Women, Freedom, Entrapment, Strategy

[Bobo]

Therefore John is a fool.

What does that makes you?

the guy who reads your typo.

What typo?

[Tomas]

Therefore John is a fool.

What does that makes you?

the guy who reads your typo.

What typo?

Dennis,

I think we got someone dumber here than Alex.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Not a typo but a rather hard to catch---for a non-native English speaker as is Señor Bobo---need for the subjunctive:

"What does that make you" not "makes" as is the third person present indicative.

• "The subjunctive mood in English grammar includes particular verb forms that are used in certain clauses to express necessity, desire, purpose, suggestion and similar ideas, or a counterfactual condition.
  
  "In Modern English the subjunctive form of a verb is in many cases the same as a corresponding indicative form, and thus subjunctives are not a very visible grammatical feature of English. For most verbs, the only distinct subjunctive form is found in the third-person singular of the present tense, where the subjunctive lacks the -s ending: It is necessary that he see a doctor (contrasted with the indicative he sees). However, the verb be has not only a distinct present subjunctive (be, as in I suggest that they be removed) but also a past subjunctive were (as in If I were rich, ...)"

Dennis noticed this not because he recognized the need for the subjunctive but because, to a native speaker's ear (eye), it doesn't look right.

If I can help with anything else just let me know. ;-)

[guest_of_logic]

Alex, just briefly, having recently awoken from a day sleep: I actually don't take serious issue with metis as you describe it, I even think it has merits, with one (big) qualification, that it be practised within ethical boundaries. So, when you list "strategems of war, frauds, deceits", I'm wary, because I would only consider any of those to be potentially ethical when used defensively i.e. I would never (at least I can't think of a scenario off the top of my head) consider it ethical to start a war, be it under the guise of metis or any other. It is for ethical reasons too that I reject the metis of the story of your opening post: in my view, life is inviolate; I do even not support others in their terminations of life in the womb, let alone consider practising them myself. I don't consider aggressive fraud and deceit - to profit at the expense of another - to be ethical either, but sure, if someone's out to defraud or deceive you, and you can thwart that through otherwise ethical like counter-measures, then that seems reasonable to me. I know that you think I'm excessively idealistic, probably you are even being charitable with your choice of words there, but that's the type of honour that I value, not the honour that is glory in warfare or some other bloody destructiveness.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You can't get dumber than Alex, he's the smartest person I know.

Seriously*, ever since I read my first sentence of his beautiful language I knew this was the truth, it contained a word, that through my ignorance, was unheard to me, "avidly". Very impressive syntax this one has, his intelligence is great.

[guest_of_logic]

You can't get dumber than Alex, he's the smartest person I know.

Except that you don't know. ;-)

[SeekerOfWisdom]

lol love you guys,

It's true I don't know anything, my girlfriend had to figure that one out for me. But he is definitely the most intelligent person I've spoken to, except maybe for you Laird, you also write with the same crystal clear structure and well phrased points.

[The.Geek]

Not a typo but a rather hard to catch---for a non-native English speaker as is Señor Bobo---need for the subjunctive:

"What does that make you" not "makes" as is the third person present indicative.

• "The subjunctive mood in English grammar includes particular verb forms that are used in certain clauses to express necessity, desire, purpose, suggestion and similar ideas, or a counterfactual condition.
  
  "In Modern English the subjunctive form of a verb is in many cases the same as a corresponding indicative form, and thus subjunctives are not a very visible grammatical feature of English. For most verbs, the only distinct subjunctive form is found in the third-person singular of the present tense, where the subjunctive lacks the -s ending: It is necessary that he see a doctor (contrasted with the indicative he sees). However, the verb be has not only a distinct present subjunctive (be, as in I suggest that they be removed) but also a past subjunctive were (as in If I were rich, ...)"

Dennis noticed this not because he recognized the need for the subjunctive but because, to a native speaker's ear (eye), it doesn't look right.

If I can help with anything else just let me know. ;-)

This has nothing to do with the subjunctive. It was a typo. "he does make", not "he does makes". Simple present indicative.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The.Geek as a Genius Forum moderator I'm going to have to point out that your comment really depends on your definition of the words "typo", "not" and "this", you may have a different understanding of what these things are, please refer to the forum introduction.

