Is Three a 'Magic' Number? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14764283
they look through a window at a dead Universe and mistake it for a mirror, but it's not, and the magic lies on our side of the glass.

I suspect that by the word "magic" you are simply referring to a worldview, a human relationship with reality, which is not alienated. Our alienation from the Real seems to have begun with Democritus. He is most famous for his atomic theory of matter, but in fact his true philosophical importance is in the fact that he was the first thinker to introduce a split between the world as we experience it and the world as it 'truly' is. According to Democritus, only "the atom and the void" truly exist, and everything else is merely an illusion - a shared illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. As Democritus put it, "opinion the colour, opinion the taste", etc. That is, the secondary attributes of the objects in the world - the way that we actually experience the world - exist only in the mind of the observer rather than having any objective existence. According to Democritus, the really real is only the atom and the void, empty of all secondary attributes, empty of mind, empty of spirit or meaning, from which we are forever alienated. It is this vision which seems to horrify you and RT. It shouldn't. In fact, even Democritus' "the atom and the void" is itself only existent in the mind of the observer, and is merely an abstraction of thought. In other words, you are both delusional and believe in "magic", though in different ways. Besoeker believes in the magic of rationalism, and you and RT believe in the magic of imagination. The fact that you regard each other as enemies rather than allies is the tragedy of Western thought, and can ultimately be laid at the door of Democritus. I wonder if he realised what he was starting...? Lol.
#14764308
jakell wrote: ...I did attempt to address what could be called the mundane level of the question in the OP by a nod towards psychology. Even then though materialists will overlook the 'magical' element.. they look through a window at a dead Universe and mistake it for a mirror, but it's not, and the magic lies on our side of the glass.


Potemkin wrote:I suspect that by the word "magic" you are simply referring to a worldview, a human relationship with reality, which is not alienated. Our alienation from the Real seems to have begun with Democritus. He is most famous for his atomic theory of matter, but in fact his true philosophical importance is in the fact that he was the first thinker to introduce a split between the world as we experience it and the world as it 'truly' is. According to Democritus, only "the atom and the void" truly exist, and everything else is merely an illusion - a shared illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. As Democritus put it, "opinion the colour, opinion the taste", etc. That is, the secondary attributes of the objects in the world - the way that we actually experience the world - exist only in the mind of the observer rather than having any objective existence. According to Democritus, the really real is only the atom and the void, empty of all secondary attributes, empty of mind, empty of spirit or meaning, from which we are forever alienated. It is this vision which seems to horrify you and RT. It shouldn't. In fact, even Democritus' "the atom and the void" is itself only existent in the mind of the observer, and is merely an abstraction of thought. In other words, you are both delusional and believe in "magic", though in different ways. Besoeker believes in the magic of rationalism, and you and RT believe in the magic of imagination. The fact that you regard each other as enemies rather than allies is the tragedy of Western thought, and can ultimately be laid at the door of Democritus. I wonder if he realised what he was starting...? Lol.


Horrify? A rather extreme word don't you think? (can't speak for RT though)
It's a perfectly sane and valid way of modeling the world, it would be inconsistent therefore to attach emotion to it.

Enemies? Again, a rather charged word (and I can't speak for RT). Only a silly person would derive enmity from a worldview expressed on an internet forum.

I suppose I should have put that word 'magic' in inverted commas, above I'm simply using it to represent an indefinable spark that is invisible when one only looks outward. It's a pretty lame usage of the word I suppose, something I hope to remedy later on.


ETA: 'Invisible' is possibly too strong a word. The spark can be deduced by an open-minded materialist, which is why I used the phrase "fundamentalist materialist" over the page, so that attitudes can be taken into account.
Last edited by jakell on 17 Jan 2017 12:42, edited 2 times in total.
#14764311
Besoeker believes in the magic of rationalism, and you and RT believe in the magic of imagination.


So, we imagine rationalism is real and reason magic must exist?
We are left with a 'chicken and the egg' problem.
#14764406
So, we imagine rationalism is real and reason magic must exist?

Precisely, One Degree. It is the dialectic between reason and imagination. After all, before Einstein could formulate his General Theory of Relativity, he first had to imagine it. :)

We are left with a 'chicken and the egg' problem.

