Page 9 of 13 « First<7891011>Last »
Topic Options
#37021 - 03/25/10 03:51 PM Re: FREE: The Bitter Irony of Satanism [Re: Simon Jester]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Not that I want to interfere in the debate but scum and herd?

I'm amused, terribly amused.

D.

Top
#37028 - 03/25/10 08:08 PM On the matter of opinion [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
THE PARADOXICAL WAR OF OPINION

Opinions. Everyone has one. And it seems everyone wants to share them. But what I am finding from shouting into the void – is that everyone struggles to simply let opinions be, and feels a compulsion to give their own.

The two immediate problems I see with opinions is that there is a strong consensus that they automatically require a response – and that the response required is to either validate or invalidate.

There is a saying that one is ‘entitled to their opinion’. It is questionable if we really mean that when we say it. Because if we did, we wouldn’t be in the position to say it to begin with.

Because arguments and opinion are usually mired in morality and ideals – each ideal instantly creates it owns negative. Whatever we claim to be an inalienable right is by logic also extended to everyone else; thus invalidating our own assertion.

We can say that we go to war to protect our families – implying that family is an important value – but if that were true – we would have issue with the impact of war on other families. ‘Family’ is merely an abstract used to win moral support. If it is validated, it becomes ‘real’ and abstracts can then piled onto it to proceed from that point. Even if we say we intend to protect ‘Our Family’ – again, this is an abstract used to win moral support. This is not unusual, because the aim of all opinions is to seek moral support.

We for opinions, because of our ideals, and because we wish to be obedient to those ideals. When there is conflict with them we seek validation. We will go so far to get this validation that we will even change our argument to meet our ‘opponent’ half-way. It is moot to provide the opposite side of this action, ‘invalidation’ of others, because in seeking to invalidate another’s opinion – we again, only seek to validate ours.

We can say that we have the freedom of speech as an argument, or that we are taking orders from God, or that we are bound by law – but all individual assertions we make are automatically extended to others. If you claim the right to make laws for yourself, then so can they – otherwise, you invalidate your own opinion. If you then claim that your case is different, that you are special, that your laws don’t apply to them – they too can claim that their case is different, that they are special, and that your laws don’t apply to them. What makes any difference – is only ever force; force of action or force of will.

In saying that you have freedom of speech for example – you are supposedly being magnanimous enough to allow everyone an equal right to speak – yet you are only imposing further tyranny. In making this statement you cannot help but push your will, your abstracts, forth onto others – particularly those who disagree with the right to freedom of speech. You cannot help this – because this is what speech does. Disagree?

Point made.
Disagree?

Point made again.

The process is similar in analogy to praying for someone who doesn’t want you to pray for them. But once certain abstracts are validated, i.e. freedom, the argument proceeds from the points of validation as if they are real. We build a base, validate it, and build on it.

When we feel our opinions are threatened by someone else – we attempt to re-validate our stance, or invalidate theirs. We cannot let an opinion that threatens ours simply hang in space without commenting – likewise, even when we do agree, it makes no difference - we are still compelled to comment and share our opinion - but why?

I have a real problem in giving people a reply – not because I am unable to find words or mistrust the strength of my convictions – but because my convictions are strong that each is literally entitled to their opinion – that it is their self-contained perception unique to them; why should I change it, and why would I try unless I was trying to impose my will?

Unfortunately, even this reply, is an attempt to impose my will. Though I would hope that the paradox of trying to acknowledge you without validating or invalidating you will prove useful to highlight the bizarre elements of conversation.

~

I could easily write a reply that agreed with someone’s opinion, or disagreed. I could even write two separate replies and send them both at the same time as one reply. I could choose to validate your opinion and invalidate it too – how? Because all abstracts that are posed inherently contain the seeds of their destruction – they cannot help but cast a shadow which, held up against the light, invalidates the abstract by showing how a bias for either is determined only by moral choice. The abstracts/ideals that we have attached to us as important, (or perhaps more accurrately, have attached themselves to us by verbal contamination where a core belief is automatically accompanied by associated ideals) colour our moral values – so someone who holds a belief in war, is not likely to argue against it. And why should that bother me, unless I want them or myself to change their opinion?

