Do you believe "Doc" is real?

[Occhidiangela]

I reject logic simply because it has failed me. I choose to deal instead in my own absolutes.

I absolutely must have a sammich.
[right][snapback]79719[/snapback][/right]

Logic is a tool. Absolutes generating from self are necessarily limited in scope, unless you can truly become cosmic. Not sure if you are a Yogi, but that is what it takes to permit such absolutes to expand beyond self. Of course, the irony is that once one has broken out of self, I doubt those absolutes will seem so appelaing. They too can be shackles, of a different kind.

On that note, I absolutely love a roast beef, onion, horse radish, Dijon Mustard, tomato, lettuce and dill pickle sammich, washed down with a cold lager.

Tuna salad is easier to chew and faster to make, thought. :D

Occhi

[Guest]

As I said up front - I utterly disagree with your perspective.

One thing you make a mistake on is that the contrast is not between self and logic. Its between self and the whole(self being a member of the whole). Logic is simply a tool used to compare parts of the whole.


In philosophy I really dont see much reason to agrue with you. You are an existentilalist. I only bother agruing specifics with you.
Argueing with an existentialist is argueing with a meglomaniac who has concisenciously chosen his madness.

One cant prove anythong to to an existentialist because in the end they believe trurth by definition comes from them self and not an out side source.

[Doc]

Logic is a tool.  Absolutes generating from self are necessarily limited in scope, unless you can truly become cosmic.  Not sure if you are a Yogi, but that is what it takes to permit such absolutes to expand beyond self.  Of course, the irony is that once one has broken out of self, I doubt those absolutes will seem so appelaing.  They too can be shackles, of a different kind. 

On that note, I absolutely love a roast beef, onion, horse radish, Dijon Mustard, tomato, lettuce and dill pickle sammich, washed down with a cold lager. 

Tuna salad is easier to chew and faster to make, thought.  :D

Occhi
[right][snapback]79735[/snapback][/right]

You say this as it applies to normal people. I am beyond most of that. You should know that. I do pretty much everything for my own reasons.

Now, as for your vile offerings of picnic baskets to lure me away from my lofty point of view, I am either going to have to maul you or report you to the ranger.

Yogi indeed.

[Occhidiangela]

One cant prove anythong to to an existentialist because in the end they believe trurth by definition comes from them self and not an out side source.
[right][snapback]79736[/snapback][/right]

Other than giggling about the visual of a philosopher wearing a thong of any sort (fun with typos :) ) I am reminded of an old Bill Mauldin cartoon.

Two infantrymen sitting in a fox hole. One is saying to the other:

"There's two kinds of people in the world: you, and everybody else."

That captures, perhaps unintentionally, the paradox of the interaction between the Self and the Whole. Expanding perception beyond self is hard, due to the senses being self based. A self based reality is necessarily limited, and hence Doc's absolutes are confined to his foxhole.

I better stop there, since I am very spotty on formal philosophy. :D

Occhi

[Doc]

As I said up front - I utterly disagree with your perspective.

One thing you make a mistake on is that the contrast is not between self and logic. Its between self and the whole(self being a member of the whole). Logic is simply a tool used to compare parts of the whole.
In philosophy I really dont see much reason to agrue with you. You are an existentilalist.  I only bother agruing specifics with you.
Argueing with an existentialist is argueing with a meglomaniac who has concisenciously chosen his madness.

One cant prove anythong to to an existentialist because in the end they believe trurth  by definition comes from them self and not an out side source.
[right][snapback]79736[/snapback][/right]

There is no way to answer you with out damning my self further as a megalomaniac.

Your brain is only capable of things small in scope and nature. No offense. These things will work for you. Cling tightly to them. One day, they may fail you, they may not. Do as you will.

I am a pragmatic existentialist. I am the very worst sort there is. We probably are mad. Mad enough to do things that nobody else would. The world would be a very boring place with out us though, you must agree.

I reject your ideas on a level that I can not hope for you to understand. Once again, no offense, but the view is very different up here on top of the mountain. There is a much larger view of what goes on below, one you can not possibly see or understand, and I could never explain to you. This is not megalomania, or elitism. Not at all. This is merely a simple statement of fact and not meant to be done in a degrading way.

What you must understand is that your current ideas on varying schools of thought, philosophy, logic, all these things and more, all of them apply to normal unaltered human beings. None of these apply to the few of us walking around with multiple streams of consciousness. That would be like telling a person with four arms not to use the extra two simply because it goes beyond the scope of what a normal person with two arms can do. The person with extra arms isn't better than the normal person, just different, and different standards apply. And how he applies the use of his arms is going to be noticeably different than a human that only has two.

People change. Adapt. Some people encourage their own evolution or adaptation through body modification or chemical alteration. And the world changes around them through their pressence.

Like it or not, things change. Schools of thought change. Some times, slowly, some times violently, but all things change. It is the only constant worth keeping track of. In a very short time humans went from thinking the world was flat to knowing the earth was round. People believed the heavens revolved around the earth. We now know different.

Keep an open mind. Just becuase you haven't seen with your own eyes that the earth is round so to speak, doesn't mean you can't listen to those that have. And don't pick nits here, you know what I am driving at.

[Doc]

Other than giggling about the visual of a philosopher wearing a thong of any sort (fun with typos  :)  )  I am reminded of an old Bill Mauldin cartoon.

Two infantrymen sitting in a fox hole.  One is saying to the other:

"There's two kinds of people in the world: you, and everybody else."