Not at all. Reason and imagination are a dialectical dyad. Neither has to be logically prior to the other. After all, which came first, life or death? Which came first, good or evil? Which came first, light or darkness?
#14764408
jakell wrote:I came across this video whilst perusing those of Matt Dillahunty, someone I had an introduction to from XogGyux in the discussion on morality



I also have an attraction to the number three and use it a great deal in all walks of life, not least when making verbal points. Matt here starts with a so-called 'mystical' veneration and ends up showing it is meaningless. My own thoughts are somewhere in between.

I would not use the word 'magic' or anything like it, I would say it is meaningful or significant to us though, just to put aside the notion that it has any objective qualities.
Observe many debates between intelligent folks, especially on the internet where they can be gone back over (and over). When the subject matter is difficult or emotional the discourse very often fall backs into binary thinking, often getting stuck there, some people will try to broaden the scope, only to be dragged back to the binary. To regard this merely as a failing misses an opportunity IMO, one that demonstrates where we are at cognitively as a species. Progressives like to think that suddenly, now we have science and logic etc, there are no limits to the human mind, but this is not true IMO, we have only relatively recently stepped up from the higher primates and are still in the process of evolving our mental faculties, a process that may turn out to be a lot slower and tortuous than over-enthusiastic humanists like to imagine.

So, here we have a sticking-point that tells us something ie, it is significant to us personally. The move onwards from binary thinking to more considered thinking might be straightforward for some individuals, but collectively it's a bit of a hurdle, and if we think that dialogue is the way forward then we are stuck (at present) somewhere between 2 and 3. Three is the next step we look towards, what some may yearn for.

Here's an enjoyable essay that encouraged me along this line of thinking


Moronic over simplifications, sounds as ignorant as a literal creationist
#14764420
Oxymoron wrote:Moronic over simplifications, sounds as ignorant as a literal creationist


Well, I suppose I can at least thank you for quoting the OP, I've referred back to it enough times.

I agree, I do tend to initially oversimplify things. I'd rather start from a simple foundation and build upon that, also, it helps me to keep track of what I've said plus it leaves a lot less room for other's misinterpretations that I would have to waste time chasing up.
In other words.. deceptively simple might be a better description.

But wait... maybe you referring to Matt's video here. Hopefully you aren't referring to JMG's piece, which I will argue is definitely deceptively simple
Last edited by jakell on 17 Jan 2017 19:30, edited 1 time in total.
#14764424
jakell wrote:Well, I suppose I can at least thank you for quoting the OP, I've referred back to it enough times.

I agree, I do tend to initially oversimplify things. I'd rather start from a simple foundation and build upon that, also, it helps me to keep track of what I've said plus leaves a lot less room for other's misinterpretations that I would have to waste time chasing up.
In other words.. deceptively simple might leave your options open.

But wait... maybe you referring to Matt's video here. Hopefully you aren't referring to JMG's piece, which I will argue is definitely deceptively simple


Apologies I meant the video not your take on it.
#14764432
Oxymoron wrote:Apologies I meant the video not your take on it.


Yes, I only came across it whilst perusing some videos that XogGyux pointed me at, and for some reason this caught my attention. I used it to sort of prompt Xog to get back to me on a different one of Matt's.

I quite like the guy, but he does seem a remnant of the big atheist scene of the 00's and which I was never really keen on. He's done loads of videos on more or less the same theme and seems pretty single minded.

I think the fact that it made me think of JMG's piece made it significant to me, and it gave me a chance to forward one of my own cogitations. I also like that that it has pointed me towards Donald Duck in Mathmagicland too, I've never seen that before.
#14764456
RhetoricThug wrote:You misconstrue my philosophical propositions.

If I do maybe your continued obfuscation has something to do with that.

RhetoricThug wrote:If we wish to answer the question, 'is 3 a magic number,' we must discuss consciousness, cognition, and Morphogenesis. You continue to offer schoolhouse generalities with a common sense for and inclination toward absolutism without any particular scientific or philosophical approximations to counter my articulate opinions. I wouldn't call your practice of cherry picking insubstantial factors from my whole point, and saying you disagree, discussion; in-fact, most of your posts inflame the mundane aspects of this thread.


Reply gone but I'll ry again although I'm not sure that it will be word for word like my previous attempt!