The difficulty I see in giving a reply now, is that since I could just as easily choose to either write a reply in agreement or disagreement – which one do I write? If I feel the need to invalidate your opinion – I should write a negative reply or even a constructive one – but if I feel the need to validate what you have said – I should write a positive reply, perhaps thank you for sharing, and add to the conversation with my own opinion that runs paralell with yours – helping to validate, both our opinions. That latter course of action would be useful if your opinion mattered, to me, or if I needed your validation.

But what, if I don’t?

It is an unusual place to be in – because the ego pushes and strains to be heard, to have its say, and orient and re-orient its sense of identity by sharing its opinions. It is like having something pushing its way to the front of the brain in your head to get to the conversation first. But my logos and experience tells me something else – it tells me that you have a self-contained view that has no impact on me – unless I seek to impose my will on your view, and that I have a self-contained view that has no impact on you – unless I seek to impose my will on you.

Unfortunately, I cannot escape imposing my will on your opinion by giving you this reply – but I am willing to accept that it is for the time being impossible to live some insights as they are in essence due to the conflict created with the status quo of Being.

The practice of the occult is mostly theoretical – because when we actually attempt to live out or implement our occult insights, such as being beyond time, or with an understanding that communication doesn’t actually exist, or that there is no objectivity, or that everything is abstraction – and follow modes of action that reflect those insights – we enter into extreme conflict with the rigourously established and fiercely protected protocol of language and communique which demands the religious observation of things like ideas being presented in a logical ordered fashion, or in words, that time and space be properly observed, or that opinions should be challenged… the occult is like a rubber-band. It can be practiced to pull one out of shape for a little while – but it is usually pulled back into place with a angry snap by the prevailing world view.

It is a very curious effect to not automatically seek to validate or invalidate opinions. In fact, it is virtually treated as a heresy. People think you are being rude, or stand-offish, or simply ignorant when I simply want to let their opinion stand on its own. Why? Because the ego wants validation; and it gets afronted when neither a negative or positive reply is given to cue its simplistic choices of response. Why? Because that is what the ego is for. That is its function. And it is quick to anger anytime its function is prevented from following its habitual course which course always seeks the path of the least energy.

It is not is a lack of conviction per se that stops me from challenging an external opinion, I believe entirely in the self-fulfilling knowledge of my opinions – but an important part of that is believing that they can be changed, and I do change them, based on re-arrangements of information that I come across. I simply have a problem with directly addressing people because all direct conversations are loaded with will, opinion, and distortion – and all of my work, is about trying to get beneath that moral façade and superficial inter-play of abstractions that people habitually engage in – to what I feel is a more pure method of communication – by shouting into the void.

It is okay for you to read what I have to say and take any of it into consideration – you have then made the choice to impose my will on you, on your own. Likewise, I will read what you have to say and react accordingly – but what you have said should not be subject to my will, and thus I do not seek to validate or invalidate your opinions, and validate only my own will by choosing to impose external wills, on myself, by myself.
The paradox is, that without opinions streaming back and forth, I could never impose anything on myself, and neither could you – there would be nothing to impose. Opinions have built an intricate network of shared ideas and walls to bounce off that do often lead to construction’s being built. Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis. And that is the basis of humanity.

However, there are more than enough people trading opinions directly already – who, for whatever reason feel the need to have their opinion validated by others. In direct engagement, opinion always takes on a completely different characteristic than it does when it stands alone. Direct trade almost without fail descends into a battle of wills against each other as various abstracts are defended or attacked, rather than each person imposing other wills via their own will, which may include admiring others opinions and quietly taking them into one’s own arena of perception to use for themselves.

I do not have a problem with the opinion that we must all share our opinions – I just differ in how I should do that; because when my will imposes itself – it without fail meets resistance from other wills, more accurately, from people’s egos (which I treat as a function separate from the ‘I’ and as a sort of automatic mechanism that usually possesses people – but that there is consciousness behind what the ego wants that can sometimes come out and think independantly of it) and I expend energy butting heads in moral contracts and throwing contests of empty abstractions.

So – I do not seek to be rude, in fact, I seek to be the perfect gentleman as it were, by not trying to impose my will on you – but letting you, if you so choose, impose it by yourself.

It would be ruder for me to seek to impose my will directly by trying to change your opinion instead of being happy enough with my own.

This does not imply that I do not want to put myself out there and be seen, or heard, - if I did not seek to impose my opinions, I would keep them to myself. But rather, that I am imposing my will on a void rather than any of you, and letting you impose my will on yourselves – if you so choose.


