Page 2 of 3 <123>
Topic Options
#56097 - 06/20/11 07:09 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: assault_ninja]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3773
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
One does not need to be a theist to clutter ones worldview with layer upon layer of extraneous garbage, to either project the image of wisdom or to actually mistake it for such. Nor does one need to be an occultist for this. Many build up cluttered word soup beliefs that they only half understand in all walks of life.

Many theists have very simple and streamlined systems of belief that just happen to sit on the axiom of blind faith, just as many build or draw from incomprehensibly complex systems based on same (Hi MAA).
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#56106 - 06/20/11 09:07 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: assault_ninja]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Do atheistic Satanists here affirm entropy in all manifestations of cause and effect, and likewise do theistic Satanist affirm the same as Satan simply going about the countercurrent expression in different gradients of somatic/extrovert vs. cerebral/introvert?

What does this nonsense mean?

Below is a brief outline of my personal representation of what is Satan or otherwise madness to ponder.

Although Satan may be the the signifier of liberation from the imposed duality "good and evil" of the Judeo-Christian paradigm. The counter current is much more than an individualist symbol of perfectly natural human functioning against slave morality. The anti-cosmic or Gnostic Satanist cultivates polarised hyperbolic disciplines and all schools of nihilism holding the will toward lawlessness as absolute against the creation which is shaped and limited by the false light, although not spiritual as the death of the individual is also the death of the universe because perception ceases upon death therefore the black flame is fully risen to blanket the universe in darkness insofar as cessation of causality would indicate an instantaneous merge with the heat death of the universe, the one black hole state. The sciences of quantum physics and string theory reveal that solidarity as we perceive it is not as it would appear to the senses, that matter is subatomic particle waves vibrating at variants of flux beyond what makes up our perception of the observable universe, therefore shedding some light on the lie of the light at least for those equating all "truth" with "certainty" but demanding scientific or empirical knowledge relating to antinomian Gnosticism is a tough task to achieve as it's more of an inexplicable understanding that the will, the self, is not bound to the imposed rules of existence, circumstance, or even ones own sense boundaries.

For example "pain", both physical or emotional, is considered an interesting defiance for the Gnostic heretic to spite the character known as the demiurge which is both one in the same phenomenal form of it's idea, the world by which the individual perceives also being representative of the artifice that is ego. The individual being trapped in shadowy tomb of flesh and bone, his body is also part of the bastard creation and for the will to reign absolute, experiences thought undesirable, or inhuman, must be overcome, including pain and suffering imposed by the imperfect creation's rules of existence, hence, in the anti-cosmic cerebral discipline, the true blessing of Satan is self-torture. Man would not dare face a little pain now and deny that he would bare immense agony later.

It is always through way of pain one arrives at pleasure.— de Sade

Thereby exists the duality of the true black light of which the individual's dark unconsciousness and will burns as the black flame, and the false light of the observable universe which is hylic darkness, a shadow cast by the false light of ego. Situations of mortality are to be mocked and situations of somatic pleasure are to be savoured without inhibition, the desolate one laughs at suffering and death for it makes him blithe and smiles inwardly in defiance at his accumulated power. The individual is beyond the imposed rules of the external and how others expect him to react.

The archetype of opposition to stasis "Satan" the vector of entropic destruction / renewal. The entropic anti-force which destroy to recreate "solve et coagula" the occult words written on the feminine receptacle / masculine inseminator "Baphomet" – "Baphe Metis" translating as "the baptism/baptiser of wisdom". The universes functioning state of perpetual chaotic flux is not an orderly settlement. "Sinistral" or "sinister" translates as "of the left" in Latin, signifying the universe's entropic counter current which goes against the right, or normality. With the direction of ones will towards disruption and disorder upon the "images and ideas about reality" imposed as "actual reality" by society and civilisation – "heresy" – there emerges anarchistic causal change and social entropy within the closed system of Judeo-Christian society and civilisations memeplexs.

The self-destructive pseudosatanists proclaim themselves to be Satanists but what in nature consumes drugs and alcohol on a path towards sickness of mind and body, death? Methinks some Satanist took the "what does not kill makes strong" out of context. Toward transgressive evolutions and revaluations of values. The feral and death affirmation as opposed to the spiritual as opposed to the negativity of contentments. Satanism— a means.