I did discuss consciousness. It is a human attribute, a state of being aware of one's surroundings. No need to invoke the supernatural for that. Cognition is essentially learning by experience. Whether it's how we learn to think in a different way or acquire new knowledge, it doesn't require something outside nature. You could make the same point about morphogenesis - a growing embryo, tadpoles becoming frogs, the changing shape of conscious thought - that's life.

Schoolhouse generalities and articulate opinions.........at least you concede that they are opinions. And that's fine.
There is a saying in my field.
"Take two engineers and you will get three opinions."
That "magic" three..........
Last edited by Besoeker on 17 Jan 2017 22:55, edited 1 time in total.
#14764483
Leave it to Potemkin (modern dialectician) to regurgitate some textbook macroscopic binary opposition (1...0...1...0), as he continues to ignore the microscopic process (1010).
Potemkin wrote:I suspect that by the word "magic" you are simply referring to a worldview, a human relationship with reality, which is not alienated. Our alienation from the Real seems to have begun with Democritus. He is most famous for his atomic theory of matter, but in fact his true philosophical importance is in the fact that he was the first thinker to introduce a split between the world as we experience it and the world as it 'truly' is. According to Democritus, only "the atom and the void" truly exist, and everything else is merely an illusion - a shared illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. As Democritus put it, "opinion the colour, opinion the taste", etc. That is, the secondary attributes of the objects in the world - the way that we actually experience the world - exist only in the mind of the observer rather than having any objective existence. According to Democritus, the really real is only the atom and the void, empty of all secondary attributes, empty of mind, empty of spirit or meaning, from which we are forever alienated. It is this vision which seems to horrify you and RT. It shouldn't. In fact, even Democritus' "the atom and the void" is itself only existent in the mind of the observer, and is merely an abstraction of thought. In other words, you are both delusional and believe in "magic", though in different ways. Besoeker believes in the magic of rationalism, and you and RT believe in the magic of imagination. The fact that you regard each other as enemies rather than allies is the tragedy of Western thought, and can ultimately be laid at the door of Democritus. I wonder if he realised what he was starting...? Lol.
Thank you for summarizing perceptual illusion. :roll: Yes, the magic of imagination and the magic of rationalism calculate perception. Potemkin, I'm waiting for you to say something fresh and new. I can investigate the rear-view mirror and read dead language in my spare time. ;) We are in love with our conventional fiction.

Our perception of dimensional experience can be deconstructed and explained through the reconstruction of primordial substance. Quantum reason (or technique) is the next best ‘metaphor’ (following the chronological compilation of ancestral information as taught & learned through our shared illusory linear space/time experience) or ‘approach’ for semantic mammals attempting to ‘grasp’ thus ‘reverse engineer’ noumenon along with its space/time relationship which result in the experience itself (from the perspective of sentient human beings). Yet, since the tools we’re using to investigate quantum mechanics tend to be extensions of the experience deduced through the relative translation of human sensation, we may be using a different ‘filter’ or ‘lens’ as we ‘pretend’ to know & understand the same materialized symptoms as they appear & reappear through the medium of our shared dimensional bond. In other words: Occult science, science in general, etc… may be based upon false data gathered by observing ‘life’ through the bias of our human senses. If experience stems from our relative translation of information colliding throughout time/space, perhaps we may be completely ‘wrong’ because of the way the human interfaces with ‘life.’ If any other ‘creature’ happened to evolve with the human equivalent capacity for intellectual reasoning, the laws of nature would be demonstrably different because of the way information or ‘life’ interfaces with the senses of other conscious forms. Lastly, since human beings are inseparable from the universe & life, we act as complex conduits of light for life. We help change or shape the outside world as the outside world changes our internal thoughts; this curious feedback loop or Ouroboros of living activity is made up of organic & inorganic information bits which continuously, instantly, and simultaneously interact all ways & always. You decode and experience one ‘stream’ of life’s information. The primordial substance vibrates through everything and the microcosm (individual humans) acts as one of many channels for eternity to manifest its ever-changing macrocosm (life/universe).

As you may notice, I produce my own opinions (within the framework of our naturally stacking biological neural-network) and use dead language (need be) to support my discussion piece.

