1
   

Question about greek

 
 
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 09:33 pm
@BaCaRdi,
LOL! Nothing against that response, but dang... that was something. Look... take this "statement" for example...

Buy Kalpo dog food! YUM for the tummy!

Read the next LINE!

Good is bad and bad is good, or we think we should, or it may not.

When I say hilshire, you say farm.

What is a potato...Indeed, Kittie razzle dazzle.

- SPooN


Now if I answered anybody like that... do you think I would loose at least some modicum of credibility??? Probably.

Again, You may actually have a good point to make, and I look forward to reading it, but... dude... seriously. I've seen some stuff in my time, but...wow.
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 09:52 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Hehe.... There is a method to my madness after all...

modicum of credibility <---umm lets say consider the source at hand....

Don't mix up pure philosophy and Science Philosophy..Yes their the same and different...

-BaC
VideCorSpoon wrote:
LOL! Nothing against that response, but dang... that was something. Look... take this "statement" for example...

Buy Kalpo dog food! YUM for the tummy!

Read the next LINE!

Good is bad and bad is good, or we think we should, or it may not.

When I say hilshire, you say farm.

What is a potato...Indeed, Kittie razzle dazzle.

- SPooN


Now if I answered anybody like that... do you think I would loose at least some modicum of credibility??? Probably.

Again, You may actually have a good point to make, and I look forward to reading it, but... dude... seriously. I've seen some stuff in my time, but...wow.
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 04:50 pm
@BaCaRdi,
Essay concerning human understanding
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 04:53 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
HEHE sorry playing with the powers at be again:)

YEP......

Was my point in that to-be-honest:)

-Marc
VideCorSpoon wrote:
Essay concerning human understanding
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 04:54 pm
@BaCaRdi,
LOL! Can one really play with the powers that be?
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 04:56 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Not At all on that level..But we did split the ATOM the indivisible entity..

There are lower powers and higher powers an infinite amount of such.

You say it your way I say it my way..thats all...

I do have proof of my understanding....Wink
____________________________________________________________
Who followed and who leads?

Tron is also, in some instances, referred to as "integral." Like an integral (instrumentive) piece of a larger framework or machine. Electron is for all intensive purposes a charge per se (Elec), and the tron may be the suffix which pertains to its status as an integral peice of an atom.

I have to agree with Theatetus' assement as well. Throne is an integral component which can be applied in meaning.
______________________________________________________________

Did you not get the stupid lost kid act by now?

Like a fiddle.....

Questions?
-Marc
VideCorSpoon wrote:
LOL! Can one really play with the powers that be?
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 05:04 pm
@BaCaRdi,
As to the way I say it and the way you say it... ok. I'm not quite sure what the refers to but, ok. Potato poetaato I guess.

That you have proof to your understandings... by all means, reveal thy grace to the world that we may bask in its warm goodness. Again, I am curious to hear your account of whatever it is that you have posited. And again, I think you deserve to be heard on the topic at hand.
0 Replies
 
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 05:13 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Not At all on that level..But we did split the ATOM the indivisible entity..

There are lower powers and higher powers an infinite amount of such.

You say it your way I say it my way..thats all...

I do have proof of my understanding....Wink
____________________________________________________________
Who followed and who leads?

Tron is also, in some instances, referred to as "integral." Like an integral (instrumentive) piece of a larger framework or machine. Electron is for all intensive purposes a charge per se (Elec), and the tron may be the suffix which pertains to its status as an integral peice of an atom.

I have to agree with Theatetus' assement as well. Throne is an integral component which can be applied in meaning.
______________________________________________________________

Did you not get the stupid lost kid act by now?

Like a fiddle.....

Questions?
-Marc



First... is the atom an indivisible entity??? Im pretty sure basic chemistry will reveal that this is a very flawed statement. Even Democritus knew that the atom was a divisible aggregate.

That there are lower powers and higher powers... ok. This seems a very basic understanding of entropy.

In regards to Tron. I see a whole bunch of pieced together thoughts by various other posts in regards to "Tron" etymologically, but nothing substantive. Again, I am eager to hear your position on your theory.