Arrogance of Satan.
_________________________


Top
#56116 - 06/20/11 11:51 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Originally Posted By: MindFux
Why add the layer of unneeded philosophical complexity if it provides no actual assistance in -doing- the LHP?


Experiences are endless, and this endlessness creates distinctions which lead to the sense of seperateness of things.

 Originally Posted By: MindFux
The simple fact is, when you're in a fist fight, I doubt you're thinking about what your 'ego-self' is doing, and I doubt it would do you much good even if you were.


In pure experiences, the Intellect, Emotions and Will are undivided. They are a single activity without any opposition between subject and object. Since that opposition arises from the demands of thinking, it is a fact of immediate experience (fist fighting). In immediate experience (fist fighting), there is only a single, independent, Self-sufficient event. There is neither a subject nor object only the event (fist fighting). In the instant of immediate experience (fist fighting), so-called Reality is immediately present. For example, it is like two men exchanging smacks, blows and slams, forgetting themselves and everything around them, and sensing nothing other than the fight. Since the thought that the fight is two men hitting each other, it derives from thought apart from that state of Reality (fist fighting). At that point, they are already seperated from the "fist fighting" Reality...for it is not undivided.

 Originally Posted By: Zophos
Take it from someone who has been no less exasperated with paolo's nonsense: don't bother.


You're already on the back-burners of my stove.


Edited by paolo sette (06/21/11 12:42 AM)
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#56122 - 06/21/11 09:02 AM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: paolo sette]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 172
 Quote:

Experiences are endless, and this endlessness creates distinctions which lead to the sense of seperateness of things.


Platitude of the month. 'People have lots of experiences so those experiences seem separate'. There is no way you can actually think that added anything to the discussion, surely?

 Quote:
In pure experiences, the Intellect, Emotions and Will are undivided. They are a single activity without any opposition between subject and object. Since that opposition arises from the demands of thinking, it is a fact of immediate experience (fist fighting). In immediate experience (fist fighting), there is only a single, independent, Self-sufficient event. There is neither a subject nor object only the event (fist fighting).


To my original point around worthless philosophizing, this pretty much takes the cake. What does this understanding actually add to you -doing- the LHP?

You have just written a paragraph of pseudo-philosophical nonsense around something I can sum up in a sentence - "People tend to have singular focus when involved in a violent altercation", so I ask once again, what does the sea of platitudes you produce do to aid in your ability to -do- something?

Or is it as I suspect - you carry these things around like layer upon layer of pretense?

It's actually fitting that you posted because you're an example of the 'problem' (or vagrancy) I was referring to in my original post.

MF





Edited by MindFux (06/21/11 09:04 AM)

Top
#56125 - 06/21/11 10:51 AM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
I think what you touched upon in your response is vitally important in the Grail Quest / Great Work / Whatever You Want To Call It. It is a much-lamented trend that at a certain point in your development things tend to grow stale. You've had a certain kind of discussion a million times over, and those frank exchanges of ideas that had you drinking Scotch at four in the a.m. and questioning your sanity seem things of the past. Nothing touches, disturbs, excites or moves you. You start thinking it's settled.

It's a little like being in love. It can, and invariably does, come back to hit you with renewed force. I've been fortunate enough to have conversed with several great minds here, who have gone on to nuke my brain repeatedly, leaving me reeling and insensate as I processed the ideas they shared.

Of course, it is to a certain extent as you say; you focus on being pragmatic as time goes on, ever hopeful that some new idea will fulminate you and spur you down some dark and exciting alley you've never paid attention to before.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#56130 - 06/21/11 01:07 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
I have not studied much of the philosophy that I probably should have, so it's possible I'm missing something. Nevertheless, here's what I think.

"Philosophy" encompasses too many things to treat as a single unit for general statements. The original post, for instance, seemingly lumps both big-question philosophy in together with the actual physical mechanics of the brain. In addition, the topics / examples brought up in this thread cover multiple areas of human experience.

I tend to start such thought processes, when I have the luxury, from the standpoint that Man is an animal. My experiences and observations lead me to believe that basic animal instinct and physiology drives nearly all human behavior. ("Wait, we were talking about philosophy ..." - have patience, I'll get there.)