[guest_of_logic]

I actually don't take serious issue with metis as you describe it, I even think it has merits, with one (big) qualification

And another: a world without the need for metis (at least in the sense of deceptiveness, cunning, treachery - alert responsiveness to situations is unproblematic) is ideal, and one that we should be striving for. So, after all, I'd say that metis (in those senses) should only be used as a last resort, and even then only reluctantly.

Hey, thanks John, that's kind of you.

[Merlin]

Guest-of-Logic,

You seem intellectual. Enough, to understand that Imperical Genius' too fro' -thus-that the genius inside of these walls no longer is upset by the wall you place on yourself. What-my understanding is is that the cup is-either-half-full;or! Half-empty! And thus eliminating the culture of pseudo-intellect. Inside these walls of Magistrate -thus-you pour a pseudo-intellect. Point, Less.?

No.


At what point in time do you examine yourself,? When you've only known yourself for quit some time. How this is point A.
Point-B points out all your deficiencies. At that same margin you are welcomed!

So, pointing out your deficiencies. Your aimless idea of Zen Master. Your scoffing at the one image that granted your ideas in a Winn. Once, conceived.
So, immature that little Lichen can return to their nest. Even, if the point, is as smooth as an egg coming from your 'arse.'
Abigale.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

No worries Laird, it was a compliment for you and an insult for Alex haha, only because you avoid all the such through your constantly polite nature, you must be the best of us.




And Merlin, you don't seem to know much about Genius Forums, so, I will remind you to tell us what you mean by "no", "seem", and "thus".

[guest_of_logic]

Abigale,

So, the cup is both half-full and half-empty, yet I insist on one or the other, making me pseudo-intellectual?

Zen Master: a man of uncompromising ethics? This is aimless?

The "one image" - Genius Forum philosophy? I can't think what else you might mean.

Thanks for the critique. Laird

John,

My record for politeness on this forum is very blemished, in fact there are many posts from the past that I cringe to read back. It's odd that you missed the person in this thread whose record is unblemished, and whose intellect most refined.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Pye? Or did Pam comment?

Well you lived up to the politeness in replying with modesty haha

[guest_of_logic]

At least you got it right when prompted. :-) (I don't think Pam's commented in this thread)

[Dennis Mahar]

lol, see, this is why I need to change over to Tao-like or short Dennis style writing, otherwise we just get caught in the same trap, was almost happening to you when you were writing more in response to their criticism, don't forget to forget, and answer the Zhuangzi riddle for them.

What he was getting at is when we awaken we awaken into 'don't know',
just like you tell it.
ineffable silence.

[Merlin]

That is exactly my point you rainbow-fruitcake!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Dennis, correct tho I was looking for a specific word, the answer being "neither", the clear meaning being that you are neither the butterfly or the man. "This am I not!"

Laird

Oh ok Pye, well that just proves she masters are ahead.

Should have tried this earlier with you instead... what do you think of these quotes?

"Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?"
Zhuangzi

"Not-knowing is true knowledge.
Presuming to know is a disease.
First realize that you are sick;
then you can move toward health.

The Master is her own physician.
She has healed herself of all knowing"
-Lao Tzu

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.”
Confucius

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."
Socrates

[Dennis Mahar]

possibilities come out of 'don't know'.
if the condition was 'know' there'd be no possibility, no adventure, no life,
no wheel turning.
nothing.
boring as batshit.

in the meantime we can put on little plastic Mighty Mouse suits and pretend we've got metis and shit like that.

[Bobo]

Not a typo but a rather hard to catch---for a non-native English speaker as is Señor Bobo---need for the subjunctive:

"What does that make you" not "makes" as is the third person present indicative.

• "The subjunctive mood in English grammar includes particular verb forms that are used in certain clauses to express necessity, desire, purpose, suggestion and similar ideas, or a counterfactual condition.
  
  "In Modern English the subjunctive form of a verb is in many cases the same as a corresponding indicative form, and thus subjunctives are not a very visible grammatical feature of English. For most verbs, the only distinct subjunctive form is found in the third-person singular of the present tense, where the subjunctive lacks the -s ending: It is necessary that he see a doctor (contrasted with the indicative he sees). However, the verb be has not only a distinct present subjunctive (be, as in I suggest that they be removed) but also a past subjunctive were (as in If I were rich, ...)"

