Quasi philosophic scrubs who ruin the fun...

I'm just interested to know if that proposed site got off the ground, Setanta.
I appreciated the contribution of a number of them in a variety of A2K threads. Sad to see the last of quite a few of them, actually. It was good.

Yes, almost every time I read one of their posts, "the unbearable lightness of being" comes to mind...

(not that I am a good judge, though)..

I assure you I don't use "non-dualist" in the Jamesian sense when I refer to the non-dualists on this forum -- primarily because they don't use "non-dualist" in the Jamesian sense. And since that's how they describe themselves, you can't really blame me if most of the pigeon-holing here is done by the pigeons.

What you are possibly not be understanding about our immigrants is that they might be post-structuralists or even, dare I say the word, deconstructionists.

Which is to say "playtime". A sort of goofball, free-basing and ironic exposition of the idea that the only thing meaning can mean is meaninglessness. What they write is meant to be meaningless. That's the point you po-faced presbyterians. rl's cyber imitation of Mick Pollard in Hannibal Brooks is quite amusing. He has a way of making ridiculous points and asking stupid questions in a literary tone that implores you to try to humour him. And I did try. I do that sort of thing a good deal in the pub. And elsewhere.

I had to humour a judge once when he was asking me why I hadn't opened the 300 odd letters from the Inland Revenue delivered over a period of four years. As if the bastard didn't already know. Pure fear and hoping to die before it came to this (sweeping casual arm across the courtroom). And that there was no law about having to open letters. There is now though. If the IR send you a letter now you are deemed to have opened it, read it and assimilated its contents. Not acting upon it being obviously devious. As far as I can tell they don't even need to have sent it. They only need say they have. Unless you push it and only nitwits push against mountains. And they like that too. Two weeks business at the European Court of Civil Rights is a nice holiday and if you win it isn't their money you're getting--it's your own.

I did some contrite stuff instead with a few hints about the man on the Clapham Omnibus and got out for $30 grand. Which was a "result".

And I don't see how an atheist has any alternative but to embrace deconstructionism and, as with all decorous embraces, with enthusiasm and ardour. From a philosophical point of view there is no other choice in the absence of God. The idea of a halfway position, being Christian or atheist depending what activity is being engaged in, is strictly for the young ladies in places like Green Gables. Not the ones in wet paper bags though.

If everything is daft then, in our invidious age, not that other ages are much different but we have refined daftness, why not try to be daftest. Be a real wackaloony- hopplehead rather than pretending to be just by the deployment of the architectural edifice of 12 consonants, 8 vowels and a hyphen going left to right as devout Christians do before they take the dog for a **** on somebody else's land.

What could be dafter to a deconstructed evolutionist than Brett Favre taking that hit so he could be sure the pass was good. There's nothing in the whole evolutionary canon that wouldn't have thrown the ball away and hi-tailed it in the other direction as soon as that big chap got through. Except a cornered rat. Instead he is wheeled away looking like a crash victim and in no state to disseminate his genetic material. With undeconstructed evolutionists clapping to publicly make a show of their Christian compassion, as if it will help to take the pain away, and it is their own need of violent entertainment which caused the pain.

It's one way of looking at it. The safest way. Sounding like the Deputy President of the Chamber of Commerce at a vicarage garden-party holding forth platitudes and cliches after a few pints on football hooligans is risky. Football hooligans are deconstructionists. Bus shelters, shop windows, cars, litter bins. Anything to hand.

The railway carriage manufacturers got together with the railway companies and unions and started putting the carriages the government was resisting condemning, to save money, on the football specials. The ones from Merseyside particularly. On returning to base they were condemned on a walk-through. Ten at a time. Every saturday. So the travelling public got better carriages for the millions of journeys they made and the hooligans took the heat. And room in other departmental budgets had to be made. These being where making the "public put up with crap carriages for longer" arguments were forcefully made. And they were departments which were going to make us all more intelligent and live longer, happier lives, keep our troops properly equipt, preserve our national treasures, keep opera seats cheap and bring order to our land. They can resist. There's not much in the world of organisms that has significance when in transit.

Part of the game is the initiation and contemplation of indignation.

a bit further on in the thread I linked to earlier

http://able2know.org/topic/152716-36#post-4400501

Thank you again, Beth.
Now I have the whole picture!
(I've been wondering for months. Now I know. )

Without reading any of the other posts (sorry i'm tired). Isn't since all the phil forum lot joined?
From my limited interaction I seemed to perceive that quite a lot of posters seem to enjoy talking to each other in 'code' and all get really excited when they agree with each other as if they're cracking life's deep mysteries rather than just joining a load of abstract concepts together in some odd rapture.
Can we nazi the philosophy boards up and put an IQ bar on it or something?

I wi

How's the teaching life, PQ?

Surely the PQ must be jesting!

That is exactly what the fools are doing.
In a discussion, feel free to call me an idiot or a retard for believing as I do, but if you don't tell me what you believe that makes you think I'm wrong, we cannot have a discussion. Only a conflict, and that doesn't interest me.

But what is this "phil forum lot"?

This site bought a site which was, allegedly, a philosophy site. The drivel they post makes me suspect that it was a backslapping club, though, and that what passed for philosophy there was ludicrous. I usually refer to them as the philosophy refugees.



This is a pretty good description of the kind of nonsense so many of them post. There are a few good minds among the philosophy refugees, but they don't post here often, any longer, it seems.

ok. Thanks Set.


Yesterday someone was ridiculing me for saying that it is nonsense to speak of a non-existing idea. I asked him for an example of an idea that did not exist.
He said that it was simple... "a unicorn," he suggested, "that does not exist, because it is only an idea"...

There simply is no way to argue against such superior logic.

Yeah they've all got their head in the clouds, and you're right about the backslapping. It's a shame, I do miss how the philosophy boards used to deliver me nice reading on a plate.

Hey JTT, good thanks, but hard work. I'm mainly teaching 4 year olds, which I was originally really pissed off about, but now i've got used to them I've realised it's actually pretty sweet because I get to mess around with them so much.

So why do you keep replying guigus? By now you should already know that he is not going to improve one bit...he is messed up big time...by mantaining a conversation on that level you are also not helping...it is not the case that you both just disagree, like you and I, Fresco or Fido and Ken...he does not have the tools for engaging in a debate, neither mentally or emotionally...

I do not think that IQ is the problem and it seems that administering tests would not be the end all solution to it. Im assuming you think there is a corollary between philosophy forums and IQ? Or philosophy and IQ? Perhaps both?

We could simply avoid talking to people who are talking nonsense. Thats the approach I take. But hey that approach may not be appropriate for others, so I will simply let them at it.

Could you point out examples where this is the case? I am sure such posts would be very easy to find.

Agreed.
At this point, for me, it is a matter of social experiment. I am curious to see how far he is willing to go in order to not back down. I get the impression that he sees it as a sign of weakness to be wrong. It is classical behaviour of insecurity.

I realize that the question was not directed at me, but here is an example of a thread where establishing a "code" in which to communicate would have to be done to get something out of it.

http://able2know.org/topic/162645-1

I started that thread. But it didn't take me long to realize that it was a fruitless project, and I have no problem admitting it. The problem is when peope fail to admit that their efforts have misled them.

Ding it was a joke. I just meant some of the posts are a bit moronic.

Here is an example:
Ron's posts, around page -
http://able2know.org/topic/132463-5#post-4403697

Also check out Mark Noble. He talks **** too.