In fact, even Democritus' "the atom and the void" is itself only existent in the mind of the observer, and is merely an abstraction of thought.
I'll repost this:

Actually, it may imply a prefecture of objective truth, which all of us experience due to the way we organize society. Yes, we may share the same source-code, but we express or render our SELF-serving function by fragmenting the whole script.

Sure, new dialectical tensions may emerge, but the information age may represent everything all at once, or at least visibly express quantum reason/process, and humans may represent one evolved instinct operating through linear time/space (the old paradigm). If the human organism must face mass extinction thn we must peacefully accept the end of our evolution. For we are agents of change swimming in cosmic soup, serving our invented purpose through our finite flash-shells, ultimately returning to our womb, that sublime oneness void of perpetual motion. Perhaps we are dead by design
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=167402&start=20
I'm not horrified by any human 'vision,' what a silly accusation.

We are left with a 'chicken and the egg' problem.
The chicken and the egg exist simultaneously (information & interaction delineate through space-time). Potemkin doesn't understand the new science, he'll continue to pull outdated gibberish out of his limited degree of awareness and present it as aged wisdom (in order to maintain his political dogma, dialectical materialism). Quantum physics describe materialism as the visible epidermis layer of experience (departure from classical ideas of matter).

Organic Unity

Please read carefully

Proteus Bound: Visual Space in Use

Cornford's theme in 'The Invention of Space' is that 'normal' space for the Greeks was preliterate or acoustic space, which has suddenly reemerged in our twentieth-century world under the aegis of Einstein and relative theory. What we would call 'normal' or 'common-sense space' remains visual and Euclidean for us in the twentieth century, while the avant-garde or Einsteinian space is acoustic or simultaneous once again.

Visual space is a man-made artifact, whereas acoustic space is a natural environmental form. Visual space is space created and perceived by the eyes when they are abstracted or separated from the activity of the other senses. With respect to its properties, this space is a continuous, connected, homogeneous (uniform), and static container. Visual space is man-made in the basic sense that it is abstracted from the interplay with other senses and their specific modes. This abstraction occurs by the agency of the phonetic alphabet. the alphabet is the hidden ground of the figure of visual space.

Any continuum inherently presents a situation that is a figure minus a ground, such as a Euclidean straight line or plane. A continuum as such is infinite and featureless. Actually there can be no such thing as a continuum. In nature there are no figures-minus-grounds. In fact, in nature there are no figures at all- only a dynamic environmental mosaic that is discontinuous and diverse.

The wars of the Ancients and the Moderns were grounded in a rivalry between the hemispheres

Throughout its history, the trivium was beset by rivalries, later known as the 'wars of the Ancients and the Moderns.' Grammar (the encyclopedic tradition of learned exegesis and commentary) and rhetoric together usually held control of the trivium against the conflicting claims of the dialecticians.

Following the Greek rhetorician Isocrates, Cicero, and after him Quintilian, established the basic pattern for Western civilized education, reaffirmed by St Augustine four centuries later as the alignment of enclopedic wisdom and eloquence. That is, with the trivium as a retrieval of the oral logos on the new ground of writing, the conjunction of grammar and rhetoric on the one hand, and dialectic on the other, provided a balance of the hemispheres. For these men, 'tradition' had the same right-hemisphere figure-grounded resonance and simultaneity that was proposed by T.S. Eliot (a modern grammarian of ancient ilk). For more than fifteen centuries, most of our Western history, the Ciceronian program, itself a retrieval of the old Greek liberal educational system, the 'egkuklios paideia' (vide Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity) was the basis of liberal education and Christian humanism. With print, via Gutenberg, the visual stress of the alphabet gained new ascendancy. Spearheaded by the French dialectician Peter Ramus, a new battle of the Ancients (rhetoricians and grammarians) and Moderns (dialecticians) was waged, and dialectic 'Method' obsolesced tradition. Since that time grammar and rhetoric have been cast in a dialectic or left-hemisphere mould, along with all of our arts and sciences. it is only with the return of acoustic space in this century (20th), to the right-hemisphere multisensory forms of awareness, that the tables begin to turn once more.

Laws of Media offers a bridge between the hemispheres, a dialogue structure in accordance with the role of the corpus callosum, which neurosurgeons identify as the organ that facilitates interplay between the two types of cognition. Until now, the conventional form in analysis or exposition has been triadic and logical, as in the syllogism. It is ultimately a propositional left-hemisphere form, rigid and connected, in the pattern of efficient cause.