That captures, perhaps unintentionally, the paradox of the interaction between the Self and the Whole.  Expanding perception beyond self is hard, due to the senses being self based.  A self based reality is necessarily limited, and hence Doc's absolutes are confined to his foxhole.

I better stop there, since I am very spotty on formal philosophy.  :D

Occhi
[right][snapback]79747[/snapback][/right]

Let it out Occhi. I find that formal educational training on philosophy only makes you stuffy and boring. It cements you firmly in place and becomes very inflexable in the long run. Freeform. It's better. Let the details sort themselves out in debate, where the real truth lies.

[Guest]

And you essentially reinforce my point.

Although if someone gets to use the "top of a mountain" metaphor it sure isnt the existentialist.

That would belong to the zen fellow - but of course he wouldnt use it.

[Occhidiangela]

Although if someone gets to use the "top of a mountain" metaphor it sure isnt the existentialist.  That would belong to the zen fellow - but of course he wouldnt use it.
[right][snapback]79754[/snapback][/right]

Touché.

Occhi

[Doc]

And you essentiallyreinforce my point.

Although if someone gets to use the "top of a mountain" metaphor it sure isnt the existentialist. 

That would belong to the zen fellow - but of course he wouldnt use it.
[right][snapback]79754[/snapback][/right]

And you prove my point. I am beyond your scope of thought. :P

Use whatever means you can to try and pigeonhole me. They will fail.

I defy catagorisation except on my own terms.

[Occhidiangela]

And you prove my point. I am beyond your scope of thought.  :P

Use whatever means you can to try and pigeonhole me. They will fail.

I defy catagorisation except on my own terms.
[right][snapback]79756[/snapback][/right]

You are what you eat. Based on a recent post, you are a sammich. :lol:

Occhi

[Doc]

You are what you eat.  Based on a recent post, you are a sammich.  :lol:

Occhi
[right][snapback]79762[/snapback][/right]

Eat me :P

One pill makes you larger, the other makes you small. The ones that Mommy gives you, don't do anything at all. Poor Alice. When she was just small.

[Occhidiangela]

Eat me  :P

One pill makes you larger, the other makes you small. The ones that Mommy gives you, don't do anything at all. Poor Alice. When she was just small.
[right][snapback]79763[/snapback][/right]

"Remember what the Doormouse said:
Feed Your Head!"

Good night, Gracie.

Occhi

[SetBuilder]

For a nit (one that makes me feel like what I'm learning isn't going to waste), a computer doesn't multitask - it executes commands, one at  a time. The CPU switches from process to process very quickly, to give the illusion of those processes executing simultaneously.

How's that for a completely off-topic thread?
[right][snapback]79612[/snapback][/right]

The exception being hyperthreading (P4 600 series), multi-threading (Pentium D 800 series), and a few series of XEON procs.

And Doc, thinking about 6 subjects at once is easy. Unfortunately, it seems the back of my head is a black hole, as I can only remember a tenth of what I think about until a least a decade later. Makes learning a new language difficult (unless it's a computer language).

[whyBish]

reprogrammed
[right][snapback]79698[/snapback][/right]

Being reprogrammed would involve some designer with foreknowledge of the likely result. Taking LSD is not designing, it is buying a lottery ticket.

[whyBish]

I reject your ideas on a level that I can not hope for you to understand.[right][snapback]79751[/snapback][/right]

I wroked at an abbatoir once, and saw a lot of BS, literally. The stuff in here is more entertaining though...

[TaMeOlta]

Did you know that .....

..... if you were to inhale steadily , for five minutes straight , without exhaling , that the back of your head would swell up til it touched the floor behind you ?

:lol:

[Occhidiangela]

Did you know that .....

..... if you were to inhale steadily , for five minutes straight , without exhaling , that the back of your head would swell up til it touched the floor behind you ?

:lol:
[right][snapback]79834[/snapback][/right]

Did you observe this when you were on acid, Guinness, or just out in the sun too long while in Florida?

Nice visual, though, it rates a 9 spoons out of a possible 10 on the Rogue Visual Spoon Rating System.

Oh, wait, there is no spoon . . .

Occhi

[Minionman]

Did you observe this when you were on acid, Guinness, or just out in the sun too long while in Florida?

Nice visual, though, it rates a 9 spoons out of a possible 10 on the Rogue Visual Spoon Rating System.

Oh, wait, there is no spoon . . .

Occhi
[right][snapback]79835[/snapback][/right]

That quote simply means there can be no spoons if seen one at a time. There can, however, be more than one spoon, or fractions of a spoon. Spoons exist because you are really seeing a fraction of a spoon so close to a full one that your eyes can't tell the difference. :huh:

try that one out for size. :)

[Occhidiangela]

That quote simply means there can be no spoons if seen one at a time.  There can, however, be more than one spoon, or fractions of a spoon.  Spoons exist because you are really seeing a fraction of a spoon so close to a full one that your eyes can't tell the difference.  :huh:

try that one out for size. :)
[right][snapback]79845[/snapback][/right]

Must . . . have . . . Guinness . . . eyes . . . hurting . . . :ph34r:

Occhi

[Brista]

The piece of the Matrix that explained that there is no spoon is, like the spoon, a piece of the Matrix. Since all parts of the Matrix are interchangeable the teller is effectively a spoon. In other words you know that there is no spoon because you have been told this on good authority by a spoon