|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 9, 2016 17:43:08 GMT -5
You sent me that PM? I'll go look, but I haven't received any PM notifications for awhile now..  Likely story  and that has got to be the shortest "goodbye for now" on record. Ever.  Go check your outbox.....I got nothing last night...the last PM you sent me was on Feb. 3. Don't worry, I'll leave soon  ....a project I'm involved in that will be quite demanding of my time.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 17:46:07 GMT -5
Likely story and that has got to be the shortest "goodbye for now" on record. Ever. Go check your outbox.....I got nothing last night...the last PM you sent me was on Feb. 3. Don't worry, I'll leave soon .... a project I'm involved in that will be quite demanding of my time.  now you're making excuses for having lost the debate, that you obviously can't let go of as easily as you'd hoped you could. Stick 'round as looooong as you wan't hun' ain't no skin off my nose.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 18:08:42 GMT -5
You know Miss figgle, if you're having trouble concentrating on stuff off of the forum that you'd rather be spending time on there's always the option of a 3rd account deletion. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 10, 2016 6:03:08 GMT -5
Really?.. you've polluted my PM box with such nonsense that should have been reported, but.. you were the moderator.. pot/ketle, much? You misunderstand Mr. Long Memory -- I'm not complaining, I'm having a chuckle. You know, the obvious option is just to delete the foolish things without reading them, right? That's your way, called on your own contradictions you try to deflect it with feigned humor.. if you truly think that that is humor, then your humor is at the expense of others.. The obvious option is to give everybody a chance, each instant is an opportunity for anyone to change, even you.. and, admitting that the things were foolish is a good first step toward that change.. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 10, 2016 11:37:34 GMT -5
Go check your outbox.....I got nothing last night...the last PM you sent me was on Feb. 3. Don't worry, I'll leave soon .... a project I'm involved in that will be quite demanding of my time. now you're making excuses for having lost the debate, that you obviously can't let go of as easily as you'd hoped you could. Stick 'round as looooong as you wan't hun' ain't no skin off my nose. Does leaving a debate constitute 'losing it'? If so, fair enough. You win. Seems to me though we've simply ascertained that we have differing criteria for what we call 'a fact' when participating on this forum. Win, lose or draw, I am done now debating the double bind issue with you. (I'm still wondering about that PM you said you sent two nights ago though.....I seriously did not get it. You sure you didn't sent it to someone else and just thought is was me?........seems every time I start reading here, another lucky laffy PM recipient reveals himself ...so perhaps you just got a couple of us mixed up...?) |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Feb 10, 2016 19:09:29 GMT -5
Using this as an example... Any debate in which I recognized your unconscious posing of a double-bind. One dilemma humans experience. How to recognise things, then determine your conclusion is correct, that what you perceive is as you think it is. This is an image of a real form that exists in reality.  If you recognise it as a red square, then you are correct, and there's nothing wrong with how you perceive. But is the form a square? If you say 'yes', then you are incorrect. So that means there's now something wrong with how you perceive. How about these...  If you recognise them as 4 colored squares, then you are correct, and there's nothing wrong with how you perceive. But are the forms four separate squares? If you say 'yes', then you are incorrect. So that means there's now something wrong with how you perceive. Here's the actual single form of all those images...from two different angles. One cube, with various colored sides, and not 4 separate squares as you believed.  The point is just because you see something a certain way, and form a judgement that your conclusions based on what you perceive, is correct, does not automatically mean you are actually correct. Delving in to be more precise, the problem is not specifically in your perception, your sight, awareness, ability to observe a phenomena...but in the processing of the information received from your senses... ...and in your relative position to the phenomena, or the range of your sight\awareness. The first 5 forms, as presented, are square. The last 2 are squares with two adjoining trapezoids, at best you could say they're representations of a cube, but they're not actually a cube. I understand you're trying to make a point, but I think you could pick a clearer example for making it. If you want to play the perception game, put a 20c piece in your hand and tell me how many sides you directly experience without resorting to memory or thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2016 19:56:48 GMT -5