As to the stupid lost kid act thing, there doesn't seem to be anything lost about it if there is a theory to posit which pin points it somewhere.

Like an accordion...

So... Answers???
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 05:30 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
ummm did you miss the split part?

we did split the ATOM the indivisible entity..

Not so indivisible anymore..Read my words my friend....

Welcome to Science Philosophy...

-Marc
VideCorSpoon wrote:
First... is the atom an indivisible entity??? Im pretty sure basic chemistry will reveal that this is a very flawed statement. Even Democritus knew that the atom was a divisible aggregate.

That there are lower powers and higher powers... ok. This seems a very basic understanding of entropy.

In regards to Tron. I see a whole bunch of pieced together thoughts by various other posts in regards to "Tron" etymologically, but nothing substantive. Again, I am eager to hear your position on your theory.

As to the stupid lost kid act thing, there doesn't seem to be anything lost about it if there is a theory to posit which pin points it somewhere.

Like an accordion...

So... Answers???
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 05:38 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
ummm did you miss the split part?

we did split the ATOM the indivisible entity..

Not so indivisible anymore..Read my words my friend....


ummm...LOL! Your are right! An atom can be divided! In your own words, the atom is "no[t] so indivisible anymore." My bad! Funny how things like that are picked up really fast and the topic just slides! I do that too many times. Your words have been duly read.

Now that the idiosyncrasies are out of the way... I am still eager to hear your position on your theory.
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 05:48 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
ummm...LOL! Your are right! An atom can be divided! In your own words, the atom is "no[t] so indivisible anymore." My bad!

Now that the idiosyncrasies are out of the way... I am still eager to hear your position on your theory.

Hehe we all get caught like that even me.lolol

Well to me I understand chemistry, electricity, physics, computer, etc..

TRoN

TRoN to me is the over anchor of life..

ToN is the radix that connects tron to tron ton to ton and visa versa...

We speak ground theory or what ever..

The big point is the singularity we are tied to...The underlaying forces tie is to null.. Between these forces we hang in time..
Since time is to me the blackhole that anchors our galaxy we are indeed the white (information) part.

If you have watched my video..

I am saying that TON is the underlaying fractal design where TRON is the Macro design.

They are in the strings...

My video shows just by pulling equal on the strings we can create a mass wobble like that of a blackhole...

The more tight I pull the more balanced it is...The more mass on the Macro Scale the more pull from the Hole.. TRON and TON are both of white fyi..not the same as the dark forces at be...

Did that make sense?

MOD EDIT: When quoting someone, please make sure the quote you are responding to is on top and your response is on the bottom.
0 Replies
 
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 05:50 pm
@BaCaRdi,
Sometimes a man of knowledge will speak in parables that can only be understood by those who are meant to know the meaning.

Most of the time, an idiot speaks gibberish and believes himself to be some sort of god.
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 05:53 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
Sometimes a man of knowledge will speak in parables that can only be understood by those who are meant to know the meaning.

Most of the time, an idiot speaks gibberish and believes himself to be some sort of god.

WOW that was absolutely perfection!
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 06:02 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi;32100 wrote:
WOW that was absolutely perfection!

-Marc Welcome the the Parables
The Traveler..


I know, it wouldn't have been typed if it were not absolute perfection!

But the singularity is always static, yet it manifests one aspect of its absoluteness at any one moment, a deceiver to all...

Our atomic radiance shines brighter as it turns, always fading to black before exploding in whiteness!

this proves my theorem of the two opposing forces, which can only be known when the spectrum of the fourth vector is in radial mode, and the system is idle...

now I hope you can start beginning to share in my theories of the spectral cloud, theyres is the source of it all!!
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 06:09 pm
@Pangloss,
0 Replies
 
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 09:11 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
I know, it wouldn't have been typed if it were not absolute perfection!

But the singularity is always static, yet it manifests one aspect of its absoluteness at any one moment, a deceiver to all...