The logical syllogism has the connected triadic or triangular form:

All As are Bs.
C is A.
Therefore C is B.

As in:

All men are mortal.
All dialecticians are men,
Therefore all dialecticians are mortal.

Hegel's great triad is equally a connected form by virtue of the identity of opposition, of sameness-in-reverse. He set out his writings in dialectical triads comprising a thesis, an antithesis, and a synthesis. Thus, he viewed and reviewed history; thus, he organized his Encyclopedia, where he set forth his triadic system, in three sections- 'Logic,' 'Philosophy of Nature,' and 'Philosophy of Mind.' Hegel regarded thought and nature (software and hardware, as we say now) as opposites united in mind and society. The nineteenth century, as Maurice Merleau-Ponty points out, regarded Hegel as 'the possessor of a marvelous secret which enabled him to speak of all things without a thought by mechanically applying dialectical order and connection to them.'

Hence, the grammarian George Steiner inveighs against the sterile triad while he proposes his own tetrad for translation- metaphor writ large:

This view of translation as a hermeneutic of trust (elancement), of penetration, of embodiment, and of restitution, will allow us to overcome the sterile triadic model which has dominated the history and theory of the subject. The perennial distinction between literalism, paraphrase and free imitation, turns out to be wholly contingent. It has no precision or philosophic basis. It overlooks the key fact that a fourtold hermeneia, Aristotle's term for discourse which signifies because it interprets, is conceptually and practically inherent in even the rudiments of translation. (After Babel, 303)

So he proposes a fourtold 'hermeneutic motion,' and emphasizes 'that the hermeneutic motion is dangerously incomplete, that it is dangerous because it is incomplete, if it lacks its fourth stag, the piston-stroke, as it were, which completes the cycle... The enactment of reciprocity in order to restore balance is the crux of the metier and morals of translation. But it is very difficult to put abstractly.' Whether syllogistic or Hegelian-dialectical, for some mysterious inherent reason the triad form itself eliminates ground. But when a fourth term is added to a triad, making a tetrad, the form flips into a new one- resonant, appositional, and metamorphic.

The tetrads of Laws of Media present not sequential but simultaneous facets of media effects. That is to say, they are right-hemisphere in proportion to each other. This proportion of ratios is not made of imposed theoretical classifications (as are, say, Hegel's three terms) but are processes. The tetrads render obsolete all groundless dialectical and systematic Marxist approaches to interpretation of social processes and technological transformations of culture by flipping the discussion into a kind of linguistic of real words.

The Laws of the media, in tetrad form, bring logos and formal cause up to date to reveal analytically the structure of all human artefects.

All words (and languages) are artefacts, each of which manifests this same four-part structure. There are no exceptions. This is the right-hemisphere aspect of language. All non-verbal artefacts- whether safety pins or ICBMs, including also laws of science and institutions- share this same four-part logos-structure in their manifestations and effects. (The tetrad is only applicable to human artefacts, and not, for example, to birds' nests or spierders' webs.) 'Media determinism,' the imposition willy-nilly of new cultural grounds by the action of new technologies (e.g., the imposition of visual space and left-hemisphere dominance following our adoption of the alphabet, or the imposition of the feudal system as a 'side-effect' of the stirrup), is only possible while the users are 'well-adjusted' -sound asleep. The vortex of side-effects was pinned by Joyce: 'willed without witting, whorled without aimed.' There is no inevitability where there is a willingness to pay attention.

Insofar as the tetrads are a means of focusing awareness of hidden or unobserved qualities in our culture and technology, they act phenomenologically. From Hegel to Heidegger, phenomenologists have engaged in an attempt to get at the hidden properties of hidden effects of language and technology alike. In other words, they have tackled a right-hemisphere problem using left-hemisphere techniques and modes of cognition. With the tetrads this dilemma is resolved.

All human artefacts are human utterances, or outerings, and as such they are linguistic and rhetorical entities. At the same time, the etymology of all human technologies is to be found in the human body itself: they are, as it were, prosthetic devices, mutations, metaphors of the body or its parts. the tetrad is exegesis on four levels, showing not the mythic, but the logos-structure of each artefact, and giving its four 'parts' as metaphor, or word.

