|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2013 22:35:31 GMT -5
I don't understand why that makes you glad. Can you explain in more detail? I'm glad because he's glad. Where did you get the impression he's glad? If he finds it sad, how can he be glad? Please explain.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2013 22:39:08 GMT -5
Yes, only for those interested in the truth, which is very few. Spoken like a true, devout Roman Catholic (not that you are one, just that you just spoke like one). I wouldn't say devout, but I AM Roman Catholic. Bless me Father for I have sinned. My last confession was 1967.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 13, 2013 22:39:20 GMT -5
I think she's simply pointing away from dogmatic thinking, and in a vocabulary style that attempts to match the one she's responding to. In your case, that's quite a feat. I have to give her credit for that. I wouldn't even bother trying. SDP's autistic image thinking post has relevance here. You don't understand the conversation, but you do see the pictures Figgy paints, and so she successfully communicates what she wants to get across, and the counter arguments are dismissed as incomprehensible because they don't form a clear image. Nothing to fight about here, just thought it was interesting. Sorry, didn't read SDP's autistic image thinking post, so I don't know what you're referring to, but your explanation of it sounds like an attempt to explain behavior through logic in order to illustrate a point. Not rezzin' with that at all. In all honesty, some of what laffey says makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I suppose I could probably figure it out if I diligently studied it, but since it's in my own native English, it's just not worth it. Besides that, he wasn't addressing me, but figs. All I did was make the comment that it was the most abstruse text I'd ever read. What you draw from that is your own painting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 22:40:12 GMT -5
If cleaning and explaining lead to truth, the world wouldn't be where it is my friend and deep down you know that... I think we're talking about different truths. I'm just talking about true vs false. Mostly, I'm talking about delusion, denial and self deception. I think the world IS a very different place because of those who are interested in that sort of truth. Sorry dude, thinking that the world IS a better place because of those interested in the truth/falsity dichotomy is part of the falsity...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2013 22:47:40 GMT -5
SDP's autistic image thinking post has relevance here. You don't understand the conversation, but you do see the pictures Figgy paints, and so she successfully communicates what she wants to get across, and the counter arguments are dismissed as incomprehensible because they don't form a clear image.I'd say, I rarely dismiss counter arguments here by saying they are incomprehensible. I wasn't thinking of you. I was referring to your gallery patrons, like B. I said "conversation". The conversation that's being discussed. I say that because he said he told me so: "This is without question one of the most abstruse bodies of text I've ever read in my entire life."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 22:59:30 GMT -5
I'd say, I rarely dismiss counter arguments here by saying they are incomprehensible. I wasn't thinking of you. I was referring to your gallery patrons, like B. I said "conversation". The conversation that's being discussed. I say that because he said he told me so: "This is without question one of the most abstruse bodies of text I've ever read in my entire life." hehe....okay...maybe I"m having trouble in general with understanding tonight.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2013 23:04:11 GMT -5
SDP's autistic image thinking post has relevance here. You don't understand the conversation, but you do see the pictures Figgy paints, and so she successfully communicates what she wants to get across, and the counter arguments are dismissed as incomprehensible because they don't form a clear image. Nothing to fight about here, just thought it was interesting. Sorry, didn't read SDP's autistic image thinking post, so I don't know what you're referring to, but your explanation of it sounds like an attempt to explain behavior through logic in order to illustrate a point. Not rezzin' with that at all. I dunno about explaining behavior through logic, I'm just saying that if one has a conversational style that is focused on forming a comprehensive image in the listener's mind, the communication is more effective because folks understand by relating to mental images, and Figgy seems to have a talent for that. However, communicating an image is one thing, and verifying the truth of it is another. If the image is understood, but the challenges to it are not, (which is what happened to you in that Laffy/Figs conversation) then the truth may not be conveyed.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2013 23:08:49 GMT -5
I think we're talking about different truths. I'm just talking about true vs false. Mostly, I'm talking about delusion, denial and self deception. I think the world IS a very different place because of those who are interested in that sort of truth. Sorry dude, thinking that the world IS a better place because of those interested in the truth/falsity dichotomy is part of the falsity... The world isn't a better place when peeps tell the truth? Does that apply to your friends and family? How bout the government?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2013 23:12:52 GMT -5
I wasn't thinking of you. I was referring to your gallery patrons, like B. I said "conversation". The conversation that's being discussed. I say that because he said he told me so: "This is without question one of the most abstruse bodies of text I've ever read in my entire life." hehe....okay...maybe I"m having trouble in general with understanding tonight. Well, it's Friday night. How many glasses of vino have you had? Juuuuuuuuuust kidding.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 13, 2013 23:21:33 GMT -5