Dennis noticed this not because he recognized the need for the subjunctive but because, to a native speaker's ear (eye), it doesn't look right.

If I can help with anything else just let me know. ;-)

Maybe... "What does that makes you"

That here is a relative pronoun used to introduce a free relative clause to the verb make.
So make is in the third person present indicative. As it refers to the antecedent, not to second person you.

• "A free relative clause, on the other hand, does not have an explicit antecedent external to itself. Instead, the relative clause itself takes the place of an argument in the matrix clause. For example, in the English sentence "I like what I see", the clause what I see is a free relative clause, since it has no antecedent, but itself serves as the object of the verb like in the main clause. (An alternative analysis is that the free relative clause has zero as its antecedent.)"
  
  "Free relative clauses (which have no antecedent, but themselves take the role of an argument in the main clause) can be formed with who(m) or who(m)ever (referring to people), what or whatever (referring to things), whichever (referring to people or things from a known set). These can be called compound relative pronouns. For example, "I'll take who(m)(ever) you choose" (where the pronoun stands for "the person(s) who(m)"); "What I said annoyed her" (where the pronoun what stands for "the thing which" or "that which"). There are also determiner (adjectival) equivalents: which/what or more usually whichever/whatever: "I'll take whichever dish you choose.""

[The.Geek]

The.Geek as a Genius Forum moderator I'm going to have to point out that your comment really depends on your definition of the words "typo", "not" and "this", you may have a different understanding of what these things are, please refer to the forum introduction.

By all means, let me know where to find that introduction. I'd looked for the forum guidelines upon joining, but couldn't find them.

My use of the word, "typo", was following up on Alex's, Dennis', and Bobo's use of same. The word, "this", in my post refers to the error under discussion, as in, "this error". I wasn't aware that there are multiple meanings for the word, "not". I'm looking forward to reading the forum introduction, thank you.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

hahah or even μῆτις

All ignorance comes from people not being able to recognize they are like little children, and that everyone else are also only little children.

What happens when a bunch of children pretending to be adults get together (while their chests are puffed up and they are flexing) to see what they can figure out?

When I was a kid and I saw an adult I thought they knew everything, I thought they knew what they were talking about.

Thus begins the widespread delusion of knowledge, all because people like Alex are such adults and can't see, or accept that they don't know.


For example, people taking part in the indicative conversation, the smartest idiots in the world.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

LOL Geek :D You will figure out what I was talking about later!

[guest_of_logic]

Should have tried this earlier with you instead... what do you think of these quotes?

I don't know anything about them.

Seriously, we've discussed knowing in another thread. I suggested that you might be a person who has questioned whether it's even possible to know what it means to know. Strictly, I'm also sceptical of all knowledge other than the "knowing" of direct experience, but decisions are unavoidable, and, because it's most reasonable to believe that other people really exist and really matter, and because our experience of reality is (mostly) consistent, it's most responsible to base our decisions on the (admittedly doubtable) knowledge that we can abstract out of this consistency. I call it responsible because it's the best way I "know" of to minimise harm and maximise benefit.

The Lao Tzu quote is more extreme than I'm comfortable with. It implies (to my uneducated-in-Eastern-philosophy ear) that knowledge is not even useful (that it is a "disease"). I think that view is irresponsible.

The Confucius and Socrates quotes I accept as expressions of scepticism, although in the case of the Socrates quote, they make too big a deal out of it, and are pretty blatantly self-aggrandising: for practical purposes, (even doubtable) knowledge is indispensable, and the mere acceptance of scepticism isn't enough to make one "the wisest man alive". I mean, come on. :-)

I like paradoxes, so the Zhuangzi quote appeals to me for at least that reason, and also because I sometimes think we use too many words (I've spent long periods without speaking).

Now, I'd like you to tell me what you think of this Bertrand Russell quote: "Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it".

[Dennis Mahar]

What happens when a bunch of children pretending to be adults get together (while their chests are puffed up and they are flexing) to see what they can figure out?

silly games end in tears.