|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:35:38 GMT -5
Right, personality is personality regardless of god-complex: there are all sorts of gods, some jealous, angry and vengeful, some benevolent and loving, etc.. but that wasn't my point, my point was that he sees the humor in how his philosophical conclusions lead him to declaring his rulership, and quite acutely so. So on one hand, he's got this logic that leads him to something he can't refute, on the other, he finds the conclusion to be comical. I don't think it's just that his conclusions lead him to declaring rulership, I think he considers his experiences to demonstrate that too ('being moved away etc'). I think he takes the belief quite seriously. In one sense, yes, he takes it seriously, but if that were the final word, how is it he can laugh about the absurdity of it?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 11:36:18 GMT -5
Yes, but by the time you stated that disagreement, I was already under the impression that you had misunderstood me the other day (based on you bringing me into the conversation at that point). So for me, the discussion began at that first moment. I haven't objected to your interjecting yourself into a dialog in which I mentioned you, I only pointed out that you'd re-raised a specific point that we'd agreed to disagree about by re-asserting it to me in direct dialog with me, and explained how that's not really maintaining the agreement to disagree. And if you are going to bring me into a conversation in such way that leads me to think you misunderstood me, then I am going to seek to address that misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 11:37:53 GMT -5
I don't think it's just that his conclusions lead him to declaring rulership, I think he considers his experiences to demonstrate that too ('being moved away etc'). I think he takes the belief quite seriously. In one sense, yes, he takes it seriously, but if that were the final word, how is it he can laugh about the absurdity of it? I don't think he is laughing at the 'absurdity', I think he's just enjoying the belief! Have you ever seen him use the word 'absurd' to talk about his ruling position?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:39:15 GMT -5
Or, it could be you starting a foodfight by resorting to personal criticism unrelated to the substance of the dialog. We all have our opinions on which possibility is the most likely. Of course! To my mind, you were wanting a food fight from the moment you mentioned me, and I'm also clear as to why you seek that fight. Well, you see, I'm really not interested in a food fight, although I can understand why it would seem that way to you. What I'm interested in, is putting this question in front of Gopal. He's sorting people by whether or not they believe in an objective reality, and he's put you and Reefs in the same sort-slot, and I believe, incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:41:09 GMT -5
Which is precisely what makes the question mark disingenuous. I'm not going to agree with that, because the question was offered on the basis of the slight chance. I consider that you are being disingenuous for suggesting that that is disingenuous (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:42:58 GMT -5
I haven't objected to your interjecting yourself into a dialog in which I mentioned you, I only pointed out that you'd re-raised a specific point that we'd agreed to disagree about by re-asserting it to me in direct dialog with me, and explained how that's not really maintaining the agreement to disagree. And if you are going to bring me into a conversation in such way that leads me to think you misunderstood me, then I am going to seek to address that misunderstanding. Ain't no reason to quote me obviousities brah'. .. my point remains: re-raising a point of disagreement is a breach of the agreement to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:44:46 GMT -5
In one sense, yes, he takes it seriously, but if that were the final word, how is it he can laugh about the absurdity of it? I don't think he is laughing at the 'absurdity', I think he's just enjoying the belief! Have you ever seen him use the word 'absurd' to talk about his ruling position? No, but that doesn't lead me to share your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 11:48:51 GMT -5
Of course! To my mind, you were wanting a food fight from the moment you mentioned me, and I'm also clear as to why you seek that fight. Well, you see, I'm really not interested in a food fight, although I can understand why it would seem that way to you. What I'm interested in, is putting this question in front of Gopal. He's sorting people by whether or not they believe in an objective reality, and he's put you and Reefs in the same sort-slot, and I believe, incorrectly. Based on Gopal's definition of objective reality, both me and Reefs are in the same boat. He said so himself clearly, and everything that has been said since, backs that up. In terms of your definition of objective reality, maybe me and Reefs differ....I really don't know (though he said he doesn't use the word).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 11:49:31 GMT -5
And if you are going to bring me into a conversation in such way that leads me to think you misunderstood me, then I am going to seek to address that misunderstanding. Ain't no reason to quote me obviousities brah'. .. my point remains: re-raising a point of disagreement is a breach of the agreement to disagree. I think you gave me valid reason to breach it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 11:50:39 GMT -5
I don't think he is laughing at the 'absurdity', I think he's just enjoying the belief! Have you ever seen him use the word 'absurd' to talk about his ruling position? No, but that doesn't lead me to share your opinion. Is there any quote you could show that would reveal that Gopal considers his position to be 'absurd'?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:52:59 GMT -5
Well, you see, I'm really not interested in a food fight, although I can understand why it would seem that way to you. What I'm interested in, is putting this question in front of Gopal. He's sorting people by whether or not they believe in an objective reality, and he's put you and Reefs in the same sort-slot, and I believe, incorrectly. Based on Gopal's definition of objective reality, both me and Reefs are in the same boat. He said so himself clearly, and everything that has been said since, backs that up. In terms of your definition of objective reality, maybe me and Reefs differ....I really don't know (though he said he doesn't use the word). None of that is what I put in front of Gopal, this is what I put in front of Gopal: do you interpret what Reefs has written as Reefs describing his belief in an objective reality and Reefs' agreement with your point that that everyone has a belief in objective reality?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:53:56 GMT -5
No, but that doesn't lead me to share your opinion. Is there any quote you could show that would reveal that Gopal considers his position to be 'absurd'? I'd even go so far as to opine that he's never written anything of the sort, but all laughter is founded on absurdity, and laugh about it, he has.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 11:58:47 GMT -5
Ain't no reason to quote me obviousities brah'. .. my point remains: re-raising a point of disagreement is a breach of the agreement to disagree. I think you gave me valid reason to breach it. Ok, I have to admit this is a fair point as there is a fine distinction involved. Please notice that I'm no longer interested in arguing with you about whether or not everyone has a belief in an objective reality. I haven't disagreed with you about that since we concluded the dialog where you first suggested that we would have to agree to disagree about it. Rather, my interest in these lines of dialogs is whether or not Gopal can fairly infer that Reefs has a belief in objective reality, and how Reefs' position may (or, if I'm wrong, may not) differ with yours on this one narrow point.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 11:59:06 GMT -5
Based on Gopal's definition of objective reality, both me and Reefs are in the same boat. He said so himself clearly, and everything that has been said since, backs that up. In terms of your definition of objective reality, maybe me and Reefs differ....I really don't know (though he said he doesn't use the word). None of that is what I put in front of Gopal, this is what I put in front of Gopal: do you interpret what Reefs has written as Reefs describing his belief in an objective reality and his agreement with your point that that everyone has a belief in objective reality? Well first of all, the 'objective reality' we were discussing the other day was ALSO Gopal's definition. If you recall, I pointed out to him that he did believe in this objective reality, and that's when you got involved. I don't recall exploring whether my definition differed from Gopal's. Reefs has said he has no particular definition of 'objective reality', and he produced the dictionary definition to see if that's what everyone was discussing. From what I have observed, I would say that Reefs has a belief in what is being called 'camouflage', and sees clearly that this is the small context.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 12:02:11 GMT -5
Is there any quote you could show that would reveal that Gopal considers his position to be 'absurd'? I'd even go so far as to opine that he's never written anything of the sort, but all laughter is founded on absurdity, and laugh about it, he has. A murderer can laugh at his victims. The fact that laughter is founded on absurdity doesn't really tell us much about the nature of the humour. That's why I am asking you for a quote that illustrates your opinion.
|
|