As far as your "serious inquiry" is concerned, I'm not responsible for your poor reading comprehension skills. Different situation to mine and whatshisface. There's many questions of yours you claim i have not answered, so i was asking which one, so i can check if i have answered it or not. If you have no interest in helping me out, then i can easily let it go and you can get on with continuing to complain and criticise me for not answering them. It actually serves you more to not tell me which question it was. If you think that your poor reading comprehension skills serve me in some way then the poverty of your comprehension skill is not limited to that of reading. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2016 20:00:26 GMT -5
You clearly disparage hicksetta in repayment for his kind offer to read your text walls ... sad dude. Please clarify for me who you think sad...me, you, or hicksetta? Please feel free to not answer this simple 3 option question, and once again go on one of your typical rants.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2016 20:05:57 GMT -5
Huh? Where did they say that? And how does one get bound to a question? By feeling they should respond in some way? Q2. "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make our world." - Buddha In his mentally constructed world, that he believes is the real world. I've already explained multiple times that I'm not bound by your double-binds, and explained the details of that: recognizing the nature of the structure is the exact opposite of being bound by it. It is also an objective fact that you wrote what Quin is asking me about there. So then, which one of us is living in their mentally constructed world? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2016 20:29:40 GMT -5
But how is what you've written about me in this thread not your own analysis of my mind? You state your conclusion here as it if is fact, did you notice that? Were you conscious of the fact that you're now describing me as behaving in exactly the same way that you are behaving or is that fact just coming to your attention now as you read this sentence? Q1. ~squints for a long time~ Nope, can't see it. Please point out where i am stating my opinions are fact. Wow, and here I even underlined it for ya'. Thanks for admitting that you hadn't noticed that, it demonstrates your proclivity to project quite starkly. Here, I'll repeat it for you here to make it all the more clear: while they are doing that, they are not observing them self within the interaction. I theorize they simply don't bother because they subconsciously believe they are always right, so no need to self check. Those are two simple and unqualified declarative statements. Expressions of opinion are of a different form. Notice that your use of theory applied to the idea that I simply don't bother to self-check because, in your opinion, I think I'm always right, but here you add the idea that this is a matter of my subconscious. In any event, you state as fact this idea that I'm not self-observing during our dialogs: it is an objective fact, that the first sentence is an unqualified simple declarative statement of an idea, represented as a true statement. You can plead ambiguity if you want, but if everything you are expressing is your subjective opinion, then you are, quite literally, only ever expressing the contents of your private mental construct. Is that your opinion scrotus, that everyone is stuck in the same solipsistic cage you imagine yourself to be trapped within? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 12, 2016 4:36:53 GMT -5
This is the only one you need to read: The difference between recognizing the fallacy of objectivity and solipsism is found in recognizing the other in yourself, and in recognizing yourself in the other. ZD clued me into the fact that my years here had sort of hardened me, and turned me into an expression of what I was resisting. He advised me to take a break from the forum. I replied that I prefer to get silent in place. ... also Mr. goat, please regard the following: ]It appears to me you're also obsessed with historical searching, and quoting tonnes of stuff others have said over many moons. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2016 18:32:48 GMT -5
I've already explained multiple times that I'm not bound by your double-binds, and explained the details of that: recognizing the nature of the structure is the exact opposite of being bound by it. It is also an objective fact that you wrote what Quin is asking me about there. So then, which one of us is living in their mentally constructed world? 1. I totally agree you are not bound by my perceived DB, or anyone else's for that matter. I stated... I think you are bound up in 'double binds'. It seems to me you think you are always right because you keep classifying your conclusions as fact. ...discussed further by me, figgles, quinn and zendancer. My view is your foundational bind is you think you are always right, so when you interpret the opinion "you think you are always right", you and only you have classified it as a DB, so your bind is self created and inflicted. But it's a bind(the foundational one) that gives you pleasure so you maintain it. These things have already been discussed, but due to your other binds, of having specific conditions you adhere to when reading other's posts, you most likely did not read some of them. And why would you when you think you are always right, you claim to already know what a post contains without even reading it. "Let go of your attachment to being right, and suddenly your mind is more open. You're able to benefit from the unique viewpoints of others, without being crippled by your