On the subject of War:


Agree: Yes, without leadership an army falls apart, without honour and loyalty and obedience nothing could get done and the army would be unruly and inefficient. Obedience is natural in a world with leaders and followers, a staple diet of monkey see monkey do characterizes the human race through which process one person taking responsibility of many more has always brought forth results of whatever moral fibre. Since I have now changed my original statement, weakened it’s original struts to encompass your opinion into mine, I should here write some excuse or justification for my original views on warfare and seek to incorporate pathos so that not only you, but others see a submissive gesture and the ‘reaching of an agreement’ by not exacerbating your opinion and will to power with argument. Qv. I could say that I reached these conclusions because I only took such and such into consideration – cite any number of moral or practical considerations of war that substantiate the abstractions of Honour and Loyalty, as well as say that what I meant to say was x, not y, and that you, ‘raised some good points’. I should also seek to match my new change of heart with a suitable explaination as to why I felt the way I did when I said what I did and that in essence, we both agree to on the core extent but differ on minor superficial details. If I don’t, then I might be seen as weak of opinion and my convictions lax – and if I seem to be the sort of person that changes their opinion so easily – I send the message that I could be persuaded to lose my will to power altogether. Finally, to save face, I could then say ‘But it all comes down to belief and what we choose to believe’ framing your opinion as on par with mine and then we’d likely never speak again because I would show an inability to challenge your opinion either way and you would lose interest. Almost every conversation I have observed ends in a parlay where each will weakens itself enough to meet the other half-way. We only give opinion when we want opinion. And you’re absolutely free to give it – and I will read it and take from it if I see something I like – but I hope you can understand that giving you a direct reply is a tyranny of my will that I would rather not impose (again).

Disagree: You presuppose war to be necessary, and then proceed from that a priori assumption to attach moral abstracts of honour and loyalty and obedience to this supposition to strengthen it as a moral judgement and necessity. You appeal to my consensus understanding of these concepts as real valid concepts that exist of themselves, not merely attached by you to yourself as valid from the cues of others. You deliberately construct and elaborate an argument based on the validity you have given to the first abstract (which you have selected to focus on from my opinion) even though there is absolutely no objective substance to any abstract. You proceed to argue because you are laden with moral judgements and abstracts and ideals – but have treated them as indicating the place from which you should proceed. Rather, than examining the process that you have also gone through to give rise to these abstracts and to attach these ideals to you in the first place – you place significance on the outcome of that process – not the process itself.
By the time you get to the stage where you present your abstractions to impose your will, you have by-passed self-autonomy to regurgitate a set of principles (again abstract) that automatically require self-contained associations to be made with them to validate them – “Honour” as a characteristic of “War”, “War” as a charateristic of “Honour” – using each consensus value to add weight to the other, even though validation is a subjective process, not essentially, a moral one.
It is only relevant to argue for the right or wrong of war if we seek to impose our moral code in an objective sense onto others and their moral codes.
The whole of this process of treating abstractions as somehow objective truths is the core fibre of all propaganda and group-think because it allows people to congegrate around some ideal as real, making a base, from which all manner of attachments are then attached. This gives rise to a form – the premise of form is that it can be solid even if essentially they are composed of one hologram stacked on top of another; one only needs to convince others to abandon the autonomy of their will and to accept an imposition of theirs and the form magically becomes believed in, i.e. treated as solid.
While again this may be a natural process for humans – it appears to be an unconscious process in a lot of people, who argue on behalf of their ego and their attachments, not ever from a sense of themselves. Largely, because not many people appear to have any real sense of themselves separate from their ego.
Morality enters into the equation in all arguments and discussions because most people’s sense of identity comes from abstractions – abstractions are elaborated with the written word – the written word, esp. English, is completely mired in morality. The very means of composing sentences in English requires specific assumptions of time and space and automatically fixes every idea that passes through the langauge to be treated in a specific unchangeable manner.

I post on public forums, but I’m not looking for validation, or an answer, or someone to challenge what I have to say. I’m looking to share my will but allow others the choice to impose it themselves. Otherwise a direct exchange of conversation really just amounts to brainwashing the other person to accept my will. Or using them to validate my opinion by attacking theirs. No – I don’t expect a direct answer, and when I get one – it is something of a puzzle as to how to write back so as not to be rude and to acknowledge a person speaking to me, but also how to not exert my will on them when they share an opinion and anticipate a reply, since a reply will inevitably contain my own opinions.

