0
   

Can the history of ontology be destroyed?

 
 
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 09:23 am
Writing is not something to be done, but merely what has been done and in need of expression without dissapation. Keeping in line with the forever form, you can express it without hesitation. Again, this is not something to be done. It's all already done, we're just expressing it. Showing it to you. Keeping in line with current traditions of typically accepted methods of expression only deminish that which was to be expressed. Knowing one and feeling one, forever constant in the eternal now. Allowing the form to get out of hand is an undenyable, ever-present option which is in need of dissapation. Although even as one comports to that of the act of dissipation, you are no doubt only adding to that of out-of-handness. Constantly see-ing otologics are an addition to the "problem" of the forever form, the form is not something to be viewed but expressed. The name is not important, a reference is of no reference. To deny the form of it's true form is to deny existence itself. Dissapating it with a reference is only that of another way of distraction. When the eyes are closed, they see that space that the form truely is. Running around in circles, acting as if there was somewhere to go. Something to get to, only to come right back down to the beginning. Which is the beginning and end of all things, the truth. The I am, the one and only Me that which is infinite and cannot, nor should not be even attempted to be bettered by any means. The truth was evident at birth, you have only illusionarily illustrated yourself through misconceptions and others of the like. Writing to oneself amongst oneself, is indeed the most pure form of its expression. There is not that which can be lost or gained through self-expression amongst oneself, the illusionary ego is kept silent due do the lack of another. Proper grammar is indeed a self-illusionarily-learned conceptual handicap, but nonetheless the form can only express that which it will understand through interpretation. I am where I am by my own choosing, every experience that I have had was by my own consciouss or unconsciouss decision making. Attempting to learn from these experiences would indeed prove to be foolish as it could be seen as a form of self-denial, or lack of self-love as the form was indeed responsible for the experience to begin with. It could be said, however, that a certain way of thinking/be-ing could be developed through a hindsight of that which we call "previous" experiences. One, however, could not possibly expect this to be an immediate proccess as that would only create what we'll call an immediate "out-of-handness" due to egotistical momentary expectancy of results. The form should indeed learn to "develop" a "basis" for new thinking based upon its previously learned wants/desires. Again, the ego needs to remain silent to avoid anymore delusional "notions" of immediate results. Vision would indeed prove to be quite a dilema due to the basics of ontology, but are we to go blind? No, but merely silence the notion of the mindself. The headself, that which only re-presents or re-enacts the momentarily "previous" experience of the totality of its being. The vast majority of its experiences are indeed elsewhere of the head, but due to the "problem" of its ontologically distinguished self, it cannot help but be seduced into this way of thinking. It would indeed seem prelevant for a consciouss decion-making of constant awareness of the Total Self, not just that which is interpreted by the mind but body as well. Again, due to the complete history of its being ontologically distinguished, any "efforts" at this feat would indeed seem to prove futile. The mind does indeed interpret that which has been "previously" experience by the vast majority of "the rest" of "its" being, so to be an ontologically distinguished being - is to be a being that which is constantly in "the past". Thus, a way of thinking not only of the existence of "time" is developed, but that of the totality of its being - being that of in the future. There is no unity in such an undertaking, and therefor the form is in constant anxiety or is un-happy with its present state of being. Using basic ontology would be easily comparable with that of a "radio transmitter" from body to mind. However, it could be said that this "radio transmitter" is non-existent and was only ontologically and delusionally formed. The form is one, forever