1) I find it weird that PQ has such absense of own discussion, and so blatantly exclusivly replies to stupid answers.
Cyracuz wrote:
The process of creating one's own reality.
The Pentacle Queen wrote:1) I find it weird that PQ has such absense of own discussion, and so blatantly exclusivly replies to stupid answers.
There's no 'like' button on A2K... to used to facebook. But that would have got my thumbs up cyracuz.
2) if PQ really wanted to know about IQ and such, PQ would have googled it.
3) PQ seems only to be an attention whore who ask silly questions.
1. What is weird about not contributing much yourself and letting other people speak when it was you asking the question in the first place? I only respond to posts that I feel I can properly comment on or have anything to add to. If you think the only posts I respond to are silly ones then why did you complain on the 'philosophy of love' thread the other day that I hadn't written back to you? And I am the attention whore?
2. Is this an unfunny joke or an idiotic statement? Since when was intelligence defined by 'IQ and such'?
3. Love the way this directly contradicts 'absence of own discussion'.
Do you want to get over the fact that someone you don't know on the internet talked slightly more to someone else you don't know on the internet?
The Pentacle Queen wrote:1. What is weird about not contributing much yourself and letting other people speak when it was you asking the question in the first place? I only respond to posts that I feel I can properly comment on or have anything to add to. If you think the only posts I respond to are silly ones then why did you complain on the 'philosophy of love' thread the other day that I hadn't written back to you? And I am the attention whore?
It's very simple, when you doesn't respond to my factual posts, but only to "feel good statemens" then what am I to think?
The Pentacle Queen wrote:For any reasonable intelligent and enlighten person, would know that for almost half a century intelligence has been messured by IQ tests. If you actually are intelligent you would argue IQ tests are a poor messurment, and only messures a few select intelligences.2. Is this an unfunny joke or an idiotic statement? Since when was intelligence defined by 'IQ and such'?
3. Love the way this directly contradicts 'absence of own discussion'.
Do you want to get over the fact that someone you don't know on the internet talked slightly more to someone else you don't know on the internet?
PQ you don't have a clue about anything at all.
Ok, I'll say why I think it's intelligent: because it highlights a really high degree of self perception I've seen demonstrated elsewhere, that what we term 'reality' is constructed by a mental effort to order our sense experience (through language).
Now you say why you think it isn't intelligent.
I'm talking about love in a romantic sense, but also a 'love for the world.'
Bertrand Russell once said, 'love is wise, hatred is foolish.'
If this 'love' for the world is as profound as I think the implications are, then could love between two people (who think dualistically) in the romantic sense be this profound realisation 'manifest' or 'objectified' thus why it is so important to most human life?
How would a non-dualist 'love' in a romantic sense? Surely phrases such as 'I love you' or more importantly 'I do' are rendered meaningless.
I have read/been told on numerous occasions about love being central to wisdom, and each time thought it was pure sentimentalism and instantly dismissed it until I thought about it in this sense.
If anyone could help sharpen this up I would appreciate it.
pq x
If you knew more about psycology, you would know Cy' is what I would judge as a bit skitzo, and his answers are noting more than good sounding rethorical babble, which are unscientific and pure spekulation.
