ants.

If anything, they would probably be hostile and do something similar to what Columbus did to the Native-Americans.

Erik wrote:

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:

Mechanical thought still has a purpose for understanding the metaphysical. One could explore the galaxy in hopes of randomly stumbling upon some magical aethor or alien race that would provide education. Or one could upgrade the DNA to improve humans from the rock bottom state they're in right now.

If there is an alien race, which has superior intelligence, I don't think they would be interested in edifying humans, no more than humans are interested in educating ants.

If anything, they would probably be hostile and do something similar to what Columbus did to the Native-Americans.

You're basing that on human projection and history.
Perhaps if this alien race had so much superior intelligence, it would definitely not do what Columbus and others did to the Native Americans. Being far superior to us, they wouldn't feel threatened but might want to help us along - at the same time, not thinking about us as we do the ants.

Erik,

As per your RULES thread -

Quote :

If you are going to insult someone, back it up with something germane to the topic at hand.

Why insult at all or does it serve a higher purpose in doing so?

And what insults are persmissible? For example...calling someone a retard, moron, stupid...are those the kinds of insults which are permissible?

I'd rather keep this forum as clean as possible, but I realize that people like to swear, and that name calling and swearing will occur here; it's inevitable and negligible, as long as it's mixed in with relevant statements pertaining to the subject matter.

Example:

" Susan, you are a dumb cunt. The nature of the universe is....."

Example of what's unacceptable:

" Teddy, you are fuckhead! Teddy, you are a FUCKHEAD! Yeah, Ted, you are a ....."

Any sort of insult or name-calling is permissible, as long as it's backed up by relevant academic statements.

Erik wrote:

I'd rather keep this forum as clean as possible, but I realize that people like to swear, and that name calling and swearing will occur here; it's inevitable and negligible, as long as it's mixed in with relevant statements pertaining to the subject matter.

Example:

" Susan, you are a dumb cunt. The nature of the universe is....."

Example of what's unacceptable:

" Teddy, you are fuckhead! Teddy, you are a FUCKHEAD! Yeah, Ted, you are a ....."

Any sort of insult or name-calling is permissible, as long as it's backed up by relevant academic statements.

Well, the way I look at it, Erik, is that if someone has the intelligence and consciousness to know for instance the nature of the universe then that person might have the intelligence and the consciousnessto refrain from that kind of insult or any insult for that matter. That's kind of being abusive, wouldn't you agree?

You know, if you set the bar too low, it will fall.
You seem to want to give leeway to someone simply because they are intelligent and have knowledge.
But that's just the way I think about it. Thinking about consciousness, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much consciousness/awareness would you say is in your perception?

If someone responded to a post of mine with these words...

Quote :

Susan, you are a dumb cunt. The nature of the universe is....."

I would ignore the poster.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that your way is the more balanced way.
But it is your forum.
Would that be an example of aristocracy?

Arcturus Descending wrote:

Erik wrote:

I'd rather keep this forum as clean as possible, but I realize that people like to swear, and that name calling and swearing will occur here; it's inevitable and negligible, as long as it's mixed in with relevant statements pertaining to the subject matter.

Example:

" Susan, you are a dumb cunt. The nature of the universe is....."

Example of what's unacceptable:

" Teddy, you are fuckhead! Teddy, you are a FUCKHEAD! Yeah, Ted, you are a ....."

Any sort of insult or name-calling is permissible, as long as it's backed up by relevant academic statements.

Well, the way I look at it, Erik, is that if someone has the intelligence and consciousness to know for instance the nature of the universe then that person might have the intelligence and the consciousnessto refrain from that kind of insult or any insult for that matter. That's kind of being abusive, wouldn't you agree?

You know, if you set the bar too low, it will fall.
You seem to want to give leeway to someone simply because they are intelligent and have knowledge.
But that's just the way I think about it. Thinking about consciousness, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much consciousness/awareness would you say is in your perception?

If someone responded to a post of mine with these words...

Quote :

Susan, you are a dumb cunt. The nature of the universe is....."