Since people happily throw their opinions around without thinking about why, or if they should, my stance is possibly confusing, almost certainly experimental – and it is fascinating to see how many people cannot refrain from giving an opinion, and rely on it in fact, as their sole mode of communication. But I’m not building anything – I have nothing to gain from someone’s agreement and nothing to lose from someone’s disagreement. So, choose either one, or both, or neither of my replies - but don’t be too surprised if you feel further need to seek validation because of them; because they all amount to the same thing.

My apologies for the direct imposition of my will.

Top
#37033 - 03/25/10 10:28 PM Re: On the matter of opinion [Re: Khk]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
It's simple really Khk: if you don't want to cause ripples in a pond, then you leave the pebbles where they are - if you don't want to cause ripples of reactions in other people, then you leave your thoughts where they are.

You should understand that this Causal world of phenomena is based on Causality: Cause and Result. So what you have here then learned is that not only do your actions cause reactions, but that your thoughts, when Expressed onto the "causal fabric" of the world outside your head, generates real world reactions.

It is only human nature to react and judge or evaluate incoming information via your 5 senses to your nervous system. Without this basic mechanical operation, you yourself would not be able to evaluate the ONA and determine that it is no longer for you, you see.

Honour is an abstract term to you because you have no honour. In the same sense that War is abstract to you because you are seated safely behind a computer. Ask a soldier who has been shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan by real enemy fire if War is an abstract idea/ideal to him, and I can assure you he will look at you as if you are ignorant.

Abstraction and "tangible realism" are two ends of the same telescope. It all depends on what end you are at. To you Capitalism and Communism may be abstract ideologies and theories, but to the Obama Regime of the US and Communist Regime of the PRC, they are real methods of assertion of policies onto a population you see, which generates for said regimes very real causal benefits.

Loyalty thus to you is an abstraction, and if it is an abstract idealism, then it is because you do not have Loyalty. Those who do have and live or express Loyalty - such as your common pet dog to its human companion - such Loyalty is a real, wordless way of life that generates for them real causal benefit.

I would meditate on what else you believe to be abstractions in Life, as you will be rewarded with Self-Realization Insights. Of course this is not to imply that every abstraction can be experienced as a personal realism.

We are all entitled to our opinions. But when you cast those opinions out into the world outside your head, you will generate causal reactions to such opinions. So its rather elementary if you desire to quiet or reduce such reactions: you simply learn to... "Cast not your pearls before swine." Which makes me wonder why you are running around the internet "onanistically" casting your pearls? Do the reactions make you feel more real and alive because such reactive interactions are the only kind of human interactions you have?

I would really suggest you turn your computer off frequently and go find yourself a girlfriend or boyfriend or maybe have a BBQ with your neighbor so as to create in your life some real human contact. Otherwise - as I fear - Life itself can become an abstraction for you too... and Lord knows what you will do to yourself seeing that you are in such a critical mental condition as you have been since X-mass. The internet is a damned place for the Mind at times.



Edited by Caladrius (03/25/10 10:31 PM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#37034 - 03/25/10 11:12 PM Re: On the matter of opinion [Re: Caladrius]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I will take this into pm's.

But I fail to see how your reply is any different from wanting to force your subjective view onto mine and qualify/validate what I have said; it illustrates exactly what I have just written about.

The futility of trying to defend a viewpoint.




Edited by Khk (03/25/10 11:12 PM)

Top
#37036 - 03/26/10 12:07 AM Re: On the matter of opinion [Re: Khk]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Actually, Caladrius pretty much hits the nail on the head. This is not to take away anything from KhK but I have simply lost the point of this thread.

Please, don't take this to PM. But, just what in the hell were we talking about anyway?
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#37038 - 03/26/10 01:57 AM Re: On the matter of opinion [Re: Fist]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
LOL, one is never too sure what the topic of conversation is with Khk, Fist, as he's usually everywhere but here. Khk was bidding the ONA a final farewell publicly, and he stated a few things about how war cries seem to be laden with calls for honour or whatever.