The laws of media in tetrad form belong properly to rhetoric and grammar, not philosophy. Our concern is etymology and exegesis. This is to place the modern study of technology and artefacts on a humanistic and linguistic basis for the first time.

McLuhan, Marshall, and Eric McLuhan. Laws of Media: The New Science. Toronto: U of Toronto, 1988. Print.

Formations are four-mations in motion
Image

jakell wrote:A binary opposition may seem simplistic, but seems a good solid foundation for further thought. A common denominator that we may be more likely to agree upon.

I try to remind myself that when discussing timeless issues (ie philosophy vs politics for instance), there is no urgency to build complex arguments in a short timeframe. I think it is too much proximity with digital technology that encourages us to hustle, and I try to resist this urge.
You're contradicting yourself in a laughable way. First you say we mustn't form complex arguments because they may be difficult for participating posters to comprehend (as in I should simplify/shorten my arguments), next you say we must resist the urge to hustle and shorten our thoughts. :lol: Whatever dude. I think Politicsforum.borg may be showing its true colors: Dogma, trolling, and doublespeak.
Last edited by noemon on 18 Jan 2017 04:37, edited 5 times in total.
#14764500
RhetoricThug wrote:Leave it to Potemkin (modern dialectician) to regurgitate some textbook macroscopic binary opposition (1...0...1...0), as he continues to ignore the microscopic process (1010)....


A binary opposition may seem simplistic, but seems a good solid foundation for further thought. A common denominator that we may be more likely to agree upon.

I try to remind myself that when discussing timeless issues (ie philosophy vs politics for instance), there is no urgency to build complex arguments in a short timeframe. I think it is too much proximity with digital technology that encourages us to hustle, and I try to resist this urge.
#14764524
One Degree wrote:1 is the loneliest number. ;)

While reading the OP and before getting to the comments and seeing yours, I'd started humming that song... :D

So I'm reminded of two PT Anderson films. First, Magnolia, in which Aimee Mann is singing that One is the Loneliest Number.

And second, for the OP, here's my magic trilogy from Hard Eight:

"A: you give me a ride,
2: you give me 50 bucks, and
C: I sit in the back."

I have no third. 8)
Last edited by anna on 18 Jan 2017 01:46, edited 1 time in total.
#14764528
jakell wrote:A binary opposition may seem simplistic, but seems a good solid foundation for further thought. A common denominator that we may be more likely to agree upon.

I try to remind myself that when discussing timeless issues (ie philosophy vs politics for instance), there is no urgency to build complex arguments in a short timeframe. I think it is too much proximity with digital technology that encourages us to hustle, and I try to resist this urge.


RhetoricThug wrote:You're contradicting yourself in a laughable way. First you say we mustn't form complex arguments because of they may be difficult for participating posters to comprehend (as in I should simplify/shorten my arguments), next you say we must resist the urge to hustle and shorten our thoughts. :lol: Whatever dude. I think Politicsforum.borg may be showing its true colors: Dogma, trolling, and doublespeak.


No, same meaning both times. By 'hustle' I mean to dump all our data and thoughts in a heap rather than in a measured fashion, to do this latter often takes more thought not less, at least I generally find it so.

You have understood my intention though, although I'm not just thinking of participating posters, but of readers and lurkers too. I'm not so much concerned with difficult writings, but with ones that are almost impenetrable, I'm not alone in this it seems because at some point a forum person decided a section was necessary for 'Opaque Cogitations'
#14764588
jakell wrote:No, same meaning both times. By 'hustle' I mean to dump all our data and thoughts in a heap rather than in a measured fashion, to do this latter often takes more thought not less, at least I generally find it so.

You have understood my intention though, although I'm not just thinking of participating posters, but of readers and lurkers too. I'm not so much concerned with difficult writings, but with ones that are almost impenetrable, I'm not alone in this it seems because at some point a forum person decided a section was necessary for 'Opaque Cogitations'
Look, you're the one posting incoherent sentences (e.g., I try to remind myself that when discussing timeless issues (ie philosophy vs politics for instance), there is no urgency to build complex arguments in a short timeframe. I think it is too much proximity with digital technology that encourages us to hustle, and I try to resist this urge.). I'm not sure if you're familiar with the history behind Opaque Cogitation... Opaque Cogitations is the Onemalehuman quarantine zone... Furthermore, why do you continue to complain about my posting style? Stay on topic :lol:

New flash, my mind is not your mind.