Maslow's pyramid is a good model - but look at it as if Man was mostly animal. People tend to intellectualize too much, which causes them only confusion. Here's a good example of what I mean: When a man is his family's breadwinner, and something happens at his job that even hints at the possibility that he may lose it, for most men it's not intellectual at all: he may say, aloofly, even to himself, "It's God's will" or "This could be an opportunity" or even "This sucks", but he reacts to the reality of an emotional lightning bolt straight to the animal foundation: My ability to feed myself and my family is threatened.

Man is evolutionarily tribal. That means groups, with all that entails, especially group behavior ("us" and "them", trust, initiation rituals, et al.) and leaders (will to power and deference to authority).

Man has developed a great pattern-matching brain, which is great for creating and combining tools, but which is heuristically based (meaning not data-driven).

Already, just using those building blocks, Occam's Razor can explain (to my satisfaction, at least) many of the things brought up.

Younger, less experienced humans have a natural propensity to look to leaders and/or tradition (which is by de facto established by other leaders) for direction or explanation. With such innate trust, and the relatively new mass communication and "mass default tribes", it should be evident that anybody with any idea can gain some adherents. With such innate trust, the more complex ideas gain the benefit of the doubt and automatically appear "better", because pattern-matching says more complex means more time and effort has been spent on it, which pattern-matching then associates with "better".

That's why you see philosophical complexity.

Deference to authority explains the whole lack of questioning a "subject matter expert" - never mind that most people really don't have the education or will to actually do so, the power of authority weighs abnormally strong in such discussions. Witness not only Alan Greenspan's statements about not believing there was a housing bubble, but the number of people who turn that into "fact".

Man's achievement of consciousness implies nothing. The pattern-matcher looks for a reason, a cause, or a purpose. Add the need to have a leader and bam, that's all you need for theism.

It seems to me the same blocks underlie some subset of philosophy - any of the 'why are we here' answers, any of the attempts to deduce morals, all of those are very large circular arguments that prove their own assumptions.

I think the human species has expanded quickly into an evolutionary state where it has consciousness. In an instant it's developed tools and all manner of ways to use them - massively de-risking basic survival, extending life, conglomerating into a huge number of intertwined "tribes". There is no purpose - the pregenitor of "purpose" was "follow the leader", but there is no replacement in our modern world.

Most people can't handle it.

That, to me, is the genius of Satanism. It recognizes that one must doubt and question to assure understanding of the facts. It recognizes that Man really is carnal, in all ways - most people just think that applies to sex (hey, Heg, if you find that woman see if she has a sister! ) It recognizes that there is no purpose other than what one Wills.

My answer, then, is not really an answer - most "big question" philosophy is pointless and unnecessary.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#56133 - 06/21/11 02:29 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Autodidact]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 172
 Quote:
"Philosophy" encompasses too many things to treat as a single unit for general statements. The original post, for instance, seemingly lumps both big-question philosophy in together with the actual physical mechanics of the brain.


That wasn't my intent - but rather to demonstrate an area where practical knowledge of an area has no inherent usability and it was the only example that readily came to mind. Your thrust however is salient that 'Philosophy' is an extremely wide boat to heap things into.

 Quote:
"This could be an opportunity" or even "This sucks", but he reacts to the reality of an emotional lightning bolt straight to the animal foundation: My ability to feed myself and my family is threatened.


I would regard this is a fairly minimalistic philosophical concept, and one that I can resonate with. That kind of knowledge is of tremendous use in 'doing' the LHP, rather than discussing it in flowery language. In fact I find myself becoming increasingly aware of what's an animal drive set against an intellectual one as I go along. So in short, I concur. Lol.

 Quote:

ith such innate trust, the more complex ideas gain the benefit of the doubt and automatically appear "better", because pattern-matching says more complex means more time and effort has been spent on it, which pattern-matching then associates with "better".


You've hit the nail I was aiming for squarely on the head. I think it's more than pattern matching though, I also think its to do with obscurity. Whenever I hear someone say something that transcends my understanding I have an initial reaction of, "Wow they really must know what they're talking about".

I try and curb that reaction as far as I can - but the truth is subject matter experts are by definition more at ease using terminology and concepts that non subject matter experts may not be familiar with. That normally drives me to pick up a book and read rather than blindly accept these things at face value.