@Khk:

Taking this to PM defeats why I even bother with this thread and topic in the first place. Forcing my will or "subjective views" on you is a misinterpretation of why I even bother with this thread and your incoherent thoughts in the first place.

I am using what you are posting as a "platform" to post a different perspective of things for causal reader that might come across this thread - most of which as we both know are interested in the ONA and your descent into madness - who may see some insight in this very unique and "special" conversation we are having.

The situation we have now between us in this thread reminds me of a story I once heard:

One day 4 blind monks were walking in a forest and they stumble upon an elephant which they had never encountered before.

One of the monks feels the elephant's leg and say to his friends: "Guys, it's a tree trunk."

Another monk feeling up the tusk says to his friends: "No, no, it feels nothing like a tree... more like a spear with a sharp point."

The third monk feeling the trunk of the elephant says to his brother monks: "What's wrong with you guys? It's moving and wiggly, ergo it's a python."

The last monk at the elephant's ass feeling the tail says to his friends: "No, you're all really wrong. It's a paint brush!"

So here we are - you and I Khk - feeling up the elephant of Life - or certain aspects of it - such as war, obedience, honour, loyalty, and such.

I understand that you are certainly entitled to your subjective opinions about your apprehensions of Life. But to say that I am forcing my subjective views and/or will on you is a misinterpretation of intent.

I am simply presenting you; and perhaps others who might be reading this; an alternative perspective.

I am simply telling you: "Look Khk, that there paint brush you are touching, from my perspective, looks like the tail at the end of an elephant's ass, and if you don't move away, it just might take a shit on you."

And you say to me in return: "Oh no, Myatt or whoever you are, don't you pull that on me. I know what you're doing. You can't force your subjective views on me. Even if I'm wrong I still have the freedom to my own subjective universe."

Which is fine with me. But how we perceive the objective world influences how we think. How we think influences how we feel; and our emotions governs our actions in Life. And those actions in turn wyrdfully bares causal results you will experience.

Thus, what "content" you do behold and entertain in your "subjective universe" does not always remain "inside." It will - through your actions in life, and behaviour with others - manifest for you a wyrdful experience.

So if Life takes a big dump on you, its your own fault in that you were insistent on not allowing others with perhaps a different perspective on Life give you and alternative perspective.

How your real world physical life is today, the way people - those who once liked you and respected you - see and treat you today, is a direct causal result of your subjective thoughts, emotions, and what objective acts and behaviour they manifest as in real world life.

I have no real interest in teaching you Khk anything. Like I said, I am simply using your posts and responses as a platform to post what little insights I may have to share. And I am also using you and what manner of life you have manifested for yourself, as a Living example for what not to be. For the benefit of the few people I know who will most definitely learn from this thread and from you. Because as intelligent organisms, we learn from experience, insight, and from the example of others.

I have no more desire to prolong this conversation with you any further. Any further responses to me from you here or in PM will be ignored. It is unfortunate that you make such "Family business" public for some strange reason. But if you insist on making your life a public affair, I have obliged.



Edited by Caladrius (03/26/10 02:07 AM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#37040 - 03/26/10 03:53 AM Re: On the matter of opinion [Re: Caladrius]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I am not an 'employee' of the ONA, Chloe. You speak to me as one, and tell me to take vacations - that kind of attitude is precisely why the ONA has ceased to be of any use to me - though I am sure it will be of use to others. We are not family, I owe you nothing, The ONA did not have what I was looking for - and I am continuing my journey elsewhere.
Top
#37043 - 03/26/10 04:07 AM Re: On the matter of opinion [Re: Fist]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
The point is always lost in direct conversation, Fist.

The replies given to an opinion cannot help but change it as someone selectively channels its essence down into their own subjective interpretation - which then becomes an unwanted attachment to the first raw opinion, and proceeds to snowball into chinese whispers.

I suppose unless you are familiar with any of my other extensive work with forms and such things, it is difficult to understand what I am saying some of the time, which is a progression on those works. The place at which I have arrived from so many years in the occult is weird and very hard to explain - but I will keep trying for as many years as it takes. I am trying to relate a condensed version of my 'philosophy' through sinister 101. you're welcome to join.