I would ignore the poster.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that your way is the more balanced way.
But it is your forum.
Would that be an example of aristocracy?  

If you had hyperintelligience you wouldn't be so easily hurt by trivial matters. Such is the modern woman, she refrains from intellectual debate and conversation if she judges the participants to be dressed unfashionably, and says "talk to the hand" if someone is using their voice in a tone which stirs her emotions too much.

The internet and public places are meant to communicate, not meditate. Nor is the Internet a gathering to gaze upon antiques.

Quote :

If you had hyperintelligience you wouldn't be so easily hurt by trivial matters

.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, Trixie, but I don't look on a man calling a woman a dumb cunt as being trivial.  You don't agree that we all deserve a certain amount of respect? That's not the same as being obsessed with demanding respect, or even necessarily needing it but at the same time who wants to deal with someone acting like a street punk?

Hyperintelligence has nothing to do with accepting insults. Emotional intelligence DOES have to do with how we respond to them.

I do not consider myself to be hyperintelligent - nor hypo-intelligent, but at the same time, I would not consider someone who cannot express their self without these kind of insults as being that intelligent in the first place.
Harmony is a great thing.

Quote :

Such is the modern woman, she refrains from intellectual debate and conversation if she judges the participants to be dressed unfashionably,

I would sooner carry on an intellectual debate with anyone who was dressed unfashionably or even in rags (we never know who it is dressed in rags as appearances are deceiving)  than one who was incapable of restraining their self and their foul mouth during this so-called debate or conversation.
There are other ways in which to gain a catharsis.

If a modern woman to you is one who willingly puts up with all kinds of abuses, then I would suggest to you that there is something missing from your definition. You need to re-define it.


But to each her or his own.

Erik wrote:

I'd rather keep this forum as clean as possible, but I realize that people like to swear, and that name calling and swearing will occur here; it's inevitable and negligible, as long as it's mixed in with relevant statements pertaining to the subject matter.

Example:

" Susan, you are a dumb cunt. The nature of the universe is....."

Example of what's unacceptable:

" Teddy, you are fuckhead! Teddy, you are a FUCKHEAD! Yeah, Ted, you are a ....."

Any sort of insult or name-calling is permissible, as long as it's backed up by relevant academic statements.

Ha, I thought I recognized the stench. Shit begets Shit, this forum is just a retread of Knowthyself, and just as bad. Bye.

BardoXV

Quote :

Ha, I thought I recognized the stench. Shit begets Shit, this forum is just a retread of Knowthyself, and just as bad. Bye.

Maybe just give it a little time, Bardo, that is, if you do, in fact, enjoy being in here at times. I also see that same pattern which you spoke of above BUT at some point, hopefull we come to realize that we need to get rid of the "retreads" and buy completely new tires, ones that are better suited for our "vehicles"...hopefully.

If we're not part of the solution, we're part of the problem.  Didn't you say somewhere in here that you needed a new kind of challenge (paraphrasing)?

Well, here it is - Academy of Excellence.forumotion.com ` sometimes a name has to grow into itself in every way. That takes time but if you have the time and the inclination ....

Modern technology realizes everybody is a superstar.

BardoXV wrote:

Ha,  I thought I recognized the stench.   Shit begets Shit, this forum is just a retread of Knowthyself, and just as bad.   Bye.

You sound more emotional than the women, I should fuck you until you love me, faggot.

The mother is never truly free

Money is only real to those who work for it.

They call it " the land of the free ", but how free are we, if we are bound to all sorts of rent, taxes, laws, strenuous and tedious jobs, and laws? A theoretically simple objective, such as building one's own house, on one's own land, becomes a complex web of unnecessary zoning laws, regulations, permits, and taxes. They make you pay taxes on your 'own' land! Haha! It's not even, really, your land, if they still make you pay for it, and if they can take it away at the snap of fingers. But that is the divine joke of America, is it not? People, who think their slavery is freedom...

The mind's of people are becoming ill as a result of being exposed to a lack of truth.