own judgement." - Ralph Marston 2. "Objective fact" is another interesting topic of discussion, though it seems evident to me it's simply an expression of your belief you are always right. Anyways, this is what was said... Huh? Where did they say that? And how does one get bound to a question? By feeling they should respond in some way? ...seems to me that quinn did not see either of say that, but if you are sure we both have said it, please provide quotes. I don't wanna hear more of your interpretations of what we said, i wanna see actual quotes of us saying that. 3. Q. We both are. Everyone interprets existence. Not one person has a pure 100% correct perception of existence. We all interface with existence subjectively. It's just some people, like you, enigma, Reefs and Tzu, think their view is 100% accurate, their conclusions always right. And you label yours 'objective fact'(Tzu labels his 'I see what is')...though as i was collecting your posts about Solipsism, it seems you might have a unique defintion of objectivity, so you might have a similar one for subjectivity...add to that your perception 'i am a Solipisist' being completely inaccurate...so...who really knows whatup with your mindtank. It is an objective fact that you wrote these words: One key i see is the very act of classifying my statement as a DB, logically causes laughter to be bound\trapped by it. By recognizing your failed attempt at a double-bind as a double binds, I step outside of the bind. You keep basing what you're writing on this disagreement we have on the objective linguistic structure of the bind. For the 3rd time now: what does it suggest about about your state of mind and emotion that you refuse to agree to disagree with me on this point? If everything anyone writes is only ever their opinion, then there is no such thing as fact. That very definitely makes you a solipsist, as you have no point of reference for objectivity. If you dismiss everything I write as only my opinion, then you are very definitely lost in the maze of your own mind, as you incorrectly accuse me of being. Your hostile projections in this thread are a constant ( as documented), and unlike your groundless accusations toward me along these lines. I actually document the objective fact that you are projecting by your own words. It seems to you that I think I'm always right because you state your opinion as facts ( as documented .. one out of many simple unqualified statements of supposed fact on your part), and then dismiss my actual objective facts as opinion -- as long as you keep doing this, then yeah, when it comes to arguing with you, I'm always gonna' be right, see how that works? Can you link to a single dialog anywhere on this forum where you've ever admitted you were wrong? Unlike you, when I'm wrong in an argument and that's pointed out to me in reasonable objective terms, I admit it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2016 18:35:59 GMT -5
You both base your faulty conclusion that recognizing the bind binds one on the misconception that the bind is ever directed at any thing other than an image. In this misconception, you each mistake your image of the target of the bind for the person that you base your image on. From there you each go on to fail to take responsibility for continually generating the objective linguistic structure of the bind, which potentially contains subjective elements only so far as the idea of "lose/lose" is involved. Of course, the only possible loss is on the part of the image targeted by the bind. But it's not me that's generating the structure, it's you and her. It is both amusing and interesting that you both refuse to take responsibility for the obvious and factually objective products of your mind, and that is definitely evidence in favor of my theory about your unconscious employment of the structure as a form of pathology, namely sociopathy. Incorrect: nowhere in what you claim addresses these paragraphs is any refutation of my point that your vile double-binds are only ever directed at your image of me you have in your mind. You state: "you think you are always right", and you admit that this is only your opinion. If it's only your opinion, then it's based on this mental construct of me -- one that is, by the way, objectively incorrect, as I do sometimes admit that I am wrong -- and not on the actuality of what I am. |
|
|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 13, 2016 18:40:17 GMT -5
LAUGHTER - (acronym) Loosing all unity, getting hyper tensed, earning riots.
|
|
|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 14, 2016 0:12:15 GMT -5
Jay17, the unability to either being able to properly lead or being able to properly follow and at the same time being unable to be alone, that's what some call BPD (borderline personality disorder). I'm just saying. And being a half-baked narcissistic borderline personality, that's not a too pleasant place to be in, when not treated properly at an age that is considered treatable. I'm not talking about you, Jay17, of course. I'm just talking about me. I'm sooooo borderline, I can't even cut myself. That's why I drink. I'm such a sissy.
|
|
and that has got to be the shortest "goodbye for now" on record. Ever. 
....a project I'm involved in that will be quite demanding of my time. 
now you're making excuses for having lost the debate, that you obviously can't let go of as easily as you'd hoped you could. 