Top
#37241 - 04/01/10 08:42 PM Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I've completed my paper on the Sinister. It is available to buy from here.

http://blackglyph.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/physis-of-the-sinister-now-available/

Top
#37251 - 04/02/10 01:29 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
Knowledge is power. Knowledge comes in the form of ideas. Sharing ideas is a sharing of power, often an imposition of will, but often only a sharing of power. Ideas are shared through communication.

"In making a statement you cannot help but push your will, your abstracts, forth onto others. You cannot help this – because this is what speech does. Disagree?
Point made.
Disagree?

Point made again."
This is circular logic. You say speech is an imposition of will. Then you say disagreement is itself imposition of will, when really, speech itself is not necessarily imposing, and neither is disagreement.
Point not made, point not made again. Nothing has been imposed. Speech is only words, not force. And my saying this is not imposing anything on you or anyone who reads it either. You can believe so if you choose, but that is you imposing what you think is my will on yourself, something only you have the power to do. Thinking that speech is an imposing of will is a great way to get offended easily, though. You say some of this yourself later.
"It is okay for you to read what I have to say and take any of it into consideration – you have then made the choice to impose my will on you, on your own."


And it doesn't mean an imposition for the sake of validation. It can be with good intentions and without self-interest- an imposition of the self on behalf of others. You can disagree but that doesn't mean anyone is imposing anything.
You're not the only one who doesn't seek to impose, and not all direct conversation is in such a negative manner as you seem to present it.

One more time-
"It is okay for you to read what I have to say and take any of it into consideration – you have then made the choice to impose my will on you, on your own." I have not made the choice to impose your will on me, as I have simply understood but not accepted your ideas. Imposing ideas does not start at awareness but in action. Which might be part of what you were saying, though you seem to believe that the very perception of different ideas is imposing.

If your will is to change me and I change, you might have imposed your will. But simply telling my your ideas with the intent to change me is not imposing unless you somehow force me to change. Acceptance does not mean you imposed anything because it was my choice- your ideas became my will. Your will remains with you and extends no further in the realm of ideas.

And the shadow you believe exists in every opinion is up to the the perceiver, it is not an absolute. Any opinion can have infinite shadows.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37325 - 04/03/10 02:54 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Doomsage680]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
And the shadow you believe exists in every opinion is up to the the perceiver, it is not an absolute. Any opinion can have infinite shadows.

I agree. And with some of the other things you said to.

For me, all logic is circular. I pose these questions more for myself than anyone else - though I share them out loud because that is just what I do and have done for years, using my own journey as an exhibit if you like of someone's heuristic path. In formulating them out loud, it allows me to move on from my own suppositions, question exactly what you have pointed out, and move deeper into my own abyss.

I have to pause every now and then as my train stops at various stations - but it doesn't mean I've reached my stop.


Edited by Khk (04/03/10 02:54 AM)

Top
#37326 - 04/03/10 03:02 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
 Quote:
For me, all logic is circular.

Why is that?


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37328 - 04/03/10 04:21 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Exactly.
Top
#37339 - 04/03/10 10:59 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
My reason for asking was actually to see whether or not you would respond using logic. Now that you have managed to avoid that pitfall once, I can point out that you have used logic in an attempt to disprove the efficacy of logic throughout the rest of this thread, which constitutes a consequentia mirabilis.

(¬A → A) → A, where A = e.g., "There is no truth."

The natural response of course is to say I am using logic to justify logic, but where your claim could only exist as a self-referential faith statement if all logic were in fact circular, since there would be no means to establish the truth or falsehood of the claim itself that all logic is circular, mine (that logic is not circular) derives its operations from the fact that fundamental contradictions, and not just contradictions in terms (e.g., a round square), can exist in thought, providing us with a foundation (the reductio ad absurdum) by which to establish logical consistency.

You seem to be conflating opinion in the philosophical sense (i.e., a rational conclusion) with opinion in the sense of taste or personal preference.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37350 - 04/03/10 10:48 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I'm not sure I really understood what you just said on any level - except I guess that you are now using logic to defeat my logic, yes?

You can say logic is a cause and effect type methodology - but the way I see it, it's like the fool's journey, always outwardly moving forward yet always perenially returning to the same spot.

I made a self-evident conclusion about logic, and you promptly questioned it. On one hand I can appreciate you trying to add and expand my own methodology but maybe you don't see the funny side to that - or the circularity of it like I do.

http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/Sinister101/message/15

Top
Page 9 of 13 « First<7891011>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.026 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.