What I've noticed on many a web forum is that many nod along in support, as by association, the very appearance of 'getting' what the other person is saying passes that implied expertise onto them. It's a fairly effective social technique that is employed in the work place all the damn time (read too damn much). It does lead to the ballooning appearance of complexity (and often irrelevancy) where people lose site of the wood for the trees.

I always like to point out Brian Greene as an example of someone who does it right. A subject matter expert that can break it down to a level that's innately comprehend-able. Any true expert can do such things and the old chestnut of "I'm not going to spoonfeed you anything, you need to learn it yourself" rarely washes when the subject being discussed requires a phd level of understanding to even begin a conversation.

If that's the case it shouldn't really be posted on any forums not frequented solely by people with that innate level of experience with the concept. (That 'old chestnut' does of course hold true when one is using basic philosophical concepts that are familiar to anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence). To do otherwise is to set an absurd standard for discourse that results in mute confusion, or nodding along for the sake of it.

The added bonus of course is that no one can call bullshit, and even if they do, no one else is familiar enough with the concept to judge who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' making the whole discourse unnecessary. (I actually fell into the trap of engaging in such a discourse not so long ago, and not so far away ;))

 Quote:

Man's achievement of consciousness implies nothing. The pattern-matcher looks for a reason, a cause, or a purpose. Add the need to have a leader and bam, that's all you need for theism.


Well said.

 Quote:
Of course, it is to a certain extent as you say; you focus on being pragmatic as time goes on, ever hopeful that some new idea will fulminate you and spur you down some dark and exciting alley you've never paid attention to before.


Indeed, but the dark alley I'm currently scurrying down requires little thought that isn't practically usable. That indeed may change, but I definitely see it as part of the Path. As to how long it is remains to be seen.

MindFux.



Edited by MindFux (06/21/11 02:33 PM)
Edit Reason: clarity

Top
#56135 - 06/21/11 02:58 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
I think we're talking about the same thing seen from two different angles. I, too, need to be pragmatic about my approach, because otherwise I'd just be floundering about. The only way to get anything done is to know you're going about it the right way and do that to the best of your ability.

As for the cerebral part of it, it represents - to me - the contemplative level of the quest for self-improvement. You consider the results of the approach you took and the resulting outcome of your actions. Upon considering this, you gain a degree of insight into yourself and where you're going. The first time I noticed this taking place, I thought it was as simple as prosaically listing what I'd done and staking out the best course forward, but in essence it is a fine-honing of the Self. There is another type of improvement taking place, and it is at the same time both all about the actual actions and completely removed from them.

In essence, it is - once again, to me - a little like the Taoist quest toward inner peace, only with the purpose of fulfilling one's Will rather than a spiritual circling of the drain.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#56138 - 06/21/11 05:26 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: MindFux
I try and curb that reaction as far as I can - but the truth is subject matter experts are by definition more at ease using terminology and concepts that non subject matter experts may not be familiar with. That normally drives me to pick up a book and read rather than blindly accept these things at face value.
[...]
I always like to point out Brian Greene as an example of someone who does it right.


More and more I find myself automatically not believing somebody if they cannot explain something simply. Einstein said (well, no, actually he didn't, but everybody thinks he did), "If you cannot explain something to your grandmother, you don't understand it." Maybe it's because now I understand my craft (and a few other things) well enough to explain some bits to someone who is not a master that I don't trust an "expert" who cannot do the same. Lately that's a lot of people ...

(As an unnecessary aside, I like the general apprentice-journeyman-master motif, but because of the above I add another step - wizard. (I actually got that from a book somewhere.) A master is a professional who can support himself by his own hand ... but a wizard is somebody who knows something so well he can explain it to apprentices at a level they can understand and use, synchronize with other areas easily, make breakthroughs, and synthesize new cross-discipline areas. Many would start to say "Ph.D. ..." but I know too many of them - my bar is higher, and the membership sparse.)

I see the expansion of these "sub-experts" as an effect of the increasing specialization of society - not a direct effect, because clearly things can be explained to non-experts; but an unfortunate, self-imposed effect of the mentally lazy. We have specialized and delegated work, not thinking. Again we see doubt serves us well - whereas you would pick up a book and figure it out, the herd dumbly nods their head.