and always, it is a constant flow of one-ness, only when it intellectualizes the "information" does it delusionally "break the cycle" of one-ness. In order to "puff out its chest" or distract those in need of distracting does it find itself astray. The form develops such a tendency and eventually a need for these "feelings" that it soon loses touch with its one-ness. However, the "feeling" or "notification" of The One, The Self, existence will be a near-constant reminder but will only be put down due to the incoherent, delusionally developed need for distraction. The truth is in the moment's undoubted natural perception, however due to ontological distinguishment from the mind split from body there is a tendency to reject that of one's ownmost 'feelings'. Speakig would indeed seem to be the forms most purest form of expression, but due to the incoherently ontologically distinguished separation of mind from body, it has the inclination to speak of the non-existent. This would, in fact, prove necessary to unify mind and body for not that of only personal experience, but that of a truth expressing "example" for those it surrounds. The idea of "proof" could then be seen as nothing more than 'doubt of existence' or 'doubt of truth' due to the fact of separation, in is not so much 'the quieting' of the mind, but the willingness of communication between it and the body. The 'mind' has been allowed to 'run wild' for quite too long, it needs to recogize the totality of its experience as reality itself, and not some'thing' to be perceived. 'Intellectualizing' is just another word for distraction, that of a "good way" to distract others who are also separated in order for 'proof of existence' or that of 'proof of Self' albiet from another Self. Heidegger speaks of a 'hero' for the 'everydayness' of Dasein, I suspect this is what he means by this. Again, this is not some'thing' I am trying to prove to you. I have no'thing' to prove, there is not that which is in need of proof outside of your own incoherent need to 'intellectualize' your distraction(s). When you require 'proof', nothing more are you but a fire of questions, only to be put out with 'your own' answers, or anothers'. Existence is existence, form is form, there is no 'need' for proof outside of an incoherent 'need' to falsely prove the mind's existence independantly. The 'mind' has forever been ontologically distinguished as existing independantly of the body, it is for this reason the form is in constant projection of a non-existent future, conversely 'creating' a non-existent past. The 'trick' it(the mind) plays on the totality of it's form is that of a 'where I am' and 'where I ought to be' which then creates an invisible and imaginary 'idea' of the future and past. Only when 'the two' become one does it achieve the 'peace' it was at birth and 'before' that of ontologics were delusionally established. Sense perception as been 'regarded' as that of 'imaginary' or of a 'false creative idea of life' or that of not 'facing facts, or 'reality'. In actuality, however, the truth is just the opposite. There is not that which can be 'perceived' that is NOT reality, for the form itself is reality, as only a 'piece of the puzzle'. Or if you'd like to be more 'correct' one could say 'it' is an event 'happening' as a part of the Whole Event. Part of the show, if you will. Therefor, that which is 'spoken' can not be 'incorect', or 'untrue'. For if one were 'listening' for the truth, even that of a 'lie' would only give the listener that which to contrast to the 'truth' from the spoken 'lie'. When the form speaks, it 'automatically' (due to the history of ontology) feels the 'need' to 'check in' with its totality of perception so as to discern the truth, from that which is non-existent. Never does it speak 'freely' or 'openly' without ontological discernment. When it is 'expressed' it always feels the need(again, due to ontological distinguishment) to do so in a manner that is 'intellectually accepted' or separated as that of an 'existence proving hero', even when the form is in solitude. In order for it to be 'freely' or 'openly' expressed, the hisory of it's ontology MUST be destroyed. Otherwise, it will always fall back into that of 'intellectual safehood'. The false concepts of itself need to be erased for that of an 'authentic' living experience, otherwise it will always be a slave to proving its unity or existence to itself and others.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,012 • Replies: 13