"I would not use the word 'magic' or anything like it" because, like too many words nowadays, it's a 'trigger' word

I'm impressed by what could be called measured responses

I made this thread, I would like you to refrain from altering the title in any way from now on

I sort of feel obliged to distill points that may be accessible (and readable) to the more casual viewer.

Personally I'd be a bit embarrassed if I'd described them as you did

I do tend to initially oversimplify things. I'd rather start from a simple foundation and build upon that, also, it helps me to keep track of what I've said


He's done loads of videos on more or less the same theme and seems pretty single minded.

I told you, he's not a serious thinker, he's an activist.
#14764676
RhetoricThug wrote:Look, you're the one posting incoherent sentences (e.g., I try to remind myself that when discussing timeless issues (ie philosophy vs politics for instance), there is no urgency to build complex arguments in a short timeframe. I think it is too much proximity with digital technology that encourages us to hustle, and I try to resist this urge.). I'm not sure if you're familiar with the history behind Opaque Cogitation... Opaque Cogitations is the Onemalehuman quarantine zone... Furthermore, why do you continue to complain about my posting style? Stay on topic :lol:


Oh, I'll certainly allow that, this is an awkward and untidy subject matter, the difference is that I make efforts to post them in isolation so they may be identified and examined, something you have qualified here by your easy quoting.
I try to avoid make a plethora of incoherent statements in one place.

I tend discuss/mention posting styles in general, they are the very stuff of our communication here, there's nothing wrong with being cogniscent of them, I think you exaggerate how much I dwell on yours. It is worth reflecting upon how your style is received in general though, not just by me.

As to the 'topic'. I remarked earlier that thread titles are inherently insufficient, and that they are necessarily expanded upon by the OP, in which I said:
jakell wrote:..... and if we think that dialogue is the way forward....

I do think that dialogue is the way forward, every time, which is why I've taken pause to consider the above. Thanks BTW for continuing to show good faith by keeping the title here in its original form.


RhetoricThug wrote:New flash, my mind is not your mind.

"I would not use the word 'magic' or anything like it" because, like too many words nowadays, it's a 'trigger' word

I'm impressed by what could be called measured responses

I made this thread, I would like you to refrain from altering the title in any way from now on

I sort of feel obliged to distill points that may be accessible (and readable) to the more casual viewer.

Personally I'd be a bit embarrassed if I'd described them as you did

I do tend to initially oversimplify things. I'd rather start from a simple foundation and build upon that, also, it helps me to keep track of what I've said



I told you, he's not a serious thinker, he's an activist.


I'm sure an overlap is possible, his work, whether one agrees with it or not, does have a certain consistency and clarity and I admire those qualities, they don't come easily with this subject matter.
Regarding his 'activism'. He seems a remnant of the heady tubthumping 'atheism' huddle' of the 00's, something that often stuck in my craw. That's pretty much over now I'm pleased to say and, as an individual voice (sans the 'movement'), I don't mind him so much.
#14764690
Requesting a poster to post in a style that pleases others is a request for the poster to post in a style that does not please them. Our style of posting is part of our message. Dogma is dogma and represses creativity.
#14764712
A request is a pretty gentle thing.

To convert it to dogma and repression is quite feat of drama. People do tend to like drama though.


Perhaps, but I am observing and many are rebelling against the current 'pretty gentle things' that are quietly depriving us of freedoms. To refuse to stand against the least of these opens us to more of the same. Where is the dividing line between telling me how to say it and whether I can say it?

Sorry, going off topic. Take a shot at me and then we will conclude this distraction. :)
#14764718
One Degree wrote:Perhaps, but I am observing and many are rebelling against the current 'pretty gentle things' that are quietly depriving us of freedoms. To refuse to stand against the least of these opens us to more of the same. Where is the dividing line between telling me how to say it and whether I can say it?

Sorry, going off topic. Take a shot at me and then we will conclude this distraction. :)


Dunno, are we talking about compulsion now? I thought we were were talking of requesting.

I can see where the latter comes from here, but I'm not sure about the former.
#14764722
Not at all. Reason and imagination are a dialectical dyad.


You big city edumacated fellahs sure have funny words for a chicken and a egg. :)

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]