I'm a in good mood so I won’t belittle you again by describing her negative attributes.
Gee, I really appreciate that. Just what am I going to do with all that respect?
So if a fellow states his opinion, and it is at an opposite pole to yours, then he is pushing buttons and craving attention.
Au contraire. Stating your opinion on some issue can never be considered pushing someone's buttons. Insulting that person when she hasn't addressed you is. This is common sense.
Sure I was/am nasty to you, as I have judged that is what your ego needs.
Why would my ego need anything?
Your opinion of your mind, relative to philosophy at least, is higher than it should be.
How do you know what my opinion of my own mind is?
Anyway. I'm not going to respond to your questions anymore, if they relate to the clash of our personalities. You are, after all, just having a bit of entertainment.
Oh, god forbid a person might ever do that.
If you aren't going to answer my questions, please be consistent and don't express your opinions about me when nobody has asked for it. Thanks.
Leyla: Quote:
L: Another thing which draws my attention at the moment is your mood swings, represented by the apparent lack of veracity in your fluctuating decisions.
J: To me that is just the nature of reality and truth. It all depends on one's perspective at the time. I'm not telling any lies, so I dislike the word veracity above. Inconsistency I’d accept. I'm not that inconsistent either - there are time limitations in responding 100% accurately and consistently.
Leyla: It [fluctuation/change] might be the nature of reality conceived by an individual, but it is not the nature of character. Development, memory, “a centre,†(that is, consistency) and not fluctuation, per se, are the key to character.
They are the key to what one looks for in the masculine, as in a Man of Character. Someone to look up to and respect, someone one could learn from or be comforted by their solidity. You know what to expect from them. Good herd leaders.
I on the other hand see too high a regard for consistency as a kind of fundamentalism. It is the ego being filled with pride and not allowing freedom of thought, because it is anchored to existing highly valued concepts of truth. An ego like this just has to be correct, being incorrect about something is too painful. Once it has found a safe harbour, it doesn't venture far.
I'm not enlightened, so for me to have too great a pride attachment to my strong beliefs would be inappropriate. I do admit to a strong pride-attachment to my theories of reality - but that is only because they are logical, in a an abstract sense at least, as a reasonable "guess" - until someone points out to me why they are not :). No one has as yet.
L: Another thing which draws my attention at the moment is your mood swings, represented by the apparent lack of veracity in your fluctuating decisions.
J: To me that is just the nature of reality and truth. It all depends on one's perspective at the time. I'm not telling any lies, so I dislike the word veracity above. Inconsistency I’d accept. I'm not that inconsistent either - there are time limitations in responding 100% accurately and consistently.
L: The implication you make here is that an individual is this ever-fluctuating thing with no conscious connection to its past, or with a past that has no connection to the present and some kind of a future (even if death is part of that). So, unless that is not what you mean, I must disagree with you.
No, that implication is entirely your imagination. One's perspective at the time IS ALWAYS influenced to some degree by underlying emotions/feelings, (eg even tiredness is a feeling), with the remainder being the content of one's most recent experiences, and the physical qualities of one's brain at the time (the brain might not be operating with 100% efficiency bad diet, headaches, PMS or whatever. The physical can cause the underlying feelings to be of a certain nature)
There are no time limitations to memory except those imposed by inconsistency.
No. There are potentially no time limitations to memories of import. There are limits to the amount of memories one can recall.
There are emotional time limits - simply how much time am I desire or am prepared to spend presenting an argument or explaining myself in response to questions. The latter is nearly always less than the former.
I on the other hand see too high a regard for consistency as a kind of fundamentalism. It is the ego being filled with pride and not allowing freedom of thought, because it is anchored to existing highly valued concepts of truth.
So, let's go back the the fundamentals for a second: are there absolute/universal truths, James, which can be a living, component part of one's character such that they are not egotistically (irrationally) valued?
How can the valuing of truth be irrational and, therefore, egoistic?
I'm not enlightened, so for me to have too great a pride attachment to my strong beliefs would be inappropriate. I do admit to a strong pride-attachment to my theories of reality - but that is only because they are logical, in a an abstract sense at least, as a reasonable "guess" - until someone points out to me why they are not :). No one has as yet.
Well, if you would edit them properly, I might just put an equal amount of effort into doing so---for my sake, of course.
Aside from that, I reckon I'd kick your arse in an arm wrestle.
There are emotional time limits - simply how much time am I desire or am prepared to spend presenting an argument or explaining myself in response to questions. The latter is nearly always less than the former.
Dan Rowden wrote:Thanks, it would make following your posts a lot easier. After that all you have to do is concentrate on writing posts that are worth following :)
Ohh no. I just got slapped by Master Dans stick.
Thank god it wasn't a turkey slap, but just a slap from a turkey.
(the disrespect in this case, is just so I could make a joke)
And as for Marsha, unfortunately she was too weak for the forum. She had serious emotional problems. I think I caused a nervous breakdown in her when I criticised the inferiority of everything islam.
Actually, reading through the link, I think it was Shardrol who called her on her games until there was no exit. Not that Shardrol was particularly unkind, but it looked like checkmate to me.
I hope she never comes here to read this, but I never saw much masculinity in her. Marsha was all about Marsha, no window in her ego-room. Although she is a compassionate person.
We are all "all about ourselves." Putting forth subjects, thoughts, ideas, and values in our stead does not mitigate this. At least in this, Marsha was never deluded. That she chose herself as subject and that someone finds distaste in this is a moral judgment downstream of this original circumstance, and further, a judgment based upon our own all-about-ourselves tastes. I'd take Marsha's authenticity in this over those who assume - deludedly - to speak for more-than that any day.