Sorry, didn't read SDP's autistic image thinking post, so I don't know what you're referring to, but your explanation of it sounds like an attempt to explain behavior through logic in order to illustrate a point. Not rezzin' with that at all. I dunno about explaining behavior through logic, I'm just saying that if one has a conversational style that is focused on forming a comprehensive image in the listener's mind, the communication is more effective because folks understand by relating to mental images, and Figgy seems to have a talent for that. However, communicating an image is one thing, and verifying the truth of it is another. If the image is understood, but the challenges to it are not, (which is what happened to you in that Laffy/Figs conversation) then the truth may not be conveyed. There is no truth to an image in the mind. Even you understand this. That said, why the effort to 'challenge' it, except to replace it with another image, equally untrue? In the end, the 'truth' is conveyed by neither.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Sept 13, 2013 23:35:07 GMT -5
In all honesty, some of what laffey says makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I actually agree. I pretty much skip most of it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2013 23:49:29 GMT -5
I dunno about explaining behavior through logic, I'm just saying that if one has a conversational style that is focused on forming a comprehensive image in the listener's mind, the communication is more effective because folks understand by relating to mental images, and Figgy seems to have a talent for that. However, communicating an image is one thing, and verifying the truth of it is another. If the image is understood, but the challenges to it are not, (which is what happened to you in that Laffy/Figs conversation) then the truth may not be conveyed. There is no truth to an image in the mind. Even you understand this. That said, why the effort to 'challenge' it, except to replace it with another image, equally untrue? In the end, the 'truth' is conveyed by neither. The entirety of what we discuss here is in the form of conceptual truth/falsity. There's no way to communicate but through concepts. Why challenge these concepts? Because some of them obstruct clarity and lead to human struggle and suffering. We call them illusions, and some of us see value in seeing through them. I thought that even you understood this.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2013 3:10:04 GMT -5
Sometimes I find that I have to work to understand conversations between others that get deep. Sometimes I do that work, sometimes not. Figs sometimes spends alot of energy deflecting ideas that don't fit in with the fabric of a given meme that she's spinning -- I'm not saying that I'm always all that easy to understand, but a conversation between her and I has more than just that as a factor to the opacity of it. Yes, Figgy conversations can be complicated by their nature as one must either follow her brush strokes around with a cleaning rag, or explain why one doesn't care to pose for her anymore. The cleaning and explaining may seem more complicated than the picture she's painting, since the picture has coherence by design. priceless imagery
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2013 3:21:34 GMT -5
What you are doing here is spinning a meme. The meme under construction is "laffy is abstruse". One element of meme-spinning (what E' calls "portrait painting"), is repetition. The fact that you either can't or won't and haven't singled-out even one turn of phrase of mine as particularly abstruse reveals this for what it is. Sometimes I like to play with words and ideas for fun, and sometimes I do write complicated expressions of mind that aren't meant to be easily understood, but I'm always willing to explain them if someone asks. You don't ask. Instead, you simply repeat a mantra. It is a transparent expression of aggression, and frankly, rather sad and pathetic. I don't understand any of that, which only goes to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are abstruse. If you were not abstruse, you would not be saying things in an abstruse way, which shows to go ya how abstruse you are. There's no point in responding because everyone can see how abstruse you are, and your response would be too abstruse to comprehend. I see why you get along so well with your abstruse club members, but your abstrusity can be seen clearly with a still mind. Drop your beliefs and you will see the what-isness of your abstruseness. I can thinking that attachment negativity pumpkin. Clarity muffins on windshields simply are, there is no expression of this thatness that this's thusly. Qualia. Is a rock responsible for it's rockiness? The question of this answer solipsitically trick or treats during confessional. I and, dishonestly, but right inaction trumps badness. The turkey did not why the road and crossless crosses are forbourn until they are not and unless they are.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2013 3:35:34 GMT -5
Sorry, didn't read SDP's autistic image thinking post, so I don't know what you're referring to, but your explanation of it sounds like an attempt to explain behavior through logic in order to illustrate a point. Not rezzin' with that at all. I dunno about explaining behavior through logic, I'm just saying that if one has a conversational style that is focused on forming a comprehensive image in the listener's mind, the communication is more effective because folks understand by relating to mental images, and Figgy seems to have a talent for that. However, communicating an image is one thing, and verifying the truth of it is another. If the image is understood, but the challenges to it are not, (which is what happened to you in that Laffy/Figs conversation) then the truth may not be conveyed. Yeah, when I'm involved in a one-on-one conversation that gets deep, I'm not focused at all on what anyone else who's reading it is going to think of it, I just want to reach the one I'm talking to.
|
|