(As another unnecessary aside, once you consciously reach this point, it's a short step to realizing that everybody falls into this category. Many otherwise intelligent people I know still fall for "expert" talk in all manner of ways, especially business and politics, even when I can prove otherwise.)

The flip side of that, of course, is that one cannot automatically assume that someone who can explain something simply is automatically correct ...
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#56148 - 06/22/11 07:11 AM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Autodidact]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I would like to express my support for your post Autodidact.

I was recently looking through some of the threads in a philosophy forum, a pretty good one too.

I noted that there were many seemingly complex posts using a great deal of rather professional looking jargon from a lot of the members there.

Suddenly Professor John Searle posted in the thread in question and his post was rather startling when compared to the posts which had preceded his.

Searle's post brought the issue down to an individual's day to day experience in the world, and it used clear simple English to explain the viewpoint he was putting forward.

The post did attract attention from the other member's there.

I do think that there are questions and answers which may require one to adopt a language others are unfamiliar with, but I do think that questions and answers can be explained, at least in simple terms, by using a commonly undertsood language.

Top
#56149 - 06/22/11 07:59 AM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: ]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1711
Loc: New York
I do find it interesting that a large number of intellectuals are able to express themselves in a manner that the average person can comprehend. As an example I own two DVD’s from the “Foundation For Reason and Science.” The people on it are of high intelligence, yet most of them can express complex views clearly and coherently in a way that I believe most people can understand without running to the dictionary or the encyclopedia for reference.
With that said, I am not in favor of watering down a conversation to the level of “Ebonics,” but I am in favor of plain and simple language to express complex ideas if it is possible to do so.

I am reminded of an English teacher that I had briefly in one of my high school classes. It seemed to me that she was a black woman with a chip on her shoulders because she spoke in away that most of us didn’t understand. She often used foreign words, mostly French (how’s that for irony in an English class?) To express her views.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#56166 - 06/22/11 04:41 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Asmedious]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I am very much rooted in the process of thinking. That is definately in my nature and the big questions have always been a part of me and I have dedicated alot of time thinking about them. I was never one who would just do something. I always analyze it and think about it from many different angels. This comes as no effort for me and it has both good and bad results. With that being said I am not passive either but my basic nature is definately one of an ideologue rather than an activist if I can draw a parallel with the political meanings of the words.

One of the more interesting things I've seen however is how the inner dialogue changes my. Or in other cases do not change me. This is also something I have come to study lately in regards to bigger groups of people. It is sometimes necessary to build a mythos or culture or alike that first implements a certain idea or worldview. This seed is sometimes necessary for the tree to grow and for a person, or a larger amount of people, to break a paradigm and enter a new one (hopefully a better one for the given time). In that way I believe metaphysics can have a visible, and often very strong, impact on the so called real world. If a person has faith in what he or she does, for whatever reason, their actions are often much more powerful. The basis of this is of course often a metaphysical or idealistic conviction.


At the same time, especially when it comes to online discussion about a very specific topic, I find that most discussion often can be reduced to how people interpret words. It is not the essence that is important but how a word is supposed to be defined. Satanism is perhaps one of the areas where this is most apparent. I am thinking of all the words (and associated concepts) like ”nature”, ”animal nature”, ”freedom”, ”will”, ”god/s” etc. In the end I have come to realize that a particular discussion is but worthless because what is discussed is really linguistics while the actuall essence isnt touched upon at all. We need to define words and concepts and a discussion about these things are not bad at all. I am however more aware nowadays about situations where the actual meaning is reduced to nothing and people only bitch about the words being used (I know I fall into the trap at times as well though).

I have for several years now stopped labeling myself. I always come to the conclusion that I feel trapped if I do, even if the label really gives me all the freedom I need. At the same time I often have the feeling that I want to label myself something. The conclusion is always that I cant however and I think this is directly related to my inner nature as that of a thinker. I think of concepts and I study them and in a way I am a perfectionist in that I cant really accept a label that is just general. It has to really fit perfectly and of course none ever does.


So in the end, how do we know if the philosophizing we do are actually worthless or if it in reality can bring about a paradigm shift, in the individual or in the collective, that may have a huge impact on future events? This cant be generally answered of course but sometimes the idea is more powerful than we give it credit for being even before we have seen its results.

Top
#56171 - 06/22/11 07:10 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Originally Posted By: MindFux
It's actually fitting that you posted because you're an example of the 'problem' (or vagrancy) I was referring to in my original post.