 
JPLosman0711
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 09:56 am
@JPLosman0711,
^^^^^^^
JPLosman0711
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 10:48 am
@JPLosman0711,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 10:53 am
Stop bumping this shitty post up. If you want people to read what you have to say, try formatting what you write a bit. Lazy blocks of text aren't worth anyone's time.

Cycloptichorn
JPLosman0711
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 10:55 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Words are words, expression is expression. Thinking it 'needs' to be accurately 'formatted' only hinders your own ability to understand.

One more thing, only you can watse your time.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 10:57 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

Words are words, expression is expression. Thinking it 'needs' to be accurately 'formatted' only hinders your own ability to understand.


Bullshit. Formatting INCREASES people's ability to understand. That's why everyone else does it.

Quote:
One more thing, only you can watse your time.


I didn't waste it reading your un-formatted screed.

Cycloptichorn
JPLosman0711
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 11:01 am
@Cycloptichorn,
"That's why everyone else does it."

You've merely demonstrated The Lie, and perpetuated it. Well done.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 11:05 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

"That's why everyone else does it."

You've merely demonstrated The Lie, and perpetuated it. Well done.


Even those two sentences there were formatted correctly. So you obviously understand the necessity of doing so.

I should have said 'everyone educated and worth reading' takes the time to properly format their work.

Don't play around with bullshit justifications; you're just too lazy to do it properly. Right?

Cycloptichorn
JPLosman0711
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 11:08 am
@Cycloptichorn,
The reason for my 'so called' un-formatted writing is because the 'ideas' tend to come so naturally and so 'at that moment' - that to "foramt" them would prove to be a complete waste of time and not only that but hinder my ability at expression. (I actually iconsider what I wrote to be a little bit "over formatted", but even I am(unfortunately) bound to my ontological history)

Perhaps it could be said that YOU are the lazy one as you 'need' everything to be 'neatly formatted'. Again, words are words. Expression is expression, if you think it needs to be formatted then you didn't deserve to hear it in the first place.

How you like 'dem apples?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 11:12 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

The reason for my 'so called' un-formatted writing is because they 'ideas' tend to come so naturally and so 'at that moment' - that to "foramt" them would proof to be a complete waste of time and not only that but hinder my ability at expression.


What you are talking about is Stream of Consciousness writing. It's a long-standing idea and you're hardly the first to do it.

However, the appropriate thing to do is wait until you are DONE writing, and then go back and format it so the reader doesn't have to wade through a dense, rambling paragraph that lasts several pages. You do know WHY paragraphs even exist, don't you?

Quote:
Perhaps it could be said that YOU are the lazy one as you 'need' everything to be 'neatly formatted'. Again, words are words. Expression is expression, if you think it needs to be formatted then you didn't deserve to hear it in the first place.

How you like 'dem apples?


'Deserve?' I never gave a **** about it for a second. I was hoping that there would be an actual discussion of Ontology in this thread. Instead, it's just a bunch of rambly bullshit by a lazy writer. None of it makes any internal sense and there's no division of ideas into groupings or any logical structure to the thing.

I wouldn't ever waste my time on it.

I also think that bumping your own thread over and over is in very poor taste. You will note that nobody else on A2K does that.

Cycloptichorn
JPLosman0711
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 11:17 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I feel sorry for you my friend for you are so deeply entangled in the labyrinth of concepts to re-present your 'self'. I do not wish to partake in your con-fusion, expression is no'thing' to agree about or disagree, it is purely expression. Adding some'thing' to it such as 'understanding' only hinders that of a chance to 'hear' - but I've already said this a few times before so if you wish to continue arguing with your 'self' feel free to, just don't expect me to paticipate with you.

PS - You clearly "gave a **** about it for a second" otherwise you wouldn't have posted at all(much less 3/4 times)
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 11:19 am
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:

PS - You clearly "gave a **** about it for a second" otherwise you wouldn't have posted at all(much less 3/4 times)


You misunderstand - I've moved on to pointing out what an idiot you are being, which is a lot more fun than wading through dense, quasi-philosophic bullshit. I don't consider this part to be a waste of my time at all.

I don't know why you put all those words in quotes, either. It's not grammatically or logically correct to do so. More laziness I suspect.

Quote:
expression is no'thing' to agree about or disagree, it is purely expression.


I judged your expression, and it sucks. Try harder next time.

Cycloptichorn
JPLosman0711
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 11:20 am
@Cycloptichorn,
You shouldn't talk so badly about your 'self'.......
George
 
  3  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 02:38 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Who are you, PeeWee Herman?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Automatic Ontology Generation - Question by elang
Purpose of human life - Discussion by dattaswami cv
An Ontology Ontology - Question by stephs-notes
Ontology for publications - Question by youdontknowme1
Can we use ontology for? - Question by megh500
Commercial use of ontology - Question by mtrusewich
Protege Ontology - Question by Monstruletz
Instances of the ontology - Discussion by sathiyab
semantic in ontology - Question by sabrouna
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Can the history of ontology be destroyed?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/24/2021 at 04:13:37