Our atomic radiance shines brighter as it turns, always fading to black before exploding in whiteness!

this proves my theorem of the two opposing forces, which can only be known when the spectrum of the fourth vector is in radial mode, and the system is idle...

now I hope you can start beginning to share in my theories of the spectral cloud, theyres is the source of it all!!

Can you give me a hand with the above post..Getting a bit tired of explaining myself..

Pectral Cloud? Meaning Genealogy cloud??

I am very interested to your theories of course:)
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 10:52 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Umm Pangloss, can you give me a hand with the above post..Getting a bit tired of explaining myself..

Pectral Cloud? Meaning Genealogy cloud??

I am very interested to your theories of course:)

-Marc



Seriously, I think you do have something very good to say. I still have some amount of faith left that you are trying in some respect to formulate an argument or some sort of position. Descartes himself said, "God made the will infinite and the intellect finite, and this is why we err." I think your will to embrace the outer appearance of a philosopher is there and I think the latter will improve in time.

And I think as time goes on, you will learn more in school and you will develop a more logical train of thought and fill your thoughts out with valid inferences. But these things take time, and I'm sure with more work you can achieve this goal. All I can say is that you should keep trying to reach this respectable goal. You will certainly benefit from it in the future.

This is only natural for people that are just entering the realm of philosophy and I can see where you are coming from. These are very difficult notions to grasp and it is impossible to fully understand even the bases of these notions at such a young age. The superficial meanings of some of these more difficult words hold only a glimpse of their true meaning. But as time progresses, I honestly do believe that you will get better at it.

Philosophy is a hard nut to crack because it requires something beyond common thinking. I think you are genuinely trying.
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 11:13 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
Seriously, I think you do have something very good to say. I still have some amount of faith left that you are trying in some respect to formulate an argument or some sort of position. Descartes himself said, "God made the will infinite and the intellect finite, and this is why we err." I think your will to embrace the outer appearance of a philosopher is there and I think the latter will improve in time.

And I think as time goes on, you will learn more in school and you will develop a more logical train of thought and fill your thoughts out with valid inferences. But these things take time, and I'm sure with more work you can achieve this goal. All I can say is that you should keep trying to reach this respectable goal. You will certainly benefit from it in the future.

This is only natural for people that are just entering the realm of philosophy and I can see where you are coming from. These are very difficult notions to grasp and it is impossible to fully understand even the bases of these notions at such a young age. The superficial meanings of some of these more difficult words hold only a glimpse of their true meaning. But as time progresses, I honestly do believe that you will get better at it.

Philosophy is a hard nut to crack because it requires something beyond common thinking. I think you are genuinely trying.

I am with you my friend VideCorSpoon, thank you very much!!!

Pangloss question on your theory;

So as my Buddhist beliefs are thought bound..as I can have any one I want
Your theory is I can truly be who I want, just by thought?

Ohhhh I love it!

Please correct me and elaborate where you wish:)
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 12:26 am
@BaCaRdi,
I really don't have any "theories" to offer; my own philosophy changes day to day as I acquire more experience and reassess my viewpoints and conclusions.

Science is making interesting progress with real philosophical implications. Many people try to argue that due to science, these more metaphysical ideas in philosophy cannot be true, but they fail to understand science and some of the possibilities left open within physics. Here is one example that is quite interesting:

Bell test experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
the experiment provides strong evidence that a quantum event at one location can affect an event at another location without any obvious mechanism for communication between the two locations. This has been called "spooky action at a distance".
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 12:47 am
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
I really don't have any "theories" to offer; my own philosophy changes day to day as I acquire more experience and reassess my viewpoints and conclusions.

Science is making interesting progress with real philosophical implications. Many people try to argue that due to science, these more metaphysical ideas in philosophy cannot be true, but they fail to understand science and some of the possibilities left open within physics. Here is one example that is quite interesting:

Bell test experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bell's inequality

Well there you have it;)

The Null-Axiom infinite possibilities from a true null-state. The correlation of particle, physicist and explorers of time.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/24/2023 at 01:06:50