After this post, I'm through with you. I wish you bad luck in what-ever you do, where-ever you may go.

I know that there are people in this forum following me, and I'm not at a loss with losing your attention.

Nobody can tell us why the world was created. Any answer given is full of difficulties. One might further ask: was this an unmotivated or motivated act of creation? This dichotomous question centers on a theistic answer which is brought about by Western suppositions.

Acintyah khalu ye bhavah
Na tan tarkeshu yojayer
Acintya-racana-rupam
Manasa api jagar khalu


You must not attempt a merely logical explanation of ideas and problems that baffle the understanding. Who can explain the mysterious growth of the tree from the seed? Even the fact of birth and Death of humankind cannot be explained adequately. It is a great enigma. A mere reference to a number of empirical or secondary Laws of Nature is no explanation.

Ahani ahani bhutani
Gacchanti yama-mandiram
Sashah sthiratvam ichhanti
Kim ascaryam atah param


You observe that every day human beings Die, yet those who are still alive forget this very fact and behave as if you wish to live in this world forever. It is in the sense of mystery that the charm of philosophy lies herein. The progress in philosophical thinking is nothing more than the statement of the problem in a clearer way. For instance, by no means could you ever pretend to solve the riddle of Existence. Einstein had to take great pains to prove scientifically that the straight line was an impossibility. It was proved long before Einstein or any inductive method by the direct and Intuitive perception. Your Intellect runs a zig-zag course while Intuition is the shortest cut to the Truth. Although science might take you a long way towards your goal, it will never be able to take you to the destination you aim at. It will only deepen your sense of mystery at a stage when you would expect a definite answer from it, and leave you gaping in calf-like wonder.

Katanya from 1992 C.E.--I am alive, and here.
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#56173 - 06/22/11 07:21 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: paolo sette]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3773
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
If anyone is following you, oh prince of platitudes, it is surely a team of interpreters highly trained in translating pretentious gibberish into english.

This is indeed the exact sort of thing I was talking about when I wrote my essay on this subject, as per ADM. If you can't write something in common english, the chances are there is no understanding to be had. I honestly can not recall even a single instance where your laboured thesaurus rape sessions have done so much as spark a single brain cell. This is why you are the prince ;\)

*feel free to put me on your back burner. It seems to be where all the interesting sorts are*
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#56175 - 06/22/11 08:51 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Dan_Dread:

 Quote:
Ahh the prince of platitudes is again rising the ire of the natives. He is a strange bird isn't he?

I wouldn't sully a descriptor as favorable in my lexicon as "strange" by applying it to him.

A list of all 600 Club members known to me who want him gone would encompass virtually every frequent poster here, both white and blue. (Even those excluded are only so because I don't know their opinions with certainty.) It would be one thing if this disdain were merely due to philosophical differences or clashes of personality, in which case banning him would obviously constitute a display of ochlocracy—but it isn't. As I said earlier, not everyone banned on this forum is sent to the Hall of Shame for threatening or trying to convert members. Intelligence matters here, and inane babbling has been cause enough for banishment on more than a few occasions. That paolo has been allowed to post with impunity despite contributing nothing but pseudo-Vedantic diabolism and meaningless word salad is aggravating, ignored though he is by almost everyone. Seen logically and in the light of this forum's own standards, I remain convinced that there is absolutely no reason to continue harboring him, and every reason to expunge him.

Rant over. If anyone can provide a sound counterargument to what I've said above, I will happily admit as much, but I'm not holding my breath. (That said, the challenge may lie simply in finding someone who wouldn't rather see paolo's waste production extinguished.)


 Quote:
*feel free to put me on your back burner. It seems to be where all the interesting sorts are*

We'll have an extra stein of beer waiting for you when Swami Avidyananda dismisses you explicitly. (When you're stopped by the bouncer, just give him the password: "Paolo sent me.")



MindFux:

I hate to say I told you so, but you're wasting your time. Paolo is a bottomless pit.

"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." —Elbert Hubbard

(For the record, I do intend to weigh in with my own thoughts on your excellent topic, but I'm currently working my way through a backlog of paperwork and private messages. Keep the fires stoked!)


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

Top
Page 2 of 3 <123>


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

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.